I like the 2,000 dollar route. Letting student-athletes get paid based on where they end up going to school would kill college sports, at least D-I schools. You'd end up with a bigger stratification then you have now. The big money schools--Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Florida, etc--would bid on the top prep talent (backed by their boosters, I'd imagine). It would make a limited number of financially viable schools who could field competitive teams.

Everybody else would fold, severely close down athletic facilities, or maybe field only a few teams in a sub-division. Football and basketball are the top 2 money earners for colleges, and if they're gone, or operating on a severely reduced level, it negatively effects the rest of the programs.  Also gone would be the Boise State's and TCU's of the world, it would be like watching the pro's; 30 teams, markets and TV deals coming into play even more then they do now, and the only hope for an upset being that your team can increase more revenue to get the top high school senior next year. Not to mention the stress that will come down from the top to win on the players. It's insane (and completely ridiculous at some schools) now, can you imagine what it is like when you're getting paid? And the only source of revenue is from what your team generates through merchandise sales, tickets, concessions. Which are all linked to the on-the-field product.

I'm not sure if a 2,000 dollar stipend will end all the problems, but at least it is a step in the right direction of acknowledging the difficulties of being a student-athlete. The idea that there compensation for a degree is enough was proven false along time ago. I knew guys at my school who would take out student loans to pay for things (and some of them got stupid, stupid things with it). So, it is a slow move in the right direction, but I'm not sure if the NCAA will ever find a satisfactory conclusion to it.