[Goose]

I agree everybody has their own opinions about the ongoing changes, and all are certainly entitled, too.  I do have a question about your stance that they are no longer students because they are now professional athletes.  I mean this as a legitimate question so that I can try to understand your position. 

In Kiki’s case, she is going to have a degree in design engineering (previously product design).  If she is accepted on academic merits to a grad program at Stanford, or any university for that matter, and she takes the required classes and does well in them to earn a master’s degree in her field while also using her time to play basketball (and receiving money for that part), where in that situation is she not being a student?

From my perspective, she is still continuing to be a student.  What is changing is that the time that she is putting in as an athlete, which is completely separate from her time completing her coursework, is being compensated.  But what I’m lacking to fully comprehend is how that is taking away from the student part of the equation. 

There several aspects of her position that I have "problems" with. To be clear, I have no problems with her actions/choices. She isn't breaking any rules (that we know of) and has done what works best for her. I do have several potential problems with her status as a "student". First, did she get any preferences in admission (including application date) because she is an athlete? I strongly suspect she did. It is IMO possible to justify some such preferences on the grounds that being an athlete is a demanding uncompensated activity and some latitude is reasonable. She occupies a seat that otherwise would have gone to somebody else. Again, it could perhaps be justified on the grounds her uncompensated athletic activity deserves some preference. These arguments are not overwhelmingly strong, but they at least are arguably "reasonable". However, when the student is being compensated to the tune of $750K, those arguments ring totally hollow. She is being paid handsomely to pay basketball at a university. To do that, she needs to be admitted. She clearly wasn't "just another grad student". That is preferential treatment, plain and simple, with no justification. As an uncompensated athlete, there is an argument for compensatory benefits. As a paid professional, there are none.

Her position as a professional athlete is also inextricably linked to the school she plays for. She can't earn her money unless she is at school X who has arranged for her to get paid. She is getting compensated (indirectly) by the school to play sports while others that play sports (and all who do not play sports) are not. One might say that is just fine, because the school thinks it is worth it. However, that creates a very public employer/employee relationship that by its nature conflicts with her relationship to the school as a student. The athlete has leverage other students do not. In short, she can get away with things others cannot. This doesn't represent a flaw in the student, but rather in the institution. It can't treat her the same way they do all the other grad students. The school can't afford to do so. Flunking out (for example) your star player that is making $750K a year from your collective is not an option. Neither is telling them they have to show up for class when it conflicts with athletics. Grad students often have jobs outside of the institution. Those jobs don't change the student's relationship with the school. Being a highly compensated athlete by the school does.

The third issue is a bit of a TBD, and doesn't necessarily apply to KiKi (yet). We know that a large percentage of grad transfer student athletes don't complete their degrees.  According to https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/researc...SA-PPT.pdf 38% of women's basketball players quit school without a degree at or before two years in school. 56% have received a graduate degree and the rest are TBD. These figures come from before NIL was a "thing". I suspect the degree completions will drop significantly in the future. Will KiKi stay and finish or quit as soon as her eligibility is over? It wouldn't be totally fair to use this metric to evaluate to what degree these grad transfers are "serious" students, but it is certainly indicative many are emphatically not. 

The bottom line is that the balance of student-athlete being a student first and an athlete second is inevitably distorted by getting paid to play. The relationship becomes inverted. Both the athlete and the school have a much greater vested interest in ensuring the "athlete" part works out than they do the "student" part. The athlete only has to make it through the season of eligibility (which would be fall quarter/semester). After that, who cares? The student part becomes a "bonus" that the student can take or leave as they choose. They are employees of the school who have to at least pose as students for a short while in order to compete. They probably have benefited from significant admission preferences and certainly will not be treated the same as their peers. They will also make a whole lot of money enabled by their attendance of that school. For these reasons, I can't really call these individuals "student-athletes".

[Goose]

I agree everybody has their own opinions about the ongoing changes, and all are certainly entitled, too.  I do have a question about your stance that they are no longer students because they are now professional athletes.  I mean this as a legitimate question so that I can try to understand your position. 

In Kiki’s case, she is going to have a degree in design engineering (previously product design).  If she is accepted on academic merits to a grad program at Stanford, or any university for that matter, and she takes the required classes and does well in them to earn a master’s degree in her field while also using her time to play basketball (and receiving money for that part), where in that situation is she not being a student?

From my perspective, she is still continuing to be a student.  What is changing is that the time that she is putting in as an athlete, which is completely separate from her time completing her coursework, is being compensated.  But what I’m lacking to fully comprehend is how that is taking away from the student part of the equation. 

There several aspects of her position that I have "problems" with. To be clear, I have no problems with her actions/choices. She isn't breaking any rules (that we know of) and has done what works best for her. I do have several potential problems with her status as a "student". First, did she get any preferences in admission (including application date) because she is an athlete? I strongly suspect she did. It is IMO possible to justify some such preferences on the grounds that being an athlete is a demanding uncompensated activity and some latitude is reasonable. She occupies a seat that otherwise would have gone to somebody else. Again, it could perhaps be justified on the grounds her uncompensated athletic activity deserves some preference. These arguments are not overwhelmingly strong, but they at least are arguably "reasonable". However, when the student is being compensated to the tune of $750K, those arguments ring totally hollow. She is being paid handsomely to pay basketball at a university. To do that, she needs to be admitted. She clearly wasn't "just another grad student". That is preferential treatment, plain and simple, with no justification. As an uncompensated athlete, there is an argument for compensatory benefits. As a paid professional, there are none.

Her position as a professional athlete is also inextricably linked to the school she plays for. She can't earn her money unless she is at school X who has arranged for her to get paid. She is getting compensated (indirectly) by the school to play sports while others that play sports (and all who do not play sports) are not. One might say that is just fine, because the school thinks it is worth it. However, that creates a very public employer/employee relationship that by its nature conflicts with her relationship to the school as a student. The athlete has leverage other students do not. In short, she can get away with things others cannot. This doesn't represent a flaw in the student, but rather in the institution. It can't treat her the same way they do all the other grad students. The school can't afford to do so. Flunking out (for example) your star player that is making $750K a year from your collective is not an option. Neither is telling them they have to show up for class when it conflicts with athletics. Grad students often have jobs outside of the institution. Those jobs don't change the student's relationship with the school. Being a highly compensated athlete by the school does.

The third issue is a bit of a TBD, and doesn't necessarily apply to KiKi (yet). We know that a large percentage of grad transfer student athletes don't complete their degrees.  According to https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/researc...SA-PPT.pdf 38% of women's basketball players quit school without a degree at or before two years in school. 56% have received a graduate degree and the rest are TBD. These figures come from before NIL was a "thing". I suspect the degree completions will drop significantly in the future. Will KiKi stay and finish or quit as soon as her eligibility is over? It wouldn't be totally fair to use this metric to evaluate to what degree these grad transfers are "serious" students, but it is certainly indicative many are emphatically not. 

The bottom line is that the balance of student-athlete being a student first and an athlete second is inevitably distorted by getting paid to play. The relationship becomes inverted. Both the athlete and the school have a much greater vested interest in ensuring the "athlete" part works out than they do the "student" part. The athlete only has to make it through the season of eligibility (which would be fall quarter/semester). After that, who cares? The student part becomes a "bonus" that the student can take or leave as they choose. They are employees of the school who have to at least pose as students for a short while in order to compete. They probably have benefited from significant admission preferences and certainly will not be treated the same as their peers. They will also make a whole lot of money enabled by their attendance of that school. For these reasons, I can't really call these individuals "student-athletes".

[jonnyss]

given the distasteful history, ok by me that the term "student athlete" disappears. 

link

the term was coined by the ncaa in the 1950s to counter any claim that college athletes were employees and entitled to workers' benefits, such as compensation if injured on the job. it proved persuasive in a death-benefits claim filed by the widow of ray dennison, a fort lewis a&m lineman whose skull was shattered during a 1955 football game. dennison died as a result. the claim was denied.

[jonnyss]

given the distasteful history, ok by me that the term "student athlete" disappears. 

link

the term was coined by the ncaa in the 1950s to counter any claim that college athletes were employees and entitled to workers' benefits, such as compensation if injured on the job. it proved persuasive in a death-benefits claim filed by the widow of ray dennison, a fort lewis a&m lineman whose skull was shattered during a 1955 football game. dennison died as a result. the claim was denied.

[jacket3ree]

I'm enjoying reading the different perspectives on this. Clearly we all don't all think the same, which is what makes the world go around. Responding to several points made:

1. Indentured servitude. Sure, that was a bit hyperbolic on my part. Most of us who paid much of their own way through as undergraduates, earned fellowships and were paid to teach in graduate school, put two kids through school (albeit with a massive assist from Uncle Sam), have extended 529s for grandchildren, and bought off a child's spouse's student debt because it was strangling them, appreciate the value of a scholarship and full stipend. We can get a little cranky at college athletes wanting more than that. I remembered the Fab Five 30 for 30 retrospective about the downfall of Webber and how while minting money for Michigan, the players couldn't afford decent meals. (Right, I don't remember them talking about what was wrong with the training table.) From the perspective of the best players in the revenue sports, the old system felt like indentured servitude. If you dislike your coach, school, or anything about your experience, your choices are to sit out a year, go overseas, or lump it?  Awesome.  Looking for a refresher on that 30 for 30, I ran into this clip in which Jalen Rose said the words "indentured servants."

2. I don't know what the best system is, other than there probably isn't a best system. Players must go to school (or really, what are we doing?), but I haven't seen anything other than slippery slope conjecture that universities will be sponsoring side show sports teams. I won't stop watching Stanford sports if the University starts directly paying players, but I will stop if Stanford is one of a handful of schools refusing to compete with everyone else out of some misguided purity test. College athletics has never been pure. There were ringers and rampant cheating at the turn of the last century. You could try de-emphasizing winning, but particularly now, there is simply too much money involved.

3. NIL will most benefit the best and most popular athletes in the most popular sports. That's the real world. Why does that affect the anonymous field hockey player? They can still get partial or full rides and call that a good deal. If you wanted big money, you should have devoted yourself to draining step back threes with a hand in your face. 

4. College can be pro-am and survive more or less. Of course there will be the haves and have-nots, just as there always have been. Name any sport without haves and have-nots, amateur, professional, or Olympic. Even the most cleverly constructed drafts and luxury taxes don't create parity. I'm not sure they even create level playing fields.  That's the beauty of sports. Oakland takes down Kentucky.

5. My modest solution is to go back to 4 years of college eligibility, with no partial-year redshirting, free transfers within the construct of college and university requirements (lots of schools have rounds of admission), progress toward degree requirements for eligibility (good luck making progress transferring six times in three years), and sports programs are forbidden from sponsoring NIL collectives.  Individual students are in charge of their own NIL. If they are too young and inexperienced to handle that, they need to get an advisor. Who knows what to believe, but the highest NIL valuations are supposedly Shedeur Sanders (famous dad, decent player), Bronny James (famous dad, potential as a player I suppose), Livvy Dunne (instagram sensation, gymnast), and Arch Manning (famous dad, can't get on field yet). It's not like the money flowing to these people is robbing rowers of a chance to compete. If you don't like NIL, don't help sponsor one.

6. I don't see why ADs would be axing sports due to NIL, just all the other financial pressures that cause ADs to axe sports.  Having to pay players directly could change all that. I suppose that if donors are funneling money to NILs rather than donating to scholarships, that might change the calculus too. Stanford also has a bazillion dollars if they want to use it. Right?  I've never understood how they have so much money, but beg poverty to donors.  I guess that's why they have so much money.

7. There is certainly a cloud hanging over basketball. Like the glory days of WBB may be over. It wouldn't surprise me if that is a significant source of the angst in this thread. We'll see.

8. Nick Saban and Tara VanDerveer aren't silly. But they liked control, and control is moving to the players, for good or bad.

