NIL Has Evolved. Policy Should Too.

When Name, Image, and Likeness rules first went into effect, universities across the US faced a new and deeply uncertain landscape. Their immediate priority was compliance. Institutions moved quickly to establish guardrails that would protect athletes, preserve college logos, and ensure adherence to NCAA and state guidelines.

That early caution made sense. NIL introduced the most significant structural shift in the history of college athletics, and universities responded accordingly.

But NIL in 2026 is so different from NIL in 2021.

The market has matured. Athlete brands aren’t limited to one-off endorsement posts or small local sponsorship deals. Across the country, student-athletes are building equity and royalty-driven brands, designing apparel lines, announcing merchandise drops, forming long-term partnerships, and operating as legitimate business entities.

If you are a fan of Bobcat football, one example should immediately come to mind: Taco Dowler.

Taco has arguably capitalized on his NIL opportunities more effectively than any other student-athlete in the state of Montana, and possibly across the Big Sky Conference. Fans shout his name from the stands. Students stop him walking to class. Kids wear Taco costumes to games, school, birthday parties, and even church. That enthusiasm has now extended into merchandise. Supporters aren’t just cheering. They’re showing their support with a TD14 hat, shirt, hoodie, and backpack.

As cool as this is for Taco, for his supporters, and for his teammates interested in replicating his business model, it raises questions for institutions like Montana State University…

If NIL is no longer temporary or experimental, should policy still operate as if it is?

Early NIL frameworks were designed primarily to manage risk. Today, the greater risk is stagnation. When policy remains static in a dynamic market, standards tend to be set externally rather than internally. Third-party operators, independent vendors, and national brands will continue shaping athlete business activity regardless of institutional involvement.

So, the question I’m asking is: can Montana State University thoughtfully integrate NIL into its broader brand and business strategy while maintaining its integrity, tradition, and institutional standards?

Since 1893, MSU has been building a respected brand rooted in culture, performance, academics, and community identity. Every logo, mark, emblem, and badge represents the student experience, tradition, and long-term institutional value.

Protecting that brand has always been a priority for MSU. And it always will be.

MSU’s current NIL policy must evolve from restriction to structure. My goal is to incorporate structured evaluation mechanisms that define eligibility standards and establish clear operational guidelines for institutional collaboration - this model does not intend to open the door to unregulated commercialization.

In response to the evolving landscape and witnessing key players on MSU athletic programs create their own brands, I have drafted an athlete suitability review that I’m calling the Athlete Standards & Suitability Evaluation Tenets or ASSET. The ASSET framework evaluates structured NIL partnerships through criteria tied to character and conduct, brand alignment, digital and media presence, leadership and program endorsement, and NIL readiness and professionalism. It protects both the university and the athlete by evaluating NIL alignment through these defined standards.

Using ASSET will formalize expectations and review standards which will shift NIL from a reactive compliance model to a proactive brand stewardship strategy.

This is the next phase of NIL.

Rather than focusing on what athletes cannot do, it begins to outline what structured collaboration can look like when aligned with institutional values.

Once MSU establishes clear eligibility criteria for licensed NIL collaborations, the selection of athletes becomes meaningful. It signals that representation of the Montana State brand is tied not only to athletic performance, but also to conduct, leadership, academic standard, humility, and community engagement.

This will create a ripple effect.

When certain student-athletes are entrusted to participate in structured, university-aligned brand initiatives, they become visible examples within the athletic department. Their selection communicates that character and discipline matter beyond the field they're playing on. Over time, recognition shapes behavior.

Athletes respond to incentives. If expanded brand opportunities are tied to demonstrated leadership and alignment with institutional values, more student-athletes will strive to meet that standard.

The domino effect extends beyond athletics. When students see peers being recognized for both performance and character, it reinforces a broader culture of accountability and pride across campus. Structured NIL participation becomes more than a commercial opportunity. It becomes a developmental benchmark.

That is the purpose of the Athlete Standards & Suitability Evaluation Tenets. Not to commercialize the Bobcat brand, but to protect it by tying the evolution of opportunity to updated and adaptable responsibility.

NIL is no longer a disruption. It is a permanent component of collegiate athletics.

The institutions that recognize this shift and respond with clear, structured standards will strengthen their brand.

MSU has an opportunity to lead the Big Sky Conference in this new NIL approach.

This is not about opening the floodgates. It is about establishing a precedent. It is about setting standards.

As the business of college athletics grows more complex, institutional identity must remain clear, protected, and strategically positioned for the long term.

The next phase of NIL will reward institutions that combine protection with structure. The opportunity to shape that phase exists now.