[Genuine Realist]

Take the following hypothetical:

(a) An 18-year-old kid is an excellent student, but a basketball Jones. Although the front door is open at Stanford, he opts for the NBA draft and has enough potential to be drafted in the second round. However, he's not good enough to make the franchise, but spends two frustrating, but well-paid, years in the G-League. Smart enough to realize he's going nowhere, and maybe cured of basketball fever by long bus rides and dreary hotel rooms,
he reapplies to Stanford, is accepted, and joins the incoming class.

Now the time for basketball practice has arrived, and he shows up to try out for the varsity. Is he eligible to play? If not, why not?

(b) Same basic facts but make the passion jazz music and the lad a precociously talented saxophonist. When he gives up that life and comes to Stanford, is he eligible to participate in music groups in which he represents the University (mostly the Band, but there are others.) If not, why not?
And what's the difference between the two cases?

-

I get to the position I take by reducing the issue of participation in athletics to its essence:

(1) Athletics and music are forms of extracurricular activity. That's how all this began.

(2) Any student at the school in good standing is eligible to participate (or try out, anyway).

(3) The individual financial circumstances and personal history of the student are a matter of indifference.

[Genuine Realist]

Take the following hypothetical:

(a) An 18-year-old kid is an excellent student, but a basketball Jones. Although the front door is open at Stanford, he opts for the NBA draft and has enough potential to be drafted in the second round. However, he's not good enough to make the franchise, but spends two frustrating, but well-paid, years in the G-League. Smart enough to realize he's going nowhere, and maybe cured of basketball fever by long bus rides and dreary hotel rooms,
he reapplies to Stanford, is accepted, and joins the incoming class.

Now the time for basketball practice has arrived, and he shows up to try out for the varsity. Is he eligible to play? If not, why not?

(b) Same basic facts but make the passion jazz music and the lad a precociously talented saxophonist. When he gives up that life and comes to Stanford, is he eligible to participate in music groups in which he represents the University (mostly the Band, but there are others.) If not, why not?
And what's the difference between the two cases?

-

I get to the position I take by reducing the issue of participation in athletics to its essence:

(1) Athletics and music are forms of extracurricular activity. That's how all this began.

(2) Any student at the school in good standing is eligible to participate (or try out, anyway).

(3) The individual financial circumstances and personal history of the student are a matter of indifference.

[ca245]

One difference between (a) and (b) is that (a) is a competitive league (NCAA) with its rules on eligibility -- "amateur" (however this is defined and if enforceable), age limit (generally must enroll within one year of high school class graduation), five years to play for four years, etc. To the extent that these rules are enforceable, the school has to abide by them.
For representing the school in its band, the school can make the eligibility call.

[ca245]

One difference between (a) and (b) is that (a) is a competitive league (NCAA) with its rules on eligibility -- "amateur" (however this is defined and if enforceable), age limit (generally must enroll within one year of high school class graduation), five years to play for four years, etc. To the extent that these rules are enforceable, the school has to abide by them.
For representing the school in its band, the school can make the eligibility call.

[TreesAndBirds]

Taking GR’s hypothetical one more step….suppose the student spent 10 years as a star in the NBA and retired because he wanted to go to law school (Bill Walton was at SLS when I was). Should he be able to play? What if John McEnroe or Tiger Woods wanted to come back to finish their degree (if they havent)…should they be able to compete?

I think sports are different than being in the band because as ca245 notes, maintaining competitive balance is important. 

There is also something undesirable to me about using “ringers”. They seem to be in a different place in life than the rest of the students…they arent still trying to prove themselves. The purpose of school is to teach (including athletics), but they dont seem to need teaching. 

Im not sure I have an issue with GR’s specific hypothetical, but at some point the line is crossed. And its not really about age for me. Id certainly let someone play who joined the military out of school and spent 4 or more years serving before going to college.

[TreesAndBirds]

Taking GR’s hypothetical one more step….suppose the student spent 10 years as a star in the NBA and retired because he wanted to go to law school (Bill Walton was at SLS when I was). Should he be able to play? What if John McEnroe or Tiger Woods wanted to come back to finish their degree (if they havent)…should they be able to compete?

