[2006alum]

I didn't complain and I got the email. The event is for both MBB and WBB.

Thanks! Yeah, my theory was that Kyle was invited to bring down the tone.

I sent a message to the AD, got a one-sentence reply, and didn't get an email invitation to the Webinar. Maybe the idea is to avoid "complainers."

I feel like I have been a loud complainer, including in an email to the AD which he responded to (with the same form response everyone else got), and I also got the invite.

I'd be happy to forward the link to sign up to you via DM.

[2006alum]

I didn't complain and I got the email. The event is for both MBB and WBB.

Thanks! Yeah, my theory was that Kyle was invited to bring down the tone.

I sent a message to the AD, got a one-sentence reply, and didn't get an email invitation to the Webinar. Maybe the idea is to avoid "complainers."

I feel like I have been a loud complainer, including in an email to the AD which he responded to (with the same form response everyone else got), and I also got the invite.

I'd be happy to forward the link to sign up to you via DM.

[82lsju]

Everyone get this email? 

Webinar with AD, Paye and Smith on the status of Stanford bball. Wednesday, 0830-0930.

How interactive is this going to be? Can we ask questions? I'm not sure how candid and forthcoming Paye will be. Guessing her guard will be up. Coach Smith is very candid however.

if it is like webinars I've been on with other Stanford leaders (e.g. Jon Levin's) have done I would guess

1.  the audio will be one way
2.  the chat may or may not be enabled, the list of attendees probably won't be enabled
3.  they will talk for ~10 min
4.  they will have had attendees pre-submit questions, they will pick some of those and answer them
5.  they will let you submit questions on-line during the session and time permitting pick some and answer them

[82lsju]

Everyone get this email? 

Webinar with AD, Paye and Smith on the status of Stanford bball. Wednesday, 0830-0930.

How interactive is this going to be? Can we ask questions? I'm not sure how candid and forthcoming Paye will be. Guessing her guard will be up. Coach Smith is very candid however.

if it is like webinars I've been on with other Stanford leaders (e.g. Jon Levin's) have done I would guess

1.  the audio will be one way
2.  the chat may or may not be enabled, the list of attendees probably won't be enabled
3.  they will talk for ~10 min
4.  they will have had attendees pre-submit questions, they will pick some of those and answer them
5.  they will let you submit questions on-line during the session and time permitting pick some and answer them

[crackpot]

I didn't complain and I got the email. The event is for both MBB and WBB.

Thanks! Yeah, my theory was that Kyle was invited to bring down the tone.

I sent a message to the AD, got a one-sentence reply, and didn't get an email invitation to the Webinar. Maybe the idea is to avoid "complainers."

I feel like I have been a loud complainer, including in an email to the AD which he responded to (with the same form response everyone else got), and I also got the invite.

I'd be happy to forward the link to sign up to you via DM.

Double-check that email address. When I tried the link in a different browser, I was surprised to see my email address there.

---

if it is like webinars I've been on with other Stanford leaders (e.g. Jon Levin's) have done I would guess

1.  the audio will be one way
2.  the chat may or may not be enabled, the list of attendees probably won't be enabled
3.  they will talk for ~10 min
4.  they will have had attendees pre-submit questions, they will pick some of those and answer them
5.  they will let you submit questions on-line during the session and time permitting pick some and answer them

1. I'd be shocked if it's not
2. I'll be shocked if it's enabled
3. That is what I expected, so I was surprised to see it schedule for an HOUR.
4. Yup. As far as I could tell, you had to submit your question on sign-up (I did). But I don't see any opportunity to ask additional questions.
5. I'll be shocked if it's anything other than a "We've had some challenges, but we have five veterans coming back who are committed to doing the work, exciting freshman and transfers. We intend to compete for national championships" happy pony song-and-dance (on the WBB side, anyway).

I'll swear I thought when I got the invite and no one mentioned it for hours that it was a ruse to refuse me season tickets.

[crackpot]

I didn't complain and I got the email. The event is for both MBB and WBB.

Thanks! Yeah, my theory was that Kyle was invited to bring down the tone.

I sent a message to the AD, got a one-sentence reply, and didn't get an email invitation to the Webinar. Maybe the idea is to avoid "complainers."

I feel like I have been a loud complainer, including in an email to the AD which he responded to (with the same form response everyone else got), and I also got the invite.

I'd be happy to forward the link to sign up to you via DM.

Double-check that email address. When I tried the link in a different browser, I was surprised to see my email address there.

---

if it is like webinars I've been on with other Stanford leaders (e.g. Jon Levin's) have done I would guess

1.  the audio will be one way
2.  the chat may or may not be enabled, the list of attendees probably won't be enabled
3.  they will talk for ~10 min
4.  they will have had attendees pre-submit questions, they will pick some of those and answer them
5.  they will let you submit questions on-line during the session and time permitting pick some and answer them

1. I'd be shocked if it's not
2. I'll be shocked if it's enabled
3. That is what I expected, so I was surprised to see it schedule for an HOUR.
4. Yup. As far as I could tell, you had to submit your question on sign-up (I did). But I don't see any opportunity to ask additional questions.
5. I'll be shocked if it's anything other than a "We've had some challenges, but we have five veterans coming back who are committed to doing the work, exciting freshman and transfers. We intend to compete for national championships" happy pony song-and-dance (on the WBB side, anyway).

I'll swear I thought when I got the invite and no one mentioned it for hours that it was a ruse to refuse me season tickets.

[CompSci87]

Have we figured out who was invited? I would guess either all MBB and WBB season ticket holders, or possibly only people with a certain "engagement level" and above. 

(Engagement level is measured via some sort of formula involving donations, season tickets, whether you were a Stanford student athlete, and maybe some other things like if you are an alum.)

[CompSci87]

Have we figured out who was invited? I would guess either all MBB and WBB season ticket holders, or possibly only people with a certain "engagement level" and above. 

(Engagement level is measured via some sort of formula involving donations, season tickets, whether you were a Stanford student athlete, and maybe some other things like if you are an alum.)

[Card10Fan]

Here's the email:
Thank you for your very thoughtful message. I apologize for the tardy reply, but I have been very engaged in the WBB situation over the past few weeks and wanted to give you a personal response. After speaking to all current and departing players as well as many in the portal, we believe it is best path to continue with Kate as our head coach. We will be having a webcast for the entire community on this coming Wednesday at 8:30am pst to talk more about the situation.
Thank you for your thoughtfulness and support of Stanford.
John

[Card10Fan]

Here's the email:
Thank you for your very thoughtful message. I apologize for the tardy reply, but I have been very engaged in the WBB situation over the past few weeks and wanted to give you a personal response. After speaking to all current and departing players as well as many in the portal, we believe it is best path to continue with Kate as our head coach. We will be having a webcast for the entire community on this coming Wednesday at 8:30am pst to talk more about the situation.
Thank you for your thoughtfulness and support of Stanford.
John

[SearchingForTheTruth]

https://gostanford.com/news/2014/03/13/l...engagement

Have we figured out who was invited? I would guess either all MBB and WBB season ticket holders, or possibly only people with a certain "engagement level" and above. 

(Engagement level is measured via some sort of formula involving donations, season tickets, whether you were a Stanford student athlete, and maybe some other things like if you are an alum.)

[SearchingForTheTruth]

https://gostanford.com/news/2014/03/13/l...engagement

Have we figured out who was invited? I would guess either all MBB and WBB season ticket holders, or possibly only people with a certain "engagement level" and above. 

