[Chupacabra]

No, the point is that there aren't any obligations if necessary. There are opportunities, particularly marketing ones.

A few thoughts:

• This is the new reality and has created a market for services. It's totally reasonable to question a foundational change to any system but the change has to be acknowledged and its new parameters adopted. If not you won't keep up.
  
• As a market, a system will develop over time. The idea is still young and will evolve.
  
• Title IX and equity are reasonable concerns. But Title IX applies to the universities and not to the private institutions who pay for the NIL. This shouldn't change how a sports team is treated/funded by an athletic department.
  
• While equity is a legitimate concern and something to strive for, a few years ago they were all making $0. This is better.
  
• Stanford has some pretty wealthy alumni, giving its NIL system incredible potential. Can these resources ever be connected to an organized NIL program?
  

NIL "obligations" will be like the Oklahoma football players in the 80s getting Summer jobs watching over oil fields.

[Chupacabra]

No, the point is that there aren't any obligations if necessary. There are opportunities, particularly marketing ones.

A few thoughts:

• This is the new reality and has created a market for services. It's totally reasonable to question a foundational change to any system but the change has to be acknowledged and its new parameters adopted. If not you won't keep up.
  
• As a market, a system will develop over time. The idea is still young and will evolve.
  
• Title IX and equity are reasonable concerns. But Title IX applies to the universities and not to the private institutions who pay for the NIL. This shouldn't change how a sports team is treated/funded by an athletic department.
  
• While equity is a legitimate concern and something to strive for, a few years ago they were all making $0. This is better.
  
• Stanford has some pretty wealthy alumni, giving its NIL system incredible potential. Can these resources ever be connected to an organized NIL program?
  

NIL "obligations" will be like the Oklahoma football players in the 80s getting Summer jobs watching over oil fields.

[cardcrimson]

No, the point is that there aren't any obligations if necessary. There are opportunities, particularly marketing ones.

A few thoughts:

• This is the new reality and has created a market for services. It's totally reasonable to question a foundational change to any system but the change has to be acknowledged and its new parameters adopted. If not you won't keep up.
  
• As a market, a system will develop over time. The idea is still young and will evolve.
  
• Title IX and equity are reasonable concerns. But Title IX applies to the universities and not to the private institutions who pay for the NIL. This shouldn't change how a sports team is treated/funded by an athletic department.
  
• While equity is a legitimate concern and something to strive for, a few years ago they were all making $0. This is better.
  
• Stanford has some pretty wealthy alumni, giving its NIL system incredible potential. Can these resources ever be connected to an organized NIL program?
  

Yes, Stanford has some very wealthy alums, but do they care enough about Stanford sports? Can they be convinced to care? Probably not by the current administration. Who knows if they can be by the NIL collectives. I'd imagine, the admin has a conflict of interest; money to athletes, or money to the school/athletic department to pay for their bloat.

Many were not making $0 dollars. Most were on some sort of scholarship that provided a sizable chuck of tuition, training, room, board, etc. Now kids are making 5, 6 or 7 figures while others are getting nothing. It will be a while until it can be determined if this is better or not. 

While Title IX impacts educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, I'd imagine lawyers are already trying to figure out how to apply it to NIL for college sports that historically have been regulated under the legislation. The men's basketball team received $50k per player, correct? If so, did the women's team get the same? It's only a matter of time. . . .

[cardcrimson]

No, the point is that there aren't any obligations if necessary. There are opportunities, particularly marketing ones.

A few thoughts:

• This is the new reality and has created a market for services. It's totally reasonable to question a foundational change to any system but the change has to be acknowledged and its new parameters adopted. If not you won't keep up.
  
• As a market, a system will develop over time. The idea is still young and will evolve.
  
• Title IX and equity are reasonable concerns. But Title IX applies to the universities and not to the private institutions who pay for the NIL. This shouldn't change how a sports team is treated/funded by an athletic department.
  
• While equity is a legitimate concern and something to strive for, a few years ago they were all making $0. This is better.
  
• Stanford has some pretty wealthy alumni, giving its NIL system incredible potential. Can these resources ever be connected to an organized NIL program?
  

Yes, Stanford has some very wealthy alums, but do they care enough about Stanford sports? Can they be convinced to care? Probably not by the current administration. Who knows if they can be by the NIL collectives. I'd imagine, the admin has a conflict of interest; money to athletes, or money to the school/athletic department to pay for their bloat.

Many were not making $0 dollars. Most were on some sort of scholarship that provided a sizable chuck of tuition, training, room, board, etc. Now kids are making 5, 6 or 7 figures while others are getting nothing. It will be a while until it can be determined if this is better or not. 

While Title IX impacts educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, I'd imagine lawyers are already trying to figure out how to apply it to NIL for college sports that historically have been regulated under the legislation. The men's basketball team received $50k per player, correct? If so, did the women's team get the same? It's only a matter of time. . . .

[BillBradley]

I don't get this fairness/Title IX argument when it comes to NIL collectives. These collectives are separate entities from the university and the legal discussions leading up to NIL took all the organizational structuring into account. The whole point is that the athletes themselves get to be compensated for their own Name, Image, and Likeness from groups outside the university. Don't think there's much behind the NIL rules that says it should be regulated. 

