As an aside, in what I do for a living we generally take incoming from the other side- we are considered the whipping boys for capitalism gone amuck , so getting characterized as Communistic may be my new badge of honor for me :)

Anyway the first point is practical. I don't think VT can succeed vis-à-vis their competition in this new world. If Will Stewart/TSL want to do a deal for a couple of thousand bucks to a player to do some podcasts or whatever- that is a legitimate business purpose- TSL is betting the investment will pay off in added subscriptions or other ways. Cool! Everyone wins (or at least goes into it thinking so). On the other hand , for example Kevin Plank and Under Armour & Co wants to find a way to help Maryland attract the highest level recruits possible. Is there anything stopping them from implicitly implying that any basketball or football recruit is going to get a 'good " deal (and having Coach Lock and Coach Turg and staffs make sure the recruits get the message)? The "deal" will have no basis in economic reality for Under Armour- Plank just wants his team to win. How is VT going to end up in those type recruiting battles? Maybe there is something in the legislation that I don't know about which prevents any deal that can't be defended by the Company in legitimate economic terms. If so let me know. Otherwise it is just free agency to the highest booster bidder. I have my value judgement about that in regards to college athletics, but that is beside my point- that VT will not fare well in this kind of market.

Secondly, about my fantasy. Let's start with this premise- that all of this is a result that college athletics generates billions and none of it (or little) is going to the players generating that income. It is true- but where is this windfall going? Not to new research facilities on campuses , not to the general fund to help lower everyone's tuition. No it is plowed right back into the athletic department to fund the arms races in coaches salaries, staffs, and facilities. What is VT's athletic budget - $90mm or so? I dont really know. But bear with me. If you gave a $20k annual stipend (above everything else) to scholarship players in the two major revenue generating sports- that is basically 100 athletes times $20k, or about $2mm a year. Or maybe it goes to $30k and $3mm. How are schools going to zero out the budget- I dont know- why not try more reasonable coaches salaries, or staff requirements , or not building outlandish facilities. Maybe the "profits" should go to the player's and not the coach's palatial homes or new player lounges etc. Just a thought. But that's the extent of the gig- players sign up for that - nothing under the table. Or they go truly pro and get what they think is their "full" market value. Bama, Kansas St and VT are all living under the same way of doing things. Maybe lesser division schools do only $10k stipends. Bottom line- isnt something like that better for college athletics in general and the 100 athletes in question in general then where the current system is going to take us? Look the horse is already out the barn now- what i propose aint gonna work now. But if we had gotten to something like that before the courts got involved, IMO we'd be in a much better spot - both for VT specifically and the college athletics in general.