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.