The two things that need to be addressed when it comes to paying athletes or a stipend are:
1) Does an athlete get paid the same from school to school at the same level
2) Does an athlete get paid the same whether male/female or from sport to sport
First thing's first. Athletes have it pretty f'n good, if you ask me. All of the benefits that they get have been thoroughly hashed out in this thread. But, NONE of these benefits equate to cash in hand. spending money. If I'm Jow Blow 4.0 A+++ National Honor Society Fullbright/Rhodes Scholar, I get pretty sweet benefits too. Basically, aside from the health plan and athletic gear, I get all the same crap as the elite athletes. However, if I want to make a few thousand extra bucks a year, I can get a job at the University and make some cash to spend on whatever the eff I want. Maybe I want to go to spring break with my biology buddies. I've got 2,500 in the bank because I got a job with the University. why are athletes any different? Johnny Linebacker is "working" for the University just the same as Johnny Biology grading tests and tutoring struggling students. The only difference is that the latter can get paid for his service to the University.
So to ChiCat's questions (which I think are the biggest unknowns):
1) Yes. Absolutely. I can see a scenario where the NCAA gives schools a ceiling, mandating an amount of compensation that may not be exceeded. Let's say it's $2,500.00 per season. This way, talent is not purchased by schools. It would be a salary cap, of sorts. If a school doesn't want to pay out its total salary cap, that's fine. But, they'll not be very competitive. on the flip side, with a reasonable cap, snaller schools can still compete with larger schools.
2) Yes. Untill the football breaks away from the NCAA and the academic institutions, I imagine all athletes across all sports will require an equal payment. Don't know crap about Title IX, but I imagine female rowers and Johnny Manziel would have to receive the same amount.