Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - 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: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? (/thread-23240.html)
+- 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: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? (/thread-23240.html)
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - Maple Leaf - 06-14-2022
(06-13-2022, 06:30 PM)Phogge Wrote: 46 must have kicked the bucket.
or rotten pre-nep agreements, or expensive girlfriend(s), or both.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - CTcard - 06-14-2022
(06-13-2022, 07:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote: With the new Jurassic Park movie out, I’m reminded of this quote:
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Maybe we should be less preoccupied with whether our tech billionaires could find a ginormous NIL and think more of whether they should.
BC
Of all the various developments in college sports that had various levels of distaste, this is the first one where I am starting to wonder if I would prefer that my dear alma mater simply opt out.
I have no problem at all with real endorsement money, or entrepreneurial efforts to make a few bucks hocking videos or the like, but the donor collectives buying players for no real business reasons while supported by far more than a wink from the institutions really feels to me like crossing a line to something distinctly different from what we have seen for 100 years.
Or maybe I will simply get used to it - like the frog as the water slowly warms until it gets boiled without a complaint.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - Phogge - 06-14-2022
BC, as a Gator from an impoverished college "should" doesn't matter. You just have to be creative. There is a new system in place and you need to work the system. I'm sure that some of you Einsteins can come up with a way to behave within limits. Of course if the U takes on a "We're something special, we're Stanford" then Stanford football is doomed (which it may be anyway). I'm not saying that your coach has to be Red Sanders and your players are like Ronnie Knox but god almighty get with the program.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - SamuelMcF - 06-14-2022
(06-14-2022, 07:22 AM)CTcard Wrote: I have no problem at all with real endorsement money, or entrepreneurial efforts to make a few bucks hocking videos or the like, but the donor collectives buying players for no real business reasons while supported by far more than a wink from the institutions really feels to me like crossing a line to something distinctly different from what we have seen for 100 years.
There's a distinct "but the players have always gotten paid" argument being thrown around, but the difference in amount is frankly absurd.
A dozen years ago, Cam Newton's dad asked Mississippi State('s boosters) for $180k to sign his son. And this wasn't straight out of HS either - this was the utterly dominant JuCo player of the year.
Tennessee('s boosters) are paying 5* QB Nico Iamaleava $8M.
Rumors are Texas A&M's #1 2022 signing class cost north of $20M altogether. Nick Saban called them out straight-up at SEC media days a little bit ago.
Any of these boosters have some spare $ to throw my startup instead? Can't be a worse investment since half these recruits will bust anyway.
(06-14-2022, 09:25 AM)Phogge Wrote: Of course if the U takes on a "We're something special, we're Stanford" then Stanford football is doomed (which it may be anyway).
They already are, and we already are.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - Genuine Realist - 06-14-2022
(06-13-2022, 07:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote: With the new Jurassic Park movie out, I’m reminded of this quote:I don't think the billionaires became billionaires by throwing money at untested athletes. I repeat my cynicism that large NIL money is disguised agent money.
“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”
Maybe we should be less preoccupied with whether our tech billionaires could find a ginormous NIL and think more of whether they should.
BC
BTW, I enjoyed Jurassic Whatever quite a bit, even though it requires a willing suspension, not simply of disbelief, but intelligence, memory critical thinking, and almost every other cognitive faculty.
In my view, the pick of the litter continues to be 'Everything . . .Everywhere . . . All at Once', even though it is so insanely creative it wears you out.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - BostonCard - 06-14-2022
Why would agents try to steer a player to a particular school?
I’m kind of with CTCard; I may become a disinterested fan for a flailing college team, but there are other pleasures in life. At best, I’m unenthusiastic about Stanford mega-rich mega-fans establishing a collective.
BC
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - Phogge - 06-14-2022
Hey GR, I'm still too scared to sit in a theatre with non masked entitled Marin County dilettantes. So I will see it when I can and from your review I am panting to see it.
I am also dying to see Cruise do his thing. One of the most amazing stars ever. Stuntman deluxe, Fountain of Youth guy and I don't care that he's a first class nutcase.
I hated Dune. Halfway through I bailed on HBO Max. I'm hoping that Villeneuve comes to his senses and takes on Sicario 3 some day. Looks like Andrew Dominic's "War Party" with Tom Hardy has been shelved. I thought that we'd have a "Boys in the Boat" film by now. Most of my DP friends in Hollywood are retiring and that is sad.
Carry on.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - BostonCard - 06-14-2022
Yeah, Dune was overrated. I didn’t hate it, but didn’t see what everyone was raving about.
BC
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - needle - 06-14-2022
It's too early to know what you'd love/hate about an NIL collective.
How many people forswore rooting for C-Mac when he skipped a bowl game?