9. Mick, never apologize for your mechanical skills. Cars are nearly impossible to work on yourself these days, but in junior high before they split us into trade school or college prep tracks (never, ever both), I had and loved shop. We started with drafting and model building in seventh grade; moved to engine disassembly and reassembly, metal foundry work, and basic woodworking (gun rack!) in eighth grade; and finished with fine woodworking (true scale stagecoach model entered at State) in ninth grade. Our high school had a beautiful auto shop, but alas I trudged down the road toward bio, chem, physics, and calculus with music as my only elective. My dad, brother, and I were able to easily maintain our straight six, just a carburetor CJ, but once the German cars started to show up in our driveway, that was it. Now all I can do is open a hood, nod my head like I know what I'm looking at, change fluids, and properly use jumper cables. Four sports is a lot for sure, but at least you stuck with it. For undersized nerds like me with poor eye-hand coordination, cross country was the sport of choice. Our high school had a great cross country program and despite coming off a gruesome leg injury the prior summer, I tried out.  We ran courses and a flat track mile with staggered starts, so it was just each of us against the clock. I thought my 4:53 was decent, but remember the coach saying that I could come back next year and try again if I could shave a minute off that. So on to more productive things like spending way too much time in basements and garages working with the guys (and one girl!) becoming the next BST, EW&F, Chicago, or Tower of Power.  Yeah, that didn't happen.  My daughter received my athletic genes (fun playing volleyball and running track in middle school), while my son received my wife's. Two CCS titles (football and baseball) in high school and five years including one as defensive coordinator with Navy Sprint Football.

10. I'm not sure what to make of Iriafen being a "pretend" student. If she's enrolled in a graduate program, she's a student. If she's taking a slot from anyone, it is another basketball player and presumably Iriafen is better than the other player, so what's the problem? I get it; many of the graduate "transfers" are playing out eligibility without getting a degree, but again, who is that hurting other than themselves, maybe? If I'm a "regular" student at that university, it doesn't affect me one bit.

11. Leftcoast - YouTube is amazing. In addition to learning how to properly dash coat stucco (life changing for me after our second round of window replacements), there are soooooo many clips of Crazy Train on violin and other stringed instruments. Funny, I dropped needle on Sabbath last night, speaking of nostalgic laundry. [Fun fact: We can only embed one video per post.]

Lastly and back on topic, Iriafen is doing exactly what she should. She has a degree from a prestigious university, most of us were told to get a graduate degree from a different university, the team is most likely going to struggle next year, and someone is willing to dump a truckload of cash in her driveway. Why on earth should she run it back?

[jacket3ree]

I'm enjoying reading the different perspectives on this. Clearly we all don't all think the same, which is what makes the world go around. Responding to several points made:

1. Indentured servitude. Sure, that was a bit hyperbolic on my part. Most of us who paid much of their own way through as undergraduates, earned fellowships and were paid to teach in graduate school, put two kids through school (albeit with a massive assist from Uncle Sam), have extended 529s for grandchildren, and bought off a child's spouse's student debt because it was strangling them, appreciate the value of a scholarship and full stipend. We can get a little cranky at college athletes wanting more than that. I remembered the Fab Five 30 for 30 retrospective about the downfall of Webber and how while minting money for Michigan, the players couldn't afford decent meals. (Right, I don't remember them talking about what was wrong with the training table.) From the perspective of the best players in the revenue sports, the old system felt like indentured servitude. If you dislike your coach, school, or anything about your experience, your choices are to sit out a year, go overseas, or lump it?  Awesome.  Looking for a refresher on that 30 for 30, I ran into this clip in which Jalen Rose said the words "indentured servants."

2. I don't know what the best system is, other than there probably isn't a best system. Players must go to school (or really, what are we doing?), but I haven't seen anything other than slippery slope conjecture that universities will be sponsoring side show sports teams. I won't stop watching Stanford sports if the University starts directly paying players, but I will stop if Stanford is one of a handful of schools refusing to compete with everyone else out of some misguided purity test. College athletics has never been pure. There were ringers and rampant cheating at the turn of the last century. You could try de-emphasizing winning, but particularly now, there is simply too much money involved.

3. NIL will most benefit the best and most popular athletes in the most popular sports. That's the real world. Why does that affect the anonymous field hockey player? They can still get partial or full rides and call that a good deal. If you wanted big money, you should have devoted yourself to draining step back threes with a hand in your face. 

4. College can be pro-am and survive more or less. Of course there will be the haves and have-nots, just as there always have been. Name any sport without haves and have-nots, amateur, professional, or Olympic. Even the most cleverly constructed drafts and luxury taxes don't create parity. I'm not sure they even create level playing fields.  That's the beauty of sports. Oakland takes down Kentucky.

5. My modest solution is to go back to 4 years of college eligibility, with no partial-year redshirting, free transfers within the construct of college and university requirements (lots of schools have rounds of admission), progress toward degree requirements for eligibility (good luck making progress transferring six times in three years), and sports programs are forbidden from sponsoring NIL collectives.  Individual students are in charge of their own NIL. If they are too young and inexperienced to handle that, they need to get an advisor. Who knows what to believe, but the highest NIL valuations are supposedly Shedeur Sanders (famous dad, decent player), Bronny James (famous dad, potential as a player I suppose), Livvy Dunne (instagram sensation, gymnast), and Arch Manning (famous dad, can't get on field yet). It's not like the money flowing to these people is robbing rowers of a chance to compete. If you don't like NIL, don't help sponsor one.

6. I don't see why ADs would be axing sports due to NIL, just all the other financial pressures that cause ADs to axe sports.  Having to pay players directly could change all that. I suppose that if donors are funneling money to NILs rather than donating to scholarships, that might change the calculus too. Stanford also has a bazillion dollars if they want to use it. Right?  I've never understood how they have so much money, but beg poverty to donors.  I guess that's why they have so much money.

7. There is certainly a cloud hanging over basketball. Like the glory days of WBB may be over. It wouldn't surprise me if that is a significant source of the angst in this thread. We'll see.

8. Nick Saban and Tara VanDerveer aren't silly. But they liked control, and control is moving to the players, for good or bad.

9. Mick, never apologize for your mechanical skills. Cars are nearly impossible to work on yourself these days, but in junior high before they split us into trade school or college prep tracks (never, ever both), I had and loved shop. We started with drafting and model building in seventh grade; moved to engine disassembly and reassembly, metal foundry work, and basic woodworking (gun rack!) in eighth grade; and finished with fine woodworking (true scale stagecoach model entered at State) in ninth grade. Our high school had a beautiful auto shop, but alas I trudged down the road toward bio, chem, physics, and calculus with music as my only elective. My dad, brother, and I were able to easily maintain our straight six, just a carburetor CJ, but once the German cars started to show up in our driveway, that was it. Now all I can do is open a hood, nod my head like I know what I'm looking at, change fluids, and properly use jumper cables. Four sports is a lot for sure, but at least you stuck with it. For undersized nerds like me with poor eye-hand coordination, cross country was the sport of choice. Our high school had a great cross country program and despite coming off a gruesome leg injury the prior summer, I tried out.  We ran courses and a flat track mile with staggered starts, so it was just each of us against the clock. I thought my 4:53 was decent, but remember the coach saying that I could come back next year and try again if I could shave a minute off that. So on to more productive things like spending way too much time in basements and garages working with the guys (and one girl!) becoming the next BST, EW&F, Chicago, or Tower of Power.  Yeah, that didn't happen.  My daughter received my athletic genes (fun playing volleyball and running track in middle school), while my son received my wife's. Two CCS titles (football and baseball) in high school and five years including one as defensive coordinator with Navy Sprint Football.

10. I'm not sure what to make of Iriafen being a "pretend" student. If she's enrolled in a graduate program, she's a student. If she's taking a slot from anyone, it is another basketball player and presumably Iriafen is better than the other player, so what's the problem? I get it; many of the graduate "transfers" are playing out eligibility without getting a degree, but again, who is that hurting other than themselves, maybe? If I'm a "regular" student at that university, it doesn't affect me one bit.

11. Leftcoast - YouTube is amazing. In addition to learning how to properly dash coat stucco (life changing for me after our second round of window replacements), there are soooooo many clips of Crazy Train on violin and other stringed instruments. Funny, I dropped needle on Sabbath last night, speaking of nostalgic laundry. [Fun fact: We can only embed one video per post.]

Lastly and back on topic, Iriafen is doing exactly what she should. She has a degree from a prestigious university, most of us were told to get a graduate degree from a different university, the team is most likely going to struggle next year, and someone is willing to dump a truckload of cash in her driveway. Why on earth should she run it back?

[martyup]

As for loyalty, I suggest that the fans of teams are more loyal than the players.  Most of these players have only been following their Stanford team for a few years, while fans have been following the team for decades.

[martyup]

As for loyalty, I suggest that the fans of teams are more loyal than the players.  Most of these players have only been following their Stanford team for a few years, while fans have been following the team for decades.

[old spanish trail]

As for loyalty, I suggest that the fans of teams are more loyal than the players.  Most of these players have only been following their Stanford team for a few years, while fans have been following the team for decades.

?? They are alot younger than cardboarders. Meanwhile, to whomever, I wouldn't use Iriafen in any discussion re athletes not finishing classes. It has always appeared to me she is an excellent student with lots of pride in what she does. I'm just waiting to see if she gets on that Paris runway. Meanwhile, she wants to finish up BB with a bang and earn 750 while she's at it.

[old spanish trail]

As for loyalty, I suggest that the fans of teams are more loyal than the players.  Most of these players have only been following their Stanford team for a few years, while fans have been following the team for decades.

?? They are alot younger than cardboarders. Meanwhile, to whomever, I wouldn't use Iriafen in any discussion re athletes not finishing classes. It has always appeared to me she is an excellent student with lots of pride in what she does. I'm just waiting to see if she gets on that Paris runway. Meanwhile, she wants to finish up BB with a bang and earn 750 while she's at it.

[needle]

By far the most problematic thing about the current NIL landscape/wasteland is how young people get exposed to a potentially toxic mix of crazed fans and gambling "insiders."

Just because we have not *yet* had the emergence of a scandal a la LaMotta or Foxcatcher doesn't mean we won't.

 A survey conducted by the NCAA in the fall of 2021 found spikes among athletes who experienced mental exhaustion, anxiety and depression compared with a similar survey two years earlier — before the pandemic, and also before name-image-likeness deals became an everyday reality of college sports.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/a...s/3193196/

 ON MARCH 7, a group of approximately 125 collegiate sports officials, state gambling regulators and sportsbook executives met to discuss potential ways to fight this type of harassment.

The hourlong conference call began with an anecdote about a backup guard who missed late free throws that would've covered a double-digit point spread in a West Coast Conference basketball game. The guard, who played only because the game was a blowout loss, received a death threat on social media afterward from a person authorities determined to be a bettor.

Gloria Nevarez, then-commissioner of the WCC, told ESPN the conference went into a "high-alert state" after being notified about the threat. It contacted U.S. Integrity, a watchdog organization, and eventually the FBI, which, according to Nevarez, tracked down the perpetrator on the East Coast and confronted him in person.  

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket...e-athletes

[needle]

By far the most problematic thing about the current NIL landscape/wasteland is how young people get exposed to a potentially toxic mix of crazed fans and gambling "insiders."

Just because we have not *yet* had the emergence of a scandal a la LaMotta or Foxcatcher doesn't mean we won't.

 A survey conducted by the NCAA in the fall of 2021 found spikes among athletes who experienced mental exhaustion, anxiety and depression compared with a similar survey two years earlier — before the pandemic, and also before name-image-likeness deals became an everyday reality of college sports.

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/sports/a...s/3193196/

 ON MARCH 7, a group of approximately 125 collegiate sports officials, state gambling regulators and sportsbook executives met to discuss potential ways to fight this type of harassment.

The hourlong conference call began with an anecdote about a backup guard who missed late free throws that would've covered a double-digit point spread in a West Coast Conference basketball game. The guard, who played only because the game was a blowout loss, received a death threat on social media afterward from a person authorities determined to be a bettor.

Gloria Nevarez, then-commissioner of the WCC, told ESPN the conference went into a "high-alert state" after being notified about the threat. It contacted U.S. Integrity, a watchdog organization, and eventually the FBI, which, according to Nevarez, tracked down the perpetrator on the East Coast and confronted him in person.  

