[DC 86]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

Collectives must be independent entities, but NIL itself is not "supposed to be completely separate from the university." Most FBS programs have established entire departments or at least designated personnel within their athletic departments dedicated to facilitating NIL opportunities for student-athletes. This is where Stanford has lagged behind.

[DC 86]

Can someone explain to me how Stanford's administration is responsible for "dithering" with NIL, when by its nature, NIL is suppose to be completely separate from the university?

I mean there are a lot of worthy complaints to be levied at Muir and co. for what they are in charge of, but I don't see how they can be fingered for weak NIL efforts. Those are all about outside boosters and whatever financial resources they can drum up for athletes by whatever means they can.

What am I missing?

Collectives must be independent entities, but NIL itself is not "supposed to be completely separate from the university." Most FBS programs have established entire departments or at least designated personnel within their athletic departments dedicated to facilitating NIL opportunities for student-athletes. This is where Stanford has lagged behind.