She Was Asking For It

So the other day I was reading a blog written by women. The bloggers were discussing a woman who had experienced quite a bit of on-the-job harassment - from men and women alike - much of which was sexual in nature. I suppose some folks would call that sexual harassment. I assumed that these women would line up with support for the harassed woman, but that wasn't necessarily the case. One of the bloggers was understandably disquieted by the behavior toward this woman. However, another blogger's response was somewhat unsettling. Response has been edited for "clarity."

I think that when you've used your sexuality as a tool as much as she has, you're fair game for that kind of behavior. When I think of that woman, I kept coming back to the interview and her behavior. For days after that, I kept thinking that if she had been meeting with another woman who wasn't using the same tactics of using sex appeal, she would have looked ridiculous. As it was, she was meeting with a man, and even if you don't agree with the tactic (since it sends the message that sexuality is one of the tools that women need to use to get ahead), it's her prerogative to use it, and I'm sure it does work for some people. I just think once you go down that road in front of everybody, you're fair game to how people react. Heck, when your own friend describes you—proudly—as a "direct counterpoint to the stodgy women of old" do you really even want the protection that other women seem willing to afford you from being ogled? Whether women should extend it is another question. I think she pretty well set herself up for the ogling—and the "harassment" that ensued.

Basically, regardless of how vile the harassment may have been, it's her own fault because her behavior was tinged with sex appeal. In other words, she was asking for it. I suppose one could argue with the blogger's description of the situation - contend that there is a fine line between sex appeal and charm - but I'm not sure that is really the point. Even given the premise that sex appeal was the modus operandi for this woman, are ogling and harassment really considered acceptable responses? Are women, in particular, are okay with this kind of harassment? It would seem so.




Here is the orignal posting. See if your reaction changes when reading it in the original context.

To Protect and Serve...and Put Your Grandma In Jail

When I first saw the headline stating, 89-year-old charged with keeping kids' ball, I thought Yahoo accidentally posted an Onion article. As best I can tell, it is not a phony story.

BLUE ASH, Ohio – Police in Ohio say an 89-year-old woman is facing a charge of petty theft because neighborhood children accuse her of refusing to give back their football.

Edna Jester was arrested last week in the Cincinnati suburb of Blue Ash.

Police say one child's father complained that Jester kept the youngsters' ball after it landed in her yard. Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids' balls landing in the woman's yard.

Jester said Monday she has received many calls and didn't have time to discuss the matter any more.

Jester is to appear in court next month. The maximum penalty for a petty theft conviction in Ohio is six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

~Yahoo

I think we can all relate to being kids whose ball was lost over the fence, but I can't say it happened to me very often. Regardless, I don't recall whining to my parents if the ball wasn't returned. If anything, one kid would just have to be brave enough to try and get it back without being caught. However, this was risky as it increased the likelihood that your parents would find out and get on to you for being irresponsible. Still, kids today are whiners so I guess it's not unforeseeable that they'd go crying to their parents when the old lady kept the ball. Kids being whiny isn't all that terrible, but there are some pretty bothersome things about this story.

First of all, the woman was 89 years old and the cops arrested her. 89! This lady is clearly hardcore. How many 89-year-olds do you know that live at home, as opposed to a nursing home or assisted living center? (I'm pretty sure those things are the same and they just say assisted living so kids won't feel as bad about putting their parents in a nursing home.) When she was a kid there was a little thing going on called the Great Depression so throwing the ball into her neighbor's yard probably isn't something she got to experience very often. I don't think a little time in the pokey is going to bother her much, but you can't tell me there wasn't a better way for the po-po to handle the matter.

And secondofly, what kind of lesson is the parent teaching his kids by calling the cops on the old lady? Instead of telling the kids to, you know, stop throwing the ball into the old lady's yard, the dad calls the police? I think the dad was just ashamed that his kids were such bad athletes that their balls routinely landed in unintended locations. He must have known that telling them to stop throwing the ball into the yard would be a futile endeavor. So in order for the kids to keep feeling like beautiful and unique snowflakes he called the cops on the old lady. Now the kids can act as retarded as they want without having to worry about the consequences. I expect this will serve them well in 30 years when they're members of Congress.

