[M T]

Does anyone here think that whatever might come to pass would involve paying, say, the wrestling team members to play?  No?  Well, how many sports would get paid?  I think just one.  Maybe two.    If Stanford took the road to avoid becoming a Pro Football minor league team, then it will certainly disrupt the economics of the athletic department, but as far as actually playing, probably only one sport is directly affected.

I don't know how much money goes from the football program into the other sports.  The facilities are named after donors, not the football program, so I don't know if those have their major benefit from the football.  When I hear the WBB players or coaches announced with the name of a particular donor, I don't know how much football contributes to their scholarships.  On the other hand, I can imagine that football revenues do contribute significantly, but I don't understand just how much.

Suppose that for whatever reason, Stanford no longer had a football program.  Would Stanford be forced to drop its other sports?  I doubt it.  Would those sports be scaled back.  Probably.  Would Stanford be able to maintain its high quality of sports performance?  I actually think so, but I'm not sure.

Would the PAC-12 become a football-only conference and so Stanford would not be part of the PAC-12?  I don't care.  MPSF is not a football conference and covers some of our sports.  Great.

Obviously most people on this board enjoy football as a (now) spectator sport and a social focus.  Great for you.  If Stanford were to drop football, it would be a great loss to you.  But will sports survive at Stanford? I hope so.  Personally, I participated in sports at a school where no athletic scholarships were given, and sports was a significant part of my college years.

You might ask yourself, where will collegiate sports be in 20 or 40 years?  Will our society/legal system push away from those sports that are most associated with injuries?  Can colleges argue that football is something they want associated with their name in the face of possibly increasing litigation & expenses from covering long term injuries?  I see those as bigger threats to collegiate football than salaries.

I found this 1968 reference to the last throes of collegiate boxing: http://cnnsi.com/vault/article/magazine/...index.htm  Of course, boxing was never the money-maker that football is, so the outcome may be different. 


Then you might ask yourself why not divest the football teams from the universities?  Well, the NCAA would no longer have any responsibility or authority for them.  You could imagine a new pro football league, consisting of the Alabama Tide, the Florida Gators, etc. that allowed itself to employ anyone who has reached the age of 18.  Why do we send the promising football players to a situation where they are forced to take classes?  Let them be in their own league.  If some of the employees see the wisdom in pursing a college education, that could be at arm's length from their employment.  I'd have no problem with their employer paying for their education, but they'd have to really take courses and turn in papers and earn a degree.

The path from here to there is not clear to me.  I'm sure it would be rocky, but I would not be surprised if we wound up at that situation. Or perhaps a similar one where the NFL creates such a league.

[M T]

Does anyone here think that whatever might come to pass would involve paying, say, the wrestling team members to play?  No?  Well, how many sports would get paid?  I think just one.  Maybe two.    If Stanford took the road to avoid becoming a Pro Football minor league team, then it will certainly disrupt the economics of the athletic department, but as far as actually playing, probably only one sport is directly affected.

I don't know how much money goes from the football program into the other sports.  The facilities are named after donors, not the football program, so I don't know if those have their major benefit from the football.  When I hear the WBB players or coaches announced with the name of a particular donor, I don't know how much football contributes to their scholarships.  On the other hand, I can imagine that football revenues do contribute significantly, but I don't understand just how much.

Suppose that for whatever reason, Stanford no longer had a football program.  Would Stanford be forced to drop its other sports?  I doubt it.  Would those sports be scaled back.  Probably.  Would Stanford be able to maintain its high quality of sports performance?  I actually think so, but I'm not sure.

Would the PAC-12 become a football-only conference and so Stanford would not be part of the PAC-12?  I don't care.  MPSF is not a football conference and covers some of our sports.  Great.

Obviously most people on this board enjoy football as a (now) spectator sport and a social focus.  Great for you.  If Stanford were to drop football, it would be a great loss to you.  But will sports survive at Stanford? I hope so.  Personally, I participated in sports at a school where no athletic scholarships were given, and sports was a significant part of my college years.

You might ask yourself, where will collegiate sports be in 20 or 40 years?  Will our society/legal system push away from those sports that are most associated with injuries?  Can colleges argue that football is something they want associated with their name in the face of possibly increasing litigation & expenses from covering long term injuries?  I see those as bigger threats to collegiate football than salaries.

I found this 1968 reference to the last throes of collegiate boxing: http://cnnsi.com/vault/article/magazine/...index.htm  Of course, boxing was never the money-maker that football is, so the outcome may be different. 


Then you might ask yourself why not divest the football teams from the universities?  Well, the NCAA would no longer have any responsibility or authority for them.  You could imagine a new pro football league, consisting of the Alabama Tide, the Florida Gators, etc. that allowed itself to employ anyone who has reached the age of 18.  Why do we send the promising football players to a situation where they are forced to take classes?  Let them be in their own league.  If some of the employees see the wisdom in pursing a college education, that could be at arm's length from their employment.  I'd have no problem with their employer paying for their education, but they'd have to really take courses and turn in papers and earn a degree.

The path from here to there is not clear to me.  I'm sure it would be rocky, but I would not be surprised if we wound up at that situation. Or perhaps a similar one where the NFL creates such a league.