Those left in the Georgia Dome are exuberant. Louisville has just won the NCAA men’s basketball national championship, and players, coaches and fans are soaking in the rain of confetti that covers the floor.

Head coach Rick Pitino, smiling and embracing his players, is headed for more than a $6 million payday. Jim Nantz, conducting interviews on a set-up stage with the championship trophy, represents CBS. The company will be making millions after it signed a multi-billion dollar contract to showcase the tournament on its family of networks. Louisville players are already donning their championship hats and T-shirts with the familiar blue NCAA logo, which are sure to make a nice chunk of revenue when sold.

While seemingly everyone in the picture is earning a pretty penny because of the game, it is the players who will be the only ones not lining their pockets after the victory.

Is something wrong with this picture?

The debate on whether college athletes should be paid has intensified as the industry of college athletics has become a more lucrative business. The 2013 Final Four was the highest rated in eight years, according to Nielsen Media Research, and the television revenue from advertising exceeded $1 billion in 2012, according to Kantar Media. 

The NCAA doesn’t allow for its participants to be paid in order to keep their amateur status before turning professional and making money playing sports. While the majority of collegiate athletes are compensated in scholarships and benefits for playing in their respective sports, some see the free education as not being enough. Without the players, there wouldn’t be any competition. 

Since many sports have away games during school, most athletes will miss classes because of traveling and practices while in-season. In an attempt to rectify the situation, Illinois offers student-athletes the Irwin Academic Services Center, which is an athlete-only study area complete with tutors to help players get caught up on schoolwork. Other freebies for athletes include merchandise, blue Nike backpacks and other assorted small handouts.

“I know regular students have to take 12 hours to be a full-time student, we have to take 15,” sophomore running back Dami Ayoola said. “I know I took 18 (hours) last semester on top of being a freshman and playing on the field. It wasn’t the easiest thing. It takes an extraordinary person to do that.”

Ayoola said he is at the stadium with the football team 28 hours a week, but players exceed that to earn more playing time. No matter the sport, the work revolves through the calendar year — whether the sport competes in the fall, spring or both. Many athletes spend holidays and summer breaks to stay with the team and practice almost year-round.

However, the main entree in this world of revenue sharing has been the popular sports: football and men’s basketball. The television contract between Time Warner and CBS to broadcast the ‘March Madness’ basketball tournament, featuring the top 68 men’s basketball teams in the country, is worth nearly $11 billion dollars over the next 14 years, according to Fox Business.

Football and basketball certainly do the heavy lifting for making money for the Division of Intercollegiate Athletics; in fact, the two sports are the only ones that make any money at all. According to reports submitted to the NCAA by the DIA, every single other varsity sport at the school loses money, while the big two still propel the Illinois budget into the black. If the DIA was seen as a business model, there would be two successful branches, while the other 17 push the company toward debt. Despite that, the DIA does, in fact, make money, and it opens the door to say there are funds available to give to athletes.

“What would be good is about $1,000 per month,” Ayoola said. “Nothing too big. But we do a tough job, and I think it’s time people start realizing it.”

The DIA’s bottom line could get into some trouble, however, if the two main sports begin to falter. During the 2011 season, the Illini football team was 7-6 and had eight home games – an unusually high amount for a season. Despite the moderate success, the Illini faithful mostly stayed home, averaging just 50,708 fans per game – a far cry from Memorial Stadium’s capacity of 60,670. The football team earned more than $28 million in revenue in 2011; however, if the big money isn’t coming in as expected, then there is less to spread around to the rest of the sports. In 2012, the football team was an abysmal 2-10 and did not record a conference win. Attendance reflected the team’s failures and dipped to 45,564 fans per game.

Trying to implement a compensation system that is fair to all sports involved can be difficult. One of the most realistic and descriptive systems was a model designed by Sports Illustrated’s George Dohrmann and a host of specialists. A coalition of several experts, including an accountant and current and former college athletes, put together a model to cut costs and ultimately pay student-athletes $1,000 per month.

