This thread seems to have morphed into the player compensation topic. My 2 cents on this is very simple: The compensation for playing 1-A football is a full ride scholarship. Period. If the players don't like that deal they can stop playing. There are plenty to take their place.
Don't fall for the player stipend idea as if it would be a good thing. It's just another scheme by which the power schools with deep pockets could solidify their position of dominance. If you pay football players you have to pay everybody. If you didn't, the legal system would stop due to the lawsuits that would be filed. Most schools couldn't afford to pay stipends to the the revenue producing sports, nevermind all. So what you would have is a system where OSU, UM, PSU, Bama, Texas, and a handful of others would have a totally unfair recruiting advantage IN EVERY SPORT. If the big football schools can pay players, they will get the best football, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, hockey, water polo, volleyball, tennis, on and on and on. The schools that could afford to pay don't really care about the student athlete any more than the next school. They want to protect their racket. I suspect all the talk of player compensation is due to their absolute fear and loathing of the prospect of D-1A football playoffs. Pay for play is a contingency plan to keep the field unlevel.
Maybe that was my 3 cents.