Personally, I hope the old lady pops all the balls she's collected from the kids and then drops them in a heap on their lawns. Or better yet, she should stand on the sidewalk and rifle a couple balls at the windows of the kids' houses. As far as I'm concerned, they've got it coming.

White People are Being Defamed!

Evidently some people are upset about a recent episode of South Park (warning: foul language). Why? It depicts people they relate to in a negative light. In an attempt to poke fun at the most recent Indiana Jones movie for basically being terrible (at least according to the show; I haven't seen the movie), South Park depicts Director Steven Speilberg and Executive Producer/"Story Creator" George Lucas actually raping Harrison Ford. They also show Lucas go after a storm trooper (Episodes I, II, and III were quite bad), but there's no mention of that. A graphic, unnecessary metaphor for making a bad movie? Yeah, I'd say so. An affront to Jewish people? Wait, what?

"It's racist," said Chaim Noiman, 22. He added that show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone should "go to hell."

"I'm not Jewish, but I think it's offensive. Raping someone is anti-religion. It's anti-anything," said Berkeley student Ekansh Arora, 21.

"This episode is not necessarily anti-Jewish," conceded Myrna Shinbaum of the Anti-Defamation League. "If anything, it's more about Chinese-American stereotypes...[but]'South Park' has been offensive and has had very anti-Jewish pieces in the past," she said. "We understand that the show is trying to satirize, but it may get lost on those who are haters."

New York Daily News

Ekansh Arora seems to be the only one who is focusing on a real issue (rape is being used as a comedic device). The others? Not so much. Apparently vengeance belongs not to the Lord, but to Chaim Noiman. Good to know.

Let's ignore that the statement issued by the Anti-Defamation League referred to "haters" (this is a professional organization?) and just focus on the merits.

Not once in the entire episode is there any mention of any of the characters being Jewish. Steven Spielberg is Jewish, but George Lucas is not. However, both men are White. But the episode aired on Yom Kippur. Shinbaum seems to basically be saying that people who hate Jews won't understand it's satire, but part of the offense comes from the timing of the show. Does she think people who hate Jews will hate them more because a "defamatory" show aires on a Jewish holiday? How many Non-Jews were aware that October 9 was Yom Kippur? I suppose hard-core anti-Semites would be aware of the holiday, but they're already haters, so it seems unlikely that South Park's depiction of a Jewish director would influence them. This offense seems tenuous at best.

The ADL's mission statement is "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike." Yet, the depiction of Chinese as plotting to take over America receives only a passing mention. Her argument basically comes down to, "It's really offensive to Chinese, but South Park normally hates Jews so let's not forget that." I'm sure South Park co-creator Matt Stone, a Jew himself, will keep that in mind next time he depicts someone in a negative light.

This whole thing reminds me of a news blurb I read this summer.

NBC Olympics President Gary Zenkel has apologized to Australian gold-medal winner Matthew Mitcham for not profiling the openly gay diver during the network's coverage or showing his partner in the stands at the time of his victory. "We regret that we missed the opportunity to tell Matthew Mitcham's story. We apologize for this unintentional omission," Zenkel said.
imdb.com

I have no idea how many hours of programming there were during the Olympics, but I'm pretty sure at least half of those were devoted to Michael Phelps. The other half seemed to be divided between discussion of whether or not Chinese Gymnasts were really pre-schoolers and trying to figure out how fast Usain Bolt would be if he wasn't such a show-boat. And the ratings were pretty big. Sounds like NBC made sound programming decisions. Well, except for failing tape-delaying events. Now, that warrants an apology.

