He spends hours upon hours in training for a weekend game. Millions of people watch his every move. He is interviewed on national television by some of the most prestigious ESPN reporters. He has all the right qualities of a professional athlete, but he is not given a single dime for his time in the spotlight. He is an NCAA athlete.

The question of whether or not college athletes should be paid has been debated by many people in the business. It has its certain advantages and certain disadvantages.

Besides their constant pressure from the press, one major reason to support paying college athletes is that the NCAA gives professional teams free recruiting methods. When professional teams have their drafts, they have had to make little effort in reaching college stars because college athletes are in the news all the time.

But colleges have to spend millions of dollars every year to search every corner of the country for the best players, meet with their families and convince them to come to that school. By having national franchises give money to the NCAA to be able to draft their players, it would be fairer to colleges.

Though I do feel badly for these players who don’t get paid for their hard work and media presence, I have to object to the paying of college athletes. I have always liked college sports better than professional sports (with the exception of the MLB because the good baseball players rarely go to college first).

College games are much less commercialized. Of course, they have their sponsors, but they are far closer to playing the actual game. They seem to have a stricter love of the game, a quality that I admire wholeheartedly.

I fear that paying college athletes will cause them to lose a quality in them that I adore so deeply: dedication to the game.

The thoughts and opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer and not necessarily that of the Scout staff. The writer can be reached through email at lcscout@gmail.com.