A couple of counterpoints: if the reason was the NCAA, say that, rather than saying they couldn't do an adult adoption because Oher was over 18. That's a straight up lie.
So hypothetically, if the reason was that the NCAA rules state you can't be adopted over 18, and Tuohy was asked why they didn't adopt Oher, and his answer is "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court." That's a straight up lie?
Is it because he contacted lawyers, is your assumption that it's for actual state law reasons? I assumed a rich booster could contact lawyers to navigate complex NCAA rules (as well as to interact with the NCAA on their behalf and document accordingly), making a statement like this true "we contacted lawyers (to work with the NCAA), they said we couldn't adopt Mike (due to NCAA rules), but we could do a conservatorship.". In my head at least, it seems like a plausible scenario and answer. Though if someone tells me there's never been any NCAA rule like that, then ya it looks like a straight up lie.
if the reason was the NCAA, say that
We're in the world of quick, possibly off-guard, off-the-cuff quotes. I don't expect every quote to provide full historical context. But the quotes preceding that said the whole situation was because of NCAA rules.
Instead, Tuohy said the whole ordeal went down because the NCAA told him if Oher wanted to attend Ole Miss -- he'd have to be considered part of the family due to Touhy's status as a "booster" at the school.
"I sat Michael down and told him, 'If you're planning to go to Ole Miss -- or even considering Ole Miss -- we think you have to be part of the family,'" Tuohy said. "'This would do that, legally.'"
He continued, "We contacted lawyers who had told us that we couldn't adopt over the age of 18; the only thing we could do was to have a conservatorship. We were so concerned it was on the up-and-up that we made sure the biological mother came to court."
So, first dad says "nothing". Then it's $14k each. Then the brother doesn't say how much he got up front or for prior residuals, but notes that from roughly 2018 until 2023 he made $60k - $70k.
On the dad piece, I think you're being too literal. They owned 115 restaurants that they sold for $200m. Michael Oher made $35m, and thinks he's owed millions more from the movie that initially grossed $300m. In that world, $14k is seen as nothing. Have you never referred to trivial amounts (to you) as nothing? And you make it sound like he said he gave 2 different quotes contradicting himself, but the nothing and $14k seems to be from the same quote.
We didn’t make any money off the movie, well, Michael Lewis gave us half of his share. Everybody in the family got an equal share, including Michael. It was about $14,000, each."
This tracks with normal human conversation to me. I didn't get anything, well actually I did get a little something, but it might as well been nothing.
The brother may be confused ($60k-$70k in total tracks with $14k per person), embellishing, etc. Or maybe the mom handles the money, and dad doesn't know better? Could be a lot of things here. Don't know what the truth is. Whatever it is, I don't think it's clear cut.