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket...e-athletes

[BillBradley]

I'm enjoying reading the different perspectives on this. Clearly we all don't all think the same, which is what makes the world go around. Responding to several points made:

1. Indentured servitude. Sure, that was a bit hyperbolic on my part. Most of us who paid much of their own way through as undergraduates, earned fellowships and were paid to teach in graduate school, put two kids through school (albeit with a massive assist from Uncle Sam), have extended 529s for grandchildren, and bought off a child's spouse's student debt because it was strangling them, appreciate the value of a scholarship and full stipend. We can get a little cranky at college athletes wanting more than that. I remembered the Fab Five 30 for 30 retrospective about the downfall of Webber and how while minting money for Michigan, the players couldn't afford decent meals. (Right, I don't remember them talking about what was wrong with the training table.) From the perspective of the best players in the revenue sports, the old system felt like indentured servitude. If you dislike your coach, school, or anything about your experience, your choices are to sit out a year, go overseas, or lump it?  Awesome.  Looking for a refresher on that 30 for 30, I ran into this clip in which Jalen Rose said the words "indentured servants."

2. I don't know what the best system is, other than there probably isn't a best system. Players must go to school (or really, what are we doing?), but I haven't seen anything other than slippery slope conjecture that universities will be sponsoring side show sports teams. I won't stop watching Stanford sports if the University starts directly paying players, but I will stop if Stanford is one of a handful of schools refusing to compete with everyone else out of some misguided purity test. College athletics has never been pure. There were ringers and rampant cheating at the turn of the last century. You could try de-emphasizing winning, but particularly now, there is simply too much money involved.

3. NIL will most benefit the best and most popular athletes in the most popular sports. That's the real world. Why does that affect the anonymous field hockey player? They can still get partial or full rides and call that a good deal. If you wanted big money, you should have devoted yourself to draining step back threes with a hand in your face. 

4. College can be pro-am and survive more or less. Of course there will be the haves and have-nots, just as there always have been. Name any sport without haves and have-nots, amateur, professional, or Olympic. Even the most cleverly constructed drafts and luxury taxes don't create parity. I'm not sure they even create level playing fields.  That's the beauty of sports. Oakland takes down Kentucky.

5. My modest solution is to go back to 4 years of college eligibility, with no partial-year redshirting, free transfers within the construct of college and university requirements (lots of schools have rounds of admission), progress toward degree requirements for eligibility (good luck making progress transferring six times in three years), and sports programs are forbidden from sponsoring NIL collectives.  Individual students are in charge of their own NIL. If they are too young and inexperienced to handle that, they need to get an advisor. Who knows what to believe, but the highest NIL valuations are supposedly Shedeur Sanders (famous dad, decent player), Bronny James (famous dad, potential as a player I suppose), Livvy Dunne (instagram sensation, gymnast), and Arch Manning (famous dad, can't get on field yet). It's not like the money flowing to these people is robbing rowers of a chance to compete. If you don't like NIL, don't help sponsor one.

6. I don't see why ADs would be axing sports due to NIL, just all the other financial pressures that cause ADs to axe sports.  Having to pay players directly could change all that. I suppose that if donors are funneling money to NILs rather than donating to scholarships, that might change the calculus too. Stanford also has a bazillion dollars if they want to use it. Right?  I've never understood how they have so much money, but beg poverty to donors.  I guess that's why they have so much money.

7. There is certainly a cloud hanging over basketball. Like the glory days of WBB may be over. It wouldn't surprise me if that is a significant source of the angst in this thread. We'll see.

8. Nick Saban and Tara VanDerveer aren't silly. But they liked control, and control is moving to the players, for good or bad.

9. Mick, never apologize for your mechanical skills. Cars are nearly impossible to work on yourself these days, but in junior high before they split us into trade school or college prep tracks (never, ever both), I had and loved shop. We started with drafting and model building in seventh grade; moved to engine disassembly and reassembly, metal foundry work, and basic woodworking (gun rack!) in eighth grade; and finished with fine woodworking (true scale stagecoach model entered at State) in ninth grade. Our high school had a beautiful auto shop, but alas I trudged down the road toward bio, chem, physics, and calculus with music as my only elective. My dad, brother, and I were able to easily maintain our straight six, just a carburetor CJ, but once the German cars started to show up in our driveway, that was it. Now all I can do is open a hood, nod my head like I know what I'm looking at, change fluids, and properly use jumper cables. Four sports is a lot for sure, but at least you stuck with it. For undersized nerds like me with poor eye-hand coordination, cross country was the sport of choice. Our high school had a great cross country program and despite coming off a gruesome leg injury the prior summer, I tried out.  We ran courses and a flat track mile with staggered starts, so it was just each of us against the clock. I thought my 4:53 was decent, but remember the coach saying that I could come back next year and try again if I could shave a minute off that. So on to more productive things like spending way too much time in basements and garages working with the guys (and one girl!) becoming the next BST, EW&F, Chicago, or Tower of Power.  Yeah, that didn't happen.  My daughter received my athletic genes (fun playing volleyball and running track in middle school), while my son received my wife's. Two CCS titles (football and baseball) in high school and five years including one as defensive coordinator with Navy Sprint Football.

10. I'm not sure what to make of Iriafen being a "pretend" student. If she's enrolled in a graduate program, she's a student. If she's taking a slot from anyone, it is another basketball player and presumably Iriafen is better than the other player, so what's the problem? I get it; many of the graduate "transfers" are playing out eligibility without getting a degree, but again, who is that hurting other than themselves, maybe? If I'm a "regular" student at that university, it doesn't affect me one bit.

11. Leftcoast - YouTube is amazing. In addition to learning how to properly dash coat stucco (life changing for me after our second round of window replacements), there are soooooo many clips of Crazy Train on violin and other stringed instruments. Funny, I dropped needle on Sabbath last night, speaking of nostalgic laundry. [Fun fact: We can only embed one video per post.]

Lastly and back on topic, Iriafen is doing exactly what she should. She has a degree from a prestigious university, most of us were told to get a graduate degree from a different university, the team is most likely going to struggle next year, and someone is willing to dump a truckload of cash in her driveway. Why on earth should she run it back?

Postie. My fave point is how you summed up your position as a fan: "I won't stop watching Stanford sports if the University starts directly paying players, but I will stop if Stanford is one of a handful of schools refusing to compete with everyone else out of some misguided purity test. College athletics has never been pure. There were ringers and rampant cheating at the turn of the last century. You could try de-emphasizing winning, but particularly now, there is simply too much money involved."  Exactly how I feel. 

(FWIW, you had me at "becoming the next BST, EW&F, Chicago, or Tower of Power.")

[BillBradley]

I'm enjoying reading the different perspectives on this. Clearly we all don't all think the same, which is what makes the world go around. Responding to several points made:

1. Indentured servitude. Sure, that was a bit hyperbolic on my part. Most of us who paid much of their own way through as undergraduates, earned fellowships and were paid to teach in graduate school, put two kids through school (albeit with a massive assist from Uncle Sam), have extended 529s for grandchildren, and bought off a child's spouse's student debt because it was strangling them, appreciate the value of a scholarship and full stipend. We can get a little cranky at college athletes wanting more than that. I remembered the Fab Five 30 for 30 retrospective about the downfall of Webber and how while minting money for Michigan, the players couldn't afford decent meals. (Right, I don't remember them talking about what was wrong with the training table.) From the perspective of the best players in the revenue sports, the old system felt like indentured servitude. If you dislike your coach, school, or anything about your experience, your choices are to sit out a year, go overseas, or lump it?  Awesome.  Looking for a refresher on that 30 for 30, I ran into this clip in which Jalen Rose said the words "indentured servants."

2. I don't know what the best system is, other than there probably isn't a best system. Players must go to school (or really, what are we doing?), but I haven't seen anything other than slippery slope conjecture that universities will be sponsoring side show sports teams. I won't stop watching Stanford sports if the University starts directly paying players, but I will stop if Stanford is one of a handful of schools refusing to compete with everyone else out of some misguided purity test. College athletics has never been pure. There were ringers and rampant cheating at the turn of the last century. You could try de-emphasizing winning, but particularly now, there is simply too much money involved.

3. NIL will most benefit the best and most popular athletes in the most popular sports. That's the real world. Why does that affect the anonymous field hockey player? They can still get partial or full rides and call that a good deal. If you wanted big money, you should have devoted yourself to draining step back threes with a hand in your face. 

4. College can be pro-am and survive more or less. Of course there will be the haves and have-nots, just as there always have been. Name any sport without haves and have-nots, amateur, professional, or Olympic. Even the most cleverly constructed drafts and luxury taxes don't create parity. I'm not sure they even create level playing fields.  That's the beauty of sports. Oakland takes down Kentucky.

5. My modest solution is to go back to 4 years of college eligibility, with no partial-year redshirting, free transfers within the construct of college and university requirements (lots of schools have rounds of admission), progress toward degree requirements for eligibility (good luck making progress transferring six times in three years), and sports programs are forbidden from sponsoring NIL collectives.  Individual students are in charge of their own NIL. If they are too young and inexperienced to handle that, they need to get an advisor. Who knows what to believe, but the highest NIL valuations are supposedly Shedeur Sanders (famous dad, decent player), Bronny James (famous dad, potential as a player I suppose), Livvy Dunne (instagram sensation, gymnast), and Arch Manning (famous dad, can't get on field yet). It's not like the money flowing to these people is robbing rowers of a chance to compete. If you don't like NIL, don't help sponsor one.

6. I don't see why ADs would be axing sports due to NIL, just all the other financial pressures that cause ADs to axe sports.  Having to pay players directly could change all that. I suppose that if donors are funneling money to NILs rather than donating to scholarships, that might change the calculus too. Stanford also has a bazillion dollars if they want to use it. Right?  I've never understood how they have so much money, but beg poverty to donors.  I guess that's why they have so much money.

7. There is certainly a cloud hanging over basketball. Like the glory days of WBB may be over. It wouldn't surprise me if that is a significant source of the angst in this thread. We'll see.

8. Nick Saban and Tara VanDerveer aren't silly. But they liked control, and control is moving to the players, for good or bad.

9. Mick, never apologize for your mechanical skills. Cars are nearly impossible to work on yourself these days, but in junior high before they split us into trade school or college prep tracks (never, ever both), I had and loved shop. We started with drafting and model building in seventh grade; moved to engine disassembly and reassembly, metal foundry work, and basic woodworking (gun rack!) in eighth grade; and finished with fine woodworking (true scale stagecoach model entered at State) in ninth grade. Our high school had a beautiful auto shop, but alas I trudged down the road toward bio, chem, physics, and calculus with music as my only elective. My dad, brother, and I were able to easily maintain our straight six, just a carburetor CJ, but once the German cars started to show up in our driveway, that was it. Now all I can do is open a hood, nod my head like I know what I'm looking at, change fluids, and properly use jumper cables. Four sports is a lot for sure, but at least you stuck with it. For undersized nerds like me with poor eye-hand coordination, cross country was the sport of choice. Our high school had a great cross country program and despite coming off a gruesome leg injury the prior summer, I tried out.  We ran courses and a flat track mile with staggered starts, so it was just each of us against the clock. I thought my 4:53 was decent, but remember the coach saying that I could come back next year and try again if I could shave a minute off that. So on to more productive things like spending way too much time in basements and garages working with the guys (and one girl!) becoming the next BST, EW&F, Chicago, or Tower of Power.  Yeah, that didn't happen.  My daughter received my athletic genes (fun playing volleyball and running track in middle school), while my son received my wife's. Two CCS titles (football and baseball) in high school and five years including one as defensive coordinator with Navy Sprint Football.

10. I'm not sure what to make of Iriafen being a "pretend" student. If she's enrolled in a graduate program, she's a student. If she's taking a slot from anyone, it is another basketball player and presumably Iriafen is better than the other player, so what's the problem? I get it; many of the graduate "transfers" are playing out eligibility without getting a degree, but again, who is that hurting other than themselves, maybe? If I'm a "regular" student at that university, it doesn't affect me one bit.

11. Leftcoast - YouTube is amazing. In addition to learning how to properly dash coat stucco (life changing for me after our second round of window replacements), there are soooooo many clips of Crazy Train on violin and other stringed instruments. Funny, I dropped needle on Sabbath last night, speaking of nostalgic laundry. [Fun fact: We can only embed one video per post.]

