[CardinalSagehen]

If the concern is that deep-pocketed donors will pony up money to bring in top recruits, does anyone have more deep-pocketed donors than Stanford? I don't know the details if such direct donations to players are even really possible under the new rules, but if they are, and Stanford really wants to compete on this level, I'm sure it will find a way. The ethics of going this route, at any school? That's another issue altogether.

Stanford donors have deep pockets, but as you've probably noticed, they are not engaged to the level of donors at other large football schools. In addition, not all the money will come from wealthy boosters. Most students will make a few thousand dollars here and there from local businesses, in communities where their endorsements actually make good business sense. That won't be the case in the Bay Area, where college football and basketball are distant afterthoughts. It's a far cry from South Bend, Tuscaloosa, or State College, where college football is Everything.   

Here's a story about a U of Miami fan that owns a chain of MMA gyms: https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...cholarship.  He's offered to pay all 90 scholarship players $500/month for their endorsements.  This could add up to over $500k/year.  I'd guess that he's doing it in part for the positive PR and marketing impact in the area, not solely to funnel money to the players on the team that he wants to see winning.  We have tech companies in Palo Alto, but they'd gain nothing from student-athlete endorsements.

So while I think a solution can be found, and there's certainly tons of wealth in the area to be tapped, I'm not sure it's going to be a level playing field in the eyes of recruits.  To your point, maybe it's solvable, but who really wants to win that way?  And will Stanford go all-in on the trend?  I know they made a small announcement about their plans to provide NIL resources, but will they really lean into it, after opposing it for so long?

[CardinalSagehen]

If the concern is that deep-pocketed donors will pony up money to bring in top recruits, does anyone have more deep-pocketed donors than Stanford? I don't know the details if such direct donations to players are even really possible under the new rules, but if they are, and Stanford really wants to compete on this level, I'm sure it will find a way. The ethics of going this route, at any school? That's another issue altogether.

Stanford donors have deep pockets, but as you've probably noticed, they are not engaged to the level of donors at other large football schools. In addition, not all the money will come from wealthy boosters. Most students will make a few thousand dollars here and there from local businesses, in communities where their endorsements actually make good business sense. That won't be the case in the Bay Area, where college football and basketball are distant afterthoughts. It's a far cry from South Bend, Tuscaloosa, or State College, where college football is Everything.   

Here's a story about a U of Miami fan that owns a chain of MMA gyms: https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...cholarship.  He's offered to pay all 90 scholarship players $500/month for their endorsements.  This could add up to over $500k/year.  I'd guess that he's doing it in part for the positive PR and marketing impact in the area, not solely to funnel money to the players on the team that he wants to see winning.  We have tech companies in Palo Alto, but they'd gain nothing from student-athlete endorsements.

So while I think a solution can be found, and there's certainly tons of wealth in the area to be tapped, I'm not sure it's going to be a level playing field in the eyes of recruits.  To your point, maybe it's solvable, but who really wants to win that way?  And will Stanford go all-in on the trend?  I know they made a small announcement about their plans to provide NIL resources, but will they really lean into it, after opposing it for so long?