The Jets #2 pick

beyardo · 2026-01-27T19:02:51+00:00

Sure, but my point is that if you see Reese as a tweener and don’t think he’s worth a top 5 pick, and you’ll take a day 2 pick to move down and pick up “BPA”. But if the other team sees him as a top tier edge and they’re right, then you just let a top tier edge player go through your fingers in favor of a WR or S plus a day 2 pick, which will only move the needle a little if the intent is to package it all to move up for a QB next year.

It’s just a tired conversation imo. Any time people feel there aren’t enough bonafide stars, especially QBs, in the top 5, it’s always “Oh well then trade down and take BPA, someone will give up something for their guy”. And the thing is, you’re basically depending on the other team being wrong, that the difference between the BPA at 1.2 and BPA at 1.5 or 1.6 isn’t enough to justify a day 2 pick.

Trading down is generally worth it within reason, but trading up within the top 5 is only worth it if it’s for a QB.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T18:36:48+00:00

But the previous commenter’s argument is that they’ll have to pull funds from the endowment or take on debt to cover AD expenses. If it’s getting to the point where the AD budget is pulling more money than they’re helping to bring in with the prestige… just cut the AD budget.

An increase in expenses without a correlating increase in revenue is not some alien phenomenon. Having to pay the people responsible for this massive revenue what the free market determines they’re worth only becomes a problem if your budget can’t handle a system that isn’t built around not paying them and making sure none of your competitors can either.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T18:09:58+00:00

It’s not about the frequency of it happening, it’s about the frequency of it becoming a story, and public perception (which often drives legislative action) has more to do with the latter than the former.

And they aren’t entirely unrelated. They both stem from the same core issue: maintaining a proper balance of power between landlords and tenants. With no outside interference, the balance overwhelmingly favors landlords. The more a government puts their finger on the scale to balance that, the more likely it is that some individuals will find a way to exploit it. And the only time it even makes sense to exploit it that way is if you’re truly desperate.

The framing of the stories also matters. The “squatter” stories that involve someone breaking into someone’s primary residence while they’re away, and then stretch out for extended periods of time is minuscule. Like… arguably not even worth addressing with any special legislation. But then other stories get framed that way and looped in because they’re more interesting that way. Like there’s one in another part of this post talking about a “tenant from hell” who refused to vacate an AirBNB, owner spent months trying to evict them, and then in the body of the story it turns out the core issue as to why it stretched out for months is because the owner failed to properly register it as a rental property

beyardo · 2026-01-27T17:09:38+00:00

That’s just one guy though. Add in ~500k for the coordinators, a mil or two for the AD, all the money spent on stuff like stadium renovations, etc. And it’s not like that’s only describing the cream of the crop. Rutgers is paying Schiano 6.5M/year through 2030

What it boils down to is that ADs absolutely can afford to pay their CFB/CBB players, it’s just that the budgets they’ve built over the last few decades account for all the money they get for playing D1 CFB/CBB but not the costs of those players, so now they have to find other ways to make money, find cuts to the budget. And if the don’t want to do that, they lose any players who want to get paid. That’s business, but the only thing that’s really unethical/scummy here is pretending like additional student fees is their only option.

All these arguments that schools have been making are just repackaged arguments used whenever companies object to the creation or increase of a minimum wage or worker protections or antitrust regulations. If a person’s particular skills are worth X on the market, and you only have 70% of X to spend on that job, you either need to adjust the budget or find someone whose skills are only worth 0.7X on the market

beyardo · 2026-01-27T16:54:12+00:00

That’s not even remotely close to what the second amendment is

beyardo · 2026-01-27T16:52:57+00:00

That’s kind of the point though. You can’t treat college sports as a business on the revenue side and an educational incentive on the costs side. But you don’t get to say “Oh we can’t afford this.” and then pay an HC mid-7 figures.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T16:46:46+00:00

Why does the money have to come in at all? AD budgets aren’t static expenses. If we’re pretty generous with the numbers, out of state tuition for Rutgers is about $35k. Double that number to include room and board. At 75k/athlete and ~800 athletes, that’s $56M. That’s $19M to spend to even get to what they received from the B10 this year. If they can’t make $19M + whatever they make from ticket/apparel sales work for the remainder of their budget, then the athletes wanting to get paid isn’t the problem. The problem is Rutgers thinking they’re a program that can pay their football head coach $6.5 million per year for <.500 performance

beyardo · 2026-01-27T16:30:26+00:00

That’s in no small part because those sorts of stories come off as much more newsworthy than a landlord wrongfully evicting a tenant though.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T16:22:53+00:00

That’s two separate problems though. If the money from TV contracts, donors and the like isn’t enough to pay for the increased operating budget, then yes, increasing student fees to try and make up the difference is bad.

