The subject of should or shouldn't NCAA student-athletes get paid is very complexed. From the outside looking in, it's a "no-brainer." With more perspective, you'll see that it isn't as easy as you'd think to come to either conclusion.
If you are in the camp of student-athletes getting paid, here's something to think about. Who gets paid? The perception is, football and basketball players make the money, so they should get the money. That sounds great, especially since the television contracts are so public and we know that billions of dollars are made as a result of them.
This is what you don't know. That money isn't just split up for the NCAA Division I schools that you see every week on televisions. That money is to support all of the NCAA schools all over the country. It helps provide financial support to the Division II and III programs that aren't able to generate their own revenue.
You may not care about those kids, but it takes money, not as much, for them to participate in athletics too. They have national post season tournaments that provide opportunities of a lifetime as well.
What if you're at Johns Hopkins? You play lacrosse on the Division I level, but all of your other sports are Division III. In fact, lacrosse is your money maker. Who's the money maker at Towson, or should they not be considered because they aren't "big time" enough? The truth is, there are more examples of the Towson Universities of the world than the "big time" examples.
Does a football player at Maryland see the same money as a football player at Miami? They're in the same conference, but do they bring in the same revenue?
If you don't believe these kids need to get paid, why not? Billions of dollars are exchanged on the backs of these men and women. Who gets that money if not the students who generate it? Why are these kids not able to pay for dinner off campus when they've helped make millions for their institution? Again, it sounds like an easy decision to make, but it isn't.
Rob Long