The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL

The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL (/thread-25600.html)

Pages: 1 2

The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - ELcat - 05-01-2025

Interesting quotes from Tara, Brink, Condi, and David Bailey. Info is not necessarily new but good to get this out to a national audience.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6324460/2025/05/01/stanford-athletics-andrew-luck-nil-transfer-portal/?source=user_shared_article

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - JJJ - 05-01-2025

In Levin and Luck I trust.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - qwerty49 - 05-02-2025

Actually the photo showing the empty stands vs Va Tech tells a lot.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - GK3 - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 01:25 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: Actually the photo showing the empty stands vs Va Tech tells a lot.

If you are putting on a show in the Bay Area and want people to attend, you best have a good show. We did not. There are just too many venues where you can spend your entertainment dollars in the Bay Area, so the show has to have some quality. I still think that winning cures all ills, but its the winning that is hard.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - Mick - 05-02-2025

I think to fill the stands vs. the VaTechs of the world, we need to appeal to people outside of the Stanford community. Like myself. I love Stanford sports, always have, because I enjoy and value high-level entertainment. I think Stanford works really, really hard to attract the Stanford community and makes a token effort at attracting the hundreds of thousands of college football fans who live within a two-hour drive of Stanford Stadium. I think Stanford barely scratches the surface.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - Embo - 05-02-2025

I read the NY Times article thinking I wouldn't learn anything new. I have always taken pride in how Stanford's admissions would be unwavering, and the athletes we cheer represent the university well. As a result, I know the transfer portal is going to be more out than in.
But what really galls me, to put it in the words of a former long time poster on the old Bootleg site, is "the university's sense of overweening purity." Here's the quote from the article:

"After NIL became legal, women's basketball star Haley Jones landed a Nike sponsorship a year after leading Stanford to the 2021 national championship. The school wouldn't allow her to use the Cardinal logo in ads, and made her photoshop the word "Stanford" out of her jersey."

I am stunned that this happened. Jones was a prominent face of women's basketball in 2021. Was she in any way controversial or detrimental? Did this bring any shame to the university? I don't think USC made Juju Watkins remove their logo from the Nike commercial seen so prominently during March Madness. Notre Dame had no complaints on the Allstate commercial which features Hannah Hidalgo, and in fact the entire team. This decision by Stanford is pathetic.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - PalmTree - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 10:50 AM)Embo Wrote: I read the NY Times article thinking I wouldn't learn anything new. I have always taken pride in how Stanford's admissions would be unwavering, and the athletes we cheer represent the university well. As a result, I know the transfer portal is going to be more out than in.
But what really galls me, to put it in the words of a former long time poster on the old Bootleg site, is "the university's sense of overweening purity." Here's the quote from the article:

"After NIL became legal, women's basketball star Haley Jones landed a Nike sponsorship a year after leading Stanford to the 2021 national championship. The school wouldn't allow her to use the Cardinal logo in ads, and made her photoshop the word "Stanford" out of her jersey."

I am stunned that this happened. Jones was a prominent face of women's basketball in 2021. Was she in any way controversial or detrimental? Did this bring any shame to the university? I don't think USC made Juju Watkins remove their logo from the Nike commercial seen so prominently during March Madness. Notre Dame had no complaints on the Allstate commercial which features Hannah Hidalgo, and in fact the entire team. This decision by Stanford is pathetic.

I wonder if the university was concerned about potential adverse impacts to its non-profit status. Keep in mind, this was in the very early days of NIL and it was a brand (pun intended) new frontier.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - Goose - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 11:20 AM)PalmTree Wrote:
(05-02-2025, 10:50 AM)Embo Wrote: I read the NY Times article thinking I wouldn't learn anything new. I have always taken pride in how Stanford's admissions would be unwavering, and the athletes we cheer represent the university well. As a result, I know the transfer portal is going to be more out than in.
But what really galls me, to put it in the words of a former long time poster on the old Bootleg site, is "the university's sense of overweening purity." Here's the quote from the article:

"After NIL became legal, women's basketball star Haley Jones landed a Nike sponsorship a year after leading Stanford to the 2021 national championship. The school wouldn't allow her to use the Cardinal logo in ads, and made her photoshop the word "Stanford" out of her jersey."

