The CardBoard
The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? (/thread-24946.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - Jamesy - 05-24-2024

(05-24-2024, 03:01 PM)Mick Wrote:  
(05-24-2024, 01:49 PM)Giants Wrote:  
(05-24-2024, 01:22 PM)Publius Wrote:  
(05-24-2024, 11:16 AM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:  I was at a session with Howard Wolf recently where he shared (in response to a question I asked) that the Board of Trustees is spending $300M over the next 7-9 years to subsidize the Athletic Department. Condoleeza Rice told them that is what it will cost to balance the budget for AD activities in the ACC environment with Stanford refunding 70% of the Tier 1 media rights and they agreed. That says a lot to me about the commitment of the BoT to big time athletics.

Has anybody else hear that we got an invite to join the B1G before UW and Oregon?  It appears in the vacumn of leadership in the form of Arillaga and the University President, Muir and Tara's opposition to joining the B1G prevailed.  If true, what a gigantic mistake.

Not sure where you heard that; however, I do not believe it is true. 

First, Fox was the key player in the discussions.  They aren’t interested in enhancing the academic reputation of their partner conference.  They are only interested in selling commercial time on their telecasts.  At this time, Stanford would not have moved the needle enough to pique Fox’s interest.  

Secondly, Stanford would have needed a partner to join with them.  Had Notre Dame been a realistic possibility, that would have changed the dynamic, Fox would have immediately made a play for the two schools.  Of course, the Irish do not need the Big Ten.  They are doing fine as an independent.  The only other potential partner was Cal and that was a big non-starter.  

Third, Oregon and Washington were always the target but they had to wait until things fell apart before joining the Big Ten.  With Phil Knight in Eugene, a traditionally strong program in a good-sized TV market in Seattle and two very attractive football programs, why not? 

No, Stanford was not a player.  The proof is in the pudding - Stanford has been relegated to a second tier conference with only a 30% share of TV revenue. That tells us about the level of interest in the program from those who control the future of college football (Fox and Disney).

Fourth, ESPN reported that USC and UCLA approached the B1G, not the other way around. I don't see Stanford making the first move under any circumstances.

I have heard from credible sources that Stanford got a B1G invite but at a 0% share.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - StanfordMatt - 05-25-2024

(05-24-2024, 11:28 PM)akiddoc Wrote:  I can see the men’s gymnastics team and the women’s golf team suing for more money. The value to Stanford’s reputation of those teams is much greater than that of our hideous football team. None of the gymnasts even have a full scholarship. The football team no longer funds the other sports.

My understanding of the settlement is that there will be no more partial scholarships beginning in the 2025-26 academic year. Roster limits will replace scholarship limits and there will be no more walk-on’s. Everyone on a team will be on a full scholarship. I believe that will be applicable to all sports, revenue and non-revenue.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - 82lsju - 05-25-2024

(05-25-2024, 07:50 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote:  
(05-24-2024, 11:28 PM)akiddoc Wrote:  I can see the men’s gymnastics team and the women’s golf team suing for more money. The value to Stanford’s reputation of those teams is much greater than that of our hideous football team. None of the gymnasts even have a full scholarship. The football team no longer funds the other sports.

My understanding of the settlement is that there will be no more partial scholarships beginning in the 2025-26 academic year. Roster limits will replace scholarship limits and there will be no more walk-on’s. Everyone on a team will be on a full scholarship. I believe that will be applicable to all sports, revenue and non-revenue.

if that's the case then

1.  do men's and women's sports need the same number of roster spots in total across all sports to be Title IX compliant?
2.  for the partial scholarship sports (e.g., baseball) their costs could go up (or roster sizes decrease) and the total number of scholarships could increase and may change the balance of men's/women's scholarships requiring an adjustment in both

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - StanfordMatt - 05-25-2024

(05-25-2024, 08:07 AM)82lsju Wrote:  
(05-25-2024, 07:50 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote:  
(05-24-2024, 11:28 PM)akiddoc Wrote:  I can see the men’s gymnastics team and the women’s golf team suing for more money. The value to Stanford’s reputation of those teams is much greater than that of our hideous football team. None of the gymnasts even have a full scholarship. The football team no longer funds the other sports.

