[lex24]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a million bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sighted” And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  And there actually are other schools with strong academics, good football and alumni with big checkbooks that the University is willing to exploit. As Ryan Day said to a group - we need about 13 million to recruit with this year…..

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, enjoy 3-9.

[lex24]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a million bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sighted” And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  And there actually are other schools with strong academics, good football and alumni with big checkbooks that the University is willing to exploit. As Ryan Day said to a group - we need about 13 million to recruit with this year…..

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, enjoy 3-9.

[82lsju]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a Million bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sided”.  And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, they are assuring failure.

link that appears to be viewable

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...805952.php

[82lsju]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a Million bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sided”.  And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, they are assuring failure.

link that appears to be viewable

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...805952.php

[gailtate]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a Million bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sided”.  And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, they are assuring failure.

Depressing to say the least. Glad I was there for those Rose Bowls in '00, '13, '14 and '16. Finito .

[gailtate]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a Million bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sided”.  And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, they are assuring failure.

Depressing to say the least. Glad I was there for those Rose Bowls in '00, '13, '14 and '16. Finito .

[lex24]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a Million bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sided”.  And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, they are assuring failure.

link that appears to be viewable

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...805952.php

Thanks. I’m link challenged……

[lex24]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a Million bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sided”.  And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, they are assuring failure.

link that appears to be viewable

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/colle...805952.php

Thanks. I’m link challenged……

[SamuelMcF]

We have a collective. Every single player is receiving $$$ this season from said collective.


"Though Taylor’s predecessor, David Shaw, deserved some blame for Stanford football’s slide,"

No, he deserved ALL of it.

"his recent record reflected the challenges of winning at an academically rigorous university. Stanford will not lower admissions standards to win games."

No, his recent record reflected the challenges of winning when your coaching, development, S&C, and reactive recruiting practices are all actively detrimental.

"Player development, not recruiting, was Shaw’s biggest problem. Despite landing top-25 classes in three of the past four years, most of Stanford’s highly touted signees disappointed."

Why did the author write this literally two sentences after the preceding quote? If anything, it actually supports the argument that our academically rigorous university can continue to attract good talent due to its unique position as the top academic university in P5 football, and therefore it can in fact be quite competitive as long as its coaching and development don't actively suck.

[SamuelMcF]

We have a collective. Every single player is receiving $$$ this season from said collective.


"Though Taylor’s predecessor, David Shaw, deserved some blame for Stanford football’s slide,"

No, he deserved ALL of it.

"his recent record reflected the challenges of winning at an academically rigorous university. Stanford will not lower admissions standards to win games."

No, his recent record reflected the challenges of winning when your coaching, development, S&C, and reactive recruiting practices are all actively detrimental.

"Player development, not recruiting, was Shaw’s biggest problem. Despite landing top-25 classes in three of the past four years, most of Stanford’s highly touted signees disappointed."

Why did the author write this literally two sentences after the preceding quote? If anything, it actually supports the argument that our academically rigorous university can continue to attract good talent due to its unique position as the top academic university in P5 football, and therefore it can in fact be quite competitive as long as its coaching and development don't actively suck.

[OutsiderFan]

Where the hell did this article come from? Someone sent me a full description of a Stanford NIL collective called Lifetime Cardinal, LLC, just last week, that is being run by Stanford alum Allen Thorpe.

How could a Chronicle writer not be aware of this? Or was this collective mentioned in the article, and the writer has no idea what it is or that the fact it exists completely undermines the entire premise of the story?

I don't have Chronicle access, so can't read the article, but Google tells me the Chronicle ran another NIL article that mentioned Lifetime Cardinal just two days before saying Stanford "isn't doing NIL."

I'm confused.

[OutsiderFan]

Where the hell did this article come from? Someone sent me a full description of a Stanford NIL collective called Lifetime Cardinal, LLC, just last week, that is being run by Stanford alum Allen Thorpe.

How could a Chronicle writer not be aware of this? Or was this collective mentioned in the article, and the writer has no idea what it is or that the fact it exists completely undermines the entire premise of the story?

I don't have Chronicle access, so can't read the article, but Google tells me the Chronicle ran another NIL article that mentioned Lifetime Cardinal just two days before saying Stanford "isn't doing NIL."

I'm confused.

[CardinalSagehen]

Where the hell did this article come from? Someone sent me a full description of a Stanford NIL collective called Lifetime Cardinal, LLC, just last week, that is being run by Stanford alum Allen Thorpe.

How could a Chronicle writer not be aware of this? Or was this collective mentioned in the article, and the writer has no idea what it is or that the fact it exists completely undermines the entire premise of the story?

