Comment history

New facility electric


The reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you've missed the forest for the trees.

No professor hates the profession they've chosen because of a "paltry" $117,000 a year - and I have to assume that most profs who make that amount are satisfied (again, the article only mentioned full professors, not assistant or associate professors, where there is a significant pay decrease). The major beef has to do with what the University has become as a vehicle for sports entertainment. Agree with it or not, the fact that the University leadership (and many commenters on this board) essentially promotes sports over academics prompts many to question, "What are (and should be) the University's priorities? Athletics or academics? Is the University a sports business, or is it a place where individuals can still earn a meaningful education? What does the future hold for the University?"

With that said, my response had more to do with a lack of respect from members on this site (and elsewhere) of college professors simply because they continue to raise these questions - not their supposedly "paltry" salaries. I assume most who have come out against the instructors on this board have little familiarity with the intricacies of KU outside of sports, if they even attended the University in the first place. And that's fine, but it's highly inappropriate for many of these individuals to automatically side with the coaches without an understanding of the rest of the University and the concern many within the institution have over KU's priorities. But things probably won't change until popular media (ESPN, gives the academic side of the University equal (or even minimal) coverage of its profession.

November 14, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

New facility electric

It's funny how some commenters on this thread defend these coaches because they apparently "live on the edge with their jobs and work incredible hours with incredible stress," yet also assume that college instructors automatically earn tenure (they don't) and live stress-free lives where they (supposedly) work only a few hours a week (not to mention that the article specified "full professors" earning an average of $117000, which doesn't include assistant or associate professors who generally make much less). That doesn't really come as a surprise since most college students (let alone readers) have little clue what instructors do outside of teaching. Perhaps it's because the media (e.g., ESPN, etc.) doesn't broadcast every graded exam or essay, every student asking for help and guidance, every grant application, all the time spent in an archive or library doing research, every lecture prepared, every committe and departmental meeting attended, every word stroked on the computer for their next publication, every book read to stay on top of the latest research, every peer-reviewed chapter/book for a friend or an anonymous author (without extra pay, of course), etc., etc...

Yeah, cushy profession indeed...on top of spending multiple years racking up debt from student loans. Indeed, the nerve of those instructors (who don't work in the "real world" apparently) to complain of a wage gap when they should be grateful to even say they work at the same institution as qualified assistant coaches. Give me a break.

November 13, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence comes up short for TitleTown

I'm also assuming that if you're town wasn't represented in the 'competition' - for instance Manhattan, Kansas or Columbia, Missouri, as two examples - then those citizens probably wanted to vote for a lesser-known town rather than a major city or a rival town. As they say, "everyone roots for the underdog." I don't know if Valdosta can be anymore of an underdog against the rest of the towns represented.

July 29, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Upset squared


Get a grip people. The team just wasn't into it, and it wasn't because they had no desire. The deaths of two young men (the same ages as most of the players) weighed on the entire team, from the coach on down. I would hope that at least someone would make that point when criticizing the team's performance.

I'll be honest, I was thoroughly pissed with the team's performance following the game. But after cooling off and stepping away for a minute, I realized that maybe the game wasn't the most important thing on the players' minds. And that would have been clear had the previous posters made the effort to actually read the article before cashing in on the season.

I can't even imagine the employers of these readers criticizing the lack of focus in their job following a death in their family. It's called perspective people, look it up once in a while

February 24, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Current Jayhawks thrilled to meet past greats

I would imagine most, or maybe some, of the NBA guys would be back in town considering it's All-Star weekend.

February 16, 2008 at noon ( | suggest removal )

Mayer: Bruins trouble in tourney

This sounds like another knee-jerk reaction by Mayer, just like last week when he said KU's players were far from ready for the NBA after the KSU game. I saw UCLA's beatdown of Arizona last Saturday, and I was impressed. But let's put that in perspective, Mayer. How many times has KU had 'that game' where everything goes right for them? It happens in college ball, and it happened to UCLA the other day. I also saw UCLA at Washington State last night, and the Bruins certainly struggled much more on the road before pulling away in the final minutes. I just don't see how people like Mayer can predict the future of a team based on one game from that season (KU's loss to KSU, UCLA's win over Arizona).

I can only imagine the headline from Mayer twenty years ago: "KU doesn't stand chance in tournament because of multiple losses to Oklahoma and unimpressive winning record. Danny Manning not ready for NBA, should stay in college despite eligibility barring him from doing so."

I forget, was Manning a senior in 1988?

February 8, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayer: Jayhawks not ready for NBA

So, based on JayCeph's logic, are we to assume nobody can criticize "paid editorial journalists"? And I thought there was such a thing as freedom of speech.

Do you intend that these comment sections only contain positive reviews of the article?

"Oh Mayer, your formulated opinions are so smart, KU should hire you to inform the players where their NBA stock is and where the team needs to improve. Thank goodness we Jayhawk faithful have your expertise and guidance. God Bless America!"

February 1, 2008 at 3:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mayer: Jayhawks not ready for NBA

I also felt this was a reactionary article. How many people following KSU's loss to Xavier, where Beasely only scored in single figures, questioned his ability to play in the NBA?

There's only so much you can learn in college. Julian was as ready for the NBA as he was ever going to be. Do you honestly think another year to "polish" his skills would give him more minutes in the NBA his rookie year? If anything, there would have been minimal change.

How much more "polished" can Rush really get? I see maybe a little more work with Arthur, but that could possibly be fixed by March. I just don't see how a loss can make someone such as Mayer rush to such conclusions (maybe it's senility). I'm trying to recall his NBA scouting qualifications...

February 1, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Woodling: Kansas all over the dial

Be honest everyone, the only reason you're criticizing Holly Rowe and Ron Franklin is because the game's are blowouts. If these were competitive matchups, do you really think there would be a need to interview SportsCenter anchors or George Brett. They're doing the best they can with what they have. I guarantee that if the OU game was much closer, we probably wouldn't have even heard of interviews from those guys I just mentioned. But because KU continues to dominate most games, there's a need to keep viewers interested, hence finding important people to interview.

January 16, 2008 at 12:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Keegan: Can KU win 'em all? Don't ask Self

I hate how Keegan ends all of his articles: either entirely off-topic (Jackson and mosquitos?) or abruptly returning to the main point after delving off in another direction for about eight paragraphs. I think I'm going to just read about three-fourths of his articles from now on because I'm always disappointed when I get to the last few sentences, even though the rest of his articles are mostly decent.

January 15, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )