re: Players may be FORCED to play in bowl games

I started a thread about this earlier today:

The article linked below is from Outkick. The crux of it is this quote from Ross Dellinger:

Bowl Season director Nick Carparelli told @YahooSports in Phoenix that he expects NIL to soon come “in-house” and for athletes to sign binding compensation contracts with schools that will require them to play in bowls and CFP games, eliminating or greatly reducing opt-outs.

If the schools were able to take over NIL from the collectives or whatever, they should be able to require the athletes to sign a contract that spells out the money they get and the responsibilities they have to abide by in order to get the money, just like any business transaction anywhere. It could potentially cut down on transfers (if you leave before your contract term, no money) as well as bowl opt outs. I've never bought in to the "meaningless bowl game" narrative - if my team is playing a football game then it's not meaningless to me - but if all the bowl teams were at full strength, all the games would be better.

I have no legal knowledge to inject here but maybe some of you Ranters do.