In this magazine article I read it explains in two different standpoints on if college athletes should get paid or not. The one for paying these student athletes say the two words are flipped and they should be called “Athlete student”. They begin to explain that the NCAA is a multi billion dollar business and without these student athletes they would not be where they be at today. The one against is saying that if they begin to compensate these students most of the athletic programs would shut down because they will not be able to afford it. It is also arguing the fact many would not have went to college if it wasn’t for the athletic scholarships they received. Lastly, the fact that these students do not have to face a mountain of debt.
This is a helpful source because it has both views of the argument to get a better sense for both sides. Comparing this source to the other ones I have it is one of the more reliable ones because it had a lot of statistical facts and very sincere arguments. The source is objective because it is open to hear both sides account and take recognition, and fairness towards both ends. The goal of this source is to open my mind to the yes side of getting student athletes paid so I won’t be biased on the topic because I want to know more about this, and dig deeper.
This source was very helpful to me in many ways. It has kept me in a more open mindset of this conflict rather than being biased towards not paying college athletes. Made analyze the stats and facts more deeply to get a great understanding why they are putting it out there and for what specific purpose. It helps me shape my argument by the fact that student athletes want tog et paid, but by the end of their 4 years they can make $100,000 all put into school and have everything they need. It has not changed on what I think on the topic, it had only make me side way more with not paying them at all.
In this audio she explains the immaturity and wrongful usefulness of student athletes and should get paid under the National Labor Relations Act. Arguing that with all the plane rides, hotels, coaches getting paid in millions, etc is ridiculous because the ones that are getting all of this are not the ones playing the actual sport. She believes as everybody else gets their benefits and rewards within the school because of the athletic programs the players are rewarded with unpaid labor. Ton conclude she wants people to stand up for the college athletes today are facing awful injustice.
It was a useful source, but not the best source. She began to relate this situation to the National Labor Relations Act which is fine, right to have an opinion but I wanted the evidence within that act to compare it to student athletes playing sports. Comparing this source to my others it is not the best one and not the most reliable because it was all based on her own opinion rather than research. This source is very biased as it strongly is on the case for getting these college athletes paid.
This source was somewhat helpful just because I can receive more insight and perspective on peoples’ argument on getting college athletes paid. It keeps shaping my argument better for me in my opinion because she was speaking just on her behalf and no real evidence in the piece at all to back her up. I can use this source in my research project to show people do not really know what would happen if athletes got paid where the money would come from. It has not changed at all on what I feel on the topic and still hold on strong towards athletes not getting paid in college.
In this magazine article it talks about how like the source I had before is either for or against it. In the argument for getting these students paid talks about how the NCAA racks up to around $6 billion in profit , and the extra profit they have they give it to the school or coaches and leave the players hanging. Even if the athletes want to have a part time job they can’t because the busy schedule of their sport and education. The argument against it is more money more problems. As of the now these college students get enough benefits as it is and will make over $100,000 in the four years in education. They are labeled as students and by paying them you will have them veer off into sports and not care about academics which could lead to a ton of violations and conflicts within the NCAA. The issue of this topic is that people are worried about putting more money in sports rather than putting more into academics.
This was a useful source because brings more light to the conflict itself, where will the money be coming from and what to sacrifice for it to happen? Comparing this source to the other sources I have now is very useful and will most likely go back and read this magazine article no doubt. This is a very reliable source as it creates more understanding and focus on what would happen if athletes did start getting paid and just also present day on how it goes for these college students not getting compensated. The source is objective and it experiments on both ends on their strong based opinions, but with factual information to backup their claims.
This source was helpful got me more intact to keeping my mind open to different scenarios if or it still doesn’t happen for student athletes to get paid. My argument for student athletes not getting paid graciously improve because so far all the ones on my side have the most factual, statistical, and proven information as in the side fighting for it are either opinionated or finding ways to get them paid. I can use this source for great evidence and display it in my research project. This source made me feel better for my argument gave me courage to proudly side on not having college athletes paid.
This audio is about the NCAA letting players get compensation over their image and likeness. They believe the main reason of doing so is that other people like fans will not be able to use their name for their self profit. As they kept discussing they said if the college athletes get paid they will not be typical students anymore. As for paying them their first priority they will not put in first anymore.
This is a useful source because this is a specific action that actually just been passed in the court system that players will get paid off their own image and likeness. Comparing this to my other sources it is the sole one to use because this article is especially the most recent and critical in the argument on if college athletes should get paid or not. This is a reliable source because I can use this to bring the current news to this conflict. This source is biased because this person is mad at the NCAA and the fans because we are calling these college athletes amateurs.
