[Mudhead]

I really think you, and many others, are sentimental, high-integrity, and overall nice people (all of which I glean from a message board!), which is why your students probably dig you. I hope I'm the same. But I really don't think things are as bad as you are perceiving. The kids that are transferring, the coaches that are making moves, the universities and their NIL collectives...they aren't bad people. They are doing what's necessary to compete within the governing rules. We can question the decisions made that got collegiate sports into this position, but there is a very strong rationale why we ended up here. The players were being exploited for far too long. Choose to look at all the positives that come with that being fixed.

Thanks for you thoughtful encouragement, BB.  I also do not believe that the people making these decisions are bad people, other than perhaps those at the very top who started the mess.  Failure of leadership in the NCAA and the Supreme Court set us on this path, and everyone is scrambling to find their way in the new reality.  And some have lost their way.

Bill, your assertion that “The players were being exploited for far too long” ignores the fact that a non-athletic scholarship student must pay roughly $300,000 for a Stanford University education. The players benefit hugely!
I think the system was corrupted a long time ago when coaches, initially football coaches, were able to profit off of their sport. In my ideal world, a coach at a university would receive the same salary as all other professors in the institution. i think the more correct characterization of the system would be to label coach’s compensation as “opportunism,” certainly not to characterize the players as exploited!

I think, but don’t know, that grants in aid , ie the whole $300,000 4 year package is not considered income but a “grant” and therefore not taxable. I hate to think how much you have to make inCalifornia to get $75 k per year after tax income.  Probably $125,000 or so.   that’s not big money when compared to the $400,000 that .angel Reese get but it’s not chump change either especially  if you’re not one of the 50 best players in the country. I assume these SAs realize that NIL is taxable. 

I really don’t know how many NIL deals are north of $125,000 a year in Women s basketball.  All Stanford has to do is to get just a little bit real for women’s basketball and be ready to put $2M a year, focused on your stars but not ignoring your role players and it can be quite competitive. I have no doubt that kind of money is available.

Or we can cling to the “old way” and move rapidly into irrelevancy .  Tara has shown a remarkable ability to adjust to the style of ball played over the years. Can she, at age 70 adjust to this new reality of what it takes to have a winning program? Does she even want to engage  in the fight with the administration to get the players admitted through the portal that it will take to be successful ?  

The answers to those questions will tell us whether we will remain a national power.

Few 70 year olds do but then she has never run with the crowd.

[Mudhead]

I really think you, and many others, are sentimental, high-integrity, and overall nice people (all of which I glean from a message board!), which is why your students probably dig you. I hope I'm the same. But I really don't think things are as bad as you are perceiving. The kids that are transferring, the coaches that are making moves, the universities and their NIL collectives...they aren't bad people. They are doing what's necessary to compete within the governing rules. We can question the decisions made that got collegiate sports into this position, but there is a very strong rationale why we ended up here. The players were being exploited for far too long. Choose to look at all the positives that come with that being fixed.

Thanks for you thoughtful encouragement, BB.  I also do not believe that the people making these decisions are bad people, other than perhaps those at the very top who started the mess.  Failure of leadership in the NCAA and the Supreme Court set us on this path, and everyone is scrambling to find their way in the new reality.  And some have lost their way.

Bill, your assertion that “The players were being exploited for far too long” ignores the fact that a non-athletic scholarship student must pay roughly $300,000 for a Stanford University education. The players benefit hugely!
I think the system was corrupted a long time ago when coaches, initially football coaches, were able to profit off of their sport. In my ideal world, a coach at a university would receive the same salary as all other professors in the institution. i think the more correct characterization of the system would be to label coach’s compensation as “opportunism,” certainly not to characterize the players as exploited!

I think, but don’t know, that grants in aid , ie the whole $300,000 4 year package is not considered income but a “grant” and therefore not taxable. I hate to think how much you have to make inCalifornia to get $75 k per year after tax income.  Probably $125,000 or so.   that’s not big money when compared to the $400,000 that .angel Reese get but it’s not chump change either especially  if you’re not one of the 50 best players in the country. I assume these SAs realize that NIL is taxable. 

I really don’t know how many NIL deals are north of $125,000 a year in Women s basketball.  All Stanford has to do is to get just a little bit real for women’s basketball and be ready to put $2M a year, focused on your stars but not ignoring your role players and it can be quite competitive. I have no doubt that kind of money is available.

Or we can cling to the “old way” and move rapidly into irrelevancy .  Tara has shown a remarkable ability to adjust to the style of ball played over the years. Can she, at age 70 adjust to this new reality of what it takes to have a winning program? Does she even want to engage  in the fight with the administration to get the players admitted through the portal that it will take to be successful ?  

The answers to those questions will tell us whether we will remain a national power.

Few 70 year olds do but then she has never run with the crowd.