(Engagement level is measured via some sort of formula involving donations, season tickets, whether you were a Stanford student athlete, and maybe some other things like if you are an alum.)

[amytmueller]

Very odd, here's a data point...

I did not receive the invite to my email, as a season ticket holder (for many years). Includes my husband, but the email on our account is mine.

My husband DID receive the invite. He's a Block S Society member, which is the only difference we can figure out.

[amytmueller]

Very odd, here's a data point...

I did not receive the invite to my email, as a season ticket holder (for many years). Includes my husband, but the email on our account is mine.

My husband DID receive the invite. He's a Block S Society member, which is the only difference we can figure out.

[Baez87]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

[Baez87]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

[81alum]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

I don't want this to be true.  But it is.

[81alum]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

I don't want this to be true.  But it is.

[chimera]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

I don't want this to be true.  But it is.

Same.  I have lost most of my interest in college sports.  They are just pro sports with no rules, just a wild west or musical chairs every season.  Education has very little to do with it, just where is the money and is the system one that gives playing time or a certain style, whatever.  If I was boss of the world, I'd make it so anyone of any age who was good enough could be a pro in FB, the NBA, whatever.  If you are 14 and good enough, go for it.  If you want to play in college, all you get is your scholarship plus the (hopefully) expert coaching to help you improve, and maybe an additional small stipend, same for all.  You'd get one free transfer but after that you have to sit out a year unless something very bad happened like an abusive coach.  You get 5 years to play four seasons, no more even if you miss time due to injury.  No more 25 year-olds playing against 18 year-olds.  If you want to make money at sports, you can be a pro but you can't be a pro in college like now.  If the NBA and NFL don't like that their developmental league (college) is gone, they can create or change their own and pay those players for playing in those leagues.  

I find it utterly ridiculous that some college players who are not good enough to be in the NFL or NBA (or WNBA in some cases) make as much or more than NFL or NBA or WNBA players who are way better at their sport just because so many colleges are chasing players and overpaying for them.  I don't fault players for getting what money they can.  System is broken.  I also don't think that hopping around between different schools looking for a bigger pay day or a perfect system is great for young people.  Not good for academics and very stressful I imagine for many of them.  Not to mention what this all does to fans.  Who do I root for now?  Just anyone who wears my team's jersey in any season?  I don't enjoy that.  I don't think most college athletes are doing anything particularly valuable or deserving payment beyond a scholarship, which at some schools is worth almost 100k a year.  That's plenty enough.

Rant over.

[chimera]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

I don't want this to be true.  But it is.

Same.  I have lost most of my interest in college sports.  They are just pro sports with no rules, just a wild west or musical chairs every season.  Education has very little to do with it, just where is the money and is the system one that gives playing time or a certain style, whatever.  If I was boss of the world, I'd make it so anyone of any age who was good enough could be a pro in FB, the NBA, whatever.  If you are 14 and good enough, go for it.  If you want to play in college, all you get is your scholarship plus the (hopefully) expert coaching to help you improve, and maybe an additional small stipend, same for all.  You'd get one free transfer but after that you have to sit out a year unless something very bad happened like an abusive coach.  You get 5 years to play four seasons, no more even if you miss time due to injury.  No more 25 year-olds playing against 18 year-olds.  If you want to make money at sports, you can be a pro but you can't be a pro in college like now.  If the NBA and NFL don't like that their developmental league (college) is gone, they can create or change their own and pay those players for playing in those leagues.  

I find it utterly ridiculous that some college players who are not good enough to be in the NFL or NBA (or WNBA in some cases) make as much or more than NFL or NBA or WNBA players who are way better at their sport just because so many colleges are chasing players and overpaying for them.  I don't fault players for getting what money they can.  System is broken.  I also don't think that hopping around between different schools looking for a bigger pay day or a perfect system is great for young people.  Not good for academics and very stressful I imagine for many of them.  Not to mention what this all does to fans.  Who do I root for now?  Just anyone who wears my team's jersey in any season?  I don't enjoy that.  I don't think most college athletes are doing anything particularly valuable or deserving payment beyond a scholarship, which at some schools is worth almost 100k a year.  That's plenty enough.

Rant over.

[Hieronymus]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

I don't want this to be true.  But it is.

Same.  I have lost most of my interest in college sports.  They are just pro sports with no rules, just a wild west or musical chairs every season.  Education has very little to do with it, just where is the money and is the system one that gives playing time or a certain style, whatever.  If I was boss of the world, I'd make it so anyone of any age who was good enough could be a pro in FB, the NBA, whatever.  If you are 14 and good enough, go for it.  If you want to play in college, all you get is your scholarship plus the (hopefully) expert coaching to help you improve, and maybe an additional small stipend, same for all.  You'd get one free transfer but after that you have to sit out a year unless something very bad happened like an abusive coach.  You get 5 years to play four seasons, no more even if you miss time due to injury.  No more 25 year-olds playing against 18 year-olds.  If you want to make money at sports, you can be a pro but you can't be a pro in college like now.  If the NBA and NFL don't like that their developmental league (college) is gone, they can create or change their own and pay those players for playing in those leagues.  

I find it utterly ridiculous that some college players who are not good enough to be in the NFL or NBA (or WNBA in some cases) make as much or more than NFL or NBA or WNBA players who are way better at their sport just because so many colleges are chasing players and overpaying for them.  I don't fault players for getting what money they can.  System is broken.  I also don't think that hopping around between different schools looking for a bigger pay day or a perfect system is great for young people.  Not good for academics and very stressful I imagine for many of them.  Not to mention what this all does to fans.  Who do I root for now?  Just anyone who wears my team's jersey in any season?  I don't enjoy that.  I don't think most college athletes are doing anything particularly valuable or deserving payment beyond a scholarship, which at some schools is worth almost 100k a year.  That's plenty enough.

Rant over.

The overarching problem is that if you removed these sports from the trappings of the NCAA, they are worth essentially zero or maybe even negative dollars as stand alone business activities in the US.

A quick history of minor league sports in the US for NCAA sports that generate real revenue:
Women’s volleyball - just recently started 2 major leagues with uncertain futures. MLV started playing in ‘24 after rebranding. And you now have LOVB started up as a second league. I am not really counting the AU. We may never have a pro minor league here.
Women’s basketball - the WNBA may finally be evolving into a sustainable business, but there is no hope for minor league women’s basketball any time soon.
Men’s basketball - a history of many failures and bankruptcies. ABL, GBA, WBL, and the CBA as examples. The G League is 100% owned by the NBA and currently exists to develop new players. It has never really stood on its own or made money as it evolved from the NBDL, to the NBA developmental league to the current G League.
Football - failed or failing (UFL) attempt after attempt from the USFL, to NFL Europe, to the XFL.
Baseball is the clear exception and is likely why college baseball isn’t that big of a deal. And obviously the history here predates college sports.

How do you ever abandon billions in revenue and profits by pulling this stuff out of schools then? Because again without the schools, this is all worth nothing. If you are cashing a check from this system, you aren’t volunteering to destroy it all.

Now I am also in the mostly lost interest camp; so maybe it all dies anyway. I only watch some Stanford games these days and exactly zero other college sports. But I only see nibbling at the edges of the monster at this point - too many people depend on it.

[Hieronymus]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

I don't want this to be true.  But it is.

