If the deal is truly a marketing deal it's nothing the NCAA can do. Their attempt to bar "boosters" is moreso around "pay to play" like the under the table payments thats been going on for decades. At least that's how I interpret it.
Well he did say the list is only partial tied to on field performance so I guess that make sense. Btw, both of those events happened within the past 12 months. Without this happening his whole argument blows up.