College sports entered an entirely new, and entirely unprecedented, era on July 1 when the House v. NCAA settlement finally took effect. For the first time ever, schools can directly pay players for performance via revenue sharing contracts.

The Commission will judge NIL deals in three categories: payor association, valid business purpose and range of compensation.

The letter to Division I athletic directors could be the next step in shuttering today's version of collectives.

Student-athletes who signed with their school's collective may have to find an alternative source of NIL income.

“Ridiculous. …They’re not just outbidding, they’re outbidding (other teams) by 3X,” one coach told The Athletic. “Wild, but it will be interesting. If the players are good kids, about the right things and about winning, I think it’ll go great. If they’re about themselves, the first time adversity hits will define them.”

Arizona State began distributing revenue-sharing funds to athletes on July 10, in response to the recent House v. NCAA settlement.

In this article, Heights' sports editor Maria Stefanoudakis breaks down the implications of the House vs. NCAA decision on BC athletics.

Here's where the landscape stands after McKenna became the most high-profile player to go from the CHL to the NCAA.

A new college sports agency has rejected certain NIL deals involving donor-backed collectives. These collectives, formed to funnel money to athletes or schools, fail to meet NCAA rules requiring deals to serve a valid business purpose.

Financial considerations have already affected Will Wade’s roster, while Duke is using the lessons of Cooper Flagg’s season to teach players how to handle their new outside responsibilities.