Immediate Eligibility for all transfers

I thought the NCAA talked about a rule change regarding "image and likeness".
Not sure how the University would pay a student-athlete for the use of "image and likeness".
I admit that I don't KNOW anything about how the rule will be codified, administered and possible enforcement of any limits.
I just took a bunch of what I read on the web and surmised that the compensation for an athlete under the "speculated rule" for image and likeness would in fact come from a commercial source.
Which leads me to a couple of thoughts (again based upon my understanding):

1.  NIKE has share-holders to whom they are responsible to make business decisions that create profitability.  I think it highly unlikely that paying a freshman running back $200,000 to wear Nike stuff in a commercial or on a billboard (and then repeating that type of investment in multiple other athletes from the same school, thereby paying millions for "image rights") is the type of marketing investment that will pass the scrutiny of Board Members if such spending is so isolated (e.g favoring a particular school).  Add to that the "cost" of alienating other Nike branded schools and you could end up with an unsuccessful marketing investment.

2.  By the same token, a local merchant that wants to use a popular athlete's likeness and association with a local school to help market their product or service is going to be selective and have a limited budget.  For instance, Local Boyz might want to use the o-line for some advertisement - but you are talking paying 5 or 10 guys $200 each to do the spot.  Yes, it is true cash to the player but not really a recruiting incentive.

Like I said, I have no clue how this would be administered or enforced ... and I immediately start to think a guy like Pat Kilkenny might buddy up to a regional merchant (like Bi-Mart) and feed that company money to pay athletes to be in their marketing.  Now you have over-paying for the likeness and not restricted by normal business practices for the amounts.

If there is some way to keep the "value of the likeness" within reasonable bounds of the business marketing budget, then I think it would be okay.

And I will say, that out of 90 - 100 football players on a team only a small portion would actually get the opportunity for compensation (maybe 10 - 15 of more than $2,000 each).  That leads me to the idea that a team might pool the extra dollars rather than have the dollars go to a single player or only a few players.  Think about the team-building energy from that approach.

Item #1:  Addidas paying a few handlers and coaches (and having that cash transferred to others) for a few big name recruits in BASKETBALL is completely different than Addidas or Nike paying $100K each to 10 top line recruits for football players to a variety of branded schools.  One was done WITHOUT the knowledge and outside the "normal business" of the apparel company (it wasn't in the marketing budget) and the other would be done within the company's marketing budget (and therefore subject to scrutiny by the CEO, Board and stockholders).
Item #2:  Investment in a few basketball players to influence the decision to choose among several Addidas schools is significantly different than targeting money to an athlete for a single school.
Item #3:  A college basketball program typically recruits 3 to 5 players each year (not 25).
Item #4:  Boosters will still have to pay seat license/donations, plus pay extra money to athletes if they choose to.
Item #4:  Degree programs and post-college connections are more important to the 97% of college athletes that NEVER sign a professional sports contract.  If school A said "you can get an endorsement for $5,000 if you play on our tennis team"  and school B said we don't have any guaranteed endorsement deals for tennis players on scholarship ... and School A is Alabama and School B is Stanford, which offer has more value to a collegiate tennis player that does not have a professional tennis future?
Item #5:  Football has 25 scholarships.  What would it cost for a school like Cal to get 8 5-star recruits, and 17 4-star recruits in their football class?  Seriously, what amount of money would Cal have to offer to win those recruits from Alabama, Ohio State, Georgia, LSU, and other programs that have on-field and recruiting success NOW?  IF LSU offered a 4-star guy $5,000 endorsement (via a local booster) and Cal offered $10,000, would the 4-star choose Cal?  Point is that I don't think that there will be this huge swing in where recruits end up based upon endorsement dollars - but rather the most successful schools will still get top level recruits because of their successful coaching with wins on the field and playing for championships.

BTW, Texas would probably be one of the biggest spenders as far as boosters paying endorsements to student-athletes.  They have a huge athletic department budget supported by a rabid and HUGE fan base.  Would Texas win 20 great players in a recruiting cycle because of their cash?

