Image

          What this image tells us is that the NCAA has regulations that prevents them from giving college athletes any form of compensation besides the scholarships, or any other benefit, they have received when being chosen to play for a school. If these college athletes did receive anything more than it'd violate NCAA regulations. However, the "real" violation is that college athletes pour every ounce of energy they have into playing the sports to only generate revenue for the NCAA. None of it going to the athletes. The NCAA can only give these athletes funds that are the bare minimum to keep them going for their education. I feel like these athletes aren't being compensated enough for all the hard work they put in. The NCAA should increase the value of their scholarships to help cover a majority of the college fees in the four years these athletes attend college. The NCAA makes billions from what college athletes do, yet they got nothing or else it would be a violation.

post 10- image

What is being seen her and what is always constantly brought up is unpaid student athletes. As most student athletes who join a division 1 sport it is rare for all of them to have a full scholarship. The reason is because the school or coach say often times that they do not have enough money. This meme in a way is mocking how hypocritical coaches are as they say they do not have the money, yet their salaries consume half that money that they could use. I feel as though it is a perfect example capturing the concept of underpaid and unappreciated student college athletes.

Reflection

          The challenging part about this whole issue was where I would take my stand and what kind of solutions are there that can be seen as something that are realistic. In my opinion, I believe that college athletes should be compensated for all the work they put into what they do and all the time that is sacrificed to do so. The realistic solutions I mentioned  are the solutions that I think are something that can be applied in the near future. For example, rather than giving these college athletes paychecks worth thousands of dollars, the NCAA and the colleges should help make their scholarships have more value so that these scholarships can get the athletes through the four years of being in college, or if the athletes choose to go for a master's or doctorates degree then the scholarship should be able to cover a majority of the expenses. The NCAA and the schools themselves rake in billions of dollars in revenue so why not give a very small percentage of it to the players? When given to the player it shouldn't be in cash at least but it should be used to cover some of the college fees that all athletes have to pay. The important part to notice is that these college athletes take time away from their studies, personal time, and even sleep to play the sport they love. The schools should provide a way to show how much they appreciate these players for all the hard work they've been doing.

Reflection

What I found that was difficult when taking a stand in whether college athletes should get paid or not is many outside sources that affect this topic. For example, the NCAA, FAFSA, and commercial advertisement. What I would like to know more about is how or why this rule came to be established. The reason is because I do not truly believe in paying a college athlete because then what's the point of going to the professionals, but what I do believe is that their hardwork and time should be repaid by bettering the athletic programs, scholarships, and living situations, such as meals. What I have discovered that kind of shocked me was at how this topic is constantly pushed under the rug. Many choose to ignore what is happening but yet are big college sports supporters.

Recreate

College athletes have been mocked made it as if they were slaves. In one of the political cartoons there was a movie that one an emmy 12 years of slave which is about a slave that worked on a plantation for 12 years and for athletes its 4 years they work for the school playing the sport working hard for championships and won't be set free until they graduate.  In another cartoon it shows how an average worker,works 40 hours a week while athletes invest 44 hours a week and make nothing. The point over all is that student athletes work hard for what they do and make nothing. What they do is seen ad a joke there coaches are out making million of dollars off them yet the athlete doesn't get anything. It is said that the fact that the bare minimum of the tuition is covered is enough reward for the athlete.

Student athletes seen as slaves script

The phone rings Dean Carter a man from another prestige institution is here. Mr. Howard walks in a

Mr Howard :"well I'm well respected in the slave trade"

Dean Carter: Sighs while looking puzzled " in the what! "

Mr.Howard: My Lord what a mighty beautiful office you have yourself

takes off Cowboy Hat "My Dean Carter you have yourself a very lucrative Business
*Pulls out a Cigarette

Mr Howard: Let me get down to business like you i am also i  the slave trade but as in the moment I'm dealing with legal issues would you mind sharing some secrets

Dean Carter  looking completely puzzled

Dean Carter : I have no idea what your talking about ?

Mr. Howard approaches a picture of the Universities Foot ball team

Mr.Howard: Mighty fine workers you have here Ill offer you $40 dollars for two white ones and $50 for the blacks

*Mad Dean Carter : EXCUSE ME ARE YOU REFERRING TO OUR STUDENT ATHLETES!

Mr. Howard very intrigued: Student athletes ohhh that is brilliant sir
when we get to selling them for lavish cars how do we get around to paying the slave oh "student athlete"  then

Dean Carter know furious: Look there are really good reasons why are student athletes do not get paid

Mr. Howard: Im not arguing if they get paid how are we making all our money

Dean Carter: We do not own Slaves?  *puzzled  we have no desire to own slaves

Mr.Howard of course you own slaves because ohh right of course you don't have any desire to own slaves and if any government officials are happening to hear this i have no desires either

Mr. Howard approaches Dean Carter : *whispers so tell me how do you get around from playing your slaves

Dean Carter: Get Out I am not answering anymore questions!!!

