Thanks. I imagine this is totally uncorrelated with the fact that he’s been at this for seven years!? I thought there were eligibility limits.
The NCAA extended an extra year of eligibility to everyone who was on a college roster for the 2020-21 academic year - essentially, competing during Covid didn’t count against your eligibility. Add in a redshirt year, and you have six years.
So where does that seventh year come from? I have a suspicion. High school athletes are often finishing up their graduation requirements by the fall term of their senior year, which allows them to start college in the spring semester. This is an advantage for players in the fall sports (football, soccer, women’s volleyball, and a few others) - they get acclimated to college, practice with their teams and get higher-level coaching and training than they would have if they stayed in high school for that semester. It’s possible that this accounts for this player’s seventh year.
College sports are great.
Big-time college sports, OTOH…
If you hated college sports before NIL (and the fucking transfer portal), you’ll certainly hate it more now.
If, OTOH, if you, like me, liked major college sports before NIL and the portal, you probably like it a little (or a lot) less these days.
It’s long past time to pretend that big-time college athletes are attending college to get an education while playing the game they love. Just admit that they are quasi-professional and pay them a salary while they’re playing for the school.
Except that the “product” that they’re responsible for doesn’t generate the money.
You’re making a different argument. I’m saying if anyone should be at the front of the line to get paid, it’s the athletes. You’re saying the whole business is corrupt and is paid for by taxpayers & students. I think both arguments are more right than not.
OK, I’ll buy that. If we’re going to be dumping all of this money into college sports, it should be going to the athletes.
The NCAA now is run of, by, and for the few percent of college programs that make a huge profit. It’s their interests that drive NCAA decision-making. Not the interests of all the other colleges for which intercollegiate sports are even bigger money losers than are their intramural programs.
It’s an interesting question I’m not prepared to research whether NCAA football or basketball are net profitable when you add up the few huge moneymakers and all the many money-losers. I bet not, but the way 80/20 Pareto, and more recently 99/1 inequality, work it’s not inconceivable that the income of the big names is so huge that it could carry everybody else if it was distributed properly.
Complicating the analysis is the importance of donors to even government school income. The claim of course is that it’s football (and only football) that opens fatcat alumnas’ wallets to buy a new building for the music department or law school or whatever. I sure don’t know how much that’s wishful thinking and how much it’s self-fulfilling prophecy.
There’s generally two classes of donors that tend to be disjoint in their interests and what they give to.
The ones who are most prone to give based on athletic prowess are boosters, who tend not to be graduates of the university (and often haven’t graduated any university). Most of them are local to the university, own their own businesses (and thus can use tickets, box seats, etc. as sales & marketing tools) and are interested in donating to things that give the school’s athletic teams a leg up - new stadiums/arenas, practice facilities, weight rooms, staff salaries and (now) NIL money.
Alumni donors are more likely to give less, but tend to give to the academic mission of the institution - scholarship funds, endowments, academic chairs, buildings, and the like.
A subset of alumni donors are those who played sports for their university. Interestingly enough, those who went pro tend to give less as a percentage of income than the average alum, possibly because they feel they were exploited by their schools during their time there and figure they’ve given “in-kind” enough.
This doesn’t quite rise to the level of ‘stupid motherfucker’, it’s more of a “why would you say something so stupid to a reporter?”.
Anyway, with the possibility of a federal ban on products containing THC, a reporter was talking to the owner of a store that sells THC. As you might expect, the short version is ‘this’ll put us out of business’. But how stupid to defend your store by even suggesting parents might be giving it to their kids. Talk about using CBD and/or THC for pets or older people with arthritis or adults that have a hard time sleeping. But it seems counter productive to say:
“So are we saying that a mother giving her child CBD because there’s a trace amount of THC, a plant that has been grown in this country for thousands of years and helped millions of people, that’s a crime? I don’t think so,” Kelly said.
I dunno, maybe I’m over reacting, but I saw that and my first thought was ‘the people voting against THC being legal are going to use that quote against us’. I’m not weighing in on whether or not it’s okay to give minors CBD products that may contain trace amounts of THC, I’m saying she shouldn’t have weighed in on it either.
