Ballewthebear: I applaud your effort. I personally would like to see college players get small (e.g. $30,000) shoe and poster contracts that they may be unable to obtain at the next level and still continue with their education and athletic eligibility.

Ramogi Huma: Ballewthebear -- Currently we have a limited scope in terms of our short-term goals. But the good thing is that upon the completion of the players' association, we will have the opportunity address many different aspects of Division I football.

Dunn407: I think Mr. Huma is doing a good thing because I think that Division I-A should be a lot different than it is now and players should be taken care of.

Ramogi Huma: It's good to have your support. There's a long way to go. But once we reach our long-term goal of establishing a means of influencing NCAA legislation, there should be a number of positive changes.

brandford: Why not strike? It will make an immediate impact and loss of revenue for those who hold it so dear. You have to hit them in the pocketbook. Look at the civil rights movement with Martin Luther King; when they boycotted it got noticed and when they striked it got noticed. And have a ready plan for implementation once they acquiese. I played D-I, but ran track. My coach got wind of me attending a black student action assoc meeting and he went nuts about that. I can only imagine some of the feelings of outrage these coaches will have. Good luck! I am on your side.

Ramogi Huma: We are definitely not advocating striking. We feel that with the many dimensions in NCAA sports, we have a number of other effective ways to pressure the NCAA into meeting our demands. You being a former athlete, you understand the year-round commitment that goes into playing a sport. A majority of the players involved in these sports do not want to strike because of the year-round commitment that goes into playing their sport. These players love their sport and they want to play their games.

Stacy Frazier: I am a former college athlete, so speaking from experience I say they are being paid -- they are getting a free education.

Ramogi Huma: First of all, Stacy, I'd like to thank you for bringing this topic up. Many athletes go through this system; they come in and out and they are told they are given a free ride. And they're told this enough times that they begin to believe it. Nothing in life is free. Think back to your year-round workouts and the injuries, perhaps to yourself or teammates, that were sustained -- as well as the surgeries endured by your peers and the ultimate risk of permanent physical disability and death. At the same time, there may have been large amounts of money generated from your activities.

You did not receive a free education. You earned it.

Division I football players do a lot to earn and maintain their scholarships.

Burch: Isn't college preparation for employment, whether you are an athlete or not? Athletes already have a full scholarship. Many other students are forced to take on debt to receive their education and prepare themselves for employment. Athletes should count their blessings. They not only receive a degree, which gives them the same chance for employment as all other graduates, but they have the bonus opportunity of having professional sports as a second career choice. Remember, no one is forcing you to be an athlete.

Ramogi Huma: Again, student-athletes are fortunate. It's difficult to compare the experience of regular students to the experience of student-athletes. The CAC does not hold the position that we have it more difficult than regular students, and we recognize that regular students often have a very difficult time putting themselves through college.

The idea that college football players have professional football as a second career option is often overstated. Only about 1 percent of college athletes go on to play professional football, and the average career in the NFL is 3 years. That's not much of an option.

Brian Foley: I go to a school that is in a mid-major conference. We do not have big-time basketball or big-time football. Our big sport is men's ice hockey. How would your plan for payment of athletes deal with schools with less revenue streams?

Ramogi Huma: That's a good question. First, I'd like to stress that the CAC is pursuing relatively moderate goals with relatively small financial demands. We recognize that many schools fall into your category and we think there are a number of options available, including subsidies from schools that produce larger revenues than others.

Klynch: The main problem I see is that sports like football and men's basketball make money, therefore some sort of payment or stipend makes perfect sense. But what about the other 80 percent of the athletes who play sports that don't make the money? How can the schools afford and pay the athletes evenly?

Ramogi Huma: Many of the goals we are pursuing will benefit all athletes, such as medical coverage and the ability to work jobs during the academic year without any "salary cap." Within the limitations of the existing structure of NCAA sports, it may not be able to extend increases in stipends to all sports. I will point out, however, that there are currently existing differences between revenue-generating and non-revenue generating sports; while football and basketballl players receive full scholarships there are many other sports in which athletes receive only partial scholarships, which may be limited to just books. And those differences go across both male and female sports.

Michael Nielsen: Take off the blindfolds, people, I don't think you really know what kind of dollar amount these college athletes are generating. Every kid that goes to college has the right to work. Why can't we create a monthly stipend for athletes since they are the ones who make it possible to fill the seats?

Ramogi Huma: Many people think that maybe we should not be pursuing these goals. After all, high school players are in the same situation and they don't have it half as good as we do. However, this movement has been borne in the context of NCAA sports as it exists today. You are absolutely right, my friend, there is more than enough money being generated to provide basic protections for the people who generate the money.

Lucifer: Athletes who get full-ride scholarships should not get paid. The amount of money that they are being "given" for participating in a sport is more than enough. They should all be thankfull that they will not start their careers already owing $25,000 to $50,000 dollars. They would realize how nice they have it if they had to pay for their courses.

Ramogi Huma: According to each member institution, the amount of our full scholarships is not enough to cover cost of attendance. Institutions determine the amount necessary for a student to survive and label it "cost of attendance." The NCAA sets our full scholarships at a dollar amount that is less than the cost of attendance; on average, it's about $2,000 a year per player. Many athletes do finish their educations with substantial loans because of the difference between these two numbers. For the ones that do graduate with having no debt, they can be thankful but perhaps some of the players who fall into this category who have endured surgeries and will function with chronic pain the rest of their lives are a little less fortunate.