My understanding of the settlement is that there will be no more partial scholarships beginning in the 2025-26 academic year. Roster limits will replace scholarship limits and there will be no more walk-on’s. Everyone on a team will be on a full scholarship. I believe that will be applicable to all sports, revenue and non-revenue.

if that's the case then

1.  do men's and women's sports need the same number of roster spots in total across all sports to be Title IX compliant?
2.  for the partial scholarship sports (e.g., baseball) their costs could go up (or roster sizes decrease) and the total number of scholarships could increase and may change the balance of men's/women's scholarships requiring an adjustment in both

Like I said, yesterday was a great day for Title IX attorneys lol. Lots of unanswered questions still. The parties to the settlement basically acknowledged that they were kicking the can down the road re: Title IX.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - needle - 05-25-2024

Just my opinion, but Title IX is NOT going to kill this settlement.

The letter of the law is about equitable opportunities, not equal. 

Universities routinely flout the spirit of Title IX with massively overinflated women's rowing rosters and extremely disparate travel/recruiting budgets for comparable sports (women's bb vs. men's bb). I expect more of the same to occur with revenue sharing.

And because the settlement explicitly ties the revenue sharing with athletes to a percentage of university athletic program revenue, the pathway is clear to shortchange all athletes whose sports are not on ESPN and/or do not draw paying customers. Sorry men's gym and women's golf, among others. 

(Yes, there could/should be a lawsuit on behalf of those students not getting much of the revenue-sharing, but this settlement, I think, frames college athletics as a business venture. Tough to see the business case for men's gym to get revenue sharing that exceeds the revenue they bring in. Actually, I think it slightly more likely that football players could sue to get an even greater percentage of revenue sharing than what they're probably going to get, as football is the lever for the massive conference media rights deals. Without football, would the ACC have a deal to get their softball games on ESPN?)

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - lex24 - 05-25-2024

(05-25-2024, 08:47 AM)needle Wrote:  Just my opinion, but Title IX is NOT going to kill this settlement.

The letter of the law is about equitable opportunities, not equal. 

Universities routinely flout the spirit of Title IX with massively overinflated women's rowing rosters and extremely disparate travel/recruiting budgets for comparable sports (women's bb vs. men's bb). I expect more of the same to occur with revenue sharing.

And because the settlement explicitly ties the revenue sharing with athletes to a percentage of university athletic program revenue, the pathway is clear to shortchange all athletes whose sports are not on ESPN and/or do not draw paying customers. Sorry men's gym and women's golf, among others. 

(Yes, there could/should be a lawsuit on behalf of those students not getting much of the revenue-sharing, but this settlement, I think, frames college athletics as a business venture. Tough to see the business case for men's gym to get revenue sharing that exceeds the revenue they bring in. Actually, I think it slightly more likely that football players could sue to get an even greater percentage of revenue sharing than what they're probably going to get, as football is the lever for the massive conference media rights deals. Without football, would the ACC have a deal to get their softball games on ESPN?)

Universities aren’t “flouting the law” with rowing etc.  They are doing it to comply with the participation requirement - which is acheived most easily by having participation and scholarships/aid numbers equal to the percentage of women and men in the student body.

The law does not require equal budgets for teams within a school. It does require aid to be proportional to the student body.

There will be actions brought under Title IX if the pay is “disproportionately “ shelled out to men. Given football, hard to think how it won’t be.
(05-25-2024, 08:26 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote:  
(05-25-2024, 08:07 AM)82lsju Wrote:  
(05-25-2024, 07:50 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote:  
(05-24-2024, 11:28 PM)akiddoc Wrote:  I can see the men’s gymnastics team and the women’s golf team suing for more money. The value to Stanford’s reputation of those teams is much greater than that of our hideous football team. None of the gymnasts even have a full scholarship. The football team no longer funds the other sports.

