Freshman football player Kwasi Rouse isn't asking for a lot ­ he just wants his bike fixed. But he doesn't have a lot of extra spending money, and the NCAA prohibits him from getting a full- or part-time job. It looks as if Rouse will be traveling by foot.

Rouse, who receives a full-ride scholarship to play football at Kent State, is one of a growing number of students who say Division I athletes should receive monetary compensation in addition to scholarships. But universities nationwide, including Kent State, cannot give athletes any extra money, even if the athletes' names are making money for the university.

Rouse says receiving spending money would be a plus, because he doesn't have time to get a job, even if the NCAA did allow it. "We're working every day, six hours a day, for football," Rouse says. "I couldn't get a job even if I could and I wanted to. If your mom sends you some money, after a couple haircuts, doing a couple loads of laundry, the money runs out. I can't even get my bike fixed because something else might come up where I need money."

Sophomore football player Dan Terrell says athletes with full-ride scholarships, depending on family income, should receive money. "What if some athletes come from families that they cannot count on for financial support?" Terrell asks. "Some families just can't afford to send money. Even with Pell Grants, that doesn't mean you are guaranteed to receive any money."

The fact that Division I athletes who are attending college on full-ride scholarships cannot seek employment has been a sore spot with the NCAA and colleges nationwide for years. Although the NCAA approved guidelines in January that would have given scholarship athletes the right to work, the regulation was immediately delayed. The NCAA and Division I colleges realized they had bitten off more than they could chew, says Athena Yiamouylannis NCAA director of membership services.

"The legislation was delayed due to the problem of implementation," Yiamouylannis says. "We wanted to make sure that colleges could monitor what was going on."

Kent State athletic director Laing Kennedy says the legislation would put an enormous burden on the university. "It's flawed legislation," Kennedy says. "The hard thing would be monitoring it. You're opening Pandora's Box. How could we tell where and for whom the athletes are working?"

Although Kennedy voted in favor of the regulation in January, he thinks athletes' spending money should be limited. "Our full-ride scholarship athletes should receive a nominal stipend per month ­ maybe $100 for miscellaneous purposes," he says.

Division I athletes argue they should be paid above and beyond their scholarships, primarily because some of them bring money back to their schools. Unlike a computer and information systems major, who doesn't have people spending $20 per ticket to see him design a program, fans pay money to see athletes play. Also, fans bring in money from sales of sports shirts and other memorabilia.

"(Athletes) do bring back revenue to the institution directly through ticket sales," Kennedy says. "They also bring money in indirectly through marketing and name recognition. Name recognition can do a lot for Kent State. Someone might be able to recognize our school due to the fact they know of an athlete who played here."

But students who don't have athletic scholarships, who have to finance their education through loans and part-time jobs, think scholarship athletes don't need anything more than the free education they are receiving.

Kent State sports fan Ian Croft says paying Division I athletes would create a smaller version of professional sports, with athletes hungering for more and more money. "If they're already receiving a full-ride scholarship, I don't think they should get paid," he says. "They already have enough perks."

Croft says colleges offering the most compensation would have an unfair advantage over smaller schools that can't offer as much money. "Who would get the best players?" Croft asks. "The colleges with the most money would. You would have the same problems the pros have with small-market teams getting pushed out because of the big-market teams."

Sophomore Darrin Miller says giving athletes additional monetary compensation would take a lot of fun out of the games. "The reason college athletes play now is for pride. What would they be playing for if they were paid? Money."

Certainly, money is the bottom line. While athletes are left wondering how they will pay the bills, the NCAA struggles to remedy the problem it created with the proposed regulation in January.

"Hopefully, this bill we be in effect by the end of the year," NCAA's Yiamouylannis says. "We just have to make sure we can tell where the money is coming from. We do not want to start something that we cannot control."