[pefloresjr]

Ivy League universities had sequestered 35 admissions spots for football players in the 19th century. The college presidents were trying to dial it back to 25-30 spots. In 1905, Harvard's first professional football coach Bill Reid made $7,000, 30% more than the highest paid faculty member. They worried about gambling by the athletes. Harvard's baseball players played in the Cape Cod summer league, everyone knew it. Shamateurism has always been with us, the amateur model had migrated from the UK.

I was going to make no further comments, but I really can't let this one pass. You are of course aware that the NCAA was founded in 1906 to, among other things, attempt to ensure "amateurism" was required. Harvard was one of the participants in this activity, albeit under pressure from the US President.

I am hearing here the equivalent of the following argument:
We all know that lots of people cheat on their taxes. We all know that while the IRS catches some of them, most get away with it. Therefore, it must be true that cheating on your taxes is just fine, even laudable. We should all do it.
Obviously, that argument is absurd. Because some people do it doesn't make it "right". Arguably amateurism shouldn't be part of college sports. I don't agree, but that's a different discussion. However the fact some people knowingly violate the rules doesn't validate that concept.

It also has nothing to do with NIL. NIL isn't illegal. It is now "part of the game" and will for certain destroy amateurism in college sports. The fact some people don't get paid doesn't preserve amateurism. Those people will lobby to get paid and IMO will eventually succeed. While it can be argued that legal decision regarding NIL wasn't ever intended to support "pay for play", it is being treated as if it did. That is where we are right now.

I agree with this.  As an alum, one of the things that appeals to me about Stanford's success in sports is the fact that Stanford is winning with actual student athletes despite the fact that many colleges are not.  Yes, some athletes have not met the same academic levels as most Stanford students but admission is not a straight formulaic process.  For example, there was a math student in one of my dorms who was apparently brilliant and had been admitted to several big name grad programs to pursue his phd.  Despite the fact that English was his first language, he could barely form coherent sentences.  He was clearly admitted because of the strength of his math skills.  But he was a student, engaged in academic pursuits.  The athletes I have personally known at Stanford (football, baseball, cross-country & water polo players all in my freshman dorm) were also legitimate students.  

For me, easier admissions for student athletes based on their athletic abilities doesn't violate the normal variation that is inherent in the admissions process.  But the degree of variation matters in my view.  Apparently, the NCAA does not enforce or examine the academic standards or legitimacy of any college as long as the fake classes and majors are offered to non-athletes.  My brother is a die-hard non-alum USC fan.  He doesn't give a damn if the football players are legitimate students.  But I care if Stanford football players are.  Somebody above wrote that athletes have to be students and not complete wringers but for some colleges, that is already not true.  Who is going to draw the line?  Not the NCAA or federal government.  Universities will likely keep up a facade of academic integrity because the growing money is somewhat based on the concept of the innocence/purity of college sports compared to pro sports.  That might be enough to allow Stanford and the value of the degree to continue competing at a high level at some of the Olympic sports.  

However, the current pay-to-play NIL money is likely to change that.  I don't think athletes getting money from sponsors for using their image or for having the athlete promote a product changes anything regarding athletes being students if they are enrolled in a college that has legitimate academic requirements.  However, NIL in its current application of offering brobdingnagian amounts of money to athletes to play one year at a college really warps the process, overwhelming most academic considerations.  That money is not based on normal advertising investments, it is based on ego driven desire to have a winning team.  Some, like Kiki, who was able to complete her Stanford degree in three years, will likely be willing and able to continue her studies while she cashes in on the opportunity to make a bunch of cash.  However, many won't.  

Now that the NIL money and unlimited transfer rules are combined with the questionable academic requirements at some schools, I think that Stanford's ability to compete at the big money sports will quickly erode.  And it will spread to other sports as well.  Since there is less money in other sports, including Olympic sports, Stanford will likely be able to hang on longer.  

I am a really dedicated Stanford fan and have season tickets to three sports.  But I don't want to see Stanford struggle to compete in a corrupt system where money is the only real reason most of the players are there.  Am am happy that we may be able to keep some of our current students from transferring but I don't really want to see Stanford to join the money bidding wars that separate the players from their lives as students.  If Stanford ends up stepping off or getting pushed off the major college sports stage, I will be sad.  However, I prefer that we maintain our position as an academic institution instead of competing in a situation where corruption is accepted because nobody is willing or able to do anything about it.  Stanford's jump to the ACC is ridiculous but I am accepting it for now based on the unlikely hope that it will give Stanford time to determine whether we can maintain high level sports and academic integrity in this new environment.  I hope the new President will offer some leadership in making those determinations but my expectations are low that Stanford will be able to find a solution that maintains academic integrity and is acceptable to the rest of the college sports universe.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Ivy League universities had sequestered 35 admissions spots for football players in the 19th century. The college presidents were trying to dial it back to 25-30 spots. In 1905, Harvard's first professional football coach Bill Reid made $7,000, 30% more than the highest paid faculty member. They worried about gambling by the athletes. Harvard's baseball players played in the Cape Cod summer league, everyone knew it. Shamateurism has always been with us, the amateur model had migrated from the UK.