My understanding of the settlement is that there will be no more partial scholarships beginning in the 2025-26 academic year. Roster limits will replace scholarship limits and there will be no more walk-on’s. Everyone on a team will be on a full scholarship. I believe that will be applicable to all sports, revenue and non-revenue.

if that's the case then

1.  do men's and women's sports need the same number of roster spots in total across all sports to be Title IX compliant?
2.  for the partial scholarship sports (e.g., baseball) their costs could go up (or roster sizes decrease) and the total number of scholarships could increase and may change the balance of men's/women's scholarships requiring an adjustment in both

Like I said, yesterday was a great day for Title IX attorneys lol. Lots of unanswered questions still. The parties to the settlement basically acknowledged that they were kicking the can down the road re: Title IX.

My understanding is there need be a like percentage of participation and financial aid based not on the number of athletes, but on the student body in general. That, I believe is the general “participation” test.  I believe schools can try to prove circumstances to make exceptions.

In any event, I see almost no way that this settlement, if approved, is not heavily litigated on title IX issues.  Why should a AllAmerican QB candidate be paid more than a member of the women’s volleyball team? Or, for that matter, the men’s volleyball team.

Not to mention a host of other wage discrimination claims.  Based on any number of protected statuses.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - 82lsju - 05-25-2024

(05-25-2024, 09:47 AM)lex24 Wrote:  My understanding is there need be a like percentage of participation and financial aid based not on the number of athletes, but on the student body in general. That, I believe is the general “participation” test.  I believe schools can try to prove circumstances to make exceptions.

In any event, I see almost no way that this settlement, if approved, is not heavily litigated on title IX issues.  Why should a AllAmerican QB  candidate be paid more than a member of the women’s volleyball team? Or, for that matter, the men’s volleyball team.

Not to mention a host of other wage discrimination claims.  Based on any number of protected statuses.

Stanford undergrad population is 52% women and 48% men 

https://facts.stanford.edu/academics/undergraduate-profile/

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - StanfordMatt - 05-25-2024

A technical point but one that I think is worth noting. Title IX will not kill the settlement nor will the settlement itself be litigated with respect to Title IX claims. The settlement is simply setting basic parameters regarding issues such as revenue sharing and scholarship deregulation. The only thing that is firm is the backpay that will come out of NCAA coffers and individual school’s future shares of revenue received from NCAA payouts (based largely on the basketball tournament). Individual athletic programs will have lots of latitude to navigate how they want to handle issues such as revenue sharing going forward. It is those attempts to navigate these issues that I suspect will open the individual schools/athletic departments up to Title IX challenges.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - lex24 - 05-25-2024

(05-25-2024, 10:27 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote:  A technical point but one that I think is worth noting. Title IX will not kill the settlement nor will the settlement itself be litigated with respect to Title IX claims. The settlement is simply setting basic parameters regarding issues such as revenue sharing and scholarship deregulation. The only thing that is firm is the backpay that will come out of NCAA coffers and individual school’s future shares of revenue received from NCAA payouts (based largely on the basketball tournament). Individual athletic programs will have lots of latitude to navigate how they want to handle issues such as revenue sharing going forward. It is those attempts to navigate these issues that I suspect will open the individual schools/athletic departments up to Title IX challenges.

Yes.  Wasn’t suggesting the settlement, if approved would be litigated.  It’s what happens thereafter.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - needle - 05-26-2024

Quote:Universities aren’t “flouting the law” with rowing etc.  They are doing it to comply with the participation requirement - which is acheived most easily by having participation and scholarships/aid numbers equal to the percentage of women and men in the student body.

Here's a relevant passage from Gilbert Gaul's "Billion Dollar Ball": 

Quote:Because the football schools now had to rely on women's rowing to offset their big numbers, part of the job description of rowing coaches was to effectively become used-car salesmen and meet a quota by producing enough bodies. ...... The coaches looked anywhere they might find a tall, rangy woman with a little muscle on her. And when they saw one, they shadowed her until the right moment.  Then they leaped forward and made their pitch 'Hey, have you ever thought about women's rowing?

