[TonyLima]

Basketball requires one year removed from high school graduation, and baseball has no requirements regarding age or education after high school iirc.  What would be interesting is if, under the "graduation requirement," any college players would sit out a year to avoid injury a la Jadeveon Clowney once they've proved their value, so to speak.  I don't think the NFL would institute this kind of rule -- they don't care a whit about the chaos of college football so long as they get their talent.

Unless it has recently changed, my understanding is that baseball players can go pro right after high school. If they choose to go to college, they have to wait 3 years to be draft-eligible.

That is correct. See Lima, Lowenthal, and Staudohar “The Evolution of  Baseball’s Amateur Draft.” NINE: Journal of Baseball, 15:1 (Fall, 2006)

[TonyLima]

Basketball requires one year removed from high school graduation, and baseball has no requirements regarding age or education after high school iirc.  What would be interesting is if, under the "graduation requirement," any college players would sit out a year to avoid injury a la Jadeveon Clowney once they've proved their value, so to speak.  I don't think the NFL would institute this kind of rule -- they don't care a whit about the chaos of college football so long as they get their talent.

Unless it has recently changed, my understanding is that baseball players can go pro right after high school. If they choose to go to college, they have to wait 3 years to be draft-eligible.

That is correct. See Lima, Lowenthal, and Staudohar “The Evolution of  Baseball’s Amateur Draft.” NINE: Journal of Baseball, 15:1 (Fall, 2006)

[BostonCard]

Nice flex.

BC

[BostonCard]

Nice flex.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

Basketball requires one year removed from high school graduation, and baseball has no requirements regarding age or education after high school iirc.  What would be interesting is if, under the "graduation requirement," any college players would sit out a year to avoid injury a la Jadeveon Clowney once they've proved their value, so to speak.  I don't think the NFL would institute this kind of rule -- they don't care a whit about the chaos of college football so long as they get their talent.

True, but they most certainly will if there  are major changes that impact the potential player pool.

My oft repeated suggestion - toss the amateur rule, and let professional franchises contract with whom they will. Let others who want to invest in a future pro work it out.

It's a real bad idea to change the school relationship to employer-employee. The student extra curricular model works fine.

Simply reduce the NCAA, function to scholastic policing.

BTW, I think everyone should be aware that Stanford coaches have sold the differential in tuition for years, perfectly legally. The gross is about 300k, maybe net 250k. Something to think about when decrying NIL enrichment.

[Genuine Realist]

Basketball requires one year removed from high school graduation, and baseball has no requirements regarding age or education after high school iirc.  What would be interesting is if, under the "graduation requirement," any college players would sit out a year to avoid injury a la Jadeveon Clowney once they've proved their value, so to speak.  I don't think the NFL would institute this kind of rule -- they don't care a whit about the chaos of college football so long as they get their talent.

True, but they most certainly will if there  are major changes that impact the potential player pool.

My oft repeated suggestion - toss the amateur rule, and let professional franchises contract with whom they will. Let others who want to invest in a future pro work it out.

It's a real bad idea to change the school relationship to employer-employee. The student extra curricular model works fine.

Simply reduce the NCAA, function to scholastic policing.

BTW, I think everyone should be aware that Stanford coaches have sold the differential in tuition for years, perfectly legally. The gross is about 300k, maybe net 250k. Something to think about when decrying NIL enrichment.

[BostonCard]

The next frontier in NIL: “wrestling”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=jmdlngds

BC

[BostonCard]

The next frontier in NIL: “wrestling”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=jmdlngds

BC

[GK3]

The next frontier in NIL: “wrestling”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=jmdlngds

BC

It seems to me that Stanford's recruiting pool just got even smaller and it was awfully small to start with.  Can Stanford compete NIL wise when recruiting a 5 star prospect coved by the likes of Alabama, Clemson and so on?

