[82lsju]

[b]Lifetime Cardinal has multimillion-dollar budget for NIL[/b]

They have seeded the collective with enough income that they expect to have a budget of nearly $4 million. Earlier this spring, Lifetime Cardinal made the first of two $5,000 payments to every football player. The second payment will come in the fall. Twenty or so top players will earn more, up to $50,000.

A sister collective, Cardinal One, paid each of the men’s basketball players $50,000 at the outset of the 2022-23 season.
The collectives operate under the same umbrella – Thorpe once worked for a Cardinal One founder, Jesse Rogers – and Lifetime Cardinal will be the vehicle moving forward.

https://www.on3.com/nil/news/lifetime-ca...-approach/

[82lsju]

[b]Lifetime Cardinal has multimillion-dollar budget for NIL[/b]

They have seeded the collective with enough income that they expect to have a budget of nearly $4 million. Earlier this spring, Lifetime Cardinal made the first of two $5,000 payments to every football player. The second payment will come in the fall. Twenty or so top players will earn more, up to $50,000.

A sister collective, Cardinal One, paid each of the men’s basketball players $50,000 at the outset of the 2022-23 season.
The collectives operate under the same umbrella – Thorpe once worked for a Cardinal One founder, Jesse Rogers – and Lifetime Cardinal will be the vehicle moving forward.

https://www.on3.com/nil/news/lifetime-ca...-approach/

[BobK]

A very good thing for the success of Stanford’s sports. I’m my mind at least

[BobK]

A very good thing for the success of Stanford’s sports. I’m my mind at least

[Spiny_Norman]

My brother (also an alum) said, "The article should have been headlined 'Stanford supporters work to rescue major sports from incompetent leadership and administrative antagonism.'"

[Spiny_Norman]

My brother (also an alum) said, "The article should have been headlined 'Stanford supporters work to rescue major sports from incompetent leadership and administrative antagonism.'"

[OutsiderFan]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

[OutsiderFan]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

[Langdude]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

I believe it was because he said specifically that Stanford would not be using NIL money to attract recruits, or something like that. In other words, even though it is not Stanford that would be paying the students directly, he has made it sound like Stanford would be discouraging such activity. At least that is what the rhetoric sounds like.

What is ironic (as BC has noted in another thread about Muir's poor job performance on several fronts) is that, also under Muir's watch, Stanford did accept money from families for non-athletes to attend Stanford to "play" sports.

-m

[Langdude]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

I believe it was because he said specifically that Stanford would not be using NIL money to attract recruits, or something like that. In other words, even though it is not Stanford that would be paying the students directly, he has made it sound like Stanford would be discouraging such activity. At least that is what the rhetoric sounds like.

What is ironic (as BC has noted in another thread about Muir's poor job performance on several fronts) is that, also under Muir's watch, Stanford did accept money from families for non-athletes to attend Stanford to "play" sports.

-m

[Softball Fan]

On one hand it may be a good albeit late start.  On the other hand it's a drop in the bucket compared to many SEC and B1G programs.

[Softball Fan]

On one hand it may be a good albeit late start.  On the other hand it's a drop in the bucket compared to many SEC and B1G programs.

[OutsiderFan]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

I believe it was because he said specifically that Stanford would not be using NIL money to attract recruits, or something like that. In other words, even though it is not Stanford that would be paying the students directly, he has made it sound like Stanford would be discouraging such activity. At least that is what the rhetoric sounds like.

What is ironic (as BC has noted in another thread about Muir's poor job performance on several fronts) is that, also under Muir's watch, Stanford did accept money from families for non-athletes to attend Stanford to "play" sports.

-m

Well, be this as it may, Stanford as an institution has absolutely zero control over NIL. My feeling was Stanford being slow on the NIL adoption was a demonstration that it simply didn't have people motivated to pay athletes to come to Stanford. Like, nobody cares about Stanford sports being good to figure out ways to get athletes paid to play at Stanford.

The Lifetime Cardinal group makes it clear there is such people. The fact it is a for-profit business is fascinating to me, and I love how Stanford is carving out its own niche, dismissing the IMO small-minded social media influencer endorsement economy, and embracing a much higher level big business and investment mindset. 

My question about NIL is how do the NIL collectives and the sports coaches actually work together. Perhaps Muir's comments were to suggest he doesn't think coaches should engage with Lifetime Cardinal, which would make its job difficult. Of course, coaches wanting talent won't really have a choice but to embrace it if they want talent, because recruits are going to check out what they can get financially as part of the recruiting process now.

