Paying college athletes has become a very popular issue over the last decade. With the NCAA's revenues shooting through the roof over this time, it's clearly unfair that the athletes who are providing the real entertainment don't get paid.
There are countless articles to read on either side of the argument, so I won't add to the pool. But one thing that does bother me is when people are arguing against players being paid, they almost always come back to the question of whether certain sports would receive more money, or if everyone would get the same amount. In the time of political correctness, of course the argument is that a less popular sport's athlete is just as much a student athlete as say a college football player. That is true, of course. College athletes at every level and in every sport put in a lot of time for their sport.
I think it's more fair to pay the sports athletes that make most of the money for the university, but certainly understand the other argument. What is bothersome is that people seem to forget that while a scholarship is "valuable", every school is technically offering a different amount of money. A full scholarship to Duke University for Tyus Jones, for example, is worth a helluva lot more than a full scholarship to the University of Minnesota. And I mean that literally; Duke's board and tuition for out-of-state students is just under $50,000 a year. The University of Minnesota's board and tuition for in-state students (since Mr. Jones is from Apple Valley) is just over $25,000 a year. So over 4 years Duke is able to offer $100,000 more than the Gophers, simply because of the value of their university.
If the value of a college education varies by school, why shouldn't the value of a college athlete vary by the money their sports are capable of raising? It's silly.