Picture an enormous number of workers in an industry who attend school full-time, work full-time and produce millions of dollars for their employers. No, this is not a labor camp; this is the multi-million dollar industry where student-athletes produce large amounts of revenue for the NCAA.

Controversy is now surrounding the NCAA and whether their decision to add $2,000 to current athletic scholarships for Division I athletics will come through.

It is understood that not all NCAA sports deserve to be compensated by means of a stipend.

But sports that generate large revenue and merchandise sales, such as Division I men’s football and Division I men’s basketball, would create an argument in receiving such stipend. This would also extend to other schools that excel in Division I women’s sports.

The NCAA website says, “Student-athletes are students first and athletes second. They are not university employees who are paid for their labor.

Many student-athletes receive athletics grants-in-aid that can be worth more than $100,000.” Athletic scholarships, unlike academic scholarships that are given as four-year scholarships, are given on a yearly basis.

If athletes decide for whatever reason to no longer participate in their respected sport, the scholarship becomes void. If the NCAA elects to add a   stipend for revenue-making sports at schools, it would indeed take away the temptation that student-athletes have of selling personal items to afford daily living.

According to espn.com, Ohio State football’s star quarterback Terrelle Pryor and four other teammates were suspended for the first five games of the 2011 football season because they sold championship rings, jerseys and awards.

However, some athletes feel that they are entitled to sell their jerseys, socks, pants and awards because they were given to them.

Recent discussions have been held within the NCAA for an allowance of $2,000 of athletic scholarship to be added annually by various conferences to existing athletic scholarships. NCAA President Mark Emmert said, “I know there’s a lot of debate out there for pay for play, but that’s not even open for discussion. It’s so antiethical to what college athletics is.”

Generally, student-athletes spend between 10 and 15 hours practicing, depending upon when seasons are and what sport it is. Add this to a general student-athlete course schedule, which falls between 12 and 16 hours of classes per week. This does not take into consideration traveling and class work. This takes away any chance of obtaining an outside job in order to gain some sort of income for living.

Without a football team  or a perrenial NCAA basketball tournament qualifying team, SLU does not receieve as much publicity as teams with already strong athletic programs. Because SLU does not have as much money to spend on athletics, their recruitment efforts are not at the same level as the aforementioned schools.

This forces SLU to recruit and then develop a weaker caliber of players.  The weaker calliber of players   causes the team to not perform as well, which continues the spiral of downward athletics. Other schools with more revenue to spend on stipends only increases the gap between the top recruiting schools in the country and the weaker ones.

One can say that the schools in the Big Ten or SEC are “the one percent” and schools in the Atlantic 10 or SWAC conferences are the 99 percent.” Maybe the A-10 and SWAC can join together to form an “Occupy NCAA” protest.  I could write about, “Biondi and athletes joining hands against the University of Missouri.”