[BillBradley]

Also, discussion of NIL payments will be moot going forward once the House Settlement is in place.  As I understand the settlement, players will still be able to get NIL payments for actual use of their name, image or likeness but will not be able to be funneled money by a collective just to play at a particular school.  Schools will be able to pay athletes directly (a bit north of $20 million/year) but that will need to be divided amongst all athletes, so paying a top high school recruit who is currently on the bench behind an all-American player just so they don't go elsewhere will be a tough sell.

BC

Not sure about that. I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject, but here's a couple things worth mentioning...
1) Schools have to opt-in to the revenue sharing. Also, sports revenues vary widely from school to school, even in the major conferences. Seems like there is some built-in inequity right out of the gate.
2) Yes, the schools themselves will have to adhere to more strict standards and there will be more transparency, but there is no oversight to NIL deals not closely tied to the school. In other words, there are loopholes that will surely be exploited (i.e. "Hey Lauren's agent, I'm the owner of ABC Cosmetics here in Los Angeles. I heard Lauren might be coming to UCLA and we wanted to explore options on how Lauren might be able to help us reach the college demographic as one of our spokespeople..."). From this article, which I thought was a good summary on the topic: "Instead, restrictions will focus only on groups of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools," such as collectives. 
https://natlawreview.com/article/taking-...ould-bring

[BillBradley]

Also, discussion of NIL payments will be moot going forward once the House Settlement is in place.  As I understand the settlement, players will still be able to get NIL payments for actual use of their name, image or likeness but will not be able to be funneled money by a collective just to play at a particular school.  Schools will be able to pay athletes directly (a bit north of $20 million/year) but that will need to be divided amongst all athletes, so paying a top high school recruit who is currently on the bench behind an all-American player just so they don't go elsewhere will be a tough sell.

BC

Not sure about that. I don't pretend to be an expert on this subject, but here's a couple things worth mentioning...
1) Schools have to opt-in to the revenue sharing. Also, sports revenues vary widely from school to school, even in the major conferences. Seems like there is some built-in inequity right out of the gate.
2) Yes, the schools themselves will have to adhere to more strict standards and there will be more transparency, but there is no oversight to NIL deals not closely tied to the school. In other words, there are loopholes that will surely be exploited (i.e. "Hey Lauren's agent, I'm the owner of ABC Cosmetics here in Los Angeles. I heard Lauren might be coming to UCLA and we wanted to explore options on how Lauren might be able to help us reach the college demographic as one of our spokespeople..."). From this article, which I thought was a good summary on the topic: "Instead, restrictions will focus only on groups of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools," such as collectives. 
https://natlawreview.com/article/taking-...ould-bring