[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.