Lastly and back on topic, Iriafen is doing exactly what she should. She has a degree from a prestigious university, most of us were told to get a graduate degree from a different university, the team is most likely going to struggle next year, and someone is willing to dump a truckload of cash in her driveway. Why on earth should she run it back?

Postie. My fave point is how you summed up your position as a fan: "I won't stop watching Stanford sports if the University starts directly paying players, but I will stop if Stanford is one of a handful of schools refusing to compete with everyone else out of some misguided purity test. College athletics has never been pure. There were ringers and rampant cheating at the turn of the last century. You could try de-emphasizing winning, but particularly now, there is simply too much money involved."  Exactly how I feel. 

(FWIW, you had me at "becoming the next BST, EW&F, Chicago, or Tower of Power.")

[Mick]

Postie. My fave point is how you summed up your position as a fan: "I won't stop watching Stanford sports if the University starts directly paying players, but I will stop if Stanford is one of a handful of schools refusing to compete with everyone else out of some misguided purity test. College athletics has never been pure. There were ringers and rampant cheating at the turn of the last century. You could try de-emphasizing winning, but particularly now, there is simply too much money involved."  Exactly how I feel. 

(FWIW, you had me at "becoming the next BST, EW&F, Chicago, or Tower of Power.")

Ivy League universities had sequestered 35 admissions spots for football players in the 19th century. The college presidents were trying to dial it back to 25-30 spots. In 1905, Harvard's first professional football coach Bill Reid made $7,000, 30% more than the highest paid faculty member. They worried about gambling by the athletes. Harvard's baseball players played in the Cape Cod summer league, everyone knew it. Shamateurism has always been with us, the amateur model had migrated from the UK.

---

9. Mick, never apologize for your mechanical skills. Cars are nearly impossible to work on yourself these days, but in junior high before they split us into trade school or college prep tracks (never, ever both), I had and loved shop. We started with drafting and model building in seventh grade; moved to engine disassembly and reassembly, metal foundry work, and basic woodworking (gun rack!) in eighth grade; and finished with fine woodworking (true scale stagecoach model entered at State) in ninth grade. Our high school had a beautiful auto shop, but alas I trudged down the road toward bio, chem, physics, and calculus with music as my only elective. My dad, brother, and I were able to easily maintain our straight six, just a carburetor CJ, but once the German cars started to show up in our driveway, that was it. Now all I can do is open a hood, nod my head like I know what I'm looking at, change fluids, and properly use jumper cables. Four sports is a lot for sure, but at least you stuck with it. 

Great post! I had a Fiat 850 Spyder that flummoxed my uncle, who raced cars, owned a car shop, was around cars all his life. When I bought it, he went over, under and through it for 20 minutes, didn't say a word. Finally he stood back, scratched his head and said "that is one interesting piece of machinery." I was able to replace everything on it, except I couldn't rebuild the *&#$% carburetor.

[Mick]

Postie. My fave point is how you summed up your position as a fan: "I won't stop watching Stanford sports if the University starts directly paying players, but I will stop if Stanford is one of a handful of schools refusing to compete with everyone else out of some misguided purity test. College athletics has never been pure. There were ringers and rampant cheating at the turn of the last century. You could try de-emphasizing winning, but particularly now, there is simply too much money involved."  Exactly how I feel. 

(FWIW, you had me at "becoming the next BST, EW&F, Chicago, or Tower of Power.")

Ivy League universities had sequestered 35 admissions spots for football players in the 19th century. The college presidents were trying to dial it back to 25-30 spots. In 1905, Harvard's first professional football coach Bill Reid made $7,000, 30% more than the highest paid faculty member. They worried about gambling by the athletes. Harvard's baseball players played in the Cape Cod summer league, everyone knew it. Shamateurism has always been with us, the amateur model had migrated from the UK.

---

9. Mick, never apologize for your mechanical skills. Cars are nearly impossible to work on yourself these days, but in junior high before they split us into trade school or college prep tracks (never, ever both), I had and loved shop. We started with drafting and model building in seventh grade; moved to engine disassembly and reassembly, metal foundry work, and basic woodworking (gun rack!) in eighth grade; and finished with fine woodworking (true scale stagecoach model entered at State) in ninth grade. Our high school had a beautiful auto shop, but alas I trudged down the road toward bio, chem, physics, and calculus with music as my only elective. My dad, brother, and I were able to easily maintain our straight six, just a carburetor CJ, but once the German cars started to show up in our driveway, that was it. Now all I can do is open a hood, nod my head like I know what I'm looking at, change fluids, and properly use jumper cables. Four sports is a lot for sure, but at least you stuck with it. 

Great post! I had a Fiat 850 Spyder that flummoxed my uncle, who raced cars, owned a car shop, was around cars all his life. When I bought it, he went over, under and through it for 20 minutes, didn't say a word. Finally he stood back, scratched his head and said "that is one interesting piece of machinery." I was able to replace everything on it, except I couldn't rebuild the *&#$% carburetor.

[Bampa]

Great post! I had a Fiat 850 Spyder that flummoxed my uncle, who raced cars, owned a car shop, was around cars all his life. When I bought it, he went over, under and through it for 20 minutes, didn't say a word. Finally he stood back, scratched his head and said "that is one interesting piece of machinery." I was able to replace everything on it, except I couldn't rebuild the *&#$% carburetor.

Speaking of carburetors. I once bought a rebuild kit for my old six cylinder Plymouth. (my second car). When I finished, I noticed there was a part left over that I failed to include. Figured I'd have to start all over. But I took it out for a short drive and it worked FINE.  haha...the good old days!

[Bampa]

Great post! I had a Fiat 850 Spyder that flummoxed my uncle, who raced cars, owned a car shop, was around cars all his life. When I bought it, he went over, under and through it for 20 minutes, didn't say a word. Finally he stood back, scratched his head and said "that is one interesting piece of machinery." I was able to replace everything on it, except I couldn't rebuild the *&#$% carburetor.

Speaking of carburetors. I once bought a rebuild kit for my old six cylinder Plymouth. (my second car). When I finished, I noticed there was a part left over that I failed to include. Figured I'd have to start all over. But I took it out for a short drive and it worked FINE.  haha...the good old days!

[Goose]

Ivy League universities had sequestered 35 admissions spots for football players in the 19th century. The college presidents were trying to dial it back to 25-30 spots. In 1905, Harvard's first professional football coach Bill Reid made $7,000, 30% more than the highest paid faculty member. They worried about gambling by the athletes. Harvard's baseball players played in the Cape Cod summer league, everyone knew it. Shamateurism has always been with us, the amateur model had migrated from the UK.

I was going to make no further comments, but I really can't let this one pass. You are of course aware that the NCAA was founded in 1906 to, among other things, attempt to ensure "amateurism" was required. Harvard was one of the participants in this activity, albeit under pressure from the US President.

I am hearing here the equivalent of the following argument:
We all know that lots of people cheat on their taxes. We all know that while the IRS catches some of them, most get away with it. Therefore, it must be true that cheating on your taxes is just fine, even laudable. We should all do it.
Obviously, that argument is absurd. Because some people do it doesn't make it "right". Arguably amateurism shouldn't be part of college sports. I don't agree, but that's a different discussion. However the fact some people knowingly violate the rules doesn't validate that concept.

It also has nothing to do with NIL. NIL isn't illegal. It is now "part of the game" and will for certain destroy amateurism in college sports. The fact some people don't get paid doesn't preserve amateurism. Those people will lobby to get paid and IMO will eventually succeed. While it can be argued that legal decision regarding NIL wasn't ever intended to support "pay for play", it is being treated as if it did. That is where we are right now.

[Goose]

Ivy League universities had sequestered 35 admissions spots for football players in the 19th century. The college presidents were trying to dial it back to 25-30 spots. In 1905, Harvard's first professional football coach Bill Reid made $7,000, 30% more than the highest paid faculty member. They worried about gambling by the athletes. Harvard's baseball players played in the Cape Cod summer league, everyone knew it. Shamateurism has always been with us, the amateur model had migrated from the UK.

I was going to make no further comments, but I really can't let this one pass. You are of course aware that the NCAA was founded in 1906 to, among other things, attempt to ensure "amateurism" was required. Harvard was one of the participants in this activity, albeit under pressure from the US President.

I am hearing here the equivalent of the following argument:
We all know that lots of people cheat on their taxes. We all know that while the IRS catches some of them, most get away with it. Therefore, it must be true that cheating on your taxes is just fine, even laudable. We should all do it.
Obviously, that argument is absurd. Because some people do it doesn't make it "right". Arguably amateurism shouldn't be part of college sports. I don't agree, but that's a different discussion. However the fact some people knowingly violate the rules doesn't validate that concept.

It also has nothing to do with NIL. NIL isn't illegal. It is now "part of the game" and will for certain destroy amateurism in college sports. The fact some people don't get paid doesn't preserve amateurism. Those people will lobby to get paid and IMO will eventually succeed. While it can be argued that legal decision regarding NIL wasn't ever intended to support "pay for play", it is being treated as if it did. That is where we are right now.

[pefloresjr]

Ivy League universities had sequestered 35 admissions spots for football players in the 19th century. The college presidents were trying to dial it back to 25-30 spots. In 1905, Harvard's first professional football coach Bill Reid made $7,000, 30% more than the highest paid faculty member. They worried about gambling by the athletes. Harvard's baseball players played in the Cape Cod summer league, everyone knew it. Shamateurism has always been with us, the amateur model had migrated from the UK.

I was going to make no further comments, but I really can't let this one pass. You are of course aware that the NCAA was founded in 1906 to, among other things, attempt to ensure "amateurism" was required. Harvard was one of the participants in this activity, albeit under pressure from the US President.

I am hearing here the equivalent of the following argument:
We all know that lots of people cheat on their taxes. We all know that while the IRS catches some of them, most get away with it. Therefore, it must be true that cheating on your taxes is just fine, even laudable. We should all do it.
Obviously, that argument is absurd. Because some people do it doesn't make it "right". Arguably amateurism shouldn't be part of college sports. I don't agree, but that's a different discussion. However the fact some people knowingly violate the rules doesn't validate that concept.

It also has nothing to do with NIL. NIL isn't illegal. It is now "part of the game" and will for certain destroy amateurism in college sports. The fact some people don't get paid doesn't preserve amateurism. Those people will lobby to get paid and IMO will eventually succeed. While it can be argued that legal decision regarding NIL wasn't ever intended to support "pay for play", it is being treated as if it did. That is where we are right now.

I agree with this.  As an alum, one of the things that appeals to me about Stanford's success in sports is the fact that Stanford is winning with actual student athletes despite the fact that many colleges are not.  Yes, some athletes have not met the same academic levels as most Stanford students but admission is not a straight formulaic process.  For example, there was a math student in one of my dorms who was apparently brilliant and had been admitted to several big name grad programs to pursue his phd.  Despite the fact that English was his first language, he could barely form coherent sentences.  He was clearly admitted because of the strength of his math skills.  But he was a student, engaged in academic pursuits.  The athletes I have personally known at Stanford (football, baseball, cross-country & water polo players all in my freshman dorm) were also legitimate students.  

For me, easier admissions for student athletes based on their athletic abilities doesn't violate the normal variation that is inherent in the admissions process.  But the degree of variation matters in my view.  Apparently, the NCAA does not enforce or examine the academic standards or legitimacy of any college as long as the fake classes and majors are offered to non-athletes.  My brother is a die-hard non-alum USC fan.  He doesn't give a damn if the football players are legitimate students.  But I care if Stanford football players are.  Somebody above wrote that athletes have to be students and not complete wringers but for some colleges, that is already not true.  Who is going to draw the line?  Not the NCAA or federal government.  Universities will likely keep up a facade of academic integrity because the growing money is somewhat based on the concept of the innocence/purity of college sports compared to pro sports.  That might be enough to allow Stanford and the value of the degree to continue competing at a high level at some of the Olympic sports.  

However, the current pay-to-play NIL money is likely to change that.  I don't think athletes getting money from sponsors for using their image or for having the athlete promote a product changes anything regarding athletes being students if they are enrolled in a college that has legitimate academic requirements.  However, NIL in its current application of offering brobdingnagian amounts of money to athletes to play one year at a college really warps the process, overwhelming most academic considerations.  That money is not based on normal advertising investments, it is based on ego driven desire to have a winning team.  Some, like Kiki, who was able to complete her Stanford degree in three years, will likely be willing and able to continue her studies while she cashes in on the opportunity to make a bunch of cash.  However, many won't.  

