[CTcard]

The piece was highly biased and directed toward a provocative viewpoint but nonetheless very, very, very compelling. 

Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force. 

I was under the impression that it was now well known to the point of being common knowlege that the NCAA is an evil system full of hypocrisy and inequities.  But, maybe I am paying too much attention and the situation is less well known that I thought.

And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.

I have history (of a sort) with Emmert and don't think much of him at all. However, I have some sympathy for him in this case. He is an employee of all of the member institutions of the NCAA - he basically has to defend their decisions. Occasionally I hear him saying he would like to see member institutions do X in an effort to prompt them towards change. For the most part, he doesn't set the rules.

On the other hand, I do largely blame him for the NCAA disaster with respect to Penn State ... and he sure doesn't sound warm and fuzzy in interviews.

Our system and our program could become collateral damage.  Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
...
(And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.) 

I wonder what Stanford's bottom line actually is. There is no doubt that Stanford has made very large investments into college sports in general, and the high profile sports in particular. That would be an awful lot to give up, especially based upon something as flimsy as scruples. Especially as one person's scruples is another rabid alumni's red herring getting in the way of EXCELLENCE.

Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)? 

Does anyone think that much of any landscape (including the actual landscape) will look substantially unchanged in 2065?

Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course.  Is Muir up to this task?  (I truly don't have enough info to know ...  but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)

I probably would like to see Stanford lead as well.
But some of Leland's anti-arms race comments were exhibit A for a vast array of Stanford fans/internet posters as to how much he was a surrender monkey intent on destroying Stanford sports. And those comments didn't seem to really help the situation at all.

[CTcard]

The piece was highly biased and directed toward a provocative viewpoint but nonetheless very, very, very compelling. 

Oliver points out the hypocrisy and inequities in a system that has trouble spending all the money it makes while exploiting an unpaid labor force. 

I was under the impression that it was now well known to the point of being common knowlege that the NCAA is an evil system full of hypocrisy and inequities.  But, maybe I am paying too much attention and the situation is less well known that I thought.

And of course, Emmert is as pompous as ever in his rebuttal.

I have history (of a sort) with Emmert and don't think much of him at all. However, I have some sympathy for him in this case. He is an employee of all of the member institutions of the NCAA - he basically has to defend their decisions. Occasionally I hear him saying he would like to see member institutions do X in an effort to prompt them towards change. For the most part, he doesn't set the rules.

On the other hand, I do largely blame him for the NCAA disaster with respect to Penn State ... and he sure doesn't sound warm and fuzzy in interviews.

Our system and our program could become collateral damage.  Ugh - this could get ugly fast.
...
(And fit we will - I don't see Stanford dropping the Pac 12 for an Ivy League.) 

I wonder what Stanford's bottom line actually is. There is no doubt that Stanford has made very large investments into college sports in general, and the high profile sports in particular. That would be an awful lot to give up, especially based upon something as flimsy as scruples. Especially as one person's scruples is another rabid alumni's red herring getting in the way of EXCELLENCE.

Stepping back a bit - Does anyone think the college football landscape will look substantially unchanged in 2065 (50 yrs from now)? 

Does anyone think that much of any landscape (including the actual landscape) will look substantially unchanged in 2065?

Frankly, I'd like to see our AD engage fully and help steer toward the future rather than wait and react to someone else's course.  Is Muir up to this task?  (I truly don't have enough info to know ...  but I suspect we may miss Ted Leland on this issue.)

I probably would like to see Stanford lead as well.
But some of Leland's anti-arms race comments were exhibit A for a vast array of Stanford fans/internet posters as to how much he was a surrender monkey intent on destroying Stanford sports. And those comments didn't seem to really help the situation at all.