One thing that the slate article brings up is an important element of the student athlete experience. You have contractual situations, as ArchE_Cat described, that have certain obligations associated with them. There are exemptions, but to fully realize those aspects requires someone with some degree of specialization. One half of the contract (Atheletic dept.) has salary employees to meet those demands however the other is contractually obligated to not have the means to have matching representation.
I think, that the NCAA either needs to require member institutions to supply funding for some sort of player advocate service that could provide such counsel, or treat players more as at will-employees, capable of making their own decisions. I think the latter is a would be a better use of resources, but athletic departments that treat players like property might have trouble swallowing it.