[Goose]

From "The Morning" from the NYT on the role of college football GMs

“The job is too big for a college coach,” said Andrew Luck, the former Stanford quarterback who recently returned to his alma mater as its football general manager. “The role has changed. The system has changed so much and continues to change.”
Luck, like most general managers, is largely responsible for securing money and signing players, many of whom announce they wish to change schools by entering the sport’s so-called transfer portal.

...
“The transfer portal was intense,” said Luck, a college football optimist who stayed at Stanford to finish his degree in 2011, even when he was projected to be the first pick in the N.F.L. draft. “If I had any romantic notion of the thing, the business side, it was lost there.”

From a linked article in the above NYT reference

“Back then, relationships mattered,” said Courtney Morgan, the general manager for the University of Alabama’s football team, referring to the recruitment of players in the pre-N.I.L. era. “Relationships still do matter, but education mattered. One thing I can say is you have less conversations about degrees and education now more than ever. I haven’t gotten asked about a graduation rate in a long time.”

IMO that is the crux of the issue. Education is no longer part of the equation, even as a fig leaf. How can an organization whose raison d'être is education justify activities that have no relation to education? The only possible way I can see is that this activity is a good way to raise money for the University. I am quite certain that Stanford would not chose minor league football or basketball as the best investment it can make, everything else being equal.

This is also not a situation that existed even five years ago. As Luck said, things are changing rapidly. Unfortunately, I don't see any way that education returns as a significant parameter of these college sports. IMO it is appropriate to examine why I care about Stanford athletics at all. Luck refers to all his romantic notions (if he had any) about the business side being swept away. There is of course still the "football" side which can be interesting. There used to be the educational/social side of the game. That is gone. That doesn't leave a lot to get excited about. I will keep going to the games, mostly out of habit, but it will be a year to year decision.

[Goose]

From "The Morning" from the NYT on the role of college football GMs

“The job is too big for a college coach,” said Andrew Luck, the former Stanford quarterback who recently returned to his alma mater as its football general manager. “The role has changed. The system has changed so much and continues to change.”
Luck, like most general managers, is largely responsible for securing money and signing players, many of whom announce they wish to change schools by entering the sport’s so-called transfer portal.

...
“The transfer portal was intense,” said Luck, a college football optimist who stayed at Stanford to finish his degree in 2011, even when he was projected to be the first pick in the N.F.L. draft. “If I had any romantic notion of the thing, the business side, it was lost there.”

From a linked article in the above NYT reference

“Back then, relationships mattered,” said Courtney Morgan, the general manager for the University of Alabama’s football team, referring to the recruitment of players in the pre-N.I.L. era. “Relationships still do matter, but education mattered. One thing I can say is you have less conversations about degrees and education now more than ever. I haven’t gotten asked about a graduation rate in a long time.”

IMO that is the crux of the issue. Education is no longer part of the equation, even as a fig leaf. How can an organization whose raison d'être is education justify activities that have no relation to education? The only possible way I can see is that this activity is a good way to raise money for the University. I am quite certain that Stanford would not chose minor league football or basketball as the best investment it can make, everything else being equal.

This is also not a situation that existed even five years ago. As Luck said, things are changing rapidly. Unfortunately, I don't see any way that education returns as a significant parameter of these college sports. IMO it is appropriate to examine why I care about Stanford athletics at all. Luck refers to all his romantic notions (if he had any) about the business side being swept away. There is of course still the "football" side which can be interesting. There used to be the educational/social side of the game. That is gone. That doesn't leave a lot to get excited about. I will keep going to the games, mostly out of habit, but it will be a year to year decision.