I am stunned that this happened. Jones was a prominent face of women's basketball in 2021. Was she in any way controversial or detrimental? Did this bring any shame to the university? I don't think USC made Juju Watkins remove their logo from the Nike commercial seen so prominently during March Madness. Notre Dame had no complaints on the Allstate commercial which features Hannah Hidalgo, and in fact the entire team. This decision by Stanford is pathetic.

I wonder if the university was concerned about potential adverse impacts to its non-profit status. Keep in mind, this was in the very early days of NIL and it was a brand (pun intended) new frontier.

I am sure there was a legal opinion from one of the many Stanford attorneys that it was "safer" to proceed that way. Many of the strange seemingly inexplicable bureaucratic regulations and procedures Stanford are the results of such opinions. The sad thing is that the abundance of caution often fails to deliver the desired immunity from lawsuits. Sometimes too the cure is arguably worse than the disease.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - 82lsju - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 11:28 AM)Goose Wrote:
(05-02-2025, 11:20 AM)PalmTree Wrote:
(05-02-2025, 10:50 AM)Embo Wrote: I read the NY Times article thinking I wouldn't learn anything new. I have always taken pride in how Stanford's admissions would be unwavering, and the athletes we cheer represent the university well. As a result, I know the transfer portal is going to be more out than in.
But what really galls me, to put it in the words of a former long time poster on the old Bootleg site, is "the university's sense of overweening purity." Here's the quote from the article:

"After NIL became legal, women's basketball star Haley Jones landed a Nike sponsorship a year after leading Stanford to the 2021 national championship. The school wouldn't allow her to use the Cardinal logo in ads, and made her photoshop the word "Stanford" out of her jersey."

I am stunned that this happened. Jones was a prominent face of women's basketball in 2021. Was she in any way controversial or detrimental? Did this bring any shame to the university? I don't think USC made Juju Watkins remove their logo from the Nike commercial seen so prominently during March Madness. Notre Dame had no complaints on the Allstate commercial which features Hannah Hidalgo, and in fact the entire team. This decision by Stanford is pathetic.

I wonder if the university was concerned about potential adverse impacts to its non-profit status. Keep in mind, this was in the very early days of NIL and it was a brand (pun intended) new frontier.
I am sure there was a legal opinion from one of the many Stanford attorneys that it was "safer" to proceed that way. Many of the strange seemingly inexplicable bureaucratic regulations and procedures Stanford are the results of such opinions. The sad thing is that the abundance of caution often fails to deliver the desired immunity from lawsuits. Sometimes too the cure is arguably worse than the disease.

I've heard from some Stanford employees that lawyer opinions had much more influence under the previous President...

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - Goose - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 11:45 AM)82lsju Wrote:
(05-02-2025, 11:28 AM)Goose Wrote: I am sure there was a legal opinion from one of the many Stanford attorneys that it was "safer" to proceed that way. Many of the strange seemingly inexplicable bureaucratic regulations and procedures Stanford are the results of such opinions. The sad thing is that the abundance of caution often fails to deliver the desired immunity from lawsuits. Sometimes too the cure is arguably worse than the disease.

I've heard from some Stanford employees that lawyer opinions had much more influence under the previous President...

I have heard that as well. Unfortunately IMO it will take quite some time to actually change the culture. This abundance of caution is not a new thing. MTL didn't create it, but he apparently continued it. It must be said Stanford is a great target for lawsuits. It can be presented as an elitist uncaring organization with buckets of money oppressing the "little guy". That unfortunately works with juries. IMO the University has to realize that many of its attempts to mitigate liability actually increase it. By attempting to address the issue, the University has implicitly acknowledged it is responsible for the problem. There is therefore no way the University can argue otherwise. Worse still, Stanford's "solutions" sometimes do indeed make the problem worse.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - BostonCard - 05-02-2025

I'm not sure what the legal risk would be. I think the legitimate question is to what extent is showing Stanford brand on an ad for another company an implicit endorsement by Stanford of that brand (never mind that in this particular case Stanford already implicitly endorses Nike by wearing Nike clothing anyways). What happens if the ad is for something that the University would rather not associate itself with. You can't police who student-athletes sign NIL deals with, but you can (and want to) restrict the use of the University's branding. Maybe there is legal risk, but I could see Stanford not wanting to have its brand associated with some completely legal but divisive topics.

