The interesting thing is that it does make sense to consider college men's basketball and football players employees in some ways. Clearly they are essential elements of a performance sport which is hugely popular and profitable.

Calling them employees in this sense is logical. Of course they are compensated in some ways already (between their scholarships and other benefits) so it isn't fair to claim they aren't already being paid at present IMO... but it might be fair to allow them to unionize and negotiate as a group RE: the level of benefits and assurances of support that they should receive.

Anyway, this line of thinking has a couple more major implications of note IMO:

1) Men's basketball and football should be considered as a different category of college athletics by virtue of their profitability. The major universities do considerably profit from them but this is not the case for other even moderately popular sports such as women's basketball, men's baseball, or men's hockey. Men's football and basketball are about money at the highest levels. They should be considered separately and the players participating in these sports should be compensated differently because the universities are compensated differently.
2) It doesn't make sense to apply both Title IX and the Union decision to men's football and men's basketball. If these are employees who deserve to be compensated at a higher level because their sports are popular and profitable then they should be - but this commercial enterprise should not then be restricted by Title IX on top of that. However, all of the other sports which are not money makers should still fall under Title IX IMO.