NoiseInsideMyHead

Profiting (or trying to profit) off of high school sports is pretty lame. If it's going out over the air later for free, these games should be free as well. I guess they really can't sell enough advertising to break even. In any medium.

In addition to the structural deficiencies (inefficiencies) of USA Hockey and ADM, youth hockey suffers from a lack of clear information and guidance for players and their parents. There are so many "paths" that it's darn near impossible to know which way is forward. Sure, you can listen to 'scouts" and "advisers" at camps all over the country, but good luck getting a straight answer about (1) whose interests are really being looked after, and (2) where the line falls between permissible "advising" and receiving services that jeopardize NCAA eligibility. Junior hockey can be a confusing morass, and parents are left wondering whether they'll be throwing money away by going all in with no meaningful chance of a scholarship, or whether they can help their child recognize any good opportunities at all. It's no secret (or surprise) that a lot of talented players simply fall through the cracks or never fall into the right pipeline, but I suppose that's why and where collegiate club and rec hockey thrives.

Interesting take. You seeing something the stats don’t show?

He didn't put up much of a fight. Probably more like "Trotting Moose" or "Trespassing Moose."

GFRR squeaks past GFC 3-2 (2OT) in the EDC Semis.

Boeser out 3 weeks.

https://www.inforum.com/news/government-and-politics/4885173-ND-public-entities-spend-big-on-travel-using-purchasing-cards Another meandering, pointless Forum Communication hit piece that supposedly was intended to gin up anger against public employees - and especially UND and NDSU sports. Does this company realize that those athletic programs are responsible for probably 90% of their hits, clicks, traffic, and revenue? Why keep this campaign going? On top of everything, I'm not sure the writer had enough information, or context, to even make a point.

Good Lord...they're 12-3 and in first place in the East by 4 points. Hardly a crisis.

That inbox...

https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/weather/4873960-Grand-Forks-has-gotten-more-than-4-feet-of-snow-so-far-this-winter

The Blaine-Blake outdoor HS game earlier Saturday on FSNorth not only had UND paid spots, but UND sponsored the drone cam, too. Not sure if UND supplied the drone or pilots, but the campaign was nicely on-message.

Your rants are all over the map. I specifically addressed "current practices" and you want to talk about the 60s and 70s. Let's agree that compliance and enforcement were lax 30-40 years ago. Does that alone justify letting athletes get paid for name and likeness now? What about current practices is deficient? Are you suggesting that it's still the wild west? How many pay-to-play scandals since, say, SMU have been provable but ignored, or botched, by the NCAA? Even more to the point of my statement, do you feel that the soon-to-be reality of letting schools try to sort out which payments are legit is preferable to the zero tolerance model that we're about to wind down?

And how much did you report to compliance? How much did compliance investigate? Are you suggesting the schools were complicit? That the NCAA was arbitrary or selective in enforcement? The fact that it happened does not mean there was evidence that could be proven up. Or that more than a fraction was ever reported via the proper channels. You’re generous with hyperbole, but stingy with analysis.

Arguably, the rules were never about fairness or equity, but were put in place to prevent runaway corruption or worse. High-profile sanctions suggest that the system can work, though we can certainly debate specific outcomes and enforcement levels. Most of the anecdotal knowledge about under-the-table deals for star athletes is either fantasy, urban legend, or incapable of proof under current compliance practices. A zero-tolerance model seems harsh, but it’s perhaps preferable to one that now forces schools to try and decipher between bona fide commercial activity and sham transactions. On the plus side, I think that the increase in income tax collections for Uncle Sam will help the economy. This is a 2-way street, and Joe QB may end up regretting the sunlight on his cozy deals with boosters and used car lots.