It has been a while!

Justin here - Wow, it has been a long time since Scooter and I have gotten together for a show. Perhaps we could do a special episode sometime when our busy schedules allow (remember when Scooter fell asleep during our World Cup discussion in 2010?).

For those who did not know, I moved to Dayton at the start of 2013 to live with my wife and to go back to school. I have been attending Wright State University and I plan on graduating in April.

To help keep the electric on, I took a job at the on-campus newspaper at Wright State serving as the paper's sports editor.

One of the big issues I have been covering for the last year and a topic I am sure Scooter and I would have hammered if the show still existed was this issue on paying college athletes. Normally, I am a person who takes a strong opinion on something. In this issue, I am highly torn.

One thing is clear, most athletes are not going to benefit from whatever is decided at the O'Bannon vs NCAA trial in Federal Court. The world has zoned in on football and men's basketball players at the nation's biggest schools that all others are lost in the shuffle.

There is no denying that college athletics have become a behemoth in the business world and there are quite a few coaches and administrators who have become highly paid on the backs of 18-22 year olds who are only given a college scholarship.

But colleges are supposed to prepare all students, athletes or not, for what they call the 'real world.' A great lesson these athletes can learn is life is not always fair. Of course, Ohio State's football team provides enough revenue by itself to sustain dozens of smaller sports at OSU. Is it fair that the football team has to provide all of this revenue in order for other opportunities to exist? I really do not have an answer on that one.

In general, most athletes have a good deal. Since I am intimately following WSU's athletics, let's use them as an example.

Wright State allocates roughly $10 million annually for athletics. Keep in mind, WSU is a basketball school and plays in a non-football conference. Of that $10 million, 75 percent is subsidized by the university.

If you break the cost down per student, it is around $440 a year to subsidize athletics at the university. Is that fair? Again, no real answer. It is hard telling how many students come to WSU because they see the men's basketball team play on ESPN on occasion or the fact that athletics offer free entertainment on a regular basis for students.

But few recognize WSU's existence despite playing in a conference that regularly develops NBA talent and playing in a rather completive basketball conference. Other teams at Wright State often go toe-to-toe with some of the best in the NCAA. The baseball team even had a win against the No. 1 team in the nation.

But more people will pay attention to what is happening 60 miles away at Ohio State where the budget is 14 times larger than Wright State's. According to USA Today figures, OSU actually brought in over $20 million to the university. Is it fair OSU is able to draw so much money into its Athletics Department when other state universities need to have its revenue subsidized by students and donors?

In the big picture, there is nothing fair about college athletics. Despite what people like Jim Delaney say, altering the college landscape is not going to destroy amateurism as we know it. Amateurism has been dead. It is incredibly naive to think that an 18-year-old basketball player would choose Wright State over Ohio State if offered a full ride at both.

OSU with its name brand alone, is going to attract top professional scouts and any starter who would be bringing revenue into the university is going to get world class training for a possible multi-million dollar career in pro football or basketball.

So what would I offer as a solution?

For the most part, athletes have a pretty good deal now. Coaches and administrators have a good deal now. Why make changes? Leave what college athletics do in tact and do not make it a job. In the long run, this benefits students as they do not have to pay taxes nor can athletes be fired for lack of performance. Start paying athletes and turn it into college employment, the athletes have subjected themselves to termination because of a bad game. Who really wants that?

O'Bannon and Co. should beware what they ask for.

While many athletes complain they are not able to work while in school (very legitimate point), most students do not have the time to work full-time without it sacrificing their academics. While some athletes are saving $20,000 or more a year in tuition and housing, few students are earning that at part time jobs. Athletes, like any other student, can apply for student loans to help pay for the extras that an athletic scholarship does not cover (travel, video games, etc.).

What to do about those complaining? Allow them to be able to make money off their likeness. Does anyone see it as a crime if Braxton Miller starts doing used car commercials in Columbus? I can totally picture him on television with a guitar saying, "We're Dealing."

In this case, you allow the truly profitable athletes to make money while preserving some idea of the collegiate model for college athletics.

But the NCAA types are not going to be happy with this because it takes away power from the administrators and coaches.

Yes, this eliminates amateurism for good, but in all honesty, I think we're already there.