Pay for Play?

A lot of debate surrounds the topic of paying college athletes for playing their respective sports.  I have heard the argument stating that the University is using them to make money so why shouldn't they get some of the action.  It's true, many colleges do use their big time athletes to fill stadiums and sell jerseys.  They also use them to increase revenue to fund all of the other sports like field hockey and water polo.  Their compensation, in return, is receiving the opportunity to get a FREE education.  Let me repeat that, a FREE education.  A luxury most don't have.  They get the chance to better themselves and grow as an individual, thus making something of their lives after their athletic career is over.  Many have aspirations to make it to the professional ranks, but in reality, few ever do.  The education is something you can never take away from them.

Think about this for a moment.  If you pay the star quarterback and the star point guard money to play in college, you have to pay the best golfer and the best tennis player as well.  You can't discriminate based on how much revenue a particular sport brings in.

I have heard a couple other interesting ideas surrounding this topic as well.  The first is that each athlete receives a lump sum of money upon graduation.  The other is that each athlete could be paid a set amount for a particular grade they receive ($500 for an A, $300 for a B, $100 for a C).  Are either of these options fair to the other students who work hard and pay for school?  Of course not, however they don't help to bring in a ridiculous amount of money for the University.

I say leave things the way they are and not pay them money but let their compensation be that FREE education that is worth so much over the course of a lifetime.  They are called student-athletes for a reason.