Mr. Howard: You think you can do whatever you want because your corporation is a University

Mr. Howards approaches door: The constitution states that no one corporation couldn't hog up all the slaves while others suffer in poverty

Summary and response-blog post

        While researching articles I came across a blog that adressed the issue on whether college ahletes should get paid. The article,"The NCAA Makes Billions and Student Athletes Get None of It", written by Greg Johnson,was originally published in the student-run Daily Targum at Rutgers University. In this article Johnson informs the audience of the revenue that the NCAA is comissioning off of what these athletes are providing. He argues that it is unfair and believes that student athletes "should simply be allowed to operate within the free market like anyone else in America".He feels as though these student athletes should get some sort of recognition. Lastly Johnson comes up with a soltution that "schools can pay what they want, and athletes should be able to sign endorsements for their own likeness and image". Johnson is not really angered by this unfairness but believes that there should be an end to this unjustice. 

       In this blog article I believe that Johnson did a good job at bringing the issue to light without trying to sound so bias. Although his diction is seen throughout the article as he addresses the unfairness he does also bring up why and how the NCAA works. Although I do not agree with him completly by letting atheles sign what they want, I do agree with the fact that these athletes hardwork should be repaid or at least not go unnoticed. Johnsons use of outside research and then putting in his personal obeservation helped me look at this issue from a different perspective. What I woul have liked to see more is Johnson use more direct examples instead of just vagualy summarizing the problems. What I really liked though was when he was able to compare similar topics to maybe those that are not so familiar with the sports world for example he compared if one was  an English scholar and they write a novel that becomes a best seller, but have to forfeit any profit to the school because youre expenses are already taken care of. This article helped me see the issue from a different perspective but failed to convince me fully because he made it seem as though just getting money would be simple and failed to bring up what and how would that money be used. 

Summary and Response - Blog

          I recently read a blog article that dealt with the topic on whether or not college should be paid. Written by Michael Gonchar, it was titled "Should College Athletes be Paid?" and he opened up with the fact that college football is a business that rakes in billions of dollars, while the coaches are the ones who get paid are receiving large amounts of money on their salaries the players get nothing for what they do. The reason why college athletes receive nothing is because the NCAA has rules that doesn't allow them to earn compensation. Gonchar's point is that with coaches, the schools, and the NCAA enterprise making billions is it really fair for the athletes, the ones who actually generate the billions of dollars in revenue, to be left with nothing in return. Gonchar then leaves off with the question if college athletes should be paid and adds some outside source to back up his argument explaining how the college teams that make to the football bowl events get gifts for making it there. The electronic gifts are the popular ones which can range from iPad Minis to Apple Tvs, all this to show for all the hard work the players have done to get to where they are.

          In this blog I believe Gonchar should've talked more on the issue. He made his point but didn't go further into things that should be done about college athletes being paid. I would've liked to see more on his thoughts and solutions that could resolve the problems that occur. What I did like is how he used some external background knowledge about college athletes receiving some sort of compensation for the hard work they put in, without the use of being paid in cash. I liked how he asked rhetorical questions for the readers which allows them to think about how they feel on this topic. With Gonchar's rhetorical questions it helped me identify his opinion on the topic. Knowing that coaches make the money and the players getting zero compensation he starts to wonder how fair can that be. However, it is not enough to make it a reliable source of for a paper because this source is mainly the external source. I wanted to see more about what he thought with his own knowledge about what is going on and any evidence to back up with what he has to say. If he could include more content on his thoughts then it could be a reliable to source to help write an essay. 

Counterarguement - Why College Athletes Should be Paid

                In an article titled, “Why College Athletes Should be Paid”, the author Tyson Hartnett believes that the NCAA should compensate the student-athletes further than the scholarships that “really only covers the basics”. Tyson also brings up another valid point advocating the payment of athletes is the fact that most athletes are unable to maintain a job or even fit one into their already jam-packed schedules which leaves them with nearly no money to support themselves with. The author supports his view further by referencing the massive paychecks that are dealt out to the coaches and NCAA executives. Hartnett argues that although these collegiate athletes are being assisted financially, however, it is not quite adequate when other associates make hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions for the work that is being done by the athletes. The importance of the main sports programs in colleges is clearly presented throughout the article and highlights the fact that these schools and the other programs would be suffering losses if not for the athletes that participate in the big name sports such as basketball, baseball, and football.