I think sports are different than being in the band because as ca245 notes, maintaining competitive balance is important. 

There is also something undesirable to me about using “ringers”. They seem to be in a different place in life than the rest of the students…they arent still trying to prove themselves. The purpose of school is to teach (including athletics), but they dont seem to need teaching. 

Im not sure I have an issue with GR’s specific hypothetical, but at some point the line is crossed. And its not really about age for me. Id certainly let someone play who joined the military out of school and spent 4 or more years serving before going to college.

[SamuelMcF]

Taking GR’s hypothetical one more step….suppose the student spent 10 years as a star in the NBA and retired because he wanted to go to law school (Bill Walton was at SLS when I was). Should he be able to play? What if John McEnroe or Tiger Woods wanted to come back to finish their degree (if they havent)…should they be able to compete?

No and no.

Im not sure I have an issue with GR’s specific hypothetical, but at some point the line is crossed. And its not really about age for me. Id certainly let someone play who joined the military out of school and spent 4 or more years serving before going to college.

LDS kids take 2-year missions before college sports every single year.

Jordan Pratt did a long baseball stint before playing football at Stanford. Tyler Gaffney returned to football after years in the baseball minors. Different sport.

[SamuelMcF]

Taking GR’s hypothetical one more step….suppose the student spent 10 years as a star in the NBA and retired because he wanted to go to law school (Bill Walton was at SLS when I was). Should he be able to play? What if John McEnroe or Tiger Woods wanted to come back to finish their degree (if they havent)…should they be able to compete?

No and no.

Im not sure I have an issue with GR’s specific hypothetical, but at some point the line is crossed. And its not really about age for me. Id certainly let someone play who joined the military out of school and spent 4 or more years serving before going to college.

LDS kids take 2-year missions before college sports every single year.

Jordan Pratt did a long baseball stint before playing football at Stanford. Tyler Gaffney returned to football after years in the baseball minors. Different sport.

[newguy]

i could swear that there was a Stanford women's tennis player who played on the pro tour for a few years before getting injured, returning to the Farm, and petitioning to play NCAA matches again.
does anyone remember her name?

[newguy]

i could swear that there was a Stanford women's tennis player who played on the pro tour for a few years before getting injured, returning to the Farm, and petitioning to play NCAA matches again.
does anyone remember her name?

[CTcard]

Take the following hypothetical: ...

I don't think that hypothetical has anything to do with NIL arrangements. 

It does address eligibility requirements for college sports, which touches upon the issue of amateurism. 
However, it really hinges upon competitive balance. Is an older athlete who has already competed professionally in the same sport likely to tip that balance overly far. My own guess is no, and the NCAA should drop that prohibition - but it isn't clear to me and there are clearly issues here.

[CTcard]

Take the following hypothetical: ...

I don't think that hypothetical has anything to do with NIL arrangements. 

It does address eligibility requirements for college sports, which touches upon the issue of amateurism. 
However, it really hinges upon competitive balance. Is an older athlete who has already competed professionally in the same sport likely to tip that balance overly far. My own guess is no, and the NCAA should drop that prohibition - but it isn't clear to me and there are clearly issues here.

[Phogge]

Not McEnroe or Tiger because they are azzholes.

I'm all for McCaffrey coming back for senior season.

[Phogge]

Not McEnroe or Tiger because they are azzholes.

I'm all for McCaffrey coming back for senior season.

[Genuine Realist]

Take the following hypothetical: ...

I don't think that hypothetical has anything to do with NIL arrangements. 

It does address eligibility requirements for college sports, which touches upon the issue of amateurism. 
However, it really hinges upon competitive balance. Is an older athlete who has already competed professionally in the same sport likely to tip that balance overly far. My own guess is no, and the NCAA should drop that prohibition - but it isn't clear to me and there are clearly issues here.

Most of the posts on NIL assume it's a cover for direct compensation from boosters. A hypothetical that addresses compensation directly seems appropriate.

I don't understand the language about 'competitive balance'. All star players affect competitive balance. One kid could be drafted but accepts a scholarship because his family thinks the G-League is a bad deal (they're right). Another of comparable skill turns pro, figures out it's a bad deal, and enrolls in school. The one plays as a junior, the other tries out for the squad as a freshman. There's no difference.

