is really all of the schools (aka members in either the DI, DII, or DIII). So when "Maybe the goal is to get rid of the NCAA or at least make it irrelevant for the schools that part of the new world" type statements are made, are people really suggesting to get rid of the the other members, the oversight (aka rules, bylaws, etc.) the schools (aka the members) agreed upon, or something else?

If people are suggesting that the goal is to get rid of the oversight, then are they advocating that college athletics should become the Wild Wild West where there are no rules governing the association/club/group? Even if schools decide to leave the NCAA to either form their own association (i.e. the NAIA) or join an existing association (i.e. NFL, NBA, MLB, etc), then I can guarantee you there will be some rules (aka oversight) to govern this new association. It is even possible it is the same oversight that the NCAA currently uses now. Basically only the name will change and everything else will remain the same.

So when someone makes the following statement, "Maybe the goal is to get rid of the NCAA or at least make it irrelevant for the schools that part of the new world," what does that truly mean particularly when it is put into practice? In the case of the CA Senate, it is possible they are trying to force the NCAA (aka the schools) to change its bylaws since former athletes have brought lawsuits against the NCAA over not being compensated for the usage of their likeness to promote video games and school apparel.
[Post edited by VTHokie2000 at 06/25/2019 1:31PM]