The history of Title IX is a history of schools counting rowing participants during fall tryouts after begging students--often with minimal knowledge of the sport--to try out, knowing that most will participate for a couple of weeks only. The numbers game dictates that they get counted as participants for Title IX purposes. Title IX gets treated as just a ridiculous numbers game at many schools. 

And at the majority of schools, it falls well short of what was intended:

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-title-ix-gender-equity-compliance-gao-report-1234778480/

Quote: A report publicly released Thursday by the U.S. Government Accountability Office confirmed the open secret of federal gender-equity laws related to college athletics: They are systematically violated and essentially unenforced.

The GAO report, unassumingly titled “Education Should Improve its Title IX Enforcement Efforts,” found that during the 2021-22 academic year, 93% of universities had female athletic participation rates lower than their enrollment rate, while 63% of schools had participation-enrollment gaps of 10% or more. Overall, the athletic participation rate for collegiate women was 14% less than their enrollment rate.  


RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - fullmetal - 05-26-2024

(05-25-2024, 07:50 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote:  My understanding of the settlement is that there will be no more partial scholarships beginning in the 2025-26 academic year. Roster limits will replace scholarship limits and there will be no more walk-on’s. Everyone on a team will be on a full scholarship. I believe that will be applicable to all sports, revenue and non-revenue.

Well, the success of the rowing teams relies on walk-ons.  I'm not sure how things will work out there...

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - Mick - 05-26-2024

(05-26-2024, 07:41 AM)needle Wrote:  
Quote:Universities aren’t “flouting the law” with rowing etc.  They are doing it to comply with the participation requirement - which is acheived most easily by having participation and scholarships/aid numbers equal to the percentage of women and men in the student body.

Here's a relevant passage from Gilbert Gaul's "Billion Dollar Ball": 

Quote:Because the football schools now had to rely on women's rowing to offset their big numbers, part of the job description of rowing coaches was to effectively become used-car salesmen and meet a quota by producing enough bodies. ...... The coaches looked anywhere they might find a tall, rangy woman with a little muscle on her. And when they saw one, they shadowed her until the right moment.  Then they leaped forward and made their pitch 'Hey, have you ever thought about women's rowing?


The history of Title IX is a history of schools counting rowing participants during fall tryouts after begging students--often with minimal knowledge of the sport--to try out, knowing that most will participate for a couple of weeks only. The numbers game dictates that they get counted as participants for Title IX purposes. Title IX gets treated as just a ridiculous numbers game at many schools. 

And at the majority of schools, it falls well short of what was intended:

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-title-ix-gender-equity-compliance-gao-report-1234778480/

Quote: A report publicly released Thursday by the U.S. Government Accountability Office confirmed the open secret of federal gender-equity laws related to college athletics: They are systematically violated and essentially unenforced.

The GAO report, unassumingly titled “Education Should Improve its Title IX Enforcement Efforts,” found that during the 2021-22 academic year, 93% of universities had female athletic participation rates lower than their enrollment rate, while 63% of schools had participation-enrollment gaps of 10% or more. Overall, the athletic participation rate for collegiate women was 14% less than their enrollment rate.  

My sister in law was a six-footer, very athletic...best basketball player in the section. She was approached by basketball, volleyball, and crew...and ended up playing lacrosse.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - 81alum - 05-27-2024

I may be in the distinct minority here...or maybe not.  I can't get excited cheering on a team of professionals.  This is true of the true professional sports which I abandoned years ago.  And it is even more true of college sports, now that motivations have become hopelessly mixed. 

Stanford WBB is my last tie to the money sports in college--having given up on football and MBB some time over the last few years.  I'll hang with it another year, but I am not optimistic about my long term future as a fan.

I guess the question is...which of the non-revenue sports--which will NEVER pay college athletes--are worth cheering on.  Where should I direct my attention?  Or will they ALL become part of what I regard as the corruption of the amateur ideal?  Will anything worth watching be left?

