This morning I saw some videos talking about contracts for Pro College Football players. I don't use social media, so don't see much of what goes on, but one video I saw showed countless social posts about deals different players are signing. And renowned agent Drew Rosenhaus was on Pat McCafee this week talking about how he now recruits clients in High School. Then I see a thread on this board...
Complaining (in Tuna thread) that Taylor (or is it Luck, since he is GM), isn't bringing in difference makers as transfers any more than he is recruiting them. Let's be real here. There are two primary variables that are going to decide if a player goes to Stanford:
- Money to play Football
- Ability to get admitted into school
Most Stanford fans seem to be against paying players and want only academic powerhouses to be admitted to the school and rostered.
Are the people complaining about the latest RB and TE transfers, aware the vast majority of difference makers will not have the academic profile to be admitted to Stanford? Does it occur to them that maybe these "not needle movers" are the only players available who can get admitted, and with lower academic hurdles, Stanford would be able to get the difference makers?
A quote from Nick Saban that I am paraphrasing for simplicity:
Years ago, we had players not getting paid who didn't do well in school and didn't have good futures if there NF didn't work out. We tried to fix that, by emphasizing the academics more, and telling players that they will be developed over a few years. We'd improve them as players and try to prepare them for the NFL, but if they didn't have that ability, they'd at least graduate and be set up for a better future. Then NIL with transfer portal came along and now if you aren't playing, you don't want to stay and develop. You want to move on to the next place that will give you a chance to play and pay your right away. And we are back to nobody caring about the school part of it because now they are getting paid to play as professionals in college.
Stanford is operating in a world where fewer and fewer players care about school. As the money increases, this number will only further shrink. At the same time, the money IS increasing. Every player is a free agent every year. This is a built-in price escalator. When players weren't paid, it was difficult for Stanford to get academically qualified difference-making players. Now? I wouldn't be surprised if Lifetime Cardinal has a huge war chest waiting to pay 3.5 GPA whales, but the money is just sitting in an account somewhere because such players don't exist any more.
How can anyone here complain about the lack of difference-making transfers, if they at the same time want to only admit academic powerhouses? Admissions requirements are set by the NCAA. Virtually every school Stanford is competing with uses 10 inch hurdles. A few use 12 inch (Cal, Notre Dame, maybe Duke, Vandy, a few others), but Stanford insists on 18 inches and is the only one who requires them be traversed to play College Football. You can get paid millions of dollars just clearing the 10 inch ones, and there are enough guys who actually do a little more than minimum who can clear 12 inches. Why would you bother training for the 18 inch hurdles that are difficult and not necessary, when if you do, especially if you get less money when you do? And if you say "they are there for school," that's a problem too. Because that means they aren't committed to football and playing against teams of guys who are.
Last night, watching the Washington-Tampa Bay game, in the intros, Bobby Wagner introduced himself as an alum of Utah State and also mentioned Howard University. I found that curious, and then one of the announcers said he's pursuing an MBA, is starting his second semester, and got straight A's in his first semester. There is a lesson here. Don't force people to do things they don't want to do for arbitrary reasons. Let them excel at what is important to them and if they prioritize education, they will pursue it, of their own volition.
I don't want to hear about "you don't get Stanford." That's not what this is about. It is about Stanford competing in a marketplace where the rules and practices it takes to be relevant are not decided by Stanford. If Stanford wants to compete in this market, it is up to Stanford to play by the market's rules, not its own. If Stanford doesn't want to conform to the market's rules, it shouldn't be in the market.
Why not allow the guys who WANT Stanford and can be difference-makers, to be admitted (and paid), if they can only clear the 12 inch hurdles? That's still better than most, and at the end of the day. There must be many players who never thought Stanford was a possibility in high school or even initially in college, who might decide they want Stanford as a transfer, and are capable of thriving there once they are actually given the opportunity. Athletes are accustomed to having to raise their performance, and typically have the discipline and work ethic needed to succeed at anything they do.
Complaining (in Tuna thread) that Taylor (or is it Luck, since he is GM), isn't bringing in difference makers as transfers any more than he is recruiting them. Let's be real here. There are two primary variables that are going to decide if a player goes to Stanford:
- Money to play Football
- Ability to get admitted into school
Most Stanford fans seem to be against paying players and want only academic powerhouses to be admitted to the school and rostered.
Are the people complaining about the latest RB and TE transfers, aware the vast majority of difference makers will not have the academic profile to be admitted to Stanford? Does it occur to them that maybe these "not needle movers" are the only players available who can get admitted, and with lower academic hurdles, Stanford would be able to get the difference makers?
A quote from Nick Saban that I am paraphrasing for simplicity:
Years ago, we had players not getting paid who didn't do well in school and didn't have good futures if there NF didn't work out. We tried to fix that, by emphasizing the academics more, and telling players that they will be developed over a few years. We'd improve them as players and try to prepare them for the NFL, but if they didn't have that ability, they'd at least graduate and be set up for a better future. Then NIL with transfer portal came along and now if you aren't playing, you don't want to stay and develop. You want to move on to the next place that will give you a chance to play and pay your right away. And we are back to nobody caring about the school part of it because now they are getting paid to play as professionals in college.
Stanford is operating in a world where fewer and fewer players care about school. As the money increases, this number will only further shrink. At the same time, the money IS increasing. Every player is a free agent every year. This is a built-in price escalator. When players weren't paid, it was difficult for Stanford to get academically qualified difference-making players. Now? I wouldn't be surprised if Lifetime Cardinal has a huge war chest waiting to pay 3.5 GPA whales, but the money is just sitting in an account somewhere because such players don't exist any more.
How can anyone here complain about the lack of difference-making transfers, if they at the same time want to only admit academic powerhouses? Admissions requirements are set by the NCAA. Virtually every school Stanford is competing with uses 10 inch hurdles. A few use 12 inch (Cal, Notre Dame, maybe Duke, Vandy, a few others), but Stanford insists on 18 inches and is the only one who requires them be traversed to play College Football. You can get paid millions of dollars just clearing the 10 inch ones, and there are enough guys who actually do a little more than minimum who can clear 12 inches. Why would you bother training for the 18 inch hurdles that are difficult and not necessary, when if you do, especially if you get less money when you do? And if you say "they are there for school," that's a problem too. Because that means they aren't committed to football and playing against teams of guys who are.
Last night, watching the Washington-Tampa Bay game, in the intros, Bobby Wagner introduced himself as an alum of Utah State and also mentioned Howard University. I found that curious, and then one of the announcers said he's pursuing an MBA, is starting his second semester, and got straight A's in his first semester. There is a lesson here. Don't force people to do things they don't want to do for arbitrary reasons. Let them excel at what is important to them and if they prioritize education, they will pursue it, of their own volition.
I don't want to hear about "you don't get Stanford." That's not what this is about. It is about Stanford competing in a marketplace where the rules and practices it takes to be relevant are not decided by Stanford. If Stanford wants to compete in this market, it is up to Stanford to play by the market's rules, not its own. If Stanford doesn't want to conform to the market's rules, it shouldn't be in the market.
Why not allow the guys who WANT Stanford and can be difference-makers, to be admitted (and paid), if they can only clear the 12 inch hurdles? That's still better than most, and at the end of the day. There must be many players who never thought Stanford was a possibility in high school or even initially in college, who might decide they want Stanford as a transfer, and are capable of thriving there once they are actually given the opportunity. Athletes are accustomed to having to raise their performance, and typically have the discipline and work ethic needed to succeed at anything they do.