College athletes do get "paid." In addition to the scholarship, after the Ed O'Bannon case, they are receiving COA stipends ("cost of attendance"). Each school's financial aid office calculates the cost of attending the school - everything from off-campus housing costs, transportation costs, cost of living, etc. supposedly goes into the calculation. The athletes are then provided (monthly I believe, but it might be by semester) cash stipends to cover their COA. The stipends are intended to avoid the problem of the athletes getting a free education, but having no money to buy food, clothes, etc. What's surprising are the discrepancies (although not really all that surprising). UT has the highest COA in the SEC at $5,666 while Alabama is close behind at $5,386. I never knew it cost more to attend college in Knoxville or Tuscaloosa than it does in Columbus, Ohio (OSU's COA is $2,970). Why is it cheaper to attend college in Gainesville, FL ($3,830) than in Knoxville, Tuscaloosa, or Tallahassee (FSU is paying it's players well at $6,018). Why does it cost more to attend UCLA ($5,941 or about the same cost as Knoxville) than it does to attend college in South Central LA at USC ($1,580)? Why is it more expensive to attend Cincinnati ($6,082) than two hours up I-71 in Columbus? Nothing could possibly go wrong with this new NCAA COA stipend could it?
I think where the athletes have a legitimate complaint is the use of their names and likenesses by the NCAA and their schools to generate revenue.