Should college athletes be paid?

Most of the FBS schools would collapse under a system that paid players anything of value. 

Maybe i am continually missing something, but regarding affording meals, don't most revenue sport athletes have access to a training table on a regular basis for their meals. I remember there being a special dining hall in South Quad specifically for varsity athletes (ie. football players). 

In addition, wouldn't their scholarship cover a meal plan at the dorms? I thought most room and board parts of tuition covered at least one of the meal plans at a dorm. I'm sure Michigan isn't that different from other schools. So I guess I never understood the I can't afford food argument. 

Maybe i am continually missing something, but regarding affording meals, don't most revenue sport athletes have access to a training table on a regular basis for their meals. I remember there being a special dining hall in South Quad specifically for varsity athletes (ie. football players). 

In addition, wouldn't their scholarship cover a meal plan at the dorms? I thought most room and board parts of tuition covered at least one of the meal plans at a dorm. I'm sure Michigan isn't that different from other schools. So I guess I never understood the I can't afford food argument. 

but right now the big football programs bring in millions in revenue and the people most responsible for that make $40,000-$50,000 tops. There's something morally unfair about that.

This is very misleading.  You make it sound like the athletic departments are making these obscene profits and rolling in Scrooge McDuck sized piles of money.  Those "millions" are reinvested in the facilities that the athletes use and the scholarships given to those athletes.  The "cut of royalties" doesn't just come from a magic well, it will have to come out of something else that the programs spend money on.

So what would that be?  Volleyball scholarships?  Swimming pool maintenance?  Those giant revenue streams don't pay for palaces for CEOs or stock dividends, they get reinvested in other athletes.  Come back and tell me how bullshit the system is when a few star quarterbacks and wide receivers get paid a kazillion dollars, and wrestlers and soccer players lose their scholarships because of it, and schools that can't keep up drop their football programs so fewer athletes in general get those opportunities.  And by all means also complain when ticket prices double and triple and only the richest people can go to the games, so that everyone's favorite school can keep up in the arms race, because now the best players go to the highest bidder.

Most schools struggle to make a profit so how would they afford to pay players? What if a player doesn't get paid enough and goes on strike?

Collegiate players play for the love of the game, not for contracts or monetary deals.

Agree with your basic notion that there is some form of reciprocal exchange here but respectfully feel that much more can be done.

No except the most delusional believe any top athlete being recruited to play for a D1 school does not have serious thoughts about a possible pro career. The current rules are suppose to prevent a mercenary class of "student" players who would jump from school to school looking for a bigger paycheck. IIRC these sort of rules date back to the 1920's when college football first became big. (Hard to believe but once 80,000 turned out to watch Red Grange play and the game sometimes was only 6-0). Right now the college leagues in football, basketball and to much lesser degree baseball act as minor league system for the pro league. We have the ills and not of the benefits of an academic environment. So what can be done?

1. Acknowledge that the top recruits want to see if they can go pro.

2. Give those athletes a true athletic scholarship, like a dramatic arts, fine arts, or performance music scholarship.

3. Create a true program of study for "performance athletics" - with year round physical training in general, sport specific training, a thorough set of real classes about the nature of sport in the USA. Make it a point to develop the athletic potential of these kids.

4. A curriculum based about the nature of sport sounds hokey but consider that spectator sports (and not participatory sport) has become a major social, cultural and economic factor in American civilization. We speak of a "level playing field", "three strikes you're out laws", "judiciary acting as an umpire and not as a player", "free agent", a political "ground game", etc. The graduates would be expected to know about their specific sport in depth, sport in general and know also aspects of nutrition, basic physiology, and most of all the economics and politics of sport. Sounds hard to believe to some, but go look at the course catalog of any school offering a BA in Fine Arts, or Dramatic Arts, Dance or Music and there are plenty of theory and practice classes. Musicians, actors and artists have lives as difficult as any athlete and their careers are often just as short and uneven.

5. All candidates have to audition and are subject to review each year. Those who can't progress or can't continue are advised to look at another concentration. Not everyone admitted to the Music school hacks it as a performer - some transition over to teaching and other aspects of music. The rate of progress and success of a program would be easier to mention and indisputable - just look at the rosters of the pro leagues. Where do the players come from would make that quite clear.

6. The coaching staff can bring in top professionals all year round to evaluate and give counsel. There is no restriction on access. We won't see the odd situation of a 3 or 4 year starter in college not being able to read a defense, or have strange mechanics. Good training will attract the players with the best potential. The top companies come on campuse to recruit and most schools bend over backwards to have them visit their classes and talk with their students. Would any computer science/computer engineering school prevent recruiters from Intel, Apple, Microsoft, Siemens, etc. from hanging around?

7. Any one can try out for the team - in fact like the orchestras and bands, most of the team will be non-performance athletics students, but the real stars of the teams will probably be these performance athletics kids.

8. Kids are free to turn pro any time, but once they take pro money their eligibility to play in the college leagues is over and done.

9. Admittedly such a system will probably lead to the demise of most dynasties - the top players may only stay on for 2-3 years, a few for the full 4 years but it would stop the whole shamateurism hypocrisy. An open policy will drive the shady boosters, "friends" and other hangers-on into the light and a lot of their crap will be exstinguished. We won't see scores of kids being strung along with pipe dreams of turning pro when they are just roster fodder.

10. I know this is a tough sell for those who still hold physical activities as being something which is not academic or scholarly. But if the university consortiums can certify degrees in music, dance, and art, why not performance athletics?