[oldalum]

 The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.

YES!!
One thing I've learned from the "Day in the Life" videos of Stanford athletes is how little, outside of classrooms, they are even in the presence of non-athlete students. Teammates seem to live together after freshman year, they eat together in the special athletic dining place, they do their training/therapy/team practice/traveling together, and they often take classes together. And they often spend at least parts of summers on campus together taking classes and training. The conventional wisdom is that, between (1) a varsity sport (2) academics and (3) a social life, they have time for only two out of three. That is not the full college experience.
(and maybe the non-athletes would benefit from the better food provided to the athletes)

[oldalum]

 The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.

YES!!
One thing I've learned from the "Day in the Life" videos of Stanford athletes is how little, outside of classrooms, they are even in the presence of non-athlete students. Teammates seem to live together after freshman year, they eat together in the special athletic dining place, they do their training/therapy/team practice/traveling together, and they often take classes together. And they often spend at least parts of summers on campus together taking classes and training. The conventional wisdom is that, between (1) a varsity sport (2) academics and (3) a social life, they have time for only two out of three. That is not the full college experience.
(and maybe the non-athletes would benefit from the better food provided to the athletes)

[81alum]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].

There are some times I have not agreed with you, Teejers, but on this issue we are in alignment.

I wish football and basketball were like baseball.  Give athletes an alternative to college to learn how to play professionally.  Then, any student-athlete at a university should be a STUDENT-athlete.  No coerced presence in universities, and no commercial pay for STUDENTS.

I, for one, will be equally if not more interested in how Stanford does under such a scheme.  Frankly, I don't know enough to care about the higher quality of play from one-and-dones.  I don't watch professional sports and don't want to.  I want to root for Stanford, I want to root for a team that shapes student-athletes as complete individuals who will make a difference in life.  I'm almost disappointed when they turn pro.

[81alum]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].

There are some times I have not agreed with you, Teejers, but on this issue we are in alignment.

I wish football and basketball were like baseball.  Give athletes an alternative to college to learn how to play professionally.  Then, any student-athlete at a university should be a STUDENT-athlete.  No coerced presence in universities, and no commercial pay for STUDENTS.

I, for one, will be equally if not more interested in how Stanford does under such a scheme.  Frankly, I don't know enough to care about the higher quality of play from one-and-dones.  I don't watch professional sports and don't want to.  I want to root for Stanford, I want to root for a team that shapes student-athletes as complete individuals who will make a difference in life.  I'm almost disappointed when they turn pro.

[StanfordMatt]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].

What a load of paternalistic drivel.

Newsflash: it’s not about whether the NCAA Tournament would be popular under a different setup. It’s not about whether the NFL should set up a developmental league or how much Lori Laughlin paid to get her daughter into USC. It’s also not about whether Kent State would be at a greater competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis Ohio State for recruits (not likely).

What it’s about is a group of predominantly old white men at the NCAA desperately clinging to a power structure that enables them to exploit the labor of a group of 18-22 year-old predominantly Black men.

Muir has actively defended this structure and, in my opinion, it’s a black mark on his reputation.

[StanfordMatt]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].

What a load of paternalistic drivel.

Newsflash: it’s not about whether the NCAA Tournament would be popular under a different setup. It’s not about whether the NFL should set up a developmental league or how much Lori Laughlin paid to get her daughter into USC. It’s also not about whether Kent State would be at a greater competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis Ohio State for recruits (not likely).

What it’s about is a group of predominantly old white men at the NCAA desperately clinging to a power structure that enables them to exploit the labor of a group of 18-22 year-old predominantly Black men.

Muir has actively defended this structure and, in my opinion, it’s a black mark on his reputation.

[BobK]

May I present without comment the so called called old white men

http://www.ncaa.org/about/who-we-are/off...rship-team

[BobK]

May I present without comment the so called called old white men

http://www.ncaa.org/about/who-we-are/off...rship-team

[StanfordMatt]

You’re not looking high enough up the food chain, Bob.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hechingerre...-and-male/

[StanfordMatt]

You’re not looking high enough up the food chain, Bob.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hechingerre...-and-male/

[Mick]

 The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.

YES!!
One thing I've learned from the "Day in the Life" videos of Stanford athletes is how little, outside of classrooms, they are even in the presence of non-athlete students. Teammates seem to live together after freshman year, they eat together in the special athletic dining place, they do their training/therapy/team practice/traveling together, and they often take classes together. And they often spend at least parts of summers on campus together taking classes and training. The conventional wisdom is that, between (1) a varsity sport (2) academics and (3) a social life, they have time for only two out of three. That is not the full college experience.
(and maybe the non-athletes would benefit from the better food provided to the athletes)

My father in law walked on to the Stanford basketball team in the late-1950s. He said that was true back then...combining a varsity sport with academics meant there was literally no room for anything else. And my son told me that he went to the Ivies to play ball because their athletic time commitment averaged about 20 hours per week as opposed to the MPSF requirements of about 40 hours per week (once all activities were thrown in).