[OutsiderFan]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

I believe it was because he said specifically that Stanford would not be using NIL money to attract recruits, or something like that. In other words, even though it is not Stanford that would be paying the students directly, he has made it sound like Stanford would be discouraging such activity. At least that is what the rhetoric sounds like.

What is ironic (as BC has noted in another thread about Muir's poor job performance on several fronts) is that, also under Muir's watch, Stanford did accept money from families for non-athletes to attend Stanford to "play" sports.

-m

Well, be this as it may, Stanford as an institution has absolutely zero control over NIL. My feeling was Stanford being slow on the NIL adoption was a demonstration that it simply didn't have people motivated to pay athletes to come to Stanford. Like, nobody cares about Stanford sports being good to figure out ways to get athletes paid to play at Stanford.

The Lifetime Cardinal group makes it clear there is such people. The fact it is a for-profit business is fascinating to me, and I love how Stanford is carving out its own niche, dismissing the IMO small-minded social media influencer endorsement economy, and embracing a much higher level big business and investment mindset. 

My question about NIL is how do the NIL collectives and the sports coaches actually work together. Perhaps Muir's comments were to suggest he doesn't think coaches should engage with Lifetime Cardinal, which would make its job difficult. Of course, coaches wanting talent won't really have a choice but to embrace it if they want talent, because recruits are going to check out what they can get financially as part of the recruiting process now.

[Spiny_Norman]

I would describe Stanford's NIL approach as reactive. Other schools have been proactive.

Here is an example of what other schools are doing. Clemson opened a 12,000 square foot NIL branding institute on campus with a director plucked from the corporate executive suite. 

https://businessofcollegesports.com/name...velopment/

From what I can tell, the more aggressive schools are aligning their NIL function with their business development function. Some others are putting it alongside compliance (maybe because they don't know where else to put it).

Stanford actually has an Assistant Director / Name, Image & Likeness Services, Katie Bridge. She is a former college athlete with little if any corporate, development, or communication experience (judging from her LinkedIn profile).

[Spiny_Norman]

I would describe Stanford's NIL approach as reactive. Other schools have been proactive.

Here is an example of what other schools are doing. Clemson opened a 12,000 square foot NIL branding institute on campus with a director plucked from the corporate executive suite. 

https://businessofcollegesports.com/name...velopment/

From what I can tell, the more aggressive schools are aligning their NIL function with their business development function. Some others are putting it alongside compliance (maybe because they don't know where else to put it).

Stanford actually has an Assistant Director / Name, Image & Likeness Services, Katie Bridge. She is a former college athlete with little if any corporate, development, or communication experience (judging from her LinkedIn profile).

[cctop]

Just below the article linked in the first post was one on current prices for college players. If this is truly how the game is being played now, I'm fine with Stanford bowing out:

https://www.on3.com/nil/news/premium-on-...er-portal/


Speaking to a number of operators in the space, On3 has learned the going rate for a starting offensive tackle or defensive linemen could start as low as $75,000 to $125,000 annually. Realistically, it’s only an initial number.

With teams desperate to land talent on the line, the number likely balloons. For an elite EDGE rusher, the starting price jumps to at least $200,000 and could easily reach $300,000. And all those numbers are before an athlete or their agent starts pitting schools against each other.

[cctop]

Just below the article linked in the first post was one on current prices for college players. If this is truly how the game is being played now, I'm fine with Stanford bowing out:

https://www.on3.com/nil/news/premium-on-...er-portal/


Speaking to a number of operators in the space, On3 has learned the going rate for a starting offensive tackle or defensive linemen could start as low as $75,000 to $125,000 annually. Realistically, it’s only an initial number.

With teams desperate to land talent on the line, the number likely balloons. For an elite EDGE rusher, the starting price jumps to at least $200,000 and could easily reach $300,000. And all those numbers are before an athlete or their agent starts pitting schools against each other.

[BillBradley]

I would describe Stanford's NIL approach as reactive. Other schools have been proactive.

Here is an example of what other schools are doing. Clemson opened a 12,000 square foot NIL branding institute on campus with a director plucked from the corporate executive suite. 

https://businessofcollegesports.com/name...velopment/

From what I can tell, the more aggressive schools are aligning their NIL function with their business development function. Some others are putting it alongside compliance (maybe because they don't know where else to put it).

Stanford actually has an Assistant Director / Name, Image & Likeness Services, Katie Bridge. She is a former college athlete with little if any corporate, development, or communication experience (judging from her LinkedIn profile).

