[Genuine Realist]

Why would agents try to steer a player to a particular school?

I’m kind of with CTCard; I may become a disinterested fan for a flailing college team, but there are other pleasures in life.  At best, I’m unenthusiastic about Stanford mega-rich mega-fans establishing a collective.

BC

I was using the word in a more generic sense, for which apologies. 'Sponsorship' would have been a better choice of word.

In any case, with a view toward participating in the athlete's pro career, and recouping or profiting from the investment (sic) thereby.

---

Of all the various developments in college sports that had various levels of distaste, this is the first one where I am starting to wonder if I would prefer that my dear alma mater simply opt out.

Yes, I entirely agree.  Faced with the choice as to whether Stanford University should compete with athletic powerhouses by using a kind of legalized and collectivized bribery scheme, or whether we should give up on Division I Athletics, I say give it up.  Above all, Stanford should stay true to its mission:

“to extend the frontiers of knowledge, stimulate creativity, and solve real-world problems, prepare students to think broadly, deeply and critically, and to contribute to the world, and deploy Stanford’s strengths to benefit our region, country, and world.”

It was always a small stretch to argue that athletics fit this mission--but athletics does bring students to Stanford who otherwise might not be able to afford it, and prepares them in the way the mission states.  Under the old-fashioned amateur student-athlete model I think athletics works with the mission.  But it becomes too big a stretch to bribe students to attend and recruit students who never intend to finish their college education at Stanford.  While this phenomenon is not new (John McEnroe was in my class) it should not be allowed to grow and fester.

I have (surprisingly) become an avid Stanford athletics fan.  But my fandom has always been predicated on the unique way that Stanford does athletics--its ability to resist corruption and to market its education as a true benefit to athletes.  The latest national developments, including the collective legal organized corruption schemes that other universities are putting in place, are so revolting that they have killed my interests in the sports that they affect.  My interest in college football and men's basketball has plummeted, and I am praying that WBB does not cross over the threshold too.

It's interesting how completely the 'amateur' notion has accultured the view of these matters, to the point where payment of any kind is seen as dirty or unethical.

It's not.

[Genuine Realist]

Why would agents try to steer a player to a particular school?

I’m kind of with CTCard; I may become a disinterested fan for a flailing college team, but there are other pleasures in life.  At best, I’m unenthusiastic about Stanford mega-rich mega-fans establishing a collective.

BC

I was using the word in a more generic sense, for which apologies. 'Sponsorship' would have been a better choice of word.

In any case, with a view toward participating in the athlete's pro career, and recouping or profiting from the investment (sic) thereby.

---

Of all the various developments in college sports that had various levels of distaste, this is the first one where I am starting to wonder if I would prefer that my dear alma mater simply opt out.

Yes, I entirely agree.  Faced with the choice as to whether Stanford University should compete with athletic powerhouses by using a kind of legalized and collectivized bribery scheme, or whether we should give up on Division I Athletics, I say give it up.  Above all, Stanford should stay true to its mission:

“to extend the frontiers of knowledge, stimulate creativity, and solve real-world problems, prepare students to think broadly, deeply and critically, and to contribute to the world, and deploy Stanford’s strengths to benefit our region, country, and world.”

It was always a small stretch to argue that athletics fit this mission--but athletics does bring students to Stanford who otherwise might not be able to afford it, and prepares them in the way the mission states.  Under the old-fashioned amateur student-athlete model I think athletics works with the mission.  But it becomes too big a stretch to bribe students to attend and recruit students who never intend to finish their college education at Stanford.  While this phenomenon is not new (John McEnroe was in my class) it should not be allowed to grow and fester.

I have (surprisingly) become an avid Stanford athletics fan.  But my fandom has always been predicated on the unique way that Stanford does athletics--its ability to resist corruption and to market its education as a true benefit to athletes.  The latest national developments, including the collective legal organized corruption schemes that other universities are putting in place, are so revolting that they have killed my interests in the sports that they affect.  My interest in college football and men's basketball has plummeted, and I am praying that WBB does not cross over the threshold too.

It's interesting how completely the 'amateur' notion has accultured the view of these matters, to the point where payment of any kind is seen as dirty or unethical.

It's not.