[Mick]

 The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.

YES!!
One thing I've learned from the "Day in the Life" videos of Stanford athletes is how little, outside of classrooms, they are even in the presence of non-athlete students. Teammates seem to live together after freshman year, they eat together in the special athletic dining place, they do their training/therapy/team practice/traveling together, and they often take classes together. And they often spend at least parts of summers on campus together taking classes and training. The conventional wisdom is that, between (1) a varsity sport (2) academics and (3) a social life, they have time for only two out of three. That is not the full college experience.
(and maybe the non-athletes would benefit from the better food provided to the athletes)

My father in law walked on to the Stanford basketball team in the late-1950s. He said that was true back then...combining a varsity sport with academics meant there was literally no room for anything else. And my son told me that he went to the Ivies to play ball because their athletic time commitment averaged about 20 hours per week as opposed to the MPSF requirements of about 40 hours per week (once all activities were thrown in).

[BobK]

Interesting that one of the reasons a coach had to leave now 6 years ago was exceeding 20 hours per week

[BobK]

Interesting that one of the reasons a coach had to leave now 6 years ago was exceeding 20 hours per week

[teejers1]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].

What a load of paternalistic drivel.

Newsflash: it’s not about whether the NCAA Tournament would be popular under a different setup. It’s not about whether the NFL should set up a developmental league or how much Lori Laughlin paid to get her daughter into USC. It’s also not about whether Kent State would be at a greater competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis Ohio State for recruits (not likely).

What it’s about is a group of predominantly old white men at the NCAA desperately clinging to a power structure that enables them to exploit the labor of a group of 18-22 year-old predominantly Black men.

Muir has actively defended this structure and, in my opinion, it’s a black mark on his reputation.

Ah yes, the tried and true approach of dropping the race card.  Why don't you climb down and ask yourself what bothers you about the current set up?

Is it that many kids - often from less fortunate backgrounds - get the opportunity to attend college?  Yeah, I didn't think so.

What bothers you is coaches (primarily) make a ton of money off the sweat, time, and tears of the players.  Isn't that correct?  So change THAT.  Impose limits on what coaches can make - any excess $$ generated rolled over into University coffers (not Athletic Departments) and impose LESS time obligations on the student-athletes.  Just do that.

And why not have a NFL Development League for those whose primary aspiration is that?  What's wrong with that?

P.S.  If you think compensating athletes will make "the net broader and better" for those being exploited now . . . well, I disagree.  I think schools will close up program shop in large numbers when athletes are compensated (beyond what they are now), leaving the factories and some other "only game in towners" where the locals might be willing to pay kids to come play for their team.  The good news is that if your side prevails, we'll find out in about 5-7 years.  

P.P.S.  If your "old white guy" reference pertains to the Bowl Big Wigs . . . well, we have agreement there. But that can be addressed (and has been, I believe) by mechanisms entirely separate from paying players.

[teejers1]

Fair point. I should've limited my concurrence with the piece to a general agreement that Muir's tone on topics such as student-athletes being able to earn compensation is generally behind the times and doesn't reflect favorably upon a University that prides itself on being forward thinking.

I didn't read the article, but put that aside.

Do you think the NCAA tourney would be as popular if every single "one and done" never set foot on campus?  I do (or the incremental drop would be barely noticeable).  The same is true for college football.  Hate to break it to all the "we must pay the athletes" (which really is an argument that 'we must pay them more than room and board they are getting now'), but the popularity of college sports has way more to do with the name on front of jersey than on the back.

But more fundamentally - all those clamoring for pay for athletes and exploitation better be careful what they wish for.  The one thing the college admissions scandal has shows is that the value of an admission - especially to good and great colleges - is worth WAY MORE than tuition.  Plus, do you really want all those great athletes who could excel in college (but not quite good enough for the pros) to toil in obscurity in D-Leagues before getting kicked out of there?

Personally, I think college should be reserved for those who want to attend it and appreciate the benefits.  The time demands on the student athletes should be LESS not more.  Let those whose sole goal is pro ball - or who have no interest in college - play in development leagues.  We're seeing the beginning of that in hoops; baseball has had it all along; football is the sport that needs to get wiht the times.

But I wonder what would happen if NFL really set up a D-League - would all those clamoring about exploitation really want those they purport to advocate for (or at least the vast majority of them) to forego the college experience?    I highly doubt it.

P.S.  Even granting kids $$ for % of jersey sales would further stratify the haves and have nots (and in case you're wondering, Stanford would fall further behind in the "have not" category).  Again, if money is all that important to the kid, then play professionally somewhere.  [Of course, I also support limits on coaching salaries and rolling all "excess" TV revenues to universities as a whole.  If $3M (pick a cap number) isn't enough for HC Jones, then get a gig somewhere else].

What a load of paternalistic drivel.

