Looks like there will be a vote next week to permit yearly transfers via the transfer portal. Essentially, everyone becomes a free agent on one-year contracts. Along with collectives to pay NIL, let's just say it out loud that football and basketball are simply minor leagues for the pros.
Some here (Gerald) will want to believe that Stanford men won't be tempted or affected by the change because of the 40-year proposition. But I have to wonder, if the changes were in place years ago, would we have seen a CMac or a DeCastro or even a Jake Bailey being enticed later in their career to chase the money and a natty.
I have gotten to the point that, if NIL is to be the stock in trade, then why not use Stanford capabilities and resources to nuke the competition. I know, many here don't share that philosophy, and I totally respect that.
The once-yearly transfer option, however, is a bridge too far. Maybe it is more relevant for basketball and won't impact that many players overall. But it's crazy. Most pro players have contracts greater than one year.
For those who were advocating to pay players, did you anticipate the unanticipated consequences?
Some here (Gerald) will want to believe that Stanford men won't be tempted or affected by the change because of the 40-year proposition. But I have to wonder, if the changes were in place years ago, would we have seen a CMac or a DeCastro or even a Jake Bailey being enticed later in their career to chase the money and a natty.
I have gotten to the point that, if NIL is to be the stock in trade, then why not use Stanford capabilities and resources to nuke the competition. I know, many here don't share that philosophy, and I totally respect that.
The once-yearly transfer option, however, is a bridge too far. Maybe it is more relevant for basketball and won't impact that many players overall. But it's crazy. Most pro players have contracts greater than one year.
For those who were advocating to pay players, did you anticipate the unanticipated consequences?
