Here it is...From Sports Illustrated:

As the NCAA looks to enact its recent temporary name, image and likeness proposal, athletes will follow the laws in the state where the school is located or follow the school's policy if the state does not have specific NIL guidelines.

However, according to the copy of the solution obtained by Sports Illustrated's Ross Dellenger, the NCAA will waive Bylaw 12, which prohibits athletes from pay for play, effective July 1. Still, within the alternative proposal, the NCAA has outlined a list of limitations for athletes from NIL compensation. These prohibitions will remain in effect, per the proposal, until Congress passes a uniform bill that governs NIL-related issues.

Among other prohibitions in the proposal, NIL compensation cannot be given or offered to players based on their enrollments at specific institutions. So, for example, a player cannot be awarded specific NIL compensation that is dependent their commitment to play football at only Alabama. Players cannot be offered financial incentives within any NIL deals based on athletic performance, according to the proposal. This means that UNC quarterback Sam Howell, for example, cannot receive an increase in NIL compensation based if he were to throw for more than 3,000 yards or 30 touchdowns, etc.

While the prohibitions have been outlined by the NCAA, the respective schools remain responsible for determining if an athlete's NIL activities are consistent with the school or state law.

Kentucky governor Andy Beshear signed an executive order Thursday to allow name, image and likeness compensation for college athletes, effective July 1. Six other states passed their own legislation that was later signed by their respective governors—Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Texas and New Mexico.

The NCAA's temporary NIL solution—an alternative model—could grant just as many rights to athletes as permissive state laws. In this plan, the NCAA is avoiding responsibility, placing the onus on schools and conferences to draft their own proposals to avoid legal issues.

https://www.si.com/college/2021/06/26/nc...s-bylaw-12

Trying to regulate compensation for a star based entertainment events is not going to hold up well in courts. It's trying to keep the accounting simple for school administrators rather than fairly compensate.

Without a Union bargaining away such rights in a collective agreement I really doubt this offer any legal protection at all.

No performance based pay yet coach routinely get increases based on performance.

(06-26-2021 05:13 PM)cleburneslim Wrote:  No performance based pay yet coach routinely get increases based on performance.

Exactly. Both of the things the NCAA prohibits for athletes are commonplace for coaches. They get performance incentives, and they get pay and endorsements conditioned on them coaching the team they're with.

I role play at NationStates.net and I just dealt with this very issue. I decided their scholarship is enough compensation.

Limits wont work without a players union. So what will that mean? Paying similar to the G league Ignite for top recruits:



That's at likely around $200,000 for a top 20 recruit.

Jalen Green got about $250,000 plus benefits according to Adam Zagoria's sources.

Jaden Hardy (#2) and Michael Foster (#7) signed with the G League Ignite. It's like another top college program competing right now. In the near future your Duke, Gonzaga, Michigan, Oregon, et al, are going to have to dish out similar money for top stars and solid money for depth players (my WAG $70-100,000).

Note 247Sports ranks them #3 and #17 respectively, so take the rankings as more rough estimates; they always look jumbled a bit when the NBA draft comes the next year, but the top ones are still near the top, the middle mostly in the middle, and many bust, fall out of the picture entirely.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/baske...errankings

Football is at least 4x the earnings of Basketball, so your five star recruits will be asking for 3x or 4x the money as their basketball counterparts. A quarterback like Trevor Lawrence or Justin Fields who were the top recruits in their class could well command over 7 figures.

It's going to be very expensive to stay relevant.

Well this could get interesting. From Dennis Dodds Twitter account—-

Part of an NIL Q&A distributed to ADs and compliance I never thought I'd read:

Q: Can individuals enter into NIL agreements with boosters?
A: Yes ... (if it is in accordance with state law and/or school policy)

(06-30-2021 04:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Well this could get interesting. From Dennis Dodds Twitter account—-

Part of an NIL Q&A distributed to ADs and compliance I never thought I'd read:

Q: Can individuals enter into NIL agreements with boosters?
A: Yes ... (if it is in accordance with state law and/or school policy)

Here's that Q&A
https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/NIL/NIL_QandA.pdf

More from CBS

In a Q&A distributed to school athletic directors and compliance departments, the NCAA also clarified that athletes can enter into NIL agreements with boosters "provided the activity is in accordance with state laws and school policy, is not an impermissible inducement and does not constitute pay-for-play."

