Am I a celebrity?

No.

But I did get to hear Myles Brand talk to our class today. (This after I heard Jay Bilas -- who I need to blog about, the only dookie I'll ever admire -- and Miri Ben-Ari yesterday).

That's Myles Brand, NCAA President.

And total toolbag.

I mean, I don't hate the guy. I just don't respect him all that much. First of all he parlayed his handling of the Bobby Knight situation into this cushy post, and now he heads an organization which, in many aspects, I despise for its shady/hypocritical practices.

(For example, never before has the NCAA considered licensing jerseys with player names on them, but now that they are poised to make a gonzillion dollars by allowing the use of player likenesses in the next wave of video games --which Brand said are coming in about a year, and are "completely indistinguishable" from normal broadcasts *bullshit* -- suddenly they are backtracking from that well-established position.)

anyways, this is no place to get in to the paying-players debate. Well, maybe it's exactly the place, but either way it's not going to happen. But that's what dominated our discussion in class today. I had my hand up the entire time, but the little weasel knew I would nail him (actually, at this point I had yet to grow to fully despise him, so maybe he just knew I would ask a tough question), so he never called on me. Then, at the end, he says -- and keep in mind he's a former philosophy professor and this is a philosophy class -- "you all made a lot of strong, forceful, opinionated conclusions, but where were your arguments?"

well, if he'd called on me, my question (as opposed to all the dumbasses in class who just rambled on and on spouting their personal opinions like ANYONE wanted to hear THEM talk when MYLES FREAKING BRAND was in a class of 50 people) was, "Maybe it's on utilitarian grounds or whatever, but how, in a simplified scenario, do you argue for the moral justification of saying that a student who wishes to play softball or wrestle has a greater right to the money brought in by a star point guard than the actual point guard himself?"

caveat: I'm actually a supporter of the system as it stands, more than less.

anyways, pissed off that he'd ignored me, I asked him after class. And he ran away. Figuratively. I mean, as the head of the NCAA, he really can't take any sort of strong position (or he'll get nailed for it sometime -- this is what I hate about politics), but I figured he might let his guard down talking to a student, one-on-one, after class. No, instead he tried to flip it on me. Bastard.

Brand: I don't think it's utilitarian principles. It's not really a moral argument at all. It's just how we've done it.

Me: (thinking, wtf, isn't the whole point of philosophy not to justify based on what is or has been but instead on what ought to be?) Yes, that's what I'm saying. How do you justify the current system?

Brand: Well, I don't think it's a utilitarian argument. It's an educational argument.

Me: (thinking, ok, dumbass, the utilitarian thing was just a suggestion -- why don't you answer my question?) Well, as far as education then, where is the ethical support or justification for saying that those students have a right to education more than the player has a right to "his" money?

Brand: This isn't some socialist thing. You keep trying to turn it into a socialism thing. (insert me thinking, WTF -- socialism, where the hell did you come up with that). It's not utilitarian or moral at all. It's just educational.

Me: (how is it not moral? And what great philosopher first touted the "educational" theory? I now hate him for being a dickwad, and am just frustrated that he won't give a solid argument at all). Yes, all I'm saying is don't you have to justify the educational argument in the first place?

Brand: Perhaps. (with an evil smile)

Me: (HOW?!?!?!?!)