[BostonCard]

1735581681[/url]']
I will also go on record, again, to say that I don't believe anyone on this board who says they have lost the enjoyment of watching college sports just because of NIL and the transfer portal. I think people (myself included) aren't enjoying this Stanford women's basketball team as much as past teams because, frankly, they aren't as good! But I'm quite sure that if this Stanford team finds the formula and goes on a late season run, all the way to the national championship, 81 and others will enjoy that run just as much as our past national championships, even though the players are getting compensated.

I agree with most of what you wrote.  I don’t think knowing that players are being paid for use of their name, image, and likeness bothers me much, though I somewhat differentiate between true sponsorships (ie, Nike paying an athlete to put them on a billboard with a shoe) versus collectives where boosters are just funneling money to a player in order for them to play for a specific team.  If we are going to do that, I’d much rather it all be above board and have the school pay athletes directly.

Where I disagree is that I think the transfer portal has definitely reduced my enjoyment of the game.  Part of what makes college sports special is that there was both continuity from year to year and natural rejuvination as players graduate and new recruits come in.  A lot of the enjoyment and satisfaction comes from watching a player like Kiki Iriafen go from being a reserve with a lot of potential her freshman year to showing flashes of what she could do her sophomore year to being one of the stars last year.  I would have loved to see that evolution play out her senior year, with her being the leader and star of the team.  I would have loved the same from Betts, and I am pretty sure we would have witnessed it, but for the transfer portal.  To be fair, I don’t begrudge Betts and Iriafen (or the other players) their choices; not having been there, I don’t know why the decided to go elsewhere (and, in Iriafen’s case, she had already earned her degree), and if Stanford or the Stanford women’s basketball team is not working out for a player, by all means they should be entitled to do what is best for them.  That being said, the overall student transfer rate is infinitesimal; the transfer rate for athletes (especially in football and basketball) is substantially higher, and I think that’s a problem.  As long as there are a finite number of slots for Stanford students, it is the school’s responsibility to allocate those wisely, and part of that is to allocate them to students (both at large students and student-athletes) who are most likely to fully take advantage of the opportunity.  To my mind, staying until they leave with their degree is a major part of that (not the only, of course).

BC

[BostonCard]

1735581681[/url]']
I will also go on record, again, to say that I don't believe anyone on this board who says they have lost the enjoyment of watching college sports just because of NIL and the transfer portal. I think people (myself included) aren't enjoying this Stanford women's basketball team as much as past teams because, frankly, they aren't as good! But I'm quite sure that if this Stanford team finds the formula and goes on a late season run, all the way to the national championship, 81 and others will enjoy that run just as much as our past national championships, even though the players are getting compensated.

I agree with most of what you wrote.  I don’t think knowing that players are being paid for use of their name, image, and likeness bothers me much, though I somewhat differentiate between true sponsorships (ie, Nike paying an athlete to put them on a billboard with a shoe) versus collectives where boosters are just funneling money to a player in order for them to play for a specific team.  If we are going to do that, I’d much rather it all be above board and have the school pay athletes directly.

Where I disagree is that I think the transfer portal has definitely reduced my enjoyment of the game.  Part of what makes college sports special is that there was both continuity from year to year and natural rejuvination as players graduate and new recruits come in.  A lot of the enjoyment and satisfaction comes from watching a player like Kiki Iriafen go from being a reserve with a lot of potential her freshman year to showing flashes of what she could do her sophomore year to being one of the stars last year.  I would have loved to see that evolution play out her senior year, with her being the leader and star of the team.  I would have loved the same from Betts, and I am pretty sure we would have witnessed it, but for the transfer portal.  To be fair, I don’t begrudge Betts and Iriafen (or the other players) their choices; not having been there, I don’t know why the decided to go elsewhere (and, in Iriafen’s case, she had already earned her degree), and if Stanford or the Stanford women’s basketball team is not working out for a player, by all means they should be entitled to do what is best for them.  That being said, the overall student transfer rate is infinitesimal; the transfer rate for athletes (especially in football and basketball) is substantially higher, and I think that’s a problem.  As long as there are a finite number of slots for Stanford students, it is the school’s responsibility to allocate those wisely, and part of that is to allocate them to students (both at large students and student-athletes) who are most likely to fully take advantage of the opportunity.  To my mind, staying until they leave with their degree is a major part of that (not the only, of course).

BC