There were over 10,000 Olympians competing in China, but Mr. Zenkel chooses to apologize for not profiling an Australian diver, that no one has ever heard of, who likes dudes. Seriously? Was there a clamoring for this story? If so, I certainly missed it. They regret that they unintentionally omitted telling a story? How many stories did NBC unintentionally omit to tell? Where are the apologies for the 10,000 other athletes whose stories NBC unintentionally omitted to tell? Sounds like Zenkel has a lot of work to do. Basically the dude got upset so NBC tried to cover itself because one person was upset and they feared making more people angry. What a joke.

Let's see if we can stop being offended by every little thing that doesn't happen to line up with our point of view. It's a wonder this country survives its elections (although this year is still up in the air). I realize that refusing to take offense would likely result in folks like Myrna Shinbaum needing to find a new place to work, but I'm okay with that. Surely the ADL can stand to trim some of it's $50 million budget or at least use it more efficiently. In conclusion, if you do happen to see something that upsets you, my advice is, as always, "Butch up, cupcake!"


p.s. I regret that I missed the opportunity to say nice things about White people during this post. It was an unintentional omission.

Baseball Owns, Soccer is for Socialists and Golf is not a Sport

So I'm reading this article over at ESPN.com about awards and trophies in sports. The author, Jim Caple, provides his list of the championships and awards he would most like to win. In perusing some of the comments I came upon A LOT of whining.

Some of the more retarded comments are below.

WSOP Main Event Bracelet

Green Jacket or the Claret Jug.

World Cup...Soccer...I'm a socialist!

Okay, so that last one isn't a direct quote, but I think it pretty much captures the comments of the soccer lovers.

There were, however, a couple good suggestions:

What about a glowing piece of the Aggro Crag from Nickelodeon's GUTS?

Well, I guess that's actually only one good suggestion. At any rate, I figured I'd feed my need for attention by sharing with you my list. I've only included the items on Caple's list (with one exception), which unfortunately means the Aggro Crag will not be featured. If it was included, it would probably be somewhere in the teens. It's a rock that glows, people. How cool is that? Oh, and neither will the World's Strongest Man title, which would probably be Top 5. Sorry Magnús Ver Magnússon. I've also omitted some items from the list because I'm lazy. Still, I think you'll like it. Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back.


The List

1. Baseball Hall of Fame Plaque - there are 278 members (196 players) of the Baseball Hall of Fame. There have been over 16,000 individuals who have played in the Major Leagues. Therefore, 1.2% (a conservative estimate) of baseball players make the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure anything that prestigious is as selective. All little boys want to be a Major League Baseball players when they grow up (well, unless they're Canadian). This is the pinnacle and if you put it anywhere other than at #1, I'd appreciate you depart from my presence before I punch you in the throat.*

2. World Series Ring - there's no better sport than baseball. And there's no better baseball than October baseball. Win one of these and you'll never take it off.

3. Stanley Cup - if you win the Cup, you get your name etched in the Cup. That's cool, eh?

4. Baseball Triple Crown - only 16 players have achieved this feat, and no one since 1967. What other award has gone 41 years and counting without anyone receiving it?

5. Olympic Gold Medal - probably the most universally recognizable of sporting awards, but most people are going to laugh at you if you wear it for more than a week or two after you win it. It makes for a nice coaster in a pinch, though. Still, the fact that you can win one for rhythmic gymnastics (or any gymnastics, for that matter) keeps it from getting any higher on this list.

6. Heavyweight Championship Belt - people might be tempted to laugh at you for wearing this thing out in public. However, you can easily beat those people up. You can probably easily beat up pretty much anyone, for that matter.

7. Retired Jersey - getting a professional jersey is cool enough. Being as only 1.2% of baseball players make the Hall of Fame, having your jersey retired by a team is a pretty nice consolation prize. I realize they retire jerseys in other sports too, but I don't care.

8. Gold Glove - chicks dig the long ball, but defense is the new hotness. Plus, it's a glove made out of gold.

9. Heisman Trophy - great looking trophy, but now-a-days, if you win this thing you've pretty much peaked. And no one likes to peak at age 22.