                Although Hartnett is right in his references to the extremely large salaries of NCAA executives and coaches, he fails to see that these payments are not being paid out at every university and only a small number of the big name universities bring in a large amount of revenue from a few of their sports programs. With so many different colleges it would be nearly impossible to set a fair way to compensate all these athletes for their time and still be able to afford everything they currently pay for. However, these athletes are the reason these universities are flourishing and I believe they deserve to be compensated in some form that will benefit everyone instead of small groups, after all, the NCAA is supposed to be nonprofit organization and therefore should provide for the programs and the athletes in them. 

Counterargument to "Let's Start Paying College Athletes"

          In an article I came across called "Let's Start Playing College Athletes," Joe Nocera explains his opinion on whether or not college athletes should be paid. Nocera argues that college athletes should be paid because he knows that the athletes are not stupid, by that he means that the athletes knows that they see their names on jerseys and it is because of them their university is making millions from it.  He states that from college football and basketball alone can generate up to $6 million dollars in revenue and the "labor force," the athletes, that help generate the millions of dollars get nothing in return. If an athlete were to get some earnings then it would have to go through the NCAA to approve it, if not then it would be a violation. Nocera also remarks that even an unapproved burger from the coach or fan is a violation. To him, it's an irrational rule because of the NCAA's strict regulations on what an athlete can or can not receive. As a result Nocera established a plan that consists of five elements. These elements are his thoughts on a way to reward the athletes without simply giving them cash. The first is to offer recruits real athletic contracts just like the professional teams, the second is to create a minimum wage salary for the college sports teams, which includes their scholarship, the third being to offer the athletes scholarships to those who want to go further into their education, the fourth being lifetime health insurance, and the fifth element is to create an organization that represents old and current college athletes. With the NCAA, the coaches, and the university earning millions Nocera believes that his plan is fair instead of the athletes doing all the hard work and receiving nothing.

         In my opinion Nocera's argument that college athletes are basically being unappreciated for all their hard work is something we can agree with. I also like how he establishes a plan that can become realistic, but i can not agree with his plan to create a minimum wage salary for the college sports team. The athletes that do come to play college sports have that privilege to play for the school. These athletes are still students who have also come to college to go further into their education. I do agree that as the NCAA and colleges in this nation make millions the athletes that helped rake in that money aren't being rewarded at all. The other four elements Nocera creates is something i can agree with. Money shouldn't be the focus because what if an athlete wants to get their masters degree or even a doctorates. If that is the case colleges should give their athletes scholarships that are valued more so that it can cover all the fees and expenses and cover the extra years an athlete wants to stay in college to go further into their education. Nocera had a strong argument which can also persuade those that read because it offers realistic solutions. I still can't agree with all of it though. But the solutions he came up with was the strongest part and those who can be persuaded by this would be athletes and the people who have similar opinions on how a college athlete should be rewarded in some way. 

Summary and Response: Counterargument to "Privilege, not job"

     In a recent article called "Privilege, not job: College athletes shouldn't get paid" by Kate Murphy, Kate argues that it is a privilege for college students to play football, not a job. She states that they shouldn't get paid because she believes being an employee to the university isn't right. College students believe they should get paid because they put in hours of hard work every week. On the other hand, Murphy believes that it is a choice for them to make and it is a privilege to be part of a team that represents your university. She states that those players are on the team because of the coach, on behalf of the university so they shouldn't take it for granted.
     This author makes it a good point when she says that it is a privilege for them to be on the team. But I believe that due to the fact that these athletes are putting in their precious time and dedication into representing the university; they should get paid. Without these athletes, the university and other wide broad series would not make any profit. I didn't find this article persuading because she stated that being an employee to the university is frowned upon, but when it comes down to it, hundreds of college students have jobs on campus. I believe people that don't support college athlete pay would favor this article due to the fact that they don't support it either. They would applaud this article because they most likely agree with her.

Summary and response-counterargument- fair play: should college athletes get paid

In the article, Fair play: should college athletes get paid , the author Rebecca Zissou is against paying college athletes and argues that college students are already getting paid, they get a free education, “Student athletes should remember that their main purpose while in school is to get an education, not to get paid”. She not only sets her negative point of view of paying athletes, but as well uses outside resources to prove her point. Zissou also states that "Many top players receive tuition, books, tutoring, housing, meals, clothing, elite coaching, medical care, travel expenses, and career counseling,". This argument that college athletes do not get paid directly but do have expenses paid, is constantly seen throughout the article. The use of strong diction and emotion in Zissou’s writing helps try to persuade her audience, as to why her argument is correct. 

Zissou is correct when she says that athletes do get a free education, but what she fails to bring to light is, that it is rare for all athletes to get a full scholarship and fails to acknowledge how time consuming collegiate sports are.  What many people fail to see is that these college athletes are not only athletes but as well as human beings who still have to find time to eat, sleep, study, and have a social life. I believe that there are other methods such as: not pay athletes directly, but with that extra money that they are gaining, invest that money to the athletics program which will potentially help with recruitment money and better the program, and lastly do not let the NCAA get involved with that money under any circumstances. 

