[Bampa]

This whole mess is a potent reminder about how much damage to college sports has been done by the NIL and portal nonsense. Way to turn undergraduate sports into an industry, with athletes rented as mercenaries and team loyalry becoming a charade. Whoever is responsible for this pathetic mess should be pilloried and ostracized.

   + 1000

[Bampa]

This whole mess is a potent reminder about how much damage to college sports has been done by the NIL and portal nonsense. Way to turn undergraduate sports into an industry, with athletes rented as mercenaries and team loyalry becoming a charade. Whoever is responsible for this pathetic mess should be pilloried and ostracized.

   + 1000

[jacket3ree]

On the other hand, college athletes as essentially indentured servants, unable to work freely, compensated only by scholarships, room, and board while making industries worth billions possible, may not have been the best system either.

[jacket3ree]

On the other hand, college athletes as essentially indentured servants, unable to work freely, compensated only by scholarships, room, and board while making industries worth billions possible, may not have been the best system either.

[WBB fan]

I don't know what the best system is, but what we have now isn't it. Also, see my comment in the WBB recruiting thread. There are more ways the current system is a problem that people are discussing.

[WBB fan]

I don't know what the best system is, but what we have now isn't it. Also, see my comment in the WBB recruiting thread. There are more ways the current system is a problem that people are discussing.

[dabigv13]

Indentured servitude? No one is forcing her to play basketball for Stanford. If she wanted to make money playing ball, no one stopping her from going overseas.

Yes, it's a money making industry. But the majority of their value clearly derives from their status as college athletes, if a good NCAAW player is making 7x average WNBA salary.

Maybe the answer is to give the athletes some flat percentage of TV revenues. But the unregulated NIL market I do think will eventually kill the golden goose for the "revenue sports" as the players are more and more seen to be professional athletes/mercenaries.

[dabigv13]

Indentured servitude? No one is forcing her to play basketball for Stanford. If she wanted to make money playing ball, no one stopping her from going overseas.

Yes, it's a money making industry. But the majority of their value clearly derives from their status as college athletes, if a good NCAAW player is making 7x average WNBA salary.

Maybe the answer is to give the athletes some flat percentage of TV revenues. But the unregulated NIL market I do think will eventually kill the golden goose for the "revenue sports" as the players are more and more seen to be professional athletes/mercenaries.

[BostonCard]

On the other hand, college athletes as essentially indentured servants, unable to work freely, compensated only by scholarships, room, and board while making industries worth billions possible, may not have been the best system either.

What is true of someone like Iriafen, is true of an anonymous field hockey player or men's volleyball player or rower or the vast majority of NCAA athletes who toil in anonymity, have no prospects of earning NIL, and who work no less hard.  They just happened to pick a sport that doesn't attract millions of viewers for their final match.  And yet, thousands of such athletes seem to believe that getting to play a sport they love at a high level, and having it pay for an education is actually a good deal.  Hell, the next tier of athletes essentially are happy playing for nothing more than a little bit of a an advantage in getting into a prestigious university (eg Ivy League athletes) and even less prestigious institutions (pretty much any D3 athlete). It is a credit to most athletes that instances of players leveraging their athletics to get into a University and the dropping their sport once they are there are pretty rare.

It is reasonable to chafe at the fact that athletics departments are bringing in millions of dollars from some very profitable sports (in descending order, football, men's basketball, women's basketball).  The NCAA and the college presidents and ADs, at pretty much every turn, offered for more money at the expense of athletes welfare (more games, at less convenient times, with more travel, most recently seen with conference realignment, which was 100% about bringing in more money to the AD and 0% about improving athlete welfare) enriching themselves and the coaches, expanding their fiefdom and bureaucracy without the athletes seeing a dime (and, in the name of "amateurism" ripping the athletes off of their names, images, and likeness, as the O'Bannon case demonstrated) and now they are reaping what the sowed.  I have no sympathy for the schools or the NCAA.

But the solution is not to throw ones hands up and say f- it, collegiate athletics is a professional league, have fun y'all, and forget about the fact that at their core, they are still supposed to be students, and that the reason they are playing their sport for a university (as opposed to just playing professionally or at a junior league, as is standard in Europe) is that they are pursuing a degree while playing a sport.

I'm just waiting for the lawsuit that challenges NCAA eligibility rules as age discrimination, and even the requirements that athletes be students as a restraint on trade.  Since every move to date has prejudiced the student part of a student athlete, at least it would be more intellectually honest if we cleaved the student part off and just made them full-time employees of the University.

BC

[BostonCard]

On the other hand, college athletes as essentially indentured servants, unable to work freely, compensated only by scholarships, room, and board while making industries worth billions possible, may not have been the best system either.

What is true of someone like Iriafen, is true of an anonymous field hockey player or men's volleyball player or rower or the vast majority of NCAA athletes who toil in anonymity, have no prospects of earning NIL, and who work no less hard.  They just happened to pick a sport that doesn't attract millions of viewers for their final match.  And yet, thousands of such athletes seem to believe that getting to play a sport they love at a high level, and having it pay for an education is actually a good deal.  Hell, the next tier of athletes essentially are happy playing for nothing more than a little bit of a an advantage in getting into a prestigious university (eg Ivy League athletes) and even less prestigious institutions (pretty much any D3 athlete). It is a credit to most athletes that instances of players leveraging their athletics to get into a University and the dropping their sport once they are there are pretty rare.

