I am fully behind what Okalahoma is doing. I think that it is a good idea for the student athletes to understand where the boundary lies. With boosters, the line can be very fine. Reminding the players that they have a responsibility to the school first is important.

The line with boosters can be tricky. A student may not realize it but one dinner too many is against policy. There has to be the distance between donator and receiver to make things fair. One meeting at the beginning of the year might not be as great a reminder as signs all year long.

Oklahoma is doing what every school should do. Colleges forget the reason athletes should be attending college. The phrase "student athlete" shows that student comes before athlete. These students are in college to learn and grow, not being hand fed and pampered through college.

I have experienced this lack of enforcement by seeing firsthand how student athletes are treated higher than other students. By letting students get paid for work they did not do, is just giving into today's society of how athletes are treated as an exception. We need to raise students into young honest adults.

Marvin Schultz

"Student athletes are treated higher than other students."

I would be careful saying they are treated higher than others. Different yes but they do put in quite a bit to get some of their extras. They are also held to a much higher standard in the community. Any other student could get a free meal or two from any booster they want at anytime and yes this does happen. Think of the Greek system in college and how alumni are always doing things for members of their house. Student-athletes cannot be associated with that sort of activity. Are there some people taking advantage of the system like getting paid for work not done? Yes but that is not what these reminders are for. It's all of the little things. A student-athlete who says they didn't think it was wrong to get paid for a job they didn't do is just not telling the truth.

I feel that Oklahoma is taking a good first step in trying to enhance the student-athlete and general public's awareness on the eligibility rules. By first step, I mean that posting messages and announcements at the actual fields will help draw attention to the issue. I don't know if this in itself is really enough to stop the student-athlete from knowing what barriers are in the eligibility rules. I think that in general schools really aren't taking the time to educate the student-athletes enrolled at their institution. There are far too many rules and "questionable scenarios" to cover in the simple meetings they use to inform all the student-athletes.

If Oklahoma, or any other NCAA school wants to be effective in educating their athletes about these specific rules, I think that a much deeper analysis of the rulebook and standards must be taken.

As a student athlete myself, I feel a little insecure about my level of expertise when it comes to the rules in dealing with "perks." In my opinion, Oklahoma's attempt shouldn't be commended, but rather become a standard at which other schools should join in ensuring a safe environment for student-athletes to go about their careers.

Oklahoma's efforts should, as Melissa mentioned, become the standard for the way in which universities inform and remind student-athletes about obligatory responses to extra benefit offers.

While some very fortunate college athletes are able to continue their careers at a professional level, most eventually filter into the "regular" non-athlete workforce after their tenure on their university team. Accordingly, and as agreed upon by the NCAA, all student-athletes should receive no such "extra benefit." It is certainly frustrating for non-student-athletes at a university to witness any unethical student-athletes who choose to take advantage of such extra benefit offers. Instances as mindless as receiving instant service in food lines before others should be monitored more closely.

It is appropriate for college athletes to be constantly reminded of the NCAA eligibility rules and regulations. I hope that other schools hop on Oklahoma's ship soon.

The problems with boosters works two ways. Not only should student athletes be aware of the boundary lines, but I also feel that the boosters themselves should take on some responsibility. While they have good intentions in supporting athletic programs, they should be aware of what is right and what is against the NCAA rules. Oklahoma made a good effort in trying to solve these issues by putting messages in the game program.

In addition, I feel that student-athletes know how to interact with boosters and they know what the rules are. Some athletes just fail to obey the rules at times. Even if they have questions about boosters, they can always go to his or her coach or compliance coordinator. More colleges should follow in Oklahoma's footsteps.

One of the main things in providing guidelines to boosters and student athletes is to let guidelines be known ahead of time and try to appoint someone to address such matters, with no exceptions. What Oklahoma did by putting signs up may have done a good job in letting the fact be known, but there are still student athletes out there ready and willing to break the rules at any point of the season. Receiving extra benefits as a student athlete would be like stealing from your program. If the student athlete does or did not have the knowledge of the circumstances then there should be no exceptions of punishment. Such matters should be addressed before season play commences.

Taking the time and effort to organize a booster for a sports team should not be taken so lightly. With detail to process and work guidelines, it would most likely prove to gain more revenue in the long run. Taking time to appoint the right people to establish a goal for the booster, would prove that your club or organization truly strives to succeed.