SInce PGSTAFF invited me to comment on this thread, I should take the opportunity to do so, although if I wanted to take the time, my comments might cover 3 or 4 pages. Here are a few thoughts in no particular order.
I believe it's extremely difficult to have an organization that is supposed to interpret and enforce the rules (voted on by representatives of member schools) for such different levels of competition, from the major Division I sports, to the programs of small private Division III colleges in sports ranging from football and basketball to fencing, rifle, or skiing, for example.
The lure of the money that the NCAA controls is one main reason that some small, private colleges of the NAIA (National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics) are transitioning to join NCAA Division II, so they can be reimbursed for some expenses of traveling to and competing in an NCAA championship event (not common in NAIA) to simply being able to display the more widely known NCAA logo on their campus and in their facilities.
The NAIA is an alternative organization for governing college athletics, but they have very little money, so why would members of the NCAA (except for some small private schools) think about switching over?
The NCAA does some good things, like the Division II Championships Festival where 5 or 6 different sports hold their championship in the same city in an Olympic-type atmosphere. The only publicity that event sees is in the area where it takes place.
The NCAA can't limit coaching compensation as JBOSS suggests in his post (although I like some of his other ideas). They already tried to do that about 20 or so years ago with the position called the "restricted-earnings coach" for an assistant. It was struck down in a lawsuit. The college presidents are the only ones that can restrict a coaches compensation, and even if the presidents banded together to try to do that, I'm sure the lawyers that follow HSBBW would comment regarding "restraint of trade" or whatever the proper legal term is.
Because this is obviously a baseball board, we often see comments about how unfair some of the transfer rules are. But I believe an even bigger concern exists in the sport of men's ice hockey. Just like baseball, a hockey athlete has to sit out for a year if they transfer to a Division I program unless they were a "non-recruit" at their first college. But, in hockey, there are only about 6 D2 hockey programs. So, the players choice is to either sit out a year at another D1 program or transfer to non-scholarship D3.
The NCAA should probably have one set of rules for Division I basketball and football, and a different set for all other sports and divisions. And, as I saw in our local paper, maybe it is time to pay the Division I basketball and football athletes.
While I've been opposed to that for many years, it was suggested this morning that by paying those athletes, the universities would have less money to pay to the Power 5 basketball and football coaches. I might agree if I knew that would be the end result, but instead, I'm sure that the money to pay those athletes would be taken from scholarships and support for the other sports programs rather than from those coaches.
Because the NCAA rules are voted on by representatives of the member colleges, they must be the ones to vote in rules more favorable to the athletes. And, because the NCAA staff members interpret those rules after they are voted in, the staff members should be folks who competed as college athletes and/or worked in a college athletic department, rather than being hired straight out of law school, or from a law firm that has done work for the NCAA.
That's enough for now. Thanks PGSTAFF for the invitation to comment.