[Goose]

@Goose, @Pete 

Trying to understand, but I'm still not following the "corruption" argument or the cheat-on-taxes analogy.

The "cheat on taxes" analogy was in response to the OP citing the fact that Harvard had reserved places for football players in 1905 as justification for declaring that amateurism in college athletics has never existed and shouldn't exist. I made two points, first that the NCAA didn't exist until 1906 so there were no rules in 1905, and second that declaring that some institutions violating the rules (and sometimes getting away with it)  was further justification for abandoning amateurism in college sports. I think the tax cheating analogy is an exact parallel to the latter. The fact some cheat and get away with it doesn't mean that is just fine, even "superior" to following the rules.

I think it's one thing to say "I don't think the athletes should be compensated". If that's where we are, then fine - we can agree to disagree. And again, we should quit the discussions about the mechanism because you don't agree philosophically.

IMO you are correct in recognizing that the argument regarding amateur status of college athletes is a separate one. I was arguing against the assertion that because some institutions have cheated/will cheat there is no argument for amateurism.

Or are you saying "I'm OK with athletes being compensated, but Stanford needs to stay out of the NIL game because it's by definition corrupt now that it's become pay-for-play".

I am indeed saying that college players should be amateurs and not "paid to play". Compensation is a good word here, because I think it is reasonable to "compensate" all players for the unavoidable impact competing in sports has on their lives. The fact they have to go on the road, miss classes, etc. should be mitigated and "compensated" as much as possible. This applies to all athletes equally. One can argue about "compensation", but it should come from the university, be equal across the board, and appropriate for the impact. One can argue about what is "appropriate", but it should preserve both the idea and the "fact" you are a student who happens to also play a sport, not somebody who is paid to play a sport and be a student if they wish to do so but at least pretend to do so regardless.  I fully realize this model is difficult to make fly in today's world. On this we may have to just disagree.

My point about NIL was that the decision was about name, image, and likeness. A student has these things no matter what school they attend and even if the don't play any sport. If somebody wants to pay you to help them sell used cars or a certain lipstick, the courts said the NCAA can't prohibit that. However, that isn't paying somebody to play a sport at school X. While my model above has its complexities, the current use of NIL is IMO not at all what the NIL decision was about. The "complexities" here are immense IMO. I am fine with somebody paying $750K to KiKi to use her name to sell something. I am not fine with somebody paying $750K to KiKi to play basketball at school X.

Also, side point - one of the drivers of an NIL approach is that there is a recognition that athletes deliver various levels of value. There's a big difference between Caitlin Clark and what she's done for the University of Iowa vs. some other random athlete at the University of Iowa. And I think Kiki deserves to be rewarded after her last season. Linking back to the value she delivered to Stanford....Every Pac12 channel interview, Sportscenter clip, Instagram highlight, YouTube reels, etc. have the word "Stanford" on her jersey and the university does benefit from that image. It is the wild wild west right now, but that's a big point and it shouldn't get lost in the madness.

Where we differ on this last point is the idea that because Caitlin Clark has put butts in the seats and got Iowa a lot of press she deserves to be treated any differently than any other student. Butts in the seats and good press isn't what a university is supposed to be about IMO. I think it is great she has done these things. However, despite the fact many will say the following is absurd, she  didn't go to the University of Iowa to play basketball. She went to get an education. IMO if that isn't the case, we need a new model. It may become necessary for colleges to divorce themselves from athletics. It is a matter of priorities and mission. When the primary "mission" of the university becomes to win sports contests, we have a problem. The "old" amateur system at least de jure (if not always de facto) enshrined the primacy of the academic mission. IMO the current situation of professionalism by its very nature destroys that primacy.

[Goose]

@Goose, @Pete 

Trying to understand, but I'm still not following the "corruption" argument or the cheat-on-taxes analogy.

The "cheat on taxes" analogy was in response to the OP citing the fact that Harvard had reserved places for football players in 1905 as justification for declaring that amateurism in college athletics has never existed and shouldn't exist. I made two points, first that the NCAA didn't exist until 1906 so there were no rules in 1905, and second that declaring that some institutions violating the rules (and sometimes getting away with it)  was further justification for abandoning amateurism in college sports. I think the tax cheating analogy is an exact parallel to the latter. The fact some cheat and get away with it doesn't mean that is just fine, even "superior" to following the rules.

I think it's one thing to say "I don't think the athletes should be compensated". If that's where we are, then fine - we can agree to disagree. And again, we should quit the discussions about the mechanism because you don't agree philosophically.

IMO you are correct in recognizing that the argument regarding amateur status of college athletes is a separate one. I was arguing against the assertion that because some institutions have cheated/will cheat there is no argument for amateurism.

Or are you saying "I'm OK with athletes being compensated, but Stanford needs to stay out of the NIL game because it's by definition corrupt now that it's become pay-for-play".

I am indeed saying that college players should be amateurs and not "paid to play". Compensation is a good word here, because I think it is reasonable to "compensate" all players for the unavoidable impact competing in sports has on their lives. The fact they have to go on the road, miss classes, etc. should be mitigated and "compensated" as much as possible. This applies to all athletes equally. One can argue about "compensation", but it should come from the university, be equal across the board, and appropriate for the impact. One can argue about what is "appropriate", but it should preserve both the idea and the "fact" you are a student who happens to also play a sport, not somebody who is paid to play a sport and be a student if they wish to do so but at least pretend to do so regardless.  I fully realize this model is difficult to make fly in today's world. On this we may have to just disagree.

My point about NIL was that the decision was about name, image, and likeness. A student has these things no matter what school they attend and even if the don't play any sport. If somebody wants to pay you to help them sell used cars or a certain lipstick, the courts said the NCAA can't prohibit that. However, that isn't paying somebody to play a sport at school X. While my model above has its complexities, the current use of NIL is IMO not at all what the NIL decision was about. The "complexities" here are immense IMO. I am fine with somebody paying $750K to KiKi to use her name to sell something. I am not fine with somebody paying $750K to KiKi to play basketball at school X.

Also, side point - one of the drivers of an NIL approach is that there is a recognition that athletes deliver various levels of value. There's a big difference between Caitlin Clark and what she's done for the University of Iowa vs. some other random athlete at the University of Iowa. And I think Kiki deserves to be rewarded after her last season. Linking back to the value she delivered to Stanford....Every Pac12 channel interview, Sportscenter clip, Instagram highlight, YouTube reels, etc. have the word "Stanford" on her jersey and the university does benefit from that image. It is the wild wild west right now, but that's a big point and it shouldn't get lost in the madness.

Where we differ on this last point is the idea that because Caitlin Clark has put butts in the seats and got Iowa a lot of press she deserves to be treated any differently than any other student. Butts in the seats and good press isn't what a university is supposed to be about IMO. I think it is great she has done these things. However, despite the fact many will say the following is absurd, she  didn't go to the University of Iowa to play basketball. She went to get an education. IMO if that isn't the case, we need a new model. It may become necessary for colleges to divorce themselves from athletics. It is a matter of priorities and mission. When the primary "mission" of the university becomes to win sports contests, we have a problem. The "old" amateur system at least de jure (if not always de facto) enshrined the primacy of the academic mission. IMO the current situation of professionalism by its very nature destroys that primacy.