Now that the NIL money and unlimited transfer rules are combined with the questionable academic requirements at some schools, I think that Stanford's ability to compete at the big money sports will quickly erode.  And it will spread to other sports as well.  Since there is less money in other sports, including Olympic sports, Stanford will likely be able to hang on longer.  

I am a really dedicated Stanford fan and have season tickets to three sports.  But I don't want to see Stanford struggle to compete in a corrupt system where money is the only real reason most of the players are there.  Am am happy that we may be able to keep some of our current students from transferring but I don't really want to see Stanford to join the money bidding wars that separate the players from their lives as students.  If Stanford ends up stepping off or getting pushed off the major college sports stage, I will be sad.  However, I prefer that we maintain our position as an academic institution instead of competing in a situation where corruption is accepted because nobody is willing or able to do anything about it.  Stanford's jump to the ACC is ridiculous but I am accepting it for now based on the unlikely hope that it will give Stanford time to determine whether we can maintain high level sports and academic integrity in this new environment.  I hope the new President will offer some leadership in making those determinations but my expectations are low that Stanford will be able to find a solution that maintains academic integrity and is acceptable to the rest of the college sports universe.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

Ivy League universities had sequestered 35 admissions spots for football players in the 19th century. The college presidents were trying to dial it back to 25-30 spots. In 1905, Harvard's first professional football coach Bill Reid made $7,000, 30% more than the highest paid faculty member. They worried about gambling by the athletes. Harvard's baseball players played in the Cape Cod summer league, everyone knew it. Shamateurism has always been with us, the amateur model had migrated from the UK.

I was going to make no further comments, but I really can't let this one pass. You are of course aware that the NCAA was founded in 1906 to, among other things, attempt to ensure "amateurism" was required. Harvard was one of the participants in this activity, albeit under pressure from the US President.

I am hearing here the equivalent of the following argument:
We all know that lots of people cheat on their taxes. We all know that while the IRS catches some of them, most get away with it. Therefore, it must be true that cheating on your taxes is just fine, even laudable. We should all do it.
Obviously, that argument is absurd. Because some people do it doesn't make it "right". Arguably amateurism shouldn't be part of college sports. I don't agree, but that's a different discussion. However the fact some people knowingly violate the rules doesn't validate that concept.

It also has nothing to do with NIL. NIL isn't illegal. It is now "part of the game" and will for certain destroy amateurism in college sports. The fact some people don't get paid doesn't preserve amateurism. Those people will lobby to get paid and IMO will eventually succeed. While it can be argued that legal decision regarding NIL wasn't ever intended to support "pay for play", it is being treated as if it did. That is where we are right now.

I agree with this.  As an alum, one of the things that appeals to me about Stanford's success in sports is the fact that Stanford is winning with actual student athletes despite the fact that many colleges are not.  Yes, some athletes have not met the same academic levels as most Stanford students but admission is not a straight formulaic process.  For example, there was a math student in one of my dorms who was apparently brilliant and had been admitted to several big name grad programs to pursue his phd.  Despite the fact that English was his first language, he could barely form coherent sentences.  He was clearly admitted because of the strength of his math skills.  But he was a student, engaged in academic pursuits.  The athletes I have personally known at Stanford (football, baseball, cross-country & water polo players all in my freshman dorm) were also legitimate students.  

For me, easier admissions for student athletes based on their athletic abilities doesn't violate the normal variation that is inherent in the admissions process.  But the degree of variation matters in my view.  Apparently, the NCAA does not enforce or examine the academic standards or legitimacy of any college as long as the fake classes and majors are offered to non-athletes.  My brother is a die-hard non-alum USC fan.  He doesn't give a damn if the football players are legitimate students.  But I care if Stanford football players are.  Somebody above wrote that athletes have to be students and not complete wringers but for some colleges, that is already not true.  Who is going to draw the line?  Not the NCAA or federal government.  Universities will likely keep up a facade of academic integrity because the growing money is somewhat based on the concept of the innocence/purity of college sports compared to pro sports.  That might be enough to allow Stanford and the value of the degree to continue competing at a high level at some of the Olympic sports.  

However, the current pay-to-play NIL money is likely to change that.  I don't think athletes getting money from sponsors for using their image or for having the athlete promote a product changes anything regarding athletes being students if they are enrolled in a college that has legitimate academic requirements.  However, NIL in its current application of offering brobdingnagian amounts of money to athletes to play one year at a college really warps the process, overwhelming most academic considerations.  That money is not based on normal advertising investments, it is based on ego driven desire to have a winning team.  Some, like Kiki, who was able to complete her Stanford degree in three years, will likely be willing and able to continue her studies while she cashes in on the opportunity to make a bunch of cash.  However, many won't.  

Now that the NIL money and unlimited transfer rules are combined with the questionable academic requirements at some schools, I think that Stanford's ability to compete at the big money sports will quickly erode.  And it will spread to other sports as well.  Since there is less money in other sports, including Olympic sports, Stanford will likely be able to hang on longer.  

I am a really dedicated Stanford fan and have season tickets to three sports.  But I don't want to see Stanford struggle to compete in a corrupt system where money is the only real reason most of the players are there.  Am am happy that we may be able to keep some of our current students from transferring but I don't really want to see Stanford to join the money bidding wars that separate the players from their lives as students.  If Stanford ends up stepping off or getting pushed off the major college sports stage, I will be sad.  However, I prefer that we maintain our position as an academic institution instead of competing in a situation where corruption is accepted because nobody is willing or able to do anything about it.  Stanford's jump to the ACC is ridiculous but I am accepting it for now based on the unlikely hope that it will give Stanford time to determine whether we can maintain high level sports and academic integrity in this new environment.  I hope the new President will offer some leadership in making those determinations but my expectations are low that Stanford will be able to find a solution that maintains academic integrity and is acceptable to the rest of the college sports universe.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[BillBradley]

@Goose, @Pete 

Trying to understand, but I'm still not following the "corruption" argument or the cheat-on-taxes analogy. I think it's one thing to say "I don't think the athletes should be compensated". If that's where we are, then fine - we can agree to disagree. And again, we should quit the discussions about the mechanism because you don't agree philosophically. Or are you saying "I'm OK with athletes being compensated, but Stanford needs to stay out of the NIL game because it's by definition corrupt now that it's become pay-for-play". 

In my mind, if you are in the camp that supports athlete compensation, then what does it matter if it's pay-for-play or not? You don't like the free agency/bidding war aspect of it because then it feels to much like the professional leagues and that's just too far? 

Just trying to understand.

Also, side point - one of the drivers of an NIL approach is that there is a recognition that athletes deliver various levels of value. There's a big difference between Caitlin Clark and what she's done for the University of Iowa vs. some other random athlete at the University of Iowa. And I think Kiki deserves to be rewarded after her last season. Linking back to the value she delivered to Stanford....Every Pac12 channel interview, Sportscenter clip, Instagram highlight, YouTube reels, etc. have the word "Stanford" on her jersey and the university does benefit from that image. It is the wild wild west right now, but that's a big point and it shouldn't get lost in the madness.

[BillBradley]

@Goose, @Pete 

Trying to understand, but I'm still not following the "corruption" argument or the cheat-on-taxes analogy. I think it's one thing to say "I don't think the athletes should be compensated". If that's where we are, then fine - we can agree to disagree. And again, we should quit the discussions about the mechanism because you don't agree philosophically. Or are you saying "I'm OK with athletes being compensated, but Stanford needs to stay out of the NIL game because it's by definition corrupt now that it's become pay-for-play". 

In my mind, if you are in the camp that supports athlete compensation, then what does it matter if it's pay-for-play or not? You don't like the free agency/bidding war aspect of it because then it feels to much like the professional leagues and that's just too far? 

Just trying to understand.

Also, side point - one of the drivers of an NIL approach is that there is a recognition that athletes deliver various levels of value. There's a big difference between Caitlin Clark and what she's done for the University of Iowa vs. some other random athlete at the University of Iowa. And I think Kiki deserves to be rewarded after her last season. Linking back to the value she delivered to Stanford....Every Pac12 channel interview, Sportscenter clip, Instagram highlight, YouTube reels, etc. have the word "Stanford" on her jersey and the university does benefit from that image. It is the wild wild west right now, but that's a big point and it shouldn't get lost in the madness.

[SkiBum80]

@Goose, @Pete 

Trying to understand, but I'm still not following the "corruption" argument or the cheat-on-taxes analogy. I think it's one thing to say "I don't think the athletes should be compensated". If that's where we are, then fine - we can agree to disagree. And again, we should quit the discussions about the mechanism because you don't agree philosophically. Or are you saying "I'm OK with athletes being compensated, but Stanford needs to stay out of the NIL game because it's by definition corrupt now that it's become pay-for-play". 

In my mind, if you are in the camp that supports athlete compensation, then what does it matter if it's pay-for-play or not? You don't like the free agency/bidding war aspect of it because then it feels to much like the professional leagues and that's just too far? 

Just trying to understand.

Also, side point - one of the drivers of an NIL approach is that there is a recognition that athletes deliver various levels of value. There's a big difference between Caitlin Clark and what she's done for the University of Iowa vs. some other random athlete at the University of Iowa. And I think Kiki deserves to be rewarded after her last season. Linking back to the value she delivered to Stanford....Every Pac12 channel interview, Sportscenter clip, Instagram highlight, YouTube reels, etc. have the word "Stanford" on her jersey and the university does benefit from that image. It is the wild wild west right now, but that's a big point and it shouldn't get lost in the madness.

Good points.
Caitlin Clark has meant the highest levels of basketball excellence, at Iowa.
Likewise,
Cam Brink has meant the highest levels of basketball excellence, at Stanford.
Kiki Iriafen has meant the highest levels of basketball excellence, at Stanford,
etc. 
The athlete carries the school name to a national, if not worldwide, audience.
New Stanford President I believe emphasized Excellence as a goal at Stanford.
Historically that has meant in both Academics and Athletics.
I hope it continues so.
Through circumstances outside Stanford's control, NIL has become part of what is required to reach for excellence, in certain sports.
The ones that bring the biggest number of fans to watch and the ones that are most tied to broadcast revenue.
I am glad that Stanford has embraced NIL because that is now part of what it takes to reach for excellence in athletics.

[SkiBum80]

@Goose, @Pete 

Trying to understand, but I'm still not following the "corruption" argument or the cheat-on-taxes analogy. I think it's one thing to say "I don't think the athletes should be compensated". If that's where we are, then fine - we can agree to disagree. And again, we should quit the discussions about the mechanism because you don't agree philosophically. Or are you saying "I'm OK with athletes being compensated, but Stanford needs to stay out of the NIL game because it's by definition corrupt now that it's become pay-for-play". 

In my mind, if you are in the camp that supports athlete compensation, then what does it matter if it's pay-for-play or not? You don't like the free agency/bidding war aspect of it because then it feels to much like the professional leagues and that's just too far? 

Just trying to understand.

Also, side point - one of the drivers of an NIL approach is that there is a recognition that athletes deliver various levels of value. There's a big difference between Caitlin Clark and what she's done for the University of Iowa vs. some other random athlete at the University of Iowa. And I think Kiki deserves to be rewarded after her last season. Linking back to the value she delivered to Stanford....Every Pac12 channel interview, Sportscenter clip, Instagram highlight, YouTube reels, etc. have the word "Stanford" on her jersey and the university does benefit from that image. It is the wild wild west right now, but that's a big point and it shouldn't get lost in the madness.

Good points.
Caitlin Clark has meant the highest levels of basketball excellence, at Iowa.
Likewise,
Cam Brink has meant the highest levels of basketball excellence, at Stanford.
Kiki Iriafen has meant the highest levels of basketball excellence, at Stanford,
etc. 
The athlete carries the school name to a national, if not worldwide, audience.
New Stanford President I believe emphasized Excellence as a goal at Stanford.
Historically that has meant in both Academics and Athletics.
I hope it continues so.
Through circumstances outside Stanford's control, NIL has become part of what is required to reach for excellence, in certain sports.
The ones that bring the biggest number of fans to watch and the ones that are most tied to broadcast revenue.
I am glad that Stanford has embraced NIL because that is now part of what it takes to reach for excellence in athletics.