Thx for starting this thread 82lsju! Agree with Spiny, Outsider, Softball et all. At least it's moving and shows there are alums who can get behind this. Also thought this paragraph was salient to some of the other discussions on NIL as it relates to influencers and the Stanford degree.

“We’re not going to teach them to be social media influencers,” Thorpe said of the athletes. “Much more important, we’re going to give them real alumni mentorship, connectivity and career support throughout their time at Stanford. If we can go to employers and say, ‘We represent hundreds of Stanford athletes. They are an incredibly talented and diverse group of women and men. It’s not just about using their faces to sell your product. Wouldn’t you want their brains and effort level at your company?’”

Thorpe sees those services as leveraging what Stanford has always sold its recruits – a great education and a “40-year decision” that will provide for a lucrative career long after the uniform is hung up. The allure of the 40-year decision has cooled in the what-are-you-going-pay-me era of NIL.

[BillBradley]

I would describe Stanford's NIL approach as reactive. Other schools have been proactive.

Here is an example of what other schools are doing. Clemson opened a 12,000 square foot NIL branding institute on campus with a director plucked from the corporate executive suite. 

https://businessofcollegesports.com/name...velopment/

From what I can tell, the more aggressive schools are aligning their NIL function with their business development function. Some others are putting it alongside compliance (maybe because they don't know where else to put it).

Stanford actually has an Assistant Director / Name, Image & Likeness Services, Katie Bridge. She is a former college athlete with little if any corporate, development, or communication experience (judging from her LinkedIn profile).

Thx for starting this thread 82lsju! Agree with Spiny, Outsider, Softball et all. At least it's moving and shows there are alums who can get behind this. Also thought this paragraph was salient to some of the other discussions on NIL as it relates to influencers and the Stanford degree.

“We’re not going to teach them to be social media influencers,” Thorpe said of the athletes. “Much more important, we’re going to give them real alumni mentorship, connectivity and career support throughout their time at Stanford. If we can go to employers and say, ‘We represent hundreds of Stanford athletes. They are an incredibly talented and diverse group of women and men. It’s not just about using their faces to sell your product. Wouldn’t you want their brains and effort level at your company?’”

Thorpe sees those services as leveraging what Stanford has always sold its recruits – a great education and a “40-year decision” that will provide for a lucrative career long after the uniform is hung up. The allure of the 40-year decision has cooled in the what-are-you-going-pay-me era of NIL.

[DC 86]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

Collectives must be independent entities, but NIL itself is not "supposed to be completely separate from the university." Most FBS programs have established entire departments or at least designated personnel within their athletic departments dedicated to facilitating NIL opportunities for student-athletes. This is where Stanford has lagged behind.

[DC 86]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

Collectives must be independent entities, but NIL itself is not "supposed to be completely separate from the university." Most FBS programs have established entire departments or at least designated personnel within their athletic departments dedicated to facilitating NIL opportunities for student-athletes. This is where Stanford has lagged behind.

[OutsiderFan]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

Collectives must be independent entities, but NIL itself is not "supposed to be completely separate from the university." Most FBS programs have established entire departments or at least designated personnel within their athletic departments dedicated to facilitating NIL opportunities for student-athletes. This is where Stanford has lagged behind.

It's all such a convoluted, unregulated mess. 

One thing in Stanford's defense. Nobody in the Bay Area cares about college sports enough for there to be any NIL opportunities worth a damn for most athletes. 

But this is where the collectives come in. Payment to athletes who really don't have much marketing value, but get paid because they can run, jump, catch, tackle, throw, hit

College sports is now a Rube Goldberg operation of epic proportions.

[OutsiderFan]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

Collectives must be independent entities, but NIL itself is not "supposed to be completely separate from the university." Most FBS programs have established entire departments or at least designated personnel within their athletic departments dedicated to facilitating NIL opportunities for student-athletes. This is where Stanford has lagged behind.

It's all such a convoluted, unregulated mess. 

One thing in Stanford's defense. Nobody in the Bay Area cares about college sports enough for there to be any NIL opportunities worth a damn for most athletes. 

But this is where the collectives come in. Payment to athletes who really don't have much marketing value, but get paid because they can run, jump, catch, tackle, throw, hit

College sports is now a Rube Goldberg operation of epic proportions.

[needle]

A former football staffer at UCF under Gus Malzahn is now leading the NIL collective.

