[StanfordMatt]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

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

In cases like this, it is not entirely clear what forward thinking really is. I don't think Stanford prides itself on hopping on whatever bandwagon starts rolling in the media. What I think Stanford prides itself on is having true concern for its student athletes; looking for the broadest benefit for the broadest number of people [note "prides itself on" is not the same as "always manages to keep true to"]. Whether paying more to football players accomplishes that is unclear, especially in articles like the one linked that does not spell out any particular proposal. 

Stanford's unique athletics funding model, relying far more on wealthy donations than normal markets, does tend to protect the non-revenue sports - which is why Stanford has more than most any other place. Whether that well is infinitely deep, able to continue to any level of expenditure, is not clear to me. 

My own suspicion is that Stanford stays in the big time sports game under any provisions that keep the Pac 12 alive and provide uniform payments to players. However, there will be a lot of soul-searching if actual market-based, negotiated salaries for players emerges.

I respectfully beg to differ that it's not entirely clear what "forward thinking" means in this context. "Forward thinking" means moving away from an archaic fantasy of amateurism in which an arbitrary cap has been placed on student-athletes' ability to profit from the fruits of their labor while universities have exploited this labor in the construction of multi-million dollar facilities complete with barbershops, tatoo parlors and miniature golf courses. At the highest levels of Division I, it's a modern version of indentured servitude. Is this representative of what is going on at Stanford? No, but Stanford is complicit in the system, especially when Muir testifies before congressional committees on behalf of the NCAA and threatens that Stanford will have to move to Division III if players are paid.

Do I or The Daily writer or anyone else for that matter have all the answers to this dilemma? Certainly not. But I know enough to recognize that the system of exploitation must be fundamentally changed and Muir's stance of digging in his heels and dutifully reciting the NCAA's propaganda is not "forward thinking" in any way.

[StanfordMatt]

Speaking of dark clouds, I don't think a complete analysis of Muir's tenure at Stanford can be had without discussing his comments on amateurism and unionization. Mr. Miller does a good job of articulating my thoughts in this op-ed: https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/04/19...-fatalist/

I don't think the situation is as simple as Miller indicates: "Spending on coaching and administrative salaries, facility upgrades and recruiting could all be cut to free up funds [to pay athletes]." Those actions would affect "the experience and opportunity provided to Olympic sport athletes" that Miller values. There's no free lunch.

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

In cases like this, it is not entirely clear what forward thinking really is. I don't think Stanford prides itself on hopping on whatever bandwagon starts rolling in the media. What I think Stanford prides itself on is having true concern for its student athletes; looking for the broadest benefit for the broadest number of people [note "prides itself on" is not the same as "always manages to keep true to"]. Whether paying more to football players accomplishes that is unclear, especially in articles like the one linked that does not spell out any particular proposal. 

Stanford's unique athletics funding model, relying far more on wealthy donations than normal markets, does tend to protect the non-revenue sports - which is why Stanford has more than most any other place. Whether that well is infinitely deep, able to continue to any level of expenditure, is not clear to me. 

My own suspicion is that Stanford stays in the big time sports game under any provisions that keep the Pac 12 alive and provide uniform payments to players. However, there will be a lot of soul-searching if actual market-based, negotiated salaries for players emerges.

I respectfully beg to differ that it's not entirely clear what "forward thinking" means in this context. "Forward thinking" means moving away from an archaic fantasy of amateurism in which an arbitrary cap has been placed on student-athletes' ability to profit from the fruits of their labor while universities have exploited this labor in the construction of multi-million dollar facilities complete with barbershops, tatoo parlors and miniature golf courses. At the highest levels of Division I, it's a modern version of indentured servitude. Is this representative of what is going on at Stanford? No, but Stanford is complicit in the system, especially when Muir testifies before congressional committees on behalf of the NCAA and threatens that Stanford will have to move to Division III if players are paid.

Do I or The Daily writer or anyone else for that matter have all the answers to this dilemma? Certainly not. But I know enough to recognize that the system of exploitation must be fundamentally changed and Muir's stance of digging in his heels and dutifully reciting the NCAA's propaganda is not "forward thinking" in any way.