Summary and Response - Academic Article

          In an article I read called "The Myth of the Student-Athlete: The College Athlete vs. Employee," authors Robert and Amy McCormick explained what it means to be an employee of the NCAA. Under the National Labor Regulations Act, the athletes who are a part of the revenue generating NCAA are considered athletes and because they are considered athletes they have the ability to form labor organizations. With this power in their hands, these student-athletes now employees can negotiate the terms of their "employment" and wages. These athletes feel like they do so much for their institution to a point where it is considered even more work than what the employees at the university do. Being considered employees under the conditions of the NLRA, these athletes can determine wages that can be worth more that the athletic scholarships they received.

         Robert and Amy McCormick made a solid point that because of these certain regulations that these student-athletes are now employees but that is something I can't agree with. These athletes come to college to also take their education to the next level and should be considered students. The authors make their point by using the conditions of the NCAA that defines what it would mean to be an employee of the multi-billion dollar industry. Even though these athletes are considered "employees" they are still learning in their classes. These athletes are students of the institution they are taking classes at and no more.

Athlete-student? Diverse examines monetary investment in student-athletes

In Preston Clarks recent work he has demonstrated how student athletes in division 1 colleges have increased graduation rates. Preston goes on giving the percentage that the schools have increased by for example Alabama has increased by "75% and have won 3 of the four national titles." Preston also makes an argument saying these student athletes are putting money back into there schools with graduation rates and there performance. Preston says "it seems to make a bit more sense to then put money back into them."

Preston claim that student athletes should have money put back to them since they bring there campus money is something I strongly agree with. The student athlete is not only participating in the role of an athlete and doing an astonishing job at it the athletes are also bieng students and making the schools graduation rates increase which makes any college look well.

summary and response-academic article

While conducting research through the Oviatt library I came across an article that related well to my topic, should college athletes get paid.  The author, Robert McCormick, expresses his opinion why college athletes should get paid. McCormick believes that “interviews demonstrate that their daily burdens and obligations not only meet the legal standard of employee, but far exceed the burdens and obligations of most university employees”. McCormick does not relate to this topic personally he expresses his opinion as a spectator who is aware of the media and the struggle that college athletes are going through. Diction in the topic is seen repeatedly as he expresses his opinion and voice through his writing with the help of research and photographs.

The diction and emotion that is put in the article persuaded and enhanced my opinion on whether college athletes should get paid. I believe that McCormicks argument throughout the whole article is valid. He is correct when he states that these “individuals who create the product and its attendant riches. In fact, it could fairly be said that these persons often are the product”.  He repeatedly does not fail to mention that being a student athlete is like having a full time job; I do believe that because it is such a hardworking and time consuming responsibility, these students should get repaid. I do not agree with him with essentially paying them for all the revenue that they are making, because it would be unfair for other sports that do not get that much attention or other athletes that are not “wow” factor athletes. There should be a balance, the NCAA should not get so involved when dealing with money and the money that is invested in these sports should be invested in bettering the program of the school and possibly having more money for scholarship opportunities. 

NCAA's Billion Dollar Question

Recently there was an article published in the Los Angeles Times by reporter Chris Dufresne which he titled “College sports' billion-dollar issue: Who pays freight on pay-to-play?”. In this article Dufresne addresses many issues concerning the payment of college athletes that the NCAA has come to face recently. Some of these complications include the unionization of Northwestern football players, Ed O’Bannon’s lawsuit, and the possible establishment of a salary for upper level football players. Dufresne explains how these problems will affect not only the big colleges but the smaller ones as well and seems to take a stand against paying collegiate athletes a salary. According to the article, the original amount mentioned to be paid out was “$2,000 per athlete, regardless of the school” but with the amount of money being funneled into the athletic programs of schools in the power conferences, these big schools are able to up the ante which weakens the athletic programs of smaller schools. While many people believe these players deserve to be paid for the time they dedicate to their sport, people also fail to see the difficulties this would bring about which is what Dufresne tries to point out. Though the article states that most colleges are willing to award student-athletes with truly full scholarships, the article also shows that it does not seem to be enough for the players when the NCAA pockets billions and pays coaches millions.

Although Chris Dufresne makes many valid points throughout his article, I maintain my position and believe the NCAA should be paying college athletes.  Although I do not agree with Dufresne’s opinion he does voice it very well through his references to people of authority from various fields throughout the NCAA. This article aims to expose the predicaments that would occur by taking the point of view of the little guy, the staff and coaches from the schools that are not part of the conferences that bring in major money. I particularly appreciate how Dufresne explains that with the amount of money that the some universities bring in through big TV deals, it is nearly impossible for lower division programs to compete. Throughout the article Chris expresses his message to the readers through a multitude of ways so his audience is able to grasp it more easily. Though he is able to shed light on many difficulties that may be faced if college athletes are to be paid, he does not answer how it can be done fairly.