Nothing is shocking, except that we haven’t really had a true NIL scandal yet (it will come, as some will have ulterior motives when giving kids NIL “opportunities”).

https://footballscoop.com/news/sj-tuohy-...collective

[needle]

A former football staffer at UCF under Gus Malzahn is now leading the NIL collective.

Nothing is shocking, except that we haven’t really had a true NIL scandal yet (it will come, as some will have ulterior motives when giving kids NIL “opportunities”).

https://footballscoop.com/news/sj-tuohy-...collective

[Beeg_Dawg]

Of the many questions that come to mind about Stanford vs NIL, how many $ will swing from the AD and possibly the university to the Cardinal Collective?

[Beeg_Dawg]

Of the many questions that come to mind about Stanford vs NIL, how many $ will swing from the AD and possibly the university to the Cardinal Collective?

[qwerty49]

Collectives must be independent entities, but NIL itself is not "supposed to be completely separate from the university." Most FBS programs have established entire departments or at least designated personnel within their athletic departments dedicated to facilitating NIL opportunities for student-athletes. This is where Stanford has lagged behind.

LOL, It's like we're back on the grade school playground and Stanford doesn't want to catch "NIL Cooties."

I'm glad these wealthy alums could step up.  I just hope it's not a case of too little, too late.

[qwerty49]

Collectives must be independent entities, but NIL itself is not "supposed to be completely separate from the university." Most FBS programs have established entire departments or at least designated personnel within their athletic departments dedicated to facilitating NIL opportunities for student-athletes. This is where Stanford has lagged behind.

LOL, It's like we're back on the grade school playground and Stanford doesn't want to catch "NIL Cooties."

I'm glad these wealthy alums could step up.  I just hope it's not a case of too little, too late.

[81alum]

Just below the article linked in the first post was one on current prices for college players. If this is truly how the game is being played now, I'm fine with Stanford bowing out:

https://www.on3.com/nil/news/premium-on-...er-portal/


Speaking to a number of operators in the space, On3 has learned the going rate for a starting offensive tackle or defensive linemen could start as low as $75,000 to $125,000 annually. Realistically, it’s only an initial number.

With teams desperate to land talent on the line, the number likely balloons. For an elite EDGE rusher, the starting price jumps to at least $200,000 and could easily reach $300,000. And all those numbers are before an athlete or their agent starts pitting schools against each other.

Thank you for opening my eyes to this, Cctop.  This is just revolting.  Non-profit, educational institutions shelling out more money for a defensive lineman than they pay to assistant professors really puts things in perspective.  Not that Stanford is quite there yet.  Oh, but of course the universities are not directly involved at all in paying their players, are they?

[81alum]

Just below the article linked in the first post was one on current prices for college players. If this is truly how the game is being played now, I'm fine with Stanford bowing out:

https://www.on3.com/nil/news/premium-on-...er-portal/


Speaking to a number of operators in the space, On3 has learned the going rate for a starting offensive tackle or defensive linemen could start as low as $75,000 to $125,000 annually. Realistically, it’s only an initial number.

With teams desperate to land talent on the line, the number likely balloons. For an elite EDGE rusher, the starting price jumps to at least $200,000 and could easily reach $300,000. And all those numbers are before an athlete or their agent starts pitting schools against each other.

Thank you for opening my eyes to this, Cctop.  This is just revolting.  Non-profit, educational institutions shelling out more money for a defensive lineman than they pay to assistant professors really puts things in perspective.  Not that Stanford is quite there yet.  Oh, but of course the universities are not directly involved at all in paying their players, are they?

[jacket3ree]

On one hand it may be a good albeit late start.  On the other hand it's a drop in the bucket compared to many SEC and B1G programs.

Yep.  Need another zero or two x however many players you want to be nationally competitive x however many sports that you want to be nationally competitive.  Bunch o' money.

I too thought Stanford as a university couldn't do squat about this one way or the other. Name, image, and likeness. Endorsements, not salary, stipend, or scholarship; although I've never understood the difference between an endorsement and a salary.

---

Shoot. Let's just cut to the chase.


[/quote]

[jacket3ree]

On one hand it may be a good albeit late start.  On the other hand it's a drop in the bucket compared to many SEC and B1G programs.

Yep.  Need another zero or two x however many players you want to be nationally competitive x however many sports that you want to be nationally competitive.  Bunch o' money.

I too thought Stanford as a university couldn't do squat about this one way or the other. Name, image, and likeness. Endorsements, not salary, stipend, or scholarship; although I've never understood the difference between an endorsement and a salary.

