Look, I get the appeal of paying college athletes. But let's be real about what happens if we do. Most athletic departments already lose money - only a handful of top programs turn a profit. So where's that cash coming from? Tuition hikes for everyone else? Cutting non-revenue sports like track or swimming? And then there's Title IX. You can't just pay football players without paying women's volleyball and field hockey the same. That's a legal nightmare that would bankrupt schools or force them to slash whole programs. The practical consequence is we'd destroy the very system that gives thousands of athletes a shot. Right now, scholarships, coaching, facilities, and education are already a pretty solid deal for most players.

So let me paint a picture for you. The University of Michigan's athletic department generated $200 million last year. Sounds like they're swimming in cash, right? But they still operated at a loss because they reinvest everything into facilities, coaching staff, and scholarships for 900+ athletes across all sports. Your criminal analogy doesn't really hold up here. Athletes aren't lawbreakers - they're students who voluntarily chose a scholarship deal that includes tuition

You keep saying I'm changing the topic, but the financial reality is the topic. You can't just ignore it because it's inconvenient for your argument. If we pay athletes, someone has to foot the bill. That's not a misdirection—it's the core question. And your criminal analogy? Still doesn't work. College athletes aren't coerced. They sign a voluntary agreement: play sports, get a free education, top-tier training, and exposure that can lead to pro careers. That's a trade, not exploitation. Look, I'm all for letting athletes profit off their name and likeness—that's already happening. But handing them a salary on top of a full scholarship? That's like demanding rent while living rent-free. The system isn't perfect, but paying athletes would break it for everyone except the top 1%.