Should college athletes get paid?

I've pondered whether or not college football and basketball players should get paid for years. Many people feel that free tuition and free room and board are more than enough compensation for the collegiate athlete. Nevertheless, universities make millions of dollars in television revenue from NCAA basketball tournament bids or NCAA football bowl game invitations. Some schools earn as much as a fourth of their revenue through football and basketball programs.

I believe college basketball and football players should be compensated for the revenue that they generate for the school; but not in the traditional sense of payment. College athletes shouldn't be paid a salary because of the fact that they would lose their amateur status. However, I think they should be paid in the form of a stipend that is contingent upon them playing sports the entire four years and graduating with a degree.

This would be a win-win situation for both parties: universities would profit from the services of an athlete for four years, and the athlete would profit from receiving a valuable four-year degree and generous monetary compensation for their hard work on the court or gridiron. There would be more incentive for the athlete to apply himself in the classroom and not use college merely as a training ground for professional sports. Athletes that don't make the pros won't feel exploited once their playing eligibility is over. They would have a degree and a cash stipend that is based on a sizable percentage of the revenue earned during their tenure at the university.