ISTM, anyone that’s selling anything that may contain, even trace amounts of, THC, shouldn’t be saying much more than ‘we don’t recommend any of our products for anyone under the age of 21’. Or even ‘while it’s legal for people of any age to buy and consume products that only contain CBD, since there may be trace amounts of THC in them, we suggest you talk to your doctor about it first’.
I mean, seriously, anything other than ‘what about the kids’ would’ve been better, at least IMHO.
Yeah. If somebody wants to ignite a moral panic about some scary substance or idea, then “Think of the Cheeeeelllllllldrrrreeeeennnnn!!!” is sure the way to drum up baying hordes shrieking for somebody to be skinned alive to save their precious but often notional kids. Talk about painting a target on your forehead.
Or chest:
Bummer of a press release there, Ms. Kelly
Wut?
So it’s just the THC that has Magickal Healing Powers ™? Wasn’t CBD alone supposed to heal whatever ails you?
I’m not sure if she’s saying the THC is doing the heavy lifting or that, in order to remove all traces of THC, they’d have to remove the CBD and without the CBD the products wouldn’t be effective.
I think it’s just worded poorly. If she’s arguing that it’s healing effects come from it having “0.3% of THC or less”, we’re getting into homeopathy territory.
I am going to include this not as any kind of authoritative source, but just as an example of what one purveyor of these products will claim.
Why Use CBD Oil with THC?
Each phytocannabinoid has a unique role in maintaining homeostasis (balance) in our endocannabinoid system. While CBD on its own might be beneficial, other phytocannabinoids enrich the formula by causing an entourage effect. Low levels of THC might not cause a high, and it may improve the overall effectiveness of the formula.
So they claim that THC makes it “more effective”, but not that without THC it won’t work at all. And they do sell products with THC completely removed, so they clearly don’t believe that without it, it doesn’t do anything at all.
How to Ensure There Is No THC in Your CBD Oil
Check the label for broad spectrum or CBD isolate products. Stay away from CBD oil that says “full spectrum.” Also, read the lab reports for any product you buy. They will not only confirm THC content, but also ensure that the product is free of pesticides and heavy metals.
Maybe, but if she’s not saying that trace amounts of THC are needed, what is her argument?
Or maybe “less” just means 0.28% or something along those lines, rather than, say, 0.00001%. In other words, it’s less than 0.3% but pretty much 0.3%.
If anyone is wondering why that 0.3% amount keeps appearing, that’s because that is what the federal government has determined to be the maximum amount of THC that can be in hemp before it is classified as a controlled substance (marijuana).
Congress.gov: Defining Hemp: A Fact Sheet
My reading wasn’t that it was needed, just that it happened to be there. As a bad example, your store bought chocolate chip cookies don’t need to have peanuts in them, but they may contain trace amounts. Maybe a better is example is NA beer. It doesn’t need to have alcohol in it, but it does have a small amount.
Regardless, even if she was speaking strictly about products that have CBD but absolutely no THC whatsoever, I still don’t think bringing up parents giving it to their kids is good argument against a ban.
Agreed.
Have the Feds been trailing the idea of prohibiting CBD with any more than exactly zero THC in it?
Any chemist will tell you that getting to true zero is very very very hard. Such that a prohibition on TCH>0 would amount to a prohibition of all CBD products. But true zero is no obstacle to clueless (or cynical) legislators hell-bent on prohibiting something by hook or crook.
The inability to achieve truly zero THC in a CBD product is a feature and not a bug to the people wanting to ban marijuana/weed/the Devil’s lettuce in all its forms.
I think some of those folks would ban rope if they thought it would further their agenda.
Not only that, a bill passed the Senate and is awaiting House approval.
Some states have banned hemp THC products, but federal law allows their sale if they contain no more than 0.3% THC by dry weight. The Senate bill would change that and impose a total THC limit of 0.4 milligrams. This would effectively ban these products for consumer use.
Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) decided it was a good idea to watch porn on his iPad while flying coach.
In an interview, he claimed he was only looking at it on accident and blamed the Twitter algorithm. (Sorry for linking the Daily Mail, it was the only non-paywalled source I could find.)
I mean, that’s barely even porn. I’m mostly embarrassed for him by how vanilla his tastes are.