The piece was highly biased and directed toward a provocative viewpoint but nonetheless very, very, very compelling.Â
Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force. The look is bad for the NCAA when presented this way - Unpaid atheletes playing in billion dollar stadiums for million dollar salaried coaches and in front of wealthy fans. And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.
Stanford (and Stanford fans) may believe these inequities don't apply to US and OUR athletes get good value for service but if this is headed toward pay for play it won't matter. Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)? My guess is players WILL be compensated in some way, there STILL WON'T be a viable farm league and Stanford will have figured out how we fit into that world. (And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.)Â
Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course. Is Muir up to this task? (I truly don't have enough info to know ... but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)
Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force. The look is bad for the NCAA when presented this way - Unpaid atheletes playing in billion dollar stadiums for million dollar salaried coaches and in front of wealthy fans. And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.
Stanford (and Stanford fans) may believe these inequities don't apply to US and OUR athletes get good value for service but if this is headed toward pay for play it won't matter. Our system and our program could become collateral damage. Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)? My guess is players WILL be compensated in some way, there STILL WON'T be a viable farm league and Stanford will have figured out how we fit into that world. (And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.)Â
Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course. Is Muir up to this task? (I truly don't have enough info to know ... but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.