Let me give you this hypothetical, in all seriousness. Curious if you’ll be able to punch holes in it:
Say that one of the truly gifted engineering students at Purdue proves themselves incredibly gifted based on what they’ve done during Purdue activities. This student’s work has brought major grants to Purdue. So much so that the student is offered big money by private engineering firms for off campus work. In fact, those engineering firms are offering big money just for the student to show up, because they want to support that student and want them to stay at Purdue instead of bolting early to another firm.
1) Isn’t that how free market capitalism is supposed to work?
2) How is that different from NIL?
3) Would you bar that engineering student from being compensated in this scenario?
4) Is at least some of the resistance to NIL merely resistance to warranted change?
I hate the easy portal movement, but I’m wondering if NIL (a separate new thing) is simply the free market at work, which isn’t always equitable to all.
Some interesting thoughts, and I can see that side, although I don't necessarily agree - however, I'm sure they are plenty who do. These examples do bring more into focus what some of the problematic issues are.
There are naturally some loose similarities, but amateur athletics ≠ free market and compensation. IMHO, this is the result of running at break-neck speed with good intentions but without a strong plan, adherence to safeguards, and also having a recent history of non-enforcement/lack of accountability. Yes, some State legislatures forced the issue, but the NCAA had other options to react or deal with this - IMO, they took the easy way out with "rules/guidelines" that won't be effectively enforced. Welcome to the
Wild, Wild West.
What you're really talking about now is that NCAA colleges and players are part of a minor professional league......so be it, I suppose. Be careful what you wish for. This has totally flipped the "booster" concern/issue on its head and ensured it will take root and dominate the concept. And this is just getting started - you aint seen nothing yet.
Also, the engineering student is getting paid directly tied to her/his "educational" pursuits.....not just a loose association with the University from athletics or another secondary pursuit. Unless you want to say, these players (and I guess they are in a way) are majoring in Basketball, Football, Volleyball, etc.
I definitely agree that some of the collateral damage will be less donations to the University/Athletic Department in general as a chunk of funds is now bypassing that and going directly to "
student" athletes. There's only so much from charitable sources - those gifts/donations won't just magically increase.
I also agree that Purdue will stick with its usual strategy where athletic resources are concerned - deliberate, conservative, trailing, and less effective (over the initial term) compared to its closest peers.....unless an influential person takes the lead, which I don't see at this juncture. They may eventually strike the right balance, but that means playing catch-up.....again.
Might just be time to
drive the Chevy to the Levee.
DISCLAIMER - I am admittedly an old school dinosaur and particularly irritated with the state of the lawn this spring.