You do understand that the NCAA fought tooth and nail against NIL, correct? It wasn't their idea, it was forced upon them by the courts who weren't fooled by the NCAA's song and dance about "student-athletes". This has been coming for the past 30 or more years, since the NCAA sold its soul for TV money and basketball and football players began to live their college years isolated from the rest of the student experience. NIL just redirects a few slices of the pie away from coaches and administrators and into the hands of the day laborers who make them rich. Under-the-table cash and other benefits have been flowing into the top programs for 70 years. It's how many of the bluebloods became bluebloods, and why those teams constantly attract the top talent - and why they typically make up the bulk of the final four.
This is only news if you've been paying absolutely no attention or living on another planet since 1950. LIberalism has nothing to do with any of this, and the people that you are accusing of being "determined to destroy college athletics" fought against this as long and hard as they could. It isn't their fault that a bunch of judges finally called b.s. on the plantation system that exploited talented athletes for millions in the name of "amateurism".
the whole brilliance of NIL from the schools' perspective, is that zero slices of the pie are directed away from schools themselves, coaches and administrators, who worship capitalism as much as any hedge fund manager or corporate CEO.
at least zero slices of the pie are directed away in theory. but in actual application, is where theory will go out the window.
that said, for the administrators, they have no choice.
as for "who" destroyed college amateur athletics, it was the schools, the coaches, and the administrators, not the players.
with the schools themselves, who have been totally captured by pure capitalistic forces, being most to blame. (which is a whole nother discussion).
the players wanted theirs, after the schools, coaches, administrators, had already killed and burried the "amateur" part, and turned it into a full fledged no holds barred capitalistic professional venture.
still, the schools could have paid the players something, and kept some control over the situation.
but holding on to every cent they could, which they did with a tighter grip than Charlton Heston clutched is rifle, was their prime objective far more than keeping any control over the matter.
and in the end, imo, that will cost the schools more than had they just paid the players themselves something and kept some control of the matter, once 3rd parties blow up the "in theory" part, and force the schools themselves to come up with the money the schools hoped outside interests would.
and in giving up all control, schools gave up the ability to keep a level playing field, rather than it eventually becoming a pure bidding war with not even a salary cap.
and don't forget my warning about 3rd parties forcing the schools themselves to be the ones coming up with the money after all, except absent any controls the schools would have had, had they just paid the players themselves in the first place.
sports.yahoo.com
