system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Elite college athletes don't have the leverage they think they do, because college sports would be fine without them.

With NIL you hear  lot about how college athletes are realizing the leverage they have, and how they should push to be paid, to get a percentage of TV deals, etc.  because college sports would be screwed if they stopped playing. This is usually backed with some kind of statement about how the players are the product that's bringing in all the money. This is incorrect. If all the best players joined a minor league system, held out until they were old enough to be pros, went overseas or just flat out refused to play unless paid, it wouldn't have a huge impact. College sports would do just fine without  elite athletes. I believe this for a few reasons...

&#x200B;

1. College sports fans accept they're watching a less talented product (otherwise they'd just watch the pros.) If pro level athletes didn't play collegiate sports, college fans would still be happy watching a less talented product than before. After all, many NCAAF fans will watch games with no pro prospects already. And even if the highest rated games are between the best teams, that is likely just because they're the best teams, not because they have the most pro prospects. 
2. College fans often cite loyalty to the school, a wider variety of offensive and defensive schemes, traditions, etc. as why they prefer college athletics. None of this changes if you only have decent , never gonna be a pro, student-athletes playing. Michigan alum will cheer for Michigan students, whether they're five star future first rounders or local students, the same way you cheer for your local high school team.  
3. Without elite athletes your players have a new appeal. This new brand of players will be much more like average students than future multimillionares who have no need for class, won't skip bowl games, will likely stay all four years, will likely be more locally based, etc. You will need to do more marketing and storytelling to replace the "this kid will be a first round draft pick"  marketing angle college sports currently rely on, but fans might actually like watching them play more. After all, tons of college sports fans favorite players are the guys who didn't become pros, and the NCAA bball Tournament was just as fun without the straight out of high school players like Lebron competing. 
4. Bit of a stretch here, but: Jake Paul has proven people will watch amateurs compete if given an interesting enough storyline. If nobody cares about an elite Cuban professional who can't be hit but would happily watch two sloppy Youtubers box, are we so sure the connection between ratings and talent is what we've been led to believe all these years?
gpt
What the fans care about doesn't matter. What matters is what the schools care about. You know the people who actually end up signing the checks. If your a school famous for their sports programs, ignoring top players essentially kills your school. The schools that make concessions to their player will dominate the league and those that dont will no longer be relevant. Of course you could argue that the schools need to band together with the leagues  and just issue blanket bans for compensating players. The response is always going to be "why would a school like Duke or USC ever do this". Those schools spend millions of dollars in talent scouts, coaches, Nutritionist, etc. All so they can get the best players. Why would they suddenly limit their own ability to get the best players? 

Duke university spent over 100million dollars in order to have one of the best sports programs in the U.S . They do this because they see value in having the best sports program. Losing the best players in their respective leagues will impact their sports program. Therefor the players have leverage.