If there are no rules, then there is no sport. Why doesn't our DT just murder the QB? There are no rules, after all. We just find a judge in Miami to issue a TRO during halftime, and he's back on the field for the third quarter.
It's a ridiculous argument to argue the extreme. Are there issues with the rules? Sure. I've been criticizing the NCAA for years for, quite literally, doing NOTHING after the Alston case, and then crying for Daddy Congress to change the NCAA's dirty diapers.
And I don't give a **** about some argument about which thing "impacted competitive balance" more. ****, if "impacting competitive balance" was the issue, then the entire NCAA should have sued Alabama for tampering with Saban while he was under contract with the Dolphins.
The reality is that issues on transferability (which EVERY college student has the right to do) and compensation have valid grounds on which individuals have SUCCESSFULLY prevailed, in a wide variety of cases, including Alston, which was NOT an NIL case, but an academic achievement award case.
But that is different from bedrock principles involving the betting on one's own sport or team. And don't try to minimize it by playing it off as a "competitive balance" issue. By that measure, Jameis Winston should have never been disciplined for anything in college, because he only raped a couple of girls, which had no bearing on competitive balance.
I realize you're a big fan of professional wrestling, which is a performative event where the outcome is already scripted in advance. If you allow the participants in a sport to gamble and take self-interested positions in the outcome of the contest, you no longer have a sport. You have professional wrestling. Which is kabuki theater in which you are NOT allowed to bet on the outcome, because the outcome is fixed.