Now, I suspect far fewer would bat an eyelash if there's another similar scenario.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - Phogge - 06-14-2022
Probably the whole football roster will be missing the bowl game this season.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - 81alum - 06-14-2022
(06-14-2022, 07:22 AM)CTcard Wrote: Of all the various developments in college sports that had various levels of distaste, this is the first one where I am starting to wonder if I would prefer that my dear alma mater simply opt out.Yes, I entirely agree. Faced with the choice as to whether Stanford University should compete with athletic powerhouses by using a kind of legalized and collectivized bribery scheme, or whether we should give up on Division I Athletics, I say give it up. Above all, Stanford should stay true to its mission:
“to extend the frontiers of knowledge, stimulate creativity, and solve real-world problems, prepare students to think broadly, deeply and critically, and to contribute to the world, and deploy Stanford’s strengths to benefit our region, country, and world.”
It was always a small stretch to argue that athletics fit this mission--but athletics does bring students to Stanford who otherwise might not be able to afford it, and prepares them in the way the mission states. Under the old-fashioned amateur student-athlete model I think athletics works with the mission. But it becomes too big a stretch to bribe students to attend and recruit students who never intend to finish their college education at Stanford. While this phenomenon is not new (John McEnroe was in my class) it should not be allowed to grow and fester.
I have (surprisingly) become an avid Stanford athletics fan. But my fandom has always been predicated on the unique way that Stanford does athletics--its ability to resist corruption and to market its education as a true benefit to athletes. The latest national developments, including the collective legal organized corruption schemes that other universities are putting in place, are so revolting that they have killed my interests in the sports that they affect. My interest in college football and men's basketball has plummeted, and I am praying that WBB does not cross over the threshold too.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - Genuine Realist - 06-15-2022
(06-14-2022, 07:54 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Why would agents try to steer a player to a particular school?I was using the word in a more generic sense, for which apologies. 'Sponsorship' would have been a better choice of word.
I’m kind of with CTCard; I may become a disinterested fan for a flailing college team, but there are other pleasures in life. At best, I’m unenthusiastic about Stanford mega-rich mega-fans establishing a collective.
BC
In any case, with a view toward participating in the athlete's pro career, and recouping or profiting from the investment (sic) thereby.
(06-14-2022, 11:13 PM)81alum Wrote:It's interesting how completely the 'amateur' notion has accultured the view of these matters, to the point where payment of any kind is seen as dirty or unethical.(06-14-2022, 07:22 AM)CTcard Wrote: Of all the various developments in college sports that had various levels of distaste, this is the first one where I am starting to wonder if I would prefer that my dear alma mater simply opt out.Yes, I entirely agree. Faced with the choice as to whether Stanford University should compete with athletic powerhouses by using a kind of legalized and collectivized bribery scheme, or whether we should give up on Division I Athletics, I say give it up. Above all, Stanford should stay true to its mission:
“to extend the frontiers of knowledge, stimulate creativity, and solve real-world problems, prepare students to think broadly, deeply and critically, and to contribute to the world, and deploy Stanford’s strengths to benefit our region, country, and world.”
It was always a small stretch to argue that athletics fit this mission--but athletics does bring students to Stanford who otherwise might not be able to afford it, and prepares them in the way the mission states. Under the old-fashioned amateur student-athlete model I think athletics works with the mission. But it becomes too big a stretch to bribe students to attend and recruit students who never intend to finish their college education at Stanford. While this phenomenon is not new (John McEnroe was in my class) it should not be allowed to grow and fester.
I have (surprisingly) become an avid Stanford athletics fan. But my fandom has always been predicated on the unique way that Stanford does athletics--its ability to resist corruption and to market its education as a true benefit to athletes. The latest national developments, including the collective legal organized corruption schemes that other universities are putting in place, are so revolting that they have killed my interests in the sports that they affect. My interest in college football and men's basketball has plummeted, and I am praying that WBB does not cross over the threshold too.
It's not.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - OutsiderFan - 06-15-2022
Those decrying paying college athletes are like those who believe the beatings should continue until morale improves.
The athletes are saying we work hard and take risks with our bodies so we want to get paid. Then the Ivory Tower types are like "let them eat cake" because if they eat a five star meal, it somehow bothers them? Why?!?!?!
Does Stanford not have to pay top dollar to professors that keep Stanford on top academically, and by extension maintain the equity of your Stanford education? I mean just think if Stanford said "Pfft, we're not paying the top Astrophysicist researcher in the country $1M per year. Let them go to MIT where they are comfortable buying the best academic reputation. At Stanford, we want researchers to be here because they love to see cows grazing on our campus more than they want to earn as much as they can..."?
