[Mudhead]

I think my statement that "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." is compatible with the article, which states:

restrictions will focus only on groups "of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools," such as collectives. Any NIL deals involving these "associated entities or individuals" must be approved through a third-party clearinghouse. The NCAA will not be responsible for reviewing these agreements; instead, they will be subject to neutral arbitration. An arbitrator will determine whether the NIL deals serve a "valid business purpose" or are merely pay-for-play schemes disguised as NIL agreements.

My point was that in thinking about future players, we will not have to worry about recruiting "top talent if you aren't prepared to pay high NIL" since "we" (defined as a Stanford-affiliated collective) would not be able to pay high NILs.  The best we can hope for is that someone is able to identify an NIL deal that serves a valid business purpose for top talent that comes to Stanford.  I think Cameron Brink demonstrated that this is possible.

BC

I think it is nice to long for a world where NIL deals , or some version of them,  won’t be critical to Women’s  basketball. But we shouldn’t plan on it until and unless it becomes a reality. I am pretty  sure this Genie isn’t going back into the bottle.  Top Talent will go the the biggest reward. Once upon a time, that was a Stanford  degree. I just don’t think it is anymore and neither does the top talent that is voting with foot movement.   You may be right and that would be nice. I wouldn’t plan on it and I hope 
Stanford doesn’t either. 

 my basic point has been that we need to understand why top talent is not choosing to stay at Stanford. If it has nothing to do with NIL, great. Let’s find out what it is and fix it.

[Mudhead]

I think my statement that "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." is compatible with the article, which states:

restrictions will focus only on groups "of entities and individuals closely affiliated with the schools," such as collectives. Any NIL deals involving these "associated entities or individuals" must be approved through a third-party clearinghouse. The NCAA will not be responsible for reviewing these agreements; instead, they will be subject to neutral arbitration. An arbitrator will determine whether the NIL deals serve a "valid business purpose" or are merely pay-for-play schemes disguised as NIL agreements.

My point was that in thinking about future players, we will not have to worry about recruiting "top talent if you aren't prepared to pay high NIL" since "we" (defined as a Stanford-affiliated collective) would not be able to pay high NILs.  The best we can hope for is that someone is able to identify an NIL deal that serves a valid business purpose for top talent that comes to Stanford.  I think Cameron Brink demonstrated that this is possible.

BC

I think it is nice to long for a world where NIL deals , or some version of them,  won’t be critical to Women’s  basketball. But we shouldn’t plan on it until and unless it becomes a reality. I am pretty  sure this Genie isn’t going back into the bottle.  Top Talent will go the the biggest reward. Once upon a time, that was a Stanford  degree. I just don’t think it is anymore and neither does the top talent that is voting with foot movement.   You may be right and that would be nice. I wouldn’t plan on it and I hope 
Stanford doesn’t either. 

 my basic point has been that we need to understand why top talent is not choosing to stay at Stanford. If it has nothing to do with NIL, great. Let’s find out what it is and fix it.