What you need to do is explain how the hell it's "realistic".
Happy to!
For this possibility to be true and impactful, a few things have to be true:
1) Companies have to be willing to break the rules by paying players
Proven in spectacular fashion
2) Companies have to have incentive to pay players in the manner I described
By paying the player while he's in college (or while he's playing for an AAU team, even), you build a relationship with that player; most players fizzle, but some will be worth millions to a shoe brand; by putting as many "irons in the fire" as you can, you maximize your expected returns; the core assumption here is that a ~$5k payment will meaningfully shift your odds of signing a player, which I think is reasonable
3) Players have to be willing to accept compensation against NCAA rules and Roy's wishes
We generally recruit high-character kids, but they're not a completely different breed from those at other schools; if the kids at other schools accept money, there's a decent chance some of our might; plus, accepting money is basically a victimless crime and can seriously help your family; PJ Hairston demonstrated that at least one player we've had would violate Roy's wishes
4) Players have to be able to get away with it (or believe they will get away with it)
Basically just requires them / their families to be discreet; nothing really different from kids at Arizona/UK/KU/Duke accepting money and keeping it from raising too many eyebrows, and the money I'm concerned about would be smaller amounts anyway
5) There have to be consequences for us if it's true
If we had a player who took money on the team this year, bye bye championship
What do you consider to be the weak link in that chain? I'm not arguing that anything sketchy happened. I'm just saying there's a realistic scenario in which something did.
If you object to the suggestion that one of our players might've done something wrong, I get that. But if you think there's not a realistic scenario in which they did, I'd like to know why.