I don't have Chronicle access, so can't read the article, but Google tells me the Chronicle ran another NIL article that mentioned Lifetime Cardinal just two days before saying Stanford "isn't doing NIL."

I'm confused.

You may be able to read the article on mobile and not on desktop - this happens with many different news sites and articles.  I don’t have the Chron, and the article was available to me on my phone.  

I think the nuanced difference is that Stanford, the institution, is not collaborating with the NIL collective in any way.  Andrew Luck, a key member of the collective, cannot meet with a recruit in the auditorium that bears his name. Stanford may be doing nothing more than following the stated rules, while other institutions are not because there has been no enforcement (as the article mentions.) 

Nevertheless, you are right that the author underplays and seems unaware of the degree of influence that Stanford’s NIL collective could be having.

[CardinalSagehen]

Where the hell did this article come from? Someone sent me a full description of a Stanford NIL collective called Lifetime Cardinal, LLC, just last week, that is being run by Stanford alum Allen Thorpe.

How could a Chronicle writer not be aware of this? Or was this collective mentioned in the article, and the writer has no idea what it is or that the fact it exists completely undermines the entire premise of the story?

I don't have Chronicle access, so can't read the article, but Google tells me the Chronicle ran another NIL article that mentioned Lifetime Cardinal just two days before saying Stanford "isn't doing NIL."

I'm confused.

You may be able to read the article on mobile and not on desktop - this happens with many different news sites and articles.  I don’t have the Chron, and the article was available to me on my phone.  

I think the nuanced difference is that Stanford, the institution, is not collaborating with the NIL collective in any way.  Andrew Luck, a key member of the collective, cannot meet with a recruit in the auditorium that bears his name. Stanford may be doing nothing more than following the stated rules, while other institutions are not because there has been no enforcement (as the article mentions.) 

Nevertheless, you are right that the author underplays and seems unaware of the degree of influence that Stanford’s NIL collective could be having.

[gailtate]

Where the hell did this article come from? Someone sent me a full description of a Stanford NIL collective called Lifetime Cardinal, LLC, just last week, that is being run by Stanford alum Allen Thorpe.

How could a Chronicle writer not be aware of this? Or was this collective mentioned in the article, and the writer has no idea what it is or that the fact it exists completely undermines the entire premise of the story?

I don't have Chronicle access, so can't read the article, but Google tells me the Chronicle ran another NIL article that mentioned Lifetime Cardinal just two days before saying Stanford "isn't doing NIL."

I'm confused.

You may be able to read the article on mobile and not on desktop - this happens with many different news sites and articles.  I don’t have the Chron, and the article was available to me on my phone.  

I think the nuanced difference is that Stanford, the institution, is not collaborating with the NIL collective in any way.  Andrew Luck, a key member of the collective, cannot meet with a recruit in the auditorium that bears his name. Stanford may be doing nothing more than following the stated rules, while other institutions are not because there has been no enforcement (as the article mentions.) 

Nevertheless, you are right that the author underplays and seems unaware of the degree of influence that Stanford’s NIL collective could be having.

Saw this piece today on a laptop and read all about Lifetime Cardinal. The reporter, Connor Letourneau, is diligent and scrupulously nonpartisan. And I got a clear impression that certain alumni on the Peninsula could and would deliver everything the program would need to compete with any school in the country -- IF the reluctant powers that be were so inclined. BTW, his piece in December about Shaw's career at Stanford was thorough, fair and pulled no punches. As for those powers, I say that they and Ivy League football are a match made in heaven for each other.

[gailtate]

Where the hell did this article come from? Someone sent me a full description of a Stanford NIL collective called Lifetime Cardinal, LLC, just last week, that is being run by Stanford alum Allen Thorpe.

How could a Chronicle writer not be aware of this? Or was this collective mentioned in the article, and the writer has no idea what it is or that the fact it exists completely undermines the entire premise of the story?

I don't have Chronicle access, so can't read the article, but Google tells me the Chronicle ran another NIL article that mentioned Lifetime Cardinal just two days before saying Stanford "isn't doing NIL."

I'm confused.

You may be able to read the article on mobile and not on desktop - this happens with many different news sites and articles.  I don’t have the Chron, and the article was available to me on my phone.  

I think the nuanced difference is that Stanford, the institution, is not collaborating with the NIL collective in any way.  Andrew Luck, a key member of the collective, cannot meet with a recruit in the auditorium that bears his name. Stanford may be doing nothing more than following the stated rules, while other institutions are not because there has been no enforcement (as the article mentions.) 

Nevertheless, you are right that the author underplays and seems unaware of the degree of influence that Stanford’s NIL collective could be having.

