[M T]

If the House payout limit was at a level that every school could make, then there would be little advantage for the University of Alabama over Birmingham Southern.  Yeah, if Title IX is ignored for this, then some schools would pay only for football and no other sport, while other schools would drop football and pay for players for other sports.  But, of course, the full House payment is beyond most schools.  The wealthy get wealthier and the divide gets greater.

If Title IX applies (I do believe the courts will decide that, at least eventually.  Unless, of course, Title IX is rewritten by this Congress.), does this mean 50% for women?  That would be a big deal.

There's also the issue of years of payout to a single player by a single school.  Come play, and we'll redshirt you just so you can get more money; then you'll have an injury year...   Of course the player could double-cross them by transferring without ever playing for them.

As far as the market rate goes, I wonder how the market rate is set?  Who is to say whether being in an ESPN ad is worth $1M or $2M?  ESPN gets to set that.   I suspect there will goldrush into the laundry business, and ESPN is ideally set up for that.

Here's an interesting idea.... If school A can't pay the player enough across 4 years, maybe they can pay in year 1 and have an agreement for the player to transfer to school B for the next year, back and forth.  Imagine Stanford & Cal in a Player Lease arrangement like that.   
Maybe (in theory) BigU could get LittleU to take the player for Freshman year and redshirt him, but pay him out of their $20M (donated by BigU supporters), then he transfers to BigU and gets a big share of the pot, having already been paid a lot before he ever puts on a BigU uniform.

[M T]

If the House payout limit was at a level that every school could make, then there would be little advantage for the University of Alabama over Birmingham Southern.  Yeah, if Title IX is ignored for this, then some schools would pay only for football and no other sport, while other schools would drop football and pay for players for other sports.  But, of course, the full House payment is beyond most schools.  The wealthy get wealthier and the divide gets greater.

If Title IX applies (I do believe the courts will decide that, at least eventually.  Unless, of course, Title IX is rewritten by this Congress.), does this mean 50% for women?  That would be a big deal.

There's also the issue of years of payout to a single player by a single school.  Come play, and we'll redshirt you just so you can get more money; then you'll have an injury year...   Of course the player could double-cross them by transferring without ever playing for them.

As far as the market rate goes, I wonder how the market rate is set?  Who is to say whether being in an ESPN ad is worth $1M or $2M?  ESPN gets to set that.   I suspect there will goldrush into the laundry business, and ESPN is ideally set up for that.

Here's an interesting idea.... If school A can't pay the player enough across 4 years, maybe they can pay in year 1 and have an agreement for the player to transfer to school B for the next year, back and forth.  Imagine Stanford & Cal in a Player Lease arrangement like that.   
Maybe (in theory) BigU could get LittleU to take the player for Freshman year and redshirt him, but pay him out of their $20M (donated by BigU supporters), then he transfers to BigU and gets a big share of the pot, having already been paid a lot before he ever puts on a BigU uniform.