---

Shoot. Let's just cut to the chase.


[/quote]

[chrisk]

Most of the NIL being doled out is to help with living expenses. Given the value of a stanford scholarship, I don’t think Stanford wants to attract players who require top NIL $. At what point does Stanford bow out of the running for these mercenaries?

[chrisk]

Most of the NIL being doled out is to help with living expenses. Given the value of a stanford scholarship, I don’t think Stanford wants to attract players who require top NIL $. At what point does Stanford bow out of the running for these mercenaries?

[GK3]

I would describe Stanford's NIL approach as reactive. Other schools have been proactive.

Here is an example of what other schools are doing. Clemson opened a 12,000 square foot NIL branding institute on campus with a director plucked from the corporate executive suite. 

https://businessofcollegesports.com/name...velopment/

From what I can tell, the more aggressive schools are aligning their NIL function with their business development function. Some others are putting it alongside compliance (maybe because they don't know where else to put it).

Stanford actually has an Assistant Director / Name, Image & Likeness Services, Katie Bridge. She is a former college athlete with little if any corporate, development, or communication experience (judging from her LinkedIn profile).

Thx for starting this thread 82lsju! Agree with Spiny, Outsider, Softball et all. At least it's moving and shows there are alums who can get behind this. Also thought this paragraph was salient to some of the other discussions on NIL as it relates to influencers and the Stanford degree.

“We’re not going to teach them to be social media influencers,” Thorpe said of the athletes. “Much more important, we’re going to give them real alumni mentorship, connectivity and career support throughout their time at Stanford. If we can go to employers and say, ‘We represent hundreds of Stanford athletes. They are an incredibly talented and diverse group of women and men. It’s not just about using their faces to sell your product. Wouldn’t you want their brains and effort level at your company?’”

Thorpe sees those services as leveraging what Stanford has always sold its recruits – a great education and a “40-year decision” that will provide for a lucrative career long after the uniform is hung up. The allure of the 40-year decision has cooled in the what-are-you-going-pay-me era of NIL.

I think this is a very creative way to approach the NIL and a great way to make the 40 Year Decision mantra still meaningful.

[GK3]

I would describe Stanford's NIL approach as reactive. Other schools have been proactive.

Here is an example of what other schools are doing. Clemson opened a 12,000 square foot NIL branding institute on campus with a director plucked from the corporate executive suite. 

https://businessofcollegesports.com/name...velopment/

From what I can tell, the more aggressive schools are aligning their NIL function with their business development function. Some others are putting it alongside compliance (maybe because they don't know where else to put it).

Stanford actually has an Assistant Director / Name, Image & Likeness Services, Katie Bridge. She is a former college athlete with little if any corporate, development, or communication experience (judging from her LinkedIn profile).

Thx for starting this thread 82lsju! Agree with Spiny, Outsider, Softball et all. At least it's moving and shows there are alums who can get behind this. Also thought this paragraph was salient to some of the other discussions on NIL as it relates to influencers and the Stanford degree.

“We’re not going to teach them to be social media influencers,” Thorpe said of the athletes. “Much more important, we’re going to give them real alumni mentorship, connectivity and career support throughout their time at Stanford. If we can go to employers and say, ‘We represent hundreds of Stanford athletes. They are an incredibly talented and diverse group of women and men. It’s not just about using their faces to sell your product. Wouldn’t you want their brains and effort level at your company?’”

Thorpe sees those services as leveraging what Stanford has always sold its recruits – a great education and a “40-year decision” that will provide for a lucrative career long after the uniform is hung up. The allure of the 40-year decision has cooled in the what-are-you-going-pay-me era of NIL.

I think this is a very creative way to approach the NIL and a great way to make the 40 Year Decision mantra still meaningful.

[SamuelMcF]

Most of the NIL being doled out is to help with living expenses.  Given the value of a stanford scholarship, I don’t think Stanford wants to attract players who require top NIL $.  At what point does Stanford bow out of the running for these mercenaries?

We already have. Those types of players would never come to Stanford regardless.

The point of this is that we are now doing SOMETHING. Table stakes.

[SamuelMcF]

Most of the NIL being doled out is to help with living expenses.  Given the value of a stanford scholarship, I don’t think Stanford wants to attract players who require top NIL $.  At what point does Stanford bow out of the running for these mercenaries?

We already have. Those types of players would never come to Stanford regardless.

The point of this is that we are now doing SOMETHING. Table stakes.