Harbaugh's comments on NIL pay

I'm not arguing against NIL payments, I'm only pointing out that the current legislation will have negative consequences.  Again, i'm not saying those consequences outweigh the gain, i'm just saying some thoughtful and organized oversight will be needed.

I agree with this. The law represents a significant departure from the status quo and will likely take some fine tuning. The biggest problem, of course, is that it only applies to schools in California and disadvantages schools in other states. Luckily, there are several years left before the law enters takes effect. Assuming the law survives the likely court challenges, I have no doubt we'll to see a national framework before that time.

I also have some concerns with ambiguities and holes in the law but see it as a significant positive step.

3. The bill states that the school cannot restrict the endorsement in anyway unless it conflicts with a university agreement with the same business.  It's unclear what happens if it's with a different business but still conflicts, for example someone signs a deal with Reebok while the school provides Nike gear by contract.

The law prohibits athlete contracts that are "in conflict with a provision of the athlete’s team contract" (see §67456(e) that it adds to the Education Code). That applies whether or not it's with the "same business," a phrase that does not appear in the legislation. However, it's not completely one-sided as the law also adds restrictions on what schools can put in their contracts.

4. The bill is only applicable while a student is enrolled.  It's unclear how to regulate the time between commitment and enrollment.

Currently, the NCAA has no authority over athletes before they join a member school. All the hoops those athletes have to jump through are caused by restrictions that will apply once they enroll (really, try to compete and/or practice with the team) as well as restrictions on the schools themselves. Additionally, nothing that I can see restricts the law's protections to only enrolled students. The only reference to enrollment in the legislation is a passage stating that scholarships are not considered NIL compensation. Athletes will be able to sign deals before enrolling and never face penalty from the NCAA.

1. I believe a player can put logos on their jerseys/helmets.  The school can bench the player but cannot touch the scholarship. They could literally look like NASCAR out there.

Uniforms are property of the school, the law does not create a new right for athletes to make unauthorized modifications. Furthermore, it only prevents schools from limiting the use of NIL "when the athlete is not engaged in official team activities." Games and practice unambiguously fall under this exception.

2. I do believe Nike/Reebok will stop paying schools to use their gear and instead go straight to the players.  It would be cheaper and more effective.  That's $10-$15 million per year that Michigan might lose. Nike will still probably sign a deal with Michigan to gain access to the players and block competition but it would be for less.

Broadly, I think this won't come to pass for the reasons laid out above. However, there may be some impact and I wouldn't be surprised if some schools were against the legislation due to concerns about reduced revenue. That, to me, is more of an indictment of those schools than the law. The hypocrisy of signing gigantic sponsorship deals and paying exorbitant salaries to the adults (who aren't putting their bodies on the line) while clutching their pearls over the erosion of the purity of college athletics boggles my mind.

3. There are incentives in the NFL to deter a holdout but it still happens.

I've never heard of an NFL player sitting out because a third party advertiser wasn't paying them enough. Meanwhile, we already have players sitting out in college. The developing situation at Rutgers and increasing number of football players skipping bowl games are examples that immediately come to mind.

I think you'll see players hold out in college for a better deal if they've become a star since there is very little reason not to hold out.

I can't tell if you are implying that the school could not revoke a player's scholarship and cut them in such a scenario due to this law. That's not the case, and those would be strong reasons not to hold out. Additionally, as with professional athletes, there's the damage it would do to their reputation (with fans, other schools, sponsors, and professional teams). I don't see players receiving NIL compensation having much of an impact.

4. I think you'll see some schools sell any tradition to try to get an advantage.

That ship sailed a long time ago.

For example, UM might actually bench a kid for wearing an Arby's logo on his helmet but Rutger might tell recruits they can do what ever they want with the jersey or uniform to make money.

Do you see much difference in terms of harm to tradition between Rutgers allowing players slap an Arby's logo on their uniforms (not that they could, more on that below) and Rutgers slapping the Arby's logo on their playing surfaces and scoreboards (which they can do, and someone probably does, now)? What about selling stadium naming rights?

NCAA cannot rule them ineligible if they are just exercising their NIL rights.  There are no comments in the bill about conforming to NCAA standards/bylaws.

The law does not need to specify that athletes must abide by NCAA rules. The NCAA can still enforce any rule that is not prohibited by the law. This includes the existing uniform standards, which I'm almost certain prohibit the kind of advertising you're contemplating.

5. Transfers will become more common since schools with a lot of boosters/sponsors start offering big money for a kid to transfer. [...] Small schools will never develop the affinity for the star players because they'll just lose them to bigger programs.  CMU/WMU/EMU etc will never keep a star player.  UM/MSU will have a booster step up and pay them more.

While this happens today, I can see the law encouraging some athletes who wouldn't have otherwise transferred to do so. On the other hand, I can also see it allowing some stars or recruits who blow up to stick with the smaller schools by bringing payments out from the shadows. Corporations have incentive to sponsor good players independent of school affiliations, whereas some of the boosters you invoke are operating today for the benefit of a single school.

6. A lot of people here say they hate the NFL because it's just a commercialized, money grab, full of divas, etc...

It's already overly-commercialized, and not because of the athletes. The schools, conferences and NCAA are gorging while the athletes are being fed scraps under the table.

isn't that what we just created in college but without a singular source of money (owners), cap limits or CBA/NFLPA? 

No, there are many differences, but I'll address your specific points. NFL players get sponsorship deals as well, so there's no "singular source of money" (which isn't really relevant anyway). The NCAA certainly caps how much a team can compensate players and it's much stricter than the NFL. Recruiting, eligibility, and transfer restrictions function similarly to parts of CBAs, just not the part that allows the employees to negotiate for their own benefit (which lawsuits and legislation like this seem to be taking the place of). Counter question: are all these unarguably good things?

Phil Knight offers him $1 million dollars not to play in the game and instead make a Nike commercial and oh by the way, we're playing Oregon. There could easily be a market to pay players not to play.   

This is possible under today's rules, but seems exceedingly improbably and regardless of the law. If a player is willing to completely cut ties, there's really nothing the team can do to stop them.