[Mick]

I read the NY Times article thinking I wouldn't learn anything new.  I have always taken pride in how Stanford's admissions would be unwavering, and the athletes we cheer represent the university well.  As a result, I know the transfer portal is going to be more out than in.
But what really galls me, to put it in the words of a former long time poster on the old Bootleg site, is "the university's sense of overweening purity."  Here's the quote from the article:

"After NIL became legal, women's basketball star Haley Jones landed a Nike sponsorship a year after leading Stanford to the 2021 national championship.  The school wouldn't allow her to use the Cardinal logo in ads, and made her photoshop the word "Stanford" out of her jersey."

I am stunned that this happened.  Jones was a prominent face of women's basketball in 2021.  Was she in any way controversial or detrimental?  Did this bring any shame to the university?  I don't think USC made Juju Watkins remove their logo from the Nike commercial seen so prominently during March Madness.  Notre Dame had no complaints on the Allstate commercial which features Hannah Hidalgo, and in fact the entire team.  This decision by Stanford is pathetic.

I wonder if the university was concerned about potential adverse impacts to its non-profit status. Keep in mind, this was in the very early days of NIL and it was a brand (pun intended) new frontier.

I am sure there was a legal opinion from one of the many Stanford attorneys that it was "safer" to proceed that way. Many of the strange seemingly inexplicable bureaucratic regulations and procedures Stanford are the results of such opinions. The sad thing is that the abundance of caution often fails to deliver the desired immunity from lawsuits. Sometimes too the cure is arguably worse than the disease.

A risk-averse attorney. Imagine that.

[Mick]

I read the NY Times article thinking I wouldn't learn anything new.  I have always taken pride in how Stanford's admissions would be unwavering, and the athletes we cheer represent the university well.  As a result, I know the transfer portal is going to be more out than in.
But what really galls me, to put it in the words of a former long time poster on the old Bootleg site, is "the university's sense of overweening purity."  Here's the quote from the article:

"After NIL became legal, women's basketball star Haley Jones landed a Nike sponsorship a year after leading Stanford to the 2021 national championship.  The school wouldn't allow her to use the Cardinal logo in ads, and made her photoshop the word "Stanford" out of her jersey."

I am stunned that this happened.  Jones was a prominent face of women's basketball in 2021.  Was she in any way controversial or detrimental?  Did this bring any shame to the university?  I don't think USC made Juju Watkins remove their logo from the Nike commercial seen so prominently during March Madness.  Notre Dame had no complaints on the Allstate commercial which features Hannah Hidalgo, and in fact the entire team.  This decision by Stanford is pathetic.

I wonder if the university was concerned about potential adverse impacts to its non-profit status. Keep in mind, this was in the very early days of NIL and it was a brand (pun intended) new frontier.

I am sure there was a legal opinion from one of the many Stanford attorneys that it was "safer" to proceed that way. Many of the strange seemingly inexplicable bureaucratic regulations and procedures Stanford are the results of such opinions. The sad thing is that the abundance of caution often fails to deliver the desired immunity from lawsuits. Sometimes too the cure is arguably worse than the disease.

A risk-averse attorney. Imagine that.