I wanted to open a topic for debate...

I am sure a lot of you have already formed opinions on whether or not college athletes ought to be paid. Yes- schools bring in revenue from their big TV deals, corporate sponsors, and using the likeness of star athletes. So, how can institutions bringing in millions of dollars get away with not having to compensate student-athletes? Let's take a closer look, shall we?

1. They are students, not employees of their schools. Despite Urban's best recruiting tactics, he did not go through HR to hire these four and five star picks. The university employee guidelines are in no way similar to that of the NCAA's. In fact, the purpose of college sports (yes, there is a point to all of this madness) is to ultimately create an opportunity for college athletes to have an extraordinary college experience. Just like you pledging your fraternity or spending time volunteering- no one asked you to do it and despite extensive time commitments, you are no closer to being an employee of your school than any student-athlete.

2. Paying student-athletes is ultimately treating them like professional athletes. Bringing in millions of dollars a year through an athletic department seemingly puts college sports on the same playing field as the pros. However, there is still a big difference. The NFL has 32 teams, with rosters of 100 or so players (give or take). The NCAA has 1100 member schools (add an average of 26 teams for men's and women's sports per school) and 460,000 student-athletes. Now if you look at the 11 billion dollars of revenue from the NCAA and write a paycheck for 460,000 "university employees," they are each getting paid $23 and have to come up with tuition on their own. Sure, the average college student pays their own way through school, but come on, $23 to prove a point versus a full cost of attendance scholarship is a no-brainer.

3. There are 24 schools that operate in the black- bringing in more revenue than their expenses. Surely as the money flows in they can pay their players well past their scholarships. However, these special athletic departments make up only 1% of NCAA member schools. They ultimately carry the weight for the other non-revenue generating sports (such as rifle and fencing), women's sports, and emerging sports like lacrosse. They also have higher financial obligations to the NCAA, which brings me to my next point.

4. The NCAA does NOT make any money from College Football Playoffs. I repeat.. they do NOT bring in revenue from the ticket sales, TV deals, sponsors, gear, etc. They didn't even have rights to the photos of Ezekiel Elliott eating confetti in 2015 after OSU beat Oregon in the National Championship. Their money comes from that one special time of the year we call March Madness. It is from March Madness and Final Four that the NCAA funds everything for Division I, Division II, and Division III. The member schools as a whole wouldn't be able to stay afloat and keep their athletic programs without the revenue of March Madness. If you take away access to full scholarships in Division I, it would start to look a lot like Division III. Universities everywhere would notice their favorite sports teams being cut because we let the top 24 schools keep all their money.

5. The balance of amateurism in college sports ensures fairness for the student-athletes. There would be a sick culture developed on campus if the football team and basketball players were paid while other student-athletes (working just as hard) received zero recognition. These american sports would only go so far in international college sports because anywhere else the schools would care more for soccer students. This would impact recruits coming from other countries and wanting to make a mark while the rest of their peers (representing women's sports and emerging sports) get nothing.

6. Speaking of women's sports...Title IX ladies and gentlemen just celebrated 45 years. And in the realm of paying student athletes, there is federal law forcing universities to allocate resources, facilities, and revenue proportionately among the genders. The fact that the more revenue generating sports are indeed male sports, only paying male athletes would be gender discrimination. And schools are mandated under the federal law to treat both genders fairly.

I want to hear your thoughts, whether you learned something new or if you have a constructive argument of why you disagree. For more info on the topic, I highly suggest visiting this website. There's also a YouTube video that is very helpful in educating you all on the topic.