It is reasonable to chafe at the fact that athletics departments are bringing in millions of dollars from some very profitable sports (in descending order, football, men's basketball, women's basketball).  The NCAA and the college presidents and ADs, at pretty much every turn, offered for more money at the expense of athletes welfare (more games, at less convenient times, with more travel, most recently seen with conference realignment, which was 100% about bringing in more money to the AD and 0% about improving athlete welfare) enriching themselves and the coaches, expanding their fiefdom and bureaucracy without the athletes seeing a dime (and, in the name of "amateurism" ripping the athletes off of their names, images, and likeness, as the O'Bannon case demonstrated) and now they are reaping what the sowed.  I have no sympathy for the schools or the NCAA.

But the solution is not to throw ones hands up and say f- it, collegiate athletics is a professional league, have fun y'all, and forget about the fact that at their core, they are still supposed to be students, and that the reason they are playing their sport for a university (as opposed to just playing professionally or at a junior league, as is standard in Europe) is that they are pursuing a degree while playing a sport.

I'm just waiting for the lawsuit that challenges NCAA eligibility rules as age discrimination, and even the requirements that athletes be students as a restraint on trade.  Since every move to date has prejudiced the student part of a student athlete, at least it would be more intellectually honest if we cleaved the student part off and just made them full-time employees of the University.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

This whole mess is a potent reminder about how much damage to college sports has been done by the NIL and portal nonsense. Way to turn undergraduate sports into an industry, with athletes rented as mercenaries and team loyalry becoming a charade. Whoever is responsible for this pathetic mess should be pilloried and ostracized.

In terms of popularity, college sports overall (including women's sports) has never been as big as it is now.

The athletes are doing better than ever. More teams in D1 in the most popular sports, more opportunity for a college scholarship, more money for the athletes. Athletes have access to the best coaching, nutrition, strength and conditioning, medical care. College graduation rate for athletes is at a record high according to the NCAA. https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/12/6/medi...highs.aspx

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.

It has not been a good thing for me as a Stanford fan and likely you as well. It's frustrating to watch and cheer for Stanford athletes, some of whom become All Americans and national champions, who then leave for other schools. This has happened in sports across the board - football, baseball, wrestling, swimming, basketball.

It has not been a good thing for coaches. Their absolute power is eroding. Their role as teacher is shrinking. They have to recruit practically their entire roster all over every season. As Tara said in her retirement press conference, it's an exhausting, 24x7 job.

And all of this may come crashing down soon if Athletic Departments start axing sports left and right because of financial pressure.

But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

[Spiny_Norman]

This whole mess is a potent reminder about how much damage to college sports has been done by the NIL and portal nonsense. Way to turn undergraduate sports into an industry, with athletes rented as mercenaries and team loyalry becoming a charade. Whoever is responsible for this pathetic mess should be pilloried and ostracized.

In terms of popularity, college sports overall (including women's sports) has never been as big as it is now.

The athletes are doing better than ever. More teams in D1 in the most popular sports, more opportunity for a college scholarship, more money for the athletes. Athletes have access to the best coaching, nutrition, strength and conditioning, medical care. College graduation rate for athletes is at a record high according to the NCAA. https://www.ncaa.org/news/2023/12/6/medi...highs.aspx

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.

It has not been a good thing for me as a Stanford fan and likely you as well. It's frustrating to watch and cheer for Stanford athletes, some of whom become All Americans and national champions, who then leave for other schools. This has happened in sports across the board - football, baseball, wrestling, swimming, basketball.

It has not been a good thing for coaches. Their absolute power is eroding. Their role as teacher is shrinking. They have to recruit practically their entire roster all over every season. As Tara said in her retirement press conference, it's an exhausting, 24x7 job.

And all of this may come crashing down soon if Athletic Departments start axing sports left and right because of financial pressure.

But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

[M T]

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.
...
But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.  Whether it is monopolies, oligarchs, mobsters, or pimps, there is always someone who is profiting.  Some of those see the drug trade as a good thing.   The fact that there are some who see the current situation in college sports as a good thing for them doesn't make it a good thing.

As for your associating (your asserted) changes in certain stats (GSR, medical care, etc) with NIL, you could just as well have asserted that increased college suicides is associated with NIL. NIL is simply too new to have influenced either set of facts.

I would also argue against your claim "The athletes are doing better than ever.",  I would support a statement such as "Some athletes are doing better than ever.  The Haves are having more."   I believe the other shoe hasn't dropped yet.

I'm sure you're aware of the statement "Fewer than 2% of NCAA student-athletes go on to be professional athletes."  There are over 500,000 NCAA student-athletes per year.  How many are getting benefits of NIL, at least more than, say, 1% of their tuition?   If universities start dropping all sports other than FB & Basketball, except those women who balance out the 100-man football rosters, will this be the domino that causes cash-pressed high schools to reduce their sports (since they no longer serve to benefit college entrance)?  I can't say that it will, but others can't say that it won't.

It is appalling to think of Bernard Muir being considered a visionary for his role when Stanford cut 11 sports.

[M T]

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.
...
But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.  Whether it is monopolies, oligarchs, mobsters, or pimps, there is always someone who is profiting.  Some of those see the drug trade as a good thing.   The fact that there are some who see the current situation in college sports as a good thing for them doesn't make it a good thing.

As for your associating (your asserted) changes in certain stats (GSR, medical care, etc) with NIL, you could just as well have asserted that increased college suicides is associated with NIL. NIL is simply too new to have influenced either set of facts.

I would also argue against your claim "The athletes are doing better than ever.",  I would support a statement such as "Some athletes are doing better than ever.  The Haves are having more."   I believe the other shoe hasn't dropped yet.