10. Cy Young - this would've been higher if Roger Clemens didn't have so many of them - dirty cheater.

11. Baseball MVP - this would've been higher if Barry Bonds didn't have so many of them - dirty cheater.

12. Super Bowl Ring - winning a Super Bowl is undoubtedly great. But there are 53 guys on an active NFL roster and that number can balloon to 80 depending on the circumstance. When you're handing out at least 50 awards each year, the luster starts to wear off a little bit.

13. NBA Championship Ring - much smaller rosters in the NBA, but that also means there are more great players without one (sorry, Barkley). And Mark Madsen has two of these.

14. NBA MVP - Steve Nash has as many MVPs as Tim Duncan and more than Kobe Bryant. What a crock.

15. Bobblehead - unfortunately anyone can have their own bobblehead these days. The CEO of my old company has one. Lame.

16. Silver Slugger - you're the best hitter at your position. That's nice.

17. Wife-Carrying Trophy - real men support their wives.

18. Wheaties Box - would be higher if multiple gymnasts hadn't graced it.

19. NFL MVP - quickly name the last 5 NFL MVPs. Do it! Uh, yeah, I couldn't do it either.

20. Naismith Award - James Naismith invented basketball. I assume this award is for some sort of basketball achievement.

21. Final Four Net - true or false: I could buy a net at the store, cut it up, put a piece in a frame and you'd never know the difference. True. As we all know, the big prize in college athletics don't go to the players anyway.

22. Tour de France Yellow Jersey - they give this thing out every day during the event. Plus, anything given by the French is bound to suck (Statue of Liberty, excluded).

23. Little League World Series Trophy - cool when you're twelve, but by the time you reach college no one cares.

24. College World Series - unfortunately, I think even fewer people care about the College World Series than the Little League World Series.

25. BCS Championship - the BCS is a fraud. A real championship would easily jump up 10 spots on the list.

26. Frozen Four Championship - hockey is fun, but I don't think these guys get their name etched on a cup.

27. Pro Football Hall of Fame Bust - these things are just creepy. Plus, the voting system is a joke. Lynn Swann played for the Steelers in the 70's and made a couple spectacular catches, so he gets in. But Bob Hayes isn't in and Art Monk didn't make it until this year. Huh? Oh, and who was the moron who decided not to put a hat on Tom Landry's bust?

28. Wimbledon Cup and Platter - all we need from the British, we've already taken.


The rest of these aren't worthy of being included on any reputable list of sports accomplishments. In no particular order:

Soccer World Cup - I'm an American. I'm not a raving lunatic. I don't enjoy starting fires during games. I don't enjoy riots in the stands or in the streets. Look at those rioters running away. Cowards. I don't care about soccer. I will never care about soccer. Just because Europeans go nuts over it, doesn't mean it's great.

Cover of Sports Illustrated - Doesn't this usually portend failure?

Madden Video Game Cover - Doesn't this usually portend injury…or imprisonment?

WNBA Championship - I'm not a woman.

Fantasy League Championship - I prefer to root for teams, as opposed to some inconsequential cobble of players. Plus, I don't live in my parents' basement.

Sprint Cup - NASCAR isn't a sport. Even if it was, this is just a stupid trophy that has a sponsor's name on it. In 5 years this thing will be named after Viagra.

Indy 500 Milk Bottle - Indycar isn't a sport either, but at least these guys drive as fast as possible. Either way, this thing is just a regular bottle of milk with some lame label on it.


Golf-related awards:

Masters Green Jacket - I'm not a big fan of winning things in places that don't like Black people or women. But I think Happy Gilmore said it best, "Gold jacket, green jacket, who gives a s**t?"

British Open's Claret Jug - it's an ugly cup. And it's golf (also not a sport).

U.S. Open (golf) - still golf - and another cup!

Wanamaker Trophy (Golf) - another golf cup that looks just like every other golf cup. Yawn

Ryder Cup - a reeeeeally stupid looking trophy.


