[BostonCard]

Nice turn of phrase by ND's AD (JD 80);

“We were screwing it up incrementally,” Swarbrick says, “and pursuing legal strategies that were just mindless to me. I could go on all day about how silly that was.”

Good piece from Ivan Maisel in the Stanford Magazine as to how we got here (with some quotes from Muir, Vanderveer, and Shaw):

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/throwin...G8HGFTFwWI

I think Swarbrick is right:

The differences in philosophy among schools may manifest in a breakup of NCAA Division I, the highest level of intercollegiate athletics. “We probably need two models for college sports in the United States,” says Notre Dame athletics director Jack Swarbrick, JD ’80. He sees a professionalized, minor-league model at one end of the spectrum and an Ivy League–style integration of athletics into the university at the other. “I think different students will pick different models and schools will pick different models.”

I know I am in the minority here, but I favor the latter model for Stanford.  I don't want to watch minor league football that happens to be affiliated with a college.  I realize that it is going to be a problem for the non-revenue sports and it will sadden me to lose that model at Stanford, but a large share of revenue from football sports will probably eventually go to pay players, so I think the non-revenue sports will be screwed no matter what.

One thing I disagree with is Muir's take:

Moreover, “college sports have allowed thousands and thousands of young people this chance for upward mobility,” he says. “And students have taken full advantage of it. We think that’s a good thing. If we go to any other model we’re talking about here, they might not get that chance.”

While that is true in individual cases, on the whole collegiate athletics at private institutions like Stanford tends to favor the wealthy.  There was a recent study (https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/co...dmissions/ and https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-conte..._Paper.pdf) that showed that "24% of the admissions advantage for students from top 1% families [in income] can be explained by the recruitment of athletes, who tend to come from higher-income families." While football and basketball are pretty diverse, the "country club" sports are referred to as such for a reason.

BC

[BostonCard]

Nice turn of phrase by ND's AD (JD 80);

“We were screwing it up incrementally,” Swarbrick says, “and pursuing legal strategies that were just mindless to me. I could go on all day about how silly that was.”

Good piece from Ivan Maisel in the Stanford Magazine as to how we got here (with some quotes from Muir, Vanderveer, and Shaw):

https://stanfordmag.org/contents/throwin...G8HGFTFwWI

I think Swarbrick is right:

The differences in philosophy among schools may manifest in a breakup of NCAA Division I, the highest level of intercollegiate athletics. “We probably need two models for college sports in the United States,” says Notre Dame athletics director Jack Swarbrick, JD ’80. He sees a professionalized, minor-league model at one end of the spectrum and an Ivy League–style integration of athletics into the university at the other. “I think different students will pick different models and schools will pick different models.”

I know I am in the minority here, but I favor the latter model for Stanford.  I don't want to watch minor league football that happens to be affiliated with a college.  I realize that it is going to be a problem for the non-revenue sports and it will sadden me to lose that model at Stanford, but a large share of revenue from football sports will probably eventually go to pay players, so I think the non-revenue sports will be screwed no matter what.

One thing I disagree with is Muir's take:

Moreover, “college sports have allowed thousands and thousands of young people this chance for upward mobility,” he says. “And students have taken full advantage of it. We think that’s a good thing. If we go to any other model we’re talking about here, they might not get that chance.”

While that is true in individual cases, on the whole collegiate athletics at private institutions like Stanford tends to favor the wealthy.  There was a recent study (https://opportunityinsights.org/paper/co...dmissions/ and https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-conte..._Paper.pdf) that showed that "24% of the admissions advantage for students from top 1% families [in income] can be explained by the recruitment of athletes, who tend to come from higher-income families." While football and basketball are pretty diverse, the "country club" sports are referred to as such for a reason.

BC