[CardinalSagehen]

Where the hell did this article come from? Someone sent me a full description of a Stanford NIL collective called Lifetime Cardinal, LLC, just last week, that is being run by Stanford alum Allen Thorpe.

How could a Chronicle writer not be aware of this? Or was this collective mentioned in the article, and the writer has no idea what it is or that the fact it exists completely undermines the entire premise of the story?

I don't have Chronicle access, so can't read the article, but Google tells me the Chronicle ran another NIL article that mentioned Lifetime Cardinal just two days before saying Stanford "isn't doing NIL."

I'm confused.

You may be able to read the article on mobile and not on desktop - this happens with many different news sites and articles.  I don’t have the Chron, and the article was available to me on my phone.  

I think the nuanced difference is that Stanford, the institution, is not collaborating with the NIL collective in any way.  Andrew Luck, a key member of the collective, cannot meet with a recruit in the auditorium that bears his name. Stanford may be doing nothing more than following the stated rules, while other institutions are not because there has been no enforcement (as the article mentions.) 

Nevertheless, you are right that the author underplays and seems unaware of the degree of influence that Stanford’s NIL collective could be having.

[CardinalSagehen]

Where the hell did this article come from? Someone sent me a full description of a Stanford NIL collective called Lifetime Cardinal, LLC, just last week, that is being run by Stanford alum Allen Thorpe.

How could a Chronicle writer not be aware of this? Or was this collective mentioned in the article, and the writer has no idea what it is or that the fact it exists completely undermines the entire premise of the story?

I don't have Chronicle access, so can't read the article, but Google tells me the Chronicle ran another NIL article that mentioned Lifetime Cardinal just two days before saying Stanford "isn't doing NIL."

I'm confused.

You may be able to read the article on mobile and not on desktop - this happens with many different news sites and articles.  I don’t have the Chron, and the article was available to me on my phone.  

I think the nuanced difference is that Stanford, the institution, is not collaborating with the NIL collective in any way.  Andrew Luck, a key member of the collective, cannot meet with a recruit in the auditorium that bears his name. Stanford may be doing nothing more than following the stated rules, while other institutions are not because there has been no enforcement (as the article mentions.) 

Nevertheless, you are right that the author underplays and seems unaware of the degree of influence that Stanford’s NIL collective could be having.