04-08-2023, 02:55 PM
I didn't understand NIL when it first came out and still don't have a good understanding. I initially was skeptical, but as I learn more, I like it less and less. I totally get the argument that there are mega bucks in college sports, but the student athletes who are doing the work get nothing. Well, they (most all) do get scholarships which match the opportunities provided by academic awards, need financial help, and other awards available to non-athletes. They get scholarships to play a sport they love. But is it fair for all the associated adults to enrich themselves and the athletes ne serfs? No, and that's why I initially was unsure. Regardless, overall I have disdain for college sports drifting toward pro sports. What should have been done in my opinion was for the NCAA to require that school athletic budgets had to totally rely upon game receipts and donations with donations limited to be directed to facilities and student athlete scholarships. Coaches' salaries would be funded from the school's budget. This would limit the excessive salaries and of coaches and adminstrative employees. They like the players would be involved in the sport more for the love of the sport and personal interactions than for the money. TV money which is the brobdingnagian elephant should be collected by the NCAA and distributed to EVERY accredited college, no matter their level of athletic competition. The monies should go to the schools to be used to keep down tuition or provide greater financial assistance. If we are going to have money n college sports - which from a market perspective is fine - then since college sports arose out of academic college institutions, the goal for using these monies should support those institutions main academic purpose or more specifically, both student athletes and non-student athletes in theoir quest for a higher education.
I'm also not a fan of the portal. I wasn't thrilled when the Flood case led to a flood of free agents in pro sports. I'm old fashioned in wanting to see a generally stable roster for my favorite teams. A few trades and upcoming young players replacing retiring/cut players is fine, but the wholesale movement of players turned me off. I liked identifying with the players as much as with the overall team. I'm also in loyalty and putting it as well as love for the sport ahead of bucks. Prop mercenaries who prioritize how much they can get has always also made me question their commitment to their team and teammates and fans. However, I again understand the free market factor and players not wanting to be effectively indentured, especially while owners and others could rake in bigger bucks. Because pro sports are a business, I accept this and agree it's right with the hope that there would be some way(s) to develop a win-win; loyalty/stability and free market conditions for players.
However, college sports are not or should not be a business. For student athletes, it's at most 4-5 years and less for those who are able to turn pro early. The loyalty/stability factor should even be greater. As fans, especially alum fans, we follow support and cheer on our favorite school with what used to be considered "school spirit". Win or lose, it was our school and the players represented us. They were part of us and we were part of them. Rivalries, traditions, and all kinds of fun activities were built around this school spirit. And former athletes, whether they went pro or not, would still proudly idnetify with their alma mater and cheer them on. Famous former athletes became icons at the school and representatives. How will today's athletes who played for 2, 3, or 4 schools identify? I also don't like the potential for some coaches/schools/boosters cheating to get transfers or players/players parents using the threat of transfer to get PT or other favorable treatment. I don't like the chaos of all the transfers. I do understand that there are instances where an athlete can suffer from an abusive coach or have personal circumstances that don't work at the school they are enrolled and they need to transfer. Sometimes those instances can be worked out or put up with, and sometimes there is no alternative but to transfer. But it seems to me that the prior transfer policies were sufficient. Athletes could and did transfer, but it wasn't the deluge that we see now. The NCAA should go back to its former policy unless abetter solution is found.
As for Betts, I don't buy those who underestimate her talent and her contributions. IMO, she was the third, possibly second best player coming back. Brink is the best with Jump and Betts behind her. Hard to say if Betts or Jump is better because they two entirely different type players. I would have had Betts at the 4 and Brink at the 5. To those who noted Betts' weaknesses, I differ. Because of her body type, Lauren is never going to be able to play in the style of say Angel Reese or even Cam. But it's also her body type, height, bulk, and strength that allows us to do things those other posts can't do. And yes, she had some things that needed improvement, but every first year player has something that needs work and for Bettrs, they are correctable and I'm sure will be. So I'm sad that she's leaving and wish somehow she wouldchange her mind.
