grossly overestimating their worth and their list of demands come across as childish. I get the concept of anchoring in a negotiation but almost all of their demands are a nonstarter.

Especially when they are demanding schools prop up and pay athletes from unprofitable sports. Demand 50% revenue sharing while also demanding 6 year scholarships, a healthcare plan (of the players' choosing) that extends 6 years past their graduation, and a 2% fund.

I am in favor of NLI legislation, I do believe top football and basketball athletes are not getting their fair market value (at least not over the table) due to collusion on the part of the NCAA. But outside those top athletes I'd say about 95% of NCAA athletes are getting more than they contribute back to the school and another 4% are getting about market value. It is only really the 1% that aren't getting their market value.

These demands are an absolute fairy tale. Athletic departments are hemorrhaging money right now and they are demanding hundreds of thousands in benefits. They want schools to raid their endowments to prop up expensive sports. Why should athletes of a sport not making any money for the school get way more benefits than an exceptional student?

A plurality of the media contacts come from UC Berkeley (no surprise there), their athletics program is already costing the University an incredible amount of money, they shifted half of the debt for the stadium from the athletic department to the main campus and it's costing taxpayers $9m/year in interest.