[teejers1]

The name and likeness issue is easily avoided. Don’t market individuals. That avoids the University having to pay. The athletes themselves will be able to cash in through social media etc. It will be interesting to see how universities work around the issue on things like promoting players for awards,  billboards (Stanford of course always  puts their top players on the billboard.  I expect that to change) radio ads etc.  They are going to have to become a generic, I think.  They no longer will promote individual players in selling tickets etc. 

I don't see things unfolding that way. Athletes indeed will cash in through social media influencing as well as traditional media advertising, but those platforms work by leveraging university-sponsored visibility. An athlete maximizes their profile by being on a of immense proportions billboard on the corner of Galvez and El Camino, or better yet by being the focus of a H-man or Biletnikoff/Butkus/Outland campaign. It would be foolish for an athlete to demand compensation for such promotion (or for a university not to market its own athletes) given thee mutual benefit. No different from up-and-coming entertainers who take part in many events for free knowing that by generating publicity for themselves they will cash in elsewhere. There may be a handful of athletes who become so prominent that they don't need the university platform (e.g. someone like Tim Tebow when he was at Florida) but unlikely that it will be the case for Stanford football or basketball players.

This is what I don't understand about all those clamoring for NIL compensation (at minimum).  Where do you think "the value" for that college athlete's NIL comes from?  That person's ability?  Maybe a small fraction.  But the overwhelming majority of the value is generated by "the university platform" - i.e., the legions of fans who have rooted for "State University" or "Local College" for literally decades.  I'm not sure why schools would want to pay players for the value the schools innately generate.  But of course, some (perhaps many) will, including the Big Boys in D1 ball.  Is Stanford going to swim in that pool?  Should it?  And this is before you even get to alums sponsoring "autograph sessions" as a way to funnel $$ directly into athletes' pockets.

I just don't see it for Stanford.

The only hope is for Congressional action in an attempt to level the playing field, perhaps using Title IX as vehicle for legislation. But relying on Congress for hope means . . . no hope at all.

[teejers1]

The name and likeness issue is easily avoided. Don’t market individuals. That avoids the University having to pay. The athletes themselves will be able to cash in through social media etc. It will be interesting to see how universities work around the issue on things like promoting players for awards,  billboards (Stanford of course always  puts their top players on the billboard.  I expect that to change) radio ads etc.  They are going to have to become a generic, I think.  They no longer will promote individual players in selling tickets etc. 

I don't see things unfolding that way. Athletes indeed will cash in through social media influencing as well as traditional media advertising, but those platforms work by leveraging university-sponsored visibility. An athlete maximizes their profile by being on a of immense proportions billboard on the corner of Galvez and El Camino, or better yet by being the focus of a H-man or Biletnikoff/Butkus/Outland campaign. It would be foolish for an athlete to demand compensation for such promotion (or for a university not to market its own athletes) given thee mutual benefit. No different from up-and-coming entertainers who take part in many events for free knowing that by generating publicity for themselves they will cash in elsewhere. There may be a handful of athletes who become so prominent that they don't need the university platform (e.g. someone like Tim Tebow when he was at Florida) but unlikely that it will be the case for Stanford football or basketball players.

This is what I don't understand about all those clamoring for NIL compensation (at minimum).  Where do you think "the value" for that college athlete's NIL comes from?  That person's ability?  Maybe a small fraction.  But the overwhelming majority of the value is generated by "the university platform" - i.e., the legions of fans who have rooted for "State University" or "Local College" for literally decades.  I'm not sure why schools would want to pay players for the value the schools innately generate.  But of course, some (perhaps many) will, including the Big Boys in D1 ball.  Is Stanford going to swim in that pool?  Should it?  And this is before you even get to alums sponsoring "autograph sessions" as a way to funnel $$ directly into athletes' pockets.

I just don't see it for Stanford.

The only hope is for Congressional action in an attempt to level the playing field, perhaps using Title IX as vehicle for legislation. But relying on Congress for hope means . . . no hope at all.