I'm sure you're aware of the statement "Fewer than 2% of NCAA student-athletes go on to be professional athletes."  There are over 500,000 NCAA student-athletes per year.  How many are getting benefits of NIL, at least more than, say, 1% of their tuition?   If universities start dropping all sports other than FB & Basketball, except those women who balance out the 100-man football rosters, will this be the domino that causes cash-pressed high schools to reduce their sports (since they no longer serve to benefit college entrance)?  I can't say that it will, but others can't say that it won't.

It is appalling to think of Bernard Muir being considered a visionary for his role when Stanford cut 11 sports.

[Nobadeer]

Unless Iriafen does a Reynaud and ends up staying on the Farm, there's about 32 ppg and 15 rpg on the current 2024-25 roster. LSJU needs at least a couple of the returning players to make a year-to-year improvement like Iriafen just showed!

[Nobadeer]

Unless Iriafen does a Reynaud and ends up staying on the Farm, there's about 32 ppg and 15 rpg on the current 2024-25 roster. LSJU needs at least a couple of the returning players to make a year-to-year improvement like Iriafen just showed!

[BillBradley]

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.
...
But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.  Whether it is monopolies, oligarchs, mobsters, or pimps, there is always someone who is profiting.  Some of those see the drug trade as a good thing.   The fact that there are some who see the current situation in college sports as a good thing for them doesn't make it a good thing.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.

I agree with Spiny's post.

Many folks on this board just can't get over it. They will never come to terms with the fact that football and basketball got too big and outgrew the old world of the college scholarship. It lasted for half a decade, and served us well, but that model needed to change. The vast majority of the people on this board who continue to gripe about the college sports world coming to an end did not play D1 football or basketball in the 21st century. They don't know what it's like, so it allows them to think like it's the old days. If they did actually play D1 football or basketball in the 21st century, they would think way differently about the problem space. 

NIL and the Transfer Portal are to the benefit of those who actually play the sport. It's not about you, the fan. Or you, the principled academic. Or you, the attorney who wants to find fault. Or you, the grandpa who says "I remember when Rick Barry said he would play for free". It's about the athletes themselves, and they now have options. I wholeheartedly support that.

Also, it was almost exactly a year ago when we all learned that Betts was transferring. Here's the thread: https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=24154. Fascinating to read what was posted back then about NIL and the transfer portal.

[BillBradley]

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.
...
But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.  Whether it is monopolies, oligarchs, mobsters, or pimps, there is always someone who is profiting.  Some of those see the drug trade as a good thing.   The fact that there are some who see the current situation in college sports as a good thing for them doesn't make it a good thing.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.

I agree with Spiny's post.

Many folks on this board just can't get over it. They will never come to terms with the fact that football and basketball got too big and outgrew the old world of the college scholarship. It lasted for half a decade, and served us well, but that model needed to change. The vast majority of the people on this board who continue to gripe about the college sports world coming to an end did not play D1 football or basketball in the 21st century. They don't know what it's like, so it allows them to think like it's the old days. If they did actually play D1 football or basketball in the 21st century, they would think way differently about the problem space. 

NIL and the Transfer Portal are to the benefit of those who actually play the sport. It's not about you, the fan. Or you, the principled academic. Or you, the attorney who wants to find fault. Or you, the grandpa who says "I remember when Rick Barry said he would play for free". It's about the athletes themselves, and they now have options. I wholeheartedly support that.

Also, it was almost exactly a year ago when we all learned that Betts was transferring. Here's the thread: https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=24154. Fascinating to read what was posted back then about NIL and the transfer portal.

[cardcrimson]

IMO, that statement is rather silly.

I agree with Spiny's post.

Many folks on this board just can't get over it. They will never come to terms with the fact that football and basketball got too big and outgrew the old world of the college scholarship.

So, I guess you'd have to include Nick Saban and probably Tara with those who can't come to terms with the new world of college scholarship, right? Saban was pretty vocal about it; I guess he's rather silly, too. .. .

[cardcrimson]

IMO, that statement is rather silly.

I agree with Spiny's post.

Many folks on this board just can't get over it. They will never come to terms with the fact that football and basketball got too big and outgrew the old world of the college scholarship.

So, I guess you'd have to include Nick Saban and probably Tara with those who can't come to terms with the new world of college scholarship, right? Saban was pretty vocal about it; I guess he's rather silly, too. .. .

[dabigv13]

NIL and the Transfer Portal are to the benefit of those who actually play the sport. It's not about you, the fan. Or you, the principled academic. Or you, the attorney who wants to find fault. Or you, the grandpa who says "I remember when Rick Barry said he would play for free". It's about the athletes themselves, and they now have options. I wholeheartedly support that.

Not for long they won't, because most of their sports will probably get axed soon.

[dabigv13]

NIL and the Transfer Portal are to the benefit of those who actually play the sport. It's not about you, the fan. Or you, the principled academic. Or you, the attorney who wants to find fault. Or you, the grandpa who says "I remember when Rick Barry said he would play for free". It's about the athletes themselves, and they now have options. I wholeheartedly support that.

Not for long they won't, because most of their sports will probably get axed soon.

[chrisk]

NIL and the Transfer Portal are to the benefit of those who actually play the sport. It's not about you, the fan. Or you, the principled academic. Or you, the attorney who wants to find fault. Or you, the grandpa who says "I remember when Rick Barry said he would play for free". It's about the athletes themselves, and they now have options. I wholeheartedly support that.

Not for long they won't, because most of their sports will probably get axed soon.

I don’t think it is written in stone that Stanford would go first to axing entire sports to save money in the AD.