Saw this piece today on a laptop and read all about Lifetime Cardinal. The reporter, Connor Letourneau, is diligent and scrupulously nonpartisan. And I got a clear impression that certain alumni on the Peninsula could and would deliver everything the program would need to compete with any school in the country -- IF the reluctant powers that be were so inclined. BTW, his piece in December about Shaw's career at Stanford was thorough, fair and pulled no punches. As for those powers, I say that they and Ivy League football are a match made in heaven for each other.

[OutsiderFan]

All this begs the question. IF well-heeled Stanford people are ready to pony up the cash to compete, how the hell are the "pencil-necked geeks who prefer the Ivy model" actually in charge of anything? Why aren't they pushed out in favor of people who will value the marquee sports, and won't tolerate Oregon State, Washington State having a superior football team to Stanford's? People who won't allow the MBB program to miss the NCAA tournament for a decade?

[OutsiderFan]

All this begs the question. IF well-heeled Stanford people are ready to pony up the cash to compete, how the hell are the "pencil-necked geeks who prefer the Ivy model" actually in charge of anything? Why aren't they pushed out in favor of people who will value the marquee sports, and won't tolerate Oregon State, Washington State having a superior football team to Stanford's? People who won't allow the MBB program to miss the NCAA tournament for a decade?

[M T]

Is there anywhere else in the world besides the NCAA Div. I schools where education and pro sports are conflated?  Perhaps it is my limited knowledge, but I haven't heard much about athletic scholarships in Europe, Asia, Central or South America.

In 2021, the median income of a non-family household (single person) is about $50K in the US.

I'm not sure how many benefits are included in scholarships, but Stanford's undergrad tuition is greater than that.  If room & board and books are included, athletes on full scholarships are getting benefits well beyond that of the median single-person household.  Medical?  Other advantages (tutoring, ...)?

[M T]

Is there anywhere else in the world besides the NCAA Div. I schools where education and pro sports are conflated?  Perhaps it is my limited knowledge, but I haven't heard much about athletic scholarships in Europe, Asia, Central or South America.

In 2021, the median income of a non-family household (single person) is about $50K in the US.

I'm not sure how many benefits are included in scholarships, but Stanford's undergrad tuition is greater than that.  If room & board and books are included, athletes on full scholarships are getting benefits well beyond that of the median single-person household.  Medical?  Other advantages (tutoring, ...)?

[2006alum]

MT, you're spot on. For 99 percent of D1 athletes, there is no buyer for their services on the free market, let alone one who compensates at a tax-free $80k+ per year. A handful of sympathetic football and basketball players drive a narrative that doesn't accurately capture the dynamics of college sports economics whatsoever.

[2006alum]

MT, you're spot on. For 99 percent of D1 athletes, there is no buyer for their services on the free market, let alone one who compensates at a tax-free $80k+ per year. A handful of sympathetic football and basketball players drive a narrative that doesn't accurately capture the dynamics of college sports economics whatsoever.

[BostonCard]

Let's remember that the original NIL case was brought about by Ed O'Bannon because the NCAA, in its infinite wisdom, licensed the images of actual players to Electronic Arts to make a video game that featured characters with an uncanny resemblance to people who were over a decade out of college, and didn't think to share any of the revenue with the players whose images were being used (link).  Screw that, O'Bannon and the roughly 100,000 current and former athletes who had appeared in EA Sports' NCAA Basketball and NCAA Football series of video games since 2003 deserve every penny and more of the $40 million settlement.

But it's a long way between the NCAA licensing out the image of its athletes without compensation or their permission and the farce that has become collectives and NILs in 2023. Let's call it what it is, a way for boosters to funnel money to players in a thinly veiled pay-to-play scheme.  Which, I guess, is fine; if rich VC's want to toss athletes a bone for playing at Stanford or anywhere, who am I to begrudge the billionaires or the athletes.  But even if Stanford's wealthy alumni base was willing to buy us a great team, I honestly don't know how I'd feel.  A return to the Rose Bowl under those circumstances would feel very different than the heyday of 2010-2015.  If I'm going to root for an amateur in name only team, I might as well go for the real deal and start watching Niners games.

It's ok, though.  I think the ship is sailing, and the confluence of NIL, transfer rules that make a mockery of the pursue of a degree, and conference realignment that consistently seeks to maximize TV revenue at the expense of athlete well-being, not to mention increasing evidence of the toll on body and mind that athletics imposes, tell me that, win or lose, my days as a die hard fan are probably numbered.  It's possible that the ""pencil-necked geeks who prefer the Ivy mode" might actually be in the right here (except for the fact that there is a separate thread about lawsuits that, though a bit of a long shot, would be a threat to the Ivy model).

