My Lamborghini analogy was only about the logic (not wealthy donors) - you could substitute anything.
The argument I dislike is - We need to pay the players because "they" are paying the players.
We need to buy a Lambo, because "they" are buying Lambos. We need to cover our entire house in Christmas lights because "they" are covering their houses in Christmas lights. I find that logic silly. Thats all I meant by that.
On the more interesting point - I think it is indisputable that nobody would care very much about watching Johnny Common play football, except for the fact that he is playing for Northwestern. I'd guess that 50% of NU's current undergrads couldn't name 10 players on the football team.
My argument is that players don't have a claim to the television revenue. The tv revenue is primarily a result of the Name and Image of the university - not the individual players. I can see paying them for their time, given the tv revenue. However, other students have time-consuming jobs that generate revenue for the university. But those kids with the work study jobs aren't getting their tuition and housing provided for $0, like the scholarship athletes do. So the athletes are already being paid, regardless of any attempt to obfuscate. And a scholarship to Northwestern is worth a lot more than a scholarship to Mississippi State.