Two points: (1) its current NCAA rule, (2) folks talk

Posted on: January 8, 2022 at 19:15:25 CT

I'm merely pointing out it is the NCAA's position, namely NIL deals can't be used to recruit kids. The obvoius course is NIL deals aren't discussed until after a kid has committed.

I fully appreciate the difficulties faced by the NCAA in enforcing it. Essentially, if they do seek to enforce it, they will undoubtedly use statements made after the fact and documents to establish that it happened and then penalize the school. That's essentially what they do with recruiting violatioons.

I am not arguing for or against the proposition that an NIL deal can be used to entice a recruit to commit to a school. I would argue that the rule creates some dangers and risks for programs that ignore it. If the NCAA were to choose to do so, it could commence an allegation against a school and if it found the rule had been violated, it could take punitive action against the school. That's essentially what it does in current enforcement cases. They are brought after the fact and the sanctions, i.e. no post season play, scholarship limitations, etc. are felt by people who may well have had zero involvment in the offenses.

NCAA investigations are always after the fact, after the alleged violations. That doesn't stop it from putting programs on probation, reducing scholarships and/or banning post season play.

The relevant point is the NCAA does not want to see NIL deal bidding wars for recruits and if they happen, it could well take action. That needs to be taken into consideration in structuring an NIL program.

Edited by ScottsdaleTiger at 19:18:15 on 01/08/22