03-08-2023, 03:47 PM
Let's remember that the original NIL case was brought about by Ed O'Bannon because the NCAA, in its infinite wisdom, licensed the images of actual players to Electronic Arts to make a video game that featured characters with an uncanny resemblance to people who were over a decade out of college, and didn't think to share any of the revenue with the players whose images were being used (link). Screw that, O'Bannon and the roughly 100,000 current and former athletes who had appeared in EA Sports' NCAA Basketball and NCAA Football series of video games since 2003 deserve every penny and more of the $40 million settlement.
But it's a long way between the NCAA licensing out the image of its athletes without compensation or their permission and the farce that has become collectives and NILs in 2023. Let's call it what it is, a way for boosters to funnel money to players in a thinly veiled pay-to-play scheme. Which, I guess, is fine; if rich VC's want to toss athletes a bone for playing at Stanford or anywhere, who am I to begrudge the billionaires or the athletes. But even if Stanford's wealthy alumni base was willing to buy us a great team, I honestly don't know how I'd feel. A return to the Rose Bowl under those circumstances would feel very different than the heyday of 2010-2015. If I'm going to root for an amateur in name only team, I might as well go for the real deal and start watching Niners games.
It's ok, though. I think the ship is sailing, and the confluence of NIL, transfer rules that make a mockery of the pursue of a degree, and conference realignment that consistently seeks to maximize TV revenue at the expense of athlete well-being, not to mention increasing evidence of the toll on body and mind that athletics imposes, tell me that, win or lose, my days as a die hard fan are probably numbered. It's possible that the ""pencil-necked geeks who prefer the Ivy mode" might actually be in the right here (except for the fact that there is a separate thread about lawsuits that, though a bit of a long shot, would be a threat to the Ivy model).
BC
But it's a long way between the NCAA licensing out the image of its athletes without compensation or their permission and the farce that has become collectives and NILs in 2023. Let's call it what it is, a way for boosters to funnel money to players in a thinly veiled pay-to-play scheme. Which, I guess, is fine; if rich VC's want to toss athletes a bone for playing at Stanford or anywhere, who am I to begrudge the billionaires or the athletes. But even if Stanford's wealthy alumni base was willing to buy us a great team, I honestly don't know how I'd feel. A return to the Rose Bowl under those circumstances would feel very different than the heyday of 2010-2015. If I'm going to root for an amateur in name only team, I might as well go for the real deal and start watching Niners games.
It's ok, though. I think the ship is sailing, and the confluence of NIL, transfer rules that make a mockery of the pursue of a degree, and conference realignment that consistently seeks to maximize TV revenue at the expense of athlete well-being, not to mention increasing evidence of the toll on body and mind that athletics imposes, tell me that, win or lose, my days as a die hard fan are probably numbered. It's possible that the ""pencil-necked geeks who prefer the Ivy mode" might actually be in the right here (except for the fact that there is a separate thread about lawsuits that, though a bit of a long shot, would be a threat to the Ivy model).
BC