Colleges make a lot of money off of athletics– a tremendous amount of money. Yet, the way the system is currently set up allows for them to do so without correctly compensating their workers.

Maybe you are one of the people who consider free college tuition enough compensation. However, I am not.

Now, I am not talking about athletes at Pace University, or those of the like. Frankly, we don’t have a product that is of high enough quality to be considered in this argument. The scholarships handed out to our students are sufficient for our level of production.

No knock against our athletes, they are just not playing for a profitable enough school. If Pace was making millions of dollars off of our football and basketball teams, I would say that they deserve to be paid as well.

The athletes that deserve pay are the ones that play for the programs that do make millions. From those big Division l schools, like Duke, USC, or any one of the numerous programs that are all around the country.

Can you imagine how much money the University of Florida made off of Tim Tebow while he was attending their institution? Or how much the University of Kentucky made off of Anthony Davis?

NCAA rules state that it is illegal to pay student athletes. But why? What is the basis of this rule?

So that institutions can pocket the profit that is only made possible because of the hard work done by the young men playing for them? Maybe. Or could it be that they actually think that the scholarships are sufficient enough?

I hope that it is because they are just trying to squeeze every penny out of their cash cow–I mean athletes–and not because they are stupid enough to believe that a forty or fifty thousand dollar scholarship is enough of a tradeoff to justify the lack of further compensation.

Corruption can be amended, but stupidity is harder to cure.

What makes this possible, are the rules regarding eligibility for pro athletics. In college, the two major money makers—basketball and football—benefit from the rules passed down by the NFL and the NBA.

For the NFL, you must be at least three years removed from high school to be considered, while the NBA institutes a one and done rule where athletes need only be one year removed from high school to be drafted.

Essentially, talented high school athletes must attend college and play for their school of choice, or risk their draft stock falling.

Unfortunately, there are risks associated with playing in college, or playing anywhere for that matter. The risk of injury is there for anyone who competes, and with injury, many times, scholarships can be rescinded.

So really, the athlete is risking everything, while the institution only risks a scholarship that can be taken away at the first sign of any trouble.

If the athlete risks the most, then why should they receive the least? It doesn’t add up, and I am tired of hearing that a scholarship for a kid that probably will never finish school is enough.