Summary and Response - News Article

          I recently read this article from the Los Angeles Times called "Lawsuit could give college athletes cut of NCAA deals" the author, David Warton, explains how former UCLA basketball star, Ed O' Brian Jr., is leading a lawsuit against the NCAA. O' Brian is leading this lawsuit because the college athletes, who are a part of a multibillion-dollar industry, are no shares of all the money the NCAA can rake in. He also argues that college athletes should also receive shares that comes from video game endorsement deals and television contracts. College athletes not only generate funds for their schools but it also helps the NCAA become richer. These players put in hard work and receive nothing out of it. Warton explains that from video game revenues alone can bring in around $10 million dollars a year while CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting pay the NCAA more than $10.8 million dollars so that men's basketball tournaments can be broadcast on television until 2024. There are NCAA regulations where a student-athlete must sign a waiver to allow the NCAA and the school to use the player's name, image, etc. While the NCAA uses the player's name and image they bring in billions of dollars while the player gets nothing. Warton continued on to explain how O' Brian pushed for other lawsuits on video game revenues and to enlarge the scholarship deals given to the student-athletes. Instead of receiving money the student-athletes should be given scholarships that not only covers the tuition, but to cover for meal plans, boarding, books, and other university fees.

          O' Brain's argument is something that can be understandable. I mean it would seem fair to basically pay these student-athletes with some shares that the NCAA generated from revenues, but a university is a place where student-athletes come to learn and that trying to be successful should be important. enlarging the scholarship deals though is something I can agree with because it can possibly cover everything a student-athlete would need in college. In the article O' Brian also explained his reason behind leading the lawsuit against the NCAA from personal experience of how he would see a character that would look in video games and while the video games are being successful, O' Brian gets nothing. With that personal experience in hand he was able to communicate his main idea because it he has been there. This is an issue that has become controversial because it deals with these student-athletes doing so much for their schools and for the NCAA yet they get nothing. I agree with O' Brian about compensating the student-athletes for their hard work but not with money. College athletes put a lot of effort into representing their schools but it goes unappreciated. When Warton wrote this article, he got the story from someone who has been down that road which makes his point clear that college athletes should be receive a form of compensation that rewards their hard work while playing in a multibillion-dollar industry. 

Lets start paying college athletes

In the article Lets start paying college athletes, Joe Nocera states how there are five elements to having a plan to pay college athletes but only to basketball and football because they bring in the most money.
It is said that instead of having sweet talking recruitments it will become a financial discussion. Athletes will be given a contract just like the professionals. There will also be a certain amount of of money going to the sports to use as salary as a benefit for football players this salary cap offers a two year scholarship after they completed four years at the university they are playing for. Part of the plan is also a life time health insurance. Colleges were saying they couldn't not offered to pay student athletes yet its said that some college coaches make more then professional coaches. Nocera also discussed how scholarships fall short by 3,500 of the amount it cost to attend.

How I feel about this is that yes its a start if basketball and football players get this benefits offered in this plan it would be great.  For one reason is that athletes get injured then theu have to use money they don't have to pay for the expenses when all they are doing is played and representing there school. It is also a good thing that players that stay at the school all four years recieve a two year scholarship because they can get there masters with that scholarship allowing them to have a degree in something and not depend on sports for a living.
I believe if student athletes are not getting full coverage then why should they represent a school they are short on money to pay to attend school but are expected to play and learn but not get a full coverage.

Let's Start Paying College Athletes - The New York Times

     In the New York Times article, "Let's Start Paying College Athletes" by Joe Nocera, Nocera argues that it is unfair for college athletes to put in their labor force and get nothing out of it. He states that college athletes do get scholarships out of this but they can't possibly be content with something that doesn't even cover the full cost of attending college. He argues that top college coaches can make just as much, or maybe even more than a professional coach. College sports create such a big enterprise that together, it generates more than $6 billion dollars. That's more than the NBA itself, which is a national professional league. Broadcasting agencies and other television agencies, such as CBS, sign deals that are worth billions and billions of dollars. Nocera wants to let everyone know that is unjust for college athletes to get only a minimum scholarship, when they're making millions for coaches and billions for marketers. 

