[Genuine Realist]

The solution, laid out above, is for the NCAA to stand clear and let athletes' contract with pro franchises be compensated directly for their athletic potential. 

Isn't this what is happening now (and has been happening for a while) with European soccer?  The pro franchises find kids with potential and get them in their system/academies.  If that's what you're advocating, GR, I'm with you.

That is a system separate from colleges and universities.  Indeed, that is a primary goal of many in the U.S. seeking to make America more competitive with ROW in international soccer.

I think it's a terrible system, similar to the baseball minor leagues and G League. You might have added Canadian hockey to the futbol list.

Why put a good athlete with a brain in his head on that kind of either/or choice? College athletics are enriched by the participation of good athletes, and of course the athlete himself benefits by exposure to a life outside an athletic ghetto. There is no downside.

Why this clinging to notions of amateurism that have been abandoned in every other field of athletics? And that made little sense after 1960, when a professional athletic career became a viable life option?

---

The idea that boosters won't pay millions of dollars to land coveted high school recruits is so preposterous I can't even believe anyone would post such a thing.

Boosters raise most of the money to pay the bulk of coach salaries. And coaches are hired in large measure to recruit those coveted high school athletes. If they have the ability, why would boosters not cut to the chase and pay recruits directly?

NIL may be the "legal" vehicle by which athletes are compensated, but there is nothing that says any NIL deal has to be a smart business decision in terms of a business ROI.  There are going to be legit endorsement deals that don't go beyond the market value of an endorsement deal. But there are absolutely going to be athletes who are compensated well above typical market rate in deals that have no intention of being business ROI positive, because they are really about paying an athlete to join a certain team, and there is a market for the talent.

The NCAA will still say schools aren't allowed to pay players to attend their program, but there is nothing in place that can prevent that from happening, so it will.

Well, that's one way to dispose of an argument.

No, boosters will not pay millions of dollars. They never have. 

Agents and third parties pay much more substantial premiums, of course, but they are investing in the kid's athletic potential. At present, the NCAA lumps them together, as improper payments. But it is apples and oranges. 

What I'd like to see are third parties, particularly pro franchises, invest directly in the athletic career. That's much different than simple boosterism, and likely to be far more remunerative, which is precisely why it levels the playing field.

[Genuine Realist]

The solution, laid out above, is for the NCAA to stand clear and let athletes' contract with pro franchises be compensated directly for their athletic potential. 

Isn't this what is happening now (and has been happening for a while) with European soccer?  The pro franchises find kids with potential and get them in their system/academies.  If that's what you're advocating, GR, I'm with you.

That is a system separate from colleges and universities.  Indeed, that is a primary goal of many in the U.S. seeking to make America more competitive with ROW in international soccer.

I think it's a terrible system, similar to the baseball minor leagues and G League. You might have added Canadian hockey to the futbol list.

Why put a good athlete with a brain in his head on that kind of either/or choice? College athletics are enriched by the participation of good athletes, and of course the athlete himself benefits by exposure to a life outside an athletic ghetto. There is no downside.

Why this clinging to notions of amateurism that have been abandoned in every other field of athletics? And that made little sense after 1960, when a professional athletic career became a viable life option?

---

The idea that boosters won't pay millions of dollars to land coveted high school recruits is so preposterous I can't even believe anyone would post such a thing.

Boosters raise most of the money to pay the bulk of coach salaries. And coaches are hired in large measure to recruit those coveted high school athletes. If they have the ability, why would boosters not cut to the chase and pay recruits directly?

NIL may be the "legal" vehicle by which athletes are compensated, but there is nothing that says any NIL deal has to be a smart business decision in terms of a business ROI.  There are going to be legit endorsement deals that don't go beyond the market value of an endorsement deal. But there are absolutely going to be athletes who are compensated well above typical market rate in deals that have no intention of being business ROI positive, because they are really about paying an athlete to join a certain team, and there is a market for the talent.

The NCAA will still say schools aren't allowed to pay players to attend their program, but there is nothing in place that can prevent that from happening, so it will.

Well, that's one way to dispose of an argument.

No, boosters will not pay millions of dollars. They never have. 

Agents and third parties pay much more substantial premiums, of course, but they are investing in the kid's athletic potential. At present, the NCAA lumps them together, as improper payments. But it is apples and oranges. 

What I'd like to see are third parties, particularly pro franchises, invest directly in the athletic career. That's much different than simple boosterism, and likely to be far more remunerative, which is precisely why it levels the playing field.