[Farm93]

my hunch is that the ncaa will refine the rules over the next few years. free agency, by comparison, in most pro sports, has rules about what is allowed and what is not.

i don't see why the ncaa can't say nil may not be tied to a particular school. they can even say it may not come from a booster. many pro sports leagues have a per-team compensation limit. the ncaa could add that as well.

The NCAA can't simply impose unilateral limits; the Alston decision (decided 9-0 by the US Supreme Court) already ruled on this.

Pro sports have collectively bargained their rules with players unions.

Unless Stanford has some very wealthy alums willing to just give 18 year-olds big money for appearing in ads for their firm/company/foundation this NIL path looks bleak for Stanford.   The path also looks bleak for schools in the Pac-12 with limited influence in their community and/or are in relatively small communities.  (Cal, ASU, Washington State, Oregon State)

Even the most prominent Pac-12 schools (Oregon, Washington, USC) are not going to be able to keep up with the silly dollars that other schools may find for their athletes through alums that honestly believe their efforts will be good for their alma mater AND good for their business.

I can almost believe a car dealership, or any other commercial enterprise, in Alabama or Oklahoma could get more business if that company put every member of the OL in their TV and radio ads.   However, I don't think signing the UCLA or Washington OLs would generate a meaningful increase in sales for a business in the LA or Seattle markets.

[Farm93]

my hunch is that the ncaa will refine the rules over the next few years. free agency, by comparison, in most pro sports, has rules about what is allowed and what is not.

i don't see why the ncaa can't say nil may not be tied to a particular school. they can even say it may not come from a booster. many pro sports leagues have a per-team compensation limit. the ncaa could add that as well.

The NCAA can't simply impose unilateral limits; the Alston decision (decided 9-0 by the US Supreme Court) already ruled on this.

Pro sports have collectively bargained their rules with players unions.

Unless Stanford has some very wealthy alums willing to just give 18 year-olds big money for appearing in ads for their firm/company/foundation this NIL path looks bleak for Stanford.   The path also looks bleak for schools in the Pac-12 with limited influence in their community and/or are in relatively small communities.  (Cal, ASU, Washington State, Oregon State)

Even the most prominent Pac-12 schools (Oregon, Washington, USC) are not going to be able to keep up with the silly dollars that other schools may find for their athletes through alums that honestly believe their efforts will be good for their alma mater AND good for their business.

I can almost believe a car dealership, or any other commercial enterprise, in Alabama or Oklahoma could get more business if that company put every member of the OL in their TV and radio ads.   However, I don't think signing the UCLA or Washington OLs would generate a meaningful increase in sales for a business in the LA or Seattle markets.