And now I learn that Nnopu and Nivar are also leaving. That's disturbing both for their losses and what it might indicate as far as what's going on in the program. It could be argued that the portal and all these transfers, including our losses, are a good thing because they allow coaches to re-balance their roster as recruiting can work out where you don't get the effective mix of players. One poster here suggested that Brink and Iriafen would be better than Brink and Betts because we could play faster and more uptempo. Possibly true and possibly we could bring in transfers for a better backcourt and/or more fitting front court player off the bench. I don't know, but I strongly suspect Stanford can't compete in the transfer shuffle. Even if we could, I came to like these kids and liked rooting for the. I'll miss them and I don't at all like the possibly of having to root agst them if they're wearing an opposing jersey.
I'm also not a fan of the portal. I wasn't thrilled when the Flood case led to a flood of free agents in pro sports. I'm old fashioned in wanting to see a generally stable roster for my favorite teams. A few trades and upcoming young players replacing retiring/cut players is fine, but the wholesale movement of players turned me off. I liked identifying with the players as much as with the overall team. I'm also in loyalty and putting it as well as love for the sport ahead of bucks. Prop mercenaries who prioritize how much they can get has always also made me question their commitment to their team and teammates and fans. However, I again understand the free market factor and players not wanting to be effectively indentured, especially while owners and others could rake in bigger bucks. Because pro sports are a business, I accept this and agree it's right with the hope that there would be some way(s) to develop a win-win; loyalty/stability and free market conditions for players.
However, college sports are not or should not be a business. For student athletes, it's at most 4-5 years and less for those who are able to turn pro early. The loyalty/stability factor should even be greater. As fans, especially alum fans, we follow support and cheer on our favorite school with what used to be considered "school spirit". Win or lose, it was our school and the players represented us. They were part of us and we were part of them. Rivalries, traditions, and all kinds of fun activities were built around this school spirit. And former athletes, whether they went pro or not, would still proudly idnetify with their alma mater and cheer them on. Famous former athletes became icons at the school and representatives. How will today's athletes who played for 2, 3, or 4 schools identify? I also don't like the potential for some coaches/schools/boosters cheating to get transfers or players/players parents using the threat of transfer to get PT or other favorable treatment. I don't like the chaos of all the transfers. I do understand that there are instances where an athlete can suffer from an abusive coach or have personal circumstances that don't work at the school they are enrolled and they need to transfer. Sometimes those instances can be worked out or put up with, and sometimes there is no alternative but to transfer. But it seems to me that the prior transfer policies were sufficient. Athletes could and did transfer, but it wasn't the deluge that we see now. The NCAA should go back to its former policy unless abetter solution is found.
As for Betts, I don't buy those who underestimate her talent and her contributions. IMO, she was the third, possibly second best player coming back. Brink is the best with Jump and Betts behind her. Hard to say if Betts or Jump is better because they two entirely different type players. I would have had Betts at the 4 and Brink at the 5. To those who noted Betts' weaknesses, I differ. Because of her body type, Lauren is never going to be able to play in the style of say Angel Reese or even Cam. But it's also her body type, height, bulk, and strength that allows us to do things those other posts can't do. And yes, she had some things that needed improvement, but every first year player has something that needs work and for Bettrs, they are correctable and I'm sure will be. So I'm sad that she's leaving and wish somehow she wouldchange her mind.
And now I learn that Nnopu and Nivar are also leaving. That's disturbing both for their losses and what it might indicate as far as what's going on in the program. It could be argued that the portal and all these transfers, including our losses, are a good thing because they allow coaches to re-balance their roster as recruiting can work out where you don't get the effective mix of players. One poster here suggested that Brink and Iriafen would be better than Brink and Betts because we could play faster and more uptempo. Possibly true and possibly we could bring in transfers for a better backcourt and/or more fitting front court player off the bench. I don't know, but I strongly suspect Stanford can't compete in the transfer shuffle. Even if we could, I came to like these kids and liked rooting for the. I'll miss them and I don't at all like the possibly of having to root agst them if they're wearing an opposing jersey.