There are bigger pots of money that can be pruned in football and basketball. Within ten years or less, there should be a viable off ramp to the rapid acceleration in costs in those sports.

With the coaching changeover in the 3 top spending teams, there should be quite a bit of savings for the next few years.

[chrisk]

NIL and the Transfer Portal are to the benefit of those who actually play the sport. It's not about you, the fan. Or you, the principled academic. Or you, the attorney who wants to find fault. Or you, the grandpa who says "I remember when Rick Barry said he would play for free". It's about the athletes themselves, and they now have options. I wholeheartedly support that.

Not for long they won't, because most of their sports will probably get axed soon.

I don’t think it is written in stone that Stanford would go first to axing entire sports to save money in the AD.

There are bigger pots of money that can be pruned in football and basketball. Within ten years or less, there should be a viable off ramp to the rapid acceleration in costs in those sports.

With the coaching changeover in the 3 top spending teams, there should be quite a bit of savings for the next few years.

[spike5882]

I'm not quite sure how the transfer portal works.  Why would any school that wants her not contact her?  Throw enough money her way and maybe she'll change her mind.  Why would she specify "no contact" if $$$$ is what she seeks?

Here's hoping Iriafen has a grad school acceptance letter from a school in her field that has a really good team, but that she is waiting on a decision by some Stanford graduate department.

I like Baez87's thoughts about waiting to see Stanford commits.

This whole mess is a potent reminder about how much damage to college sports has been done by the NIL and portal nonsense. Way to turn undergraduate sports into an industry, with athletes rented as mercenaries and team loyalry becoming a charade. Whoever is responsible for this pathetic mess should be pilloried and ostracized.

In this instance though, she is no longer an undergrad.  She completed her degree at Stanford. So, now, it’s time for her to choose her next step in life.  I hope that includes one more season on the farm, but at the end of the day she should choose the path that suits her best — not what suits other people or the team the best.  She already fulfilled her time as an undergrad with the team.

[spike5882]

I'm not quite sure how the transfer portal works.  Why would any school that wants her not contact her?  Throw enough money her way and maybe she'll change her mind.  Why would she specify "no contact" if $$$$ is what she seeks?

Here's hoping Iriafen has a grad school acceptance letter from a school in her field that has a really good team, but that she is waiting on a decision by some Stanford graduate department.

I like Baez87's thoughts about waiting to see Stanford commits.

This whole mess is a potent reminder about how much damage to college sports has been done by the NIL and portal nonsense. Way to turn undergraduate sports into an industry, with athletes rented as mercenaries and team loyalry becoming a charade. Whoever is responsible for this pathetic mess should be pilloried and ostracized.

In this instance though, she is no longer an undergrad.  She completed her degree at Stanford. So, now, it’s time for her to choose her next step in life.  I hope that includes one more season on the farm, but at the end of the day she should choose the path that suits her best — not what suits other people or the team the best.  She already fulfilled her time as an undergrad with the team.

[Goose]

They will never come to terms with the fact that football and basketball got too big and outgrew the old world of the college scholarship. It lasted for half a decade, and served us well, but that model needed to change.

This statement is factually incorrect. College football scholarships existed in 1906 when the NCAA was founded. At that time schools could grant as many scholarships as they wished (and could pay for). The only requirement was that the player actually be a student at the institution for which he played. Over the years, additional requirements were added. See https://www.aseaofblue.com/2013/6/11/440...holarships. This model therefore served "well" (more or less) for not half a decade, but well over a century! Obviously that doesn't mean it is still fit for purpose, but the duration needs to be accurate. This model was repeatedly "tweaked" but always was based on the idea that players were amateurs, students first, and didn't get paid to play. The NCAA tried to enforce rules to prevent deviation from this basis. Despite the fact the legal decision was about name, image, and likeness (not playing sports) NIL has morphed college football and basketball into professional sports. If there was any remaining doubt, consider
 https://theathletic.com/5408966/2024/04/...rId=701188
(paywall unfortunately).  tOSU just bought themselves a team, plain and simple. The coach in no way is trying to hide that fact.

The vast majority of the people on this board who continue to gripe about the college sports world coming to an end did not play D1 football or basketball in the 21st century. They don't know what it's like, so it allows them to think like it's the old days. If they did actually play D1 football or basketball in the 21st century, they would think way differently about the problem space. 

NIL and the Transfer Portal are to the benefit of those who actually play the sport. It's not about you, the fan. Or you, the principled academic. Or you, the attorney who wants to find fault. Or you, the grandpa who says "I remember when Rick Barry said he would play for free". It's about the athletes themselves, and they now have options. I wholeheartedly support that.

The vast, vast, vast majority of the fans, both "then" and "now", did not play D1 (or Danything) sports in any century. You wholeheartedly support the fact that college sports are no longer amateur. Fine, that is your right. It would arguably be foolish for an athlete who can make "NIL money" to not do so. To what extent NIL will influence the athlete's educational choices is also their choice. However, many fans do not agree that their university should have professional sports team. These fans believe that isn't an appropriate use of the universities NIL. These fans root for the laundry because the players are "one of us" in some sense and for the ideal it supposedly represents. As that becomes impossible to believe, they will lose interest. I am one of those fans.

I follow the 49ers, the Giants and the Warriors, but I have no illusions that they are in any way aligned with my values or "represent" me at all. I am not emotionally "attached" to them. Stanford athletics in the past at least supported the illusion (if not the fact) that the players were students as I had been and represented Stanford in some way. It wasn't "just a job" that most of them can't expect to do for more than four years. Maybe the majority of college sports fans treat the game like a professional sport already and the fact it is  now officially the case doesn't matter. We shall see.