BC

[BostonCard]

Let's remember that the original NIL case was brought about by Ed O'Bannon because the NCAA, in its infinite wisdom, licensed the images of actual players to Electronic Arts to make a video game that featured characters with an uncanny resemblance to people who were over a decade out of college, and didn't think to share any of the revenue with the players whose images were being used (link).  Screw that, O'Bannon and the roughly 100,000 current and former athletes who had appeared in EA Sports' NCAA Basketball and NCAA Football series of video games since 2003 deserve every penny and more of the $40 million settlement.

But it's a long way between the NCAA licensing out the image of its athletes without compensation or their permission and the farce that has become collectives and NILs in 2023. Let's call it what it is, a way for boosters to funnel money to players in a thinly veiled pay-to-play scheme.  Which, I guess, is fine; if rich VC's want to toss athletes a bone for playing at Stanford or anywhere, who am I to begrudge the billionaires or the athletes.  But even if Stanford's wealthy alumni base was willing to buy us a great team, I honestly don't know how I'd feel.  A return to the Rose Bowl under those circumstances would feel very different than the heyday of 2010-2015.  If I'm going to root for an amateur in name only team, I might as well go for the real deal and start watching Niners games.

It's ok, though.  I think the ship is sailing, and the confluence of NIL, transfer rules that make a mockery of the pursue of a degree, and conference realignment that consistently seeks to maximize TV revenue at the expense of athlete well-being, not to mention increasing evidence of the toll on body and mind that athletics imposes, tell me that, win or lose, my days as a die hard fan are probably numbered.  It's possible that the ""pencil-necked geeks who prefer the Ivy mode" might actually be in the right here (except for the fact that there is a separate thread about lawsuits that, though a bit of a long shot, would be a threat to the Ivy model).

BC

[needle]

Just as a CFB fan, it seems to me that there are really two or three NIL markets in Power 5 football: 1.) QBs 2.) Highly-coveted transfers 3.) Everybody else.

I have no inside info but it sure looks to me like Stanford is not at all trying to compete in the first two “markets” I mentioned. I hope I am wrong.

[needle]

Just as a CFB fan, it seems to me that there are really two or three NIL markets in Power 5 football: 1.) QBs 2.) Highly-coveted transfers 3.) Everybody else.

I have no inside info but it sure looks to me like Stanford is not at all trying to compete in the first two “markets” I mentioned. I hope I am wrong.

[SamuelMcF]

Just as a CFB fan, it seems to me that there are really two or three NIL markets in Power 5 football: 1.) QBs 2.) Highly-coveted transfers 3.) Everybody else.

I have no inside info but it sure looks to me like Stanford is not at all trying to compete in the first two “markets” I mentioned. I hope I am wrong.

I would say your intuition is almost right on, but "mega-whale HS recruits at every other position" should also be a bucket. A bit less significant market-power-wise than the first 2 but still much more significant than "everybody else."

In the transfer realm, my sense is that we're certainly trying to recruit good ones, but so many of them are "chasing the bag" that the returns on effort there are scant to none. The amount Walter Rouse is getting from Oklahoma is crazy, for example, and supposedly Nebraska and Iowa both offered similar amounts. He was never staying with Stanford engineering degree in hand and offers like that on the table.

As soon as it's clear there's a legit bidding war between collectives, we're out on principle. I don't think our collective does that. There will occasionally be a good transfer for whom the bidding war is less of a priority, like Gaethan Bernadel. You miss every shot you don't take, but it sure takes a hell of a lot of shots to find a guy like him and guide him through the transfer process.

We've offered many HS studs per usual but I'm way less sure about how HS recruiting is going. (That doesn't mean we're doing bad; it means I legitimately don't know.)

[SamuelMcF]

Just as a CFB fan, it seems to me that there are really two or three NIL markets in Power 5 football: 1.) QBs 2.) Highly-coveted transfers 3.) Everybody else.

I have no inside info but it sure looks to me like Stanford is not at all trying to compete in the first two “markets” I mentioned. I hope I am wrong.

I would say your intuition is almost right on, but "mega-whale HS recruits at every other position" should also be a bucket. A bit less significant market-power-wise than the first 2 but still much more significant than "everybody else."

In the transfer realm, my sense is that we're certainly trying to recruit good ones, but so many of them are "chasing the bag" that the returns on effort there are scant to none. The amount Walter Rouse is getting from Oklahoma is crazy, for example, and supposedly Nebraska and Iowa both offered similar amounts. He was never staying with Stanford engineering degree in hand and offers like that on the table.

As soon as it's clear there's a legit bidding war between collectives, we're out on principle. I don't think our collective does that. There will occasionally be a good transfer for whom the bidding war is less of a priority, like Gaethan Bernadel. You miss every shot you don't take, but it sure takes a hell of a lot of shots to find a guy like him and guide him through the transfer process.

