NIL Clearinghouse Rules

[Knight Shift]

Who violates them first, and what are the penalties? Will this be an Animal Farm system of penalties? 🤣

Are there really NIL deals of less than $600 for football?

 

[bac2therac]

rules...you said there were rules....uh uh trust me there are no rules

 

[LotusAggressor]

The rules are for the programs that aren't "supposed" to be winning. This has selective enforcement written all over it.

 

[NickRU714]

The thing eople are missing is that it is the schools themselves establishing what "fair market value" is by comparing against themselves.

If OSU pays a guy $3m - that sets the market.
It doesn't matter if the $1m is overvalued to "the public".
UM, Texas, PSU and USC are all just paying "market rate" at $3m as well.

 

[satnom]

Whatever the bar becomes, the expectation that there will be a well funded entity with teeth and enforcement power to fine, suspend and/or expel institutions, officials, players and/or parents that try to circumvent the rules in an efficient process will be most welcomed.

This fear has never existed in college football to keep everyone in line.

GO RU

 

[LotusAggressor]

Whatever the bar becomes, the expectation that there will be a well funded entity with teeth and enforcement power to fine, suspend and/or expel institutions, officials, players and/or parents that try to circumvent the rules in an efficient process will be most welcomed.

This fear has never existed in college football to keep everyone in line.

GO RU

That's not happening.

 

[bac2therac]

Whatever the bar becomes, the expectation that there will be a well funded entity with teeth and enforcement power to fine, suspend and/or expel institutions, officials, players and/or parents that try to circumvent the rules in an efficient process will be most welcomed.

This fear has never existed in college football to keep everyone in line.

GO RU

Psst good luck

 

[rurichdog]

"I get paid $599.99 every 60 seconds. Each deal is it's own separately negotiated deal"

 

[retired711]

This is not a well-done document. It tells institutions to define "associate payors" ( legal term for boosters, I suppose) but it doesn't tell them the consequences of a payor being an "associate payor." The document makes it seem that *all* NIL deals will be reviewed to see if they "legitimately advance business objectives," but that isn't how the settlement agreement has been described in the past. If the "legitimately advance business objectives" test applies only to "associate payors," then a deal will usually be able to avoid review if the booster hasn't contributed $50,000 or more to the program.