And finally, the stupidest of the non-sports awards:

World Series of Poker Bracelet - Aside from the fact that poker isn't anywhere close to being a sport; this is a bracelet. A bracelet. I suppose I could understand a woman wanting to win a nice bracelet, but what self-respecting man wants to wear a bracelet?


*Throat punch, Copyright © 2008 by Wealth of Nations, All rights reserved.

M&Ms (Or When I Can't Think of Anything Original to Write About)

It's been a while since I posted anything on here, though I've gone much longer in between posts before. Even so, I'm sure y'all are upset at the lack of new content on Rowrbazzle. I'm sure by now most of you have reread my previous posts so many times you could recite them from memory. Unfortunately, this post probably won't really do much to assuage your Rowrbazzle withdrawals, as yours truly is serving only as a conduit of content.

Here's a absurdly funny (I hope that description doesn't get your hopes up too high) anecdote about M&Ms.

Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels...

Continued at RogerEbert.com

Enjoy.

Too Much Baseball? Perish the Thought!

So I was reading a baseball chat over at espn.com and noticed this little bit of information

...the Tigers are nine under -- and only one team in the wild-card era has been more than seven under heading into June and made it to the postseason...

~ Jason Stark

I thought for about 2 seconds and decided that the team he was referring to was the Houston Astros of 2005. I did a little fact checking and sure enough, it was the 2005 Astros. Now, I am not an Astros fan. I am a Cubs fan. So why did I know that bit of inconsequential baseball trivia?

The Cubs and Astros are in the same division, but the Cubs were decidedly mediocre in 2005 (big surprise, I know) so it's not like the Astros kept the Cubs out of the postseason or anything. I am a Texan (Dear Lord, thank you for the blessing You have bestowed upon me), but again, not an Astros fan. I have attended many Astros games in my lifetime and have proudly rooted against them in every game. I went to a Phillies game in Philadelphia where they happened to be playing the Astros. I rooted for the Phillies. That was a pretty cool game actually. It featured an around the horn triple play, performed by the Astros, with help from an incredibly slow catcher for the Phillies. That's not as rare as an unassisted triple play, but it's not exactly common either.

Speaking of unassisted triple plays and the Phillies, Mickey Morandini once pulled off the feat while playing for the Phillies. Morandini also played for the Cubs for a couple seasons and even finished 24th in MVP voting in 1998. And, no, I did not actually know about Morandini's MVP finish, I just happened to see it on baseballreference.com (great website). The Astros actually won that game in Philadelphia, despite being down big. The Phillies had a pretty bad bullpen. But seriously, who gave Morandini an MVP vote? He was a serviceable 2nd baseman, but I'm pretty sure there were more than 23 players who were more valuable to their teams' success than Mickey.

No, there was no good reason for me to know this factoid about the Astros coming back from an abysmal start to make the postseason. There is no reason for me to know that Mickey Morandini performed an unassisted triple play. I'm wondering if maybe I have too much baseball in my life. I know, I know. That's lunacy. It can't be true. After all, I did have to look up the information about how Morandini finished in the MVP voting in '98. If I had too much baseball in my life, then I would've known that bit of information without needing baseball reference. Hmmm. Sounds like I need more baseball in my life.

NCAA = Frauds Part II

A quote from a previous post had me intrigued so I did a little bit of research.

Roughly 95 cents of every dollar pocketed by NCAA will go to member institutions in support of student-athletes, says Greg Shaheen [the NCAA's senior vice president for basketball and business strategies]. USA Today

According to ESPN, CBS currently pays the NCAA $545 million a year for the rights to broadcast the Mens College Basketball Tournament. According to Shaheen the vast majority of those funds goes to the universities. The NCAA has an exceptionally convoluted method of allocating those funds. I don't fully understand it, but I can read Wikipedia, which has a nice summary. After the NCAA finishes with their fancy math they arrive at about $145 million in projected distribution across all the schools in the participating conferences.

