[d4cohn]

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.

There have been countless artistic oriented Stanford students (e.g. Reese Witherspoon among others come to mind) who got the necessary training at Stanford they needed to be (very) successful in their career. In addition, successful actors like Reese can make a lot of money participating in film and TV projects etc., all while getting their degree. No one (rightly) bemoans the arts because it enhances/adds value to a well-rounded campus culture. 

I hope Stanford is a great training ground for its students, regardless of their goals. If you want to work in academia, the training and education you will get is outstanding. If you want to play in the NFL, look at all the athletes we have sent to the pros. If you are interested in the arts, Reese among other alums (Sterling Brown etc.) show you can be successful at Stanford. And you will also get a great education on top of the other goals these students may have.

Also college programs, for years, could, at other schools, cut athletes and remove their scholarships for lack of athletic performance alone (all while coaches were receiving large 8 figure salaries). There may be excesses in NIL, but it has always been a business (in at least recent memory).

[d4cohn]

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.

There have been countless artistic oriented Stanford students (e.g. Reese Witherspoon among others come to mind) who got the necessary training at Stanford they needed to be (very) successful in their career. In addition, successful actors like Reese can make a lot of money participating in film and TV projects etc., all while getting their degree. No one (rightly) bemoans the arts because it enhances/adds value to a well-rounded campus culture. 

I hope Stanford is a great training ground for its students, regardless of their goals. If you want to work in academia, the training and education you will get is outstanding. If you want to play in the NFL, look at all the athletes we have sent to the pros. If you are interested in the arts, Reese among other alums (Sterling Brown etc.) show you can be successful at Stanford. And you will also get a great education on top of the other goals these students may have.

Also college programs, for years, could, at other schools, cut athletes and remove their scholarships for lack of athletic performance alone (all while coaches were receiving large 8 figure salaries). There may be excesses in NIL, but it has always been a business (in at least recent memory).