Of course, this is what happens when you put in restrictions without thinking, and allowing little flexibility. A "we probably don't want to lend our names to NIL deals willy nilly" becomes somehow, we are barring a recognizable athlete from displaying the Stanford name for a company that already sponsors the University.

BC

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - M T - 05-02-2025

As usual, BC brings up good points. But I am not sure about the phrase “without thinking”. I expect they thought about it more thoroughly than we have.

Consider this: Stanford allows its name to appear on ads for Nike. But then the next player does ads for a controversial organization (say, a cigarette seller, a political party, a religious affiliation, etc.). If Stanford prohibits “Stanford” from appearing on that after allowing it to appear on other ads by the athlete, how does that sound?

Someone could schedule athlete ads in such a way to make it appear Stanford takes a position on some product or ideology when Stanford doesn’t.

It is cleaner to consistently remove the Stanford brand from the athletes’ use.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - BostonCard - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 01:24 PM)M T Wrote: As usual, BC brings up good points. But I am not sure about the phrase “without thinking”. I expect they thought about it more thoroughly than we have.

Fair point. I think what I meant is that a blanket prohibition is easier to implement than a case-by-case assessment where you have to make a individual decision for every possible NIL, and, as you point out, it might be hard to apply a consistent standard. To take an extreme example, what would happen if an athlete were approved to wear their Stanford shirt to support a candidate for one political party, but not the other.

BC

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - 82lsju - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 02:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(05-02-2025, 01:24 PM)M T Wrote: As usual, BC brings up good points. But I am not sure about the phrase “without thinking”. I expect they thought about it more thoroughly than we have.

Fair point. I think what I meant is that a blanket prohibition is easier to implement than a case-by-case assessment where you have to make a individual decision for every possible NIL, and, as you point out, it might be hard to apply a consistent standard. To take an extreme example, what would happen if an athlete were approved to wear their Stanford shirt to support a candidate for one political party, but not the other.

BC

they have a process for using Stanford trademarked items

https://adminguide.stanford.edu/chapters/guiding-policies-and-principles/conflict-interest/ownership-and-use-stanford-trademarks

which says in part

[quote]
3. Use of Marks
[b]c. Students and Alumni
[/b]
Students and alumni may only use Stanford’s Marks as described below:

Students and alumni may use Stanford’s name, but no other Marks, to identify their attendance at and degrees from Stanford on resumes and on digital channels such as personal web sites and social media.
Undergraduate and graduate students may use Stanford’s name and the Block S with tree emblem on business cards which identify their student status. The approved business card format is included in the Identity Toolkit. Alumni may not use Stanford Marks on business cards.
Students and alumni may use Stanford’s Marks in connection with the University-sanctioned activities of student and alumni groups that have received and maintain official ASSU or Stanford Alumni Association recognition, respectively. When the Marks are used in these instances, it must be clear that the activity is either a student activity or an alumni activity, and not a University activity.
Only recognized student and alumni groups may produce merchandise that incorporates Stanford Marks. Such merchandise may only be produced in connection with University-sanctioned activities and must comply with all policies and procedures established by the Trademark Licensing Office for licensed product.