The ultimate result for "the athletes themselves" is TBD.  IMO it will be a net loss for most. The schools with the most money to spend will gobble up the vast majority of the "good" athletes. Most schools will soon realize they can't compete even if the get lucky (or are "smart"). Their "star" players will all leave for better offers. I don't think even "die hard" fans will put up with that. I don't see a way ahead that doesn't leave some big winners and the rest as net losers. Again, we shall see.

[Goose]

They will never come to terms with the fact that football and basketball got too big and outgrew the old world of the college scholarship. It lasted for half a decade, and served us well, but that model needed to change.

This statement is factually incorrect. College football scholarships existed in 1906 when the NCAA was founded. At that time schools could grant as many scholarships as they wished (and could pay for). The only requirement was that the player actually be a student at the institution for which he played. Over the years, additional requirements were added. See https://www.aseaofblue.com/2013/6/11/440...holarships. This model therefore served "well" (more or less) for not half a decade, but well over a century! Obviously that doesn't mean it is still fit for purpose, but the duration needs to be accurate. This model was repeatedly "tweaked" but always was based on the idea that players were amateurs, students first, and didn't get paid to play. The NCAA tried to enforce rules to prevent deviation from this basis. Despite the fact the legal decision was about name, image, and likeness (not playing sports) NIL has morphed college football and basketball into professional sports. If there was any remaining doubt, consider
 https://theathletic.com/5408966/2024/04/...rId=701188
(paywall unfortunately).  tOSU just bought themselves a team, plain and simple. The coach in no way is trying to hide that fact.

The vast majority of the people on this board who continue to gripe about the college sports world coming to an end did not play D1 football or basketball in the 21st century. They don't know what it's like, so it allows them to think like it's the old days. If they did actually play D1 football or basketball in the 21st century, they would think way differently about the problem space. 

NIL and the Transfer Portal are to the benefit of those who actually play the sport. It's not about you, the fan. Or you, the principled academic. Or you, the attorney who wants to find fault. Or you, the grandpa who says "I remember when Rick Barry said he would play for free". It's about the athletes themselves, and they now have options. I wholeheartedly support that.

The vast, vast, vast majority of the fans, both "then" and "now", did not play D1 (or Danything) sports in any century. You wholeheartedly support the fact that college sports are no longer amateur. Fine, that is your right. It would arguably be foolish for an athlete who can make "NIL money" to not do so. To what extent NIL will influence the athlete's educational choices is also their choice. However, many fans do not agree that their university should have professional sports team. These fans believe that isn't an appropriate use of the universities NIL. These fans root for the laundry because the players are "one of us" in some sense and for the ideal it supposedly represents. As that becomes impossible to believe, they will lose interest. I am one of those fans.

I follow the 49ers, the Giants and the Warriors, but I have no illusions that they are in any way aligned with my values or "represent" me at all. I am not emotionally "attached" to them. Stanford athletics in the past at least supported the illusion (if not the fact) that the players were students as I had been and represented Stanford in some way. It wasn't "just a job" that most of them can't expect to do for more than four years. Maybe the majority of college sports fans treat the game like a professional sport already and the fact it is  now officially the case doesn't matter. We shall see.

The ultimate result for "the athletes themselves" is TBD.  IMO it will be a net loss for most. The schools with the most money to spend will gobble up the vast majority of the "good" athletes. Most schools will soon realize they can't compete even if the get lucky (or are "smart"). Their "star" players will all leave for better offers. I don't think even "die hard" fans will put up with that. I don't see a way ahead that doesn't leave some big winners and the rest as net losers. Again, we shall see.

[BillBradley]

IMO, that statement is rather silly.

I agree with Spiny's post.

Many folks on this board just can't get over it. They will never come to terms with the fact that football and basketball got too big and outgrew the old world of the college scholarship.

So, I guess you'd have to include Nick Saban and probably Tara with those who can't come to terms with the new world of college scholarship, right? Saban was pretty vocal about it; I guess he's rather silly, too. .. .

Oh, for sure. The old guard had the rug ripped out from under them. The rules that were in place before (being overly dramatic to make my point: "I've got you now. You can't go anywhere") are not there anymore. Leverage has shifted. They definitely aren't silly for moving on.

@Goose. Thanks for correcting the half decade reference. 

All of the doomsday posts posts about value-alignment, and legalities ("let's just call them employees"), corruption, etc. etc. Not wanting to offend anyone here, but I just think it's whining because things have been disrupted and people don't like it. I really think it's the core of the issue - some folks don't think athletes should be compensated and don't think they should be able to transfer schools to seek out better alternatives. Over 1000 (!) womens basketball players are in the portal. Kiki is being offered $750K (unverified, I know, but I believe that's in the ballpark) to go play somewhere else. There are so many good things that have come from these changes, especially for women. And they still have choice - stay at the same school and get their degree if they want! No one is forcing anyone to transfer...

[BillBradley]

IMO, that statement is rather silly.

I agree with Spiny's post.

Many folks on this board just can't get over it. They will never come to terms with the fact that football and basketball got too big and outgrew the old world of the college scholarship.

So, I guess you'd have to include Nick Saban and probably Tara with those who can't come to terms with the new world of college scholarship, right? Saban was pretty vocal about it; I guess he's rather silly, too. .. .

Oh, for sure. The old guard had the rug ripped out from under them. The rules that were in place before (being overly dramatic to make my point: "I've got you now. You can't go anywhere") are not there anymore. Leverage has shifted. They definitely aren't silly for moving on.