[GK3]

The next frontier in NIL: “wrestling”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=jmdlngds

BC

It seems to me that Stanford's recruiting pool just got even smaller and it was awfully small to start with.  Can Stanford compete NIL wise when recruiting a 5 star prospect coved by the likes of Alabama, Clemson and so on?

[Phogge]

Why not just admit that the system can’t be controlled and policed. Dump the NCAA and have no grade restriction. Schools can hire players, nobody goes to class. The SEC would love it.

This mess is not going to turn out well for Stanford.

[Phogge]

Why not just admit that the system can’t be controlled and policed. Dump the NCAA and have no grade restriction. Schools can hire players, nobody goes to class. The SEC would love it.

This mess is not going to turn out well for Stanford.

[OutsiderFan]

The next frontier in NIL: “wrestling”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=jmdlngds

BC

It seems to me that Stanford's recruiting pool just got even smaller and it was awfully small to start with.  Can Stanford compete NIL wise when recruiting a 5 star prospect coved by the likes of Alabama, Clemson and so on?

A Stanford Football recruit recently said Stanford didn't talk about NIL much, and that he wasn't going there for NIL opportunities.  If every other school is pitching near-term money making, and Stanford is staying true to its main recruiting pitch (the education, networking, prestige), there might be a net increase to Stanford's pool size, just based not he fact so few schools will offer what Stanford does. Of course, Stanford is also going to have to make a credible case it can get players to the NFL, NBA, etc., but NIL might not break Stanford.

To be clear, Stanford isn't saying it won't support NIL deals for its athletes, but it's not merging NIL with recruiting like virtually every other school will be doing. This could be a powerful differentiator in Stanford's favor. We will have to see how it plays out, but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions on how NIL will ultimately impact Stanford just yet.

[OutsiderFan]

The next frontier in NIL: “wrestling”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=jmdlngds

BC

It seems to me that Stanford's recruiting pool just got even smaller and it was awfully small to start with.  Can Stanford compete NIL wise when recruiting a 5 star prospect coved by the likes of Alabama, Clemson and so on?

A Stanford Football recruit recently said Stanford didn't talk about NIL much, and that he wasn't going there for NIL opportunities.  If every other school is pitching near-term money making, and Stanford is staying true to its main recruiting pitch (the education, networking, prestige), there might be a net increase to Stanford's pool size, just based not he fact so few schools will offer what Stanford does. Of course, Stanford is also going to have to make a credible case it can get players to the NFL, NBA, etc., but NIL might not break Stanford.

To be clear, Stanford isn't saying it won't support NIL deals for its athletes, but it's not merging NIL with recruiting like virtually every other school will be doing. This could be a powerful differentiator in Stanford's favor. We will have to see how it plays out, but I wouldn't draw too many conclusions on how NIL will ultimately impact Stanford just yet.

[LuckE2Bhere]

The great irony here is that college students (many of whom enthusiastically endorse socialist policies, including forced "equity") and other advocates of NIL and "fairly compensating student athletes" became free market evangelists with regard to the very small percentage of NCAA student-athletes who were actually getting underpaid under the effective Salary Cap that previously existed - i.e., standardized compensation in the form of admissions preferences, scholarships, SWAG and over-flowing training tables (which made it comical to hear a Duke Basketball player claim he was "starving"!).  

Of course, the marginal revenue that accrues to these schools from all but a relatively short list of true "difference makers" an a very short list of profitable sports was already well below the value of those admissions preferences (for those who took advantage of their educational opportunity) and even those scholarships, in most cases.  Now, we'll see those (expected) difference makers reap market-based rewards, and sadly/eventually, the resources available to the mere amateur student-athletes erode over time.  Even in DI Football, will a LB who is "only" good enough to play third or fourth-string for a mediocre program continue to receive a $200+K scholarship, when his coach may find that money better spent locking down the starting QB in a bidding war?

