“Are they there to trade their athletic skills to pay for an education or simply there to show off their athletic skills and education is a minor concern?”
The athletes are there to exercise their freedom to make choices that are in their own economic interset.
“Are universities platforms to show off athletics with a side activity of education or an educational institution with a sideline of athletic entertainment?”
Universities are platforms for showcasing athletics as long as it brings in significant revenue and enhances the institution’s brand. If athletic entertainment generates substantial profits through ticket sales, merchandise, media rights, and sponsorships, then it becomes a valuable component of the university’s overall business strategy.
“If it’s all about athletic skills, then the pro football & basketball leagues ought to foot the entire bill and provide a minor league feeder system like baseball does!”
If a college athletic program does not turn a profit, then the program should cease to exist.
Texas, Michigan, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Norte Dame, USC, and Alabama earn hundreds of millions in profits and can and should exist.
The NCAA as you know it is eventually going to collapse under the weight of professional “student” athletes.
Do they really make money? Maybe they do! That's 7 schools out of how many state schools supporting teams. Anyway, there are differing views as to profitability.
https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2020/11/20/do-college-sports-make-money/
The above article presents a case that there is a lot of "creative accounting “ going on to show profitability. I've seen other similar articles.
For state schools is the taxpayer paying for an education institution or a sports entertainment institution? It's becoming increasingly harder to do both and maintain a semblance of honesty and educational standards. Maybe honesty and educational standards are not important?