@Goose. Thanks for correcting the half decade reference. 

All of the doomsday posts posts about value-alignment, and legalities ("let's just call them employees"), corruption, etc. etc. Not wanting to offend anyone here, but I just think it's whining because things have been disrupted and people don't like it. I really think it's the core of the issue - some folks don't think athletes should be compensated and don't think they should be able to transfer schools to seek out better alternatives. Over 1000 (!) womens basketball players are in the portal. Kiki is being offered $750K (unverified, I know, but I believe that's in the ballpark) to go play somewhere else. There are so many good things that have come from these changes, especially for women. And they still have choice - stay at the same school and get their degree if they want! No one is forcing anyone to transfer...

[Mick]

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.
...
But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.  Whether it is monopolies, oligarchs, mobsters, or pimps, there is always someone who is profiting.  Some of those see the drug trade as a good thing.   The fact that there are some who see the current situation in college sports as a good thing for them doesn't make it a good thing.

As for your associating (your asserted) changes in certain stats (GSR, medical care, etc) with NIL, you could just as well have asserted that increased college suicides is associated with NIL.  NIL is simply too new to have influenced either set of facts.

I would also argue against your claim "The athletes are doing better than ever.",  I would support a statement such as "Some athletes are doing better than ever.  The Haves are having more."   I believe the other shoe hasn't dropped yet.

I'm sure you're aware of the statement "Fewer than 2% of NCAA student-athletes go on to be professional athletes."  There are over 500,000 NCAA student-athletes per year.  How many are getting benefits of NIL, at least more than, say, 1% of their tuition?   If universities start dropping all sports other than FB & Basketball, except those women who balance out the 100-man football rosters, will this be the domino that causes cash-pressed high schools to reduce their sports (since they no longer serve to benefit college entrance)?  I can't say that it will, but others can't say that it won't.

It is appalling to think of Bernard Muir being considered a visionary for his role when Stanford cut 11 sports.

I'm not so sure that would be a bad thing. I've always liked sports at every level. I played sports during every season in high school, more to get out of the house than anything else...but if I could go back in time and squeeze some sense into the thick skull of my younger self, I'd tell him to play one sport (not four), stay in shape, study harder and work more outside of school.

I realize that sports help many students get into better colleges, including my sons. At the same time, there are better uses for one's time, particularly in high school. Wish I'd studied harder, played fewer sports and become less adept at auto maintenance (I didn't take auto shop, my best friend and I spent way too much time tearing apart and repairing our cars).

[Mick]

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.
...
But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.  Whether it is monopolies, oligarchs, mobsters, or pimps, there is always someone who is profiting.  Some of those see the drug trade as a good thing.   The fact that there are some who see the current situation in college sports as a good thing for them doesn't make it a good thing.

As for your associating (your asserted) changes in certain stats (GSR, medical care, etc) with NIL, you could just as well have asserted that increased college suicides is associated with NIL.  NIL is simply too new to have influenced either set of facts.

I would also argue against your claim "The athletes are doing better than ever.",  I would support a statement such as "Some athletes are doing better than ever.  The Haves are having more."   I believe the other shoe hasn't dropped yet.

I'm sure you're aware of the statement "Fewer than 2% of NCAA student-athletes go on to be professional athletes."  There are over 500,000 NCAA student-athletes per year.  How many are getting benefits of NIL, at least more than, say, 1% of their tuition?   If universities start dropping all sports other than FB & Basketball, except those women who balance out the 100-man football rosters, will this be the domino that causes cash-pressed high schools to reduce their sports (since they no longer serve to benefit college entrance)?  I can't say that it will, but others can't say that it won't.

It is appalling to think of Bernard Muir being considered a visionary for his role when Stanford cut 11 sports.

I'm not so sure that would be a bad thing. I've always liked sports at every level. I played sports during every season in high school, more to get out of the house than anything else...but if I could go back in time and squeeze some sense into the thick skull of my younger self, I'd tell him to play one sport (not four), stay in shape, study harder and work more outside of school.

I realize that sports help many students get into better colleges, including my sons. At the same time, there are better uses for one's time, particularly in high school. Wish I'd studied harder, played fewer sports and become less adept at auto maintenance (I didn't take auto shop, my best friend and I spent way too much time tearing apart and repairing our cars).

[Goose]

All of the doomsday posts posts about value-alignment, and legalities ("let's just call them employees"), corruption, etc. etc. Not wanting to offend anyone here, but I just think it's whining because things have been disrupted and people don't like it.
I really think it's the core of the issue - some folks don't think athletes should be compensated and don't think they should be able to transfer schools to seek out better alternatives.

Well OK, you believe that people don't like it because it is a "change" in the status quo ante and also because they don't think athletes should be compensated. I think you are wrong about the first, because I believe most people believe athletes should be able to transfer to any other university without athletic penalties attached. I do believe you are mostly correct about the latter, because "compensating" student-athletes at a high level removes them from the ranks of amateur athletics. That's fine too. Nothing wrong with being a professional athlete. When Tiger left and turned pro, it was with the blessing of the golf coach. However, what ISN'T fine for many of us (IMO) is Stanford University running a professional sports franchise under the guise the athletes are "students". That just isn't a "legitimate" function of a university. That is a change and a substantial one. It appears you are fine with that change and believe it is a "good thing". I do not. I can't credit the argument that the change isn't "material" and substantial however.

Over 1000 (!) womens basketball players are in the portal. Kiki is being offered $750K (unverified, I know, but I believe that's in the ballpark) to go play somewhere else. There are so many good things that have come from these changes, especially for women. And they still have choice - stay at the same school and get their degree if they want! No one is forcing anyone to transfer...

