There are many, including the players themselves, who feel that individuals who participate in the college realm and do not move on to the bigger picture deserve some level of pay for what some call “talents that are squandered.”

They are adamant that these “slaves” to the university to which they represent should be compensated for their countless service.

Though many arguments are in favor of paying college athletes for the intense effort they exhibit on the playing field, the underlying factor is that it is not financially sound for athletic organizations to dedicate large amounts of money that they do not necessarily have to the students who are already receiving hefty scholarships.

Maybe college athletes should get paid, but they should get paid through eating and living, not in cold hard cash.

This is why I think it is ridiculous that college athletes think they deserve to be compensated for their competition.

Degrees are more valuable depending on where one goes to school but nonetheless a college degree is valuable no matter where it comes from.

Although it may not seem right that athletes don’t get paid for all their hard work, many argue that college is a stepping-stone towards a professional athletic career and that athletes can wait a few years to get paid millions by professional franchises.

Those who argue for paying student-athletes believe schools use their athlete’s images and performance to make money and the athletes should be compensated.

The education and services collegiate athletes receive for their participation is enough compensation and will be valuable after they’re done competing athletically.

In the highest-revenue sports—football and basketball—the argument in favor of paying players is so searingly obvious as to seem undeniable.

Some of the players who might at least have been exposed to college would forgo it entirely.

If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university’s values would be lost.

It fails, first of all, to recognize the value of sports as a part of education.

The question of pay arises primarily in reference to student-athletes in the sports of football and basketball at Division I institutions with high-profile, high-income athletics programs.

A fundamental NCAA commitment under the collegiate model is to student-athlete well-being, where institutions have the responsibility to establish and maintain an environment in which student-athletes' activities are conducted to encourage academic success and individual development as an integral part of the educational experience.

Student-athletes are amateurs who choose to participate in intercollegiate athletics as a part of their educational experience, thus maintaining a distinction between student-athletes who participate in the collegiate model and professional athletes who are also students.

Students are not professional athletes who are paid salaries and incentives for a career in sports.

The same goes for Division II and Division III sports. Why shouldn’t those athletes be paid the same if they put in the same amount of time to practice, travel, and play games?

However it is not a place for athletes to get paid to play sports, that’s why the professional level exists.

People need to drop the act that athletes are props and labor away for multi-billion dollar businesses. Television helps these kids market themselves.

If players are that good and feel they deserve to be paid, they can make it to the professionals.

If the football team gets paid, why not the tennis team or the volleyball team? They're athletes too, right? What about the golf players? They're all there on athletic scholarship. How about the chess team, as well? And who could forget about the rowing team? And female athletes?

If college football (legally) paid their athletes it wouldn't last. The recruiting process would be no more. It would result in one dominant conference for each sport and about two handfuls of dominant teams. The smaller schools in smaller markets would not be able to compete with the big universities resulting in loss of programs for many schools.

As athletes, they are not held to the same standard as other students. The biggest universities give the athletes the best gyms to workout in, free health insurance for injuries, transportation, food, equipment and most importantly free tuition.

Is this what we want elementary and middle school students to see? As soon as they see this they will be demanding pay at the high-school level. The message College Sports would be sending is "it's ok to hold out for more money and it's ok to only pay some athletes but not others." Every kid will grow up wanting to join the football team just regardless of talent.

Schools are under more financial pressure than ever before, thanks in part to the new school lunch nutrition standards that hit the ground last year

“Moreover, it would allow farmers to make a decent living while giving consumers access to healthy, fresh food at affordable prices.”