I would be fascinated to see the NCAA use a percentage of revenue limit on a marketing budget for endorsements.  Say for instance 5%.  So a local company that has revenues of $2 million could only offer a maximum of $100,000 for student-athlete endorsements.  This would prevent a single donor from simply writing $100,000 checks out of his personal bank account to multiple recruits or players.  Remember, the NCAA proposal is compensation for name, likeness, and image.  It would pretty easy to construct rules that tie that to legitimate value in a commercial exchange for a company as opposed to simply buying the kid's services for football at the school.
By the way, if I offer you a $100K contract this year as a recruit, what happens in subsequent years?  As a student-athlete could I simply enter the transfer portal to get another "recruiting check" - or does my benefactor in recruiting promise a stream of money for my time at the school.  And again, if the company is limited to 5% of revenue for endorsements (by the NCAA) it would seem a small local company would run up against the limit pretty quick if the size of the dollars was quite large?

" ... might their scholarship not be considered income?"

Now we are getting into the fun ... TAXES!
Similar to the idea that a portion (or all) of my donation to the athletic scholarship fund is NOT tax deductible because I receive a preferred seat for that donation.
Seems like some percentage of compensation over $50,000 could be required to pay against the value of the scholarship.
I like the idea that kid that gets $100K in endorsements because he plays football for Texas should have to pay (donate?) 10% of any dollars above $50K back to the school's General Scholarship fund (not athletics).  20% of the next $100K and so on.

Might be a way to effectively cap the flow of dollars AND if the flow was not capped by this approach, then at least the school's academic scholarship fund would get some money.

Fair Market Value ... ummm there is no chance that the UNIVERSTY is paying a student-athlete $450K per year.  And NOTHING in the current proposal speaks to the contribution or value of the student-athlete to revenue from a college sponsored sport.  SO, the Drexel baloney is off-base and not reflective of any "compensation plan" for students that would ever be implemented.  At a minimum that model for value would have to be discounted by the total cost (scholarship, food, lodging, books, equipment, etc.) of having a student-athlete participate in the first place.

What I was addressing in my previous post was the SPECULATION about compensation for "name, likeness, and image" of a student-athlete from a commercial source as part of marketing budget.  Please tell me how many High School recruits are worth a $1 million endorsement contract for any company (heck give an example from the most recent recruiting class).  But there is "fear" that money will be flying around just to get a kid to sign at school A.  Next, tell me how much a freshman player at an offensive skill position name or image is worth after he sits on the bench as a reshirt of 3rd string QB.

The reality is that ALLOWING compensation for name, likeness and image" is not the same as finding a commercial marketing reason to actually spend money on any player on any team until after that player has in fact done something that promotes their accomplishments in the public eye.  If I don't know the name of the 4-star left tackle on Ohio State's two-deep, is Coca-Cola going to sign them to a $500,000 endorsement contract?

Which brings us back to asking the question ... how much money will be spent by corporations for the "value" of a college athlete, and how many athletes among the 85 on scholarship will actually get some of that money?

One of the biggest hyped names in college football was Johnny Manziel ... AFTER his freshman season.  Yes, I believe more than one company would look at Johnny's name recognition as having value to increase revenue ... and therefore elicit compensation for same.  But name a single player on that Texas A & M team that would also get (deserve) such compensation.

I am not "gleeful" ... but I am not afraid (yet).
I think there are enough mechanisms that could be put in place so that Johnny Manziel can gets his dollars WHILE playing college football and others still be in school on scholarship without getting a bunch of money for endorsement contracts.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong perspective. It's not Coca Cola or any such large company that's going to be doing this, as we're not concerned with legitimate marketing plans that include a college athlete AFTER he or she has developed a national name (or brand, if you will). As pointed out, there are very few of those.

But there are boatloads of guys in Ohio who have several things in common: they have accumulated, and continue to earn, great amounts of money, they are passionate about Ohio State, they can, by God, name the 2 deeps on both sides of the line, and they're willing to spend substantial sums for the best talent available.

I can easily see groups of such boosters organizing at the big schools to support their favorite program(s). Individually, they'll pledge enough that the group has a very ample war chest, and they'll spread it around the team as they need to. The guy who owns the Ford dealership will pay Tom, Dick, and Harry $10,000 each for promoting his store, while Chevy guy handles Bob and Ted, the opthamologist who did Fred's lasik surgery uses him ...

And it will only snowball. If the Alabama football boosters start at $1 million for the whole team, Auburn will counter with $1.2 million, and so on. It will, in my opinion, be an absolute mess.

Depends on how the pay is qualified. If it's deemed for playing a sport it's is in every state you compete.