I have no problem with Kiki going somewhere else and making $750,000 by so doing. As I understand it she will already have her degree and there is no particular reason for her to remain at Stanford. There is a very good reason for her to take the $750,000 and not "go pro" because at least at the moment she can't make that kind of money in the WNBA. However, she actually is "going pro" while still pretending to be a student and that is IMO objectionable. It demeans the institution she will attend and that would be equally true if the institution was Stanford. It isn't where you play, it is the conditions under which you play. Up until now, college sports wasn't a "pro" or even a "pro-am" (for those who don't get NIL money). Now it is, and I very much don't like it.  If it remains that way, IMO Stanford should get out of what is now undeniably a business.

[Goose]

All of the doomsday posts posts about value-alignment, and legalities ("let's just call them employees"), corruption, etc. etc. Not wanting to offend anyone here, but I just think it's whining because things have been disrupted and people don't like it.
I really think it's the core of the issue - some folks don't think athletes should be compensated and don't think they should be able to transfer schools to seek out better alternatives.

Well OK, you believe that people don't like it because it is a "change" in the status quo ante and also because they don't think athletes should be compensated. I think you are wrong about the first, because I believe most people believe athletes should be able to transfer to any other university without athletic penalties attached. I do believe you are mostly correct about the latter, because "compensating" student-athletes at a high level removes them from the ranks of amateur athletics. That's fine too. Nothing wrong with being a professional athlete. When Tiger left and turned pro, it was with the blessing of the golf coach. However, what ISN'T fine for many of us (IMO) is Stanford University running a professional sports franchise under the guise the athletes are "students". That just isn't a "legitimate" function of a university. That is a change and a substantial one. It appears you are fine with that change and believe it is a "good thing". I do not. I can't credit the argument that the change isn't "material" and substantial however.

Over 1000 (!) womens basketball players are in the portal. Kiki is being offered $750K (unverified, I know, but I believe that's in the ballpark) to go play somewhere else. There are so many good things that have come from these changes, especially for women. And they still have choice - stay at the same school and get their degree if they want! No one is forcing anyone to transfer...

I have no problem with Kiki going somewhere else and making $750,000 by so doing. As I understand it she will already have her degree and there is no particular reason for her to remain at Stanford. There is a very good reason for her to take the $750,000 and not "go pro" because at least at the moment she can't make that kind of money in the WNBA. However, she actually is "going pro" while still pretending to be a student and that is IMO objectionable. It demeans the institution she will attend and that would be equally true if the institution was Stanford. It isn't where you play, it is the conditions under which you play. Up until now, college sports wasn't a "pro" or even a "pro-am" (for those who don't get NIL money). Now it is, and I very much don't like it.  If it remains that way, IMO Stanford should get out of what is now undeniably a business.

[spike5882]

I agree everybody has their own opinions about the ongoing changes, and all are certainly entitled, too.  I do have a question about your stance that they are no longer students because they are now professional athletes.  I mean this as a legitimate question so that I can try to understand your position. 

In Kiki’s case, she is going to have a degree in design engineering (previously product design).  If she is accepted on academic merits to a grad program at Stanford, or any university for that matter, and she takes the required classes and does well in them to earn a master’s degree in her field while also using her time to play basketball (and receiving money for that part), where in that situation is she not being a student?

From my perspective, she is still continuing to be a student.  What is changing is that the time that she is putting in as an athlete, which is completely separate from her time completing her coursework, is being compensated.  But what I’m lacking to fully comprehend is how that is taking away from the student part of the equation. 

All of the doomsday posts posts about value-alignment, and legalities ("let's just call them employees"), corruption, etc. etc. Not wanting to offend anyone here, but I just think it's whining because things have been disrupted and people don't like it.
I really think it's the core of the issue - some folks don't think athletes should be compensated and don't think they should be able to transfer schools to seek out better alternatives.

Well OK, you believe that people don't like it because it is a "change" in the status quo ante and also because they don't think athletes should be compensated. I think you are wrong about the first, because I believe most people believe athletes should be able to transfer to any other university without athletic penalties attached. I do believe you are mostly correct about the latter, because "compensating" student-athletes at a high level removes them from the ranks of amateur athletics. That's fine too. Nothing wrong with being a professional athlete. When Tiger left and turned pro, it was with the blessing of the golf coach. However, what ISN'T fine for many of us (IMO) is Stanford University running a professional sports franchise under the guise the athletes are "students". That just isn't a "legitimate" function of a university. That is a change and a substantial one. It appears you are fine with that change and believe it is a "good thing". I do not. I can't credit the argument that the change isn't "material" and substantial however.

Over 1000 (!) womens basketball players are in the portal. Kiki is being offered $750K (unverified, I know, but I believe that's in the ballpark) to go play somewhere else. There are so many good things that have come from these changes, especially for women. And they still have choice - stay at the same school and get their degree if they want! No one is forcing anyone to transfer...

I have no problem with Kiki going somewhere else and making $750,000 by so doing. As I understand it she will already have her degree and there is no particular reason for her to remain at Stanford. There is a very good reason for her to take the $750,000 and not "go pro" because at least at the moment she can't make that kind of money in the WNBA. However, she actually is "going pro" while still pretending to be a student and that is IMO objectionable. It demeans the institution she will attend and that would be equally true if the institution was Stanford. It isn't where you play, it is the conditions under which you play. Up until now, college sports wasn't a "pro" or even a "pro-am" (for those who don't get NIL money). Now it is, and I very much don't like it.  If it remains that way, IMO Stanford should get out of what is now undeniably a business.

