I benefited from listening to the whole interview, which is extraordinary considering my usual opinion of the Hoover Institution. But this interview was first rate. I have to say I did not agree with everything that Luck and Rice said, but they each taught me some things about taking the right perspective on the recent changes.
They were unified in welcoming the NIL changes but Rice thought they needed to be "put in a box" by which she meant some sort of rules were needed. Luck called it the "wild wild west" and compared it to a Pandora's box, but noted that the last thing out of Pandora's box was "hope." They both made the equity argument that every other student could benefit from NIL for their talents, so athletes have to be able to as well.
Rice was very negative about the transfer portal, and said that what made it even worse was the way it could be combined with NIL to pay players to transfer. I thought her best line was something like this: "Imagine if you were evaluating the resume of a non-athlete and saw he had attended 3-4 different universities in as many years, what would you conclude?" In short, the transfer portal undermines academic success and is a clear repudiation of academic values. And this is not just the argument of a purist--it is a problem for the athletes. She cited the stat that something like 66% of MBB players think they will go pro, and less than 1/2% do. It is vital that we do not trash the value of the degree for the 65.5% who are mistaken, since the college degree will likely be all they have when their basketball careers are finished.
At the end of the interview, the interviewer asked my own question perfectly as if he read my mind, when he basically asked them each for what advice they would give to a dinosaur fan who loved the old amateur model. Their answers were not, however, very helpful because how could they be? We hardly know what athletics will be like in a few years. Rice said that alumni fans should bring pressure on their schools to maintain their academic standards. Spoken like a former Stanford Provost.
I also was not convinced by their CTE answers, which basically were that we are working to make sports safer, that all sports have risk, that football is an important part of American culture, and so we will move ahead. Too easy, in my opinion. But what more can someone say who loves football and is unwilling to give it up? There really are no other answers. I haven't found an answer I can accept for myself, either.
They were unified in welcoming the NIL changes but Rice thought they needed to be "put in a box" by which she meant some sort of rules were needed. Luck called it the "wild wild west" and compared it to a Pandora's box, but noted that the last thing out of Pandora's box was "hope." They both made the equity argument that every other student could benefit from NIL for their talents, so athletes have to be able to as well.
Rice was very negative about the transfer portal, and said that what made it even worse was the way it could be combined with NIL to pay players to transfer. I thought her best line was something like this: "Imagine if you were evaluating the resume of a non-athlete and saw he had attended 3-4 different universities in as many years, what would you conclude?" In short, the transfer portal undermines academic success and is a clear repudiation of academic values. And this is not just the argument of a purist--it is a problem for the athletes. She cited the stat that something like 66% of MBB players think they will go pro, and less than 1/2% do. It is vital that we do not trash the value of the degree for the 65.5% who are mistaken, since the college degree will likely be all they have when their basketball careers are finished.
At the end of the interview, the interviewer asked my own question perfectly as if he read my mind, when he basically asked them each for what advice they would give to a dinosaur fan who loved the old amateur model. Their answers were not, however, very helpful because how could they be? We hardly know what athletics will be like in a few years. Rice said that alumni fans should bring pressure on their schools to maintain their academic standards. Spoken like a former Stanford Provost.
I also was not convinced by their CTE answers, which basically were that we are working to make sports safer, that all sports have risk, that football is an important part of American culture, and so we will move ahead. Too easy, in my opinion. But what more can someone say who loves football and is unwilling to give it up? There really are no other answers. I haven't found an answer I can accept for myself, either.