4. Prohibited Use of Marks

The following uses of Stanford’s Marks are not permitted, except as otherwise authorized by (a) this policy, (b) the Name Use Guidelines, © other published guidelines or (d) Stanford’s President, Provost or other individual with delegated authority under Section 2, above:

By non-Stanford individuals and entities. This includes, but is not limited to, vendors, technology licensees, research funders, donors, industrial affiliate program members, collaborators, partners and guest speakers.
In a manner that endorses or implies endorsement of (a) a non-Stanford entity, or (b) the programs, products or services of a non-Stanford entity.
By faculty, staff, students, alumni or others in association with any commercial activity or outside venture.
In situations which will negatively impact Stanford’s reputation, or which may have the potential to impact negatively Stanford’s reputation. Such situations include, but are not limited to, use of Marks in connection with materials which (i) violate any law or regulation, (ii) have the potential to offend a person or group on the basis of gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability or sexual orientation, (iii) could be considered to be pornographic, or (iv) could be considered to be defamatory.
In connection with partisan political activities. See Administrative Guide Memo 1.5.1: Political, Campaign and Lobbying Activities.

Involvement by individual faculty, staff, students, or alumni in a non-Stanford activity is not a sufficient basis for indicating University sponsorship or endorsement and Marks may not be used in connection with such activities.[/quote]

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - Mick - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 11:28 AM)Goose Wrote:
(05-02-2025, 11:20 AM)PalmTree Wrote:
(05-02-2025, 10:50 AM)Embo Wrote: I read the NY Times article thinking I wouldn't learn anything new. I have always taken pride in how Stanford's admissions would be unwavering, and the athletes we cheer represent the university well. As a result, I know the transfer portal is going to be more out than in.
But what really galls me, to put it in the words of a former long time poster on the old Bootleg site, is "the university's sense of overweening purity." Here's the quote from the article:

"After NIL became legal, women's basketball star Haley Jones landed a Nike sponsorship a year after leading Stanford to the 2021 national championship. The school wouldn't allow her to use the Cardinal logo in ads, and made her photoshop the word "Stanford" out of her jersey."

I am stunned that this happened. Jones was a prominent face of women's basketball in 2021. Was she in any way controversial or detrimental? Did this bring any shame to the university? I don't think USC made Juju Watkins remove their logo from the Nike commercial seen so prominently during March Madness. Notre Dame had no complaints on the Allstate commercial which features Hannah Hidalgo, and in fact the entire team. This decision by Stanford is pathetic.

I wonder if the university was concerned about potential adverse impacts to its non-profit status. Keep in mind, this was in the very early days of NIL and it was a brand (pun intended) new frontier.
I am sure there was a legal opinion from one of the many Stanford attorneys that it was "safer" to proceed that way. Many of the strange seemingly inexplicable bureaucratic regulations and procedures Stanford are the results of such opinions. The sad thing is that the abundance of caution often fails to deliver the desired immunity from lawsuits. Sometimes too the cure is arguably worse than the disease.

A risk-averse attorney. Imagine that.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - BostonCard - 05-02-2025

But that's what I mean, what you posted sounds like a near blanket prohibition, not a process. If you need the President or Provost to sign off on putting Stanford on an NIL deal then you have de facto prohibited it.

The best we can hope for is that the President/Provost delegate authority to the AD or to an NIL officer who can review and approve or deny the use on a case by case basis.

BC

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - 82lsju - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 04:45 PM)BostonCard Wrote: But that's what I mean, what you posted sounds like a near blanket prohibition, not a process. If you need the President or Provost to sign off on putting Stanford on an NIL deal then you have de facto prohibited it.

The best we can hope for is that the President/Provost delegate authority to the AD or to an NIL officer who can review and approve or deny the use on a case by case basis.

BC

on delegation (and I would be surprised if they don't have delegates), the Provost looks like the approver for Athletics related items, of course she could delegate that to others so maybe the AD for all sports but football and Andrew Luck for football, but thaat's likely a state secret....

Of course I could see Drell having a blanket rejection

One question would be does an athlete get more NIL money if they wear the uniform or even just name of their college in the ad?

Quote:2. Authority

The President has delegated authority for approving use of Stanford's Marks as follows:

a. Provost
For use in connection with educational, research and athletics activities (including courseware and related materials developed for teaching at Stanford) and for special events.

b. Vice President for Business Affairs and Chief Financial Officer
For use by manufacturers of merchandise and products, in connection with Stanford’s business activities, and by vendors (including promotional use). Only the Vice President for Business Affairs and Chief Financial Officer may grant permission for use of Stanford's Marks on merchandise and products.

c. Dean of the School of Medicine
For use in connection with Stanford Medicine’s activities.

d. Vice President for University Communications
For use in film, video, print and digital media, including the University's web pages.

e. General Counsel
For use in connection with legal affairs.

