PonyFans.com

Clear NCAA violation for any "representative of the university" to fund a college athlete-no matter how the funds are exchanged. "Representative of the university" is defined to include alumni, season ticket holders, etc. Once a "representative of the university" you are always a representative of the university. Player should be ruled ineligible unless its authorized by the NCAA. Player would have to return funds received to retain eligibility. If it was organized and coordinated through a representative of the university a school would have to report violation to NCAA through its Compliance Department and could be sanctioned for knowing failure to do so. See Clemson and other universities sending cease and desist letters.

This is a stupid idea. Not well thought out in light of NCAA rules. Its particularly a bad idea for a school like SMU with one of the smallest fanbases in Division 1A. Johnny Manziel could draw more to an autograph ceremony in College Station than SMU could draw for many of its games. A rule like this would eventually signal the end of the road for small private schools and give large state schools an incredible advantage in recruiting as a recruit would know he could cash-in on the large alumni/T-Shirt fanbase of the large state school. Schools like Texas, OU and A&M have larger T-Shirt fanbases than SMU has a fanbase. I suggest if you don't like the amateur student/athlete model you become a fan of a professional league. Universities have the right to determine the type of athletic model they want to provide. Recruits make a voluntary decision to participate-they have other avenues to pursue a professional career.

But what about non-scholarship athletes? Can't a rich booster just pay for everything and have the kid walk-on? I'm not being funny I really don't know enough about the rules to answer that question.

Same analysis-Baylor walkon was ruled ineligible just last year. He was warned by Baylor officials that accepting benefits was a violation before being ruled ineligible.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... ligibility

So how is the promise of payments after your playing career is over different that upfront payments? This is ridiculous.

no different that Big Rich Alum promising an annuity that the player gets after he graduates-the benefit doesn't have to come directly from university personnel as long as it came from a "representative of the university" as defined by the NCAA. SMU alumni were buying players in the 1980s that the SMU coaching staff weren't even recruiting. there have been rumors of that in the past. A future interest in property is still a benefit and a recruiting inducement

Just don't tell the recruit that he will be rewarded according to how he played during his years in college and pay him accordingly after he gets out. Lots of places do that.

SlushFundMe

Well, South Carolina fans always did say that Clemson's vaunted fund-raising machine, IPTAY, stood for I Pay Ten Athletes Yearly.

But in all seriousness, what the hell do these rocket-scientists think the NCAA is to begin with? A buisiness??

Here is USA Today's list of schools by revenue.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

From what I can tell, EVERY school depended upon donations as part of their revenue - not a single one made money as a 'business' through things like ticket sales, media rights, and licensing (at least, not a public one.)

So from what I can tell, taking donations to pay for student athletes as all the NCAA does anyway.

Big deal.

Apparently Clemson changed that to Twenty or thirty athletes yearly to get to #1

All of the above has been going on for years Years, I mean decades

That is how they get away with it

Meanwhile, the dude running the site takes a five percent cut plus probably invests the trust funds in a money market for 4 years and collects interest until the kid graduates. This seems more like a scheme for him to profit on $100 handshakes.