In this debate, there were two sides. There was the side promoting the payment of college athletes and there was the other side which promoted keeping things the way they currently are and not paying college athletes at all. It seemed that both sides had solid arguments and reasoning as to why they believed the way that they did, but there were factors which played into roles of each side. Factors included such things like whether other faculty would be upset if the athletes were paid. If there were faculty members on campuses who felt that they did not make enough money for their position and then athletes began to be paid, perhaps even more than the people unhappy, it left an atmosphere for unhappiness. This scope of disagreement allowed for a complex contribution to the debate. People had to discuss whether or not people would be upset or not with the new paying of athletes. There were a multitude of reasons people could be upset and a multitude of possible reactions the schools would have to take in order to keep everything in line. There were questions as well regarding who would be paid more and how you could judge player’s salaries. Then the question came up do we all just pay the same amounts to all players? These added depth to the conversations because some felt that one route should be taken and others felt the other was the better way. For example, players like Hackenburg, who most likely brin the most spectators due to their stature as an athlete and as a leader on the team, should they be paid more? Logically the answer is yes, they bring more money into the program so they should therefore be paid more than a player sitting on the bench. I can agree with that but I have to admit that if I were the guy sitting on the bench who put in the same hours as Hack day in and day out, I would be rather upset. We discussed this portion of the debate for a while and then another prominent point came up regarding advertising. These players in the NCAA are used for advertising in order to bring revenue to the school and to the NCAA etc. Should they be paid for these ads? Would that be sufficient payment? Would they even need payment from their schools if they are making advertisement money? Then of course if it were only advertising payment, many players would receive no income so you could not say that as a school, you are paying your athletes. It would be the athletes themselves beginning to make money off of their own talents. Also, it would just be a select few of the athletes on your campus making any revenue. So those who believed this side were in a bit of a pickle. They were suggesting that the school itself should not pay them, but they should be able to make money through the school’s promotion of their talents. It created a sort of double standard. At the end of the debate it seemed that most agreed that college athletes were already receiving enough benefit in college through free tuition and meal plan usage etc. They did not need to also be making an income from their sport.