I get you have to pay to play and keep up with your peers, but I've always wondered how all of these risks factored into sinking the money into the Jack Trice upgrades and the Multi-Use District plans before the next guaranteed conference stability and money deal - if you go from $40-mil/yr big 12 money to $8-mil/yr of C-USA money. On the other hand, this is happening 4-years before the end of this "stability" deal, so maybe it is just a meaningless word if TX and OU can always seek a small upgrade.
My bigger pessimistic take is concussions and various "woke pressures", for lack of a better term, are going to end football anyway.
I don't agree with this but seems very possible hypothetical, along the lines of:
"People are getting hurt. These injured people are disproportionately from the black minority population. They are being pressured to risk and/or injure their bodies for a chance at education so they can be cheered on by white fans. Are we any better than the Romans cheering gladiator slaves? Besides, we are glorifying toxic masculine characteristics like violence and strength and competition instead of empathy and sharing. So since football is therefore inherently inequitable and patriarchal it should be abolished." Etc etc etc. The NCAA may resist, like it did for years with the fictions about name/image/likeness, but would sponsors or advertisers?