College Football Debate: To Pay or Not To Pay—Should There Be A Question?

By now, most everyone has either read or heard about the interview that, Josh Luchs gave to Sports Illustrated regarding his time as a sports agent. It's an interesting read, chocked full of all types of tidbits that make you raise an eyebrow at just how seedy the world of college athletics can truly be— when no one is watching.

However, after finishing the article, only one question can possibly come to mind: Should the NCAA allow amateur athletes to be paid or not?

The question is simple enough, but the answer is more complicated than any could possibly imagine because there is no black and white response to a query that has so many shades of gray. Of course the hard-line response would be to say that athletes are paid already—via their cushy $100,000 plus scholarship.

While the majority of college graduates will exit with a mountain of debt, most athletes will exit not only debt free, but with a degree that will be worth something in the job market, and a level of recognition that, depending on where they live, will grant them an opportunity to find a career that pays well.

Think about the sheer number of former athletes who find their way into the broadcast booth, onto the radio, and linked to lucrative business offers just for the use of their name and image—mostly because they played football or basketball.

There are benefits to being a successful collegiate athlete—even if you aren't an all-conference player who manages to garner a pro contract.

That said, the NCAA, and the institutions that these athletes serve, are also getting paid. The A.J. Green incident shed new light on the fact that a college athlete is powerless to what they can do for monetary gain. He sold his jersey for $1,000 and, while he was wrong for doing so, the NCAA sells a replica of his jersey for—at minimum—$50.00.

Look around Sanford Stadium and count the number of No. 8 jerseys—how many do you see? Is it more than a $1,000 worth—does Green get a cut of that? Did Reggie Bush reap the benefits of his No. 5? I bet Tim Tebow could have paid for a lot of circumcisions with his No. 15—just putting that out there.

Furthermore, look at the video game industry, they've struck gold with NCAA football series—the recently released NCAA 11' football sales increased 8% over the previous version. Keeping that in mind, it has to sting a little when a popular college football player sees their jersey number, but not their name, featured amongst the 100-plus schools the game promotes—knowing that most fans will know exactly who they are on said game.

And then there's the issue with players accepting monies, gifts, or favors. If they do so, there are steep consequences attached. Yet, the NCAA expects them to get by only on what they are allowed to have under the guidelines: tuition, books, meals, and on-campus housing are covered. However, there are no stipends given to cover other non-academic expenses: clothing, entertainment, etc.

Many of these athletes are poor and don't have the means to do anything.

Sure, the NCAA allows them to work but, let's be honest, what student-athlete has the time to fit a job into their daily commitments? Between practice, training, classes, tutoring-sessions, and study time, there isn't enough time in the day to hold down a job?

So, that leaves the athlete to depend on his/her family for any extra expenses and most cannot afford to do so.

That said, there will be some athletes who will take advantage of their popularity by accepting money and gifts from an agent, a booster, or an overzealous fan. Is that the right thing to do? No, but, despite what the NCAA has to say about why student-athletes aren't paid, there is a need for further discussion on how to best address these matters.

The debate is one that has so many angles that it's difficult to tackle them all, but it's anything but black and white—it always has been.

What say you?