     I think the article, "Let's Start Paying College Athletes" by Joe Nocera is completely in line and I support it all the way. I believe it's not fair for students to put in hours and hours a week and go unnoticed about it. Studies say some college athletes end up putting in 50 hours a week, that's more then a full time job. This is compelling because the system is ripping off the college atheletes. NCAA states that they don't pay athletes to protect them from "commercialism" but the only thing they are doing is protecting their own revenue. This author makes a really good point when he states that college athletes raise millions and billions of dollars for others, but meanwhile, they only get a scholarship which doesn't even cover all expenses. So this leaves me with this question, if you were the one raising money for others but didn't get much out of it, what does that label you as? 

LA times article over NCAA and collegiate sports

Another case that covers the controversy, as to whether college students should get paid, was an article that I came across in the LA times. In the article, NCAA Antitrust Ruling Barely Chips at College Sports Dysfunctions, the author, Michael Hiltzik, writes about his hand on experience with college sports. He became more aware of the money situation with the NCAA and collegiate sports, when he attended the football game for the University of Michigan and noticed how many fans and merchandise the school was selling. Hiltzik then comes across a ruling in which the district judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland, revokes an antitrust ruling that undermines the NCAA ban on paying student athletes. Wilken suggests alternatives such as setting up trust funds that players can touch after graduating college and Pell Grants. Ultimately, Hiltzik agrees with Judge Wilken’s that the NCAA needs to not be so involved when it comes to dealing with money in collegiate sports.

In the article, NCAA Antitrust Ruling Barely Chips at College Sports Dysfunctions, the author Michael Hiltzik refers back to a case that dealt with licensing revenue on college athletes and the ruling of district judge Claudia Wilken. Wilken and Hiltzik both agree with the college athletes and that their “academic responsibilities are hopelessly irreconcilable with the role of athlete factories”. This makes the point that, not only are these students athletes, but they are college students. They believe that their hard work in school is going unrecognized which is something that I as well believe. Wilkens feels as though there can be a different solution and suggests setting “up [a] trust fund of several thousand dollars per player per year to hold their shares of licensing revenue until graduation.” This is a solution that I cannot stress enough. I agree with Wilkens 100%, students should not get paid while they are in college, but all of that hard work should not go unrecognized. With simple solutions like this, I feel as though little by little this ongoing debate can finally come to a halt. I felt as though this article not only helped get the authors point across clearly, but also related so well with what I believe in.

Summary and Response to "A Fair Day's Pay for a Fair Day's Work"

In many recent debates the topic has been whether or not college athletes should receive payment, Ramogi Huma, Founder of the National College Players Association, argues that these players have earned money just as any other worker in America in his article "A Fair Day's Pay for a Fair Day's Work". Huma sheds light on the fact that most of the student-athletes attending a Division 1 school under a full scholarship are not really getting a free education but are rather left with expenses ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 in out-of-pocket-expenses each year. Furthermore, he explains that these athletes attract the fans and produce revenue but see none of it while "recent television deals pay the NCAA and its colleges over $1 billion per year". Although Ramogi believes collegiate athletes deserve more than they are currently getting, he does not necessarily think they should get paid a salary. Instead, he feels they should be paid in a way that would decrease violations and encourage players to graduate such as paying them through trust funds that they would be able to collect upon graduation. In sum, Huma believes that with the vast amounts of money the NCAA accumulates each year, some of that money should be dispersed amongst the athletes instead of being used to pay the obscene salaries of coaches and to build massive stadiums.

In the article, Huma makes many great points on why these athletes should be rewarded for their work and I agree with his argument. Though I concede that these athletes work extremely hard and deserve some payment, I still maintain that they should not be paid a salary. Huma offers alternative forms of payments that requires the athletes to maintain a high level of focus on their school work. Although some people may object on the effectiveness of these propositions, I believe these proposals would motivate student-athletes to put the student aspect of college before the athletic side. In my own view, the NCAA brings in more than enough money to support the athletes that form the foundation of their business. This issue is important because these players that dedicate countless hours to their colleges are being taken advantage of and neglected in financial matters in order to afford the unreasonably oversized stadiums and checks of coaches that the NCAA pays. 

Summary\Response: "Should college athletes get paid?"

After reading the Washington Post.Fred Bowen is saying that the athletes that play basketball and football are not athletes but employees. Since they are employees they have the right to make a union and contribute to what they think are working conditions. Just because college basketball and football players are considered employees other sports are not for football and basketball are the two sports that make the most money. It is also said that all athletes expenses are covered through a scholarship but it is understandable that athletes would like to be paid.

In my opinion I believe that these two sports should be paid they are the top earning sports for university's. I as a college student who has financial aid and  a loan understand that it is still a struggle to have money when you have all theses little school fees and books and other expenses. Knowing that its a struggle for me I can only imagine what athletes have to go through bieng center of attention and multitasking school and sports. Student athletes should get paid scholarships are not sufficient enough.

