SaintPuddles

The Platypus Punch-Out, brought to you by PeaceHealth...no we mean literally brought to you by PeaceHealth. All the players were gurneyed in.

I agree with PocketChange here. All decisions in any organization will affect many stakeholders, with both shared and conflicting interests. Thus, any decision is inherently prioritization of stakeholder interests. So in the case of the transfer portal/nil I see those stakeholder interests as: coach interest in roster planning and barring talent from leaving. Which helps get them compensated millions per year fan interest in keeping college football in a state they prefer for entertainment player interest in being fairly compensated for their labor and to have some control of it's conditions I have little sympathy for the coach interest here. I feel limits on player autonomy if more often than not a crutch coaches lean on rather than improve as a leader. The spectacular fall of Urban Meyer when he was missing said crutch being just the latest example. The shortened window could be reasonable as to prevent last minute scrambles. But unless coaches would be ok with a window on when they can jump ship it smells pretty rank with hypocrisy. As for us the fans, I don't really see the transfer portal hurting the viewing experience. Sure, ya might lose one of your guys, but also might pick one up. And following free agency is one of the more interesting part of off seasons in other sports. Don't see why it can't be true for cfb. With NIL I think it's at worst saying the quiet part out loud. And at best could help bring an ounce more parity to cfb. I mean, would Jackson State nab the #1 WR in a world w/o NIL. Which brings us to the players. Who, imo, put the most on the line thus should have the largest voice and the majority of the spoils. But have until now have had the smallest and the least respectively. So even if I thought it hurt the fan experience, I think they are the stakeholders that are most deserving of prioritization.

Like my bluecross/blueshield plan. Extend the health insurance theme HMO: Husky Mallard Opposition

Hi, new to the forum and recent-ish UO alumni. Glad to be here and hope this post falls within the rules. As I intend to touch on the ethical considerations and consequences of NIL decision by the supreme court. But will avoid any out of scope political commentary. Firstly, to Jon's question on funding of non-revenue sports. Like most other student activities, they would be funded by the fees as part of tuition (at UO it's called the I-fee). Of course, there is the issue that these I-fees would not be enough to cover the costs. Yet, I think the more pressing question is why these costs are so high? Imo it is because college athletics has long moved past amateur athletic pursuits to a multi-billion dollar industry. As such, it seems fairly unethical for these young men to be surrounded by people making millions a year while they risk their health and well-being for a relative pittance. So while NIL may or may not hurt my personal viewing experience, I cannot in good conscience try to apply false veneer of amateurism. So to me that leaves 2 choices. 1. If cfb and cbb are to remain highly profitable, enterprises, the men in the arena should be fairly compensated. 2. Actually make college athletics amateur. This would mean no more multi-million dollar coaches salaries, lavish facilities or buku TV deals. Perhaps by limiting athletic department spending or some such mechanism. This would mean a less glitzy experience. But perhaps a more soulful localized experience of the older days. Which as a 30 year-old I never got to experience, and I hear was pretty cool.