[chrisk]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be above board but it will be so totally hamstrung by litigation it won't matter much. There are so many targets for litigation already apparent it boggles the mind.

Since all Power 5 schools are on board and legitimate third party payments are allowed, who would have a financial interest in appealing this decision? And would an appeals court put a stay on implementation? What would the irreparable harm be that would require a stay?

[chrisk]

... calls into question if this payment is for Name, Image, or Likeness, which is allowed, or simply pay-to-play, which I think isn't allowed.  

I think we are way, way beyond this crossroads, are we not? Who is enforcing what is "allowed", anyway? Crickets as far as I can tell.

As part of the House settlement (assuming it is approved), a process will be established by Deloitte to vet all third party NIL deals to ensure they are legitimate as well as monitor all revenue sharing payouts by schools.  

In other words, all financial transactions are being reviewed by a non-NCAA entity.  That alone gives me confidence the new arrangements will be above board.

It may be above board but it will be so totally hamstrung by litigation it won't matter much. There are so many targets for litigation already apparent it boggles the mind.

Since all Power 5 schools are on board and legitimate third party payments are allowed, who would have a financial interest in appealing this decision? And would an appeals court put a stay on implementation? What would the irreparable harm be that would require a stay?