The Need For Skpeticism

Today’s rant is going to be different.  I want to lead off discussing something that is only tangential to sports; I only came across the topic because it was written about by a sportswriter and it has to do with sports only because tennis was the subject of the interaction described.

Please take about 7 or 8 minutes and follow this link to read Sally Jenkins’ column yesterday in the Washington Post.  I think this is an important exposition.

It is not surprising to me to learn that Artificial Intelligence has not yet perfected the ability to be cross-examined as Jenkins did in her interaction with ChatGPT; it is, however,  surprising to me that the AI agent has learned to lie as a way to cover up being uninformed.  Frankly, I find that status to be a bit chilling.

Before someone asks, I have never submitted one of these rants to AI for “polishing” and I would not know how to set one of them up for analysis/review as Jenkins did.  So, I have no experience that is parallel to hers.  What I use AI for routinely is as a tool for quick searches – faster than a Google search.  [Aside:  I prefer to use Microsoft Copilot because it is a shortcut on my computer toolbar but that is beside the point.]  In the times I have  used AI for such tasks, I have never had occasion to doubt the results or to be suspicious of the included footnotes I received as part of the answer to my question(s).

For example, I might want to know the naming sponsors over time for the Oakland Coliseum because it has had a slew of them.  According to Copilot, the stadium is simply the Oakland Alameda County Stadium since 2023; the history of naming sponsors for the facility includes 5 different sponsoring entities dating back to 1966 with periods of no sponsorship intermingled.  That history sort of jogs my memory to the point that I believe it to be factual.

The lesson I take from Jenkins’ column and her experience with AI is that one must be ever-so-slightly wary of glib answers and perhaps it would be worthwhile ever so often to ask it a question to which you are certain you know the exact answer.  As they used to say in the arms control treaty negotiations, you need to:

“Trust … but verify.”

And now let me do a 180-degree course reversal and discuss a topic much earlier than I should.  It is the story du jour related to college sports; the NCAA will now start paying its players as the result of a settlement agreement attached to a lawsuit that was approved by the presiding judge in the matter.  This settlement will alter – not eliminate – the NIL dominated situation that exists in the collegiate revenue sports today and I believe that the potential avenues for the final course are so varied that no one knows what the equilibrium state is going to be.

Nonetheless it is widely reported and discussed, so I feel the need to offer up some comments.  Let me begin with some things I simply do not understand about the settlement:

• Some NCAA Conferences have said they will “opt in” to the settlement and others will “opt out.”    Why someone or something that was not involved in the lawsuit would opt in and agree to pay out $20M or so annually to its athletes is not clear to me this morning.  Also, if a conference “opts out” – – as the Ivy League has said it would do – – does that mean that the Ivy League would no longer be part of the NCAA?
• The money schools must pay to players is capped at about $20M per year and most of that money – – one report I read said 94% of that money – – will go to athletes in the “revenue sports”.  As of today, the collegiate revenue sports are:
  • • College football
    • Men’s college basketball/Women’s college basketball
    • Men’s college baseball/Women’s college softball
• It is not clear to me how that portion of the money can be allocated in a way that complies with Title IX nor is it clear to me what restrictions might exist for schools as they decide how to allocate that “other 6%” of the funding.
• By the way, if schools offer academic scholarships to athletes, are the values of those scholarships part of the $20M payments or are they add-ons?

Most commentators have praised the settlement terms and have labeled this as a great leap forward for college athletics.  Just as Sally Jenkins’ column yesterday made it clear to me that a pinch of skepticism never hurts when something seems too good to be true, let me apply that lesson here.  Recall how most commentators said the allowance of NIL payments would be a boon to college athletics.  And didn’t that evolve into a monstrosity?

I am not going to be a cheerleader for this brave new world of college athletics just yet nor am I going to be the old codger who can only pine for a return to the calm and quiet days of the 1950s.  [Aside:  Nevertheless, I do plead guilty to being an “old codger”.]

Nothing I have read says to me that the settlement agreement would address what I consider to be the most negative thing about college athletics today – – the dreaded Transfer Portal.  Here is my solution to that problem – – if the presiding judge would agree that it be part of the approved agreement:

• Make the agreements between the athletes and the schools into binding contracts.  If a school signs a player to a deal, that deal should have a starting date and a termination date.  If a deal is for 3 years, then there is no portal for the athlete until that time passes – – and there is no way for the school to rescind the payments to the athlete.

Finally, let me end today’s rant with this from Aristotle no less:

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

But don’t get me wrong, I love sports………