[teejers1]

1.  If the colleges/universities across the land just said "we're not playing football until the NFL establishes a D-League," don't you think the NFL would do just that?  I agree that it is almost inconceivable, but I think it possible (if that makes any sense).  And really, why should colleges be the NFL's training grounds?  In hoops and baseball, there are minor leage pro teams as well as college teams.  The NFL shouldn't enjoy some privileged position on this front.

2.  With a D-league, I don't think the NLRB would have much of a push to establish college athletes as "employees."  I actually think there is some difficulty on that front now.  BTW, unionization is the worst approach to addressing athlete inequities, imo, at least if anyone is concerned at all about preserving college sports as we have come to know them.  Because I think that is rather obvious to anyone who even looks at the issue for a moment, I ultimately think the unionization of college athletes as a "global answer" will fail.

3.  It will take sweeping changes (like an NFL D-League in football) to preserve any modicum of amateurism in college sports.  And if that preservation goes, then so will Stanford's participation in same.  I agree with redrum vis a vis when Stanford will step off the train (i.e., when athletes start getting paid anything beyond very modest stipend).

[teejers1]

1.  If the colleges/universities across the land just said "we're not playing football until the NFL establishes a D-League," don't you think the NFL would do just that?  I agree that it is almost inconceivable, but I think it possible (if that makes any sense).  And really, why should colleges be the NFL's training grounds?  In hoops and baseball, there are minor leage pro teams as well as college teams.  The NFL shouldn't enjoy some privileged position on this front.

2.  With a D-league, I don't think the NLRB would have much of a push to establish college athletes as "employees."  I actually think there is some difficulty on that front now.  BTW, unionization is the worst approach to addressing athlete inequities, imo, at least if anyone is concerned at all about preserving college sports as we have come to know them.  Because I think that is rather obvious to anyone who even looks at the issue for a moment, I ultimately think the unionization of college athletes as a "global answer" will fail.

3.  It will take sweeping changes (like an NFL D-League in football) to preserve any modicum of amateurism in college sports.  And if that preservation goes, then so will Stanford's participation in same.  I agree with redrum vis a vis when Stanford will step off the train (i.e., when athletes start getting paid anything beyond very modest stipend).