[Goose]

Good post, Goose.

I have less of a concern about the seemingly disproportionate salaries paid to top coaches or athletes.  I agree that it doesn't seem "fair" in terms of the relative importance of the functions, but in current political economy, value is based on people's willingness to pay, and people are very much willing to pay to be entertained, whether it is to watch sports at the highest level or to listen to a pop artist (I believe that Taylor Swift's Eras tour brought in $2 billion (with a "b") dollars).  It's a very fine line between a franchise quarterback at the top of his game and a journeyman back-up and one who never makes it into the league, but earnings are very skewed to the very best.  It's like the scene from Glengarry Glenn Ross, "...first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired".  So, big salaries for coaches (and, soon, players) is a fact or life, just as big salaries for CEO's.

Thanks BC,
You are of course correct that it is a fact of life. That of course doesn't mean it is a good idea, or even 'appropriate' :-).

As for poaching in academia, it happens all the time.  Stanford's entire Econ department is pretty much poached from elsewhere: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/upsho...omics.html

Poaching is just another word for making somebody a better offer. Of course it happens all the time in industry as well. I suspect that the vast majority of people on this board have been poached at one time or another. However, exactly how you do it can be an issue. There are lines you can't cross. Quid pro quo isn't allowable. https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/...b13ed49d22 In my previous post I said UCLA. Silly me, if there is skullduggery involved U$C should be first choice.

(that is different than intellectual property theft, which also happens, and can lead to litigation).  See, for example, this article about a dispute between my current and former employer: Genentech pays $200m over growth hormone ‘theft’ | Nature

Indeed, and that is what the OP was hypothetically saying wouldn't ruffle any feathers.

I wish collegiate sports were less of a business, but I know I'm tilting at windmills on this one.  It hasn't been good for athletes, who were being asked to do more and more athletically for less (they got paid with a free education, but as athletic demands increased, it's hard to argue that their education didn't suffer).  Since this genie can't be put in the bottle, I'm resigned to hoping that the House v. NCAA settlement will restore some sanity and allow athletes to profit from their genuine NIL (ie, by being sponsored by Nike or mentioning a product to their social media followers) while getting rid of third party pay-to-play.

What I don't want to see is for Stanford to further compromise its academic mission just to have a few more dozen fans attend its football games.  Someone needs to assess the compromises that the University is being asked to make on its values and figure out whether they are worth making.  I think we've gone too far in making athletes at Stanford a separate "class" than regular students, and to me, more than anything else (including whether athletes are paid) that defeats the spirit of collegiate athletics (especially at Stanford).  I don't want to be more like Notre Dame or Duke, and I'm ok with having a losing football team as a consequence.  I respect that I'm on a sports message board, and that may not be a popular view, but based on the responses, I do seem to have some company.

BC

I am in that camp BC. My concern is that paying athletes for playing a sport ipso facto ensures they are in a different class than regular students. If one can make significant money by attending Stanford to play football, their motivations are inherently different than somebody who is not compensated for being there. Covering the cost of attendance by playing sports did, in the past, put a wedge between the average student and those who played sports. It was however a small wedge, mostly because that scholarship was worthless if you didn't want to be at least a semi-serious student. It wasn't any different than being on an academic scholarship in that regard. Actually paying students "serious" money above and beyond that to attend Stanford for the purpose of playing football IMO inexorably separates those people from everybody else.

[Goose]

Good post, Goose.

I have less of a concern about the seemingly disproportionate salaries paid to top coaches or athletes.  I agree that it doesn't seem "fair" in terms of the relative importance of the functions, but in current political economy, value is based on people's willingness to pay, and people are very much willing to pay to be entertained, whether it is to watch sports at the highest level or to listen to a pop artist (I believe that Taylor Swift's Eras tour brought in $2 billion (with a "b") dollars).  It's a very fine line between a franchise quarterback at the top of his game and a journeyman back-up and one who never makes it into the league, but earnings are very skewed to the very best.  It's like the scene from Glengarry Glenn Ross, "...first prize is a Cadillac El Dorado. Anyone wanna see second prize? Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired".  So, big salaries for coaches (and, soon, players) is a fact or life, just as big salaries for CEO's.

Thanks BC,
You are of course correct that it is a fact of life. That of course doesn't mean it is a good idea, or even 'appropriate' :-).

As for poaching in academia, it happens all the time.  Stanford's entire Econ department is pretty much poached from elsewhere: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/upsho...omics.html

Poaching is just another word for making somebody a better offer. Of course it happens all the time in industry as well. I suspect that the vast majority of people on this board have been poached at one time or another. However, exactly how you do it can be an issue. There are lines you can't cross. Quid pro quo isn't allowable. https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/...b13ed49d22 In my previous post I said UCLA. Silly me, if there is skullduggery involved U$C should be first choice.

(that is different than intellectual property theft, which also happens, and can lead to litigation).  See, for example, this article about a dispute between my current and former employer: Genentech pays $200m over growth hormone ‘theft’ | Nature

Indeed, and that is what the OP was hypothetically saying wouldn't ruffle any feathers.

I wish collegiate sports were less of a business, but I know I'm tilting at windmills on this one.  It hasn't been good for athletes, who were being asked to do more and more athletically for less (they got paid with a free education, but as athletic demands increased, it's hard to argue that their education didn't suffer).  Since this genie can't be put in the bottle, I'm resigned to hoping that the House v. NCAA settlement will restore some sanity and allow athletes to profit from their genuine NIL (ie, by being sponsored by Nike or mentioning a product to their social media followers) while getting rid of third party pay-to-play.

What I don't want to see is for Stanford to further compromise its academic mission just to have a few more dozen fans attend its football games.  Someone needs to assess the compromises that the University is being asked to make on its values and figure out whether they are worth making.  I think we've gone too far in making athletes at Stanford a separate "class" than regular students, and to me, more than anything else (including whether athletes are paid) that defeats the spirit of collegiate athletics (especially at Stanford).  I don't want to be more like Notre Dame or Duke, and I'm ok with having a losing football team as a consequence.  I respect that I'm on a sports message board, and that may not be a popular view, but based on the responses, I do seem to have some company.

BC

I am in that camp BC. My concern is that paying athletes for playing a sport ipso facto ensures they are in a different class than regular students. If one can make significant money by attending Stanford to play football, their motivations are inherently different than somebody who is not compensated for being there. Covering the cost of attendance by playing sports did, in the past, put a wedge between the average student and those who played sports. It was however a small wedge, mostly because that scholarship was worthless if you didn't want to be at least a semi-serious student. It wasn't any different than being on an academic scholarship in that regard. Actually paying students "serious" money above and beyond that to attend Stanford for the purpose of playing football IMO inexorably separates those people from everybody else.