Same.  I have lost most of my interest in college sports.  They are just pro sports with no rules, just a wild west or musical chairs every season.  Education has very little to do with it, just where is the money and is the system one that gives playing time or a certain style, whatever.  If I was boss of the world, I'd make it so anyone of any age who was good enough could be a pro in FB, the NBA, whatever.  If you are 14 and good enough, go for it.  If you want to play in college, all you get is your scholarship plus the (hopefully) expert coaching to help you improve, and maybe an additional small stipend, same for all.  You'd get one free transfer but after that you have to sit out a year unless something very bad happened like an abusive coach.  You get 5 years to play four seasons, no more even if you miss time due to injury.  No more 25 year-olds playing against 18 year-olds.  If you want to make money at sports, you can be a pro but you can't be a pro in college like now.  If the NBA and NFL don't like that their developmental league (college) is gone, they can create or change their own and pay those players for playing in those leagues.  

I find it utterly ridiculous that some college players who are not good enough to be in the NFL or NBA (or WNBA in some cases) make as much or more than NFL or NBA or WNBA players who are way better at their sport just because so many colleges are chasing players and overpaying for them.  I don't fault players for getting what money they can.  System is broken.  I also don't think that hopping around between different schools looking for a bigger pay day or a perfect system is great for young people.  Not good for academics and very stressful I imagine for many of them.  Not to mention what this all does to fans.  Who do I root for now?  Just anyone who wears my team's jersey in any season?  I don't enjoy that.  I don't think most college athletes are doing anything particularly valuable or deserving payment beyond a scholarship, which at some schools is worth almost 100k a year.  That's plenty enough.

Rant over.

The overarching problem is that if you removed these sports from the trappings of the NCAA, they are worth essentially zero or maybe even negative dollars as stand alone business activities in the US.

A quick history of minor league sports in the US for NCAA sports that generate real revenue:
Women’s volleyball - just recently started 2 major leagues with uncertain futures. MLV started playing in ‘24 after rebranding. And you now have LOVB started up as a second league. I am not really counting the AU. We may never have a pro minor league here.
Women’s basketball - the WNBA may finally be evolving into a sustainable business, but there is no hope for minor league women’s basketball any time soon.
Men’s basketball - a history of many failures and bankruptcies. ABL, GBA, WBL, and the CBA as examples. The G League is 100% owned by the NBA and currently exists to develop new players. It has never really stood on its own or made money as it evolved from the NBDL, to the NBA developmental league to the current G League.
Football - failed or failing (UFL) attempt after attempt from the USFL, to NFL Europe, to the XFL.
Baseball is the clear exception and is likely why college baseball isn’t that big of a deal. And obviously the history here predates college sports.

How do you ever abandon billions in revenue and profits by pulling this stuff out of schools then? Because again without the schools, this is all worth nothing. If you are cashing a check from this system, you aren’t volunteering to destroy it all.

Now I am also in the mostly lost interest camp; so maybe it all dies anyway. I only watch some Stanford games these days and exactly zero other college sports. But I only see nibbling at the edges of the monster at this point - too many people depend on it.

[chimera]

That most of these sports can't make money outside the NCAA system shows that the athletes they are paying so much are not really what is driving the revenue.  If it was about the athletes and their skill level, they wouldn't need the colleges to be attractive to fans.  Except for the very few big stars it really is all about the school, not the athlete.  It is all tribal.  How much did Stanford or NIL or whatever pay the WBB players last season?  Were they worth it?  What did the university gain by paying them?  Nothing monetary in return, that's for sure.  This is not like a pro team where the owners make money from revenue and from the value of their franchise increasing over time.  Stanford is not more valuable as an entity because of anything WBB does or ever did.  Most sports at most schools lose money, often a lot of money.  Yet we are supposed to pay athletes to play them?  Stanford WBB does not make money as far as I know and never has.  A few years ago I saw a story about who makes money in WCBB.  It was I think like three schools, UConn, TN at that time, and maybe that was it.  Maybe a few more do now but mostly tickets are cheap and do not make up for money spent on coaches, scholarships, and all the rest that goes into a program.  Lots of salaries to pay.  Everything is backwards.

Rant #2 over.

[chimera]

That most of these sports can't make money outside the NCAA system shows that the athletes they are paying so much are not really what is driving the revenue.  If it was about the athletes and their skill level, they wouldn't need the colleges to be attractive to fans.  Except for the very few big stars it really is all about the school, not the athlete.  It is all tribal.  How much did Stanford or NIL or whatever pay the WBB players last season?  Were they worth it?  What did the university gain by paying them?  Nothing monetary in return, that's for sure.  This is not like a pro team where the owners make money from revenue and from the value of their franchise increasing over time.  Stanford is not more valuable as an entity because of anything WBB does or ever did.  Most sports at most schools lose money, often a lot of money.  Yet we are supposed to pay athletes to play them?  Stanford WBB does not make money as far as I know and never has.  A few years ago I saw a story about who makes money in WCBB.  It was I think like three schools, UConn, TN at that time, and maybe that was it.  Maybe a few more do now but mostly tickets are cheap and do not make up for money spent on coaches, scholarships, and all the rest that goes into a program.  Lots of salaries to pay.  Everything is backwards.

Rant #2 over.

[crackpot]

That most of these sports can't make money outside the NCAA system shows that the athletes they are paying so much are not really what is driving the revenue.  If it was about the athletes and their skill level, they wouldn't need the colleges to be attractive to fans.  Except for the very few big stars it really is all about the school, not the athlete.  It is all tribal.  How much did Stanford or NIL or whatever pay the WBB players last season?  Were they worth it?  What did the university gain by paying them?  Nothing monetary in return, that's for sure.  This is not like a pro team where the owners make money from revenue and from the value of their franchise increasing over time.  Stanford is not more valuable as an entity because of anything WBB does or ever did.  Most sports at most schools lose money, often a lot of money.  Yet we are supposed to pay athletes to play them?  Stanford WBB does not make money as far as I know and never has.  A few years ago I saw a story about who makes money in WCBB.  It was I think like three schools, UConn, TN at that time, and maybe that was it.  Maybe a few more do now but mostly tickets are cheap and do not make up for money spent on coaches, scholarships, and all the rest that goes into a program.  Lots of salaries to pay.  Everything is backwards.

Rant #2 over.

...and I can't find any, but I swore I used to regularly read articles saying that *most* college football programs lose money (3/4, maybe?).

The math doesn't make sense to me.

Still, the NCAA caused this problem. They'd go ballistic if someone wanted to give a student athlete a free cookie, but schools were (are) free to pay their coaches millions. If they'd just 1) let student athletes earn whatever endorsements might come their way (as long as it was all on the up-and-up and made legitimate business sense); and 2) allowed compensation for their true NIL, e.g., NCAA Football app, they wouldn't be in this mess.

[crackpot]

That most of these sports can't make money outside the NCAA system shows that the athletes they are paying so much are not really what is driving the revenue.  If it was about the athletes and their skill level, they wouldn't need the colleges to be attractive to fans.  Except for the very few big stars it really is all about the school, not the athlete.  It is all tribal.  How much did Stanford or NIL or whatever pay the WBB players last season?  Were they worth it?  What did the university gain by paying them?  Nothing monetary in return, that's for sure.  This is not like a pro team where the owners make money from revenue and from the value of their franchise increasing over time.  Stanford is not more valuable as an entity because of anything WBB does or ever did.  Most sports at most schools lose money, often a lot of money.  Yet we are supposed to pay athletes to play them?  Stanford WBB does not make money as far as I know and never has.  A few years ago I saw a story about who makes money in WCBB.  It was I think like three schools, UConn, TN at that time, and maybe that was it.  Maybe a few more do now but mostly tickets are cheap and do not make up for money spent on coaches, scholarships, and all the rest that goes into a program.  Lots of salaries to pay.  Everything is backwards.

