College football players on scholarship don't have to pay for food, boarding or their education. All they have to do is play football and, if they choose, pay enough attention in class to make their degree substantial when/if they graduate.
And since tuition and books are taken care of, if athletes apply for student loans, they can put all of that money in their bank account and do whatever they want with it.
And the more expensive the institution, the higher the loan amount.
So if I were a college athlete, that's what I'd do. I'd get the extra cash I'd need to "survive" you know, the excuse student-athletes give for taking money from agents.
But there's a much better reason to apply for a student loan instead of taking money from an agent: FAFSA isn't going to demand three percent of your rookie contract signing bonus. You're locked in to a low interest rate that no agent would agree to. Plus, the NCAA won't be riding your back with allegations and no threat of bringing down the program you played for would exist.
It's called doing things the right way.
Now sure, maybe you wouldn't get the same, high amount of money an agent could offer, but weren't you just trying to "survive" anyway?
Of course, there's also the rule - brought to mainstream light in the Sports Illustrated article - that a student-athlete has no legal obligation to repay an agent. Obviously, the student-athlete would be required to repay a loan, so if he went undrafted he'd be stuck with the tab. But he'd also be stuck with an education.
Bottom line: There is no need for a student-athlete to take money from an agent, and there's no need for a university to pay its college athletes.
If the student-athlete needs money, take out a loan like the rest of the student population does. And if you're as good as you think you are, you'll be able to pay it off with your first paycheck - a debt that would likely take the rest of the student population years to pay off.