Setting aside the fact that the schools that do better get more money, basically ensuring that the rich get richer, I just want to look at the actual numbers. I'm not certain if the $145 million refers to the entire distribution from NCAA tournament funds or just the 50% that is said to be distributed based on conference performance. Being the nice guy that I am, I'll give the NCAA the benefit of the doubt and say that $145 million is 50% of the total distribution. That would mean that the total distribution is $290 million.

Let's see. The NCAA gets $545 million each year from CBS and pays out $290 million total to all the schools. 95% of $545 million is about $518 million. $290 million < $518 million. $290 million is 95% of about $306 million. So where exactly is the rest of the money going? There is between $228 and $255 million ($518-$290 and $545-$290) unaccounted for in these numbers. If the $145 million value is taken as the entire distribution the numbers get even worse. Under that scenario we'd be looking at $370 to $400 million of missing money. Regardless of whether it's $400 million or just $228 million we're looking at some large stacks of cash.* It makes you wonder.

Hey, how much do you think a senior vice president of basketball and business strategies makes each year?

*Stacks of Cash, Copyright © 2003 by Señor Entropy, All rights reserved.

Touch 'Em All

Sports at its finest.

Follow the Leader?

I was perusing the comments section of ESPN's recap of the San Antonio Spurs' victory over the Phoenix Suns in game 1 of their opening round series. For those of you who didn't watch the game, you can check out the highlights here. Given the NBA's television ratings (especially ratings when the Spurs are playing), I'm pretty sure most folks did not tune into the game. That's a shame because it was a classic. Anyway, back to the comments. There are way too many comments to read, but I came across one that was especially insightful into the psyche of a what seems to be a typical Suns fan:

The refs were horrible and decided the game against the Suns....AGAIN!

Looking at the box score, you can see that the Spurs were called for 3 more fouls than the Suns. They also attempted 7 more free throws and made a higher percentage of those free throws than the Spurs made of their free throws. It was an exciting game that could have gone either way. I'd like to think (for the sake of competitive fairness) that the Suns themselves wouldn't be given to such hysterical reactions. Then I remembered that this guy is their leader and that thought was quickly extinguished. And the fans' reactions made perfect sense.

Assessing Value: School is Great, So Shut Up About Your Debt

I've been hearing people complain recently about the cost of a higher education and that many students are going into quite a bit of debt in order to pay for their schooling. Never mind that there are places (Tennessee and Georgia, for example) where all in-state students receive free tuition at state schools, provided they maintain a certain GPA. In Tennessee, I believe the required level is 3.0 (that's a B). There are also prestigious universities (Stanford and Harvard, for example) that are using their massive endowments to ensure that students whose parents make less than a certain amount ($150k, I think) will leave school debt free.

That being said, the majority of students probably must still rely on some sort of financial aid. For those people fortunate enough to have their parents pay for everything, well that's nice. For everyone who is relying on student loans, it's not as bad as you think. Yours truly has attended 9 years of school, the first 6 of which relied almost exclusively on loans. I have had little to no help from the parents and inconsequential amounts of scholarships (until these last 3 years). As a result, I'm looking at about $70,000 in debt. Whoa is me. Whooooooaaaa is me!

Whatever. Consolidate that debt at a low rate and pay it off over 30 years. 30 years? Wait a second. That's like a house payment, except with a lower interest rate. People think of houses not only as places to live, but also as an investment. It's one of the few things you purchase that will usually increase in value over the years. Most people realize that. What most people fail to realize is that an education will as well.

Your house will make you money when you move out of it...and then you spend money on a new house. In the mean time you get to pay for your house and also pay taxes on it. Sign me up. Oh, and if someone could explain to me why you have to pay taxes on your home every year I'd appreciate it. I'm not paying taxes on the value of my car every year. Why should I have to pay every year for owning a home? If Ron Paul was President this probably wouldn't be happening. Hmmm, maybe we can get him to run as an Independent... Sorry, got sidetracked.

