I work in relational databases everyday, so I get the premise.
The article isn't really an article, but rather their static explainer on what data they use and how they choose to interpret it (see smudge). Practically, they only have one real data point, and it's incomplete - Deal Data. The others they list are subjective: Performance, Influence, and Exposure. It's possible that "Exposure" is entirely based on social following and is a legitimate measurement, but I don't really care.
I was commenting on the content of Terry's post which is entirely separate from their NIL valuation albrorithm, though he does reference some of their terminology.
I think he's saying/implying a few things:
Scholarship players are paid a base salary which is described here as an athletes "roster value", or the cost to keep them on the roster
On average, roughly 10% of the money that a player receives is a result of NIL deals - deals that are specific to the player's marketability
Collectives/Schools are on the hook for 325M spread out over 69 schools and 5,865 scholarship players.
If I read that correctly, we've not seen real numbers on what the market will tolerate in a public forum...
...and it doesn't sound like we're working with real numbers now either, unfortunately. I did not consider this fact and I have no idea how they could even back into 325M with the data publicly available. Of course that's why they're confident sharing it as it's not auditable.
All to say - the economics of it all are fascinating and I'll look forward to real data becoming available.