After writing back and forth with some of the other posters, I think I didn’t gt to the root of my issue in the original post - it is more about objectification. I sew - that is girly...I wear makeup - that is also girly... I dye my hair - also girly.

My problem with it isn’t the sport vs non-sport aspect (I don’t care about sports in general) it’s the “you must become a stepford doll to participate” aspect of it AND the insanely dangerous stuff they do with no safety gear. If I signed my son up for circus acrobatics class (a real thing where I live) he’d be…

Yea, if you can’t see the bow from space, it’s not good enough. ESPECIALLY in Texas.

Competitive cheerleading is kind of cuckoo bananas. They always have the high, teased ponytails with GIGANTIC bows. I’m not saying it’s ok to kick a girl off the team for her hair...but there definitely is a uniform “look” that’s expected with hair and makeup. It’s not a surprise.

I’d pitch in to have in monogrammed.

This also brought up the (non?-) issue of having holiday products showing up in Canada before Remembrance Day—11 November, for all you ‘muricans. Someone on the Starbucks Canada Facebook page suggested that Starbucks ought to make a Remembrance Day themed cup. I replied with something simple like “why do you want to…

As an Anglican, I'm pretty fucking angry it isn't purple. Let's put Christ back into the Advent penitential season, people.

I don’t know. They may have a point. Those cups don’t look anything like the ones Jesus drank his Gingerbread Lattes out of.

I hope you know that people like you are part of the problem.

From Wolfe’s letter:

Here’s my weekly reminder:

I hate so much when people say this. Of course they had other opportunities to win the game; that’s always the case when a blown call changes the outcome. But, in fact, a blown call changed the outcome!

Yeah, fair enough. Wasn’t trying to be a dick. I spent last year as an interim head coach at my DII university and got to see the rules up-close and personal. It was eye-opening.

That could actually be kind of awesome, coaches poaching under appreciated players from other teams, or coaches who leave for other jobs being able to bring some of their recruits with them.

I get not wanting to have smaller school raided by bigger schools taking the players they spent so much time developing, but this kid had his scholarship yanked and then literally got frozen out because of the rule. He had no scholarship, yet the NCAA was telling him he was still that school’s property and scared off…

However, in this case, the coach who recruited him retired and the school took away his scholarship. Why should he be forced to sit out if the school with whom he had an agreement rescinds its offer?

Even if they might not change it generally, they could certainly change it such that a kid who loses his scholarship in cases like this need not apply for a waiver. This case, this PARTICULAR case, is a very bad look for the NCAA.

Why should athletes have an imposition placed on where they attend school and when that does not apply to the general student body?

And only coaches and conferences should be allowed to switch teams whenever they want.

If the letter of intent is a contract for financial aid, shouldn’t it be dissolved when the school withdraws the financial aid?