Now that the Rose Bowl is over and Vince Young, Reggie Bush, and LenDale White have all declared themselves eligible for the draft, the old debate of paying college athletes rears its ugly head once again.  Like a King Cobra coming out of the basket to the tune of the Indian snake charmer, fans of these athletes begin to hum the familiar tune, "If they were paid to play they will stay and finish their college degree and we can see them play one more year."  Of maybe it is the tune of, "Students on academic scholarships can work and get paid so we should pay our athletes."  My personal favorite is the tune that is played by the boosters, who are the snake charmers of the NCAA, "We need to pay these guys because the NCAA is just 'pimpin' them anyway." 

To all of the snake charmers out there here are my reasons athletes should not be paid and why if they choose to leave early I support them:

1.  College and universities are for education first.  Athletics is secondary.  The majority of the student population is not made up of athletes, but of young men and women who value that degree so much that they pay thousands of dollars to obtain it.

2. If you pay the athletes, do you also pay the cheerleaders, the water boys, the equipment guys, the stat keepers, chess club, physics club, honors society, and the list goes on. 

3. The majority of money brought into the university system is not from athletics but from tuition and state coffers as well as lottery money.  The money that is brought in helps to pay for the athletic travel, coaches' salaries, administrative expenses, and facilities management.  None of these are needed without athletics. 

4.  If you pay athletes, tuition will go up for the rest of the student population.  Most schools are not in the black with their sports programs.  Some women's programs siphon money from the men's programs but because of Title IX they have to exist. 

5.  Title IX.  , "No person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal aid." Do we have to pay women basketball players as much as the men players?  Some women's programs are more successful than the men's in terms of wins but not in terms of revenue.  Who should be paid more?

6.  The NCAA is not "pimpin" athletes; it is the other way around.  Athletes use the university system to get a free education and the exposure that comes with it to impress NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB scouts.  Where else would you get free publicity and an opportunity to showcase your talents and earn a degree at the same time? 

7.  Student athletes can not work jobs outside of school because of the integrity of the job, it would be from a booster, and then it would make a sham of the already low academic standards expected of the student athlete. 

8.  Lastly, paying athletes to play in college would not keep them in college.  If they are going to go pro, then they will always leave when the offer is high enough.  Colleges would never be able to compete with professional salaries.  The student athlete is getting paid thousands in educational expenses alone and if that isn't enough 50k here or there will not keep them when the offer of millions arrives.  Those guys are like Bart and think school bites so they will leave.

Let me say that these arguments are for the athletes at the so called prestigious programs like USC, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Michigan, UT, and other division I schools.  The problem is that if you paid any athlete in any NCAA school precedent would be set.  Then all schools would have to do so or be sued and suffer irreparable damage.  I also want to be very careful about what I say here because when you play with Snakes, you can be bitten.  Feel free to disagree and let me know why. 

Socalsportsfan