We've offered many HS studs per usual but I'm way less sure about how HS recruiting is going. (That doesn't mean we're doing bad; it means I legitimately don't know.)

[81alum]

A lot depends on what we want to see as fans, and we have all had different experiences and seek different sources of enjoyment.  For me, as an alum, former faculty, and longtime fan, my enjoyment is connected to the athletes themselves being Stanford students in the best sense of the term.  That they come to Stanford and want to take the harder road that the fake-student-real-athletes at some other universities do not take.  If we got a "whale" (sorry, I am learning these terms) who was a brilliant athlete and who could help us win but who was one-and-done or even three-and-done-with-no-degree I am left cold. 

In fact, and I know this is naive on my part, the idea that a student would come to Stanford because of a lucrative money deal, and that they would not come otherwise--I find revolting.  That to me shows that they are not genuinely interested in the best that Stanford has to offer, if they would sell themselves to a lesser university for money and give up a once-in-a-lifetime chance at a Stanford education.

I don't expect many on a sports forum to agree with me--this is not, after all, an "academic forum"--and I respect that many of you have different priorities and obtain your enjoyment in different ways than I do.  But the very act of bidding on athletes to come to Stanford for money--at a time when 97 out of 100 dreaming applicants get turned away and have their hopes dashed--would destroy my attachment to our program.

I sincerely hope that the transfer rules and the NIL rules get modified, toned down, and the wild west of college athletes begins to look more like a settled west.  If they do not and these issues continue to worsen and multiply, then I am ready to join an Ivy League, or drop football.

I also think that most of our non-revenue sports are doing fine and could continue to do fine under the new college sports regime provided we can pay for them.  NIL rarely applies to those success stories--although WBB is in an in-between place.  It would be a shame if the requirements to be successful at football--my oldest sports love at Stanford--wound up destroying a really good environment for all these other sports.  For example, joining the Big 10 might save football, but it would be hideous for other sports, as WBB at USC and UCLA are about to find out.  Tough luck to them, since they play second fiddle to the mercenary football army hired by their universities (thinking of USC in particular.)

Just a part of my "letting go" of prior loves and obsessions.  It really does feel like a difficult break up.  Maybe our football program will surprise me and be successful without compromising our standards.  I'd like nothing better.  But it seems as if craven and selfish interests all over the country are conspiring against the Stanford model of success, and there is not a lot of hope for people like me, who love football, but who have a very old-fashioned view of the student-athlete.

[81alum]

A lot depends on what we want to see as fans, and we have all had different experiences and seek different sources of enjoyment.  For me, as an alum, former faculty, and longtime fan, my enjoyment is connected to the athletes themselves being Stanford students in the best sense of the term.  That they come to Stanford and want to take the harder road that the fake-student-real-athletes at some other universities do not take.  If we got a "whale" (sorry, I am learning these terms) who was a brilliant athlete and who could help us win but who was one-and-done or even three-and-done-with-no-degree I am left cold. 

In fact, and I know this is naive on my part, the idea that a student would come to Stanford because of a lucrative money deal, and that they would not come otherwise--I find revolting.  That to me shows that they are not genuinely interested in the best that Stanford has to offer, if they would sell themselves to a lesser university for money and give up a once-in-a-lifetime chance at a Stanford education.

I don't expect many on a sports forum to agree with me--this is not, after all, an "academic forum"--and I respect that many of you have different priorities and obtain your enjoyment in different ways than I do.  But the very act of bidding on athletes to come to Stanford for money--at a time when 97 out of 100 dreaming applicants get turned away and have their hopes dashed--would destroy my attachment to our program.

I sincerely hope that the transfer rules and the NIL rules get modified, toned down, and the wild west of college athletes begins to look more like a settled west.  If they do not and these issues continue to worsen and multiply, then I am ready to join an Ivy League, or drop football.

I also think that most of our non-revenue sports are doing fine and could continue to do fine under the new college sports regime provided we can pay for them.  NIL rarely applies to those success stories--although WBB is in an in-between place.  It would be a shame if the requirements to be successful at football--my oldest sports love at Stanford--wound up destroying a really good environment for all these other sports.  For example, joining the Big 10 might save football, but it would be hideous for other sports, as WBB at USC and UCLA are about to find out.  Tough luck to them, since they play second fiddle to the mercenary football army hired by their universities (thinking of USC in particular.)

Just a part of my "letting go" of prior loves and obsessions.  It really does feel like a difficult break up.  Maybe our football program will surprise me and be successful without compromising our standards.  I'd like nothing better.  But it seems as if craven and selfish interests all over the country are conspiring against the Stanford model of success, and there is not a lot of hope for people like me, who love football, but who have a very old-fashioned view of the student-athlete.