The simple reality is that truly free markets cannot exist in autocratically controlled, socialist environments (though autocrats in countries like China have used controlled access to capitalism to build the state's wealth/power), whereas socialists are free to establish such communes within the parameters of environments that recognize individual liberties.  I would argue that "amateur athletics" are/were one of the most successful examples of that, with individuals choosing to sacrifice individual economic rewards to pursue collective success.  That's what makes alums and other fans so proud to root for their school (or even their national) teams, while very few people actually care about NBA D-League games (where the caliber of play is much higher than even the top college programs), for example.

I'm not saying that these kids should be forced to provide their services in exchange for artificially constrained forms of compensation... I'm just (selfishly) sad to see "playing for your school (or country)" fall to the wayside.  At least for a while, we'll have amateur DIII and high school sports, but we've already seen a shocking amount of economic self interest permeate high school and club sports, so I worry about how far adults will go in exploiting kids, so they can profit at the periphery.

[LuckE2Bhere]

The great irony here is that college students (many of whom enthusiastically endorse socialist policies, including forced "equity") and other advocates of NIL and "fairly compensating student athletes" became free market evangelists with regard to the very small percentage of NCAA student-athletes who were actually getting underpaid under the effective Salary Cap that previously existed - i.e., standardized compensation in the form of admissions preferences, scholarships, SWAG and over-flowing training tables (which made it comical to hear a Duke Basketball player claim he was "starving"!).  

Of course, the marginal revenue that accrues to these schools from all but a relatively short list of true "difference makers" an a very short list of profitable sports was already well below the value of those admissions preferences (for those who took advantage of their educational opportunity) and even those scholarships, in most cases.  Now, we'll see those (expected) difference makers reap market-based rewards, and sadly/eventually, the resources available to the mere amateur student-athletes erode over time.  Even in DI Football, will a LB who is "only" good enough to play third or fourth-string for a mediocre program continue to receive a $200+K scholarship, when his coach may find that money better spent locking down the starting QB in a bidding war?

The simple reality is that truly free markets cannot exist in autocratically controlled, socialist environments (though autocrats in countries like China have used controlled access to capitalism to build the state's wealth/power), whereas socialists are free to establish such communes within the parameters of environments that recognize individual liberties.  I would argue that "amateur athletics" are/were one of the most successful examples of that, with individuals choosing to sacrifice individual economic rewards to pursue collective success.  That's what makes alums and other fans so proud to root for their school (or even their national) teams, while very few people actually care about NBA D-League games (where the caliber of play is much higher than even the top college programs), for example.

I'm not saying that these kids should be forced to provide their services in exchange for artificially constrained forms of compensation... I'm just (selfishly) sad to see "playing for your school (or country)" fall to the wayside.  At least for a while, we'll have amateur DIII and high school sports, but we've already seen a shocking amount of economic self interest permeate high school and club sports, so I worry about how far adults will go in exploiting kids, so they can profit at the periphery.

[teejers1]

The next frontier in NIL: “wrestling”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=jmdlngds

BC

It seems to me that Stanford's recruiting pool just got even smaller and it was awfully small to start with.  Can Stanford compete NIL wise when recruiting a 5 star prospect coved by the likes of Alabama, Clemson and so on?

If Stanford wanted to compete in NIL arena, then Stanford would DOMINATE it.  Just find some wealthy alums to pony up a few hundred million (loose sofa change for many) for an endowed slush fund and just start funneling the $$ to the athletes from there.  

The question is this:  does Stanford want to jump into the NIL deep end?  There is no doubt in my mind that they would crush it, if they chose to dive in.  They'd in all likelihood lose me as a fan; but then again, David Shaw has (largely) managed that without the NIL turnoff.

P.S.  Lucke2behere nailed it above.  Everything in life is finding the balance between the haves and the have nots - how much do you take from the former to help the latter?

[teejers1]

The next frontier in NIL: “wrestling”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=jmdlngds

BC

It seems to me that Stanford's recruiting pool just got even smaller and it was awfully small to start with.  Can Stanford compete NIL wise when recruiting a 5 star prospect coved by the likes of Alabama, Clemson and so on?

