In January, NCAA officials will vote on a controversial proposal that, if passed, would allow commercial companies to use pictures or images of collegiate athletes to advertise their products. The specific players whose pictures are used would still not be allowed to endorse a product, and would still not be allowed to receive compensation.

Though colleges could receive compensation for the athletes featured, the players would have little control over how their images were used. As it seems, this is simply exploitation.

As proposed, an athlete still couldn’t wear a shoe and appear in a commercial and say, “Be like me, wear this shoe,” but it seems logical that this is the inherent message.

While coaches and schools reap the recruiting and publicity benefits, the player gets his picture strewn all over billboards, magazines, newspaper and the Internet and receives nothing but a little fame.

Though some say this fame is worth it in glory alone, it would only be a select few – who probably are already famous – who would be used in such advertisements.

It’s not like the second string rifle team member at a D-II school is going to be pictured next to a Chevy. The athletes who are likely to be exploited will be those who are already household names throughout the country and are awaiting a NBA, NFL or MLB draft pick.

Basically, it’s a steal for companies and schools. The company gets endorsements that, if using a professional athlete, would be costly. The college athletic programs get the notoriety and recruiting perks of having its player worshipped by young athletes all over the country – not to mention the cash the player should be receiving.

It’s a win-win for everyone except for the athlete whose picture or image is used. It’s simple logic. If you’re going to use an athlete to advertise your product, cough up the dough to do it. And then, wouldn’t that be a violation of NCAA rules of paying players?

News editor Bailey Shiffler for the editorial board