First, thanks for the personal attack. I often find that persons who lead with that are deflecting from the issue raised. (E.G., Adbono's direct statement: "Some scouts are paid.")
I personally don't think it does matter - just was curious that you both claimed that colleges pay scouts. Rather then take it up with the NCAA, it's telling that you attack a messenger simply laying out the rule.
Did I misquote the rule? Take it out of context? Or, are you aware of colleges actually violating the rule?
For better or worse, the NCAA has strict rules on who can recruit. Paid scouts are not permitted. Any school which does this plays with fire. (There may be colleges not subject to NCAA rules. Several years back, I met a guy who carried a business card from McGill - a Canadian flagship. He was scouting for McGill.)
Yes, also, colleges have a wide network of contacts which inform the coaches of potential recruits ranging from PG type organizations which market to the entire college industry, to guys who see a player and call a coach, to personal coaches tapping their networks. All of those are legal (subject to qualifying rules , e.g., boosters).
To some, terms of art don't matter and the result matters; to others, both the result and process matter. IMO, a result oriented approach allows one to rationalize all sorts of corner cutting - and this is absolutely not limited to baseball.
For the OP, who cares is the person was employed by the school? Any person who can get word to a school of a potential recuit is just another brick in the recruiting wall - which is a positive thing .