S.J.: I'm a little late, but I like to say that athletes in college should be able to make money but only if there is certain and set amount of money. Plus, everyone from star player to eighth man of the bench in basketball should make the same. Again, the pay should be set and not have a college player go to the highest bidder like A-Rod did.

Ramogi Huma: The increases in stipends would be applied to all athletes on the team, from first-year player to starter.

Steve Slaton: I think a monthly stipend is necessary, because it's nearly impossible to hold down any kind of job as a full-time D-I athlete. We have practice, film sessions, lifts, we're on the road a lot. So, once you account for time to study, there is not time to work.

Ramogi Huma: I agree. The time demands are much too great for many athletes to hold down a part-time job during the academic offseason. The increase in stipends will help ease the financial hardships that these athletes endure. There are older athletes, however, who have had some time to master their time management skills and would like the opportunity to work and earn an unrestricted amount of money during the academic year. These athletes' needs should be met.

Eric: Assuming no "salary cap," how do you expect the NCAA to distinguish between one student-athlete "working" for $40 an hour versus another working for minimum wage? NCAA violations occur now with these restrictions in place, what makes you think violations won't get out of hand?

Ramogi Huma: First, the $2,000 salary cap was not originally implemented to curb abuses. It was implemented to give athletes a chance to make up the difference between their full scholarships and the cost of attendance. The NCAA currently has a system to prevent athletes from securing bogus jobs; with this system in place athletes should not be restricted to a salary cap. If an alum or booster does find a way around the system, there's nothing to prevent them from providing student-athletes more than enough money in the summertime when there is no salary cap for part-time work.

Chris: On what information are you basing your assertion that "there is more than enough money being generated" by Division I sports? Do you have access to the financial information from athletic departments? As a former athletic department administrator at a Division I school, I can assure you that most schools are not showing a profit. In fact, they are spending exorbitant amounts of money to outfit and care for the athletes under the current system, as well as paying large sums to provide these athletes with top-quality coaching.

Ramogi Huma: You bring up a valid argument. Many schools report losses on their athletic programs. But because these institutions are non-profit institutions, there is no clear way to track this money. For-profit institutions must abide by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, which are strict guidelines for reporting and tracking revenue. However, non-profit institutions do not have to abide by these rules and numbers can be manipulated depending on the motives of each institution at a given time.

Rugger: If you want to make money by playing athletics, that's what minor leagues are for. If you want to get a quality education, you go to college. Suggesting that student athletes be paid for their efforts sems ridiculous to me. If we reward people for doing extra curricular activities should we offer salaries to student government officers?

Ramogi Huma: I would like to state that the vast majority of college athletes do go to college to attain a quality education. The difference between student-athletes and student-government officials is that student-athletes generate a ton of revenue, some of which the CAC feels should be re-directed to ensure that these athletes are protected.

Greg: Yes, athletes should be paid, but only enough to get by. I played football in college and found it hard to make ends meet. A little extra cash would help. But players at all NCAA levels should receive enough money to get them through bills, rent, and food. People overlook the kids at Division II and Division III who are working their butts off just as much as Division I players. I've seen a big-time Div. I program up close, and I put in just as much time as they do during the season and after, and outside people don't understand that it is hard for all players at all levels. Players should be compensated fairly across the board.

Ramogi Huma: It's true that Division II and III athletes put in time that is comparable to Division I athletes. They're also subject to the same risks and physical harm. Upon the completion of the players association, the CAC does plan on looking into issues of student-athlete welfare in Division I-AA, Division II and Division III.

Mark: Only a small percentage of student-athletes generate that ton of revenue. The revenue that football and basketball teams generate is used to fund non-revenue sports, many of which are female sports. Would it be wise to give the revenue to the football and basketball players and do away with the non-revenue sports?

Ramogi Huma: It is not the intent of the CAC to seek gains that would be detrimental to athletes in other sports. We feel there is enough fat to trim in NCAA sports to keep the current structure of cross-subsidies alive. We realize the way the system is set up today allows many student-athletes that are not football and basketball players an opportunity to receive an education.

Bill from Villanova: You also mentioned surgery as a cost associated with athletics. D-I programs don't have health insurance on their players? If they don't, that's ridiculous.

Ramogi Huma: Division I institutions are not mandated to provide health coverage to their student-athletes. However, it is the culture that the universities do pick up costs related to sports injuries. The NCAA actually prohibits these institutions from providing health coverage during various workouts in the summertime. This is unacceptable. This provision puts athletes at physical and financial risk.

Haus: As soon as college athletes are held to the same academic standards as all other people who would like to attend college, they can gripe. Until then, I say forget it.

Ramogi Huma: I believe what you're referring to is the fact that student-athletes do not have to have the same academic performance levels as other students to be admitted into various institutions. The degree to which this policy allows much variation from the mean academic performance varies across institutions. Athletes are fortunate that this provision is made; however, I will point out that athletes are not the only people to be admitted by these standards. Institutions make provisions to relax academic standards for students with various talents, including musicians, actors, dancers, etc. (not to mention children of wealthy alums). This is an institutional provision upheld by prominent academic figures across the nation. Student-athletes are often isolated when this discussion comes up because of stereotypes of poor academic performance. Once admitted into the institution, student-athletes are held to the same academic standards as other students. So, I guess we can gripe.