Should College Athletes be Paid?

The issue of whether or not college athletes should get paid has always been a big debate among student athletes and the NCAA. This issue arises mostly with large sports revenue universities like, the University of Georgia, and the University of Southern California.
Other than covering the athlete’s tuition, books, game travel, and room and board, athletes do not receive any type of tangible money. So, where does the money go, and why doesn’t more go to the athletes that bring in most of the revenue? This is the argument that some are for and against. Me, however, I am for athletes receiving an extra amount of money along with their scholarship. They are working for the school, so why shouldn’t they get paid for their time.
Student athletes on an average practice a minimum of 20 hours and on top of that attend school full-time. During season the hours increase due to games that sometimes include long hours of travel. With all those hours worked a week to improve at their sport, how are student athletes expected to get a part time job to have some extra spending money? I think student athletes should at least be paid minimum wage for every hour spent at formal practices and sanctioned games and events. This salary along with a full scholarship better justifies the work that the student athletes put in for the school. According to University of Georgia Athletic Association, in the fiscal year of 2009 the school received more than $76 million from sports alone. Without the athletes, the $76 million dollars would not be possible.
In my opinion, if the student athletes are making the school over $76 million a year, they should definitely get a cut from that hefty paycheck. Wouldn’t you want to be paid for your face and name being used in a video game and on apparel worn by so many?