If Stanford wanted to compete in NIL arena, then Stanford would DOMINATE it.  Just find some wealthy alums to pony up a few hundred million (loose sofa change for many) for an endowed slush fund and just start funneling the $$ to the athletes from there.  

The question is this:  does Stanford want to jump into the NIL deep end?  There is no doubt in my mind that they would crush it, if they chose to dive in.  They'd in all likelihood lose me as a fan; but then again, David Shaw has (largely) managed that without the NIL turnoff.

P.S.  Lucke2behere nailed it above.  Everything in life is finding the balance between the haves and the have nots - how much do you take from the former to help the latter?

[Mick]

The question is this:  does Stanford want to jump into the NIL deep end? 

We've already established what you are.  Now we're just haggling over price...

                                                      - L.B.

[Mick]

The question is this:  does Stanford want to jump into the NIL deep end? 

We've already established what you are.  Now we're just haggling over price...

                                                      - L.B.

[Phogge]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

[Phogge]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

[teejers1]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

[teejers1]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

[Genuine Realist]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

Or W.C. Fields.

But I'll repeat my oft-stated position. I'd like to see the NCAA retreat to the status of a prep league administration, monitoring academic integrity and direct payments to athletes. Schools should not be able to hire ringers, to use an old fashioned term..

But I can't for the life of me see why it makes any difference who buys a kid's car, whether it's loving parents, an intergenerational trust fund, a professional sports franchise, or a mess of enthusiastic fans (NIL). 

I don't think NIL potential necessarily results in an unequal playing field. While there's no way a Stanford can compete with the broad fan base of an SEC school, the benefits of a degree from a prestigious school are of considerable value.

But if you are concerned, the solution is not to try to put the genie back in the bottle. The system was unfair and inequitable in the first place. It's to go all the way and let professional franchises and agents contract with athletes. Pro money dwarfs NIL potential. An Elway, Luck, or Casey Jacobsen makes his deal on an option basis with someone interested in having his services when he's mature enough, and then goes to the school of his choice, provided he meets academic standards of eligibility. 

Why not? Money from rich granddad is somehow fine, but not from the 49ers or Lakers? It's all green.

Elegant in its simplicity. All that is necessary is to toss all those barnacle encrusted preconceptions.

[Genuine Realist]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

Or W.C. Fields.

But I'll repeat my oft-stated position. I'd like to see the NCAA retreat to the status of a prep league administration, monitoring academic integrity and direct payments to athletes. Schools should not be able to hire ringers, to use an old fashioned term..

But I can't for the life of me see why it makes any difference who buys a kid's car, whether it's loving parents, an intergenerational trust fund, a professional sports franchise, or a mess of enthusiastic fans (NIL). 

I don't think NIL potential necessarily results in an unequal playing field. While there's no way a Stanford can compete with the broad fan base of an SEC school, the benefits of a degree from a prestigious school are of considerable value.

But if you are concerned, the solution is not to try to put the genie back in the bottle. The system was unfair and inequitable in the first place. It's to go all the way and let professional franchises and agents contract with athletes. Pro money dwarfs NIL potential. An Elway, Luck, or Casey Jacobsen makes his deal on an option basis with someone interested in having his services when he's mature enough, and then goes to the school of his choice, provided he meets academic standards of eligibility. 

Why not? Money from rich granddad is somehow fine, but not from the 49ers or Lakers? It's all green.

Elegant in its simplicity. All that is necessary is to toss all those barnacle encrusted preconceptions.

[teejers1]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

Or W.C. Fields.

But I'll repeat my oft-stated position. I'd like to see the NCAA retreat to the status of a prep league administration, monitoring academic integrity and direct payments to athletes. Schools should not be able to hire ringers, to use an old fashioned term..

But I can't for the life of me see why it makes any difference who buys a kid's car, whether it's loving parents, an intergenerational trust fund, a professional sports franchise, or a mess of enthusiastic fans (NIL). 

