Teejers1, while I agree with a lot of what you say, I think the taxonomy of the groups on this subject you present is a bit too simplistic. First of all, the true "free traders" would be perfectly happy with the athletes demanding to be paid and would also be perfectly happy with the Universities forming an NCAA that would collude to forbid it. Anti-trust legislation was (at least originally) considered a "progressive" idea. The second group (where I find myself) consists of people who realize the system as it exists does in fact, and always has violated existing law. Baseball has an anti-trust exemption for a reason. College athletics doesn't, and it can't therefore legally engage in the anti-competitive collusion that it now does. There is a third group that is convinced that the present system is "unfair" to the athletes and therefore must be "corrected". This last group is probably the currently largest group. It may be true that this group will prevail, but if they do they need to invent a new structure that is agreeable to all the stakeholders, fair, legal, and will work. I suspect they will fail in that attempt, thereby rending their size moot.
The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. However, the point the SCOTUS has made is that the current regulation of college sports by the NCAA is illegal, period. Even if an agreement could be reached between the "athletes" (whoever that group is defined to be) and the NCAA, it would still be illegal. That issue has to be addressed, and a D league doesn't do so. It has always been assumed that the major pro sports leagues like the NFL and NBA were probably in violation of anti-trust laws but that they were given a pass because they were the "golden goose" for too many people. It is probably impossible for college sports to go the same route because there are too many diverse groups involved.
If some A&M alumnus decides to pay Johnny to play at A&M instead of in the D league, without an organization like the NCAA, who is to prevent it? Even if A&M made a rule they wouldn't allow it, other schools may not make that rule. Then what? The Universities can't get together to decide what is OK, because that is colluding against the athletes. Any solution that preserves college athletics is going to require legislation, period. Whether at the end of the day college athletes will get paid is another question. Right now, the third group being the largest would say yes. However, it isn't easy to imagine a solution that includes that provision without generating an unsolvable set of knock-on problems.
The existence of a football D league is a probable outcome of this situation eventually. However, the point the SCOTUS has made is that the current regulation of college sports by the NCAA is illegal, period. Even if an agreement could be reached between the "athletes" (whoever that group is defined to be) and the NCAA, it would still be illegal. That issue has to be addressed, and a D league doesn't do so. It has always been assumed that the major pro sports leagues like the NFL and NBA were probably in violation of anti-trust laws but that they were given a pass because they were the "golden goose" for too many people. It is probably impossible for college sports to go the same route because there are too many diverse groups involved.
If some A&M alumnus decides to pay Johnny to play at A&M instead of in the D league, without an organization like the NCAA, who is to prevent it? Even if A&M made a rule they wouldn't allow it, other schools may not make that rule. Then what? The Universities can't get together to decide what is OK, because that is colluding against the athletes. Any solution that preserves college athletics is going to require legislation, period. Whether at the end of the day college athletes will get paid is another question. Right now, the third group being the largest would say yes. However, it isn't easy to imagine a solution that includes that provision without generating an unsolvable set of knock-on problems.