You don't stop a kid from playing because he's too good. That makes no sense.

[Genuine Realist]

Take the following hypothetical: ...

I don't think that hypothetical has anything to do with NIL arrangements. 

It does address eligibility requirements for college sports, which touches upon the issue of amateurism. 
However, it really hinges upon competitive balance. Is an older athlete who has already competed professionally in the same sport likely to tip that balance overly far. My own guess is no, and the NCAA should drop that prohibition - but it isn't clear to me and there are clearly issues here.

Most of the posts on NIL assume it's a cover for direct compensation from boosters. A hypothetical that addresses compensation directly seems appropriate.

I don't understand the language about 'competitive balance'. All star players affect competitive balance. One kid could be drafted but accepts a scholarship because his family thinks the G-League is a bad deal (they're right). Another of comparable skill turns pro, figures out it's a bad deal, and enrolls in school. The one plays as a junior, the other tries out for the squad as a freshman. There's no difference.

You don't stop a kid from playing because he's too good. That makes no sense.

[DC 86]

One kid could be drafted but accepts a scholarship because his family thinks the G-League is a bad deal (they're right). Another of comparable skill turns pro, figures out it's a bad deal, and enrolls in school.

What makes G-League a bad deal?

[DC 86]

One kid could be drafted but accepts a scholarship because his family thinks the G-League is a bad deal (they're right). Another of comparable skill turns pro, figures out it's a bad deal, and enrolls in school.

What makes G-League a bad deal?

[TreesAndBirds]

Per GR…“You don't stop a kid from playing because he's too good. That makes no sense.”

That probably depends on what you think the purpose of college athletics is, or maybe your definition of “kid”, which I will read to mean “student”. 

I dont think that major league pro athletes who dont finish college, end their pro career and decide to go back to school, should be eligible to participate in college athletics in the same sport. My reasoning is that (1) part of the college athletic experience is to learn, and theyve likely done their learning in that sport, (2) I dont want college recruiting further perverted with universities competing to attract retiring pros  who have collegiate eligibility left and (3) I dont want 18 year olds to have to compete against accomplished, successful 28 year olds. All of the above would make college sports less meaningful and entertaining for me. I acknowledge that if the main goal is to field the best possible team, then let the best players play. But thats not my goal. 

GR posed a scenario where the “kid” was still college age and wasnt a star in the pros. That is a more sympathetic example. But I didnt see where the line was being drawn, or whether there was going to be a line. 

So Im not suggesting that we “ stop a kid from playing because he’s too good”, Im suggesting that we need limits on who should be playing college athletics, and I didnt see any being proposed once pros are allowed to play a college sport in the same sport they were a pro. So was just taking it to the logical extreme. 

One possible limit…you can play college athletics if youve played in the minor leagues, or in a development league, but not if youve had a career in the majors.

[TreesAndBirds]

Per GR…“You don't stop a kid from playing because he's too good. That makes no sense.”

That probably depends on what you think the purpose of college athletics is, or maybe your definition of “kid”, which I will read to mean “student”. 

I dont think that major league pro athletes who dont finish college, end their pro career and decide to go back to school, should be eligible to participate in college athletics in the same sport. My reasoning is that (1) part of the college athletic experience is to learn, and theyve likely done their learning in that sport, (2) I dont want college recruiting further perverted with universities competing to attract retiring pros  who have collegiate eligibility left and (3) I dont want 18 year olds to have to compete against accomplished, successful 28 year olds. All of the above would make college sports less meaningful and entertaining for me. I acknowledge that if the main goal is to field the best possible team, then let the best players play. But thats not my goal. 

GR posed a scenario where the “kid” was still college age and wasnt a star in the pros. That is a more sympathetic example. But I didnt see where the line was being drawn, or whether there was going to be a line. 

So Im not suggesting that we “ stop a kid from playing because he’s too good”, Im suggesting that we need limits on who should be playing college athletics, and I didnt see any being proposed once pros are allowed to play a college sport in the same sport they were a pro. So was just taking it to the logical extreme. 

One possible limit…you can play college athletics if youve played in the minor leagues, or in a development league, but not if youve had a career in the majors.