I was going to make no further comments, but I really can't let this one pass. You are of course aware that the NCAA was founded in 1906 to, among other things, attempt to ensure "amateurism" was required. Harvard was one of the participants in this activity, albeit under pressure from the US President.

I am hearing here the equivalent of the following argument:
We all know that lots of people cheat on their taxes. We all know that while the IRS catches some of them, most get away with it. Therefore, it must be true that cheating on your taxes is just fine, even laudable. We should all do it.
Obviously, that argument is absurd. Because some people do it doesn't make it "right". Arguably amateurism shouldn't be part of college sports. I don't agree, but that's a different discussion. However the fact some people knowingly violate the rules doesn't validate that concept.

It also has nothing to do with NIL. NIL isn't illegal. It is now "part of the game" and will for certain destroy amateurism in college sports. The fact some people don't get paid doesn't preserve amateurism. Those people will lobby to get paid and IMO will eventually succeed. While it can be argued that legal decision regarding NIL wasn't ever intended to support "pay for play", it is being treated as if it did. That is where we are right now.

I agree with this.  As an alum, one of the things that appeals to me about Stanford's success in sports is the fact that Stanford is winning with actual student athletes despite the fact that many colleges are not.  Yes, some athletes have not met the same academic levels as most Stanford students but admission is not a straight formulaic process.  For example, there was a math student in one of my dorms who was apparently brilliant and had been admitted to several big name grad programs to pursue his phd.  Despite the fact that English was his first language, he could barely form coherent sentences.  He was clearly admitted because of the strength of his math skills.  But he was a student, engaged in academic pursuits.  The athletes I have personally known at Stanford (football, baseball, cross-country & water polo players all in my freshman dorm) were also legitimate students.  

For me, easier admissions for student athletes based on their athletic abilities doesn't violate the normal variation that is inherent in the admissions process.  But the degree of variation matters in my view.  Apparently, the NCAA does not enforce or examine the academic standards or legitimacy of any college as long as the fake classes and majors are offered to non-athletes.  My brother is a die-hard non-alum USC fan.  He doesn't give a damn if the football players are legitimate students.  But I care if Stanford football players are.  Somebody above wrote that athletes have to be students and not complete wringers but for some colleges, that is already not true.  Who is going to draw the line?  Not the NCAA or federal government.  Universities will likely keep up a facade of academic integrity because the growing money is somewhat based on the concept of the innocence/purity of college sports compared to pro sports.  That might be enough to allow Stanford and the value of the degree to continue competing at a high level at some of the Olympic sports.  

However, the current pay-to-play NIL money is likely to change that.  I don't think athletes getting money from sponsors for using their image or for having the athlete promote a product changes anything regarding athletes being students if they are enrolled in a college that has legitimate academic requirements.  However, NIL in its current application of offering brobdingnagian amounts of money to athletes to play one year at a college really warps the process, overwhelming most academic considerations.  That money is not based on normal advertising investments, it is based on ego driven desire to have a winning team.  Some, like Kiki, who was able to complete her Stanford degree in three years, will likely be willing and able to continue her studies while she cashes in on the opportunity to make a bunch of cash.  However, many won't.  

Now that the NIL money and unlimited transfer rules are combined with the questionable academic requirements at some schools, I think that Stanford's ability to compete at the big money sports will quickly erode.  And it will spread to other sports as well.  Since there is less money in other sports, including Olympic sports, Stanford will likely be able to hang on longer.  

I am a really dedicated Stanford fan and have season tickets to three sports.  But I don't want to see Stanford struggle to compete in a corrupt system where money is the only real reason most of the players are there.  Am am happy that we may be able to keep some of our current students from transferring but I don't really want to see Stanford to join the money bidding wars that separate the players from their lives as students.  If Stanford ends up stepping off or getting pushed off the major college sports stage, I will be sad.  However, I prefer that we maintain our position as an academic institution instead of competing in a situation where corruption is accepted because nobody is willing or able to do anything about it.  Stanford's jump to the ACC is ridiculous but I am accepting it for now based on the unlikely hope that it will give Stanford time to determine whether we can maintain high level sports and academic integrity in this new environment.  I hope the new President will offer some leadership in making those determinations but my expectations are low that Stanford will be able to find a solution that maintains academic integrity and is acceptable to the rest of the college sports universe.  

Cheers,
Pete F.