[Mudhead]

Showing that you are prepared to verge on the excessive and have the $ to do so , is also the only way to drive some sanity into this process.

I fail to see how this can be described as "sanity". "We must destroy the village in order to save it" comes to mind.

I know other schools who fear that Stanford will tumble to this and use its wealth to dominate the market for academically superior high talent players. I’d like to test this .

Stanford should therefore buy each and every athlete, good, bad, or mediocre. Stanford can monopolize college sports. Problem solved. The only problem with this approach is that some athletes don't want to "work" for Stanford. They don't necessarily enjoy it here. If they can get a lot of money elsewhere, we may not be able to "buy" them.

The payments by the school come out of the $20M House cap.  The budget for the entire women's BB team is unlikely to be much more than $1m, at least at most schools.  Third party payments have to meet a market test.  Unless an athlete has already developed their own image in a significant way, there shouldn't be any crazy $1M payments.  If an athlete commands a market-rate NIL, that is over and above what the school pays.

NIL will continue to exist.  The Collectives will,be regulated to some extent, but absent another Supreme Court case,  nothing will prevent the Texas Tech example or things like it from continuing. If I own a car wash and , independently of the School of course, decide that I want Nunu to do ads for my business at $ 200,000 or $300,000 a year, I don’t think that can be regulated by the NCAA, the conference or the school. And if you don’t think that will happen, you have never been to Texas.

House will open the door to Collective bargaining because it’s hard to see why athletes are not employees of the school. Once they are employees , why shouldn’t they have a union like everyone else?  But NFL cb agreements don’t prevent athletes from having shoe contracts, they only cover salary scale paid by the team and signing bonuses.  There will be many  traps for the unwary in terms of connections with schools but I have no doubt creative and wealthy fans will figure out a way to pay players as long as it is legal .  

Do you have any doubt about USCs willingness to test the bounds of legality? Or beyond.

[Mudhead]

Showing that you are prepared to verge on the excessive and have the $ to do so , is also the only way to drive some sanity into this process.

I fail to see how this can be described as "sanity". "We must destroy the village in order to save it" comes to mind.

I know other schools who fear that Stanford will tumble to this and use its wealth to dominate the market for academically superior high talent players. I’d like to test this .

Stanford should therefore buy each and every athlete, good, bad, or mediocre. Stanford can monopolize college sports. Problem solved. The only problem with this approach is that some athletes don't want to "work" for Stanford. They don't necessarily enjoy it here. If they can get a lot of money elsewhere, we may not be able to "buy" them.

The payments by the school come out of the $20M House cap.  The budget for the entire women's BB team is unlikely to be much more than $1m, at least at most schools.  Third party payments have to meet a market test.  Unless an athlete has already developed their own image in a significant way, there shouldn't be any crazy $1M payments.  If an athlete commands a market-rate NIL, that is over and above what the school pays.

NIL will continue to exist.  The Collectives will,be regulated to some extent, but absent another Supreme Court case,  nothing will prevent the Texas Tech example or things like it from continuing. If I own a car wash and , independently of the School of course, decide that I want Nunu to do ads for my business at $ 200,000 or $300,000 a year, I don’t think that can be regulated by the NCAA, the conference or the school. And if you don’t think that will happen, you have never been to Texas.

House will open the door to Collective bargaining because it’s hard to see why athletes are not employees of the school. Once they are employees , why shouldn’t they have a union like everyone else?  But NFL cb agreements don’t prevent athletes from having shoe contracts, they only cover salary scale paid by the team and signing bonuses.  There will be many  traps for the unwary in terms of connections with schools but I have no doubt creative and wealthy fans will figure out a way to pay players as long as it is legal .  

Do you have any doubt about USCs willingness to test the bounds of legality? Or beyond.