At the Big Sky Conference's annual spring meetings recently, members voiced a concern over Division I Proposal No. 02-21, which would exempt a student-athlete's on- and off-campus employment earnings from both individual and institutional financial aid limits and would delete the earnings cap of $2,000 above a full grant-in-aid.

The comment period for this proposal ends July 24, and we believe that a significant discussion should occur about the ramifications this legislation could have on the culture of intercollegiate athletics.

There are two major concerns. First, allowing student-athletes to be employed in the athletics department carries a potential for abuse. For example, suppose a sport has used all of its grant money but a great player wants to attend the institution and compete in that particular sport. Instead of walking on and paying his or her own way, this student-athlete now could be hired as an assistant equipment manager making not only the cost of an additional scholarship for that sport, but possibly much more.

This ultimately could increase a men's basketball program to above the 13 grants, or a volleyball program above the 12 grants. Institutions could create employment positions for talented "walk-ons" that would create not only a recruiting advantage for the programs that have great resources, but also would circumvent the intent of grant-in-aid limitations.

The second concern is the potential for "legalized" abuse by boosters. Again as an example, say a student-athlete is hired by a local auto dealer where his or her compensation is the going rate and has nothing to do with reputation. A dealer simply sends a couple of sales every week or month and the student-athlete makes very good money. In fact, if the student-athlete were to work one hour a day and just happens to sell one car in each of those days, the compensation could be astonishing. Then during the recruiting process, there could be a bidding war on the student-athlete where a coach is trying to provide the best job with the most money. This would put both the coach and the administration in a bad position.

When the work rule originally was passed, similar concerns were expressed, though the $2,000 limit did not offer enough incentive to anyone interested in abusing the rules. However, if employment earnings were unlimited and unchecked by team limits, the incentive for abuse would increase substantially.

As a solution to these concerns, I would propose that we raise the $2,000 cap to the cost of attendance and continue to count any employment for the university in team limits. This would allow student-athletes to increase their employment earnings, while maintaining a check and balance on those institutions with greater resources.

The passage of Proposal No. 02-21 could have a dramatic impact in defining the future culture of intercollegiate athletics. If we are truly committed to the welfare of the student-athlete and the integrity of collegiate sports, I recommend that we as a membership openly discuss the possible benefits and pitfalls associated with the proposal.

Howard Gauthier is the director of athletics at Idaho State University.