Go VIP - One Month for Only $1

Name, Image and Likeness. NIL. That phrase — or, more commonly, its acronymic equivalent — is arguably the most discussed topic in college sports these days.

The days of amateur athletes not being given a chance to earn their full market value have gone the way of the dodo. And much like the dodo itself, their inability to adapt was among the key reasons for their extinction. The NCAA, in its infinite stubbornness and shortsightedness, failed to reach a deal that could have prevented the NIL case from reaching the Supreme Court, which led to a groundbreaking — but sensical — ruling that virtually led to anarchy.

With few sensible exceptions — no gambling, alcohol or tobacco deals, no deals that conflict with a school’s existing athletic apparel deals, etc. — the Wild West is here. And the view on this end is it's more or less here to stay. I’m no lawyer, but from this vantage point, any attempt to seriously reign in NIL seems likely to run afoul of the Supreme Court’s decision. There’s precedent now. If you try to throw a wrench into this, you shall be smote by the highest legal authority in the land.

If you’ve seen the salaries of major-revenue-sport coaches in recent years and didn’t see things reaching this point, you probably can’t be helped. This was always the destination. Always. Rather than accept that and try to ease things to this point, the NCAA fought it, which led to the harshest of duct-tape rips off the mouth.

So now, of course, everyone understands things, right? Right?

Even if they don’t like it, they accept that it’s here to stay, right? Right?

The Great Pearl-Clutching is upon us.

Some dissent could be found in the ranks when coaching salaries in college football started swelling exponentially, and even a bit of dissent could be found when the size of football coaching staffs got silly. But neither compared to the dissent that started to emerge the moment NIL numbers started to surface.

The same free market that determines the worth of coaches now more or less determines the worth of players. It’s not truly the same — there are more handbrakes on players — but it’s much closer to the same than it’s been in the past. And it’s infuriating some people.

Even some of the coaches and administrators who’ve made enough money to send their great-great grandchildren to college are upset about players getting a bigger piece of that pie. Most of them have carefully couched their language. Others have come out openly and said it. Either way, their feelings aren’t hard to find. They don’t like it. Or they’re just uncomfortable about it.

They’ll tell you their concerns are about the financial sustainability of the situation, the chemistry in the locker room or the unleveling of the playing field.

Let’s look at each of those three issues.

Financial sustainability? That’s a fair concern. But the market figured it out with coaches’ salaries, and it’ll do the same with NIL funds in time. Mistakes will be made, to be sure, but this a country built on capitalism, for better or worse. This is our way. It’s what we do. It’s who we are. Adapt or go extinct.

Locker room chemistry? Take those concerns somewhere else. That’s your problem to solve, coaches. Not ours. Adapt or go extinct.

Unleveling the playing field? Take that garbage and shove it. The playing field has never been and never will be level, unless you want to start paying every coach at every school the exact same, and making sure every stadium is the same size and every facility has the exact same amenities. That argument is worth less than nothing. It’s a joke.

There are other concerns, and some of them are understandable. What if, for instance, a group of boosters pays $10 million for a quarterback prospect, and that quarterback loses the job to a freebie in preseason camp? Those boosters might not love that. But that’s life. I’m no economist or market expert, but I feel safe in suggesting there’s no such thing as a risk-free investment in business or life. I didn’t get married until age 35 because I made a long series of poor romantic investments before getting it right. Now I’m a new dad at age 39 and probably will look like the grandfather of my children. Them’s the breaks.

Investing millions of dollars on athletes 18 and younger will always be risky, but the game known to most of the world as football has operated like that for a long time.

Many wanted college sports in this country to be different. Well, they should have thought of that before pumping billions of dollars into it. The labor force is young, but it’s not stupid. It saw the fruit of its labor going mostly to others, and it put a stop to it.

We all know many student-athletes have been given additional compensation over the years. Pretending otherwise is beyond naive. At least now it’s mostly above board. That’s a good thing, and even the biggest detractors of NIL rights should appreciate that.

Maybe you’re one of the people OK with college athletes being paid for their performance on campus but not OK with paying recruits on the front end to entice them to a specific school. The NCAA is firmly in that group. That’s not an unreasonable stance. I don’t agree with it, but it’s not unreasonable. I don’t know how drawing a line between those things makes that much difference. I still believe the market determines what anyone is worth. I don’t find the free market flawless or beyond reproach in all matters, but I’ll never be on board with restricting the financial freedoms of any prospect or player unless the same restrictions are put on their coaches and administrators.

Coaches and administrators have every right to speak their mind on these matters and offer their concerns. I also have the right to suggest many of their concerns are self-centered ones. In my experience, high-level coaches and administrators don’t tend to favor anything that even slightly weakens their grip on absolute power. Coaches don’t want to add potential NIL chemistry problems on top of the myriad issues that already make even the best programs potentially volatile on a daily basis, and administrators don’t want to compete with NIL consortiums for that sweet, sweet cash from sugar daddy and sugar mommy boosters. They’ve enjoyed the lack of competition that’s allowed them to fund ever-rising coaches’ salaries and all those rims and spinners on their facilities.

The times have changed. We all must change with them. The opportunity to ease into this process is gone. The NCAA's intransigence has Leeroy Jenkinsed us into this thing. Alright, chumps, let’s do this. At least we have chicken.

Here’s what hasn’t changed: Those who do the most to win will usually win. Money previously spent legally on coaches and facilities and illegally on players must now be shared above board with the labor force. Boo-hoo. Adapt or go extinct.

The stigma placed on programs willing to maximize their NIL funding is silly. It’s no less legal than investing in coaches or facilities and shouldn’t be viewed one bit differently.

If your child could make $1 million to sign with State U or $3 million to sign with State Tech, what would you advise them to do? Maybe they’d love State U enough to go there, anyway, or maybe State U’s better track record of developing future pros is so much better that it’s still the best best for the long run. Nothing wrong with that. But there’s nothing wrong with going to the highest bidder, either. People in all walks of life have done that for centuries. Stop clutching your pearls.

Go VIP - One Month for Only $1

© 2005-2022 CBS INTERACTIVE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. CBS Sports is a registered trademark of CBS Broadcasting Inc.