I would be OK with all of this, were it not for my expectation that the NCAA will make up a whole new set of retarded rules in a desperate attempt to maintain amateurism, instead of just admitting defeat. 

Letting players earn money off of their likeness, autographs, selling paraphernalia, etc will absolutely end amateurism -- or at least the illusion of it.  Instead of a guy getting $300,000 under the table to play somewhere, he will get $300,000 above the table by selling an autographed football.  My guess is that the NCAA will respond with all kinds of ridiculous rules that attempt to limit exploitation of this loophole.  There will be an entirely new set of behavior controls designed to limit the players to getting modest payments.  Most of them will be completely unenforceable and the NCAA will continue to look like a clown show.

There's a whole mess of things to figure out here. I truly wonder how much longer the NCAA will exist.

I think the NIL change puts athletes at the same level as other scholarship students, and is long overdue.

The school itself provides the student with an education (offer not valid in Chapel Hill, NC) and cost-of-attendance assistance in return for their participation in the public exhibition the school puts on. If the student wants to make some money with their talents outside that public exhibition and outside the control of the school, now they'd be welcome to do so.

This is similar to how a scholarship music major wouldn't get paid for performing in a university performance, but could make money in a bar band, offering private lessons, monetizing a Youtube channel where they perform their own music, etc. (Or, I guess, a scholarship dance major getting paid to work evenings in a more exotic locale.)

What I'd really like to see is the NCAA developing something like the systems in pro sports where a designated cut of the revenues from selling jerseys, etc. go into a fund that gets shared among all the players, so that when a QB's jersey gets sold every player on the team gets a small piece of it. Apart from just being fair, that's also a system that would work well for Michigan given our fanbase, brand, Nike relationship, etc.

Some thoughts:

• There will be unanticipated and unintended consequences.  There always is.
• Just because players can now earn from their Name/Image/Likeness, it does not mean that every player will be able to do so.  Some players will not have the popular market appeal, such as interior offensive linemen, defensive tackles, backup players, etc.
• It takes more than a few popular star players to field a championship team; therefore, I predict either: (a) the under-the-table payoffs will continue, or (b) the NIL window will be opened wide and creative ways to get money to nearly everybody will be found; or (c) all of the above will happen.
• Once the dust settles on the NIL rule, I predict there will be a push to open up payment mechanisms so more players can participate, including the lesser- and non-revenue sports.  Rarely do such things ever fully satisfy, and there's almost always a follow-on effort to further address remaining issues.

FWIW.

Another possible positive--half of the recruits getting the big money ($100K+) will end up in the NFL (basedon 5 star yields). It seems far better for them to learn to deal with $100-300K in the structure of a college program with above-board finance management resources than underground through their uncle or in a million dollar lump sum at the NFL draft. 

I think we will be surprised at how many of the recruits spend it well or say that the experience benefited them come NFL signing bonus time. 

Although who knows.

To be clear, this is NOT about schools paying players, this is about extra-curricular activities for which student-athletes can be paid.

This should have NO impact on a school's ability to support its student athletes as it currently does. It does not have any Title IX impact.

Aside from the obvious avenues to abuse the legislation by boosters (paying a star recruit $150k to be the spokesperson for Tuscaloosa Dodge), I don't see the downside of this legislation.

Excellent commentary, Brian!

I love this bill.  Amateurism is a huge scam allowing powerful interests to exploit athletes.  The NCAA is a corrupt and immoral organization built to operate and defend this scam.

The NCAA is just trying to hold onto the current, obscenely profitable model as long as possible.  The NIL path is the most logical and likely the most fair route to compensating the players, but regulation will be needed to address:

• Scholarship limits.  With uncapped NIL potential, scholarships won't matter as much.  Instead of an 85-player limit, each school should only be allowed to accept 25 football players in each scholarship class.  Since redshirts exist, this gives a potential pool of up to 125 players.  Early departures and medical attrition are a thing, but so are transfers and, for many schools, JUCOs.  
• Financial Education and Management.  Having huge amounts of cash for the first time in most of their lives, education and coaching on how to manage finances are an essential piece of this development.  IMO, each player should work with a fiduciary advisor that can help them balance current and future needs and avoid some of the pitfalls we see with pro athletes (Michael Vick, John Daly, Mike Tyson, Boris Becker, Allen Iverson) who were never properly educated and received bad advice that drove them to bankruptcy and beyond.  Again, IMO, this would include setting up a trust for each player that limited how quickly they could spend the money and put some restrictions on spending to help the money last.  The NCAA should be overjoyed to help with this curriculum and give these players vital knowledge that most people--athletes or not--don't understand until they've made huge financial mistakes that cost them for years or even decades.
• Fair pay for fair work.  Don't misunderstand me--if a shoe company wants to pay a kid $1 million for doing a 30 second commercial, that's fine.  I'm more concerned about the shoe company structuring a contract that is not in the player's best interest.  Again, the fiduciary advisor should be reviewing the contracts, and the player should be educated on basic business practices and how to market and use his brand.  The player should always have to do something to get paid.  Helping players learn business and how the world may try to exploit them is in everyone's best interest.  This also means no contracts could be dependent on a player's future performance, playing time, or even school affiliation.  You can pay a player for their NIL, but not to play their sport a certain way or achieve certain milestones or even play for your preferred school.  Obviously boosters will compensate athletes at their institutions, but none of the compensation should be tied to the school or sport itself--you're paying the player for their NIL, not to control them in any way other than the explicit business relationship.
• Harsh penalties for abusers.  Both players and sponsors should be given stiff penalties for trying to abuse the system.  Players are taking cash payments and skirting the trust/fiduciary rules?  Say good-bye to your eligibility.  Sponsors are trying to control players and coaches?  Say hello to fines and/or jail time.  Track the money with traceable payment methods and make sure we're not turning sponsors into slave masters and players into kingpins.

This issue isn't easy or clean, but it's a clear opportunity for everyone to win if it's properly regulated and overseen.  I'm sure I'm missing some big pieces, but this is a good start to a win-win situation that won't destroy college sports, damage athletes' lives, or encourage sponsors to take advantage of players.

Potential Issues -

1) Recruits can't sign these contracts until 18 and enrolled. Bag men will still be big players in recruiting.

2) Recruits getting lots of money creates a loophole around scholarship limits.

3) Nationwide sponsors (Nike, Adidas, etc.) as opposed to locals will be interested in visibility - and may demand a player move to a more lucrative market, or lose their contract.

For the players that receive money, would they be considered independent contractors or employees of the university?

A good argument?