1. What good cause? Sure as heck ain't money for the college; most football programs lose money. The only consistent moneymakers are powerhouses like Notre Dame and Oklahoma. I'll be watching the Rose Bowl, and rooting for the Horns, so don't call me a hater, but as far as I can see, the only thing college football does for the school is create a phony sense of esprit de corps for a place (i.e., a big public university) that would otherwise seem like a faceless credential factory.
   
2. If colleges could pay athletes to play, then the number of viable football programs would be even smaller than it is now. Especially if transferring became unrestricted as well. That all-conference freshman at Middle Tennessee would invariably transfer to Tennessee or LSU, especially if there was a paycheck involved. And with those second-tier programs would go  all of the scholarships for people only good enough to play for those schools.
   
3. If colleges got out of the football business: minus the sentimental, anachronistic (imo) attachment to universities, you would essentially have minor-league football and there wouldn't be 1/10 the interest that there presently is in NCAA football.
   
4. From points 2 and 3 it follows that the number of players who could make a better living at football than the NCAA affords them is considerably tinier than even Chait suspects.
   
5. The NFL is rather more of a cartel than the NCAA (which acts in the interests of a bunch of unprofitable second- and third-tier programs), and their rule (basically prohibits the signing of anyone who graduated from HS less than 3 years ago) is as much to blame for what injustice there is as the NCAA.

I mentioned this before when you broached the topic, you have to take into account the effect on Title IX.  It would likely have to be repealed (or at least severly limited in application).  I'm not neccessarily against this, but I know quite a few people who would be and think that this should be taken into account when considering the topic.

The "cartel" label is also misused here.  Anyone could start a football league in which individuals (with the possible age limits of 17 0r 18 to 22 or 23, although this would likely raise consitutional questions) could participate.  The fact that no one has started such a successful league is irrelevant.  The NCAA has no monopoly on competitive football for entertainment purposes (witness NFL, Canadian Football League, Arena Football, etc.).  They offer compensation (tuition, room and board, stipend) for services rendered. 

 I would abandon this line of argument. 

1. The NCAA needs to start banning coaches who cheat rather than punish players or programs who receive illegal inducements. If they can't follow the rules (as bad as they are) they can more easily find another job in another league.



2. Coaches need to be paid based in largeer part on graduation rates. This would encourage them to become involved more in and work harder to enable the education of their players, which some claim to do but only when it is in their own interest.


3. The system works for a large number of true student athletes in non-revenue sports and DII and DIII and the NAIA. Paying players in the major sports might do more damage to the entire system. (unforseen consequences and all that)

Okay - not sure what happened to my comment above. At any rate:
College athletes DO get paid - they get a scholarship, an opportunity to get a college diploma from a very good school. Almost any college football player that gets a scholarship, and would be "paid" in the traditional sense, could go to a good school and get a degree worth tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. Last time I checked, getting something of value in return for a service is called being paid.
Whenever someone says that college athletes should be paid, they NEVER actually have thought through what that means. They have only noticed that something seems wildly unfair about an industry predicated on a production input with a price fixed by a cartel. 
Who would be benefitted if the price at which college athletes are paid was unfixed? Only those players that are NFL-quality, that could command a high price right out of high school. So, in reality, the argument that college football players should be paid is really just saying that certain NFL-caliber players should be able to increase their lifetime earning capacity by beginning earning in college. Not much of a plus for social justice.
Instead to address the problem with abuse and exploitation of college athletes - and it is a serious, widespread and meaningful problem - the schools have to be compelled to take seriously their commitment to educating ALL their students - including offensive linemen. This doesn't mean they have to raise their entry standards, as schools such as Vandy and Stanford do, but just devote real resources to making sure that every player is practically compelled to earn a real college degree. 

Most of the money brought in by college athletics is indirect (increased contributions by alumni) rather than direct (tickets and licensing). Or at least that's the theory that administrators work on.

First, there's something really funny about a typo in the headline on this topic.

The truly exploited kids are the ones who never have a chance of playing professionally, but are told that they do.  I've been told, by people who have been in division 1 football programs that there is compensation, in kind and under the table for the real stars.

The simple solution is to pay them the same hourly wage as the top earners in other student jobs. When I was in school, that was the book binders in the library and the people who worked as bar backs during reunions.  For those who say that the scholarship is compensation enough, it's worth noting that many of these kids would qualify for need-based scholarships anyway--if they were accepted without their athletic qualifications, that is. 

But it is worth noting, on the other side of the argument, that I don't know anybody who seems to feel like they were exploited, from my cousin who carried a clipboard for TCU, to the neighbor who backed up at running back at Michigan to the colleague who started at DB at ASU.  It's a lot of fun playing a sport at an elite level.  Kids walk on.  Kids play without any scholarship.

And, finally, the economics of college sports is complicated.  Football programs pretty clearly cost the schools money.  Top basketball programs probably make money, but that's the only sport where that is true--and coaches rake a lot off the top. 

I've come to believe that the central motiviation for all actions by college presidents is to build the endowment.  Sports create a loyalty to a school that translates into donations. Steven Weisberg, the UTexas physicist, recently commented that when he gave a speech, he  mentioned that 20 years from now there would be more important memories from their college years than whether the Longhorns won last Saturday.  He described the audience's reaction as stunned by such a notion.

I think he was wrong, and from his recounting of that anecdote, I think he knows he was wrong.

Agreed, abjectfunk. That money ought to be guaranteed.

With that said, I still find Matt's arguments about "the better athelete" to be unconvincing. Its nice to argue theory and fairness, but what about the practical consequences? Bringing money into a game with inarguably immature young adults is mistake in any sport.