Rant #2 over.

...and I can't find any, but I swore I used to regularly read articles saying that *most* college football programs lose money (3/4, maybe?).

The math doesn't make sense to me.

Still, the NCAA caused this problem. They'd go ballistic if someone wanted to give a student athlete a free cookie, but schools were (are) free to pay their coaches millions. If they'd just 1) let student athletes earn whatever endorsements might come their way (as long as it was all on the up-and-up and made legitimate business sense); and 2) allowed compensation for their true NIL, e.g., NCAA Football app, they wouldn't be in this mess.

[chimera]

That most of these sports can't make money outside the NCAA system shows that the athletes they are paying so much are not really what is driving the revenue.  If it was about the athletes and their skill level, they wouldn't need the colleges to be attractive to fans.  Except for the very few big stars it really is all about the school, not the athlete.  It is all tribal.  How much did Stanford or NIL or whatever pay the WBB players last season?  Were they worth it?  What did the university gain by paying them?  Nothing monetary in return, that's for sure.  This is not like a pro team where the owners make money from revenue and from the value of their franchise increasing over time.  Stanford is not more valuable as an entity because of anything WBB does or ever did.  Most sports at most schools lose money, often a lot of money.  Yet we are supposed to pay athletes to play them?  Stanford WBB does not make money as far as I know and never has.  A few years ago I saw a story about who makes money in WCBB.  It was I think like three schools, UConn, TN at that time, and maybe that was it.  Maybe a few more do now but mostly tickets are cheap and do not make up for money spent on coaches, scholarships, and all the rest that goes into a program.  Lots of salaries to pay.  Everything is backwards.

Rant #2 over.

...and I can't find any, but I swore I used to regularly read articles saying that *most* college football programs lose money (3/4, maybe?).

The math doesn't make sense to me.

Still, the NCAA caused this problem. They'd go ballistic if someone wanted to give a student athlete a free cookie, but schools were (are) free to pay their coaches millions. If they'd just 1) let student athletes earn whatever endorsements might come their way (as long as it was all on the up-and-up and made legitimate business sense); and 2) allowed compensation for their true NIL, e.g., NCAA Football app, they wouldn't be in this mess.

The NCAA definitely should have done better.  For the vast majority of players I don't think there is true NIL above very small amounts.  It makes no sense to me that a third string tackle or a center who looks promising but so far has done very little for a MBB team or the back up point guard on a WBB team that barely makes the NCAAs is worth six figures to anyone.  I just saw a story somewhere about how many of the mid-major portal players have not found homes, over half of them right now.  Plenty of players will not find what they wanted.  The portal is not helping all who enter.

[chimera]

That most of these sports can't make money outside the NCAA system shows that the athletes they are paying so much are not really what is driving the revenue.  If it was about the athletes and their skill level, they wouldn't need the colleges to be attractive to fans.  Except for the very few big stars it really is all about the school, not the athlete.  It is all tribal.  How much did Stanford or NIL or whatever pay the WBB players last season?  Were they worth it?  What did the university gain by paying them?  Nothing monetary in return, that's for sure.  This is not like a pro team where the owners make money from revenue and from the value of their franchise increasing over time.  Stanford is not more valuable as an entity because of anything WBB does or ever did.  Most sports at most schools lose money, often a lot of money.  Yet we are supposed to pay athletes to play them?  Stanford WBB does not make money as far as I know and never has.  A few years ago I saw a story about who makes money in WCBB.  It was I think like three schools, UConn, TN at that time, and maybe that was it.  Maybe a few more do now but mostly tickets are cheap and do not make up for money spent on coaches, scholarships, and all the rest that goes into a program.  Lots of salaries to pay.  Everything is backwards.

Rant #2 over.

...and I can't find any, but I swore I used to regularly read articles saying that *most* college football programs lose money (3/4, maybe?).

The math doesn't make sense to me.

Still, the NCAA caused this problem. They'd go ballistic if someone wanted to give a student athlete a free cookie, but schools were (are) free to pay their coaches millions. If they'd just 1) let student athletes earn whatever endorsements might come their way (as long as it was all on the up-and-up and made legitimate business sense); and 2) allowed compensation for their true NIL, e.g., NCAA Football app, they wouldn't be in this mess.

The NCAA definitely should have done better.  For the vast majority of players I don't think there is true NIL above very small amounts.  It makes no sense to me that a third string tackle or a center who looks promising but so far has done very little for a MBB team or the back up point guard on a WBB team that barely makes the NCAAs is worth six figures to anyone.  I just saw a story somewhere about how many of the mid-major portal players have not found homes, over half of them right now.  Plenty of players will not find what they wanted.  The portal is not helping all who enter.

[MV72018]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

I would have been impressed if our WBB coach or MBB coach had made such a courageous and insightful statement. Kudos to Stephanie White.

[MV72018]

Stephanie White, head coach of the Indiana Fever, said this about the current circumstances of collegiate basketball, “Basketball wasn’t built on contracts and bidding wars — it was built on sweat, loyalty, and legacy. Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning.”
From my vantage point, White’s fear has already manifested and there doesn’t seem to be any avenue for return. What was once an exciting world of collegiate sports, has, for this fan, become an irreparable travesty.

I would have been impressed if our WBB coach or MBB coach had made such a courageous and insightful statement. Kudos to Stephanie White.

[jonnyss]

all true, but...

let's not forget that, as best i recall, this happened not because players are greedy, but because the payments to coaches and staff escalated out of sight and the players felt - correctly to my mind - that they were being unreasonably left out of the fruits of their own  labor.

yes, at one time college athletes didn't get paid a million. and at one time. college coaches didn't  jump from notre dame to lsu for the $ 9 million annually (or at least not as often), and didn't get a $54 million buyout (LSU) when fired, with the new coach,  lane kiffen getting $13 million.

even at stanford, david shaw got a shade under 9 million in 2021. then there are assistant coaches and a whole bunch of administrators. i suspect the department could pay athletes 20 million (total, not per), and be out of the red by cutting staff. has paying for an a.d. from nike been worth the $?

to me revenue sharing is reasonable. imo same phenomenon as wnba players asking for a piece of the good fortune coming to the owners in increased revenue. wnba players settled for 20%, while the value of the valkyries jumped from 50 million in 2023 to 900 million today.

imo same phenomenon in post-doctoral fellowships, summer internships, women in sports, and college athletes: get rich off the cheap labor of others until nneka ogwumike stops you.

[jonnyss]

all true, but...

let's not forget that, as best i recall, this happened not because players are greedy, but because the payments to coaches and staff escalated out of sight and the players felt - correctly to my mind - that they were being unreasonably left out of the fruits of their own  labor.

yes, at one time college athletes didn't get paid a million. and at one time. college coaches didn't  jump from notre dame to lsu for the $ 9 million annually (or at least not as often), and didn't get a $54 million buyout (LSU) when fired, with the new coach,  lane kiffen getting $13 million.

even at stanford, david shaw got a shade under 9 million in 2021. then there are assistant coaches and a whole bunch of administrators. i suspect the department could pay athletes 20 million (total, not per), and be out of the red by cutting staff. has paying for an a.d. from nike been worth the $?

to me revenue sharing is reasonable. imo same phenomenon as wnba players asking for a piece of the good fortune coming to the owners in increased revenue. wnba players settled for 20%, while the value of the valkyries jumped from 50 million in 2023 to 900 million today.

imo same phenomenon in post-doctoral fellowships, summer internships, women in sports, and college athletes: get rich off the cheap labor of others until nneka ogwumike stops you.

