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.