I'm feeling surrounded by hostiles, not a sympathetic (or understanding) post in support of what is really a very mild criticism of College Sports, Inc.. I would just remind people to read again the statement preceding "Eight Myths . . ." page. Here it is:
Have you ever been engaged in a conversation regarding college football when someone tells you that these sports programs make millions of dollars for their schools? Or perhaps someone has come up to you and told you that the only reason we see the likes of Alabama, Oklahoma, Florida and USC at the top of the BCS rankings year after year is because they spend more money on their programs, and the more you spend, the more successful you are. Well how about if I told you that the above statements are both false? Would you believe me?
The truths in the effective puncturing of these myths are aimed at the know nothings that too often populate the sports radio call-in shows. But if the mythic shoe fits you, I guess you're going wear it.
Now "Eleven"
Now “Eleven” feels snubbed, so I will respond, ever so briefly:
1. I missed the “editor’s sex life” edition, is it a sports myth that editors have a sex life?
2. The first two myths are not presented as being “absolutely false.” Myth #3 on athlete vs. student expenditures is again an on the average thing. Williams, Harvard, Yale etc. may do much better by their students then say the Running Rebels or the Longhorns.
[Eleven does take us into a whole other area of discussion: Can any of these worshipped myths, these crimes and misdemeanors, be fixed? ]
I think you are stating that the Myth Busters are catching themselves up in an internal contradiction by proposing to pay college athletes. You are right if the reason for this pay is to have better athletes that win more games that attract more fans blah, blah, blah. But this reform is usually put forward by those who are worried about the meager care and feeding of athlete-students (see Myth #4) in comparison to the munificent paydays their coaches get. The Myth Busters fumble here, or they are arriving at Hulman Center to play a game that is being held out of town. Their “solution” needs to be tied in with the myths they reveal.
3. Graduation rates of athlete-students are, well, graduation rates of athlete-students. The myth here is that this number is much larger because that’s the impression College Sports, Inc. cultivates. And, I might add, so do their accomplices in making big bucks for themselves, the Sports Media Empire.
4. Myth #6 is really a variation on Myth #4 and the whole pay for play solution/scandal waiting to explode. However, I would guess (and we’ll never know) that top recruits for the hard work in the factories of College Sports, Inc. hear very little about alternative work beyond the pro and coaching path. Kids and their parents are sold dreams of the big score after college and too often end up back on the block with nothing but bad knees and the effects of concussions.
5. I don’t recall Myth #8 mentioning an outlier such as Butler. It deals with averages not specific cases. Success on the playing field does have what has been labeled the “Flutie Effect.” It’s neither lasting nor significant. And counting on it to increase enrollment, attract high level faculty, get big bucks from a donor to bolster the resources of the library is about as likely to happen as Doug completing one of those Hail Mary passes every game he played in.
_____________
My original challenge stands:
It would be informative to hear the ISU Athletic Department and President Bradley’s clear and detailed responses to this “Eight Myths” information. Shouldn’t we (public taxpayers and students) know how ISU fits into this sorry picture? 
