i don't think what this has become is what the courts originally intended. I understood the original idea to be that the NCAA could not PREVENT players from profiting from their OWN name, image, or likeness. And that's a reasonable argument. If the schools can profit from them, why can't the player profit from what is actually HIS (or hers)?
But it is coming down to schools paying, or guaranteeing income to players to play. Originally, I don't think the schools were supposed to be involved. They just weren't supposed to have exclusive use of the players "property".
I don't know what the answer is, but it's all messed up right now. For one thing, I don't think letting players jump schools almost anytime they want is sustainable.
Aries
~Sign of the Rams
