I actually somewhat agree with Pate on this one. It's all headed to collective bargaining and a players union. And I think it COULD be good for the sport IF the conferences could negotiate in terms on transfers, NIL, etc. That's what CBA's are all about.
However...
What I think he straight up ignores is the factor of other sports and legal aspects like Title IX. You cannot only give money to football. So when he says $40k/player is only $3.4m, that's only for 85 scholarship players. Most schools have something like 400+ total. Miami is close to 500 and large schools have way more. Do they all deserve an equal share? The capitalist in me says no, but that doesn't matter. And this isn't an NCAA issue, it's a federal one. Even if football only goes away from the NCAA, they are still under the schools and then must comply with Title IX.
So let's say, like he suggests, each player gets $40k (a low number, I believe). For 500 student-athletes, now you're at $20m/year. Still reasonable for the $100m+ each school will get in those TV deals, but I could see pushback from the schools, but I also think the players would want more of an equal share like in the NFL. What if the number jumps to $100k/player/year? Now you're talking $50m/year/school. It could all get messy.
This is why I think the ACC, Big 12, etc are dead men walking. They won't be able to compete with those mega conferences if this happens. I also think, as I've posted elsewhere, it will separate the haves and the have-nots in college football. It will create another tier/division that is above current Go5 and below the national big money players. The question is will conference have the stones to kick out unattractive media schools for a more attractive school coming in if it became a numbers game? Would SEC boot Vandy for a UNC or UVA, for example?
Like I said, it could get messy, but the end result could potentially be a lot better in the end. Or it could all collapse. We will see, I'm sure.