[lex24]

So, what’s the solution.  Personally, I think NIL should be compensated. Or you don’t promote individual players, you don’t sell Merchandise that identifies a player.  And that is not going to happen.

---

This is exactly what I expected, and is what I would call "structural corruption." I use that term to mean that this apparently is now legal and above board but that it nonetheless has the same effects on college sports as old fashioned corruption.  Much as racism can become institutionalized, so can corruption, and it now has.

The mistake that the NIL proponents made was in focusing on the rights of athletes who were already at universities, with insufficient thought to the way that NIL deals would be used as recruiting inducements.

I suppose the laissez-faire types could just say let anything go--let boosters bid on recruits, offer them big NIL packages, and just so long as it is all in the open let the richer boosters win.  That is in fact what is happening, as the link attests.  But carried to its logical conclusion we will have a product that is an inferior version of professionalized sport.  College sport taken in this direction will lose what charm and appeal it still has.  Stories like this certainly clobber my enthusiasm.

As I have said since the NIL specter began to hang over us--either this NIL stuff changes or else Stanford will by driven out of Division I.  This is an issue that makes concerns about who the coach happens to be pale in comparison.  Frankly, the thing that everyone on this board loves--Stanford athletics at a high level of competition--is under serious threat.

Well, you are right.  If Stanford won’t play ball with NIL.  But isn’t Cameron Brink doing quite well with her NIL?  

The genie is out of the bottle.  So, you adjust.  Or perish. Maybe Stanford will choose the latter.  But given the school and it’s boosters have essentially unlimited funds, NIL should not be a problem.

[lex24]

So, what’s the solution.  Personally, I think NIL should be compensated. Or you don’t promote individual players, you don’t sell Merchandise that identifies a player.  And that is not going to happen.

---

This is exactly what I expected, and is what I would call "structural corruption." I use that term to mean that this apparently is now legal and above board but that it nonetheless has the same effects on college sports as old fashioned corruption.  Much as racism can become institutionalized, so can corruption, and it now has.

The mistake that the NIL proponents made was in focusing on the rights of athletes who were already at universities, with insufficient thought to the way that NIL deals would be used as recruiting inducements.

I suppose the laissez-faire types could just say let anything go--let boosters bid on recruits, offer them big NIL packages, and just so long as it is all in the open let the richer boosters win.  That is in fact what is happening, as the link attests.  But carried to its logical conclusion we will have a product that is an inferior version of professionalized sport.  College sport taken in this direction will lose what charm and appeal it still has.  Stories like this certainly clobber my enthusiasm.

As I have said since the NIL specter began to hang over us--either this NIL stuff changes or else Stanford will by driven out of Division I.  This is an issue that makes concerns about who the coach happens to be pale in comparison.  Frankly, the thing that everyone on this board loves--Stanford athletics at a high level of competition--is under serious threat.

Well, you are right.  If Stanford won’t play ball with NIL.  But isn’t Cameron Brink doing quite well with her NIL?  

The genie is out of the bottle.  So, you adjust.  Or perish. Maybe Stanford will choose the latter.  But given the school and it’s boosters have essentially unlimited funds, NIL should not be a problem.