The whole psychosis against paying athletes to play for your entertainment, or in this case, just allowing them to get paid to perform for your entertainment when you aren't paying, simply baffles me.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - Genuine Realist - 06-15-2022
(06-14-2022, 08:20 PM)Phogge Wrote: Hey GR, I'm still too scared to sit in a theatre with non masked entitled Marin County dilettantes. So I will see it when I can and from your review I am panting to see it.I have always enjoyed science fiction, but Dune, both novel and movie, left me cold. The 'Foundation' series on AppleTV wasn't Asimov, but I liked it a lot anyway.
I am also dying to see Cruise do his thing. One of the most amazing stars ever. Stuntman deluxe, Fountain of Youth guy and I don't care that he's a first class nutcase.
I hated Dune. Halfway through I bailed on HBO Max. I'm hoping that Villeneuve comes to his senses and takes on Sicario 3 some day. Looks like Andrew Dominic's "War Party" with Tom Hardy has been shelved. I thought that we'd have a "Boys in the Boat" film by now. Most of my DP friends in Hollywood are retiring and that is sad.
Carry on.
'Everything . . .Everywhere' is perhaps best enjoyed at home, because the picture is so intense and hectic it wears you out. A break after about an hour is a good idea.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - CowboyIndian - 06-15-2022
(06-14-2022, 11:13 PM)81alum Wrote: But my fandom has always been predicated on the unique way that Stanford does athletics--its ability to resist corruption...
Except for, you know, the Bernard Muir "Just leave it on the table while I watch the NCAAs" part.
(06-15-2022, 08:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: At Stanford, we want researchers to be here because they love to see cows grazing on our campus more than they want to earn as much as they can..."
Just to inject a bit of reality here....they are steers.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - TriangleTree - 06-15-2022
(06-15-2022, 08:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Those decrying paying college athletes are like those who believe the beatings should continue until morale improves.
The athletes are saying we work hard and take risks with our bodies so we want to get paid. Then the Ivory Tower types are like "let them eat cake" because if they eat a five star meal, it somehow bothers them? Why?!?!?!
Does Stanford not have to pay top dollar to professors that keep Stanford on top academically, and by extension maintain the equity of your Stanford education? I mean just think if Stanford said "Pfft, we're not paying the top Astrophysicist researcher in the country $1M per year. Let them go to MIT where they are comfortable buying the best academic reputation. At Stanford, we want researchers to be here because they love to see cows grazing on our campus more than they want to earn as much as they can..."?
The whole psychosis against paying athletes to play for your entertainment, or in this case, just allowing them to get paid to perform for your entertainment when you aren't paying, simply baffles me.
Don’t think the astrophysics analogy works, that’s clearly well within the university mission and I think takes away from your argument.
The question of why anyone would be against players getting paid for our entertainment is obviously a good one, and I certainly want to keep an open mind.
What I’m clear on is that I wouldn’t be supportive of a fully professional Stanford team for which education is no longer an objective. That seems inconsistent with my affiliation and rationale to support Stanford sports. I don’t follow minor league baseball or the XFL so not sure why I would want to follow a substandard professional league, even if they sport a Stanford logo on their hat.
Paying student athletes on a free agent, free market model does not automatically take us fully there, but it’s certainly a step closer.
So I don’t find the concerns mind boggling at all. To be clear, I am well in support of student athletes getting compensated in some shape or form. I find it obscene that coaches are becoming multimillionaires and that there is an industry profiting immensely, all on the back of unpaid student athletes. I’m just naive enough to believe that there is a ton of good in college sports and that it creates opportunities for so many that would otherwise not exist. If this important transition is not well managed, it puts all of that at risk.
There are some compensation models that I could live with and there are some that I think would put me off. Stanford will at some point have to make their own call.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - CTcard - 06-15-2022
(06-14-2022, 11:13 PM)81alum Wrote:(06-14-2022, 07:22 AM)CTcard Wrote: Of all the various developments in college sports that had various levels of distaste, this is the first one where I am starting to wonder if I would prefer that my dear alma mater simply opt out.Yes, I entirely agree. Faced with the choice as to whether Stanford University should compete with athletic powerhouses by using a kind of legalized and collectivized bribery scheme, or whether we should give up on Division I Athletics, I say give it up.
To be clear, your statement doesn't entirely agree with my thoughts.
I have never been very warm to the idea that we either win or quit altogether.
I don't think Stanford should drop Division I Athletics. [Note, even the Ivy League is Division I.] I don't think that Stanford should drop Pac 12 conference affiliation.
My thought was more along the lines that Stanford should set its own ground rules on how it will and won't participate in NIL arrangements, with (in my opinion) particular limits on fake-NIL arrangements as recruiting inducements, and then let the chips fall where they may on the competitive prospects for football and basketball. For that matter I think every university should have such introspection - but issues for other universities aren't relevant on a Stanford board.
