I think that might have changed recently early this year with a court ruling. I don't think that was the case before that. Even I'm not sure how clear it is.
Even state by state there might have been different rules.
From the article:
Current NCAA guidelines are murky on many subjects related to NIL payments, and the association has paused many enforcement matters and investigations over the topic as they are hamstrung by court rulings. For instance, a court injunction in Tennessee permits collectives to negotiate with athletes before they enroll. Some also interpret that ruling as allowing collectives to sign athletes to agreements before they enroll.
Cromartie says Sluka did not sign an agreement before enrolling because of these murky rules.
“People say, ‘Why didn’t they get anything signed?’” he said. “You can’t sign anything until you enroll.”
A promised $100K deal gone unpaid has led UNLV QB Matthew Sluka to leave the team, sparking controversy and highlighting the unruly world of college football recruiting.
sports.yahoo.com
Also from a Bloomberg article I've posted
Coaches make promises to entice players to enroll and then, according to accounts by multiple people, often change the terms after the fact. After committing to schools in the expectation of big NIL money, some wind up getting nothing. “It happens a ton,” says one former assistant coach at a Big Ten school, who asked for anonymity to preserve his employment prospects. “I had to do that to a few kids, and it was like, ‘Hey, I can’t really do anything about it.’” Business plans fall through, or donor priorities change, and the coaches making the promises don’t actually control the purse strings. In some cases, neither does the collective: It’s counting on raising revenue by hosting tailgates or autograph signings or just persuading donors to chip in $2,000 here or $5,000 there.
This is from some law firm website and mentions that court ruling I mentioned.
A federal judge lifted restrictions on prospective student-athletes’ ability to make name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals before enrolling at a university. The Feb. 23 ruling stops the NCAA from enforcing these rules while a lawsuit brought by the State of Tennessee and the Commonwealth of Virginia is ongoing.
Filed in January, the
suit claims the NCAA’s current ban on high school athletes and current college athletes in the transfer portal discussing potential NIL opportunities before enrolling at a university restricts competition and violates Section One of the Sherman Act. The injunction freezes the ban nationwide until the lawsuit concludes.
While this ruling may open the door for high school recruits and transfers to sign NIL deals, student-athletes, universities, NIL collectives and businesses should proceed with caution. Even without the NCAA’s rules in effect, many states have enacted similar restrictions for NIL deals to avoid inducing enrollment at a particular university. This could leave contracts in limbo, with prospective student-athletes able to negotiate deals but having to stop short of signing them. After the student-athlete enrolls at a university, all parties could face legal and reputational risks as changing conditions affect the structure and success of these deals.
