I suppose you are right. It is proof, of making a dishonest claim. I stand corrected. And I've asked you to provide proof of these other claims. Further, you still have not proven that this has any barring on athletes and how dietary requirements are imposed by their coaches with regards to dietary requirements. What the NCAA basically allowed for was an expanded offering of the existing 3 meals a day or STIPENDS, which have been allowed all along, to athletes for meals. So you see, the ability for athletes to eat has always been there. The move that has recently been announced has actually been on the table for 9 months but has only recently been approved for vote in the last few days, based on the statements of Napier. The reality is that this will not change anything. If you want to play, you will eat what your Coach suggests and when they suggest or you will find yourself on the bench or off the team. I guess it's up to each individual player but what this really does is it takes the hammer out of the hands of the player or the Union. This probably means no more Stipends and it also probably means that the argument of needing money to eat is also off the table. A positive move all around for all involved IMO. I agree. A person is subject to examination at almost any time. Napier fails the examination, as do the claims that these kids are starving, IMO. As to the NCAA, what have they claimed? Outline those and we can summarily discuss them. Perhaps you need to toughen up? There is no reason to use false justification such as, "I'm Starving at night" to try and justify payment of College Athletes. As has been mentioned, the fact that the NCAA is trying to address that is proof that payment is not necessary. If you want to eat healthy foods at 12:00 PM, they will be made available to you, as an athlete. Problem solved.