[chrisk]

ChrisK,
My understanding is that third party collectives, acting on behalf of the universities that they support, can offer payments to athletes above and beyond the $20.5M stated in the House Settlement.    These "third party" payments, greater than $600, would still need to go through the NIL clearinghouse run by Deloitte.  So this still sounds like a semi-sanctioned, uncapped, "pay to play" arms race where those with the deepest pockets can build the best rosters via raising and spending more money.

The people in the industry are saying that the Deloitte review will work drive most NIL collective payments out because 90% of them won't meet muster and the NIL deals that will be approved will be from public companies whose deals will be subject to review by their auditors. Here is an Athletic article (may be behind paywall) about Georgia's NIL collective closing and Georgia setting up a deal with Learfield to work on setting up legitimate deals that will pass muster.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6463398...e-sharing/

There are a lot of changes going on in this space that have not penetrated very deeply into Stanford fandom.

CBS Sports article

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...contracts/

"Per reports, Deloitte told ACC officials that 90% of existing NIL contracts with public companies would have been approved. More than 70% of deals with booster collectives would have been denied."

"There's no one consensus answer on the future of collectives; every school will handle them differently. Some will sunset their collectives and move all operations in-house. Others will use third-party collectives as a support tool for services like connecting athletes with outside endorsements or financial education. Different collectives have different relationships with their respective schools."

With no AD in place, Stanford has been very quiet on its plans.

[chrisk]

ChrisK,
My understanding is that third party collectives, acting on behalf of the universities that they support, can offer payments to athletes above and beyond the $20.5M stated in the House Settlement.    These "third party" payments, greater than $600, would still need to go through the NIL clearinghouse run by Deloitte.  So this still sounds like a semi-sanctioned, uncapped, "pay to play" arms race where those with the deepest pockets can build the best rosters via raising and spending more money.

The people in the industry are saying that the Deloitte review will work drive most NIL collective payments out because 90% of them won't meet muster and the NIL deals that will be approved will be from public companies whose deals will be subject to review by their auditors. Here is an Athletic article (may be behind paywall) about Georgia's NIL collective closing and Georgia setting up a deal with Learfield to work on setting up legitimate deals that will pass muster.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6463398...e-sharing/

There are a lot of changes going on in this space that have not penetrated very deeply into Stanford fandom.

CBS Sports article

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...contracts/

"Per reports, Deloitte told ACC officials that 90% of existing NIL contracts with public companies would have been approved. More than 70% of deals with booster collectives would have been denied."

"There's no one consensus answer on the future of collectives; every school will handle them differently. Some will sunset their collectives and move all operations in-house. Others will use third-party collectives as a support tool for services like connecting athletes with outside endorsements or financial education. Different collectives have different relationships with their respective schools."

With no AD in place, Stanford has been very quiet on its plans.