[ZMG]

It's a no-win argument as I see it.

You can bring up the idea that the players get paid just for playing... but then there will be the guys with the scholarships profiting more than the walk-ons.

You can say that everyone should get a scholarship and let that be the payment... but then that could turn into an unfair recruiting tool for the bigger schools.

You can bring up the idea that players get paid based on using their image to promote the games, school, etc... but then the bigger schools get an unfair advantage over the smaller, non-nationally televised schools.

It could also be said the players could be paid a portion of the attendance, merchandising, concession... but that goes back to the bigger school getting an advantage over the smaller school. Which in turn provides an unfair recruiting advantage.

Another point of view would be to pay the college players at least minimum wage for their time in offical practice and at the games. The average college student with a scholarship, aside from study time, could go out and get a job to make extra cash. Could a college athlete do the same? They study, they practice to stay good enough keep their scholarship... but would they be even permitted to get a part time job if time allowed for it?

Paying amateur athletes is actually, in my opinion, an oxymoron. Once they are paid, they lose their amateur status. Besides, if I am correct, they are given a stipend for the road trips, not to mention being given transportation (bus/plane) and a hotel for the night. But again, bigger schools can allow for better treatment than smaller schools.

So, I guess my point is, there seems to be no clear cut, fair way to do it that would not provide an advantage for one school over the other. Unless, of course, the money was being provided in the way of grants... but then that would be unfair to us taxpayers.