[BigJohn043]

Mixed feelings.  Not crazy about college free agency.  But I also think kids should be able to go where they want.

Stanford will inevitably lose in a world in which all commitment on the part of student athletes is obliterated.  Stanford will never be able to compete in the free agent game, because its academic standards sharply restrict "freedom of movement" between universities.  Complete free agency will ultimately make it impossible for Stanford to be competitive in revenue sports.  Let's hope it doesn't get that far.

Then there is the other matter.  Personally, I would not enjoy backing a team composed of carpetbaggers who did not share the Stanford experience with me and who come and go too quickly for me to become attached to them.  It is for this reason that I completely lost interest in professional sports.  Now I see college sports importing the same interest-killing innovation.

Fortunately, Stanford is good at a lot of non revenue sports, so there will still be teams for me to root for, since Stanford will retain its advantages in sports that were never about a payday.  But I fear deeply for football and MBB.

FWIW - I hope it does go that far.   The exploitation of student athletes in parts of the USA is very hard to watch.    These attempts to exploit the workforce will continue, but at least the athletes can get compensation for risking their bodies, and in some cases minds.

Even with the current use of the transfer portal it is hard to imagine Stanford thriving.   When there are even more organized NILs, substantial university salaries or potentially ticket revenue sharing from their gate, and it will be even harder for Stanford to stay competitive.

Still, I can't support the exploitation of student-athletes nationwide just for Stanford to do a bit better in football.  If the athletes can obtain economic benefit from their activities then that's what they should be allowed to do in our free market economy even if my alma mater ends up as a net loser in this more open compensation model.

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

As for what happens if the whole thing blows up, I have no idea. What I do know is history is nothing but a series of tales of people doing dumb things in an effort to hold on to or secure power by screwing people over, and themselves ultimately losing everything as the forces they sought to oppress fight back against them. Sometimes there is a war where both sides lose. It's ALWAYS the smartest move to compromise with others than be unyielding. You give people nothing to lose and they become an impossible force to defeat, unless you are OK taking of immense proportions losses.

It's my experience that the best way to do things is to set standards and rules, and then let parties being governed by them, compete. Right now, the NCAA has no acceptable standards and rules that aren't underpinned by exploiting labor. That is a foundational problem that will always hamper the enterprise until it is adequately addressed.

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?

[BigJohn043]

Mixed feelings.  Not crazy about college free agency.  But I also think kids should be able to go where they want.

Stanford will inevitably lose in a world in which all commitment on the part of student athletes is obliterated.  Stanford will never be able to compete in the free agent game, because its academic standards sharply restrict "freedom of movement" between universities.  Complete free agency will ultimately make it impossible for Stanford to be competitive in revenue sports.  Let's hope it doesn't get that far.

Then there is the other matter.  Personally, I would not enjoy backing a team composed of carpetbaggers who did not share the Stanford experience with me and who come and go too quickly for me to become attached to them.  It is for this reason that I completely lost interest in professional sports.  Now I see college sports importing the same interest-killing innovation.

Fortunately, Stanford is good at a lot of non revenue sports, so there will still be teams for me to root for, since Stanford will retain its advantages in sports that were never about a payday.  But I fear deeply for football and MBB.

FWIW - I hope it does go that far.   The exploitation of student athletes in parts of the USA is very hard to watch.    These attempts to exploit the workforce will continue, but at least the athletes can get compensation for risking their bodies, and in some cases minds.

Even with the current use of the transfer portal it is hard to imagine Stanford thriving.   When there are even more organized NILs, substantial university salaries or potentially ticket revenue sharing from their gate, and it will be even harder for Stanford to stay competitive.

Still, I can't support the exploitation of student-athletes nationwide just for Stanford to do a bit better in football.  If the athletes can obtain economic benefit from their activities then that's what they should be allowed to do in our free market economy even if my alma mater ends up as a net loser in this more open compensation model.

Playing college sports  is not work.  Period.  

Don't just make the claim. Demonstrate why. There are multiple reasons that demonstrate they in fact ARE employees. Here are just two:

1. They are directed to follow orders and do not control their own schedules.
2. The term "student athlete" was invented by a former NCAA President with the express purpose of preventing them from being classified as employees.

And then there is the anti-trust, collusion element.  If you are an athlete in high demand, you are operating in a market where all the employers (schools) have colluded to refuse paying wages, thereby prohibiting an athlete from getting the compensation they would get in a free market.

Moreover, as I have said before, the NLRB has classified college athletes as employees. This means any causes of action brought by college athletes seeking compensation from schools and seeking to be classified as employees, will likely win, especially with the SCOTUS now ready to make that ruling.

As for what happens if the whole thing blows up, I have no idea. What I do know is history is nothing but a series of tales of people doing dumb things in an effort to hold on to or secure power by screwing people over, and themselves ultimately losing everything as the forces they sought to oppress fight back against them. Sometimes there is a war where both sides lose. It's ALWAYS the smartest move to compromise with others than be unyielding. You give people nothing to lose and they become an impossible force to defeat, unless you are OK taking of immense proportions losses.

It's my experience that the best way to do things is to set standards and rules, and then let parties being governed by them, compete. Right now, the NCAA has no acceptable standards and rules that aren't underpinned by exploiting labor. That is a foundational problem that will always hamper the enterprise until it is adequately addressed.

My daughter plays both high school and club volleyball.  She doesn't set the schedule and has to follow orders.  Does that make her an employee?

FWIW, the same thing is true about my sons 6th grade basketball team and pretty much any sports team I can think of.  So 6 year old soccer players are employees?