[SamuelMcF]

For example, joining the Big 10 might save football, but it would be hideous for other sports, as WBB at USC and UCLA are about to find out.  Tough luck to them, since they play second fiddle to the mercenary football army hired by their universities (thinking of USC in particular.)

FWIW: don't "think of USC in particular." They are both mercenary armies. Caleb Williams and Jordan Addison may have grabbed the headlines for Riley, but by sheer transfer volume the two are neck-and-neck. Chipster gets to slide under the radar while the cross-town rival gets the flak. Sweet deal for him.

USC transfers in the past 2 seasons: 32
UCLA transfers in the past 2 seasons: 27

[SamuelMcF]

For example, joining the Big 10 might save football, but it would be hideous for other sports, as WBB at USC and UCLA are about to find out.  Tough luck to them, since they play second fiddle to the mercenary football army hired by their universities (thinking of USC in particular.)

FWIW: don't "think of USC in particular." They are both mercenary armies. Caleb Williams and Jordan Addison may have grabbed the headlines for Riley, but by sheer transfer volume the two are neck-and-neck. Chipster gets to slide under the radar while the cross-town rival gets the flak. Sweet deal for him.

USC transfers in the past 2 seasons: 32
UCLA transfers in the past 2 seasons: 27

[jacket3ree]

A lot depends on what we want to see as fans, and we have all had different experiences and seek different sources of enjoyment.  For me, as an alum, former faculty, and longtime fan, my enjoyment is connected to the athletes themselves being Stanford students in the best sense of the term.  That they come to Stanford and want to take the harder road that the fake-student-real-athletes at some other universities do not take.  If we got a "whale" (sorry, I am learning these terms) who was a brilliant athlete and who could help us win but who was one-and-done or even three-and-done-with-no-degree I am left cold. 

In fact, and I know this is naive on my part, the idea that a student would come to Stanford because of a lucrative money deal, and that they would not come otherwise--I find revolting.  That to me shows that they are not genuinely interested in the best that Stanford has to offer, if they would sell themselves to a lesser university for money and give up a once-in-a-lifetime chance at a Stanford education.

I don't expect many on a sports forum to agree with me--this is not, after all, an "academic forum"--and I respect that many of you have different priorities and obtain your enjoyment in different ways than I do.  But the very act of bidding on athletes to come to Stanford for money--at a time when 97 out of 100 dreaming applicants get turned away and have their hopes dashed--would destroy my attachment to our program.

I sincerely hope that the transfer rules and the NIL rules get modified, toned down, and the wild west of college athletes begins to look more like a settled west.  If they do not and these issues continue to worsen and multiply, then I am ready to join an Ivy League, or drop football.

I also think that most of our non-revenue sports are doing fine and could continue to do fine under the new college sports regime provided we can pay for them.  NIL rarely applies to those success stories--although WBB is in an in-between place.  It would be a shame if the requirements to be successful at football--my oldest sports love at Stanford--wound up destroying a really good environment for all these other sports.  For example, joining the Big 10 might save football, but it would be hideous for other sports, as WBB at USC and UCLA are about to find out.  Tough luck to them, since they play second fiddle to the mercenary football army hired by their universities (thinking of USC in particular.)

Just a part of my "letting go" of prior loves and obsessions.  It really does feel like a difficult break up.  Maybe our football program will surprise me and be successful without compromising our standards.  I'd like nothing better.  But it seems as if craven and selfish interests all over the country are conspiring against the Stanford model of success, and there is not a lot of hope for people like me, who love football, but who have a very old-fashioned view of the student-athlete.

Your naivete is charming, but it is self-acknowledged, so that's good.  I am finding it very easy to let go of what used to be a strong interest in college athletics.  I don't need NFL/NBA lite.  So, I'll roll with Navy Sprint and watch the rest out of the corner of my eye. The non-revenue sports are headed down the same path (LSU gymnast, et al), but I do wonder if it works at Stanford without football backing. They are also non-revenue for a reason. Not a lot of interest.  Although I watched college bowling while I was sick last weekend.  Holy Something or Another lost to the Shockers.  Or maybe it was the other way around.

I root for laundry and nostalgia. I'm crass - unless I know a player personally, and I don't know any players now that the kid is 8 years past his last game, which was on the banks of the Hudson, what they do out of my view concerns me very little. I have no interest in watching "real" students get their teeth kicked in on the regular by other "real" students or transients.  If this is setting up almost like cross-divisional football, Stanford would be doing its players a real disservice by not fielding a competitive team.