[BostonCard]

Although the march to where we are seems inevitable and maybe was, there’s a long list of decisions which could have gone a different way that might have stemmed the tide.

From the NCAA’s perspective, I fault them for not prioritizing the student in student athletes.  Time and again, the NCAA showed that academics were “in name only” and that the “student” in student-athletes was largely meaningless.

The NCAA showing zero flexibility on the definition of amateurism.  The original Alston case concerned additional educational benefits from schools.  Read that again, educational benefits.  Was the NCAA really that infelxible that it would enforce a limit on laptops?  The O'Bannon v. NCAA case concerned the use of O’Bannon’s likeness in a video game, which the NCAA allowed; it just didn’t allow O’Bannon to get any money for it, even after he left college.  Can you blame the athletes, when the system before was so nakedly exploitative?  In a different world, the NCAA would have either limited use of O’Bannon’s likeness and maybe gotten fewer royalties from the game, or allowed O’Bannon to make some money from the use of his likeness.

The conferences (and NCAA) continuously worked to maximize revenue at the expense of student-athlete well-being.  I never saw the NCAA say no to a proposal to add games or make the season longer or expand the size (and thus length) of the post-season.  Conferences continually acceded to networks demands to provide more content even though it was scheduling at times that were not best for athletes: examples (of many): PAC-12 after dark games, especially from cities without ready access to airports meant that teams were returning home in the wee hours of the morning, day games in Arizona in the early fall, expanding the schedule outside of Saturday for football (or Thursday/Saturday for basketball), West coast teams joining the BigTen and ACC.  There were lots of cases where the well-being of athletes collided with the opportunity to make more money, and the NCAA never seemed to prioritize athlete well being.

Of course the networks deserve some of the blame, for demanding “content” to manipulating the conferences to get the content they want, including breaking up the PAC-12.  Honestly, it would have been fine to broadcast a rerun of an earlier game at 10 PM Pacific.

Individual schools and their boosters get a lot of blame too.  The impetus to win at all costs meant lavish spending on the things that you could spend on (coaches) not to mention an entire underground economy of trying to get around NCAA limitations, whether it is UNC’s tutoring scandal, runaway coaches salaries or countless examples of boosters finding a way to transfer money to a recruit or his families, all the while the NCAA focuses on easily measurable but meaningless transgressions such as impermissible meals for recruits.

Then there are the courts, which didn’t offer any sort of alternative to opening everything up to a free-for-all.  I think things might have been different if they had made a distinction for collegiate sports as having a dual purpose, not as a professional-light league  where the “employees” were being denied their earnings.  I wish there had been an effort to define in what ways collegiate athletics was different and how you might legally make the case that there is a way to continue operating as it had been.  The issue, I think, is that there is a vicious cycle, where courts look at things and say that it looks and sounds like a professional “duck” and therefore it ought to be treated as a professional duck, but the more you do that, the more it looks and sounds like a professional duck.

And finally, there is us, the fans.  We are the ones clamoring for 10 pm Pacific games to watch live because god forbid there is an hour on a fall Saturday (and increasingly on other days) without some random teams playing.  We are the ones who get all hot and bothered when our team underperforms and demand that the University show its commitment to excellence in all things by firing the one person that they can fire (the head coach) and by dropping gazillion of dollars to bring in a new coach to right the ship.  It’s us who obsess over 40 yard dash times and only care about high school GPAs inasmuch as for Stanford (and pretty much only for us) does it have an influence over whether they get into the school.  Ultimately, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves”

And let’s face it, as much as many of us in this thread thinks that it has come to the detriment of collegiate athletics and has reduced our interest in college sports*, we are in the minority; college sports have never been more popular.

BC

* I also wonder, how much of that is because the new system has disadvantaged Stanford major sports, who have underperformed.  Would we be saying this if the school had gone “all in” on the new collegiate landscape and major donors had put up oodles of cash to assemble a CFP caliber football team, and Final Four bound men’s and women’s basketball teams?

[BostonCard]

Although the march to where we are seems inevitable and maybe was, there’s a long list of decisions which could have gone a different way that might have stemmed the tide.

From the NCAA’s perspective, I fault them for not prioritizing the student in student athletes.  Time and again, the NCAA showed that academics were “in name only” and that the “student” in student-athletes was largely meaningless.

The NCAA showing zero flexibility on the definition of amateurism.  The original Alston case concerned additional educational benefits from schools.  Read that again, educational benefits.  Was the NCAA really that infelxible that it would enforce a limit on laptops?  The O'Bannon v. NCAA case concerned the use of O’Bannon’s likeness in a video game, which the NCAA allowed; it just didn’t allow O’Bannon to get any money for it, even after he left college.  Can you blame the athletes, when the system before was so nakedly exploitative?  In a different world, the NCAA would have either limited use of O’Bannon’s likeness and maybe gotten fewer royalties from the game, or allowed O’Bannon to make some money from the use of his likeness.

The conferences (and NCAA) continuously worked to maximize revenue at the expense of student-athlete well-being.  I never saw the NCAA say no to a proposal to add games or make the season longer or expand the size (and thus length) of the post-season.  Conferences continually acceded to networks demands to provide more content even though it was scheduling at times that were not best for athletes: examples (of many): PAC-12 after dark games, especially from cities without ready access to airports meant that teams were returning home in the wee hours of the morning, day games in Arizona in the early fall, expanding the schedule outside of Saturday for football (or Thursday/Saturday for basketball), West coast teams joining the BigTen and ACC.  There were lots of cases where the well-being of athletes collided with the opportunity to make more money, and the NCAA never seemed to prioritize athlete well being.

Of course the networks deserve some of the blame, for demanding “content” to manipulating the conferences to get the content they want, including breaking up the PAC-12.  Honestly, it would have been fine to broadcast a rerun of an earlier game at 10 PM Pacific.

Individual schools and their boosters get a lot of blame too.  The impetus to win at all costs meant lavish spending on the things that you could spend on (coaches) not to mention an entire underground economy of trying to get around NCAA limitations, whether it is UNC’s tutoring scandal, runaway coaches salaries or countless examples of boosters finding a way to transfer money to a recruit or his families, all the while the NCAA focuses on easily measurable but meaningless transgressions such as impermissible meals for recruits.

Then there are the courts, which didn’t offer any sort of alternative to opening everything up to a free-for-all.  I think things might have been different if they had made a distinction for collegiate sports as having a dual purpose, not as a professional-light league  where the “employees” were being denied their earnings.  I wish there had been an effort to define in what ways collegiate athletics was different and how you might legally make the case that there is a way to continue operating as it had been.  The issue, I think, is that there is a vicious cycle, where courts look at things and say that it looks and sounds like a professional “duck” and therefore it ought to be treated as a professional duck, but the more you do that, the more it looks and sounds like a professional duck.

And finally, there is us, the fans.  We are the ones clamoring for 10 pm Pacific games to watch live because god forbid there is an hour on a fall Saturday (and increasingly on other days) without some random teams playing.  We are the ones who get all hot and bothered when our team underperforms and demand that the University show its commitment to excellence in all things by firing the one person that they can fire (the head coach) and by dropping gazillion of dollars to bring in a new coach to right the ship.  It’s us who obsess over 40 yard dash times and only care about high school GPAs inasmuch as for Stanford (and pretty much only for us) does it have an influence over whether they get into the school.  Ultimately, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves”

And let’s face it, as much as many of us in this thread thinks that it has come to the detriment of collegiate athletics and has reduced our interest in college sports*, we are in the minority; college sports have never been more popular.

