A writer criticizing Ohio State NIL approach

I do not understand the situation completely. But here is my hunch about what is going on. I could be wrong.

Ohio State is promising only pay-for-play, which is based on some 14M to football Bjork talked about, as a result of the House settlement. But there is also a NIL program working through collectives at the same time. Ohio State is not touching that, and the player will have to work out with collectives after they enroll. The NIL money through collectives must be approved by a special clearinghouse (not NCAA). If the NIL money is not consistent with the market value, the clearinghouse will deny it. So, imagine Ohio State is working with just 14M, and the money is to be divided among the players on the entire rosters. The amount to offer to one recruit will necessarily be small. It would be very difficult to offer anyone 1M.

But how about USC? They offer not only the pay-for-play, which would be similar to ours. They also offer NIL money through collectives. But the clearinghouse will not be operating until July 1. How can they offer NIL-collective money? They assume the old rule applies (no clearinghouse approval needed) until July 1. So, in the meantime they offer outrageous NIL package.

Ohio State interprets that the new rules have been in effect since the judge made the ruling. That is why the article says we “follow the rules to the tee”.

So, something interesting might happen on July 1.