MCAI Lex Vision: Foresight Simulation of the SCORE Act and NCAA Settlement

Legislative Coherence and Institutional Risk Analysis

Jul 16, 2025

See new NIL analysis MCAI Lex Vision: Navigating the NCAA NIL Compliance Matrix, Strategic Foresight for Universities Balancing Settlement Requirements, SCORE Act Provisions, and Executive Order Pressures: A University of Washington Analysis (July 2025)

I. Simulation Overview

The SCORE Act arrives at a pivotal moment—just weeks after a $2.8 billion NIL settlement and amidst growing pressure on institutions to reconcile legal compliance with public trust. While the bill offers clarity on compensation limits, antitrust protection, and athlete status, it does so in a rapidly shifting ecosystem. Policy decisions made today will either anchor long-term legitimacy or expose colleges to a fresh wave of narrative, legal, and financial risk. This report simulates how those decisions are likely to perform over time—across legal, reputational, and structural dimensions.

MindCast AI (MCAI conducted this foresight simulation using its proprietary Cognitive Digital Twin (CDT) architecture, designed to model foresight under real-world stress conditions. The analysis does not ask whether the law is clear—it asks whether the law will hold. Drawing on five months of NIL-specific foresight simulations—including MCAI Lex Vision: National NIL Simulation Framework (July 2025) —we tested the SCORE Act’s structure against the future most institutions are likely to face.

Contact mcai@mindcast-ai.com to partner with us.

II. Foresight Methodology: CDT-Based Structural Forecasting

To understand the durability of a policy like the SCORE Act, it is no longer sufficient to model only its legal language. Today's regulatory landscape is shaped by how athletes, institutions, fans, media, and lawmakers will behave under pressure—not how they operate on paper. Policy makers need input from predictive cognitive AI. MCAI uses CDTs to simulate, with foresight, how each stakeholder group adapts, resists, or recalibrates when confronted with new constraints or incentives. These simulations reveal not just outcomes, but the causal paths that lead institutions to resilience—or collapse.

CDTs were developed for schools across athletic, financial, and reputational profiles—such as USC, Texas, Stanford, UW, and Notre Dame. Athlete models were differentiated by sport, visibility, and access to collectives, while legal twins included both federal regulators and state AGs. Each twin was subjected to scenario stress loops involving NIL cap enforcement, employment lawsuits, media scrutiny, collective-backed deals, and transparency breakdowns. Through recursive foresight modeling, MCAI projected how the SCORE Act would influence system behavior, narrative cohesion, and institutional vulnerability by 2028, as previously explored in MCAI Lex Vision: DOJ Participation in Zeigler v. NCAA (June 2025).

III. Legislative Coherence Under Foresight Simulation

Legal clarity is not the same as structural integrity. While the SCORE Act addresses many of the NCAA’s immediate vulnerabilities—state law conflicts, antitrust liability, employment threats—it does so with static tools in a dynamic environment. MCAI foresight simulations tested whether the Act’s provisions hold together not just in isolation, but under the weight of evolving public scrutiny, economic incentives, and institutional behaviors. What emerged is a law that is technically coherent, but structurally brittle—strong on containment, weak on legitimacy, as demonstrated in MCAI Lex Vision: The NCAA NIL Settlement, Foresight Realized (June 2025).

A. Federal Preemption

The move to override state NIL laws was expected and modeled months before the bill’s introduction. In our foresight simulations, preemption succeeded in restoring institutional consistency but triggered secondary effects: it neutralized high-trust differentiators (like California’s early NIL law) and prevented reform-minded universities from piloting more athlete-forward models. Long-term, this risks creating a lowest-common-denominator system where innovation is penalized and mimicry rewarded.

B. The 22% Compensation Cap

This provision formalizes the settlement structure of House v. NCAA into federal law. In MCAI’s foresight simulation loops, particularly the NIL Simulation Framework, this rigid ceiling consistently triggered collusion risk, wage suppression allegations, and narrative collapse—especially when no public rationale or flexibility mechanism was attached. Institutions that simply “comply” without differentiating their cap strategy face higher risk exposure in court and in public trust.