I don't think NIL potential necessarily results in an unequal playing field. While there's no way a Stanford can compete with the broad fan base of an SEC school, the benefits of a degree from a prestigious school are of considerable value.

But if you are concerned, the solution is not to try to put the genie back in the bottle. The system was unfair and inequitable in the first place. It's to go all the way and let professional franchises and agents contract with athletes. Pro money dwarfs NIL potential. An Elway, Luck, or Casey Jacobsen makes his deal on an option basis with someone interested in having his services when he's mature enough, and then goes to the school of his choice, provided he meets academic standards of eligibility. 

Why not? Money from rich granddad is somehow fine, but not from the 49ers or Lakers? It's all green.

Elegant in its simplicity. All that is necessary is to toss all those barnacle encrusted preconceptions.

I agree.  Let the professionals contract with them in the professional arena.  Why try and interpose your pro model on the incredibly varied college landscape?  If the almighty buck is paramount, go pro.  If a kid wants to get a college education, then play by the college rules.  And you need to have rules that comply with Title IX and hopefully do not run programs out by the dozens.

I also fundamentally disagree with the notion that the players are generating the value proposition in college sports.  It is because these players are playing for teams with school names on the front - with passionate fan bases supporting those schools - that generate the interest/value.  How many one-and-dones were playing in NCAA final last night?  And how was interest?

If every single one-and-done opted for the G-League, guess what?  The NCAA tourney would still be the interest-generating phenomenon it is.

P.S.  I also disagree that pro money dwarfs NIL potential.  For the truly great, sure-fire pros.  Yes.  But for others, NIL is all they will ever get.

[teejers1]

I thought that was what the cop said to Margo St. James.

I thought it was a Winston Churchill line!

Or W.C. Fields.

But I'll repeat my oft-stated position. I'd like to see the NCAA retreat to the status of a prep league administration, monitoring academic integrity and direct payments to athletes. Schools should not be able to hire ringers, to use an old fashioned term..

But I can't for the life of me see why it makes any difference who buys a kid's car, whether it's loving parents, an intergenerational trust fund, a professional sports franchise, or a mess of enthusiastic fans (NIL). 

I don't think NIL potential necessarily results in an unequal playing field. While there's no way a Stanford can compete with the broad fan base of an SEC school, the benefits of a degree from a prestigious school are of considerable value.

But if you are concerned, the solution is not to try to put the genie back in the bottle. The system was unfair and inequitable in the first place. It's to go all the way and let professional franchises and agents contract with athletes. Pro money dwarfs NIL potential. An Elway, Luck, or Casey Jacobsen makes his deal on an option basis with someone interested in having his services when he's mature enough, and then goes to the school of his choice, provided he meets academic standards of eligibility. 

Why not? Money from rich granddad is somehow fine, but not from the 49ers or Lakers? It's all green.

Elegant in its simplicity. All that is necessary is to toss all those barnacle encrusted preconceptions.

I agree.  Let the professionals contract with them in the professional arena.  Why try and interpose your pro model on the incredibly varied college landscape?  If the almighty buck is paramount, go pro.  If a kid wants to get a college education, then play by the college rules.  And you need to have rules that comply with Title IX and hopefully do not run programs out by the dozens.

I also fundamentally disagree with the notion that the players are generating the value proposition in college sports.  It is because these players are playing for teams with school names on the front - with passionate fan bases supporting those schools - that generate the interest/value.  How many one-and-dones were playing in NCAA final last night?  And how was interest?

If every single one-and-done opted for the G-League, guess what?  The NCAA tourney would still be the interest-generating phenomenon it is.

P.S.  I also disagree that pro money dwarfs NIL potential.  For the truly great, sure-fire pros.  Yes.  But for others, NIL is all they will ever get.

[Goose]

Why not? Money from rich granddad is somehow fine, but not from the 49ers or Lakers? It's all green.

