> Is that an argument? The "newer is better" kind? Perhaps 1910 had that part figured out better than 2023. The NCAA has been around and has regulated athletic

> Is that an argument? The "newer is better" kind? Perhaps 1910 had that part figured out better than 2023. The NCAA has been around and has regulated athletic scholarships in its current form since 1910. They're the ones who stepped in and said that athletes needed to be students at the universities they represented. That's good for the universities AND good for the athletes. > I never argued it doesn't make them money or that the bean counters there can't see that. > Just that it's (or oughta be) unrelated with the goals of an academic institution, whether it's lucrative or not. Then you don't have any more universities aside from a few flagships and deeply endowed private institutions, because they have fundamentally different objectives than they did at the beginning of last century.