BC

* I also wonder, how much of that is because the new system has disadvantaged Stanford major sports, who have underperformed.  Would we be saying this if the school had gone “all in” on the new collegiate landscape and major donors had put up oodles of cash to assemble a CFP caliber football team, and Final Four bound men’s and women’s basketball teams?

[BillBradley]

I really don't agree with what Stephanie White said. Personally, I think all the discussions about how unfair things have become, money can buy championships, teams will be poisoned with all the roster changes and "mercenaries" etc. aren't really true at all. Before all the changes, there were constant complaints about unfair it was to recruit against the top brand schools (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky mens basketball, UConn womens basketball, top SEC and B10 football, etc.), they had all the advantages, best facilities, the rich were just getting richer and everyone else was living off their scraps. So we have completely forgotten about all those issues because now the players are getting paid? 

Fast forward to today, and for every UCLA womens team who spent a lot of NIL money and won, I can name tons of teams who spent a lot of money and failed miserably. The championship football team from Indiana spent nowhere close to the amount of money as the Ohio States of the world (of which there are many). It is simply not true that you can just buy championships. There is so much more to it. 

We just all watched (well, at least I did because I still really enjoy watching) a team from High Point (from the mighty Big South) upset a team that went 14-6 in the B10. Nebraska made it to the Sweet 16 and they'd never even won a game in the tourney before this year. Vanderbilt has somehow found a way to be MORE competitive in basketball and football. I guess I could be wrong, but I really doubt those things happened because they outspent their competition.

As for White's line of "Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning."  This year's NCAA mens basketball champion Michigan completely refutes that. There was no better example, IMO, of a brotherhood of passion. That was an incredibly committed team and Dusty May did a phenomenal job of bringing them together. They were one of the most unselfish teams I've ever seen and one of the better examples of a team that was truly committed to one another than we've seen in quite some time. AI also tells me that Louisville, Tennesse, Texas, Florida, Duke, Indiana, and Miami all were in the top tier of NIL basketball spending and not a single one of them even made the Final Four. What White said is popular and convenient, but it's wrong. 

I think the main problem is that people aren't able to separate the money aspect from the love of the game and the hard work of the players. She makes it sound like you can only have either 1) Pro players getting paid OR 2) Brotherhood and commitment.  I think you can have great teams/brotherhoods/sisterhoods AND get paid at the same time. The game is alive and well.

[BillBradley]

I really don't agree with what Stephanie White said. Personally, I think all the discussions about how unfair things have become, money can buy championships, teams will be poisoned with all the roster changes and "mercenaries" etc. aren't really true at all. Before all the changes, there were constant complaints about unfair it was to recruit against the top brand schools (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky mens basketball, UConn womens basketball, top SEC and B10 football, etc.), they had all the advantages, best facilities, the rich were just getting richer and everyone else was living off their scraps. So we have completely forgotten about all those issues because now the players are getting paid? 

Fast forward to today, and for every UCLA womens team who spent a lot of NIL money and won, I can name tons of teams who spent a lot of money and failed miserably. The championship football team from Indiana spent nowhere close to the amount of money as the Ohio States of the world (of which there are many). It is simply not true that you can just buy championships. There is so much more to it. 

We just all watched (well, at least I did because I still really enjoy watching) a team from High Point (from the mighty Big South) upset a team that went 14-6 in the B10. Nebraska made it to the Sweet 16 and they'd never even won a game in the tourney before this year. Vanderbilt has somehow found a way to be MORE competitive in basketball and football. I guess I could be wrong, but I really doubt those things happened because they outspent their competition.

As for White's line of "Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning."  This year's NCAA mens basketball champion Michigan completely refutes that. There was no better example, IMO, of a brotherhood of passion. That was an incredibly committed team and Dusty May did a phenomenal job of bringing them together. They were one of the most unselfish teams I've ever seen and one of the better examples of a team that was truly committed to one another than we've seen in quite some time. AI also tells me that Louisville, Tennesse, Texas, Florida, Duke, Indiana, and Miami all were in the top tier of NIL basketball spending and not a single one of them even made the Final Four. What White said is popular and convenient, but it's wrong. 

I think the main problem is that people aren't able to separate the money aspect from the love of the game and the hard work of the players. She makes it sound like you can only have either 1) Pro players getting paid OR 2) Brotherhood and commitment.  I think you can have great teams/brotherhoods/sisterhoods AND get paid at the same time. The game is alive and well.

[stopandpop]

I really don't agree with what Stephanie White said. Personally, I think all the discussions about how unfair things have become, money can buy championships, teams will be poisoned with all the roster changes and "mercenaries" etc. aren't really true at all. Before all the changes, there were constant complaints about unfair it was to recruit against the top brand schools (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky mens basketball, UConn womens basketball, top SEC and B10 football, etc.), they had all the advantages, best facilities, the rich were just getting richer and everyone else was living off their scraps. So we have completely forgotten about all those issues because now the players are getting paid? 

Fast forward to today, and for every UCLA womens team who spent a lot of NIL money and won, I can name tons of teams who spent a lot of money and failed miserably. The championship football team from Indiana spent nowhere close to the amount of money as the Ohio States of the world (of which there are many). It is simply not true that you can just buy championships. There is so much more to it. 

We just all watched (well, at least I did because I still really enjoy watching) a team from High Point (from the mighty Big South) upset a team that went 14-6 in the B10. Nebraska made it to the Sweet 16 and they'd never even won a game in the tourney before this year. Vanderbilt has somehow found a way to be MORE competitive in basketball and football. I guess I could be wrong, but I really doubt those things happened because they outspent their competition.

As for White's line of "Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning."  This year's NCAA mens basketball champion Michigan completely refutes that. There was no better example, IMO, of a brotherhood of passion. That was an incredibly committed team and Dusty May did a phenomenal job of bringing them together. They were one of the most unselfish teams I've ever seen and one of the better examples of a team that was truly committed to one another than we've seen in quite some time. AI also tells me that Louisville, Tennesse, Texas, Florida, Duke, Indiana, and Miami all were in the top tier of NIL basketball spending and not a single one of them even made the Final Four. What White said is popular and convenient, but it's wrong. 

I think the main problem is that people aren't able to separate the money aspect from the love of the game and the hard work of the players. She makes it sound like you can only have either 1) Pro players getting paid OR 2) Brotherhood and commitment.  I think you can have great teams/brotherhoods/sisterhoods AND get paid at the same time. The game is alive and well.

While the money to be had in NIL represents a significant seismic shift (along with the portal and expanded eligibility) in college sports, I agree with much of what you say that there are other ways to succeed, especially when it comes to women's college basketball.

I want to clarify a couple of things about 2 teams you mentioned:  Vanderbilt and UCLA.  Both schools I am familiar with, especially Vanderbilt.

