I think you are looking at this incorrectly.

Of course schools like Alabama and OSU have been funneling money to players for decades, so they have all the kinks worked out. They know where the funding comes from and where it is going already. 

All they have to do is make it more above board.

Michigan and other schools have to set this all up from scratch. It is going to take some time.

They sort of point this out in the podcast but it sounds like schools like UM are just taking a longer eye at maximizing the options with NIL.  Like, Michigan was apparently the first to get players' names on the back of officially-licensed jerseys and put them in the MDen.  They're also working on some larger-scale deals with companies to help really push some players and products out to larger markets.  I think other schools are good enough at that but I UM is REALLY good at making money from their athletics.  I don't think they're dropping the ball as much as figuring out something that is sustainable and on-brand.

By comparison, an MMA gym in Florida is offering about $6k/yr to every Miami (YTM) player to sponsor his gym on their social media feeds.  That works but also feels pretty ad-hoc and not sustainable long-term, and also exposes the players and schools to potential bad press if the organization you align with has some major controversy and you're bound to keep wearing/supporting them publicly.  Obviously that could happen with any sponsor but a lot of these smaller organizations and sponsors aren't as well-vetted.

Michigan has been a step slow, it sounds like, in getting major boosters involved; that's likely due in some part to the staid-ish outlook the school has as it relates to athletics.  Michigan isn't like Alabama, OSU, Clemson, etc. when it comes to athletic department's influence on the university, and I do think that's a systemic problem.  But I also think a lot of schools are sort of blowing their wad early on with these NIL options, trying to grab as much low-hanging money they can as quickly as possible, and I think that approach isn't going to be more fruitful in the long term than what schools like UM, ND, etc. are doing.

there really is ZERO excuse for the so called "leaders and best" to be behind elite programs on the NIL and helping players get deals. 

this wasn't a surprise, it has been trending this way for a long time and the fact that M didn't have a program on the cutting edge ready to go speaks to the arrogant people running the place. 

they really should change the words in the fight song to USED TO BE THE BEST instead of Leaders and Best 

The NIL conversation is just more smoke blowing from michigan insiders who pretend michigan is clean. The reason Bryce Young has so much money and no Michigan players don't isn't because Michigan was clean while Bama was dirty. Young's biggest sponsorship deal is with cash app. The reason he is getting a six figure deal from cash app isn't because Bama had bag men and Michigan didn't, its because Michigan doesn't win enough for any of our players to be nationally relevant in a way that makes a company like cash app want to sponsor them.

I regret that I have but one 'like' to give this comment.

Speaking from experience, you're not wrong. He vibes and I'm there for it.

Won't happen. If a school isn't a member of the AAU its a non-starter for the B1G. I don't agree with the position as AAU alignment doesn't have to correspond with athletics with the school presidents, boards and AD's make these decisions. Meeting that criteria this is who you are looking at for possible membership.

Duke, Georgia Tech, Stanford, Arizona, Cal, UCLA, USC, Colorado, Kansas, UNC, Oregon, Pitt, Toronto, Utah and Washington.

This is expansion is football related so adding schools for any other reason has no point. The only schools that really move the needle for football on this list are UNC, Georgia Tech, USC, Oregon, Washington and Utah with Georgia Tech and Utah being very iffy. I don't think adding ACC schools will be feasible unless the new TV deal coming up is substantial because the ACC will own any TV rights for any current school until 2036. 

All that said I think the direction the B1G is going to have to go is west. Get USC and Oregon to join and I think they're in the ballpark of Texas and OK. If the B1G sits back and does nothing they risk the ACC getting in front. At this point I think its a foot race to be at least one of the top 2 football conferences or you'll be taking the risk of getting picked apart or left out of whatever is coming down the road in football. The SEC will probably move to 20-24 teams before the end of the decade, will the B1G keep up or will the ACC get the head jump?

If the B1G can get USC and either Oregon or Washington to jump on board it'll make it easier later on to add a few more PAC schools. Kansas is a good option too, but not if they can't get some top football schools first as they are only an addition for basketball.