Your education is better than a house. Yes, your education will make you money as soon as you complete it. It will continue to make you money for as long as you're employed. $70,000 in school debt, at 4% interest, paid off over 30 years is about $335/month. 5% will put you at $375/month. People will spend that much a month on a car note. They'll spend $100 a month for cable (gotta have HBO). Eating out isn't cheap. Neither are cell phones, especially if you like to text. None of these things pay you back. People don't really complain about the cost of them either.

I'm guessing that most people don't have $70,000 in debt. Those that do have probably gone to graduate school (e.g., Rowrbazzle), medical school (e.g., Señor Entropy) or law school (e.g., uh, lawyers). Those folks are expecting to make more money than their friends with Bachelors degrees so their added debt will be offset. Of course there are some people who just went to some crazy-expensive private school and therefore have a lot of debt. Yeah, that probably wasn't worth it. Unless you're talking Ivy League, you're probably not going to get a better job than someone who did equally well at a state school. That's just my opinion, though.

Another option would of course be Military service. But, but, I don't wanna fight in a war, you say. Don't worry, you'll have plenty of time between now and when you're put on active duty so you probably won't have to. And even if you are called up you can just get religion to get out of it. Once that happens you won't have to go to war. Yeah, you might have to pay back that money, but I'd say it's a risk worth taking. You were going to have to pay it back anyway if you hadn't joined up.

The moral of this story is, of course, quit complaining. School is worth it. Also, U.S. tax laws are stupid. And Ron Paul is the voice of the people, but he'll never be elected because he's probably crazy. And appellate court judges are completely gullible.

NCAA = Fraud

From USA Today

[The NCAA] is having its official ticket package provider, RazorGator, move large blocks of prime tickets online at markups of hundreds, even thousands, of dollars...

The tickets sold to RazorGator come from allocations reserved for public sale (22% of the tickets) and the association's use (10%). Tickets are also allotted to participating schools (35%), the local host committee (10%), the national basketball coaches' association (8%), college athletics directors (8%) and CBS and corporate sponsors (6%)...

Much of the public-sale allocation was distributed through a lottery for which prospective customers could purchase a maximum of two tickets. They could submit a maximum of 10 applications and be selected once.

Under a partnership that began last year, the NCAA allows RazorGator to purchase an undisclosed number of tickets...

The "much" in paragraph three is nonsense. I applied and was randomly selected to purchase two tickets for each of the Final Four games. According to the letter the NCAA sent me with my tickets the seating capacity of the Alamodome is 43,500. If 22% of seats were allocated to the general public, that is 9,570 tickets. However, in the letter it also says plainly that 4,600 tickets were allocated through the lottery. 4600/9570 = 48%. Less than half of the 22% does not constitute "much" in my mind. The rest of 22% is seemingly sold directly to RazorGator so they can resell them and split the profits with the NCAA. 22% to the general public is bunk. Selling only 10.5% of the total capacity to the public and 35% to the schools isn't commensurate with a collegiate sporting event. It's a corporate function.

Does the NCAA not make enough money off of the TV contracts as it is? Get rid of all the VIP (nonsense) allocations. In my opinion the allocation numbers should be more like 75% for the schools, 20% to the public and 5% to whoever else (prize winners, foreign dignitaries, make-a-wish kids).

For that matter, basketball games aren't meant to be played in domes. Move them back to actual basketball arenas. Yes, they probably won't make as much money and fewer State Farm Senior VPs will be able to go to the game, but at least the players will be able to play a game in a more natural environment.

Plus, given the NCAA's deal with RazorGator, they could play it in a real basketball arena and still make plenty of money. Just sell all the tickets to RazorGator and watch the profit roll in.

Finally...

Roughly 95 cents of every dollar pocketed by NCAA will go to member institutions in support of student-athletes, says Greg Shaheen [the NCAA's senior vice president for basketball and business strategies].

Really? Do the athletic programs really need the money? Wouldn't all this profit be better served in a general scholarship fund? I wish the Social Sciences program had a 43,000 seat tournament. Maybe then my student loans would be so outrageous.