They should be paid because they have to spend so much money on college and gear. They will be in debt when they get out of college and have to work and barley make any money to support them. If the NCAA paid them a reasonable amount then they can get there life started after college.
Saying they should be paid is like saying being a college athlete is a job, right? So, you'll have a limited number of champions every season, be it national or conference title. Then you'll have other teams that have done a good job but aren't champions. But the vast majority of teams don't fall into any of these categories, meaning the vast majority of players aren't successful or doing a good "job" in their sport. On a real job, if you're not meeting expectations and goals, what's going to happen? You're not going to keep getting paid; you're getting fired. Same with students on academic scholarships. You can't go below the GPA required to remain in school or on that scholarship and still get the scholarship. So, I don't know why everyone thinks we should pay all athletes--or, more accurately, all football and basketball players.
If we pay athletes at all, it should either 1) be the best players only, 2) be the most financially-needy players only (i.E. Need-based, i.e. financial aid), 3) be the players on the best teams only. Nobody else even comes close to being worthy of opening their mouth and arguing they should be paid. But to me, if you're an athlete, you know what you're signing up for. Don't come back whining after the fact that you should be paid. If you have a problem with not being paid, don't play for that school. This is especially true in sports like basketball and baseball, where you don't even have to go to college, really, to play professionally.