{"resourceId":"foiaball-deloitte-nilgo-pitch-deck-2026","versions":[{"version":"external-3441e917919b2050b14cbba004c80756e5b86ac384f86c5cca2873978c653324","resource":{"id":"foiaball-deloitte-nilgo-pitch-deck-2026","title":"FOIAball publishes Deloitte NILGo pitch: Impact/Institution/Sport scores feed AI deal ranges","organization":"FOIAball / Deloitte (RFP proposals to NCAA)","sector":"College athletics NIL compliance / algorithmic deal clearinghouse","geography":"United States (NCAA Division I / College Sports Commission NIL Go)","publishedAt":"February 19, 2026","publicationDate":"2026-02-19","eventDate":null,"sourceName":"FOIAball","sourceLabel":"Independent investigative reporting — NILGo algorithm pitch documents","sourceUrl":"https://www.foiaball.com/p/deloitte-nilgo-college-sports-commission-pitch-deck","evidenceClass":"independent-reporting","outcomeClass":"cautionary","topics":["governance-procurement","data-security","operating-model","developers-agents"],"finding":"FOIAball published Deloitte and PwC proposals from the NIL clearinghouse RFP that became NILGo. Deloitte’s deck describes evaluating third-party NIL deals by converting athlete and market inputs into numerical scores across Impact, Institution, and Sport categories into a Student Athlete Score used for fair-market ranges, including social followership/engagement, institutional reach, sport market size, and on-field performance percentiles, plus Payor alignment. The article highlights AI learning from retroactively flagged non-compliant deals. PwC’s losing bid (~$6M) was more explicit about automated approval bands around a specified FMV. Author cautions decks predate the House settlement and CSC standup, so production NIL Go may differ.","sledRelevance":"Newly relevant non-archived transparency on the algorithmic NIL clearinghouse every DI program touches—pairs with CSC’s live RoC controls and contrasts prior deepfake/NO FAKES coverage with deal-scoring AI.","evidence":"FOIAball (2026-02-19): Impact/Institution/Sport framing; numerical scores language; Student Athlete Score; social API crawl description; performance percentile examples; AI training-on-flagged-deals language; PwC $6M bid; pre-settlement caveat.","architectureImplications":"Interpretation: schools integrating NIL Go should treat RoC outputs as advisory/compliance gates with appeal paths—not local re-implementation of opaque score formulas.","governanceImplications":"Interpretation: compliance and GC need athlete-facing explainability playbooks for why deals fail RoC, acknowledging pitch-deck FMV language vs public RoC branding.","securityPrivacyImplications":"Interpretation: social, performance, and deal data flowing to a national clearinghouse raise purpose limitation and secondary-use questions for student-athletes.","caveats":"Pre-settlement proposals; production model may have changed; investigative/advocacy tone; not a CSC-authored model card.","streamIds":["college-athletics"],"roles":{"sales":"Open with ADs/compliance living under NIL Go deal clearance without a public model card—FOIAball’s document dump sketches Deloitte’s Impact/Institution/Sport scoring and AI pattern learning from the RFP era, not a guaranteed description of today’s weights. Discover appeal pain points and athlete communication gaps. Bound work to explainability/process design. Do not claim you can reverse-engineer live scores from this article alone.","engineering":"Fit is process/systems integration around an external national clearinghouse, not building a shadow FMV model. Capture deal metadata locally, track RoC outcomes, and support evidence packages for holistic review. Prerequisites: clean Associated-deal taxonomy and athlete identity matching. Constraints: pitch ≠ production; proprietary weights. Security: minimize unnecessary social scrapes locally; protect deal financials.","delivery":"Delivery work is compliance SOP updates, athlete/agent education, and ticketing for deals near RoC edges. Dependencies: CSC portals, GC, and NIL staff. Ownership: compliance owns submissions; GC owns disputes. Skills: staff learn pillar language without overselling precision. Risks: false certainty from old decks, athlete distrust, and local shadow scoring that conflicts with CSC."},"roleDetails":{"sales":{"customerProblem":"DI programs must clear Associated NIL deals through an opaque national algorithmic Range of Compensation process athletes struggle to understand.","stakeholders":["Compliance/NIL","General counsel","Athletic director","Student-athlete advisors","Collectives/agents (external)"],"discoveryQuestions":["What share of deals need holistic review?","How do you explain failures to athletes today?","Which data do you already send beyond CSC minimums?","Where do pitch-deck rumors create false expectations?"],"valueHypothesis":"If schools build explainability and evidence workflows around RoC outcomes, dispute cycle time and athlete trust may improve—without claiming score transparency Deloitte has not published.","potentialEngagement":"Two-week NIL Go operating review: map submission→decision paths, gap athlete FAQs, and design appeal evidence checklists.","unsupportedClaims":["That Feb 2026 pitch weights equal production NIL Go","Ability to predict approvals from public data alone","Guaranteed deal clearance"]},"engineering":{"fit":"Local case management and analytics around CSC NIL Go decisions; not a competing FMV engine.","architectureIntegration":"Deal CRM fields for pillar-relevant evidence; status sync; document store for holistic-test packets; dashboards of clearance/near-miss rates.","prerequisites":["Authoritative deal ledger","Role-based access to financials","Counsel-approved athlete notices"],"constraints":["External proprietary model","Pitch-deck drift risk","Limited public feature list"],"security":"Encrypt deal amounts; restrict social-profile harvesting; vendor/DPA review for any enrichment tools.","proofOfValue":["Median days to clearance","Percent of deals needing holistic review","Athlete comprehension survey after FAQ launch"]},"delivery":{"work":"SOP refresh, athlete education assets, and near-miss triage workflow.","dependencies":["CSC portal access","NIL staff capacity","GC review"],"ownership":"Compliance owns submissions; GC owns legal strategy; AD sponsors athlete communication.","skillsAdoption":"Train staff to discuss pillars and RoC vs pay-for-play myths carefully.","governanceCheckpoints":["Quarterly FAQ update after CSC model batches","Sample audit of holistic packets","No local shadow FMV used as official advice"],"acceptanceCriteria":["Published athlete FAQ","Ticketed appeal path","Logged decision outcomes for season"],"risks":["Relying on outdated pitch decks","Athlete privacy incidents","Conflicts with collectives/agents"]}},"retrievedAt":"2026-09-24T03:23:55Z","enrichedAt":"2026-09-24T03:28:32Z","enrichmentBasis":"retrieved source","accessibilityWorkforceImplications":"Interpretation: opaque scoring may disadvantage athletes with weaker social/institutional reach unless holistic review and education are resourced.","procurementImplications":"Interpretation: when buying NIL ops tools, demand compatibility with CSC submission fields and explicit non-claims about predicting RoC.","operatingModelImplications":"Interpretation: separate national clearinghouse outcomes from local NIL strategy; staff for appeals and athlete communication as core work.","sourceVerification":{"openedUrl":"https://www.foiaball.com/p/deloitte-nilgo-college-sports-commission-pitch-deck","referenceExcerpt":"inputs into numerical scores across categories","promptVersion":"sled-research-v4.0","model":null,"basis":"agent-reported inspection"}}}]}