[DC 86]

My thought was more along the lines that Stanford should set its own ground rules on how it will and won't participate in NIL arrangements, with (in my opinion) particular limits on fake-NIL arrangements as recruiting inducements, and then let the chips fall where they may on the competitive prospects for football and basketball.

I may be in the minority on this board but I don't see a need for limits and I don't have a problem with fake-NIL arrangements if that's how the market works. Where I stand is that Stanford should never compromise on its academic mission, meaning maintaining its admissions standards and requiring that student-athletes participate and be held accountable as legitimate students taking legitimate classes. I don't see a difference in a collective paying Andrew Luck $100k or $10 mm. And almost all NIL payments are recruiting inducements, not financially justifiable marketing compensation, so drawing a line there effectively means not playing the NIL game at all.

[DC 86]

My thought was more along the lines that Stanford should set its own ground rules on how it will and won't participate in NIL arrangements, with (in my opinion) particular limits on fake-NIL arrangements as recruiting inducements, and then let the chips fall where they may on the competitive prospects for football and basketball.

I may be in the minority on this board but I don't see a need for limits and I don't have a problem with fake-NIL arrangements if that's how the market works. Where I stand is that Stanford should never compromise on its academic mission, meaning maintaining its admissions standards and requiring that student-athletes participate and be held accountable as legitimate students taking legitimate classes. I don't see a difference in a collective paying Andrew Luck $100k or $10 mm. And almost all NIL payments are recruiting inducements, not financially justifiable marketing compensation, so drawing a line there effectively means not playing the NIL game at all.