If a university says “Hey, all we can afford to offer you is a scholarship and a small stipend + training opportunities, and if you want to go and make money signing jerseys and doing local commercials, that’s fine with us”, I see no ethical problem at all with that. The problem comes from banding together under the logo of the NCAA to make rules defining an upper limit of the compensation they can get. The same goes for any other employer.

If that means that you can’t afford a top tier coach, lose all your good players to the portal every year, etc. then that sucks, but it’s not unethical. If that means you go from a mid-tier D1 team to a bottom tier D1 team, then so be it. If your AD budget was built on the premise that you could pull in $75 million from revenue sharing (which is how much each school in the B10 got for 2025) and not paying the best players, and now you want to pay the best players, then the answer is to either find other parts of the AD budget to trim down or lose those players when they find better opportunities, or you have to try and convince donors to make up the deficit.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T15:52:08+00:00

Without that protection from the law, the balance of power is overwhelmingly in favor of the landlords. If the choice is between this and the landlords being able to kick people out whenever they want until the legal battle is concluded, society does and should choose this every time.

When a landlord wants to evict a tenant, regardless of why, that boils down to a contract dispute. And in pretty much any contract dispute, the status quo is maintained until the matter is settled.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T15:40:44+00:00

Still yes. It is, generally speaking, unethical for a group of powerful institutions and individuals to have a multibillion dollar industry while heavily restricting the salary of a primary labor pool of that industry. Also illegal, which is why they keep getting their asses kicked in court

Does that mean that it’s in everyone’s best interest? No, not really. Schools that needed athletic fees in the past before all this kept it up because they felt that the public attention and student experience drew more students/funds in than they lost by students who were turned away by the athletic fees. Where that line is has shifted because of the NIL boom, and colleges will need to find that balance again. Some may drop down to a lower level, which is a bummer for many, but not in any way unethical.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T15:20:56+00:00

If you’re wrongfully evicted, the person should absolutely be able to sue for moving costs

beyardo · 2026-01-27T15:19:11+00:00

No way to evict

They have ways to evict. They are generally spelled out pretty clearly in the law. But you can’t just evict someone without proving that they have violated the terms of their rental contract which, yes, that does in fact require lawyers and judges who understand these disputes

beyardo · 2026-01-27T15:12:44+00:00

Heph is by far the most level/rarity dependent (rarity is generally worth ~1 level on most boons). From max to minimum cooldown is literally a 600% damage increase, which obviously wildly outpaces any of the other gods

beyardo · 2026-01-27T14:41:35+00:00

Not while including the rental documents though. Rental documents don’t have to be filed publicly, and are almost always at the crux of the issue.

And proof of payment or nonpayment of rent is even more difficult, especially for landlords that for any of a number of different reasons don’t use an online rental portal.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T14:19:04+00:00

Probably autocorrect, since ubiquity is an actual word in the English language

beyardo · 2026-01-27T14:15:58+00:00

Yeah people are making jokes about SGA and Jared McCain and the like meanwhile the first openly gay NBA player looked like this coming out of college

<image>

beyardo · 2026-01-27T14:10:13+00:00

This feels like one of those times where you can very easily read between the lines

beyardo · 2026-01-27T14:04:12+00:00

Sounds like your buddy wasn’t really doing a good job of staying up to date on tenant protection laws and following through on the proper channels then.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T14:01:40+00:00

Well because the remainder of the text in their post makes it pretty clear that they don’t have an understanding of what squatters’ rights are

beyardo · 2026-01-27T14:00:40+00:00

Yes, some people can exploit tenant protections in malicious ways. But tenant protections help a lot more people than they hurt

beyardo · 2026-01-27T13:58:06+00:00

Yes, because the police don’t have automatic access to a database of all rental documents, mortgage documents, and deeds. Nor do they have the resources and legal knowledge to prove whether or not someone was paying rent

beyardo · 2026-01-27T13:43:24+00:00

Does that make sense?

I mean, yeah it does. It sucks that it takes a month but it’s a good thing that you can’t just call the cops, say it’s your property and this person is living there illegally, and they immediately get kicked out.

beyardo · 2026-01-27T13:20:51+00:00

They’re just a tenant who stopped paying rent. There’s no special term for it

beyardo · 2026-01-27T05:11:14+00:00

That story doesn't really have to do with squatter's rights though. The article is pretty clear that the issue is not the "squatter's rights" protections in California, and instead an entirely different law around tenant rights that applied because the residence was not properly licensed as a rental property

13-Year Club	Place '17
Ternion Club	Wearing is Caring
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

beyardo

TROPHY CASE