That said, if Stanford University, or the women's basketball program, wanted more money for the women's players, I'm sure they could get that done. No one is standing in their way.

[BillBradley]

I don't get this fairness/Title IX argument when it comes to NIL collectives. These collectives are separate entities from the university and the legal discussions leading up to NIL took all the organizational structuring into account. The whole point is that the athletes themselves get to be compensated for their own Name, Image, and Likeness from groups outside the university. Don't think there's much behind the NIL rules that says it should be regulated. 

That said, if Stanford University, or the women's basketball program, wanted more money for the women's players, I'm sure they could get that done. No one is standing in their way.

[GK3]

I don't get this fairness/Title IX argument when it comes to NIL collectives. These collectives are separate entities from the university and the legal discussions leading up to NIL took all the organizational structuring into account. The whole point is that the athletes themselves get to be compensated for their own Name, Image, and Likeness from groups outside the university. Don't think there's much behind the NIL rules that says it should be regulated. 

That said, if Stanford University, or the women's basketball program, wanted more money for the women's players, I'm sure they could get that done. No one is standing in their way.

I don't think we have seen the last of any legal issues regarding NIL.  Too much money, someone is going to complain.

[GK3]

I don't get this fairness/Title IX argument when it comes to NIL collectives. These collectives are separate entities from the university and the legal discussions leading up to NIL took all the organizational structuring into account. The whole point is that the athletes themselves get to be compensated for their own Name, Image, and Likeness from groups outside the university. Don't think there's much behind the NIL rules that says it should be regulated. 

That said, if Stanford University, or the women's basketball program, wanted more money for the women's players, I'm sure they could get that done. No one is standing in their way.

I don't think we have seen the last of any legal issues regarding NIL.  Too much money, someone is going to complain.

[cardcrimson]

I don't get this fairness/Title IX argument when it comes to NIL collectives. These collectives are separate entities from the university and the legal discussions leading up to NIL took all the organizational structuring into account. The whole point is that the athletes themselves get to be compensated for their own Name, Image, and Likeness from groups outside the university. Don't think there's much behind the NIL rules that says it should be regulated. 

That said, if Stanford University, or the women's basketball program, wanted more money for the women's players, I'm sure they could get that done. No one is standing in their way.

I don't think we have seen the last of any legal issues regarding NIL.  Too much money, someone is going to complain.

Agree with that. 

Pretty easy to argue that the NIL is related to their playing a particular sport at a particular school, and that it should fall under, or be treated similarly to Title IX. Whether that argument has a legal basis or not, is another matter.

[cardcrimson]

I don't get this fairness/Title IX argument when it comes to NIL collectives. These collectives are separate entities from the university and the legal discussions leading up to NIL took all the organizational structuring into account. The whole point is that the athletes themselves get to be compensated for their own Name, Image, and Likeness from groups outside the university. Don't think there's much behind the NIL rules that says it should be regulated. 

That said, if Stanford University, or the women's basketball program, wanted more money for the women's players, I'm sure they could get that done. No one is standing in their way.

I don't think we have seen the last of any legal issues regarding NIL.  Too much money, someone is going to complain.

Agree with that. 

Pretty easy to argue that the NIL is related to their playing a particular sport at a particular school, and that it should fall under, or be treated similarly to Title IX. Whether that argument has a legal basis or not, is another matter.

[GK3]

I don't get this fairness/Title IX argument when it comes to NIL collectives. These collectives are separate entities from the university and the legal discussions leading up to NIL took all the organizational structuring into account. The whole point is that the athletes themselves get to be compensated for their own Name, Image, and Likeness from groups outside the university. Don't think there's much behind the NIL rules that says it should be regulated. 

That said, if Stanford University, or the women's basketball program, wanted more money for the women's players, I'm sure they could get that done. No one is standing in their way.

I don't think we have seen the last of any legal issues regarding NIL.  Too much money, someone is going to complain.

Agree with that. 

Pretty easy to argue that the NIL is related to their playing a particular sport at a particular school, and that it should fall under, or be treated similarly to Title IX. Whether that argument has a legal basis or not, is another matter.

Exactly!

[GK3]

I don't get this fairness/Title IX argument when it comes to NIL collectives. These collectives are separate entities from the university and the legal discussions leading up to NIL took all the organizational structuring into account. The whole point is that the athletes themselves get to be compensated for their own Name, Image, and Likeness from groups outside the university. Don't think there's much behind the NIL rules that says it should be regulated. 

That said, if Stanford University, or the women's basketball program, wanted more money for the women's players, I'm sure they could get that done. No one is standing in their way.

I don't think we have seen the last of any legal issues regarding NIL.  Too much money, someone is going to complain.

Agree with that. 

Pretty easy to argue that the NIL is related to their playing a particular sport at a particular school, and that it should fall under, or be treated similarly to Title IX. Whether that argument has a legal basis or not, is another matter.

Exactly!