C. Athlete Employment Carve-Out

The Act’s most strategic firewall is its denial of employee classification for college athletes. Legally, this offers schools breathing room. But MCAI foresight simulations—particularly the NIL Employment Classification Risk Map—show the firewall erodes quickly unless athletes are given voice, influence, or structural legitimacy in compensation and governance—none of which the Act requires.

D. Transparency Provisions

Mandating disclosure of student athletic fees looks responsible at first glance, but foresight simulation outcomes (referenced in the DOJ Participation simulation) showed this has little impact unless paired with full NIL payment transparency and governance visibility. CDT responses from media and athlete models flagged the limited transparency as a red flag—suggesting concealment or control rather than good faith disclosure.

E. Antitrust Immunity

From a legal perspective, this is the centerpiece of the bill: immunity in exchange for compliance. But foresight models suggest that immunity without calibration (e.g. sunset clauses, periodic policy review, or audit triggers) creates complacency. By 2028, immunity without accountability becomes reputational ballast—and may invite a second wave of state or federal legislative scrutiny, as modeled in NCAA NIL Settlement, Foresight Realized.

IV. Foresight Simulation Comparison Table: MCAI vs SCORE Act Outcomes

A policy’s foresight performance depends not just on whether it passes—but how it behaves once passed. MCAI ran the SCORE Act against five key foresight models developed between May and July 2025, including foresight simulations of the NCAA settlement, NIL employment risk, DOJ repositioning, and athlete trust scenarios. These foresight simulations—referenced in sections I-III—were powered by CDT behavioral loops and mapped against three core benchmarks: legal durability, trust resilience, and institutional differentiation. Below is a synthesis of results:

The foresight simulation confirms that foresight is a stronger indicator of legal survival than statutory intent. Institutions that exceed the law’s static baseline with trust-oriented practices will be structurally safer than those that merely comply.

V. Strategic Recommendations from CDT Foresight Simulation

Foresight modeling reveals what a statute will become when pushed by time, scrutiny, and behavioral pressure. The SCORE Act is not fatally flawed—but it is incomplete. With minor structural additions, its legal defenses could be transformed into lasting institutional scaffolding. These five strategic upgrades emerged repeatedly from MCAI’s CDT loops—particularly from the NIL Simulation Framework and Restructuring NIL Settlement Simulation—as the highest-leverage design corrections.

MCAI Proposed Amendments to the SCORE Act

Replace the 22% cap with a 20–30% flexible range
Allow schools to calibrate based on revenue structure, mission, and transparency posture. This reduces collusion risk and creates narrative legitimacy.
Require creation of Athlete Budget Advisory Committees (ABACs)
These bodies would give athletes advisory rights over discretionary NIL fund allocation, improving trust and reducing employment misclassification exposure.
Mandate NIL rationale disclosures
Institutions must publish why they’ve chosen a particular compensation level and how it aligns with educational mission or equity principles.
Introduce a 5–6 year policy review cycle
Future-proof the law by ensuring that stakeholder models and enforcement priorities are periodically reevaluated.
Preserve Olympic sport and Title IX program funding as a protected floor
Foresight simulation loops consistently forecast public backlash when NIL payouts are offset by program cuts.

These reforms would allow the law to evolve through foresight rather than be replaced through conflict. They transform compliance into coherence.

VI. Conclusion: Foresight Is Not a Luxury—It’s the Load-Bearing Architecture

The SCORE Act is a short-term answer to a decade-long structural question. It shields institutions from immediate legal threats but does so without upgrading the system’s foresight infrastructure. MCAI foresight simulations—across all referenced models in sections I-V—show that stakeholder trust, employment reclassification resistance, and future antitrust security all depend not on what’s written—but on what’s enacted, justified, and recalibrated.

If passed as-is, the SCORE Act will buy time. But time without foresight is wasted. The institutions that will lead in the NIL era will be those who treat compliance not as the finish line, but as the floor—those who simulate what’s coming, not just what’s defensible.