Elegant in its simplicity. All that is necessary is to toss all those barnacle encrusted preconceptions.

There are two obvious differences. The money from the grandad comes without any legal obligation on the part of the student-athlete and the grandad presumably shares the student-athletes best interest. The money from the teams comes with whatever legal obligations are in the agreement they sign with the student-athlete and the teams are aligned with their own self-interest, not the interest of the student-athlete.
IMHO, these are significant and of very large proportions differences.

[Goose]

Why not? Money from rich granddad is somehow fine, but not from the 49ers or Lakers? It's all green.

Elegant in its simplicity. All that is necessary is to toss all those barnacle encrusted preconceptions.

There are two obvious differences. The money from the grandad comes without any legal obligation on the part of the student-athlete and the grandad presumably shares the student-athletes best interest. The money from the teams comes with whatever legal obligations are in the agreement they sign with the student-athlete and the teams are aligned with their own self-interest, not the interest of the student-athlete.
IMHO, these are significant and of very large proportions differences.

[dabigv13]

No way in hell is a pro team paying a HS athlete money and letting them just go choose whatever school they want to play college ball. What if they get injured or sent down to second string or....

If there was a minor league for football players, a lot of the NIL issues could have been avoided I think. But that would never be in the NFL's interest, so would never happen. Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

[dabigv13]

No way in hell is a pro team paying a HS athlete money and letting them just go choose whatever school they want to play college ball. What if they get injured or sent down to second string or....

If there was a minor league for football players, a lot of the NIL issues could have been avoided I think. But that would never be in the NFL's interest, so would never happen. Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

[Goose]

No way in hell is a pro team paying a HS athlete money and letting them just go choose whatever school they want to play college ball. What if they get injured or sent down to second string or....

If there was a minor league for football players, a lot of the NIL issues could have been avoided I think. But that would never be in the NFL's interest, so would never happen. Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

I think you are exactly correct. The question then becomes what can congress do to "fix" it. There are lots of real complex and difficult problems in our nation today that we all want congress to "fix". In many cases, neither we the people or the congress knows how to do that. There are also lots of cases where there is at least some consensus on what to do, but most often congress doesn't act then either. I greatly fear that same lack of action will happen in this case. If the NCAA had been proactive 5 years (or more) ago with congress, we arguably wouldn't have this problem today, but that didn't happen and here we are.

[Goose]

No way in hell is a pro team paying a HS athlete money and letting them just go choose whatever school they want to play college ball. What if they get injured or sent down to second string or....

If there was a minor league for football players, a lot of the NIL issues could have been avoided I think. But that would never be in the NFL's interest, so would never happen. Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

I think you are exactly correct. The question then becomes what can congress do to "fix" it. There are lots of real complex and difficult problems in our nation today that we all want congress to "fix". In many cases, neither we the people or the congress knows how to do that. There are also lots of cases where there is at least some consensus on what to do, but most often congress doesn't act then either. I greatly fear that same lack of action will happen in this case. If the NCAA had been proactive 5 years (or more) ago with congress, we arguably wouldn't have this problem today, but that didn't happen and here we are.

[cardcrimson]

 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

[cardcrimson]

 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

[dabigv13]

I'm not holding my breath either, but the supremes basically took away any ability NCAA has to put the genie back in the bottle, so only legislation can really help.

College sports might be a low stakes enough thing that something bipartisan can happen. Might take the cratering of women's sports to disabuse some folks of the notion that college football and basketball players are some disadvantaged class deserving of scholarships, fame, and a bunch of scummy NIL money too.

[dabigv13]

I'm not holding my breath either, but the supremes basically took away any ability NCAA has to put the genie back in the bottle, so only legislation can really help.

College sports might be a low stakes enough thing that something bipartisan can happen. Might take the cratering of women's sports to disabuse some folks of the notion that college football and basketball players are some disadvantaged class deserving of scholarships, fame, and a bunch of scummy NIL money too.

