If the argument is essentially just "the system is just a sham anyway, so just let the money flow where it wants" -- how about we do this in all other areas? I know this is not a great analogy, but why have a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act? Many foreign governments are brazenly corrupt and U.S. companies have no chance there without some form of bribery. Rather than disadvantage our companies and workers and potentially lose to less efficient competition who may be trying to build better infrastructure, why not just let the money flow and make anything legal so we can at least do things more efficiently? We could say this in many different areas.

I am frustrated on this issue and also think there are some analogies to larger politics. In general, it feels like the single loudest argument is how it just feels patently unfair to some that the NCAA makes "so much" without some "fair share" flowing to the athletes in two particular sports that drive the revenue. In the meantime, the tangible benefits that in fact do flow to these student-athletes are enormous. Thousands of other kids would do anything for that spot and kind of deal. It also ignores how the money from revenue sports funds many things that would never otherwise exist but for that revenue. The fact that some larger portion doesn't flow back to the students who may be there for a couple of years (more than it already does in the form of their current benefits) does not strike me as a problem that really needs fixing.

What is pathetic is the enforcement of what the system is supposed to be. And I don't want to hear that the rules are "so complicated". Sure, there will always be some tricky and gray areas, but it would be extremely easy to get serious about some of the garbage that is happening the biggest places.

I'm all for more serious development of alternate leagues/paths for players who have no interest really being in college. That is overdue and it seems like that may starting to develop a bit more. But the answer does not need to be for more creative ways for college players (or high school -- why not high school as well?) to monetize their marketing opportunities -- opportunities incidentally that are certainly related to their own skill, but also a very real function of the marketing done over the years by the NCAA and those schools (as their ability to monetize would drop to possibly zero if they are not tied to certain schools). It isn't purely about the player, but something built up through intense marketing and school exposure over years -- something that would then be exponentially more intense going forward. For those who think it can't get any worse, it can get much worse. The incentives through the system to see the same teams getting 100% (and their uniforms, products, etc...) of the media/corporate push for maximum exposure and championships would be significantly larger than they are today.

We can do better in my opinion.