No pay for play

Recent scandals in college sports have once again brought proponents of paying college athletes out en masse.

Supporters of this idea argue that college athletes bring in large amounts of revenue to the college, so they should get a "piece of the pie."

Seems simple, right?

Wrong. Paying college athletes would not be a panacea. In fact, it would create even more problems for schools.

First, college athletes who receive athletic scholarships are already being paid. With the rising cost of tuition throughout the country, the average Division-1 player with a full scholarship is receiving a free education, which would have probably cost anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000.

That's not a bad deal when you consider that most students are paying off loans from tuition costs for years after they graduate.

In some cases, athletes are not only getting a free education, they are getting an opportunity that they may not have had if they were not great athletes.

Some athletes would not even be in college if they were not playing sports.

Their achievements in their respective sports have not only given them an opportunity for an education, but a free education!

Second, many other students bring in large amounts of revenue to their colleges and universities.

For example, medical students and other graduate students in health-related fields are often responsible for seeing patients at the university hospital.

Who gets the money when the bill for the services comes? It's not the student, it's the university hospital.

Students in many fields are required to do unpaid internships or externships that bring revenue to their school, or to local businesses.

For their efforts, they may receive a scholarship, but they do not receive large sums of money on top of their scholarships.

They get used to the fact that they have to live a certain lifestyle until they become a professional. They can't have many luxury items until they reach that level.

College athletes need to adhere to the same principles. Their payday will come soon enough.

Finally, paying college athletes would further enhance the perception that many of them are there to play rather than get an education. More athletes would view their sport as their "job."

If this were the case, would an athlete rather study the playbook one more time or study for his biology test? His performance in biology won't have an impact on his pay. His performance on the field might. It's a terrible message to send.

In some cases, a top college player may indeed be in school only to audition for professional sports, but, they still need to have their education placed at the top of the priority list.

One wrong twist or turn can lead to a career-ending injury. What happens then? Instead of spending revenue paying athletes to perform, we should be talking about spending revenue for helping athletes graduate.

Many proponents of the "pay for play" system argue that many of the NCAA violations committed by players would be reduced if they had their own money to spend.

This is like telling the police officer that you would not have been violating the speed limit if they would have only raised it by 10 miles per hour.

That argument won't get you out of getting a ticket.

College athletes who break NCAA rules by accepting money, hummers, or other lavish gifts should not be given a free pass.

They know the rules. They break the rules. They have to live with the consequences.