It is a well known notion that collegiate athletes make sacrifices.

They have to attend class and maintain good grades, but take time away from their studies to practice. This leads us to the $64,000 question: Should college athletes be paid?

This debate has been around for years and has gained momentum lately from Ernie Chambers, a state senator in Omaha, Neb. On Feb. 25, he introduced a bill that would require the University of Nebraska football players to be paid if at least three other states in the Big 12 Conference passed similar laws.

Then Iowa State basketball coach Larry Eustachy, who makes $1.1 million a year, volunteered to pay his basketball players out of his own pocket, thus sparking even more controversy on this touchy subject.

Under NCAA rules, a scholarship covers tuition, room and board, and books. Many people have proposed plans that would include spending money included in the scholarships.

In a perfect world it would make sense to pay athletes — they have little free time for a job — but there are just too many reasons why this never could happen.

The main problem is how much pay should athletes receive? The obvious answer would be to pay all athletes the same amount of money, right? Well, one might justify paying scholarship athletes more. This surely would result in more debates.

Basically, it boils down to the fairness of paying a “star” athlete, like Michael Turner in NIU’s case, the same amount of money as a woman on the golf team who can’t crack a 90 or the 12th man on the women’s or men’s basketball team. It’s not that those lesser-known athletes still don’t have to attend class, practice and maintain their grades, but they obviously are not generating the revenue or publicity a player like Turner does.

The better our football or basketball teams play, the more national publicity we get. Publicity leads to bigger crowds, a higher enrollment and more money for the school.

If the NCAA implemented paying athletes, the cost possibly could force some colleges to cut various programs. Besides the six major conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac10, SEC), other conferences — including the MAC — surely would have to cut the majority of their less-lucrative programs in order to afford athletes in the money-making programs, generally basketball and football.

Remember the controversy that was generated when NIU cut its swimming and diving programs in spring 2002? Imagine what would happen if programs like tennis and gymnastics had to be cut, as well.

Finally, many non-athlete students have to take out loans just to attend college, resulting in them paying thousands of dollars back once they graduate. They have more free time to get a job, but athletes have the rare — nonetheless possible — potential to earn upward of $500,000 or more immediately after graduation.

In the end, paying collegiate athletes never will garner enough support to become instituted. Small schools never could afford it. It would take too much time and effort to calculate how much to pay them and how to make it equal for men and women in all sports.

Anyway, shouldn’t one just play for the love of the game?