Summary and Response to "Why College Athletes Should be Paid"

          In an article I came across that was dating back to October 2013, Tyson Hartnett, argues that the scholarships student athletes receive from a certain university is only enough to cover the basic expenses. Hartnett explains that the an average Division 1 scholarship is $25,000 a year but that is only going to cover the expensive books, a meal plan, tuition, and other "hidden" university fees. He explains that being an athlete in college is like a full-time job because "a player will wake up before before classes, get a lift or conditioning session in, go to class until 3 or 4 p.m., go to practice, go to mandatory study hall, and then finish homework or study for a test." There is also the part where some college athletes try to maintain a job to go get dinner once a week . All of this makes Hartnett's point of how a scholarship isn't really "cash in the player's pockets." The athletes can only spend so much and most of the money they are getting is going to the school. Hartnett also states that NCAA executives earn a salary of up to a million dollars a year, coaches have their salary of $100,000 a year, and the sports programs also rake in their share through selling tickets, advertising, and media rights. All the money being made is going to the school while the players are only making the university look good. Hartnett realizes that college athletes shouldn't be paid too much  but a reasonable amount should enough for the players to afford their own food and other personal expenses.

          In my opinion I would agree with what Hartnett is saying, how college athletes are doing so much to play for their schools and yet there isn't a lot of appreciation shown for it. In the end though, these college athletes are still students. Education should be a priority over money. I do agree that these college athletes are working hard but rather than giving them a paycheck, I would believe that the athletes should earn more from their scholarships. It should be an amount where these player can not only pay for their food, books, tuition, etc., but it should do more. For example the scholarship can cover all the medical care an athlete will need in the case he/she get injured and it should give them a little bonus after a certain period of time for personal expenses. Money shouldn't be the focus, the focus should be turned to how a university can show more appreciation towards the college athletes.

Summary/Response to "The Case for Paying College Athletes"

 In a recent article called "The Case for Paying College Athletes", Marc Edelman argues that students deserve to be compensated for their labor. He states that 50 colleges get annual revenues of millions and millions of dollars. A few colleges report annuals of up to 100 million dollars. Edelman argues that revenues are passed down to NCAA executives such as athletic directors and head coaches. It is said that these coaches receive about an average of 2 million dollars. Compared to a regular teacher's salary, that is a far more efficient salary. Edelman says that NCAA figures compensating student-athletes would destroy competitive balance, but they aren't taking into consideration of anything else. He argues that college athletes suffer economic efficiency and it is a right for them to be paid, especially if they are volunteering their own hard work labor.
I agree with Marc Edelman's article, "The Case for Paying College Athletes" because I believe that if a student is putting in his hard work and labor for a broadcast that is making millions of dollars, they should at least get compensated. Edelman is correct when he says college athletes suffer an economic efficiency because recent studies have shown that things such as medical expenses or other necessary college expenses aren't covered in the contract. Many people believe that paying college students would decrease their athletic ability but when it actually comes down to it, the argument against paying college athletes comes from plain greed and selfishness.

Summary and response to "Fans Must Understand that College Sports is Big Business"

      While reading the US news and world report I came across an article called  “Fans Must Understand that College Sports Is Big Business” The author and board of members of sports fans coalition, Brian Frederick, argues that college athletes should get paid. Frederick does acknowledge the fact that these students are getting a “free education”, but feels as though, that education comes with medical bills, and possibly life changing injuries. All of the hard work and time that these students are doing is just making money “that goes into the pockets of coaches, athletic directors, conference commissioners, and sports media executives” (Frederick). Frederick believes that as a society and as sports fans, we should “wake up” and let our voices be heard. We should help these college athletes and help them get paid. Lastly, Frederick believes that if we do not do something soon the “whole thing will fall apart and we all lose”.  

​Brian Frederick the author of the article “Fans Must Understand That College Sports Is Big Business”, and board member of sports fans coalition expresses his feelings in his article about the ongoing debate whether or not college athletes should get paid. Fredrick’s involvement in the board shows that he has a personal and sentimental connection with this debate, which is shown continuously through diction. He feels as though a free education is not enough to pay off the time, hard work, and injuries, at a high level training, that these college athletes endure. He is not only angered at the fact that coaches, athletic directors, etc. all get paid minus the athletes; He is ashamed at the fact of how us, the audience, are aware of what is happening , but have not done a thing about it. Frederick once again shows his anger when he states that “it’s time for all sports fans to wake up and realize that the current system benefits only the elite few who continue to perpetuate the myth of amateur athletics.” I agree with Frederick, something must be done, but we both know that this movement cannot be done single handedly.

Introduction

To begin my name is Marlene Gomez I am a freshman at cal state northridge. My stand on this issue is that college athletes should get paid due to the fact that they travel and need to support themselves. I am an athlete and I know what its like to be a student athlete have pressure and the attention and spotlight put on you.