The whole thing is confusing. Quotes from Muir and Taylor saying Stanford is unique and won't be participating in NIL.  But, Stanford isn't THAT unique in what it offers and nothing stops boosters from funneling money to players.  Bet it is happening whether Muir likes it or not.  If these quotes are a stupid and futile gesture on someone's part, and that someone is the Stanford AD: barf.

Will be interesting, to be sure.  Or not, which is what I fear.

[jacket3ree]

A lot depends on what we want to see as fans, and we have all had different experiences and seek different sources of enjoyment.  For me, as an alum, former faculty, and longtime fan, my enjoyment is connected to the athletes themselves being Stanford students in the best sense of the term.  That they come to Stanford and want to take the harder road that the fake-student-real-athletes at some other universities do not take.  If we got a "whale" (sorry, I am learning these terms) who was a brilliant athlete and who could help us win but who was one-and-done or even three-and-done-with-no-degree I am left cold. 

In fact, and I know this is naive on my part, the idea that a student would come to Stanford because of a lucrative money deal, and that they would not come otherwise--I find revolting.  That to me shows that they are not genuinely interested in the best that Stanford has to offer, if they would sell themselves to a lesser university for money and give up a once-in-a-lifetime chance at a Stanford education.

I don't expect many on a sports forum to agree with me--this is not, after all, an "academic forum"--and I respect that many of you have different priorities and obtain your enjoyment in different ways than I do.  But the very act of bidding on athletes to come to Stanford for money--at a time when 97 out of 100 dreaming applicants get turned away and have their hopes dashed--would destroy my attachment to our program.

I sincerely hope that the transfer rules and the NIL rules get modified, toned down, and the wild west of college athletes begins to look more like a settled west.  If they do not and these issues continue to worsen and multiply, then I am ready to join an Ivy League, or drop football.

I also think that most of our non-revenue sports are doing fine and could continue to do fine under the new college sports regime provided we can pay for them.  NIL rarely applies to those success stories--although WBB is in an in-between place.  It would be a shame if the requirements to be successful at football--my oldest sports love at Stanford--wound up destroying a really good environment for all these other sports.  For example, joining the Big 10 might save football, but it would be hideous for other sports, as WBB at USC and UCLA are about to find out.  Tough luck to them, since they play second fiddle to the mercenary football army hired by their universities (thinking of USC in particular.)

Just a part of my "letting go" of prior loves and obsessions.  It really does feel like a difficult break up.  Maybe our football program will surprise me and be successful without compromising our standards.  I'd like nothing better.  But it seems as if craven and selfish interests all over the country are conspiring against the Stanford model of success, and there is not a lot of hope for people like me, who love football, but who have a very old-fashioned view of the student-athlete.

Your naivete is charming, but it is self-acknowledged, so that's good.  I am finding it very easy to let go of what used to be a strong interest in college athletics.  I don't need NFL/NBA lite.  So, I'll roll with Navy Sprint and watch the rest out of the corner of my eye. The non-revenue sports are headed down the same path (LSU gymnast, et al), but I do wonder if it works at Stanford without football backing. They are also non-revenue for a reason. Not a lot of interest.  Although I watched college bowling while I was sick last weekend.  Holy Something or Another lost to the Shockers.  Or maybe it was the other way around.

I root for laundry and nostalgia. I'm crass - unless I know a player personally, and I don't know any players now that the kid is 8 years past his last game, which was on the banks of the Hudson, what they do out of my view concerns me very little. I have no interest in watching "real" students get their teeth kicked in on the regular by other "real" students or transients.  If this is setting up almost like cross-divisional football, Stanford would be doing its players a real disservice by not fielding a competitive team.

The whole thing is confusing. Quotes from Muir and Taylor saying Stanford is unique and won't be participating in NIL.  But, Stanford isn't THAT unique in what it offers and nothing stops boosters from funneling money to players.  Bet it is happening whether Muir likes it or not.  If these quotes are a stupid and futile gesture on someone's part, and that someone is the Stanford AD: barf.

Will be interesting, to be sure.  Or not, which is what I fear.

[OutsiderFan]

Schools have no (or at least are not suppose to have) direct affiliation with NIL collectives, so no school will be "participating in NIL" by definition. So I'm not grasping how Muir and Taylor saying "we won't be participating in NIL" means anything meaningful in the sense that Stanford is losing something here as a result.

Again, the Lifetime Cardinal collective is giving each football player $10k starting this season. It's not coming from Stanford, so Stanford isn't participating in it, but the fact is the players are going to benefit from NIL. So it's curious to me how there can be concern Stanford won't be participating in NIL, when Stanford in fact will derive benefit from NIL with this Lifetime Cardinal collective.

