Notes

1*Every year, the same question is brought up, usually around the same time. The firm believers see the revenue brought in by March Madness, as well as college football and the single thought creeps into their minds: "Can't we just pay the athletes with all of that money"? On the borderline of all that madness, in every state, the top tier athletes are shaking hands, going on official visits, and signing their signature all to play at the next level. In that gran scheme of chaos, money has never been thrown in. College athletes have never been paid to play and why should that change? It shouldn't. Wether it's the thunderstorm of money from football and basketball, or the slight drizzle of change from golf and lacrosse, the NCAA makes a lot of money. Now the argument is does it go to the players in a direct check, or go to the school?
2*Many feel that the life of a college athlete is the real deal, a large dose of reality with a soothing side of responsibility, but feel the dessert of it all should be a paycheck. Through time as an athlete, no matter what the sport, the player has put in time, dedication, and sacrifice to hone their skills. In college it becomes a job, but has no paycheck on a weekly basis like many other jobs. In term, it leaves athletes in a financial hole that the NCAA can most definetly fill. The average college athlete can easily practice over 30 hours weekly, with no job, and no money. Since the coaches see the sport as a job, some see it as a restriction of ones skill since the NCAA "profit[s] off of someone else while restricting them from earning a profit". Really, that is seen as exploitation to the pro-payers. The players give most of their time, so a paycheck could only lower the stress felt by the heavy workload. While other on campus students can pick up a job at the local t-shirt shop or the McDonalds on campus, the athletes can not. To say the NCAA couldn't pay the athletes would be a lie. The NCAA is a money tree, raking in an "annual revenue of 989 million dollars" in 2014. Various programs across the country gross in huge amounts of money, and the view from the economist is the money should and could go strait to the athletes. In a way, it does since every program is a "non-profit, and their incentive is is to spend every cent that comes in", just not in a direct check.
3*In the world of college recruitment, it's eat or be eaten. Some say that a paycheck could be the pull factor of a university. To a coach, grasping that one player that he/she has looked at for years is a triump. To make it much easier, he/she could then say "We want you so much, we'll up our offer by $10,000". This would definetly be a leverage point for premium athletes looking to play at big schools. For example, if a record setting running back has the option to play at University of Oregon, University of Alabama, or Louisiana State University (all top ranked Division 1 schools), whoever wants him more can show it in a paycheck. That will very easily make his choice easier. Also, on the safety level of the recruited, the schools could push the point of protection from "getting injured "on the job" and risk losing their scholarship". The athlete can't truly predict an injury, and even worse, can't predict the intencity, so pay could benefit the player, coaches, and family. It won't make the injury heal any faster, but it does provide the player with a sense of security and trust, which are two valuable traits to have in the recruitment race. However, the scale can be significantly tipped towards not paying the athletes due to the contrasting factors of the situation.
4* The diploma is in the horizon, the last game has been played, and it's time to choose the college. Really, what they offer pays a role in the decision, but money isn't in that conversation. Wether the school is a small Division III school like Austin College, or a large university like Texas A&M, the way to an athletes heart is show them what you've got. The college leans all of their perks onto the athlete, and to the athlete the view is equivilant to a sunset in Hawaii. Many come out of high school and get offered "famous coaches, first class facilities, greater visibility, and a better shot at the big time". In some cases, the fantastic facilities are better than the pros. The thought of having an ice bath everyday, all you can drink protein shakes, and a weight room matching pro status is enough to bring in any top tier athlete. What's even better is that status can be offered to every sport, to everyone on the roster, for all 4 years. On top of a first class building and a first class program, the college has amazing coaches, especially in the bigger universities. Since the program spends most of it's revenue, "you have several coaches [in the NCAA] getting paid NFL money". The kids who really strive for success in college sports could sleep easier knowing the money goes to someone who can help win. If the weight on the scale was pay players with a cheap coach, or a successful coach with no pay, the choice would be easy. People who win in high school want to win in college, and the ones who didn't win have something to prove. On a media scale, no matter what time of day it is, people can most likely find sports on TV. To the athletes, that's market time "for better or for worse, they at least made a name for themselves. It will help them find a job when they graduate--debt free--out of college". After all, college is a place for students to "obtain a degree and help jumpstart their "real world" career" goals. If a manager sees a player on TV, week in and week out, he can observe that students skills and traits. It's basically an outlet for whoever is tuned in, giving the athlete a chance to display himself towards the pros, or his/her post-degree employer.
5*As the athlete swims in the gold of the rainbow, there is a tunnel of confusion felt by the question. The pay would just be unfair overall, and not every athlete would be satisfied. Who would decide the "ambiguity in the importance of each sport"? There is a sport out there for everyone, but not everyone enjoys each one on the same level. In all reality, it doesn't seem fair to pay the football player in the National Championship the same amount as the colligent title holder for crossfit. One could have a viewbase of 20 million plus, while the other has a base of 2,000, and that's nowhere close to equal. In relation to the difference in view value is the split of mens' and womens' sports. There's the question, "should men and women players be paid different?" , but the answer is based on opinion. It would be easier to say it's all equal, but that's not the case. College basketball is a top profit sport, but is significantly different in mens and womens, seeing that 28.3 million watched the mens championship and only 3.1 million watched the womens. Lastly in the questions, there is just a huge unbalance in the Division I and smaller schools. "If Big University can raise $100 million for a new sports facility and Little College can only raise $10 million", then the numbers will truly display the gap in funds. Not only will it decide who gets what perks, but it'll be a deciding factor in players. It would lead to the big universities having bidding wars for star athletes to come to their program. In time, it would split the schools, leaving some with no choice but to move to Division II or III because nobody will want to go to their program when there are better options. It would be a gut punch to lower caliber players because then they wouldn't get the same choices other top tier athletes do, all because of a pay check. It wouldn't even be the athlete's choice anymore.
6* It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the money rolling in annualy, and it surely doesn't take an economist to give a solution. Really, there isn't a problem, just a question with multiple views and opinions. It's like they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The NCAA and it's athletes are far from broken and there is no need for a "solution" to nothing. Every year, the seniors of high schools leave it all on their field, as well as the classroom, all in the persuit of what comes next. The gates of high school close and the gates of college open. Maybe when the gates open the kids see huge locker rooms, scholarships, and coaches, but that's the reward. The cash can come after college, maybe in the form of another gate, but not now.