Newsflash: it’s not about whether the NCAA Tournament would be popular under a different setup. It’s not about whether the NFL should set up a developmental league or how much Lori Laughlin paid to get her daughter into USC. It’s also not about whether Kent State would be at a greater competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis Ohio State for recruits (not likely).

What it’s about is a group of predominantly old white men at the NCAA desperately clinging to a power structure that enables them to exploit the labor of a group of 18-22 year-old predominantly Black men.

Muir has actively defended this structure and, in my opinion, it’s a black mark on his reputation.

Ah yes, the tried and true approach of dropping the race card.  Why don't you climb down and ask yourself what bothers you about the current set up?

Is it that many kids - often from less fortunate backgrounds - get the opportunity to attend college?  Yeah, I didn't think so.

What bothers you is coaches (primarily) make a ton of money off the sweat, time, and tears of the players.  Isn't that correct?  So change THAT.  Impose limits on what coaches can make - any excess $$ generated rolled over into University coffers (not Athletic Departments) and impose LESS time obligations on the student-athletes.  Just do that.

And why not have a NFL Development League for those whose primary aspiration is that?  What's wrong with that?

P.S.  If you think compensating athletes will make "the net broader and better" for those being exploited now . . . well, I disagree.  I think schools will close up program shop in large numbers when athletes are compensated (beyond what they are now), leaving the factories and some other "only game in towners" where the locals might be willing to pay kids to come play for their team.  The good news is that if your side prevails, we'll find out in about 5-7 years.  

P.P.S.  If your "old white guy" reference pertains to the Bowl Big Wigs . . . well, we have agreement there. But that can be addressed (and has been, I believe) by mechanisms entirely separate from paying players.

[CowboyIndian]

I will add to Teejers' reply by saying
1) A $200,00+ education is pretty good compensation
2) If you don't think compensating college players would be beyond ripe for corruption I want to smoke that stuff with you. Can't you just imagine some Norman or Tuscaloosa or Columbus (if it's still called that next year) or Tallahassee car dealer or real estate broker offering to buy thousands of Athlete X's autographs or jerseys or socks? That'd just be the start. Ultra-slippery slope.

[CowboyIndian]

I will add to Teejers' reply by saying
1) A $200,00+ education is pretty good compensation
2) If you don't think compensating college players would be beyond ripe for corruption I want to smoke that stuff with you. Can't you just imagine some Norman or Tuscaloosa or Columbus (if it's still called that next year) or Tallahassee car dealer or real estate broker offering to buy thousands of Athlete X's autographs or jerseys or socks? That'd just be the start. Ultra-slippery slope.

[Softball Fan]

I will add to Teejers' reply by saying
1) A $200,00+ education is pretty good compensation
2) If you don't think compensating college players would be beyond ripe for corruption I want to smoke that stuff with you. Can't you just imagine some Norman or Tuscaloosa or Columbus (if it's still called that next year) or Tallahassee car dealer or real estate broker offering to buy thousands of Athlete X's autographs or jerseys or socks? That'd just be the start. Ultra-slippery slope.

My concern about compensation for athletic gear is too many avenues open for abuse.  What if some wealthy alum says."Tell that star player if he comes to our school I will buy 1 million jerseys with his name on it."   I think the compensation rules have to be thought out completely to avoid verbal agreements to top prospects about how much money that may get.

[Softball Fan]

I will add to Teejers' reply by saying
1) A $200,00+ education is pretty good compensation
2) If you don't think compensating college players would be beyond ripe for corruption I want to smoke that stuff with you. Can't you just imagine some Norman or Tuscaloosa or Columbus (if it's still called that next year) or Tallahassee car dealer or real estate broker offering to buy thousands of Athlete X's autographs or jerseys or socks? That'd just be the start. Ultra-slippery slope.

My concern about compensation for athletic gear is too many avenues open for abuse.  What if some wealthy alum says."Tell that star player if he comes to our school I will buy 1 million jerseys with his name on it."   I think the compensation rules have to be thought out completely to avoid verbal agreements to top prospects about how much money that may get.

[Mick]

Interesting that one of the reasons a coach had to leave now 6 years ago was exceeding 20 hours per week

Yes.  Like I said at the time, he probably wasn't the only coach doing that.

[Mick]

Interesting that one of the reasons a coach had to leave now 6 years ago was exceeding 20 hours per week

Yes.  Like I said at the time, he probably wasn't the only coach doing that.

[BobK]

According to another coach it is very stickly moderated at Stanford.    Which is why at the time I also blamed John’s boss

[BobK]

According to another coach it is very stickly moderated at Stanford.    Which is why at the time I also blamed John’s boss

[BostonCard]

You’re not looking high enough up the food chain, Bob.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/hechingerre...-and-male/

[tweet]https://twitter.com/louisfr/status/1280648619134050305?s=20[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

You’re not looking high enough up the food chain, Bob.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/hechingerre...-and-male/

[tweet]https://twitter.com/louisfr/status/1280648619134050305?s=20[/tweet]

BC