Viewpoint: Student-athletes are paid, so why should they be paid more?

The difference between "student-somethings" and student-athletes, writes Dan Norton, is we’re doing it for ourselves. They do it for their schools.

Now that a college football playoff has been established, a new question comes to the forefront of the NCAA: Should student-athletes be paid?

They are. Next question, please.

Why is the question open to debate? Student-athletes should be paid. They train or compete for hours each day, all in an effort to represent their school as winners. Then they study and go to class for a few hours more.

Maybe, they sleep. I don’t know when.

I’m trying to graduate with a degree, like these student-athletes are. I’m a student-journalist, and I dedicate a hefty part of each day at school toward the “journalist” part.

Through two years, all I've made is a few hundred dollars of grant money. I actually expected less, so I don't mean to sound like I'm complaining.

We’re all “student-somethings,” trying to earn enough undergraduate experience to stand-out in a bleak job market. The difference between us and a student-athlete is we’re doing it for ourselves. They do it for their schools.

So, in thanks, these schools give out many athletic scholarships. But that doesn’t sound like compensation, so here’s a better way to say it: Schools pay for these student-athletes’ educations, which, if they weren’t student-athletes, they would have to pay for themselves.

Still sounds unfair? Maybe it would persuade some of the skeptics if schools cut all scholarships and put all of their student-athletes on their payroll.

No disrespect intended toward smaller sports, but college football players deserve the largest financial return. Their games and especially their championship garner the most national attention.

This became clear on Tuesday when the powers that be in NCAA football decided to do away with the BCS.

It wasn’t about fairness.

The BCS wasn't loved by fans, but it may have been the fairest playoff system in all sports. It determined the best two college football teams through a mathematical formula and pit them against each other.

Boise State may have been able to win a single championship game given the opportunity, but even James Madison was able to win a single game against Virginia Tech. How many times would that happen again?

It has been and always will be about the money. Schools are set to rake in millions from TV deals, promotions and auctioning off the championship site to the highest bidder.

With the extra money, universities should stay true to their first purpose and do one of two things:

A. Don’t pay student-athletes more -- pay more student-athletes.

Give as many young physically-gifted individuals as possible the opportunity to get a quality education they otherwise might not have been able to afford. Or,

B. Give out athletic scholarships based on an athlete’s skill and the popularity of their sport.

For example, a track runner receives less than a football player even though they are of equal talent in their respective sports.

A football player has to deal with the added pressure of a more intense media focust, which makes their performance that much more valuable to the university. Schools can then lower general tuition and make an education more affordable for the “student-somethings.”

Both options would distinguish NCAA football as -- with the switch to a college football playoff -- something that bears a rough resemblance to the NFL.

Dan Norton is a Summer 2012 Paste BN Collegiate Correspondent. Learn more about him here.

This story originally appeared on the Paste BN College blog, a news source produced for college students by student journalists. The blog closed in September of 2017.