[jacket3ree]

I keep finding myself in agreement with the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.  

I don't know what Stanford should do moving forward. Maybe instead this thread can keep turning into Car Talk. (I miss those guys).  Just in case, here's a rundown of cars I've driven extensively, maintained, and/or owned, and their ultimate fates. This is totally self-indulgent, so sorry for that.

1974 Buick LeSabre. Retrieved from grandparents who could no longer handle her. Marshmallow suspension and comfortable front couch. First driven on Wyoming backroads when I was 14. I was responsible for changing the oil, flushing the cooling system, changing the automatic transmission fluid, washing, and drying. I assume Mom had the brakes and belts checked, but she did strand us in the middle of the Arizona desert on the way to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon that one time. She's probably still with the rest of the mothballed aircraft carriers in Suisun Bay, where we left her. (The car, not my mom.)

1969 VW Karmann Ghia.  My favorite car of all time. Even Karri U. dug it in high school and cried when I told her that a Famer A. Grey from Old People Can't Drive, MN wiped her out on my way to a job interview senior year. It was not maintained. Dad always felt that unchanged oil and magic kept that air-cooled 69 hp lawnmower engine humming without the need for human intervention. Great heating and defrost system. Open a lever and hope the rear engine heat would somehow migrate to the front on demand in sub-zero weather. I often drove to school with my head out the side window. Amazing snow and ice car though.

1975 Jeep CJ7. The straight six Levi's edition because my dad walked out of the Ford dealership in a huff during negotiations for the most cherry, candy apple red Ford Bronco you'd ever seen. The three of us and Chilton kept her purring like a kitten. Well, a kitten with tuberculosis. I had mastered the four-on-the-floor Ghia transmission on drives throughout metro Denver and the greater Rocky Mountains (up and over Berthoud, etc) and thought I was hot ****. So, Dad says, it's time to learn a real manual transmission, one without a syncro-mesh first gear. I admit I struggled, confidence shaken. Dad proceeded to cure me of my confidence issues the way he taught me to swim. At a lake. We're at Chatfield Reservoir, trailing a Jet14 wooden sloop. I'm on the boat, stow the sails, and collapse the mast. He backs down the ramp, and I winch the boat to the trailer and secure it. "Take her out." "What?" "Take her out and I know you know that if you stall, we'll be here a really long time, your mom will be pissed, and I'll garnish your wages until you've paid off the repair bill."  (Our Jeep had a normal exhaust in the normal position - not a snorkel - so stalling would suck water back into the chambers, all six of them.)  Nothing like pressure to perform. "Yes sir."  Success! That Jeep got Dad through Rocky Mountain recreating with his three children and reluctant wife, the collapse of Teton Dam, commuting to Boulder for a PhD he never finished, divorce and its aftermath, and marriage to a second wife. I wouldn't be surprised if he coaxed half a million miles out of her (the car, not his second wife). Then he fell in love with Volvos and F150s.

1978 Audi 4000 Turbo. Saturn red. What a car!  While Dad was living in an apartment without a garage, a Colorado golf ball size hailstorm dimpled almost every square inch on that car, so I was offered her services my senior year in Atlanta.  Gladly accepted.  Between the efficient 4-cylinder turbo, six speed manual, and all those dimples, I got 56 mpg from Denver to ATL with the AC off and windows rolled up. (No one said I was intelligent, particularly when I was proving a point to no one in particular. Stopped for gas twice.)  That car hosted plenty of steamy and illicit activities in the "comfort" of its bucket seats with stick and handbrake between, including an epic Key West getaway with more people than seatbelts. It was broken into and caught fire once, but I loved that car. Dad kept it forever. I think he liked the look of dimples, Colorado plates, and a GT Student Parking sticker on the back.

1985 VW Sirocco. "Can I take the Audi to California?"  "No. Use all that fancy fellowship money you're getting."  "But that's for the fancy tuition." "Use all that fancy fellowship money you're getting." So I found a deal. What an effing lemon on four wheels that car was. Stranded in Utah on the way to California. Stranded at the crack house parking lot on Turk Street with a proper Southern Belle visiting from Georgia to see exotic California for the first time because she knows a guy there. I went through nine fuel pumps with that POS, the driver side power window stopped operating (fortunately down, made for fun summers), and I ultimately jammed 4x4 redwood posts through the front window while rebuilding our front porch. That was the second time windows were broken. Someone prowling Mountain View really wanted a stock VW radio for some reason. So on to a truck. I dumped this car on a niece learning to drive. She knows stick!!

1995 Dodge Dakota. Old school version. Extended cab and long bed. Six on the floor. Put 285,000 miles on it. Eventually I was fueling it with close to straight Toluene vainly trying to pass smog. Then it didn't and the roof caved in, so my daughter donated it to KQED for me.

1995 Dodge Caravan. The ultimate family wagon with built-in car seats. By this time, we'd found a great mechanic, Julio, to keep this and the truck running. Took the gang everywhere. Rose Bowl. Canada twice. The Grand Circle National Park Circuit. One cool memory was in the Mineral King area of Sequoia heading to what was an epic all day hike. "Why is there chicken wire on all the cars?" "Dunno." Ans: Marmots! We came back from the twilight to rodents scurrying out from under the car. Shiii.... Opening the hood revealed the damage. They hadn't yet run out of wire insulation to eat. I didn't have a Chilton on hand. Panic is setting in on my wife's face, which translates to the kids. No worries, we have sleeping bags and I once wanted to take auto shop in high school! I twisted together what I thought should be twisted together. Wife not impressed. Hilarity ensues when she takes the kids 200 yards away behind large boulders while I start the car. Yes, Dad is expendable. She fires up!  Made it back to the Bay Area without incident and Julio says I did a really good job, no reason to rewire it. Boom! So that car went over 300,000 and finally dropped a transmission over at Bridgepoint. R.I.P. you forest green champion.

Honda Pilot of the 21st century. Replaced the caravan. Great all-purpose car-UV for schlepping high school kids and their teammates. Eventually reeked of puke and urine when my son and his friends saved some girls from the clutches of their own stupidity at a New Year party. Not enough Fabreze in the world to fix that.

VW Golf of uncertain vintage. My niece's parents repay the "favor" and dump a non-GTI hatchback in our lap to replace the truck. Half the things didn't work because of their grandchildren's peanut butter stuck in every crevice, but it did the job. I took her to 275,000 and Julio took perverse pride in keeping her going ('Probably built on a Tuesday. I can make this engine last forever.') but alas, it started to rain inside, so my wife made me get a new car. Thank you.

The current lineup:

2018 Mazda 5. No complaints. Replaced the Pilot after the kids started having their own kids.

2018 Mazda 3. Replaced the Golf. Great deal with a sub $18k price tag because I stopped looking for a stick. Got it with 5,000 miles because someone stopped payments. They had decent taste in preset radio stations, so I haven't changed anything and plan to drive this one into the ground or until they stop selling gas, whichever comes first. Shelter in place extended its life significantly.

2000 Honda S2000. We had one problem with the Pilot ever, and that was an airbag recall. It was a football Saturday, so I was slightly miffed by promising my wife I would shuttle her so she wasn't stuck at the dealer all day. What a jerk. (Me, not my wife.) I was in the process of moving on from the Golf and she'd had enough of my 'maybe I should get a Camaro/wish Fiat still made a Spider because that was my dream car in junior high' nonsense that when we saw a refurbished S2k with 55,000 miles on it in the lot she demanded I buy it just to shut me up. (Oh you think I'm stupid do you?  The long game.) Price tag even less than that Mazda 3. After shooting the particulars to my car-nut son-in-law who within two minutes had the low down (single owner, garaged, new top, new tires, new transmission), I couldn't say no. Fun car. Mid engine, short throw six speed with 9,000 rpm redline. You can drive it like a Civic and get almost 30 mpg, or drive it like you mean it. Zero traction control (RWD) and no clock, because a clock would add weight at the track. (I do carry a spare tire. Many of my fellow owners - and we pretend we're riding Harleys when we pass each other out there - don't.) I've been known to go to Nevada for lunch and come back via Ebbetts Pass. I've been up an over Hamilton and back on Mines Road more times than I can count. I'll not drive this into the ground, but pass it to my son-in-law as soon as I can't get in or out of it. I'm sure he'll convert it to electric if they stop selling gas. Premium gas.

Anyone else have cool car stories while we debate the future of Stanford Sports as we once knew it?

(Good luck to Brink in the draft tonight.)

[jacket3ree]

I keep finding myself in agreement with the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey.  

I don't know what Stanford should do moving forward. Maybe instead this thread can keep turning into Car Talk. (I miss those guys).  Just in case, here's a rundown of cars I've driven extensively, maintained, and/or owned, and their ultimate fates. This is totally self-indulgent, so sorry for that.

1974 Buick LeSabre. Retrieved from grandparents who could no longer handle her. Marshmallow suspension and comfortable front couch. First driven on Wyoming backroads when I was 14. I was responsible for changing the oil, flushing the cooling system, changing the automatic transmission fluid, washing, and drying. I assume Mom had the brakes and belts checked, but she did strand us in the middle of the Arizona desert on the way to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon that one time. She's probably still with the rest of the mothballed aircraft carriers in Suisun Bay, where we left her. (The car, not my mom.)

1969 VW Karmann Ghia.  My favorite car of all time. Even Karri U. dug it in high school and cried when I told her that a Famer A. Grey from Old People Can't Drive, MN wiped her out on my way to a job interview senior year. It was not maintained. Dad always felt that unchanged oil and magic kept that air-cooled 69 hp lawnmower engine humming without the need for human intervention. Great heating and defrost system. Open a lever and hope the rear engine heat would somehow migrate to the front on demand in sub-zero weather. I often drove to school with my head out the side window. Amazing snow and ice car though.

1975 Jeep CJ7. The straight six Levi's edition because my dad walked out of the Ford dealership in a huff during negotiations for the most cherry, candy apple red Ford Bronco you'd ever seen. The three of us and Chilton kept her purring like a kitten. Well, a kitten with tuberculosis. I had mastered the four-on-the-floor Ghia transmission on drives throughout metro Denver and the greater Rocky Mountains (up and over Berthoud, etc) and thought I was hot ****. So, Dad says, it's time to learn a real manual transmission, one without a syncro-mesh first gear. I admit I struggled, confidence shaken. Dad proceeded to cure me of my confidence issues the way he taught me to swim. At a lake. We're at Chatfield Reservoir, trailing a Jet14 wooden sloop. I'm on the boat, stow the sails, and collapse the mast. He backs down the ramp, and I winch the boat to the trailer and secure it. "Take her out." "What?" "Take her out and I know you know that if you stall, we'll be here a really long time, your mom will be pissed, and I'll garnish your wages until you've paid off the repair bill."  (Our Jeep had a normal exhaust in the normal position - not a snorkel - so stalling would suck water back into the chambers, all six of them.)  Nothing like pressure to perform. "Yes sir."  Success! That Jeep got Dad through Rocky Mountain recreating with his three children and reluctant wife, the collapse of Teton Dam, commuting to Boulder for a PhD he never finished, divorce and its aftermath, and marriage to a second wife. I wouldn't be surprised if he coaxed half a million miles out of her (the car, not his second wife). Then he fell in love with Volvos and F150s.

1978 Audi 4000 Turbo. Saturn red. What a car!  While Dad was living in an apartment without a garage, a Colorado golf ball size hailstorm dimpled almost every square inch on that car, so I was offered her services my senior year in Atlanta.  Gladly accepted.  Between the efficient 4-cylinder turbo, six speed manual, and all those dimples, I got 56 mpg from Denver to ATL with the AC off and windows rolled up. (No one said I was intelligent, particularly when I was proving a point to no one in particular. Stopped for gas twice.)  That car hosted plenty of steamy and illicit activities in the "comfort" of its bucket seats with stick and handbrake between, including an epic Key West getaway with more people than seatbelts. It was broken into and caught fire once, but I loved that car. Dad kept it forever. I think he liked the look of dimples, Colorado plates, and a GT Student Parking sticker on the back.