[OutsiderFan]

Schools have no (or at least are not suppose to have) direct affiliation with NIL collectives, so no school will be "participating in NIL" by definition. So I'm not grasping how Muir and Taylor saying "we won't be participating in NIL" means anything meaningful in the sense that Stanford is losing something here as a result.

Again, the Lifetime Cardinal collective is giving each football player $10k starting this season. It's not coming from Stanford, so Stanford isn't participating in it, but the fact is the players are going to benefit from NIL. So it's curious to me how there can be concern Stanford won't be participating in NIL, when Stanford in fact will derive benefit from NIL with this Lifetime Cardinal collective.

[GK3]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a million  bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sighted” And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  And there actually are other schools with strong academics, good football and alumni with big checkbooks that the University is willing to exploit.  As Ryan Day said to a group - we need about 13 million to recruit with this year….. 

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, enjoy 3-9.

You are right Lex.  Until we have an administration that will actively support intercollegiate athletics, things won't get much better.

---

Schools have no (or at least are not suppose to have) direct affiliation with NIL collectives, so no school will be "participating in NIL" by definition. So I'm not grasping how Muir and Taylor saying "we won't be participating in NIL" means anything meaningful in the sense that Stanford is losing something here as a result.

Again, the Lifetime Cardinal collective is giving each football player $10k starting this season. It's not coming from Stanford, so Stanford isn't participating in it, but the fact is the players are going to benefit from NIL. So it's curious to me how there can be concern Stanford won't be participating in NIL, when Stanford in fact will derive benefit from NIL with this Lifetime Cardinal collective.

If all a player is going to get is $10,000 the 4 and 5 star kids will not be impressed and likely go elsewhere.  Participating and competing are two different things.  Stanford's so-called 40 year decision pitch no longer holds much water for most of the top kids coming out of high school.

[GK3]

So, Chron ran an article today about how Stanford is not “joining” the NIL circus and instead will rely on its academic clout.  So, better sign a whole lot of 3 stars and coach them up. Cause they ain’t getting whales. 40 year decision vs a million  bucks is an easy call for a kid that probably is thinking they won’t be in College 4 years anyway.  

We can say it’s “short sighted” And it is.  But we aren’t 18 and in many cases from economically disadvantaged situations.  And there actually are other schools with strong academics, good football and alumni with big checkbooks that the University is willing to exploit.  As Ryan Day said to a group - we need about 13 million to recruit with this year….. 

As the article notes, Stanford could thrive with NIL given the economic clout of its  alumni.  But chooses not to.  

Join the Ivy League.  Otherwise, enjoy 3-9.

You are right Lex.  Until we have an administration that will actively support intercollegiate athletics, things won't get much better.

---

Schools have no (or at least are not suppose to have) direct affiliation with NIL collectives, so no school will be "participating in NIL" by definition. So I'm not grasping how Muir and Taylor saying "we won't be participating in NIL" means anything meaningful in the sense that Stanford is losing something here as a result.

Again, the Lifetime Cardinal collective is giving each football player $10k starting this season. It's not coming from Stanford, so Stanford isn't participating in it, but the fact is the players are going to benefit from NIL. So it's curious to me how there can be concern Stanford won't be participating in NIL, when Stanford in fact will derive benefit from NIL with this Lifetime Cardinal collective.

If all a player is going to get is $10,000 the 4 and 5 star kids will not be impressed and likely go elsewhere.  Participating and competing are two different things.  Stanford's so-called 40 year decision pitch no longer holds much water for most of the top kids coming out of high school.

[OutsiderFan]

If all a player is going to get is $10,000 the 4 and 5 star kids will not be impressed and likely go elsewhere.  Participating and competing are two different things.  Stanford's so-called 40 year decision pitch no longer holds much water for most of the top kids coming out of high school.

The $10k is a baseline for everyone. It doesn't preclude individual players from getting more, and I believe the plan is to increase the base amount over time. Still, Stanford does have to figure out what the market of high academic achieving recruits wants, and make sure it is offered if Stanford wants to have any chance to generate revenue from sports and maintain a robust athletics program.

[OutsiderFan]

If all a player is going to get is $10,000 the 4 and 5 star kids will not be impressed and likely go elsewhere.  Participating and competing are two different things.  Stanford's so-called 40 year decision pitch no longer holds much water for most of the top kids coming out of high school.

The $10k is a baseline for everyone. It doesn't preclude individual players from getting more, and I believe the plan is to increase the base amount over time. Still, Stanford does have to figure out what the market of high academic achieving recruits wants, and make sure it is offered if Stanford wants to have any chance to generate revenue from sports and maintain a robust athletics program.