This source is very helpful because it digs in deeper towards my conflict and to observe how far it has gone since this conflict has begun. My argument has changed a little supporting the fact that they are on a video game with their number and name and people will buy this game because of these players image and likeness. I can use this source to configure my piece in my research to show this will be the only move can make to give these athletes some sort of money for playing the sport they play. The source has made me shift a little, but just a minor hit in the road and just keeping my head straight towards the claim I had said.
In this article it about Jeremy bloom who played football at the university of Colorado, but went to the world cup for skiig in 2005 but was then banned from playing football because of his endorsements and money made from it. The NCAA said either take endorsements and be banned from collegiate sports or quit skiing. Bloom then decided to test them and the NCAA ended up banning him. Later on was eventually got drafted by the Eagles and still skis today.
This source is very useful because it shows a different side of things in a situation where a student played two sports and was professional in the other. Comparing this to my other sources it is divergent in a sense because this dives into a player who suffered loss of the money because the NCAA would not let him take his endorsement money while playing his collegiate sports. This is a reliable source because it has a great story of a player who had one of his passions taken away, but for right reasons because it would cause too much conflict than it already has. I can use this source to emphasize how fair the NCAA is because if Jeremy Bloom was able to do both, all the college athletes would try and get endorsements for playing their collegiate sport which is illegal, nobody makes a profit as a player.
This source is helpful because it helps me structure my argument to create more sense to me and for my peers. My argument is still true since I have first said it, they get paid enough it is just not in the money form in which they would rather want, but would be not the smartest thing to do. I can use this source to create a visual for my peers to see why college athletes should not get paid and this is why with Jeremy Blooms story.
This magazine article is about a federal judge who tossed out that College athletes should get paid at least minimum wage. The judge said even if they deserve this type of payment it would have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Also did not pass it because the judge does not know exactly if the Congress intended the College athletes to be apart of the act.
This source is useful because you can see what they have to go through (violations, acts, rules, laws) to get it passed and be able to give college athletes their money. Comparing this to other sources I have already used this is credible because it dives into the court system and why even if judges agree why it cannot be done. I can use this source to keep providing evidence to make my argument stronger.
This source is helpful from a civil, lawsuit situation to provide how it goes through a courtroom or trail and what has occurred and resulted. My argument after reading this makes it better because the highest arch to get it passed will not, because the evidence and sanctions won’t let it. I can use this source for dramatic representation to bring my peers to attention and to justify my argument.
This magazine article is about how back in 2014 two lawsuits came out for having college athletes get paid and university of northwestern being labeled as employees of sports, but were later appealed. In this they had players like Napier who played for UConn and stated some nights after games he would lay in bed starving. As most of these sources I have read they explain the revenue coming in from NCAA and how they will not distribute to any players. NCAA states that they aren’t as profitable as they think because most of the other collegiate sports lose money, so football and basketball pretty much takes on all the money universities and the organization makes.
The source is useful because it takes accounts of players who are now pro athletes speaking on their behalf of playing collegiate sports and whether it is fair to not get paid. Comparing this to other sources I have it is more of a reasonable source because it takes personal accounts I do not play college sports, so I cannot be in their shoes. I can use this source to help me show benefits that these college players have because mostly everybody else is in debt and starving.
This source is helpful because it helps me guide my research like I am cruise control. My argument is still staying strong even a lot of the accounts from my sources I stay strong because this type of conflict has a lot of emotional appeals and persuasion to make you think that is what it really is but is not most cases. I can use this source to carry on how strong my side is against the for side. A lot of people do not understand by attending bowl games and they get little money here and there.
This is actually an argument on my side, stating that these kids get paid for the sport they played with a great education that is free. Especially since kids get these offers and compare their grades to the school standards most would not be there because technically they are failing. People are mistaken getting paid has to be a check or dollar bills in your hand, but giving them a full four year college program with no cost is better according to this article. As people believe these students are treated poorly they have the best college life.
This source is helpful because it helps my argument and he agrees with me! I like how he interprets money is not the equalizer as in money doesn’t control what we can do all the time. Comparing this to my other sources I will highly recommend using this often to back me up as I will do the same for him. The author just brings great opinions and conflict resolutions to the questions that I will interpret for him. The source is for sure biased as it sides only with the athletes not getting paid.
The source is credible because I can use this very well to state my argument in my research piece. My motivation for my argument has increased tremendously as it made my point of view more visible and confident to speak on this issue. I can use this to show my peers and abiding people that there is really no point to getting them paid because technically, they already do.
Brandon's Blog 