[2006alum]

I find the idea repulsive and the logic behind it specious. Athletes already get gigantic financial advantages over non athletes at most schools. Figuring out how to pay them further will make that situation much worse. If they are going to be paid, they should be in a minor league, not in an institution of higher education. Of course, that is probably also true even without the change as far as the revenue sports are concerned. As I've said here before, I endorse the baseball model, since it gives players the choice of turning pro or going to college--but not doing both at the same time.

The comparisons with musicians and actors etc. who make money professionally while attending college, are not appropriate--unless we are giving them full ride scholarships to come to university to practice their crafts at Stanford.

At many institutions, this will turn into another source of corruption and become a way to funnel money from boosters to players via retail purchases. It will create inequality between the players. And it nukes whatever remnants are left of the amateur ideal.

If Stanford players start cashing in on big endorsements while they are students, I will rapidly lose interest in their sports. I hope that doesn't happen. Perhaps Newsom will veto this. If he doesn't, perhaps the NCAA will stick to its guns and ostracize California. That will be terrible in many ways, but preferable to destroying amateur athletics. More likely it gets signed and the NCAA finds some mealy compromise that chips a little further at the remnants of amateurism.

It's possible 81 and I feel the same way because we both are the biggest fans of a non-revenue sport (WBB), but I totally share 81's views. To me, the simplest solution would be to let any athlete go pro at any time, no age restrictions, no college attendance requirements. That should obviate any and all complaints about players being deprived of gainful employment. If they think they can make more on the open market than from a free Stanford degree, go right ahead.

I'll say that I've found over the last two seasons that my interest in both college football and men's basketball has been declining surprisingly rapidly, for different reasons (CTE and mental health issues for football, pay-to-play scandals for basketball), and Stanford's relatively poor performance at both hasn't slowed my growing disinterest. Perhaps if this bill gets signed, the chickens will come home to roost even faster. As far as I'm concerned, college campuses are way too oriented around sports, and they're actually a brobdingnagian money-suck for all but a dozen or so institutions, so there's not even that justification. I think everything will resolve itself when conferences have to negotiate post-cord-cutting media rights deals and realize there's about to be way, way less money to go around, but in the mean time, this bill will probably just marginally hasten the descent. So I guess my view is, a bad idea with a silver lining...

[2006alum]

I find the idea repulsive and the logic behind it specious. Athletes already get gigantic financial advantages over non athletes at most schools. Figuring out how to pay them further will make that situation much worse. If they are going to be paid, they should be in a minor league, not in an institution of higher education. Of course, that is probably also true even without the change as far as the revenue sports are concerned. As I've said here before, I endorse the baseball model, since it gives players the choice of turning pro or going to college--but not doing both at the same time.

The comparisons with musicians and actors etc. who make money professionally while attending college, are not appropriate--unless we are giving them full ride scholarships to come to university to practice their crafts at Stanford.

At many institutions, this will turn into another source of corruption and become a way to funnel money from boosters to players via retail purchases. It will create inequality between the players. And it nukes whatever remnants are left of the amateur ideal.

If Stanford players start cashing in on big endorsements while they are students, I will rapidly lose interest in their sports. I hope that doesn't happen. Perhaps Newsom will veto this. If he doesn't, perhaps the NCAA will stick to its guns and ostracize California. That will be terrible in many ways, but preferable to destroying amateur athletics. More likely it gets signed and the NCAA finds some mealy compromise that chips a little further at the remnants of amateurism.

It's possible 81 and I feel the same way because we both are the biggest fans of a non-revenue sport (WBB), but I totally share 81's views. To me, the simplest solution would be to let any athlete go pro at any time, no age restrictions, no college attendance requirements. That should obviate any and all complaints about players being deprived of gainful employment. If they think they can make more on the open market than from a free Stanford degree, go right ahead.

I'll say that I've found over the last two seasons that my interest in both college football and men's basketball has been declining surprisingly rapidly, for different reasons (CTE and mental health issues for football, pay-to-play scandals for basketball), and Stanford's relatively poor performance at both hasn't slowed my growing disinterest. Perhaps if this bill gets signed, the chickens will come home to roost even faster. As far as I'm concerned, college campuses are way too oriented around sports, and they're actually a brobdingnagian money-suck for all but a dozen or so institutions, so there's not even that justification. I think everything will resolve itself when conferences have to negotiate post-cord-cutting media rights deals and realize there's about to be way, way less money to go around, but in the mean time, this bill will probably just marginally hasten the descent. So I guess my view is, a bad idea with a silver lining...