I think it’s a good, well-reasoned letter

I think an alternate title might be “clean up college sports”. It is at least possible to achieve a positive outcome:
Market based NIL
Athletes motivated by degrees, and by life after both sports and the degree
Students who can actually cut it in the classroom (we do a student no favors by enrolling them in a program for which they are not intellectually prepared, and many well-intentioned efforts to help them may as often as not end up diminishing the experience of those students who are actually prepared for more advanced study)
The transfer portal could (and should), with certain limitations, be regulated primarily to the extent that any academic transfer is regulated. The central criterion should be whether it makes sense for the degree a student is aiming to obtain. The NCAA could legitimately require stronger academic oversight of transfers, which might limit the tendency of the transfer portal to degenerate into a secondary recruiting market.
Hidden in this crisis is the chance for college athletics to return to its natural place within the university structure.
Those who would transfer only to maintain their viability for a professional career might consider a move to a minor league
Possibly less revenue overall in the system (although I doubt it), but there would be an argument for even stricter accountability about where and how the money is flowing, tied to the academic mission of the University

Perhaps most of all, there is a chance to reflect that the value of a college education is not reducible to the financial return that a graduate will realize in a lifetime. A decent college education transforms the potential of the person as such, not just his or her potential to make money or contribute materially to society as a worker. To the extent that this is not true in practice, the logical solution would seem to be to reform the university, not to deform it by further reversing the priority of its natural relation to athletics

It also feels a little strange that the argument is sometimes framed in almost Marxist terms, as if the university is robbing the student-athlete of surplus value in a labor-capital dispute. In either case we risk reducing education to an economic transaction. Standard objections to Marxist analysis could also apply, to the limited extent that the analogy to a Marxist analysis might even be applicable. As I said, it’s a strange path to go down, but some do seem to argue along that path.