1. If college athletes are to be paid for their performance, how do you decide who is paid and who is not?
The market can decide who gets paid. That's how coaches find out who earns $2 million per year vs. those who earn just $500k. Better performers typically get paid more money on a job, so why should it be any different for athletes?
2. How do you decide how much to pay them? Is it enough to provide for their families and some for extra activities, or is it solely based on something like jersey sales, winning record, etc.?
I don't think any of us should decide how much to pay someone - no one "decides" that Rick Pitino is worth $2 million per year. He negotiates and the highest bidder gets his services. I am a believer that athletes should have access to the same fair market that their coaches receive. To argue differently is to imply that coaches are more important than athletes or that they deserve better treatment. This is a classist and racist thing to believe.