[M T]

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.
...
But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.  Whether it is monopolies, oligarchs, mobsters, or pimps, there is always someone who is profiting.  Some of those see the drug trade as a good thing.   The fact that there are some who see the current situation in college sports as a good thing for them doesn't make it a good thing.

As for your associating (your asserted) changes in certain stats (GSR, medical care, etc) with NIL, you could just as well have asserted that increased college suicides is associated with NIL. NIL is simply too new to have influenced either set of facts.

I would also argue against your claim "The athletes are doing better than ever.",  I would support a statement such as "Some athletes are doing better than ever.  The Haves are having more."   I believe the other shoe hasn't dropped yet.

I'm sure you're aware of the statement "Fewer than 2% of NCAA student-athletes go on to be professional athletes."  There are over 500,000 NCAA student-athletes per year.  How many are getting benefits of NIL, at least more than, say, 1% of their tuition?   If universities start dropping all sports other than FB & Basketball, except those women who balance out the 100-man football rosters, will this be the domino that causes cash-pressed high schools to reduce their sports (since they no longer serve to benefit college entrance)?  I can't say that it will, but others can't say that it won't.

It is appalling to think of Bernard Muir being considered a visionary for his role when Stanford cut 11 sports.

[M T]

So for a lot of people and businesses (ESPN, Fox, CBS), the NIL/unlimited transfer era has been a good thing.
...
But for now, we should recognize that there are others in the world of college sports who are benefiting from the current environment and don't see it as the cusp of doomsday.

IMO, that statement is rather silly.  Whether it is monopolies, oligarchs, mobsters, or pimps, there is always someone who is profiting.  Some of those see the drug trade as a good thing.   The fact that there are some who see the current situation in college sports as a good thing for them doesn't make it a good thing.

As for your associating (your asserted) changes in certain stats (GSR, medical care, etc) with NIL, you could just as well have asserted that increased college suicides is associated with NIL. NIL is simply too new to have influenced either set of facts.

I would also argue against your claim "The athletes are doing better than ever.",  I would support a statement such as "Some athletes are doing better than ever.  The Haves are having more."   I believe the other shoe hasn't dropped yet.

I'm sure you're aware of the statement "Fewer than 2% of NCAA student-athletes go on to be professional athletes."  There are over 500,000 NCAA student-athletes per year.  How many are getting benefits of NIL, at least more than, say, 1% of their tuition?   If universities start dropping all sports other than FB & Basketball, except those women who balance out the 100-man football rosters, will this be the domino that causes cash-pressed high schools to reduce their sports (since they no longer serve to benefit college entrance)?  I can't say that it will, but others can't say that it won't.

It is appalling to think of Bernard Muir being considered a visionary for his role when Stanford cut 11 sports.