Losing competitiveness in football and basketball would be frustrating - I am a fan and like winning; but when I take off my fan-glasses I realize that I care more about the integrity and mission of my alma mater and universities broadly.
[And yes I am quite aware that athletics has already compromised the integrity and mission of universities. I don't take that as a good argument to go ahead and make it worse.]
However, I am also thinking about how much this corruption of NIL matters overall. It will almost certainly worsen the competitive balance situation, and while that it bad for the sport it doesn't feel like a fundamental or moral issue. I fear it will further erode the academic mission, and push the situation toward the big time college sports being merely lower level professional teams that have a marketing agreement with a university. However, there isn't a direct link there, so maybe I worry too much.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - DC 86 - 06-15-2022
(06-15-2022, 03:24 PM)CTcard Wrote: My thought was more along the lines that Stanford should set its own ground rules on how it will and won't participate in NIL arrangements, with (in my opinion) particular limits on fake-NIL arrangements as recruiting inducements, and then let the chips fall where they may on the competitive prospects for football and basketball.
I may be in the minority on this board but I don't see a need for limits and I don't have a problem with fake-NIL arrangements if that's how the market works. Where I stand is that Stanford should never compromise on its academic mission, meaning maintaining its admissions standards and requiring that student-athletes participate and be held accountable as legitimate students taking legitimate classes. I don't see a difference in a collective paying Andrew Luck $100k or $10 mm. And almost all NIL payments are recruiting inducements, not financially justifiable marketing compensation, so drawing a line there effectively means not playing the NIL game at all.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - Softball Fan - 06-15-2022
(06-15-2022, 08:55 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Those decrying paying college athletes are like those who believe the beatings should continue until morale improves.
The athletes are saying we work hard and take risks with our bodies so we want to get paid. Then the Ivory Tower types are like "let them eat cake" because if they eat a five star meal, it somehow bothers them? Why?!?!?!
Does Stanford not have to pay top dollar to professors that keep Stanford on top academically, and by extension maintain the equity of your Stanford education? I mean just think if Stanford said "Pfft, we're not paying the top Astrophysicist researcher in the country $1M per year. Let them go to MIT where they are comfortable buying the best academic reputation. At Stanford, we want researchers to be here because they love to see cows grazing on our campus more than they want to earn as much as they can..."?
The whole psychosis against paying athletes to play for your entertainment, or in this case, just allowing them to get paid to perform for your entertainment when you aren't paying, simply baffles me.
"The athletes are saying we work hard and take risks with our bodies so we want to get paid."
This doesn't address the current NIL system. Walk-ons in all sports work hard and take risks in practice daily. Division II and Division III athletes in all sports work hard and take risks. But the vast majority of these athletes aren't getting NIL deals. They aren't getting any financial compensation.
"Does Stanford not have to pay top dollar to professors that keep Stanford on top academically, and by extension maintain the equity of your Stanford education?"
This is a misguided argument. Stanford is an academic institution. Its charter is to educate students.
RE: Is Stanford creating an NIL collective? - BostonCard - 06-15-2022
For GR, I don’t have that much of an issue with athletes being paid in exchange for a cut of their future professional earnings, as long is it an above board transaction, and not designed to exploit the athlete (or, onerous back end terms). I have a bit more of an issue when the payment is for the athlete to go to a particular school, as it looks like most of these collectives are.
For Outsider, the amount of “labor” provided by an uncompensated field hockey player is going to be the same as that put in by a star QB paid $10M, so if it is just about unpaid labor, you are going to have a problem, so this is really more about profiting from the value they create, then that is something different. I have often argued that the NCAA and the schools (and television networks) have created this monster, by consistently asking for more from the athletes. For example, football went from 11 to 12 games, added conference championships, proliferated bowl games, created a playoff, and moved games to accommodate TV schedules rather than the athletes’ schedules, all the while maximizing TV revenue, so I get it. But I don’t think that in the big picture that has been good for anyone, least of all the athletes, and the current mania just furthers things.
The seminal difference between college and professional athletics is supposed to be the fact that they are student athletes. Back when I was at Stanford, I shared a freshman dorm with Brevin Knight. I met Tiger Woods. I was in the same dorm as Kristin Folkl, not to mention a bunch of athletes who were role players, bench players, etc. What United is all is that we were all students, went to many of the same classes, ate the same crappy dorm food, etc. What we are headed towards is professional athletes loosely affiliated with a school. I don’t have an issue if that’s what you want from collegiate athletics, but you are not going to get me to like it, and my interests seem destined to fade, or to focus on those athletes who work just as hard, practice just as much, but do so to support their Stanford education, rather than those who go to class to support their eligibility to participate in professional collegiate sports.
BC