This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

The explicit connection between by KeoughCharles05

a school's apparel provider hiring players for endorsements placed into a school's contract with the provider could still be prohibited.

Frankly, the better solution to prevent the problems you're discussing would be to prohibit requirements that the athletes wear specific apparel other than that needed for purposes of team identification (e.g., shoes would be up to the player).

Players could then freely negotiate with companies for those items, regardless of the contract the providers have with the schools. This would be a good thing, as it would properly split the value that the school's brand is providing the apparel company versus the value the individual player is providing.