For the 2010-2011 season, the Ohio State University football team took in more than $50 million in revenue for the university. Former head coach Jim Tressel made $3.5 million in salary for the 2010 calendar year, yet the school still turned an eight-digit profit off of the team.

The Buckeyes finished last season with a 12-1 record and a victory in a prestigious bowl game (before Ohio State's entire season was forfeited because of NCAA violations). The university, Tressel and even the water boys, ticket salesmen and food vendors profited from the Buckeyes' successful season. So why didn't the players?

The question of whether or not athletes deserve to be paid has haunted collegiate sports for years. Many have argued that they should be, citing the millions that many universities take in in revenue and the countless hours lost to practices, workouts and travelling to games that could otherwise have been spent earning an income. Others have argued against paying student athletes, arguing that amateurism is an important part of the collegiate game, that many athletes receive athletic scholarships and that it would wreak havoc on the athletics departments for the many schools that don't profit from their athletic programs.

The short answer is that they're both right. While it's unfair that athletes work incredibly long hours without compensation, collegiate athletics are amateur by nature. Student athletes have every right to turn professional at any time, and though leagues such as the National Football League and the National Basketball Association may have minimum age requirements for competing, there are numerous semipro and international leagues that do not.

But more importantly, there is no fair way to pay college athletes. If Ohio State decided to start paying its football team, wouldn't the Buckeyes' cross country team also deserve to be paid? And if Ohio State's cross country team is paid, then shouldn't Georgetown University's? Or Brandeis', for that matter? How much would athletes be paid, and who would pay them?

Title IX issues of equitable pay for men and women would arise, and universities across the country would be forced to drastically cut their academic programs. No truly viable solution to these issues has been proposed, and it's hard to imagine that one will ever be constructed.

But there is another solution to the issue that has the potential to satisfy both sides: letting athletes earn money on the side. Right now, college athletes are allowed to have certain jobs, but they are limited in the amount of pay that they can receive per semester, and they are not allowed to profit off of their image in any way, shape or form.

To me, this is ludicrous. Ohio State earned millions in ticket sales based on former star-quarterback Terrell Pryor's image and performance last season. So why is Pryor not allowed to see any of the profit?

Current rules allowed Pryor to work a few hours a week at the local 7/11, but he isn't allowed to be sponsored, get paid for appearances at local events or receive any kind of benefits for his spectacular on-field performance. Why not let Pryor earn money in any way that he can?

Petty rule violations by Pryor and his teammates last season, such as receiving free tattoos, led to Tressel's resignation and caused the university to forfeit its entire season. If small financial gains were no longer rule violations, the Buckeyes' season would not have been forfeited, and Tressel would likely still have his job.

This solution could potentially satisfy all sides of the equation. Popular athletes would earn their share of the pie, but, unlike if they were forced to pay athletes, athletics departments would not be forced to close up shop, and top schools would not enter into bidding wars for star recruits. The NCAA would save millions of dollars and countless headaches that have resulted from minor financial infractions.

It would also deal with the problem of how much athletes deserve to be paid, which would in essence be tied to their performance. If Gatorade wants to sponsor Pryor, then they should be allowed to do so. If Pryor's former offensive lineman could sell autographs and old jerseys for a few hundred dollars each, then so be it.

If that means that John Doe, Ohio State's middling cross-country runner, doesn't earn any money during his time at the university, then frankly, that's life.

This solution is far from perfect, but the NCAA is a far from perfect institution. The debate over how to compensate college athletes will continue until a solution is finally worked out.

But in the meantime, let's let athletes try to earn their keep.