[spike5882]

I agree everybody has their own opinions about the ongoing changes, and all are certainly entitled, too.  I do have a question about your stance that they are no longer students because they are now professional athletes.  I mean this as a legitimate question so that I can try to understand your position. 

In Kiki’s case, she is going to have a degree in design engineering (previously product design).  If she is accepted on academic merits to a grad program at Stanford, or any university for that matter, and she takes the required classes and does well in them to earn a master’s degree in her field while also using her time to play basketball (and receiving money for that part), where in that situation is she not being a student?

From my perspective, she is still continuing to be a student.  What is changing is that the time that she is putting in as an athlete, which is completely separate from her time completing her coursework, is being compensated.  But what I’m lacking to fully comprehend is how that is taking away from the student part of the equation. 

All of the doomsday posts posts about value-alignment, and legalities ("let's just call them employees"), corruption, etc. etc. Not wanting to offend anyone here, but I just think it's whining because things have been disrupted and people don't like it.
I really think it's the core of the issue - some folks don't think athletes should be compensated and don't think they should be able to transfer schools to seek out better alternatives.

Well OK, you believe that people don't like it because it is a "change" in the status quo ante and also because they don't think athletes should be compensated. I think you are wrong about the first, because I believe most people believe athletes should be able to transfer to any other university without athletic penalties attached. I do believe you are mostly correct about the latter, because "compensating" student-athletes at a high level removes them from the ranks of amateur athletics. That's fine too. Nothing wrong with being a professional athlete. When Tiger left and turned pro, it was with the blessing of the golf coach. However, what ISN'T fine for many of us (IMO) is Stanford University running a professional sports franchise under the guise the athletes are "students". That just isn't a "legitimate" function of a university. That is a change and a substantial one. It appears you are fine with that change and believe it is a "good thing". I do not. I can't credit the argument that the change isn't "material" and substantial however.

Over 1000 (!) womens basketball players are in the portal. Kiki is being offered $750K (unverified, I know, but I believe that's in the ballpark) to go play somewhere else. There are so many good things that have come from these changes, especially for women. And they still have choice - stay at the same school and get their degree if they want! No one is forcing anyone to transfer...

I have no problem with Kiki going somewhere else and making $750,000 by so doing. As I understand it she will already have her degree and there is no particular reason for her to remain at Stanford. There is a very good reason for her to take the $750,000 and not "go pro" because at least at the moment she can't make that kind of money in the WNBA. However, she actually is "going pro" while still pretending to be a student and that is IMO objectionable. It demeans the institution she will attend and that would be equally true if the institution was Stanford. It isn't where you play, it is the conditions under which you play. Up until now, college sports wasn't a "pro" or even a "pro-am" (for those who don't get NIL money). Now it is, and I very much don't like it.  If it remains that way, IMO Stanford should get out of what is now undeniably a business.

[Leftcoast]

This is now the wild, Wild West with athletes negotiating each year for the best deal the following year.  Supposedly Iriafen was fielding offers IN-SEASON from NIL collectives bidding for her final year.

We effectively now allow free-agency and dollar bidding at the end of each season. Even the most mercenary pro leagues and unions are wise enough to not go that road. Crazy! 

And, what tune is the NCAA fiddling as their sports get ravaged?  I suggest “Burn, Baby Burn (Disco Inferno)” because “”Crazy Train” would be tough to play on a violin.

[Leftcoast]

This is now the wild, Wild West with athletes negotiating each year for the best deal the following year.  Supposedly Iriafen was fielding offers IN-SEASON from NIL collectives bidding for her final year.

We effectively now allow free-agency and dollar bidding at the end of each season. Even the most mercenary pro leagues and unions are wise enough to not go that road. Crazy! 

And, what tune is the NCAA fiddling as their sports get ravaged?  I suggest “Burn, Baby Burn (Disco Inferno)” because “”Crazy Train” would be tough to play on a violin.

[Baez87]

All of this will change and get sorted out, not necessarily to the pleasure of us all. But it has happened so quickly that it has not worked out well for all.
There is no loyalty and no integrity in the current system. The current system is horribly unfair to colleges and universities and to their coaches (hey! And what about the fans?). Team development and transition is being sacrificed for a market approach which favors players. A school offers a four year contract to the player. The school can’t and doesn’t release players willy nilly as their usefullness declines. Under the current system, players can opt out of their “contract” each year and leave their school with brobdingnagian recruiting holes in their four-year cycle! How can that be fair? There will be big winners and big losers and no means of arbitration! (We are observing that right before our eyes!) 
We will be left with the wealthy nations and the Banana Republics.
All of this has to change and be sorted out. It benefits the individual and not the team, which is anathema to the sport.

[Baez87]

All of this will change and get sorted out, not necessarily to the pleasure of us all. But it has happened so quickly that it has not worked out well for all.
There is no loyalty and no integrity in the current system. The current system is horribly unfair to colleges and universities and to their coaches (hey! And what about the fans?). Team development and transition is being sacrificed for a market approach which favors players. A school offers a four year contract to the player. The school can’t and doesn’t release players willy nilly as their usefullness declines. Under the current system, players can opt out of their “contract” each year and leave their school with brobdingnagian recruiting holes in their four-year cycle! How can that be fair? There will be big winners and big losers and no means of arbitration! (We are observing that right before our eyes!) 
We will be left with the wealthy nations and the Banana Republics.
All of this has to change and be sorted out. It benefits the individual and not the team, which is anathema to the sport.