When Shea Ralph was hired as the new head coach of Vanderbilt, she shared her mission on where she wanted to take the program and what it would take to get there- and she got commitments from the top leadership of Vanderbilt (to give her the support she needed) to compete at the highest levels of women's basketball while living up to its high academic standards. Notice Ralph's mission was amazingly close to that of KP's and J. Donahoe's- "compete for national championships" and "be a force in national women's basketball".  The difference?  Shea Ralph knew how to coach women's basketball and knew how to become elite.  Shea had a very specific development plan for Vandy and while it took a few seasons to get there, this past season they went 29-5 and 13-3 in the SEC and Ralph was named national coach of the year. In a strange irony, Shea learned her 'chops' from Geno at UCONN, but unlike KP who spent all those seasons with Tara, the lessons to be successful were never learned. The other irony.  Other's on this board have quoted Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White and her comments about all that is wrong in college sports.  This is the same Stephanie White who failed miserably as the former head coach of Vandy!  She attempted to use a pro offense and it blew up on the court.

As for UCLA, Cori Close was always a good coach, but for years the Bruins rarely made a splash when it came to winning the Conference and advancing in the NCAA.  About four years ago, Cori made a decision about where she wanted to take UCLA.  She went back to her many meetings with John Wooden and she took on the mantel of "competitive greatness" (a cornerstone from Wooden's Pyramid of Success).  Her new mission leap-frogged from just being elite to winning the national championship and she began assembling a group of players (she believed) would get the team there. Yes, there were transfers and NIL, but what distinguished UCLA from the great majority of other good teams was Cori's insistence of 'continuous improvement', down to the smallest detail.  Mostly, she helped imbed a mind-set among her players that was crystalized during the weeks after UCLA's Final Four loss to UCONN, that 'they cannot be denied.'  And they weren't.

Two teams; two coaches (besides UCONN and South Carolina), who have shown it's still possible to be successful in the women's game - despite what's going on.

[stopandpop]

I really don't agree with what Stephanie White said. Personally, I think all the discussions about how unfair things have become, money can buy championships, teams will be poisoned with all the roster changes and "mercenaries" etc. aren't really true at all. Before all the changes, there were constant complaints about unfair it was to recruit against the top brand schools (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky mens basketball, UConn womens basketball, top SEC and B10 football, etc.), they had all the advantages, best facilities, the rich were just getting richer and everyone else was living off their scraps. So we have completely forgotten about all those issues because now the players are getting paid? 

Fast forward to today, and for every UCLA womens team who spent a lot of NIL money and won, I can name tons of teams who spent a lot of money and failed miserably. The championship football team from Indiana spent nowhere close to the amount of money as the Ohio States of the world (of which there are many). It is simply not true that you can just buy championships. There is so much more to it. 

We just all watched (well, at least I did because I still really enjoy watching) a team from High Point (from the mighty Big South) upset a team that went 14-6 in the B10. Nebraska made it to the Sweet 16 and they'd never even won a game in the tourney before this year. Vanderbilt has somehow found a way to be MORE competitive in basketball and football. I guess I could be wrong, but I really doubt those things happened because they outspent their competition.

As for White's line of "Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning."  This year's NCAA mens basketball champion Michigan completely refutes that. There was no better example, IMO, of a brotherhood of passion. That was an incredibly committed team and Dusty May did a phenomenal job of bringing them together. They were one of the most unselfish teams I've ever seen and one of the better examples of a team that was truly committed to one another than we've seen in quite some time. AI also tells me that Louisville, Tennesse, Texas, Florida, Duke, Indiana, and Miami all were in the top tier of NIL basketball spending and not a single one of them even made the Final Four. What White said is popular and convenient, but it's wrong. 

I think the main problem is that people aren't able to separate the money aspect from the love of the game and the hard work of the players. She makes it sound like you can only have either 1) Pro players getting paid OR 2) Brotherhood and commitment.  I think you can have great teams/brotherhoods/sisterhoods AND get paid at the same time. The game is alive and well.

While the money to be had in NIL represents a significant seismic shift (along with the portal and expanded eligibility) in college sports, I agree with much of what you say that there are other ways to succeed, especially when it comes to women's college basketball.

I want to clarify a couple of things about 2 teams you mentioned:  Vanderbilt and UCLA.  Both schools I am familiar with, especially Vanderbilt.

When Shea Ralph was hired as the new head coach of Vanderbilt, she shared her mission on where she wanted to take the program and what it would take to get there- and she got commitments from the top leadership of Vanderbilt (to give her the support she needed) to compete at the highest levels of women's basketball while living up to its high academic standards. Notice Ralph's mission was amazingly close to that of KP's and J. Donahoe's- "compete for national championships" and "be a force in national women's basketball".  The difference?  Shea Ralph knew how to coach women's basketball and knew how to become elite.  Shea had a very specific development plan for Vandy and while it took a few seasons to get there, this past season they went 29-5 and 13-3 in the SEC and Ralph was named national coach of the year. In a strange irony, Shea learned her 'chops' from Geno at UCONN, but unlike KP who spent all those seasons with Tara, the lessons to be successful were never learned. The other irony.  Other's on this board have quoted Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White and her comments about all that is wrong in college sports.  This is the same Stephanie White who failed miserably as the former head coach of Vandy!  She attempted to use a pro offense and it blew up on the court.

As for UCLA, Cori Close was always a good coach, but for years the Bruins rarely made a splash when it came to winning the Conference and advancing in the NCAA.  About four years ago, Cori made a decision about where she wanted to take UCLA.  She went back to her many meetings with John Wooden and she took on the mantel of "competitive greatness" (a cornerstone from Wooden's Pyramid of Success).  Her new mission leap-frogged from just being elite to winning the national championship and she began assembling a group of players (she believed) would get the team there. Yes, there were transfers and NIL, but what distinguished UCLA from the great majority of other good teams was Cori's insistence of 'continuous improvement', down to the smallest detail.  Mostly, she helped imbed a mind-set among her players that was crystalized during the weeks after UCLA's Final Four loss to UCONN, that 'they cannot be denied.'  And they weren't.

Two teams; two coaches (besides UCONN and South Carolina), who have shown it's still possible to be successful in the women's game - despite what's going on.

[McKenwood]

I really don't agree with what Stephanie White said. Personally, I think all the discussions about how unfair things have become, money can buy championships, teams will be poisoned with all the roster changes and "mercenaries" etc. aren't really true at all. Before all the changes, there were constant complaints about unfair it was to recruit against the top brand schools (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky mens basketball, UConn womens basketball, top SEC and B10 football, etc.), they had all the advantages, best facilities, the rich were just getting richer and everyone else was living off their scraps. So we have completely forgotten about all those issues because now the players are getting paid? 

Fast forward to today, and for every UCLA womens team who spent a lot of NIL money and won, I can name tons of teams who spent a lot of money and failed miserably. The championship football team from Indiana spent nowhere close to the amount of money as the Ohio States of the world (of which there are many). It is simply not true that you can just buy championships. There is so much more to it. 

We just all watched (well, at least I did because I still really enjoy watching) a team from High Point (from the mighty Big South) upset a team that went 14-6 in the B10. Nebraska made it to the Sweet 16 and they'd never even won a game in the tourney before this year. Vanderbilt has somehow found a way to be MORE competitive in basketball and football. I guess I could be wrong, but I really doubt those things happened because they outspent their competition.

As for White's line of "Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning."  This year's NCAA mens basketball champion Michigan completely refutes that. There was no better example, IMO, of a brotherhood of passion. That was an incredibly committed team and Dusty May did a phenomenal job of bringing them together. They were one of the most unselfish teams I've ever seen and one of the better examples of a team that was truly committed to one another than we've seen in quite some time. AI also tells me that Louisville, Tennesse, Texas, Florida, Duke, Indiana, and Miami all were in the top tier of NIL basketball spending and not a single one of them even made the Final Four. What White said is popular and convenient, but it's wrong. 