Authority for approving all other uses of Stanford’s Marks remains with the President.

These individuals, or their delegates, will collaborate on situations that fall within the scope of authority of more than one office in order to ensure a consistent application of this policy.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - qwerty49 - 05-02-2025

(05-02-2025, 01:24 PM)M T Wrote: It is cleaner to consistently remove the Stanford brand from the athletes’ use.

You're absolutely correct it's cleaner -- but we're decades into the various fuzzy gray areas between amateurism and professionalism, (e.g. just look at pro athletes competing in the Olympics). So I think upholding a "clean" ideal is just that -- an ideal, sadly not anywhere near the current reality.

Let's just hope we can play catch-up ball long and well enough to stay relevant.

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - BostonCard - 05-02-2025

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/trump-considers-executive-order-on-college-athlete-payments-after-nick-saban-meeting-5d6e694d?mod=djemwhatsnews

(should be gifted)

I am just posting this to note without comment that after speaking to Nick Sagan, the President is considering an executive order on NIL. Very little in the way of detail on the scope of such an order, or even if the President will follow through, so no point in debating it.

One other detail that caught my eye:

Quote:The result is a freewheeling marketplace where nearly 4,300 Division I football players switched schools in 2024 and an estimated $1.67 billion changed hands in 2024-25, according to Opendorse, a platform that facilitates NIL deals.

There are 134 Division I FBS teams, each with up to 85 scholarship players, for a total of 11,390 scholarship players more or less (there are also another 120 or so FCS teams, each of which can have up to 63 scholarships, but for example, Ivy League schools don't use them). Together there are 18,950 potential scholarship players, of whom we'd expect somewhere between 1/4 and 1/5 to turn over every year due to graduation (or, more formally, exhaustion of eligibility). But that puts the number of transferring players very close to the number of graduating players every year. That is a travesty and a mockery of the idea that these players are "student"-athletes.

BC

One further add... assuming that only FBS players are getting NIL deals, that's about $12 million in NIL money per school, on average, very unevenly distributed. $1.67 Billion divided by 11,390 scholarship FBS players gets you $146,000 per athlete, on average, again, very unevenly distributed.

BC

RE: The Athletic Article on Stanford and NIL - Giants - 05-02-2025

BostonCard dateline='[url=tel:1746240378' Wrote: 1746240378[/url]']
https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/trump-considers-executive-order-on-college-athlete-payments-after-nick-saban-meeting-5d6e694d?mod=djemwhatsnews

(should be gifted)

I am just posting this to note without comment that after speaking to Nick Sagan, the President is considering an executive order on NIL. Very little in the way of detail on the scope of such an order, or even if the President will follow through, so no point in debating it.

One other detail that caught my eye:

Quote:The result is a freewheeling marketplace where nearly 4,300 Division I football players switched schools in 2024 and an estimated $1.67 billion changed hands in 2024-25, according to Opendorse, a platform that facilitates NIL deals.

There are 134 Division I FBS teams, each with up to 85 scholarship players, for a total of 11,390 scholarship players more or less (there are also another 120 or so FCS teams, each of which can have up to 63 scholarships, but for example, Ivy League schools don't use them). Together there are 18,950 potential scholarship players, of whom we'd expect somewhere between 1/4 and 1/5 to turn over every year due to graduation (or, more formally, exhaustion of eligibility). But that puts the number of transferring players very close to the number of graduating players every year. That is a travesty and a mockery of the idea that these players are "student"-athletes.

BC

One further add... assuming that only FBS players are getting NIL deals, that's about $12 million in NIL money per school, on average, very unevenly distributed. $1.67 Billion divided by 11,390 scholarship FBS players gets you $146,000 per athlete, on average, again, very unevenly distributed.

BC

And, once the House settlement is approved, there will no longer be scholarship limits for any sport.