I'm seriously struggling to see why this shouldn't be allowed. "Only certain schools would get the best recruits" - well, have you looked at the current landscape? The kids get paid, the boosters get what they want, everyone wins. What's the downside here? If someone gives a recruits mom a no-show job for big bucks, and then screws her over word will get out. This will hurt the reputation of the booster/school with other recruits. Listen, these kids are now signing legally binding documents that force them to stay at a school for 4 years or risk losing a year of their life. Coaches are allowed to move freely. AD's are. Presidents are. NON-ATHLETE STUDENTS ARE. But we're gonna make an 18 year old stay at a school even though the coach he liked left and he hates the place and isn't playing? Let's let them earn some money at least to offset that. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but I think it's about time we start considering things like this. Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotten WAY too close to a Libertarian point of view on this to feel good about myself, so I need to go take a shower. But what's the downside?