[Genuine Realist]

 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

Let me go in order with the objections made:

1. College Athletics Should Be Governed By College Rules.  The rules are a century old, formulated when amateurism was the rule, when the Yale coach Tad Jones could tell his footballers with a straight face that playing Harvard was the most important thing they would ever do. Only the affluent went to college, and there were no pro leagues. Even then, they were bad rules - they did carnage to the development of tennis and golf, and were pointless. Avery Brundage made an international ass of himself insisting on them in the Olympics long after everyone else saw through them. But he is ancient history now, thanks be to God.

Bad then, worse now. Amateurism is gone everywhere EXCEPT the NCAA, and college attracts a lot of kids who are anything but affluent. There is no reason to perpetuate bad traditions just because they are traditions. Money is neutral. It doesn't matter who pays it, unless you create a completely artificial moral template, which is what the NCAA has done.

2. The Revenues Are Actually Generated By Institutional Loyalty, Not the Players. I couldn't agree more, which is why the schools should keep bowl and NCAA tournament money and not pay players. The school club model is a lot better for most athletes than employer/employee.

But we are not talking about that. We are talking about artificial constraints that prevent a young athlete from contracting with sponsors, including pro franchises. That has nothing to do with the collegiate program, any more than granddad's trust. The school has no business getting involved with it. Does it audit an engineering student's summer job? Or a band musician who takes paying gigs from the union? 

It does not because the relationships don't signify. Neither do the athletes with third party money.

3. Pro Money Would Only Be Available To The Stars. Indeed so, and so what? Pretty girls get asked out more often than plain ones. Athletes do the best with what they have. Your second-string point guard isn't going to get the attention that your star does. NIL money may make him more interested in Kentucky than Stanford, but no one's winning championships with him. So that water can seek its own level without doing much harm to competitive balance.

Besides, the same thing is going on now. It's the stars that get calls from agents and invites to NFL combines and NBA tryouts. The vast majority of athletes, like most human beings, accept these inevitable inequities. Pro contracts aren't going to change the personality dynamics.

4. Pro Money Comes With Strings, and Family Money Does Not. I hope whichever one of you wrote that rethinks it, because it sounds too much like decadent European nobility sneering at people who earn money. It's a questionable assertion at best.

Besides, right now athletes and ordinary students receive money tied to contractual obligations. An athletic scholarship commits the athlete to play a particular sport at a particular time. There are all sorts of government programs that come with contractual quid pro quos. The students seem to manage.

And family money doesn't come with strings? You obviously never met my mother.

5. Pro Franchises Will Do What's Best For The Franchise, Not The Student. Another questionable assertion - but even if so, shouldn't the athlete and his family make this decision? And not the school and the NCAA?

But it is questionable. The prosaic fact is that what's best for the athlete and what's best for the franchise usually coincide. Both want to produce the highest degree of athletic skill. Both also want an individual as mature and solidly grounded as possible - well, the athlete's family does, anyway. As to what an athlete's actual pro potential is, almost every late adolescent in the country overrates his (sic) own. It's the franchises that usually indicate a kid slow down. Right now, an athlete gets his advice from his know nothing friends, his often over ambitious family, and others who don't know what they're talking about. Giving these kids sound, solid professional evaluations can only help them.

Most of the objections to abandoning the amateur rule altogether are reflexive reactions to a proposal so novel - a refusal to leave the box, so to speak. But the various sports associations that govern Olympic participation had to get beyond that once upon a time, as did the tennis establishment. Open participation is the best thing that ever happened to tennis, and much the same thing can be said about the Olympics.

Drop all the hypocrisy and needless regulation, and you end up with a simpler, saner system of much greater benefit to all. Stanford might actually end up with some of these scholar athletes (e.g, Jabari Parker) who go elsewhere for economic reasons that, in the last analysis, shouldn't exist.

[Genuine Realist]

 Now ship has sailed and probably things will need to get really broken before congress steps in to fix it.

