I suspect people are tired or just uninterested in the way the law works in this space.
1. Apple could decide tomorrow that it would henceforth refuse to hire people who had previously worked for Google. But when Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel (allegedly) entered into an agreement that they none of them would hire people from the other competitors, it violated the Sherman Act. The agreement is the thing. They settled for ~$415MM.
2. Thus, if college programs agreed that they would not employ players who had played 4 years already, or only hire players who met certain academic standards, or would fire any employees who did not go to class, that would be a classic antitrust violaiton.
3. Adding a "governing body" to manage the conspirators' anti-competitive activity would do absolutely nothing to insulate the conspirators from liability.
4. The only reason the NFL and the NBA, e.g., are not unlawful anti-competitive conspiracies is an antitrust exemption applicable to the fruits of the collective bargaining process. The teams, through collective bargaining, can set rookie pay scales, minimum age requirements, practice schedules, prohibit individual employees from demanding raises for some period after the draft -- all patently unlawful anti-competitive conduct in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement.
5. Congress could, and it is at least possible that it will, give the NCAA or some successor organization an antitrust exemption that does not currently exist that would cover the various rules to which we have all become accustomed. That has been proposed as part of a multi-billion dollar settlement currently being negotiated to resolve the 2 massive antitrust cases the NCAA is currently fighting (and losing). Betting on Congress actually acting on this or anything else seems a fool's errand to me, but you can assess that likelihood yourself.
