I have literally addressed both of these points. Directly to you in fact. Do you have any reading comprehension ability at all?
Re O'Bannon I said: O'Bannon held that the NCAA could not cap scholarships below the "true cost of attendance, PLUS $5k/year in a trust for those S-As. Scholarships do not equal NIL, NIL is not an educational benefit.
As for knowing the future, I have just laid out where the law currently stands, every singe time. I even said:
But you keep insinuating that YOU know how this all plays out....
Again, can you read?
In the article you sent, another attorney (Andrew Brandt) said:
In a 9–0 unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision that NCAA restrictions on “education-related benefits” for college athletes violated antitrust law. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion in favor of the plaintiffs, albeit a narrow decision dealing only with education-related benefits and not the larger issue of pay-for-play or other big-picture issues with college athletes.
So once again, the same point I have repeatedly made to you, and you do not seem to grasp is that SCOTUS has not ruled on NIL, leaving that ability for the NCAA open.
You seem to have a hard time grasping that SCOTUS has only ruled in regards to educational benefits, not NIL. And I have repeatedly said that they have not, because they have not. I asked for the case that directly dealt with NIL and you pointed me back to O'Bannon, which does not address NIL. So keep believing that you know how this all plays out, and the NCAA is toothless. Just don't be surprised when the NCAA enacts NIL regulations - I tried to warn you.