Another college football season is upon us and across the country millions of fans will pay big bucks to see their alma mater or favorite team do battle. This is the financial "gravy train" time for colleges and universities. The big boys, Notre Dame, Nebraska, USC, Florida, Tennessee and others like them will take in millions in revenue. Success on the gridiron means big paydays and even bigger checks from alums and boosters who all want to claim bragging rights that they "paid" a part in making their team a success. The same can be said about the big time, successful college basketball programs. The bottom line is, big time college athletics generate big time bucks.

I'm concerned about where the bucks stop in college sports. It doesn't stop at the football or basketball program level. They get the money they need. It doesn't stop at the coaches' level. Successful coaches at big time schools make more than the President of the United States or the President of their school. No, everyone gets a taste of the buck except the people who generate the bucks - the players. Slavery was abolished in the late 1800's and the minimum wage was just raised, but those changes apply to everyone but college students.

The argument against giving college athletes money is, "Yeah, but they're already getting a four-year scholarship." Wrong. Athletic scholarships are renewable one-year deals. I've known coaches who have chased kids off their teams so they could use that scholarship for another player that might help the coach keep his job. In addition, time demands on the athlete makes it nearly impossible to graduate within the 4 years of your scholarship. So, after helping generate millions for your school, it's adios and you're on your own. This is not only wrong, it's immoral. The student/athlete is a misnomer. The term student/athlete/entertainer is more appropriate.

I'm not saying a scholarship and a college education aren't appropriate compensation. I'm saying it's not enough. For the athlete, playing sports is a full-time job. It doesn't end at the end of practice or the end of the season. Football players spend countless hours in the weight room and studying game films or just working out on their own. Another argument against giving players money is, "We'll let them work like other students." Wrong again. The NCAA doesn't allow athletes to work during the season and if you add the time demands of staying academically eligible, it's not practical to believe an athlete can play, work and study at the same time.

So, what's the answer? Give athletes a stipend of a thousand dollars a school year. Not just football and basketball players, but all athletes, no matter the sport. Stipends would be limited to scholarship athletes plus a percentage above the number of scholarships to accommodate walk-ons who make a team's roster. For example, stipends would be given to all 85 scholarship football players plus an additional 8.5 players to reflect 10% of the scholarship roster. If this were done at major schools for all men's and women's teams (soccer, baseball, lacrosse, gymnastics, etc.), nearly 300 athletes per school would benefit from relieving stipends. This would amount to roughly $300,000 a year, an amount easily handled by major universities and colleges. One weekend on the golf course with the big buck contributors should cover that.

"Yeah, but what about those small schools that can't afford that kind of money?" First, they wouldn't have as many teams or scholarship players so the number would be smaller. Let's say it's $200,000 a year. Do revenue sharing. Schools that don't have profitable programs can apply for stipend relief from a fund that's funded from a percentage of national, cable and regional broadcast contracts for schools and conferences.

The cost to fund those schools who couldn't afford the stipend money would be 20 to 25 million dollars a year. Not a small amount. But given the 50 million dollars being paid to broadcast the college football national championship game, the one billion dollar deal for college basketball and the numerous other big buck school and conference television and cable packages, the 20 to 25 million dollar cost is a small percentage.

College athletics better start thinking about the future or players will go pro younger and younger and there'll be no motivation not to accept under the table payments from an agent or alum. This plan should be looked upon as an investment in their product. If they don't protect that product, star players will keep leaving early, others will accept illegal inducements causing college programs to be put on probation, fans will get turned off causing television ratings to go down, lower ratings will result in smaller broadcast rights fees and alums will forget how to write their checks. In the end, down comes college sports' house of cards. All because they didn't want to share some of the wealth with the builders of that house - the players.

I'm Ron Barr.