Additionally, prospective student-athletes still in high school may also engage in the same types of NIL opportunities without impacting their NCAA eligibility. Similarly, such opportunities "may not be used as a recruiting inducement or as a substitute for pay-for-play."

"The new policy preserves the fact college sports are not pay-for-play," said Division II Presidents Council chair Sandra Jordan. "It also reinforces key principles of fairness and integrity across the NCAA and maintains rules prohibiting improper recruiting inducements. It's important any new rules maintain these principles."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...arn-money/

(06-30-2021 05:35 PM)Maize Wrote:  More from CBS

In a Q&A distributed to school athletic directors and compliance departments, the NCAA also clarified that athletes can enter into NIL agreements with boosters "provided the activity is in accordance with state laws and school policy, is not an impermissible inducement and does not constitute pay-for-play."

Additionally, prospective student-athletes still in high school may also engage in the same types of NIL opportunities without impacting their NCAA eligibility. Similarly, such opportunities "may not be used as a recruiting inducement or as a substitute for pay-for-play."

"The new policy preserves the fact college sports are not pay-for-play," said Division II Presidents Council chair Sandra Jordan. "It also reinforces key principles of fairness and integrity across the NCAA and maintains rules prohibiting improper recruiting inducements. It's important any new rules maintain these principles."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...arn-money/

Based on what Im reading here---the NCAA strategy in crafting this guidance was to make the new NCAA rules as liberal---or more liberal---than any current state law--thus avoiding any conflict with state laws. Basically, the NIL rules in states without a NIL law could often end up being far more lucrative for players than states that actually passed NIL laws---but passed a NIL law that is more restrictive than the NCAA rule. I will say the Texas law may not be any more restrictive than the NCAA law. Texas bars anyone "affilated" with a school from offering an NIL opportunity to a player. So--it depends as to whether the state considers "boosters" to be "affiliated" with the school or not. If they only consider those that actually work for the school to be "affiliated"---then the Texas law would be basically identical to the NCAA rule. If Texas considers "boosters" to be "affiliated" with a school---then the Texas law would be significantly more restrictive than the new NCAA NIL rules.

(06-30-2021 06:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-30-2021 05:35 PM)Maize Wrote:  More from CBS

In a Q&A distributed to school athletic directors and compliance departments, the NCAA also clarified that athletes can enter into NIL agreements with boosters "provided the activity is in accordance with state laws and school policy, is not an impermissible inducement and does not constitute pay-for-play."

Additionally, prospective student-athletes still in high school may also engage in the same types of NIL opportunities without impacting their NCAA eligibility. Similarly, such opportunities "may not be used as a recruiting inducement or as a substitute for pay-for-play."

"The new policy preserves the fact college sports are not pay-for-play," said Division II Presidents Council chair Sandra Jordan. "It also reinforces key principles of fairness and integrity across the NCAA and maintains rules prohibiting improper recruiting inducements. It's important any new rules maintain these principles."

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...arn-money/

Based on what Im reading here---the NCAA strategy in crafting this guidance was to make the new NCAA rules as liberal---or more liberal---than any current state law--thus avoiding any conflict with state laws. Basically, the NIL rules in states without a NIL law could often end up being far more lucrative for players than states that actually passed NIL laws---but passed a NIL law that is more restrictive than the NCAA rule. I will say the Texas law may not be any more restrictive than the NCAA law. Texas bars anyone "affilated" with a school from offering an NIL opportunity to a player. So--it depends as to whether the state considers "boosters" to be "affiliated" with the school or not. If they only consider those that actually work for the school to be "affiliated"---then the Texas law would be basically identical to the NCAA rule. If Texas considers "boosters" to be "affiliated" with a school---then the Texas law would be significantly more restrictive than the new NCAA NIL rules.

In the end...we both know schools and states for that matter will “model” their rules to the most liberal policy possible.

Now what caught my eye was what they said on high schools..now that is interesting...I immediately thought of IMG Academy....