[BillBradley]

Bill Bradley:
No, my point is that empowering the players to shape the terrain of college basketball places an inordinate amount of power in the player’s hands. I would favor a system that is shaped by the stakeholders of the game. That would include those who want to see athletics serve the institution rather than the reverse.  However, in this post, I am simply asking others to join in to suggest legal ways that the current policy could be altered. You have asserted in the past that we should accept the current policy because that’s the way it is. I think that policies are worked out over time. We are in a very early stage of the modifications of collegiate athletics. 
I

OK thanks. I don't mean to derail your topic (others with law backgrounds please continue to keep the thread going). But FWIW, when Brittany Griner or Stewy or Caitlin or Juju brought their talents to the schools they chose as freshmen, why wasn't that in itself a display of an inordinate amount of power? It happens again and again, every recruiting cycle. The top players change the landscape when they enter as freshmen. Also, I know I sound like a broken record, but in all those cases I think the institutions were all glad to serve those athletes. They benefited greatly.

The institutions benefitted greatly...until that player [in the new paradigm] decides to leave the following year for more money elsewhere, leaving the institution with a big hole in the team... requiring that institution to go raid another team to fill the unplanned vacant position, etc., etc.  Otherwise put, the impact of upper class transfers is immediately twice that of a new high school senior coming in [since it hurts one school as well as helping one school], and those impacts are compounded further by the fact that transfers affect all four classes, not just one [incoming frosh].

OK, but over 1000 women basketball players have entered the portal this past period. Doesn't that say something about the need for players to be able to find a better situation for themselves? Look, as a Stanford fan I don't like it when we lose players. But Stanford is an outlier. I would say that practically all of the 1000+ players have put more into basketball than any other thing in their lives. It's another debate if sports have become too big and the heavy pursuit of success in athletics doesn't stack up with people's individual ideals. But these 1000+ players eat, sleep, and drink hoops. Early workouts, lifting, training, practice, film, more workouts, offseason strength, conditioning, studying in hotels, remote exams...it never ends. Most college hoopers put way more into basketball than their academics, and they really don't even have much choice. They have to put in the time if they want to play. The competition is fierce. Again, Stanford is an outlier here as are we as Stanford fans. But I think there's a level of ignorance on this board as to what the typical college basketball player at the average university goes through on a daily basis. It dominates their life at most schools. Academics are important, but secondary. 

The transfer policies need to be considerate of the entire player base, not just the handful of top stars (like Kiki) where part of the reason for transfer is the NIL money. The vast majority of transfer cases have zero NIL money involved. Do people really want players to have to stay in programs where they aren't happy? If so, why? IMO, any "contract" or other legal mechanism that handcuffs players to their academic institution is really not a good fit in today's college basketball world.

p.s. I too roll my eyes at the players who are still "keeping the dream alive" and have played in 5 different programs by the time they graduate. For sure, I want them to pick something else for a career and get on with their lives. But that's not my choice, it's theirs.

[BillBradley]

Bill Bradley:
No, my point is that empowering the players to shape the terrain of college basketball places an inordinate amount of power in the player’s hands. I would favor a system that is shaped by the stakeholders of the game. That would include those who want to see athletics serve the institution rather than the reverse.  However, in this post, I am simply asking others to join in to suggest legal ways that the current policy could be altered. You have asserted in the past that we should accept the current policy because that’s the way it is. I think that policies are worked out over time. We are in a very early stage of the modifications of collegiate athletics. 
I

OK thanks. I don't mean to derail your topic (others with law backgrounds please continue to keep the thread going). But FWIW, when Brittany Griner or Stewy or Caitlin or Juju brought their talents to the schools they chose as freshmen, why wasn't that in itself a display of an inordinate amount of power? It happens again and again, every recruiting cycle. The top players change the landscape when they enter as freshmen. Also, I know I sound like a broken record, but in all those cases I think the institutions were all glad to serve those athletes. They benefited greatly.

The institutions benefitted greatly...until that player [in the new paradigm] decides to leave the following year for more money elsewhere, leaving the institution with a big hole in the team... requiring that institution to go raid another team to fill the unplanned vacant position, etc., etc.  Otherwise put, the impact of upper class transfers is immediately twice that of a new high school senior coming in [since it hurts one school as well as helping one school], and those impacts are compounded further by the fact that transfers affect all four classes, not just one [incoming frosh].

OK, but over 1000 women basketball players have entered the portal this past period. Doesn't that say something about the need for players to be able to find a better situation for themselves? Look, as a Stanford fan I don't like it when we lose players. But Stanford is an outlier. I would say that practically all of the 1000+ players have put more into basketball than any other thing in their lives. It's another debate if sports have become too big and the heavy pursuit of success in athletics doesn't stack up with people's individual ideals. But these 1000+ players eat, sleep, and drink hoops. Early workouts, lifting, training, practice, film, more workouts, offseason strength, conditioning, studying in hotels, remote exams...it never ends. Most college hoopers put way more into basketball than their academics, and they really don't even have much choice. They have to put in the time if they want to play. The competition is fierce. Again, Stanford is an outlier here as are we as Stanford fans. But I think there's a level of ignorance on this board as to what the typical college basketball player at the average university goes through on a daily basis. It dominates their life at most schools. Academics are important, but secondary. 

The transfer policies need to be considerate of the entire player base, not just the handful of top stars (like Kiki) where part of the reason for transfer is the NIL money. The vast majority of transfer cases have zero NIL money involved. Do people really want players to have to stay in programs where they aren't happy? If so, why? IMO, any "contract" or other legal mechanism that handcuffs players to their academic institution is really not a good fit in today's college basketball world.

p.s. I too roll my eyes at the players who are still "keeping the dream alive" and have played in 5 different programs by the time they graduate. For sure, I want them to pick something else for a career and get on with their lives. But that's not my choice, it's theirs.