ROSEMONT, Ill. — Jim Delany stood in front of a microphone early Wednesday here at Big Ten Media Day and, to the surprise of nobody, publicly proclaimed that he’s fundamentally against the idea of student-athletes being allowed to profit off of their name, image and likeness.

“I really don’t see much difference, myself, between name, image and likeness payments by a corporate sponsor or pay-for-play,” said the longtime commissioner of the Big Ten. “So it’s a belief system I have. … I think the law of unintended consequences and the law of slippery slope apply here.”

Spoken like a man who has become filthy rich off of the current system. 

Again, none of this is shocking.

The only thing less surprising than Delany trashing California’s SB 206 — which, after being signed earlier this week, will make it illegal in January 2023 for the NCAA to punish student-athletes who profit off of their name, image and likeness — was Michigan State being picked unanimously to win the Big Ten. But what was interesting, at least from my perspective, is how after Delany spoke in the main gathering place on the first floor of the Hilton Rosemont, I talked with each of the Big Ten’s 14 men’s basketball coaches in a private room on the second floor, and none of them, not a single one, followed their commissioner’s strong, if flawed, stance against name, image and likeness rights.

Not Michigan State’s Tom Izzo.

Not Purdue’s Matt Painter.

Not Ohio State’s Chris Holtmann, Minnesota’s Richard Pitino, Maryland’s Mark Turgeon or anybody else. To be clear, some of them expressed concern about what this system might lead to if it goes unregulated. And most of them conceded there is likely to be, as Delany noted, some unintended consequences. But the consensus seemed to be that there’s a lot of money flying around, that it’s past time to adapt and allow student-athletes to get what they’re worth, and if unintended consequences arise, well, they’ll simply deal with them as they come.

It was refreshing to hear, honestly.

But what I think it showed, more than anything, is that coaches are often practical. They tend to recognize the winning and losing side of something at some point (if not just in time). And what they know, now more than ever, is that publicly opposing a fight that both liberal and conservative politicians are currently supporting, and that more states are preparing to join, is a losing proposition. Beyond that, there’s recruiting. And no coach wants to be the coach out there speaking up against the idea of student-athletes profiting off of their name, image and likeness when they know another coach could and would use it against them in recruiting. So they’re all mostly — somewhat tentatively, but still — getting on the right side of this argument even if it might not end up being the best thing for them personally or professionally.

In some ways, it’s a page out of John Calipari’s book.

“If you want to help my family, stay. If you want to help your family, leave.”

Calipari, Kentucky’s Hall of Fame coach, has said some version of that quote a bunch of times. And though I have no interest in arguing that it’s insincere, because I don’t actually think it is, what I will say is that I never heard him say it much until after he began regularly losing players early to the NBA Draft. In other words, it didn’t become a real talking point until after Calipari realized there’s no sense in trying to persuade likely lottery picks to return to school because they rarely do. So why not instead turn the less-than-ideal reality of losing players early into a positive and publicly establish yourself as the selfless coach who tells players to go?

It’s undeniably smart.

(Cal even got a 30 For 30 out of the deal!)

My point?

My point is that the NCAA, and everybody speaking on behalf of the NCAA, would be wise to now understand that trying to convince people that it would destroy college athletics if student-athletes were allowed to profit off of their name, image and likeness is just as dumb and pointless — I mean, does anybody really believe Bryant-Denny Stadium will be empty on Saturdays if Alabama fans know the quarterback has a seven-figure endorsement deal? — as trying to convince a projected top-five pick to turn down millions of dollars to return to school. It might work every once in a while on the dense. But, way more often than not, it’s a total waste of time that just ends up making you look silly. As California Governor Gavin Newsom noted earlier this week, public opinion has shifted against the NCAA on this topic — evidence being that it feels like a new state is announcing daily its plans to propose a similar bill to SB 206 because lawmakers have recognized it’s an easy way to score political points and gain national recognition while trying to make an unfair system a bit more fair.

I applaud them.

The more states that join the better.

Meantime, NCAA officials have argued that they’re working on the issue and would greatly appreciate if the states would just slow down, back off and give them time to figure everything out. But the truth is that the NCAA has had decades to act and never budged significantly. Revenue and salaries for coaches and administrators have grown disproportionately to the money that’s annually invested in student-athletes.

That’s shameful.

So now lawmakers are pushing back.

Where everything goes from here, nobody can know for sure. But what’s crystal-clear already is that the NCAA is losing a grip on its archaic definition of amateurism — and that this issue is snowballing faster than even people who wanted it to snowball predicted. People no longer care about Jim Delany’s slippery-slope argument. People no longer buy that allowing student-athletes to profit off of their name, image and likeness will represent the end of college sports any more than they buy that allowing Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt to profit off of their name, image and likeness represented the end of the Olympics.

It’s all nonsense and lies.

Yes, I acknowledge it would likely become a recruiting tool. Yes, I acknowledge the biggest programs with the biggest corporate support and most-intense boosters would likely land the nation’s best prospects annually because the endorsement opportunities would be vast. But, as I’ve explained many times, that’s already how college athletics work — which is why I roll my eyes when NCAA officials talk about “maintaining a level playing field.” News flash: No such thing exists. (You think Duke and Duquesne are operating on a level playing field?) So if you’ll admit that allowing student-athletes to profit off of their name, image and likeness probably won’t change the order of things much — which is to say, the same schools that are good at certain sports now will be good at the same sports then — all we’re really doing by allowing student-athletes to profit off of their name, image and likeness is taking some of the money that’s currently going to Jim Delany and people like Jim Delany and shifting it to student-athletes who take the court and field and put on the show.

Needless to say, I’m fine with that.

So are Big Ten basketball coaches.

And if you’re not, I beg you, please ask yourself … why?