[Goose]

The rest of the Big Ten isn't going to exile Nebraska when a lot of them are trying to do the same thing as the Huskers.

 
Totally agree. It is also not exactly clear that Nebraska would explicitly be in violation of the letter of the Big Ten agreements.

The House settlement is broken before it even got off the ground. The only winners were the lawyers. This is all trending towards the powers that be in the Big Ten and SEC breaking off from the rest of the NCAA, making athletes in revenue sports employees and collectively bargaining with them to reach legally enforceable agreements. I don't know how long it'll take to get there, but that's where all of this is inevitably heading.
 
It's a world that Stanford should not want to have anything to do with. But that's just my $0.02.

I am not as confident as you are about the "inevitability" of any particular outcome. The one you cite is one such possibility. However the model you present has lots of problems to overcome. Many of these problems are political, and the outcome of political issues often depend on unpredictable factors.  In any case the outcome is likely (IMO) to be not to my taste :-). You can add my $0.02 to  the idea it won't be something Stanford should have anything to do with.

[Goose]

The rest of the Big Ten isn't going to exile Nebraska when a lot of them are trying to do the same thing as the Huskers.

 
Totally agree. It is also not exactly clear that Nebraska would explicitly be in violation of the letter of the Big Ten agreements.

The House settlement is broken before it even got off the ground. The only winners were the lawyers. This is all trending towards the powers that be in the Big Ten and SEC breaking off from the rest of the NCAA, making athletes in revenue sports employees and collectively bargaining with them to reach legally enforceable agreements. I don't know how long it'll take to get there, but that's where all of this is inevitably heading.
 
It's a world that Stanford should not want to have anything to do with. But that's just my $0.02.

I am not as confident as you are about the "inevitability" of any particular outcome. The one you cite is one such possibility. However the model you present has lots of problems to overcome. Many of these problems are political, and the outcome of political issues often depend on unpredictable factors.  In any case the outcome is likely (IMO) to be not to my taste :-). You can add my $0.02 to  the idea it won't be something Stanford should have anything to do with.