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - SkiBum80 - 05-28-2024

(05-27-2024, 05:07 PM)81alum Wrote:  I may be in the distinct minority here...or maybe not.  I can't get excited cheering on a team of professionals.  This is true of the true professional sports which I abandoned years ago.  And it is even more true of college sports, now that motivations have become hopelessly mixed. 

Stanford WBB is my last tie to the money sports in college--having given up on football and MBB some time over the last few years.  I'll hang with it another year, but I am not optimistic about my long term future as a fan.

I guess the question is...which of the non-revenue sports--which will NEVER pay college athletes--are worth cheering on.  Where should I direct my attention?  Or will they ALL become part of what I regard as the corruption of the amateur ideal?  Will anything worth watching be left?
I understand your frustration. And am not trying to sway or change your perspective on anything to do with watching Stanford, or any other sports, going forward.
But I want to make an observation, which is that while Stanford sports might becoming less desirable for some to watch because of the commercialization and professionalization of the athletes, it also becomes a question of will I continue to watch Stanford teams, or something else? What are the alternatives: pro sports, of course, always available.
What else: News, always available, usually its bad news, reality shows, daytime soap operas, politically motivated promotion masquerading as a talk show, reruns of old sitcoms, new sitcoms with loud canned laugh track, old movies already seen before, bachelors or bachelorettes, of young or old, gallivanting in vacation locales in a completely unsustainable temporary fantasy life, home purchasing or remodeling show, for a place I'd never move to, or for a remodel I'd never undertake....
Online, tiktok endless loops of youngsters hiphop dancing, or funny cat or dog antics.
Or online keeping up with friends or acquaintances or even strangers, about how much more of a fun and exciting life they are living than me.
Or ...
So in the scope of what is available to watch, regardless of the impurity of the athletes, I'm still planning to watch and support Stanford teams.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - jacket3ree - 05-28-2024

I can't decide if this is college football Armageddon or just more of the same. (Hint: guessing on the latter.)  Cutting to the chase, I think I've said before that I root for laundry and I'll continue to root for laundry until the laundry quits. Stanford had its chance to get off the Power Ball treadmill and didn't, so that, for the moment, answers the question of whether the red laundry has quit.  I try to avoid slippery slope arguments. My bridge too far is if people playing college sports aren't in the colleges they play for, or at least pretend to be in college. Then, what is the point?  But I've read nothing to say that basic eligibility requirements (5 years to play 4) are going to change, so we aren't yet at the Arnhem, so to speak.

I think everything pretty much stays the same. With NIL being a defacto pay to play system, what difference does a $20 million cap on direct payments make?  The big factory schools will continue to pump out manufactured wins and championships, just like they've done for the past quarter century. Only now, most of it will be above board because it's "legal". There are three and only three sports that provide substantial revenue. Football, men's basketball, and women's basketball. Someone said that Men's Gymnastics and Women's Golf are more important to Stanford's reputation than football. OK maybe, but only a dozen schools even field men's gymnastics teams and fan or not, football still drives most of the bus. The past quarter century's worth of "revenue" champions, where presumably most of the revenue sharing and NIL go is both predictable and boring, unless you are a fan of a factory school:

Football
Oklahoma
Miami F.L.A.  (whatever happened to those guys?)
The Ohio State University x2
LSU x3
USC x2
Texas
Florida x2
Alabama x6
Auburn
Florida State (also won in 1999)
Clemson x2
Georgia x2
Michigan

25 years, 26 champions, 13 different schools. There might be fewer than five additional schools you could add to the list above with any reasonable shot of making it through a 12-team playoff on a consistent basis.

Men's Basketball
Michigan State
Duke x3
Maryland
Syracuse
UCONN x5 (they also won in 1999)
North Carolina x3
Florida x2
Kansas x2
Kentucky
Louisville
Villanova x2
Virginia
Baylor

In men's basketball over the same 25 years, there have been 24 champions (Covid) and again 13 different schools. When looking at results, the "little guy" can come close, but they just don't seal that deal.

