It is not direct financial benefits.
Use whatever term you like. It is using money to entice basketball players to ply their trade at the University of Kansas. The NCAA prevents that transfer from taking place in a number of formats, this is one way they do allow.
Actually, direct financial benefits is what you are proposing, which will further differentiate revenue sports athletes from the student body. Revenue sports athletes already get stipend and other benefits (e.g., meals, tutoring) not available to the rest of student population.
I'm not referring to a financial separation, I'm referring to a physical separation. A big part of the justification of collegiate amateurism is what the players gain by being in a college environment among their classmates. A big part of the justification of Universities contorting themselves into professional sports factories is that having these sports teams around enhances the vibrancy of their communities. Facilities like this put the lie to both of those notions.
If you do all that, is it the fact that they will live in the same dorm that will equate them with the rest of the student population? C'mon... the gap will get wider, dorm rooms are the least "differentiation" in the scheme you propose.
If the "gap" you're referring to is financial (as opposed to popularity or status or whatever), you're forgetting that most of these kids start way WAY behind the vast majority of their rich white kids from the suburbs peers.
The 1970's romantic ideal of college kids struggling to pay rent living in some hovel and eating ramen noodles (but really living maaaaaaaaaaan) is not what college is anymore.
Furthermore, there is differentiation with respect to dorms and amenities in almost all schools. Some dorms and amenities are better than others. That is a fact. And there is some differentiation on who lives there, whether that is based on seniority, sports, or even academics. For example, quite a few universities have built dorms for their honor programs and students enrolled in them.
Legislating this wouldn't be super simple, totally agree. But I hope you would agree that the NCAA isn't even really trying right now.
As far as the financial aspect, again without going into the management of process or legal (which is a can of warms indeed), the scheme that you propose where you increase direct payments, insurance, healthcare etc. for revenue sports is extremely expensive. Who will pay for that? If athletic departments can's afford to build a $10M dorm for example (which most can't), they will be able to increase direct payments, insurance, healthcare etc. for revenue sports? That is a huge long term expense compared to the $10M. That will further widen the gap on who can afford and who can't, way beyond dorm/amenities differentiation.
When I say "long term health-care" I am more talking about treatment for any lingering effects of NCAA competition related injuries (which players currently do not receive) as opposed to a lifetime health insurance plan.
But anyway, leave that to one side.
The system is AWASH in money. Illinois is about to spend over $100 million on a Memorial Stadium expansion it doesn't need, right after spending over $100 million on an Assembly Hall renovation it doesn't need. And we're one of the "have nots".
To be clear, I am not and would not advocate for million dollar contracts and free agency type bidding for student athletes. Even if the money were there. The collegiate character of NCAA sports is the reason, IMO, they are by such disproportionate leaps and bounds the most popular minor league sport in the history of humanity.
I think that "collegiate character" means that essentially the players are of college age and are meaningfully college students and stay at a school over a normal college career (the reason I am in favor of transfer restrictions). I also believe both as a legal matter and a moral one that all scholarship athletes in any sports ought to receive the same benefits.
So we're talking like, let's say, a full four(or five)-year commitment, plus some additional ability to complete a degree later on, plus like 5-6 grand a semester, on top of what they already get. And the health care protections I discussed.
Only Power Five schools have that kind of money, so they would have to operate as their own division within the NCAA (or outside of it?)? Good riddance, should have happened years ago. A new big-boy specific enforcement structure with a pared down enforceable rulebook would also be a big help.
This would lead schools to cut all kinds of minor sports, especially men's sports? So be it, let the lesser schools dominate in those sports.
Will there still be cheating? There will always be cheating. Capping the market value of an asset will always lead to a black market. But this is a step in the right direction both in terms of the volume of cheating and the ability to enforce the rules.
The question isn't the money, the question is the will to do what's right by these kids. It's not there at the moment. It may not be even close to there. But storm clouds are gathering on a number of fronts. I hope it ends with the salvation of college sports and not the destruction.