1985 VW Sirocco. "Can I take the Audi to California?"  "No. Use all that fancy fellowship money you're getting."  "But that's for the fancy tuition." "Use all that fancy fellowship money you're getting." So I found a deal. What an effing lemon on four wheels that car was. Stranded in Utah on the way to California. Stranded at the crack house parking lot on Turk Street with a proper Southern Belle visiting from Georgia to see exotic California for the first time because she knows a guy there. I went through nine fuel pumps with that POS, the driver side power window stopped operating (fortunately down, made for fun summers), and I ultimately jammed 4x4 redwood posts through the front window while rebuilding our front porch. That was the second time windows were broken. Someone prowling Mountain View really wanted a stock VW radio for some reason. So on to a truck. I dumped this car on a niece learning to drive. She knows stick!!

1995 Dodge Dakota. Old school version. Extended cab and long bed. Six on the floor. Put 285,000 miles on it. Eventually I was fueling it with close to straight Toluene vainly trying to pass smog. Then it didn't and the roof caved in, so my daughter donated it to KQED for me.

1995 Dodge Caravan. The ultimate family wagon with built-in car seats. By this time, we'd found a great mechanic, Julio, to keep this and the truck running. Took the gang everywhere. Rose Bowl. Canada twice. The Grand Circle National Park Circuit. One cool memory was in the Mineral King area of Sequoia heading to what was an epic all day hike. "Why is there chicken wire on all the cars?" "Dunno." Ans: Marmots! We came back from the twilight to rodents scurrying out from under the car. Shiii.... Opening the hood revealed the damage. They hadn't yet run out of wire insulation to eat. I didn't have a Chilton on hand. Panic is setting in on my wife's face, which translates to the kids. No worries, we have sleeping bags and I once wanted to take auto shop in high school! I twisted together what I thought should be twisted together. Wife not impressed. Hilarity ensues when she takes the kids 200 yards away behind large boulders while I start the car. Yes, Dad is expendable. She fires up!  Made it back to the Bay Area without incident and Julio says I did a really good job, no reason to rewire it. Boom! So that car went over 300,000 and finally dropped a transmission over at Bridgepoint. R.I.P. you forest green champion.

Honda Pilot of the 21st century. Replaced the caravan. Great all-purpose car-UV for schlepping high school kids and their teammates. Eventually reeked of puke and urine when my son and his friends saved some girls from the clutches of their own stupidity at a New Year party. Not enough Fabreze in the world to fix that.

VW Golf of uncertain vintage. My niece's parents repay the "favor" and dump a non-GTI hatchback in our lap to replace the truck. Half the things didn't work because of their grandchildren's peanut butter stuck in every crevice, but it did the job. I took her to 275,000 and Julio took perverse pride in keeping her going ('Probably built on a Tuesday. I can make this engine last forever.') but alas, it started to rain inside, so my wife made me get a new car. Thank you.

The current lineup:

2018 Mazda 5. No complaints. Replaced the Pilot after the kids started having their own kids.

2018 Mazda 3. Replaced the Golf. Great deal with a sub $18k price tag because I stopped looking for a stick. Got it with 5,000 miles because someone stopped payments. They had decent taste in preset radio stations, so I haven't changed anything and plan to drive this one into the ground or until they stop selling gas, whichever comes first. Shelter in place extended its life significantly.

2000 Honda S2000. We had one problem with the Pilot ever, and that was an airbag recall. It was a football Saturday, so I was slightly miffed by promising my wife I would shuttle her so she wasn't stuck at the dealer all day. What a jerk. (Me, not my wife.) I was in the process of moving on from the Golf and she'd had enough of my 'maybe I should get a Camaro/wish Fiat still made a Spider because that was my dream car in junior high' nonsense that when we saw a refurbished S2k with 55,000 miles on it in the lot she demanded I buy it just to shut me up. (Oh you think I'm stupid do you?  The long game.) Price tag even less than that Mazda 3. After shooting the particulars to my car-nut son-in-law who within two minutes had the low down (single owner, garaged, new top, new tires, new transmission), I couldn't say no. Fun car. Mid engine, short throw six speed with 9,000 rpm redline. You can drive it like a Civic and get almost 30 mpg, or drive it like you mean it. Zero traction control (RWD) and no clock, because a clock would add weight at the track. (I do carry a spare tire. Many of my fellow owners - and we pretend we're riding Harleys when we pass each other out there - don't.) I've been known to go to Nevada for lunch and come back via Ebbetts Pass. I've been up an over Hamilton and back on Mines Road more times than I can count. I'll not drive this into the ground, but pass it to my son-in-law as soon as I can't get in or out of it. I'm sure he'll convert it to electric if they stop selling gas. Premium gas.

Anyone else have cool car stories while we debate the future of Stanford Sports as we once knew it?

(Good luck to Brink in the draft tonight.)

[Goose]

@Goose, @Pete 

Trying to understand, but I'm still not following the "corruption" argument or the cheat-on-taxes analogy.

The "cheat on taxes" analogy was in response to the OP citing the fact that Harvard had reserved places for football players in 1905 as justification for declaring that amateurism in college athletics has never existed and shouldn't exist. I made two points, first that the NCAA didn't exist until 1906 so there were no rules in 1905, and second that declaring that some institutions violating the rules (and sometimes getting away with it)  was further justification for abandoning amateurism in college sports. I think the tax cheating analogy is an exact parallel to the latter. The fact some cheat and get away with it doesn't mean that is just fine, even "superior" to following the rules.

I think it's one thing to say "I don't think the athletes should be compensated". If that's where we are, then fine - we can agree to disagree. And again, we should quit the discussions about the mechanism because you don't agree philosophically.

IMO you are correct in recognizing that the argument regarding amateur status of college athletes is a separate one. I was arguing against the assertion that because some institutions have cheated/will cheat there is no argument for amateurism.

Or are you saying "I'm OK with athletes being compensated, but Stanford needs to stay out of the NIL game because it's by definition corrupt now that it's become pay-for-play".

I am indeed saying that college players should be amateurs and not "paid to play". Compensation is a good word here, because I think it is reasonable to "compensate" all players for the unavoidable impact competing in sports has on their lives. The fact they have to go on the road, miss classes, etc. should be mitigated and "compensated" as much as possible. This applies to all athletes equally. One can argue about "compensation", but it should come from the university, be equal across the board, and appropriate for the impact. One can argue about what is "appropriate", but it should preserve both the idea and the "fact" you are a student who happens to also play a sport, not somebody who is paid to play a sport and be a student if they wish to do so but at least pretend to do so regardless.  I fully realize this model is difficult to make fly in today's world. On this we may have to just disagree.

My point about NIL was that the decision was about name, image, and likeness. A student has these things no matter what school they attend and even if the don't play any sport. If somebody wants to pay you to help them sell used cars or a certain lipstick, the courts said the NCAA can't prohibit that. However, that isn't paying somebody to play a sport at school X. While my model above has its complexities, the current use of NIL is IMO not at all what the NIL decision was about. The "complexities" here are immense IMO. I am fine with somebody paying $750K to KiKi to use her name to sell something. I am not fine with somebody paying $750K to KiKi to play basketball at school X.

Also, side point - one of the drivers of an NIL approach is that there is a recognition that athletes deliver various levels of value. There's a big difference between Caitlin Clark and what she's done for the University of Iowa vs. some other random athlete at the University of Iowa. And I think Kiki deserves to be rewarded after her last season. Linking back to the value she delivered to Stanford....Every Pac12 channel interview, Sportscenter clip, Instagram highlight, YouTube reels, etc. have the word "Stanford" on her jersey and the university does benefit from that image. It is the wild wild west right now, but that's a big point and it shouldn't get lost in the madness.

Where we differ on this last point is the idea that because Caitlin Clark has put butts in the seats and got Iowa a lot of press she deserves to be treated any differently than any other student. Butts in the seats and good press isn't what a university is supposed to be about IMO. I think it is great she has done these things. However, despite the fact many will say the following is absurd, she  didn't go to the University of Iowa to play basketball. She went to get an education. IMO if that isn't the case, we need a new model. It may become necessary for colleges to divorce themselves from athletics. It is a matter of priorities and mission. When the primary "mission" of the university becomes to win sports contests, we have a problem. The "old" amateur system at least de jure (if not always de facto) enshrined the primacy of the academic mission. IMO the current situation of professionalism by its very nature destroys that primacy.

[Goose]

@Goose, @Pete 

Trying to understand, but I'm still not following the "corruption" argument or the cheat-on-taxes analogy.

The "cheat on taxes" analogy was in response to the OP citing the fact that Harvard had reserved places for football players in 1905 as justification for declaring that amateurism in college athletics has never existed and shouldn't exist. I made two points, first that the NCAA didn't exist until 1906 so there were no rules in 1905, and second that declaring that some institutions violating the rules (and sometimes getting away with it)  was further justification for abandoning amateurism in college sports. I think the tax cheating analogy is an exact parallel to the latter. The fact some cheat and get away with it doesn't mean that is just fine, even "superior" to following the rules.

I think it's one thing to say "I don't think the athletes should be compensated". If that's where we are, then fine - we can agree to disagree. And again, we should quit the discussions about the mechanism because you don't agree philosophically.

IMO you are correct in recognizing that the argument regarding amateur status of college athletes is a separate one. I was arguing against the assertion that because some institutions have cheated/will cheat there is no argument for amateurism.

Or are you saying "I'm OK with athletes being compensated, but Stanford needs to stay out of the NIL game because it's by definition corrupt now that it's become pay-for-play".

I am indeed saying that college players should be amateurs and not "paid to play". Compensation is a good word here, because I think it is reasonable to "compensate" all players for the unavoidable impact competing in sports has on their lives. The fact they have to go on the road, miss classes, etc. should be mitigated and "compensated" as much as possible. This applies to all athletes equally. One can argue about "compensation", but it should come from the university, be equal across the board, and appropriate for the impact. One can argue about what is "appropriate", but it should preserve both the idea and the "fact" you are a student who happens to also play a sport, not somebody who is paid to play a sport and be a student if they wish to do so but at least pretend to do so regardless.  I fully realize this model is difficult to make fly in today's world. On this we may have to just disagree.

My point about NIL was that the decision was about name, image, and likeness. A student has these things no matter what school they attend and even if the don't play any sport. If somebody wants to pay you to help them sell used cars or a certain lipstick, the courts said the NCAA can't prohibit that. However, that isn't paying somebody to play a sport at school X. While my model above has its complexities, the current use of NIL is IMO not at all what the NIL decision was about. The "complexities" here are immense IMO. I am fine with somebody paying $750K to KiKi to use her name to sell something. I am not fine with somebody paying $750K to KiKi to play basketball at school X.

Also, side point - one of the drivers of an NIL approach is that there is a recognition that athletes deliver various levels of value. There's a big difference between Caitlin Clark and what she's done for the University of Iowa vs. some other random athlete at the University of Iowa. And I think Kiki deserves to be rewarded after her last season. Linking back to the value she delivered to Stanford....Every Pac12 channel interview, Sportscenter clip, Instagram highlight, YouTube reels, etc. have the word "Stanford" on her jersey and the university does benefit from that image. It is the wild wild west right now, but that's a big point and it shouldn't get lost in the madness.

Where we differ on this last point is the idea that because Caitlin Clark has put butts in the seats and got Iowa a lot of press she deserves to be treated any differently than any other student. Butts in the seats and good press isn't what a university is supposed to be about IMO. I think it is great she has done these things. However, despite the fact many will say the following is absurd, she  didn't go to the University of Iowa to play basketball. She went to get an education. IMO if that isn't the case, we need a new model. It may become necessary for colleges to divorce themselves from athletics. It is a matter of priorities and mission. When the primary "mission" of the university becomes to win sports contests, we have a problem. The "old" amateur system at least de jure (if not always de facto) enshrined the primacy of the academic mission. IMO the current situation of professionalism by its very nature destroys that primacy.

[jonnyss]

last i heard many full-time faculty make big bucks moonlighting in industry - especially at stanford. often the work has even been developed in labs at the university, in which case the school typically gets a cut. the academic mission of universities hasn't been pristine for a while now. students are just catching up.

