TilWeWobble said:

---

1) Interesting choice of words: Stanford won't "associate itself" with collectives. Aren't all collectives supposed to be independent of the universities? Stanford won't use NIL money in recruiting? Isn't that supposed to be against whatever remains of NCAA rules? What is to stop Stanford boosters from starting a collective for NIL purposes?

2) I, too, am conflicted and would prefer a world where student athletes weren't paid to play a sport but that's not where we are.

---

If that's the case, I would find it very unlikely they join, or are asked to join, the B1G. Frankly, I applaud their position that a Fund degree is worth more than what an NIL payment would bring. That being said, I wonder if we'll see many 4 or 5 star recruits headed their way in football at least.

TilWeWobble said:

---

1) Interesting choice of words: Stanford won't "associate itself" with collectives. Aren't all collectives supposed to be independent of the universities? Stanford won't use NIL money in recruiting? Isn't that supposed to be against whatever remains of NCAA rules? What is to stop Stanford boosters from starting a collective for NIL purposes?

2) I, too, am conflicted and would prefer a world where student athletes weren't paid to play a sport but that's not where we are.

---

That's what I thought, but I recall seeing that Brian Kelly at LSU has someone on staff who is in charge of NIL management (not sure of the exact title). Also, the old NCAA restrictions on booster involvement in recruiting were pretty tight and would seem to preclude alum driven NIL deals so, presumably, are no longer applicable. NIL looks like a free for all which, as it currently exists, is bad for college athletics.

_IF_ a school can do it than it would be Furd.

It is nearly impossible (try) to come up with a P5 that plays decent (in the recent past HAHA!) football that is a smallish elite private school. Most are (looking at Cal) big public land grant insitutions. 20K+ or more undergraduates. Generally impersonal at least lower division classes. Lots of bureaucracy. Good brutalist utiltarian classrooms (a glass raised high to old Warren Tower). Many are located either in pure college towns or in urban settings.

And then their is FUrd. 7000 undergrads. Money dripping from many of its undergrad fingers. Earnest to the point of wanting to slap them. The whole "farm" thing with its SPanish revival architecture.

During the good years one thing I did was go over the Furd roster. You would find a good core of kids of former NFL stars (Yes Mr. McCafferty) that were raised in upper upper middle class suburbs and often attended either exclusive private HS or publics in these affluent exurbs that often had the same dynamic. GOing to Furd was like staying home. Same environment. So I do not doubt there are kids out there - maybe not enough to field a team but some - that want this.

Cutting against this is a fundamental shift in those exurbs. As more and more families have learned about the dangers of football fewer boys are playing. Just listen to a decent number of NFL vets who say they are not encouraging (or allowing) their son to play football. Taylor's challenge is going to be finding decently skilled football players who want the private schoool experience on the Farm over getting NIL pay. Time will tell if that experience is of enough value.

If true, I think it's a great thing for Cal. Not only is it one less peer institution we have a potential advantage on, but I cant imagine them joining the Big Ten with that stance. That means Cal is the sole viable option for the Big Ten if they want the bay area market.

Oh, those dirty cardinal(s)!

Wait Stanford is lying!?! That simply can't be.

As I would expect from the Comical, late to the party and not getting it right.

Furd did something unique, they asked faculty, students, donors and alums A LONG TIME AGO how they feel about paying players and the response they got back was for the most part is we don't want to do that.

Unlike at some schools, the Furd AD actually listened to the stakeholders and made the strategic plan different. The focus is on building endowments in all sports, so you can offer more schoolies, retain coaches, have good facilities and spend a lot of time and money going after fits who will focus education over short run NIL. Their view also is NIL, at least for as money for play, is a short run occurrence and will be regulated. Importantly, they also support NIL when not used for pay for play. So by way of example, they have a top woman's golfer who makes over $1 million annually doing NIL for commercials and sponsor names on her social media.

Well this work? So far with football it has not IMO. Furd has a lot of holes to fill having lost players to the Portal and graduation. They would be a good Portal destination for a lot of high academic players if they were competitive in the NIL market (and I think they high school recruiting will fall off as well). The other thing is that NIL really isn't in the full control of the school - just ask USC. It is probably illegal to stop of an independent collective from forming and paying players, and if football falls too far, I expect some alums to start paying players whether the school likes it or not. But right now, the alums seem to be wiling to follow the AD's lead.

golden sloth said:

---

If true, I think it's a great thing for Cal. Not only is it one less peer institution we have a potential advantage on, but I cant imagine them joining the Big Ten with that stance. That means Cal is the sole viable option for the Big Ten if they want the bay area market.

---

Pipe dream. I think the odds are less that they invite us. Though it has been known, Stanford is publicly stating that they want no association with a public collective. Yes, there are likely private parties negotiating on behalf of students, but that benefits that one student, not others. The fact that alumni are not coming together to create a collective means that Stanford is in the P12 as long as it exists and will go independent if/when it implodes.

And for the last time, the Bay Area market, though large, is no longer the test for whether we get in. The B1G got what it wanted - Southern California. If there was some 10-2 team in the Bay Area - yeah, maybe they would take them. But we're so far off the boil, they won't look at us anymore without Stanford. Its P12 or bust!

philly1121 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

If true, I think it's a great thing for Cal. Not only is it one less peer institution we have a potential advantage on, but I cant imagine them joining the Big Ten with that stance. That means Cal is the sole viable option for the Big Ten if they want the bay area market.

---

Pipe dream. I think the odds are less that they invite us. Though it has been known, Stanford is publicly stating that they want no association with a public collective. Yes, there are likely private parties negotiating on behalf of students, but that benefits that one student, not others. The fact that alumni are not coming together to create a collective means that Stanford is in the P12 as long as it exists and will go independent if/when it implodes.

And for the last time, the Bay Area market, though large, is no longer the test for whether we get in. The B1G got what it wanted - Southern California. If there was some 10-2 team in the Bay Area - yeah, maybe they would take them. But we're so far off the boil, they won't look at us anymore without Stanford. Its P12 or bust!

---

Yes, good point this does have an impact on Cal and the B1G thing, because the two schools are marketing themselves together. That said, I'm not sure that the TOSU types in the B1g are unhappy to see some P5 type programs they know they can beat, and still look respectable doing so.

philly1121 said:

---

And for the last time

---

Promise?

WalterSobchak said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

And for the last time

---

Promise?

---

No. For you it will be double.

philly1121 said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

And for the last time

---

Promise?

---

No. For you it will be double.

---

Double your current output? No human could manage that. Better get coding.

LunchTime said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

It will be interesting to see how this goes for Stanford. They are not joining the NIL fray. I personally have somewhat conflicted feelings about the "pay to play" world of college sports. Stanford has made an institutional decision to live by their academic reputation and to forgo the whole NIL collective thing. I have nothing against college players getting compensated, but am not comfortable with the NIL implementation. The article below is behind a paywall - sorry if you are not a Chronicle subscriber.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/college/article/nil-stanford-football-ncaa-17805952.php

---

Paying college athletes makes them athletes, not students. There is no reason to have college sports anymore.

Only thing left is for the NCAA to allow USC to move it's football team to Georgia to get the tax breaks on a new stadium.

I have zero interest in professional sports. College football is professional sports with the benefit of several dozen cannon fodder teams.

---

Ticket sales over the next few years will be more interesting to watch than any of the games.