Talking in urban slang or ebonics does not make someone a criminal, a thug, or a hired gun.
I actually thought "I'm a get you" sounded just like someone I would want playing D on my team.
Does anyone remember a syrupy song by a white group called Bread called "Baby I'm a Want You?" Nobody seemed to think they were thugs or criminals.
BTW, I am NOT trying to say that you are racist by any means, but I do think that our culture responds to certain cues in predictable ways, and that those responses can be inaccurate.
I like your point about "hired guns." Sadly, though, in today's game, they are all "hired guns." NCAA football, while still possibly the best thing going, is still a business, and one that makes tons of money.
From what I see, schools have treated players as disposable commodities for years now, but it has only really come to the forefront when players have started treating schools like disposable commodities. Or, worse for the NCAA nabobs, it becomes more noticable to the public when players have questioned why they don't get a share of the money.
As for how much I would pay for a championship, I prefer the free market, libertarian approach: let the market determine the going rate. And pay off the NCAA enforcement division like U$C and O$U do, so it doesn't come back to bite you on the ass.
I know "everyone else is doing it" can sound like a shoddy excuse, but it would be nice if the playing field were levelled out. If U$C and O$U can pay players with utter impugnity, why did UM have to take basketball banners down and forfeit so many games when a man who wasn't even a UM booster paid UM players?
I think it should be legal to pay players. The ruse of shamateurism has been perpetrated on an increasingly cynical public long enough. The schools are making money; let the players make some, too. It would only make official what everyone knows anyway: in college athletics, as in life, the rich still get richer and the poor still get poorer.