[Mudhead]

To say Title 9 isn't relevant is more meaningful, and in a different way, than I think you realize, and this is precisely Tara's point. Title 9 becomes much less impactful and relevant when money is going without control to the sports that big money donors favor, football and men's basketball. In effect, Title 9 is undermined as a way to even the playing field for financial support for women's sports.

I agree and I too think that’s what Tara was saying .  Non market forces, even ones we may like like Title 9, usually don’t last and usually distort markets. I think much of what Title 9 can accomplish in women’s basketball has been accomplished .  Now that the TV market for WBB is established, the money will follow. WNBA may lag in time, but if the TV market demand is there, money market for the players will follow.

I think Tara, like all of us, was much more comfortable with a regulated market (Title 9) that she understood than with the brand new and wide open NIL market she didn’t fully understand. The market power has moved fro the coaches and regulators to the players. That’s different and daunting . Not sure I’d want to coach in that environment and I know I don’t understand that shift in power dynamic enough to coach in it.

But some coaches will adjust and those who do it best will have winning, championship teams. Those who don’t will be average at best.  Tara is smart enough to know the game has changed radically and sure enough of herself to be able to say “I don’t want to play in this  sandbox anymore.”

In full disclosure. All of the above is my speculation; I’ve had absolutely no conversations with the leaders of Stanford WBB about this topic.”

[Mudhead]

To say Title 9 isn't relevant is more meaningful, and in a different way, than I think you realize, and this is precisely Tara's point. Title 9 becomes much less impactful and relevant when money is going without control to the sports that big money donors favor, football and men's basketball. In effect, Title 9 is undermined as a way to even the playing field for financial support for women's sports.

I agree and I too think that’s what Tara was saying .  Non market forces, even ones we may like like Title 9, usually don’t last and usually distort markets. I think much of what Title 9 can accomplish in women’s basketball has been accomplished .  Now that the TV market for WBB is established, the money will follow. WNBA may lag in time, but if the TV market demand is there, money market for the players will follow.

I think Tara, like all of us, was much more comfortable with a regulated market (Title 9) that she understood than with the brand new and wide open NIL market she didn’t fully understand. The market power has moved fro the coaches and regulators to the players. That’s different and daunting . Not sure I’d want to coach in that environment and I know I don’t understand that shift in power dynamic enough to coach in it.

But some coaches will adjust and those who do it best will have winning, championship teams. Those who don’t will be average at best.  Tara is smart enough to know the game has changed radically and sure enough of herself to be able to say “I don’t want to play in this  sandbox anymore.”

In full disclosure. All of the above is my speculation; I’ve had absolutely no conversations with the leaders of Stanford WBB about this topic.”