And I doubt the NCAA would look favorably on an athletic stipend being use to pay for an abortion.
Paying college athletes isn't going to stop any of the illicit activities involved with collegiate athletics because this isn't about needing material things.
What happened at Miami, Ohio State, USC and most schools involved in improper benefit violations is primarily about greed. It was student-athletes breaking rules because they wanted something they normally could not have, not because they needed something most other students had.
None of these cases involve things like taking a girlfriend to a movie, buying a hamburger or a new pair of pants. These perks go far beyond "basic student needs."
But I am not even making a moral argument about this.
Conceptually, I could care less if some kid can bilk a few coins from an overzealous booster.
The NCAA likes to talk about amateur integrity, but most of its regulations are geared toward preventing highly funded schools from buying up all of the top players and thus widening the competitive advantage they already have.
Morality- and amateurism-based arguments are just public-stated window dressings. But there is a tangible and compelling argument against pay-for-play.
Most universities simply cannot afford to give athletes more monetary aid than they already are. From the outside we see the billion-dollar contracts the NCAA has negotiated for college football and the men's basketball tournament and we say, "Raking in the cash."
We see the ridiculous multimillion-dollar contracts paid to some coaches and say, "How come there is no cut for the kids?"
That is the myopic look at the situation.
