[teejers1]

College sports is going to be unrecognizable to what it is today within a couple years. The pace of change relative to what has been until now, is going to be breathtaking.

If by breathtaking, you mean "a lot fewer schools and teams competing," then I agree.

If by breathtaking, you mean players will be paid (beyond the comp they already get), then I hope you are wrong.  That would be death knell for Stanford in upper echelon of sports competition.

At this point I am hoping for changes that benefit the players across the entire NCAA rather than keep the status quo just to keep Stanford strong.  
The current system exploits a lot of student-athletes in so many ways that changes need to happen.
If changes (like USOC changes in 90s) gives athletes a bit of control and power, then I can live with that even if Stanford then becomes less of a D1/NCAA power.

I love that word "exploitation" - it sounds so insidious and is meant to be a mic drop.  

The truth is that NCAA benefits far more student athletes than it exploits, and it's not even close.  Again, identify what bothers you and address THAT.  I'll bet what bothers you is that (a) the athletes don't make any $$ (beyond room, board, tuition, and quite possibly tutoring), while coaches and NCAA fat cats make millions.  Okay, impose caps on salary for coaching and NCAA positions.  And then roll over the $$ to the universities as a whole.  Would that address your concerns?

And if you're so concerned about the athletes getting paid, then advocate for an NFL D-League and have those whose singular goal is to get paid for their football services to go there.

P.S.  None of the above undermines giving players extended health care benefits, so long as it is across-the-board.

[teejers1]

College sports is going to be unrecognizable to what it is today within a couple years. The pace of change relative to what has been until now, is going to be breathtaking.

If by breathtaking, you mean "a lot fewer schools and teams competing," then I agree.

If by breathtaking, you mean players will be paid (beyond the comp they already get), then I hope you are wrong.  That would be death knell for Stanford in upper echelon of sports competition.

At this point I am hoping for changes that benefit the players across the entire NCAA rather than keep the status quo just to keep Stanford strong.  
The current system exploits a lot of student-athletes in so many ways that changes need to happen.
If changes (like USOC changes in 90s) gives athletes a bit of control and power, then I can live with that even if Stanford then becomes less of a D1/NCAA power.

I love that word "exploitation" - it sounds so insidious and is meant to be a mic drop.  

The truth is that NCAA benefits far more student athletes than it exploits, and it's not even close.  Again, identify what bothers you and address THAT.  I'll bet what bothers you is that (a) the athletes don't make any $$ (beyond room, board, tuition, and quite possibly tutoring), while coaches and NCAA fat cats make millions.  Okay, impose caps on salary for coaching and NCAA positions.  And then roll over the $$ to the universities as a whole.  Would that address your concerns?

And if you're so concerned about the athletes getting paid, then advocate for an NFL D-League and have those whose singular goal is to get paid for their football services to go there.

P.S.  None of the above undermines giving players extended health care benefits, so long as it is across-the-board.