Women's Basketball
UCONN x10
Notre Dame x2
Baylor x3
Maryland
Tennessee x2
aTm
South Carolina x3
Stanford
LSU

Women's hoops is the most predictable of the three sports, but it's always been that way and it doesn't seem money is the culprit as far as I can tell.  Just putting it out there to shoot my entire theory down.

Other teams in Power Four plus ND might make a little noise, but for the most part become part of the factory Ws. Forget G5. Just so many farm teams feeding the portal now.  Someone giving their heart and soul to DIII athletics gives just as much heart and soul (actually, probably more in some cases) then QB1 or QB22 making seven or eight figures flitting from power team to power team.  Is that fair?  Who ever said life was fair?

Isn't this is a class action settlement?  What brings Armageddon is if athletes who came before the arbitrary cutoff decide to sue.  Or lots of athletes decide to sue and remain outside the class action.  They could possibly bring the whole thing down.  Or if there is karmic justice of the be careful what you ask for type, this all turns into a garbage version of NFL- or G League-lite (none of those other professional football leagues really survive and thrive, it seems), people tune out, the money dries up, and places where people play to get an education and enjoy what they do and maybe have a path to professional sports come back to the fore. But that was all a long time ago. It's been about the Benjamins for quite some time.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - TrumpCard - 05-28-2024

If a student athlete comes to Stanford with the intention to stay a year and pass enough classes to avoid academic probation, is that sufficient?  I ask because Stanford can't compete without landing a significant number of that type of recruit.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - BostonCard - 05-28-2024

(05-28-2024, 08:11 AM)SkiBum80 Wrote:  
(05-27-2024, 05:07 PM)81alum Wrote:  I may be in the distinct minority here...or maybe not.  I can't get excited cheering on a team of professionals.  This is true of the true professional sports which I abandoned years ago.  And it is even more true of college sports, now that motivations have become hopelessly mixed. 

Stanford WBB is my last tie to the money sports in college--having given up on football and MBB some time over the last few years.  I'll hang with it another year, but I am not optimistic about my long term future as a fan.

I guess the question is...which of the non-revenue sports--which will NEVER pay college athletes--are worth cheering on.  Where should I direct my attention?  Or will they ALL become part of what I regard as the corruption of the amateur ideal?  Will anything worth watching be left?
I understand your frustration. And am not trying to sway or change your perspective on anything to do with watching Stanford, or any other sports, going forward.
But I want to make an observation, which is that while Stanford sports might becoming less desirable for some to watch because of the commercialization and professionalization of the athletes, it also becomes a question of will I continue to watch Stanford teams, or something else? What are the alternatives: pro sports, of course, always available.
What else: News, always available, usually its bad news, reality shows, daytime soap operas, politically motivated promotion masquerading as a talk show, reruns of old sitcoms, new sitcoms with loud canned laugh track, old movies already seen before, bachelors or bachelorettes, of young or old, gallivanting in vacation locales in a completely unsustainable temporary fantasy life, home purchasing or remodeling show, for a place I'd never move to, or for a remodel I'd never undertake....
Online, tiktok endless loops of youngsters hiphop dancing, or funny cat or dog antics.
Or online keeping up with friends or acquaintances or even strangers, about how much more of a fun and exciting life they are living than me.
Or ...
So in the scope of what is available to watch, regardless of the impurity of the athletes, I'm still planning to watch and support Stanford teams.

Or you could, "touch grass".  Not to be too flippant, but we are in an era of virtually unlimited entertainment, and, were one to give up watching Stanford sports, even if one wanted to avoid professional sports or anything on television, there is a plethora of alternatives including: and on, and on, and on.  The list is only limited by my (lack of) imagination.

If Stanford decided not to play sports, I would be briefly saddened (even as my own experience resembles 81alum's), but my life wouldn't be meaningfully diminished.  Now, I don't begrudge you if you prefer watching Stanford sports to many of those activities (or, more likely, in addition to some of those activities), but for the people to whom the current situation is a bridge too far to support, there are plenty of alternatives.

