NCAA Approves 2,000$ "Cost of attendance" for Football/Bball players

So apparently the NCAA isn't opposed to paying players...as long as they don't call it payment...
The NCAA Division 1 Board of Director approved a set of proposals on Thursday that includes legislation where student-athletes (in football and basketball) are able to receive additional aid for the full cost of attendance up to $2,000. 
"This is certainly not pay-for-play," NCAA president Mark Emmert said.
more below:
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26283066/32961197
First of all, I can't wait to see how fast every other student athlete comes out of the woodwork screaming "favoritism." Secondly, I can't wait to see all the feminists coming out screaming "sexism" and "equality" and Thirdly, I can't wait to hear about the lawsuit over Title IX restrictions, which require both women and men's sports to have equal scholarships across the board...
And then I found this gem of knowledge which is pretty much exactly how i feel about  the "oppressed student athlete" discussion...
There are a few things I need to say about this. First of all, student-athletes don't go to school to make money, they go to learn. Playing sports is a secondary objective, or at least should be a secondary objective. I think we have lost focus on what a university's purpose is.
Players get the following along with a hefty scholarship: clothes and gear, housing, meals, use of various facilities, better healthcare than your normal student, a nutritionist, the chance to travel, the chance to play a game in front of thousands. And one thing not many people mention. Student-athletes graduate at a higher rate than normal students, probably due to the structuring of their schedules, extra semesters (summer classes, redshirt years), free tutoring, computer labs specifically for their use. They also have a great opportunity to keep playing, if they are good enough, after college and make millions. They get their own social niche, the prestige of playing, and on and on and on. If playing in college was so terrible as so many people make it sound (we have to study and play and exercise) than why do so many kids dream to do it.
Am I supposed to feel bad that under the current system, the average college athlete leaves school with ten thousand dollars of loans to pay off? I'll have around sixty thousand. Ten is nothing. Oh, and I take fifteen to twenty hours of classes on top of fifty hours of work a week (which is for scholarship, an internship, or volunteer which means for nothing). No one is clamoring to see that I have some spending cash.
Also, student athletes can work in the offseason. If you are smart about saving it, you can survive while in season.
And here's the thing. I'm not opposed to student-athletes getting some extra help. Playing and going to school at the same time is tough. Some kids come in with nothing in their pockets and do have a legitimate argument for why they could use a little more assistance. But all students need some help. This garbage about the trials and tribulations of the student-athlete is at times both offensive and embarrassing. A group of people who are given so much will complain about how tough they have it until they get more, at which point they will complain that it's not enough, so they can get more. There are so many people who would love to go to school but can't afford it, or who will leave with massive debt, or who scrape by. It's sickening how much we dote on student-athletes. Be thankful for what you got, and if it's truly not enough, the NCAA will work on it. But to paint these kids as the oppressed pawns of greedy and exploitive universities is just absurd.
That's off a message board so I don't know who wrote it...but pretty much spot on guy!