While the principle seems sound, there are casualties. Dohrmann and his team of experts said that football scholarships would be cut down as well as relegating many varsity sports to the club level to cut costs. Again, Title IX would ensure gender equality, but there would undoubtedly be an uproar from the smaller sports deemed “expendable.” One of Dohrmann’s main supporting points about cutting down smaller sports is the fact that they lose so much money, yet the NCAA requires them. For universities with both a Division I football and basketball program, the NCAA requires the school to have 16 varsity-level sports.

Not all athletes unconditionally support the pay-for-play model, however.

“I’m indifferent. We got a lot as it is, and I’m not one to say that we need more,” senior tennis player Misia Kedzierski said. “But we don’t have a job and this basically is our job, so I could understand why people would want it.”

The Illinois women’s tennis team, which competes in both the fall and spring seasons, is able to afford full scholarships for its eight-player roster. Because of Title IX, an equality law passed in 1972, scholarships and benefits are more readily available to female athletes. Even though the team is generous with its scholarships, it is one of the best of the small sports financially. The Illini team “only” lost $224,299 in 2011, which was the third-lowest deficit among the sports in debt.

Another large part of the system in place is in the form of a per diem, a benefit given for road games. The athletes are given a daily cash budget that is intended to be spent on food while traveling on the road for away games. The amount varies per sport, although in some cases, the cash handout is more than enough for food costs and is used for recreational spending. For example, Ayoola said that football players get $100 per day to spend on food and still gets $20 per day even when meals are provided. On the other hand, Ashley Spencer from women’s track and field said each team member gets $25-30 per day.

If this sort of inequality was reflected in a pay-for-play model — where compensation was based on how much revenue the team generated — the successful “smaller” sports would be overlooked even more.

“I think it should be based on performance, definitely,” Kedzierski said. “Our football team did not do well last year … while our men’s gymnastics team won the national championship and they practice in a building with no air conditioning. It’s a little ridiculous.”

While athletes are pushing for more compensation for their hard work in their respective sports, some students resent the idea that athletes seem to get more from the University, solely on the fact that they are good at sports. 

There is no doubt that student-athletes receive more benefits overall than the regular student, however, the argument lies in if those perks are justified. Athletes receive consideration when enrolling into the University and the standards established by the school are irrelevant. The baseline minimums for a Division I scholarship are an 18 ACT and a 2.0 GPA (on a 4.0 scale) coming out of high school, although that will be raised to a 2.3 starting in 2015. In addition, the player must maintain a 2.0 throughout their college career to stay eligible, according to the New York Daily News.

As mentioned above, the athletes have access to facilities and resources to help stay eligible that the regular student does not, and that irks some students.

“That’s not fair. We all worked our asses off to get here,” sophomore Kelly Pendergast said. “We should all have the same benefits. I don’t care if they’re busy; I’m busy too.”

While both sides seem unhappy at the moment, there doesn’t seem to be any movement in either direction. Student-athletes won’t stop receiving their benefits as long as the DIA has over $16 million to throw around from its budget.

Troubling news, however, for players and supporters of the pay-for-play idea came from NCAA President Mark Emmert in 2011. Emmert told USA Today that he “loathed” the idea amid a recruiting scandal involving improper benefits given to star Auburn quarterback Cam Newton. 

“I can think of all kinds of compelling reasons why not to do it. I can’t think of a compelling reason why to do it,” he told the paper. “There’s a constant discussion that we ought to stop pretending that student-athletes are amateurs, that they’re really professionals, that they ought to be paid. I understand that perspective, but I just profoundly disagree with it.”

Back in Atlanta, Ga., the confetti downpour is just about finished. For the NCAA, however, these pieces of confetti papers might as well be dollar bills, as they just completed one of the most successful tournaments in recent memory. The only difference is, while the confetti rains upon those players left on the court, they won’t be seeing any checks from the NCAA anytime soon.

Stephen can be reached at [email protected] or @steve_bourbon.