The issue of paying college athletes has been debated extensively over the past several years due to various factors. The time involved in participation in athletic practice and competition does not allow athletes ample time to hold side jobs. Also, some proponents of payment for college athletes believe that they should be rewarded for their efforts, which, in many cases, generate income for the school. There are several arguments for and against the idea of paying athletes, and I will discuss these ideas in this paper. I believe that it is necessary for individuals to listen to both sides before they can make a valid judgment on which side of the issue they support.

Until just recently, college athletes were forbidden from working during the academic year by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). However, that was changed when members of the NCAA committee voted to allow athletes to hold part-time jobs in their off-seasons. Until that vote was taken, student athletes at Division I schools have been eligible to receive full scholarships, and many believed that these full rides were more than generous (Lee, 1). The main reason that athletes previously were not allowed

The issue of payments to college athletes is most notably made towards athletes that participate in the "revenue-producing" sports: basketball and football. The NCAA has traditionally tried to make the distinction between amateur college sports and the professional game. However, this distinction is only applied to the players. Coaches are paid extremely well, in most cases, and media contracts can result in huge sums of money changing hands, going to the colleges. In reality, some believe, big-time college football and basketball are comparable to the minor leagues to the pro ranks.

Therefore, some believe that "college players should be treated like the professionals they are in all but name, and paid for their work. Those who want to study could take part of their pay in coursework; those who do not could simply take whatever money they could bargain for, and stop pretending to be students" ("Brawn, Not Brains," 22). This idea concerning pay for college athletes is a little on the liberal side, but it is not uncommon.

As for the athletic scholarships, they only run for one year at a time. They can be revoked without question, no matter how good the athlete is in class. Athletic scholarships are strictly payment for sport, but the athlete is not paid a wage in traditional terms because he or she has no power to negotiate the wage.

Although pay for college athletes may seem like a radical concept, the large profits made by successful, big-time sports programs, including high-profile coaches with endorsement contracts, are hard to overlook. The players are the ones that are working hard for these coaches and schools to earn them the contracts and the money they receive from final four and bowl bids. Many schools make a lot of money due to the participation of their athletes. Even Walter Byers, a major defender of amateur principles during his 36 years as the NCAA's executive director, has in retirement said that he favors athletic compensation. He said, "In light of the hypercommercialization of today's college athletics, dramatic changes

Some common words found in the essay are:
Brawn Brains, Walter Byers, College Athletes, Association NCAA, college athletes, paying college, paying college athletes, part-time jobs, pay college athletes, allow athletes, paying athletes, athletes participate, idea paying, pay college, college athletes believe, idea paying college, athletes receive, sums money, issue paying college,
Approximate Word count = 1401
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)