lighting what strikes me as a significant issue that needs to be addressed in wherever this is going.

As to your questions, that's where the rubber meets the road IMO. You have pretty much stated that athletes will remain students. I hope that's right, but I'm curious what you think that would look like in practice. All I'm hearing suggested amounts to "eat what you kill," and I have grave doubts that would pass Title IX muster. The other alternatives are to pay all student-athletes equitably or to eliminate the student aspect entirely. You claim that "nobody" (except me evidently, and now maybe ravenium) is considering the latter and only Swarbrick/NCAA defenders are suggesting it. Well, I don't know who is/isn't suggesting it, but to get to "eat what you kill" and eliminate Title IX, that is the logical endpoint.

But, again, I didn't play college football and coach for decades, so I'm sure those who have know better.

Title 9 is far down the list. Probably top of the list is workman's comp and long term health care issues. Title 9 is a red herring. The ncaa doesn't really care about that, but they do care about long term expenses.

about Title IX, particularly as it would pertain to compensation. I think that's naive, but I could certainly be wrong. Note well, I'm not saying anything about the NCAA or ADs.

I don't think anyone has made that assumption.

there seems to be an assumption on your part, however, that female athletes want to be included on revenues generated from other sports. I don't think that's necessarily accurate. In fact, I have yet to see that claimed by any female athlete anywhere.

however, I have seen the NCAA talking points which basically go something along the lines of, "if we pay the male players, it will ruin women's sports. Why do you hate women?" Of course, anyone even somewhat capable of critical thinking sees that nonsensical argument for exactly what it is.

specious arguments. (again, at the risk of politically adjacent topics) People out here are using the ADA to sue the city for not clearing homeless tents. I would postulate they do not actually care about people with disabilities, they wanted a vehicle (or an excuse, depending on how you look at it) for the other issue. Be that as it may, they may actually be legally correct.

Likewise, it could entirely be true that Jack and co are using title 9 as an excuse to not change anything, but that hardly means change isn't a fraught and perilous subject, nor does it mean those who question things under title 9 are all shills for The Man.

You have yet to see female athletes wanting money revenue? I'm pretty sure if you ask the womens' basketball team if they'd like to be paid they'd say "ok!".

hence the request for athletes to be paid minimum wage (as a starting point). I have yet to see female athletes demand to be paid from the same pie as the football players, as an example. That would be silly.