Why is it acceptable for NCAA colleges to pay NCAA coaches at a market rate set by, or at least in competition with, the NFL, but not pay NCAA players at a market rate set by, or at least in competition with, the NFL?
And lets face it: it's not like the NFL's labor market is exactly the epitome of a "free market" - what with team Salary Caps and the rookie pay scale.
There's already a serious imbalance of power dynamic at the college level, where coaches make far more than players, plus have dramatic control over each player's future potential income.
If you are so concerned that student-athletes would squander the cash, provide some of it as deferred income, along with free, quality (vetted) financial advice. But deferring the whole amount 4 or more years is going to be meaningless to a lot of kids who have immediate financial hardship. Besides, they could just sell the future income stream for a lump-sum at a significant discount.
If the NCAA is going to restrict the remuneration that players receive, it should do the same for coaches. Perhaps paying coaches no more than 75% of the average of the pay of the top 10 professors (and banning boasters from paying off coaches mortgages, like Saban's Alabama booster club), along with _real_ incentives to graduate their players within 8 years of their enrollment (OK kid, you got 4 years to play here, and 4 years to study).
Notre Dame has an obligation to improve the life not only of its students, but anyone. ND stood with MLK in the 60s. In that tradition, ND taking a stand to _really_ advance the lives of _all_ NCAA student-athletes is a moral imperative.