And then there is also the question of allocation of resources.  Personally, I think the $20 million can be spent better elsewhere (and is on top of the subsidy the university has to give athletics due to the loss of revenue from moving to the ACC).  The University doesn't agree with me, and they can certainly afford it, but I do think they should periodically reassess the role of athletics in the University and its financial cost, and not just keep going because they historically have.

BC

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - BillBradley - 05-29-2024

For the paid-college-athlete-bemoaners:  Here's a hypothetical....The year is 2027. Through increased NIL participation and a more supportive administration when it comes to the transfer portal, Stanford has assembled a highly competitive men's basketball team with Coach Smith at the helm. They just wrapped up a nice 20+ win season, finishing 4th in the ACC and winning the first 2 games of the conference tourney. It's a good team and they are very fun to watch. The athletes themselves are incredible young men, just like past Stanford athletes named Collins or Madsen. The Cardboard is alive with posts about the team, how hard they play, how they share the ball, etc. They get a 9 seed in the March Madness bracket. They win their first game easily, then upset #1 seed Kansas in the second round, and then beat #4 seed Michigan in the third round. They are now set to face #1 UCLA to get to the Final Four.  

I understand people's frustrations about the departure of amateurism in college sports. I really do. But I still don't believe any person on this board who says they wouldn't be interested in, let alone excited for, that team. You'll all tune in for that game :>

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - CowboyIndian - 05-29-2024

(05-29-2024, 10:57 AM)BillBradley Wrote:  For the paid-college-athlete-bemoaners:  Here's a hypothetical....The year is 2027. Through increased NIL participation and a more supportive administration when it comes to the transfer portal, Stanford has assembled a highly competitive men's basketball team with Coach Smith at the helm. They just wrapped up a nice 20+ win season, finishing 4th in the ACC and winning the first 2 games of the conference tourney. It's a good team and they are very fun to watch. The athletes themselves are incredible young men, just like past Stanford athletes named Collins or Madsen. The Cardboard is alive with posts about the team, how hard they play, how they share the ball, etc. They get a 9 seed in the March Madness bracket. They win their first game easily, then upset #1 seed Kansas in the second round, and then beat #4 seed Michigan in the third round. They are now set to face #1 UCLA to get to the Final Four.  

I understand people's frustrations about the departure of amateurism in college sports. I really do. But I still don't believe any person on this board who says they wouldn't be interested in, let alone excited for, that team. You'll all tune in for that game :>

Don't Bogart that joint, my friend! Pass it over to me.

RE: The end of revenue sports at Stanford? - 82lsju - 05-29-2024

(05-29-2024, 12:45 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:  
(05-29-2024, 10:57 AM)BillBradley Wrote:  For the paid-college-athlete-bemoaners:  Here's a hypothetical....The year is 2027. Through increased NIL participation and a more supportive administration when it comes to the transfer portal, Stanford has assembled a highly competitive men's basketball team with Coach Smith at the helm. They just wrapped up a nice 20+ win season, finishing 4th in the ACC and winning the first 2 games of the conference tourney. It's a good team and they are very fun to watch. The athletes themselves are incredible young men, just like past Stanford athletes named Collins or Madsen. The Cardboard is alive with posts about the team, how hard they play, how they share the ball, etc. They get a 9 seed in the March Madness bracket. They win their first game easily, then upset #1 seed Kansas in the second round, and then beat #4 seed Michigan in the third round. They are now set to face #1 UCLA to get to the Final Four.  

I understand people's frustrations about the departure of amateurism in college sports. I really do. But I still don't believe any person on this board who says they wouldn't be interested in, let alone excited for, that team. You'll all tune in for that game :>

Don't Bogart that joint, my friend! Pass it over to me.

after the team was eliminated in the NCAA tournament sophomores Bob Smith and Amir Jones both announced they will be entering the transfer portal.  Smith and Jones averaged a combined 45 points in their only season with the Cardinal after transferring in from Cal and Drake.