An NCAA For Esports By Zach Schonbrun

1002 Words5 Pages

Esports are in limbo when it comes to recognition and reputation. Any media can hurt the growth of the community if there is misinformation. The article “An NCAA for Esports? Rivals Angle to Govern Campus Video Gaming,” by Zach Schonbrun addresses the disorder of esports on the collegiate level. The NCAA, the association unanimous with collegiate sports, has been hesitant on action when it comes to including them in their roster of sports. In its stead, independent companies rose to aid college esports. These organizations seek to replace the NCAA and they have helped the community grow. They point out their flexibility to current esports regulations, whereas the NCAA current rules would cause many structural changes within esports. The author …show more content…

The author portrays the NCAA as a controlling system with little empathy in contrast to other organizations. When comparing the NCAA to the CEO of Electronic Gaming Federation or EGF, Tyler Schrodt, the author describes the NCAA as “bureaucratic” but the author describes Schrodt as being “antithetical” of the NCAA based on his looks. Bureaucratic has a negative connotation; that the NCAA are unfeeling to those who have to appeal to them. Schrodt on the other hand is caring for the esports players. The author uses negative adverbs and adjectives to describe the NCAA. It “lagged” behind in accepting esports and its framework may be “antiquated” and “obdurate” were used to describe the NCAA actions and regulations. Lagged connotes reluctance and laziness. Antiquated and obdurate connote old and unopened to new ideas for change. This is in heavy contrast to the language used to describe other organizations. When speaking on the compatibility of new companies taking the place of the NCAA, the independent companies give “tailored-made governance” to collegiate esports. This implies that the solution led by EGF and NACE is …show more content…

It does not mention specific board members and the opinions held thereof, but assumes the NCAA upholds its actions unilaterally. In comparison, EGF, organized in a similar business style, differentiates between its higher ups. The author separates Schrodt and Rockie Hunter, partner of Schrodt, though both would weigh in on the actions of the company. When addressing a whole group as one entity, it eliminates any sort of dissent that might be there. It has given the NCAA only one perspective with no objection by an internal party. Contrasting, when introducing Schrodt, it addresses him as “chief executive” rather than a CEO. Chief executive comes off as less pretentious and on the same socioeconomic as the reader. This makes him more relatable to both the reader and the players. Furthermore, Michael Brooks is identified as the first executive director of NACE but also as the a former member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. Classifying a lead competitor of the NCAA as having a background in college athletics builds his ethos. Rhetorically, he is more appealing to the audience. Non-NCAA groups are classified in a positive light versus identification of a single mindedness of the

Open Document