I don't think any of that is hard any more. There was certainly a concern about signing "NIL" contracts that required a student to play on a certain team because that's a pretty clear pay for play deal and people were trying to half assed make it look like actual NIL.
Now that there is so much precedent that it's purely pay for play, there should be zero legal limitation from a company or collective putting terms in a contract making it subject to still being on Team X and invalidating contracts if they transfer. That's just simple contract law that's about as easy to enforce as you can imagine. There's no NCAA or conference or anybody else needed to referee or enforce anything. It can all just be subject to contract law.
I agree about NIL, but I thought Trice was saying that now that players can be paid, schools can write contracts that say you have to play for their team for a set number of years and that will cut down on transfers. I’m not sure that schools can include any kind of restrictions on transferring to another team because that would count as a noncompete provision. If they can’t, then I don’t think it will cut down much on transfers.
E.g. schools can have contracts that say “we will pay you x per season that you are on our team.” I’m not sure they can have a provision that says “you cannot transfer to a different team during the term of the contract.”