SHOULD COLLEGE ATHLETES BE PAID?

With the passing of another academic year, fans were able to enjoy yet another nail-biting NCAA Basketball Tournament and a highlight filled NCAA football season. Most would agree that the NCAA provides competitive sport as popular as the professionals. In fact, its annual revenue makes that point clear. College football and basketball generate more than the NBA, a total of more than $6 billion yearly. However, there is one major difference between the two associations... NBA players get paid for the revenue they help bring in, while NCAA athletes receive no monetary compensation. So that brings up the popular debate, should NCAA student athletes get paid to play? We're gonna give you our take on the debate.

Randall: I think that college athletes should be paid. I know that they are getting full scholarships to play their respective sports for their schools but when you look at how much the school is making off of the sports, it does not even out AT ALL. The average tuition for 4-year D-I universities for in state students is only $7,605 per year and $11,990 for out of state students. In 2010 the average revenue was $3.15 million per school and that's just for football alone! Do the math, even if all 85 scholarship players on the football team were from out of state the cost of their tuition would add up to be just over $1 million. That's not even a third of what the universities are making off of the players in ticket sales, jersey sales and player usage for marketing. The average revenue for basketball in 2010 was $788,000K. If you are on scholarship, NCAA rules provoke you from having a job so there is no reason why the NCAA cannot find a fair way to split some revenue up between all of the athletes, men and women. It doesn't have to be hundreds of thousands of dollars per player. Make it the same amount for each player.