[jonnyss]

last i heard many full-time faculty make big bucks moonlighting in industry - especially at stanford. often the work has even been developed in labs at the university, in which case the school typically gets a cut. the academic mission of universities hasn't been pristine for a while now. students are just catching up.

[bl82]

[standing ovation for jacket3ree, specifically for the car stories, but generally for his entire body of work]

[bl82]

[standing ovation for jacket3ree, specifically for the car stories, but generally for his entire body of work]

[81alum]

My heart has not been in this thread, although I have strong feelings.  In general, I endorse the sentiments expressed by Goose.  There certainly are different fans who enjoy Stanford WBB for different reasons, and who have come to the game through different paths.

In the 1970s before I attended Stanford I detested all college sports because of their reputation for underhanded deals and corruption.  It was Stanford doing things differently that made me into a sports fan in general.  Stanford was "bribing" players too--with the promise of a first rate education.  That was the kind of "compensation" I could support.  The fact that Stanford imposed restrictions on itself--including admissions standards--that other universities did not, just made it sweeter to me that Stanford could be successful.  Sure, I romanticized it all by imagining a world of good and evil with Stanford being the good guys, but it added to my enjoyment of athletics to feel as if my team was one of the few that was truly aligned with values like academic excellence, women's equity, etc. and we were doing battle with those who were not.

Well, it has gotten harder and harder for Stanford to use its promise of an elite education to give itself an advantage.  It just does not work for many (not all) elite players when the amounts of NIL money and easy transfer drown it out.  Tara has said as much herself on several occasions that I remember.  She once bemoaned "the lack of loyalty" that some players feel.  She once observed that she wished she could convince more recruits of the value of a Stanford education.  She never begrudged students their NIL deals or "going where they want to go," but those other comments told the story of an increasingly difficult environment in which her reputation alone was holding things together.

Where does that leave me as a sports fan?  It could be that Stanford just will become increasingly less competitive at any of the "money" sports:  football, MBB, WBB.  But the values probably still apply to those sports that do not have strong professional destinations, or to baseball in which there is a pro alternative to college.  Maybe the future of my fanhood needs to be focused on all those sports which have not been infected by NIL and revolving door transfers.  Stanford should continue to have the advantage in them, attracting true student-athletes who are here for the Stanford degree and who develop that sense of institutional loyalty that players like Hannah Jump showed--staying beyond their minimal requirements.

[81alum]

My heart has not been in this thread, although I have strong feelings.  In general, I endorse the sentiments expressed by Goose.  There certainly are different fans who enjoy Stanford WBB for different reasons, and who have come to the game through different paths.

In the 1970s before I attended Stanford I detested all college sports because of their reputation for underhanded deals and corruption.  It was Stanford doing things differently that made me into a sports fan in general.  Stanford was "bribing" players too--with the promise of a first rate education.  That was the kind of "compensation" I could support.  The fact that Stanford imposed restrictions on itself--including admissions standards--that other universities did not, just made it sweeter to me that Stanford could be successful.  Sure, I romanticized it all by imagining a world of good and evil with Stanford being the good guys, but it added to my enjoyment of athletics to feel as if my team was one of the few that was truly aligned with values like academic excellence, women's equity, etc. and we were doing battle with those who were not.

Well, it has gotten harder and harder for Stanford to use its promise of an elite education to give itself an advantage.  It just does not work for many (not all) elite players when the amounts of NIL money and easy transfer drown it out.  Tara has said as much herself on several occasions that I remember.  She once bemoaned "the lack of loyalty" that some players feel.  She once observed that she wished she could convince more recruits of the value of a Stanford education.  She never begrudged students their NIL deals or "going where they want to go," but those other comments told the story of an increasingly difficult environment in which her reputation alone was holding things together.

Where does that leave me as a sports fan?  It could be that Stanford just will become increasingly less competitive at any of the "money" sports:  football, MBB, WBB.  But the values probably still apply to those sports that do not have strong professional destinations, or to baseball in which there is a pro alternative to college.  Maybe the future of my fanhood needs to be focused on all those sports which have not been infected by NIL and revolving door transfers.  Stanford should continue to have the advantage in them, attracting true student-athletes who are here for the Stanford degree and who develop that sense of institutional loyalty that players like Hannah Jump showed--staying beyond their minimal requirements.

[Goose]

last i heard many full-time faculty make big bucks moonlighting in industry - especially at stanford. often the work has even been developed in labs at the university, in which case the school typically gets a cut. the academic mission of universities hasn't been pristine for a while now. students are just catching up.

IMO lots of false equivalence here. First of all, BOTH students and faculty have always had the option of side jobs. Many students couldn't have paid their way through school without them. In fact, it is pretty certain that many more students have side jobs than do faculty members, because there are way more students. The common denominator of these side jobs is that Stanford has literally nothing to do with how they are run, what they do, etc. The existence of these jobs is not in any way dependent on Stanford. Obviously that is not true in Stanford sports, where the teams are run by Stanford and wouldn't exist without Stanford's continuing "support". In many cases the faculty uses IP developed in their research at Stanford, for which the technology transfer  folks extract negotiated licensing fees. The IP is also available for sale to anybody who will pay, unless and until somebody (maybe the inventor, but often not) negotiates an exclusive license (which obviously costs more). This in no way is contrary to Stanford's academic mission, but rather is orthogonal to it.

The academic and "learning" aspects of the underlying research went on previously in the labs at Stanford managed by the faculty member. There is little question such research serves an academic purpose. The fact they accomplished something Stanford can sell is literally incidental to that process. It is a "by-product". Most research can't be monetized. Some can. The faculty member who ran the lab that did the work may or may not get a "side" job out of it. The majority of the IP generated at Stanford goes nowhere, even when the PIs do their very best to "sell" it :-). Some IP generates lots of money for a very long time for Stanford and hundreds of companies that have nothing to do with Stanford. See https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/mak...h-patents/. Some research has made lots of money for the inventor who founded companies to exploit their inventions, even if said companies never produced a viable product (names intentionally omitted:-).

Better examples for your argument are activities like SRI and the Draper Labs, which were contract research facilities created by Stanford and MIT. In the 1970s these organizations were deemed incompatible with the academic purposes of Stanford/MIT and spun off. Athletics may meet the same fate. Today, LBL and SLAC are arguably examples of efforts that universities manage that are not strictly academic. It has been a topic of discussion for decades. The academic justification for university involvement is that high-energy physics research cannot happen without government subsidies. Universities want to do high-energy physics research and teach their graduate students about it, so that "justifies" such involvement. YMMV.

Another possible example is Stanford Health Care. As BC has pointed out, today Stanford may be a health care system with a University attached. However, nobody would argue that a medical school is not a "legitimate" part of the academic goals of the university. In this case, the argument is that the associated heath care system is necessary to educate doctors and (incidentally) prevent Stanford from losing its shirt doing so.

There is still contract research going on at Stanford. Graduate students learn a lot doing it. I know, I was "sold" to NASA Ames for four months. It clearly has academic purpose, but is it "pure"? Again, YMMV. My answer is "it depends".

The problem is that it is almost impossible to make the argument that Stanford's sports programs serves any academic purpose, even peripherally. The "builds character" argument is just about the only one. I am a fan of Stanford sports in general. When the players are amateurs and are playing the sport "for the love of the game", it can be argued that while it isn't academic it is socially useful and at least doesn't conflict with the university's academic mission. Well OK, it has never been exactly that, but that is the "ideal" surrounding its existence. Arguably it has become such a large enterprise within the university it can't be ignored as "minor" and "just a unifying social benefit that the players enjoy doing". When students are being paid by outside sources to attend Stanford and play a sport, there is no way it can be said sports are not creating conflicts with the university's academic mission and standards. For that person, the sport is arguably primary, not a means to an end. IMO that is a bridge way too far.

[Goose]

last i heard many full-time faculty make big bucks moonlighting in industry - especially at stanford. often the work has even been developed in labs at the university, in which case the school typically gets a cut. the academic mission of universities hasn't been pristine for a while now. students are just catching up.

IMO lots of false equivalence here. First of all, BOTH students and faculty have always had the option of side jobs. Many students couldn't have paid their way through school without them. In fact, it is pretty certain that many more students have side jobs than do faculty members, because there are way more students. The common denominator of these side jobs is that Stanford has literally nothing to do with how they are run, what they do, etc. The existence of these jobs is not in any way dependent on Stanford. Obviously that is not true in Stanford sports, where the teams are run by Stanford and wouldn't exist without Stanford's continuing "support". In many cases the faculty uses IP developed in their research at Stanford, for which the technology transfer  folks extract negotiated licensing fees. The IP is also available for sale to anybody who will pay, unless and until somebody (maybe the inventor, but often not) negotiates an exclusive license (which obviously costs more). This in no way is contrary to Stanford's academic mission, but rather is orthogonal to it.

The academic and "learning" aspects of the underlying research went on previously in the labs at Stanford managed by the faculty member. There is little question such research serves an academic purpose. The fact they accomplished something Stanford can sell is literally incidental to that process. It is a "by-product". Most research can't be monetized. Some can. The faculty member who ran the lab that did the work may or may not get a "side" job out of it. The majority of the IP generated at Stanford goes nowhere, even when the PIs do their very best to "sell" it :-). Some IP generates lots of money for a very long time for Stanford and hundreds of companies that have nothing to do with Stanford. See https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/mak...h-patents/. Some research has made lots of money for the inventor who founded companies to exploit their inventions, even if said companies never produced a viable product (names intentionally omitted:-).

Better examples for your argument are activities like SRI and the Draper Labs, which were contract research facilities created by Stanford and MIT. In the 1970s these organizations were deemed incompatible with the academic purposes of Stanford/MIT and spun off. Athletics may meet the same fate. Today, LBL and SLAC are arguably examples of efforts that universities manage that are not strictly academic. It has been a topic of discussion for decades. The academic justification for university involvement is that high-energy physics research cannot happen without government subsidies. Universities want to do high-energy physics research and teach their graduate students about it, so that "justifies" such involvement. YMMV.

Another possible example is Stanford Health Care. As BC has pointed out, today Stanford may be a health care system with a University attached. However, nobody would argue that a medical school is not a "legitimate" part of the academic goals of the university. In this case, the argument is that the associated heath care system is necessary to educate doctors and (incidentally) prevent Stanford from losing its shirt doing so.

There is still contract research going on at Stanford. Graduate students learn a lot doing it. I know, I was "sold" to NASA Ames for four months. It clearly has academic purpose, but is it "pure"? Again, YMMV. My answer is "it depends".

The problem is that it is almost impossible to make the argument that Stanford's sports programs serves any academic purpose, even peripherally. The "builds character" argument is just about the only one. I am a fan of Stanford sports in general. When the players are amateurs and are playing the sport "for the love of the game", it can be argued that while it isn't academic it is socially useful and at least doesn't conflict with the university's academic mission. Well OK, it has never been exactly that, but that is the "ideal" surrounding its existence. Arguably it has become such a large enterprise within the university it can't be ignored as "minor" and "just a unifying social benefit that the players enjoy doing". When students are being paid by outside sources to attend Stanford and play a sport, there is no way it can be said sports are not creating conflicts with the university's academic mission and standards. For that person, the sport is arguably primary, not a means to an end. IMO that is a bridge way too far.

[Mick]

Fortune magazine on why athletics is the secret to America's economic success is blending sports and education. According to the head of USA water polo, anyway:

https://fortune.com/2023/08/24/usa-water...er-ramsey/

I read a similar article some years back in The Atlantic, and wished I'd kept it. Put forth many compelling arguments on why intercollegiate athletics are critical.

I'm not on that side, I think NIL and transfer portal means the end of varsity collegiate athletics in most instances, and I'm not unhappy with that.

[Mick]

Fortune magazine on why athletics is the secret to America's economic success is blending sports and education. According to the head of USA water polo, anyway:

https://fortune.com/2023/08/24/usa-water...er-ramsey/

I read a similar article some years back in The Atlantic, and wished I'd kept it. Put forth many compelling arguments on why intercollegiate athletics are critical.

I'm not on that side, I think NIL and transfer portal means the end of varsity collegiate athletics in most instances, and I'm not unhappy with that.