You can't pay them all, so you can't pay any of them

There's been a big push lately for the payment of college athletes. Not all college athletes, mind you, but the football and basketball players who make their school money throughout the year.

It's a valid argument, as a lot of these players are creating a lot of revenue for their schools -- we're talking tens or hundreds of millions of dollars -- and maybe a scholarship, free food and free lodging for four years isn't enough. I think it's a horse-shit argument, but I can see the validity to it, if that makes any sense.

I think football and basketball players should get money from EA Sports -- I don't know how much, but some -- for being portrayed in video games. That's something that could easily be regulated, and worked into their scholarships. I also think that players who's highlights are featured in commercials should get something in return. I'm not talking commercials on ESPN for their upcoming games, I'm talking an All-State commercial that features Christian Laettner's game-winner over Kentucky, things like that. The NCAA has to sell that footage, some of that money should go toward the player.

But that's it, and here's why.

College athletics are a big-money business, no doubt, and the players are at the heart of it. But to pretend that Denard Robinson is the reason Michigan makes a bunch of money, or that Cam Newton is the reason Auburn makes millions during football season is being, well, a moron.

Michigan football was profitable before Denard Robinson. It will be profitable after Denard Robinson. Same with Auburn and Newton. Is Michigan making money off of Robinson and is it going to sell more No. 16 Michigan jerseys because of him? Of course. But they would have sold a shitload of No. 5 jerseys if Tate Forcier was the starter. And when Devin Gardner takes over one day, Michigan will sell a lot of No. 7 jerseys. What I'm saying is the school makes the player, not vice versa.

The ridiculous thing here is not that these college kids aren't getting reimbursed for sales of their jersey -- this would lead to all sorts of problems, such as is a Notre Dame fan buying a No. 3 jersey because of Michael Floyd or because of Joe Montana or any of the number of great players to have worn the number there? -- but the fact they can't sell their jerseys themselves. I understand why the NCAA does what it does, because the selling of one's merchandise could open up Pandora's Box with boosters. Here's my solution: Nobody sells jerseys. Not with numbers, anyway. This will never happen, of course, but it eliminates one of the biggest forms of hypocrisy in the NCAA without creating something that will be impossible to regulate.

You can't pay all college athletes, because the schools can't afford it. In 2009, only 14 of the 120 FBS schools turned a profit with their athletic department. So yes, college sports are big business, but the thought that athletic departments are runaway profit trains is a myth.

How about paying just football and men's basketball players? They are, after all, the two most watched collegiate sports in the country, and probably make the most money for their respective athletic departments.

Problem is, you can't justify paying all college football and basketball players for two reasons: 1. Not all of their programs are actually making money; 2. At some schools, some of the secondary sports make money, too.

How do you tell the wrestlers at Iowa that the football and basketball team will be getting paid, but they won't, especially considering most all of them aren't even on full scholarship? They pack their building every time they step on the mat. Their fans travel like crazy to dual meets across the Big Ten and to national tournaments. Hell, there's a good chance that in the past few years, the wrestling team has out-drawn the basketball team there. So do you pay all college wrestling programs? Of course not. But you can't just let Iowa pay its wrestlers, obviously.

What about SEC baseball teams? What about North Carolina's women's soccer team? What about half of the Olympic sports at Stanford? A lot of these programs make money for their athletic departments because of their tradition and success. How can you justify paying the football and basketball programs at their schools -- because you're paying them everywhere else -- and not them?

It's a noble cause, fighting for the little guy, but in this case, it's not sustainable. Not only is it not sustainable, it's not needed.

Football and basketball players will have to continue to rely on the full-ride scholarships, the free lodging, the free food, the limitless connections and the outstanding exposure to get them through their rough times.