In light of the recent indictment of Sacramento King all-star, Chris Webber, the question has to be raised, should collegiate athletes be getting some sort of compensation for their services?

Ok, I know that these athletes are “amateurs” and I know that the universities are doing these “amateurs” a favor by granting them a scholarship, but being treated like an indentured servant should not be a requisite for becoming a scholarship athlete.

It seems as if my ramblings are far-fetched, and I?m sure the administration at any university would beg to differ with me, but the reality of the situation is that universities are making huge profits off their athletes.

In college football the difference between getting to a BCS bowl game and not getting to a BCS bowl game can literally mean millions of dollars.

The universities that get to the BCS bowl games, which are, the Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and Rose Bowl, are given purses in excess of over a million dollars for their appearances in those games.

Did the athletes that actually had to go out on the field and perform receive any portion of that money? No! Oh, I forgot, they have a scholarship so that should be good enough.

Even if the athletes aren?t getting paid, which I can understand, they still shouldn?t be exploited for their talents and then be forced to live in relative poverty. Indeed it is downright disgusting to see an athlete, who is a national superstar, not have enough money to do his laundry.

Did I mention that the schools make tons of money off their athletes through the sale of jerseys and other sports paraphernalia?

Athletes see fans all across the nation with their jersey on, but can?t receive any money for it.

People from the older generations might say, “Why don?t these lazy kids get out and get jobs. When I was young, I went to school and worked four jobs.”

That?s a good point, but therein lies the problem. The students aren?t allowed to have jobs during the season. So how are the students suppose to make due? Well, for starters, if they have parents that support them, being a student-athlete isn?t too bad. But what about those athletes that don?t have parents that are capable of supporting them?

Are they supposed to resort to holding up cardboard signs on the freeway that say, “Can you spare a dollar, I am a scholarship athlete that can?t afford a meal.”

As funny as it sounds, that scenario isn?t too far from the truth.

Just when you thought the NCAA rules couldn?t get any more unrealistic, issues such as the Chris Webber incident arise.

Now if Chris Webber lied to the grand jury that?s one thing, but the whole reason he had to go before the grand jury was because he allegedly lied about accepting money from a guy that was supposed to be an agent.

Well, maybe if these athletes didn?t have to live in these penitentiaries that they call dorms they wouldn?t have to accept money from an outside source. Maybe, if the athletes were allotted a certain amount of financial aid that would cover all their living expenses throughout the semester, they wouldn?t have to resort to accepting money from “friends of the program.”

Anytime a student is being suspended from playing because he accepted a suit, as in the case of former Penn State running back Curtis Enis, things are a little unfair. Anytime a student is being suspended from playing because an agent paid for dinner, as in the case of former UCLA running back Deshaun Foster, things are absolutely unfair.

If you think I am lying about some of the dire circumstances that student-athletes face, ask some of the athletes on campus how their financial situations are. They are subjected to doing anything that the university asks of them, but yet they can?t even afford to feed themselves at times.

It?s simple. Should athletes be paid for their services? No. Should athletes have comfortable living conditions, yes.