$$$ for play?

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution takes another look at an ongoing debate. Should college athletes be paid for their services?

I'll weigh in on this only because I'm sick of media days and Brett Favre. If anyone knows how to speed up time please contact me at the email address in the sidebar, pronto!

Anyway, the debate begins as follows...

Like some of his Boston College teammates, Ron Brace has played the new "NCAA Football 09" video game. Many of the animated players look and play a lot like the players they're patterned after.

Brace has one thing in common with every player depicted: he's not getting a nickel from the NCAA or game maker EA Sports.

Images from the EA Sports 'NCAA Football 09' game are derived from actual players, none of whom receive revenue from EA Sports.

He has a problem with that.

Brace, and others, take issue with the fact that college athletes are not paid beyond scholarships and aid even as their efforts earn millions of dollars for the NCAA, schools and coaches at the Division I level. Since the players are the reasons for the revenue, they say they should get a cut.

"It's like a job. We get up early, work out, meetings, class and practice," Brace said. "We're giving up a big chunk of our life. I see no reason we shouldn't be paid."

At face, I'll disagree with nothing Mr. Brace told the AJC. It is indeed ridiculous that the NCAA puts restrictions on an athletes' ability to earn income off his own likeness while at the same time allowing companies like EA Sports the privilege of making millions using those same images.

However like many issues, it's complicated. Sure, it's easy to say, "Yeah, those guys should be paid since they're making millions for their schools." If you really try to break it down I think you'll find it's infinitely more complicated then that though.

First of all, I don't think it can ever be discounted just how valuable the scholarships these athletes receive really are. Their residence, meals, books, classes and every other fee a university throws at its students to nickel and dime them is paid for. Over the course of four years, even at a modest university, that's a whole lot of money.

Show me a parent that's footing the bill for their kids' tuition. I'll show you someone that would willing sign away every ounce of their kid's spare time and physical well-being for a scholarship in a heartbeat.

Anyone that wants to tell me that these guys/girls don't get the same education as everyone else, I beg to differ. I understand completely that the amount of time they need to spend doing "athlete stuff" makes them a lot busier then a regular student. Isn't that why they're going to school for free though?

Myron Rolle is a starting safety for Florida State. He is a legitimate Rhodes Scholar candidate. Ohio State's own Anthony Gonzalez was in a similar situation not too long ago. Don't tell me you can't be a great athlete AND a great student if you want to.

Next question, how do you decide who gets paid what if you're going to pay athletes? Is it all athletes? Or only those in revenue-generating sports?

Let's say you go only with male college basketball players and college football players. They're the ones generating the monster TV ratings, right?

Since college basketball players (or potential college basketball players) have figured out how to get paid without being subjected to NCAA bullshit (check out Brandon Jennings, Italy), I'll keep this debate to college football players.

There are approximately 10,000 dudes playing FBS (Div.-1A) football on scholarship in the United States. Are you going to pay them all the same?

That doesn't really seem right does it? You're telling me the third-string safety at San Jose State should be paid the same amount as the starting QB at the University of Georgia? Those guys aren't really generating the same amount of revenue are they for their respective schools? In fact, it's unlikely that the entire athletic department at SJSU is even breaking even.

I could break this down 37 different ways. You'll find that very quickly you get into questions of "fair" that are hard to answer. You can go further then FBS (Div.-1AA) football too, how about FCS (Div.-1AA) teams? Their 16-team tournament is shown on ESPN every year which clearly generates some revenue. Do we have to pay those guys too?

It's easy to say, "Yeah, college football players should be paid." My answer to that is, they are. Let me put it to you this way, if playing college football is such a shitty gig, why are tens of thousands of kids competing for that opportunity every year? By the way, they're doing so with full approval of their parents and other relatives.

How many college football players have you ever heard say this? "You know what, this sucks, I'm going to renounce my scholarship and pay my own way so I don't have to play football anymore."

Here's a little secret great, young athletes. Play something other then football. It's the worst gig in sports, and yet for some reason the most popular.