American Sociologist, Jonathan R. Cole, in his article, “Why Sports and Elite Academics Do Not Mix,” (2017), argues that highly selective colleges should withdraw from the NCAA to form their own league because these universities are not attempting to create national championship programs. He supports his claim by first describing the revenue that the NCAA receives from monopolizing college sports teams, then explains that these NCAA athletes are involved in scandalous interests due to their lack of quality education and leadership, then reveals the extent a college will go to ensure their athletes can participate in the NCAA, and finally imparts the deprivation that these universities have with diversity of their student’s talents. Cole’s purpose
The great contradiction is that everyone sees and complains about these issues that plague college football and take away its amateur status, but nobody does anything about it as long as the benefits are still there for their team or program. Oriard makes the biggest turning point for big time college football being the enacting of the one-year scholarship In 1973. The one-year scholarship came at the discretion of the coach, and it gave the coach complete power of the athlete. “The one-year scholarship, backed by the mindset that it represents, exposed so-called student-athletes to the mounting pressures of an increasingly commercialize sport while denying them a share in its new bounty,” (Oriard,
College Varsity Athletes Should be Paid In this paper, I argue that college varsity athletes should be paid for playing sports that bring in revenue. In particular, College football and basketball because they bring in the majority of the revenue for the schools. The revenue accomplished by college sports programs continues to increase, due to the growth in interest of the NCAA basketball tournament and the college football playoffs (Berry III, Page 270). Throughout the past few years, one of the main topics debated in college sports is whether or not the athletes should be paid.
To the contrary, one could more persuasively argue that an athlete is exploited when he is expressly disallowed from realizing his value while his reputation and skill are being used to realize a profit for others. - Jay Bilas (2010), former Duke and pro basketball player, current ESPN and CBS sports analyst According to the NCAA, its version of amateurism is all that is needed to prevent the commercial exploitation of college athletes. The protectionist rationale for its concept of amateurism that has served as the foundation for the NCAA’s position on issues related to revenue-generating player compensation is imbedded in the notion that the NCAA is attempting to, in their words, “maintain a clear line of demarcation between collegiate athletics and professional sports” so as to prevent the undue exploitation of college athletes (NCAA Amateur and Membership Staff, 2010, p. 1). Note the linguistic nuance, as if simply labeling “collegiate athletics” as being distinctive from “professional sports” would be a sufficient barricade to the commercial interests that now include, in modest estimation, a 14 year, $10.8 billion contract to broadcast NCAA Division I men’s college basketball annually with CBS and Turner Sports (Schlabach, 2011); a 15-year
College football, as an “amateur” sport, produces nearly $3.5 billion dollars a year, but the young men who play the game, primarily African American, don’t see a penny of revenue. Yes, student athletes get tuition, room and board, and lots of Nike, Adidas or Under Armour gear, but they’re really free labor. The world refers to them as “student athletes,”. There are three different levels of competition under the NCAA. Division I, Division II and Division III are the three levels associated with the NCAA.
Title IX was signed into law in 1972 and it required equality for male and female students in each educational program and activity that received federal funding. This means that universities had to offer sports that women could participate in. The reasons Title IX came into being was a demand from Women’s Rights organizations for equal opportunities. Prior to 1972, sports, competition, and many other university programs were generally considered to be masculine and “ not ladylike.”
Ryan Vanderfords’ article published in the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal explores this issue of whether or not college athletes should be paid beyond what they receive in scholarships. Vanderford is currently a law associate at a law firm in Los Angeles, California. He played sports throughout high school and college, so the author can relate to this topic. The payment of college athletes has become a more prominent issue in today’s society then it has been in the past. He argues that at major universities, student athletes help the school generate their revenue and therefore should be paid.
A Rhetorical Analysis of “The Education of Dasmine Cathey” Writer, Brad Wolverton, in his article “The Education of Dasmine Cathey” first appearing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, conveys the journey of a former University of Memphis football player who was poorly educated and how he struggled to be academically eligible. Wolverton’s purpose is to illustrate the widespread of educational shortcomings of NCAA athletes and the complicated ways athletes struggles gets brushed under the proverbial carpet. (Wolverton) In this article Wolverton utilizes a straightforward tone by using pathos to appeal to the readers with Mr. Cathey’s difficult situation also utilizing logos and ethos etc. to help make a presentable argument to which I will be analyzing.
In Steven Salzberg, “Get Football out our Universities”, he makes the argument that football in universities are holding the United States back in the race of science. He believes if the United States eliminates football all together in universities we would focus more on what universities were originally made for, which is science and math. Throughout the argument Salzberg uses different types of rhetorical strategies to compel his audience to sway in his direction. Although, he used strong rhetorical appeals, it was hard to agree with Salzberg due to multiple logical fallacies Salzberg committed.
College sports is one of the best-known entertainments around the world. But for the athletes, they are students first then athletes second. For college student-athletes, there are a variety of scholarships and grants to help pay for college or college debt. However, some critics say that student-athletes should be paid a salary like pro athletes would, with help from scholarships or grants. The authors of, College Athletes are being Educated, not Exploited, Val Ackerman and Larry Scott, argue that student-athletes are already paid by free education and other necessities.
In his article “Should College Athletes be Paid? Why, They Already Are”, Seth Davis is able to effectively argue why Branch’s argument in “The Shame of College Sports” is incorrect through his use of rhetorical strategies to the Sports Illustrated audience. Davis’ use of ethos addresses Branch’s trustworthiness in what he includes or does not include in his article. Through his use of logos Davis is able to point out why Branch’s logic does not add up. Finally, Davis’ accusatory tone asserts his opinion of Branch’s writing, which tears down why Branch’s own article is flawed.
6. In what ways does Branch argue the NCAA operates as a “slave plantation”? “Cartel”? Professional league?
Should college athletes be paid? Annotated Bibliography Benedykiuck, Mike. “The Blue Line: College athletes should be paid.” Dailyfreepress.
Amateurism in college athletics is an exploitation of the athletes who participate in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) sports. The amount of work that is done by these athletes to help their respective institutions generate millions of dollars in revenue, goes seemingly unnoticed when identifying the substantial amount of money flow in NCAA sports and the amount of people, from stakeholders to alumni, that benefit from this source. Amateurism, the foundation of NCAA sports, has been in place for over a century of time dating back to the early 1900s. Any athlete who is making money for work they’ve done outside of their institution is not being exploited, however, an athlete can easily be placed on the other end of the spectrum when he or she is withheld from recognizing the true monetary value of their talents and likeness that are being used for the profit of the school or others. The NCAA is understandably satisfied with the continuous growth of its’ revenue each year, yet the problem they face of having people accept that “student-athletes” are just amateurs is growing as well.
The argument made by these two professors state that Division 1 players qualify as employees under Federal Labor Laws. Since players are under this law, the McCormick’s feel players should get financially compensated due to the physical rigors and balance education simultaneously (Cooper, 2011). It’s unbelievable how this couple thinks Division 1 athletes should get paid. The privilege to attend a university that is costly on full scholarship should be more than enough. Furthermore, student-athletes received stipends as an allowance assist with their livelihood.
The author of this argument claims that the school should not offer free student access to the university athletic events. To support this claim, the author cites that charging admission to all events is the only way to treat all athletic teams equitably. I found this argument logically unconvincing in several respects. As far as we know, the number of applicants to the Division II sports are lower than the Division I ones. The most popular sports include in the Division I sports group.