This bs line Charlie Baker is trying to run is asinine. Basically he is saying that many smaller schools will not be able to pay NIL because they don't have the money. They would go bankrupt. Aside from the fact that the schools are not themselves paying NIL (you would think that he would know something about NCAA rules, but apparently not): Why does he think them not paying NIL will destroy amateur athletics? Wouldn't paying them mean exactly that they would not be amateurs?
How uniformed and irrational can he be?
Attempting to apply a spirit of charity in interpreting him, I figure what he must be thinking about is some plan that he has to persuade Washington to force all schools to pay players. That would explain why he is handwringing that some schools can't afford to replace amateurs with paid players. That would be his plan to "save amateurism"?