Do people making this argument ever think beyond the end of their noses? Only about 25 major programs earn a profit, then there are hundreds more (the majors have to have someone to play) that lose varying amounts and must be subsidized. Below the major conferences, very few programs turn a profit.
Are they recommending a system where only the profitable programs must pay their players, or must all college programs pay their players? And if football players receive additional benefits, what about all other scholarship athletes and, what about women athletes in money losing sports.
If some kids think they are ready for the pros, let them try to go directly to a pro team if they can find a team that will take them. Or let the pros set up minor leagues. But this entire argument to pay college players beyond their scholarships and living costs makes no sense beyond the few very profitable programs.
And what about large, profitable high school programs that turn out a stream of college prospects? Should high players be paid?
For all this effort, She (I) gets a $500 scholarship each semester. Woohoo!
Nevertheless, I consider it a great opportunity for her, as I consider it a great opportunity for the majority of football "scholarship" athletes. If it were not for football, they would have NO opportunity at all! Shame that the majority get worthless degrees, and have no opportunity afterwards.
but, are they robbed? One cannot be robbed of that which they never possessed. The future it intangible.
imagine they glory of saying "I was on the 2015 Alabama NCAA championship team?!?