Should we pay college athletes?

Hello there readers. My name is Marcus Fadairo and I'm here to explain my own opinion on whether or not college athletes should get paid. This is coming from a fellow sports fan and who's family is pretty sports minded. This is a topic that has peaked my interest because when I watch these college athletes do their thing I wonder if a paycheck will be the token of appreciation for the athlete's hard work. You will be reading my opinion on this topic so feel free to comment on what you, the reader, think about all this.

As I watch NCAA basketball and football games I always find it interesting to know that these athletes aren't just athletes alone but students as well. I also start to wonder how these athletes can find time to study for their classes. For some, it could be too much to handle, but these athletes somehow find a way to do it. College athletes aren't only playing for their schools, they are representing them. They are given fully paid scholarships, which covers the whole four years with some additional benefits, to attend the college of their choice. I do think that college athletes should be appreciated with some incentive but then again college is still a school, where students made the decision to continue on in their education to be successful in lives. I get the fact that college athletes makes sacrifices to play the sport they love and to play for their school, but a college is an institution for education. The small incentive should be given to the college athletes to let them know how much the college appreciates all that they are doing but learning should come first. Off the field, or court, college athletes are still students, and as students they still need to study for the tests and midterms that come up. There is also the homework that needs to be done too. As college athletes train and work hard for the sport they play for, other responsibilities will be made and they know that. Instead of giving college athletes a pay check, give them some other bonuses to let them know why the colleges chose them and how they appreciate all the time they put into playing the sport. College athletes are also students for a reason. Learning should be the top priority to those who enter college rather than making money.

Should College Athletes Be Paid?

Being a student-athlete in college could be a struggle at times, you have to devote much of your time and energy to sports and still study for class in order to maintain passing grades. Even without the burden of having to balance school and sports, most of us still have a difficult time making ends meet when it comes to finances. This economic tussle affects almost every person that attends a university, so do college athletes deserve more help financially than other students or are the many sources from which they receive aid enough? For me, school has always been about education first and extracurricular activities second but for others this may not be the case. However, the university’s main goal is to educate the students that attend the institution, is it not? So is it fair to offer additional assistance to those students that choose to participate in athletic programs but not to those who choose otherwise? Many collegiate athletes believe they should receive payment for their athletic abilities and they are not the only ones that think so, they sacrifice their time and physical health for school pride and the love of the game. This issue has caught the attention of many people recently and much controversy has begun to arise due to lawsuits concerning players receiving payment for their athletic abilities and for marketing reasons. These actions being taken are not necessary, many of the athletes receive a tremendous amount of monetary support from the school, government, and scholarships. Paying a college athlete a salary is not something I advocate, whether they plan on becoming a professional or not, at the college level it is not a career and therefore should not be treated as such. 

College athletes should receive payment

With all this talk about whether college athletes should get paid or not, I believe that they should. Although they get scholarships, it doesn't fully cover their expenses. They give their time and dedication in representing the college as a "career," so they should get paid. They are also involved in the NCAA, which is a billion dollar television agreement. They provide entertainment to the people. As a matter of fact, college football is said to be watched more often than professional NFL. I'm not saying college athletes should be getting $5000-$10000 a month but they are worth more than just a scholarship.

Mission statement

The ongoing lawsuits between NCAA and business corporations over campaigning and marketing rights brings up the remaining question, should college athletes get paid? With the continuously cost in college tuition, many student athletes feel as though their work is underpaid and unappreciated. With this blog we will not only try to get the point of view from college athletes but as well from students and professors who are also affected by this issue.
Eng115collegeathletes.blogspot.com

Big bucks for collegiate sports??

The on and off again dispute whether college athletes should get paid has resurfaced again, due to the high demand, attention, and growth college sports has gotten in the last couple of years. With the numerous lawsuits and struggling athletes it may seem as though this controversy may never be put to rest. It's almost every athletes dream to make it big in college sports and then make it to the pros, but what many don't realize is the struggle as a college student who has bills to pay with no jobs. Yes these athletes do get underrated struggling to find a balance between college and sports, but why should the school pay more attention to them than any other student? I do agree that with all the money college sports are getting in marketing, they should use that endorsement to better the athletics program, but not pay the athletes. The reason is because, I feel as though, if you're already getting paid in college why would you still want to try and make it to the professionals. Yes, it may seem as though I have a bias point of view, but I was a student athlete all throughout highschool. I too know how it feels to  have to find a balance between school and sports. Going to college as a regular student, I now see the favoritism athletes get and that's why I believe that students and student athletes should be treated equally. College athletes are not the only ones struggling with college money, so are the "regular" students.