I think the main problem is that people aren't able to separate the money aspect from the love of the game and the hard work of the players. She makes it sound like you can only have either 1) Pro players getting paid OR 2) Brotherhood and commitment.  I think you can have great teams/brotherhoods/sisterhoods AND get paid at the same time. The game is alive and well.

While the money to be had in NIL represents a significant seismic shift (along with the portal and expanded eligibility) in college sports, I agree with much of what you say that there are other ways to succeed, especially when it comes to women's college basketball.

I want to clarify a couple of things about 2 teams you mentioned:  Vanderbilt and UCLA.  Both schools I am familiar with, especially Vanderbilt.

When Shea Ralph was hired as the new head coach of Vanderbilt, she shared her mission on where she wanted to take the program and what it would take to get there- and she got commitments from the top leadership of Vanderbilt (to give her the support she needed) to compete at the highest levels of women's basketball while living up to its high academic standards. Notice Ralph's mission was amazingly close to that of KP's and J. Donahoe's- "compete for national championships" and "be a force in national women's basketball".  The difference?  Shea Ralph knew how to coach women's basketball and knew how to become elite.  Shea had a very specific development plan for Vandy and while it took a few seasons to get there, this past season they went 29-5 and 13-3 in the SEC and Ralph was named national coach of the year. In a strange irony, Shea learned her 'chops' from Geno at UCONN, but unlike KP who spent all those seasons with Tara, the lessons to be successful were never learned. The other irony.  Other's on this board have quoted Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White and her comments about all that is wrong in college sports.  This is the same Stephanie White who failed miserably as the former head coach of Vandy!  She attempted to use a pro offense and it blew up on the court.

As for UCLA, Cori Close was always a good coach, but for years the Bruins rarely made a splash when it came to winning the Conference and advancing in the NCAA.  About four years ago, Cori made a decision about where she wanted to take UCLA.  She went back to her many meetings with John Wooden and she took on the mantel of "competitive greatness" (a cornerstone from Wooden's Pyramid of Success).  Her new mission leap-frogged from just being elite to winning the national championship and she began assembling a group of players (she believed) would get the team there. Yes, there were transfers and NIL, but what distinguished UCLA from the great majority of other good teams was Cori's insistence of 'continuous improvement', down to the smallest detail.  Mostly, she helped imbed a mind-set among her players that was crystalized during the weeks after UCLA's Final Four loss to UCONN, that 'they cannot be denied.'  And they weren't.

Two teams; two coaches (besides UCONN and South Carolina), who have shown it's still possible to be successful in the women's game - despite what's going on.

Great background.

Stanford's constraints are all self-inflicted. The excuses ring hollow. In this new world order Vanderbilt has thrived and made MBB, WBB and football all very successful.

[McKenwood]

I really don't agree with what Stephanie White said. Personally, I think all the discussions about how unfair things have become, money can buy championships, teams will be poisoned with all the roster changes and "mercenaries" etc. aren't really true at all. Before all the changes, there were constant complaints about unfair it was to recruit against the top brand schools (Duke, Kansas, Kentucky mens basketball, UConn womens basketball, top SEC and B10 football, etc.), they had all the advantages, best facilities, the rich were just getting richer and everyone else was living off their scraps. So we have completely forgotten about all those issues because now the players are getting paid? 

Fast forward to today, and for every UCLA womens team who spent a lot of NIL money and won, I can name tons of teams who spent a lot of money and failed miserably. The championship football team from Indiana spent nowhere close to the amount of money as the Ohio States of the world (of which there are many). It is simply not true that you can just buy championships. There is so much more to it. 

We just all watched (well, at least I did because I still really enjoy watching) a team from High Point (from the mighty Big South) upset a team that went 14-6 in the B10. Nebraska made it to the Sweet 16 and they'd never even won a game in the tourney before this year. Vanderbilt has somehow found a way to be MORE competitive in basketball and football. I guess I could be wrong, but I really doubt those things happened because they outspent their competition.

As for White's line of "Now the game is drifting into a marketplace where the highest bidder wins, not the most committed team. If this continues, what once was a brotherhood of passion will become nothing more than a business fueled by money, not meaning."  This year's NCAA mens basketball champion Michigan completely refutes that. There was no better example, IMO, of a brotherhood of passion. That was an incredibly committed team and Dusty May did a phenomenal job of bringing them together. They were one of the most unselfish teams I've ever seen and one of the better examples of a team that was truly committed to one another than we've seen in quite some time. AI also tells me that Louisville, Tennesse, Texas, Florida, Duke, Indiana, and Miami all were in the top tier of NIL basketball spending and not a single one of them even made the Final Four. What White said is popular and convenient, but it's wrong. 

I think the main problem is that people aren't able to separate the money aspect from the love of the game and the hard work of the players. She makes it sound like you can only have either 1) Pro players getting paid OR 2) Brotherhood and commitment.  I think you can have great teams/brotherhoods/sisterhoods AND get paid at the same time. The game is alive and well.

While the money to be had in NIL represents a significant seismic shift (along with the portal and expanded eligibility) in college sports, I agree with much of what you say that there are other ways to succeed, especially when it comes to women's college basketball.

I want to clarify a couple of things about 2 teams you mentioned:  Vanderbilt and UCLA.  Both schools I am familiar with, especially Vanderbilt.

When Shea Ralph was hired as the new head coach of Vanderbilt, she shared her mission on where she wanted to take the program and what it would take to get there- and she got commitments from the top leadership of Vanderbilt (to give her the support she needed) to compete at the highest levels of women's basketball while living up to its high academic standards. Notice Ralph's mission was amazingly close to that of KP's and J. Donahoe's- "compete for national championships" and "be a force in national women's basketball".  The difference?  Shea Ralph knew how to coach women's basketball and knew how to become elite.  Shea had a very specific development plan for Vandy and while it took a few seasons to get there, this past season they went 29-5 and 13-3 in the SEC and Ralph was named national coach of the year. In a strange irony, Shea learned her 'chops' from Geno at UCONN, but unlike KP who spent all those seasons with Tara, the lessons to be successful were never learned. The other irony.  Other's on this board have quoted Indiana Fever coach Stephanie White and her comments about all that is wrong in college sports.  This is the same Stephanie White who failed miserably as the former head coach of Vandy!  She attempted to use a pro offense and it blew up on the court.

As for UCLA, Cori Close was always a good coach, but for years the Bruins rarely made a splash when it came to winning the Conference and advancing in the NCAA.  About four years ago, Cori made a decision about where she wanted to take UCLA.  She went back to her many meetings with John Wooden and she took on the mantel of "competitive greatness" (a cornerstone from Wooden's Pyramid of Success).  Her new mission leap-frogged from just being elite to winning the national championship and she began assembling a group of players (she believed) would get the team there. Yes, there were transfers and NIL, but what distinguished UCLA from the great majority of other good teams was Cori's insistence of 'continuous improvement', down to the smallest detail.  Mostly, she helped imbed a mind-set among her players that was crystalized during the weeks after UCLA's Final Four loss to UCONN, that 'they cannot be denied.'  And they weren't.

Two teams; two coaches (besides UCONN and South Carolina), who have shown it's still possible to be successful in the women's game - despite what's going on.

Great background.

Stanford's constraints are all self-inflicted. The excuses ring hollow. In this new world order Vanderbilt has thrived and made MBB, WBB and football all very successful.