That's the excuse NCAA gives and it rings hollow when you consider how much the NCAA makes (in excess of a billion per year). That's a lot of money for what amounts to free labor.
As for the conferences - lets say for the sake are of argument - that a school gets 40 million from their respective conference. (some conferences pay more some less). 100,000 dollars represents .025% of that 40 million. So while the team generates 40 million dollars of income, the people responsible for making that money are only getting only getting .025% return on their investment. That doesn't seem payment enough for me
I am not sure where I stand on this issue, but I am certain that NIL is not the answer.
Also, I think your math is short-changing the athletes... $100K amount for the education benefit is for a full 4-year stint. But the numbers you are using for the NCAA's contribution (how's that for a misleading word?) is per year... the $40M that you are using is PER YEAR... so the return the athlete is getting is significantly less than your math allows... in the time the student is getting $100K benefit ("payment"), the school is making $160M (4 years at $40M)... reducing the ROI to something like 0.00625%.
While the transfer portal and NIL do help in some situations, it's turned recruiting into all-out free agency in college sports. As as has been widely discussed, the benefactors are the college football and basketball players. It's true that both the transfer portal and NIL money are available to all "student athletes", the lions share, by a great majority go to the traditional revenue-generating sports - college football and college basketball.
What's the solution? For years, the discussion centered around providing each student athlete a "stipend" to help their living situation, as well as to ease the consciences of the schools. That never materialized, and was probably dead from the start. The other issue is that of "amateur athletics". As an amateur, should the players be paid (in any way, shape or form)? Should the universities and conferences be allowed to continuing to rake in millions of dollars off of the "free" labor? (And isn't a college education worth something to the athletes?).
I am torn... we could get a "pay scale" for all athletes, based on whatever criteria the powers that be set up... is a college quarterback worth more than a baseball right fielder? Where does a pole vaulter or woman's lacrosse player fit into the scheme? Is it fair to pay a lacrosse player less because their sport is not a lucrative to the school/conference as the college quarterback?
It's all a hot mess, and frankly, I do not see a way to bring sense back to this mess.
And then there's the rumblings about the P5 schools dumping the NCAA to create their own new governing organization... or splitting the football piece out of the NCAA control and leaving the NCAA with the rest of college athletics...