Thanks for the laugh. Congress, doesn't matter the party in control, hasn't fixed anything in at least a generation. . . .

Hopefully that's not too political of a comment.

Let me go in order with the objections made:

1. College Athletics Should Be Governed By College Rules.  The rules are a century old, formulated when amateurism was the rule, when the Yale coach Tad Jones could tell his footballers with a straight face that playing Harvard was the most important thing they would ever do. Only the affluent went to college, and there were no pro leagues. Even then, they were bad rules - they did carnage to the development of tennis and golf, and were pointless. Avery Brundage made an international ass of himself insisting on them in the Olympics long after everyone else saw through them. But he is ancient history now, thanks be to God.

Bad then, worse now. Amateurism is gone everywhere EXCEPT the NCAA, and college attracts a lot of kids who are anything but affluent. There is no reason to perpetuate bad traditions just because they are traditions. Money is neutral. It doesn't matter who pays it, unless you create a completely artificial moral template, which is what the NCAA has done.

2. The Revenues Are Actually Generated By Institutional Loyalty, Not the Players. I couldn't agree more, which is why the schools should keep bowl and NCAA tournament money and not pay players. The school club model is a lot better for most athletes than employer/employee.

But we are not talking about that. We are talking about artificial constraints that prevent a young athlete from contracting with sponsors, including pro franchises. That has nothing to do with the collegiate program, any more than granddad's trust. The school has no business getting involved with it. Does it audit an engineering student's summer job? Or a band musician who takes paying gigs from the union? 

It does not because the relationships don't signify. Neither do the athletes with third party money.

3. Pro Money Would Only Be Available To The Stars. Indeed so, and so what? Pretty girls get asked out more often than plain ones. Athletes do the best with what they have. Your second-string point guard isn't going to get the attention that your star does. NIL money may make him more interested in Kentucky than Stanford, but no one's winning championships with him. So that water can seek its own level without doing much harm to competitive balance.

Besides, the same thing is going on now. It's the stars that get calls from agents and invites to NFL combines and NBA tryouts. The vast majority of athletes, like most human beings, accept these inevitable inequities. Pro contracts aren't going to change the personality dynamics.

4. Pro Money Comes With Strings, and Family Money Does Not. I hope whichever one of you wrote that rethinks it, because it sounds too much like decadent European nobility sneering at people who earn money. It's a questionable assertion at best.

Besides, right now athletes and ordinary students receive money tied to contractual obligations. An athletic scholarship commits the athlete to play a particular sport at a particular time. There are all sorts of government programs that come with contractual quid pro quos. The students seem to manage.

And family money doesn't come with strings? You obviously never met my mother.

5. Pro Franchises Will Do What's Best For The Franchise, Not The Student. Another questionable assertion - but even if so, shouldn't the athlete and his family make this decision? And not the school and the NCAA?

But it is questionable. The prosaic fact is that what's best for the athlete and what's best for the franchise usually coincide. Both want to produce the highest degree of athletic skill. Both also want an individual as mature and solidly grounded as possible - well, the athlete's family does, anyway. As to what an athlete's actual pro potential is, almost every late adolescent in the country overrates his (sic) own. It's the franchises that usually indicate a kid slow down. Right now, an athlete gets his advice from his know nothing friends, his often over ambitious family, and others who don't know what they're talking about. Giving these kids sound, solid professional evaluations can only help them.

Most of the objections to abandoning the amateur rule altogether are reflexive reactions to a proposal so novel - a refusal to leave the box, so to speak. But the various sports associations that govern Olympic participation had to get beyond that once upon a time, as did the tennis establishment. Open participation is the best thing that ever happened to tennis, and much the same thing can be said about the Olympics.

Drop all the hypocrisy and needless regulation, and you end up with a simpler, saner system of much greater benefit to all. Stanford might actually end up with some of these scholar athletes (e.g, Jabari Parker) who go elsewhere for economic reasons that, in the last analysis, shouldn't exist.