Anthony Minafra ENC 1101 Mrs.

Mills October 30, 2013 Clutter of Conversations Comes to An Abrupt Hault

Minafra 1

This whole debate and aggravation based on college athletes being paid has been bouncing back and forth between sides. From multiple writers, it has been the big argument since Johnny Manziels return from a half-game suspension. Ever since it hit the cover page of a magazine, its been blowing up everywhere about if its necessary to pay the college athletes. Many people believe they shouldnt get paid based on the fact that it would defeat the purpose of being a college sport. Being so, it would become more of a business than a university. Which, allegedly, college athletes are getting paid without even getting a pay check. By all the experiences they endure in 4 years of college, the real attribute to being paid is blinding them right in the eyes. Mike Shanklin interprets the real paycheck isnt getting money in your bank account, but with the experiences and fame you bring to yourself, your teammates, and your fans. College athletes seem to have little appreciation with full scholarships. With the fact that an average student, by the time they graduate, will have approximately owe $165K in loans based on $25K a year for 4 years. The credibility to this shows that student athletes are already being paid for playing sports by obtaining a scholarship. Mike interprets that just because theres no paycheck being handed to you, by receiving a full scholarship you are saving $165K in 4 years. Which is being paid by the NCAA. Statistics show that an average college student graduates with approximately $100K in debt before interest rates. Showing this, the average full scholarship is worth more than 4 years of tuition. These athletes know these facts being well aware how they stand compared to other students. Mike shows how these athletes dont care about it being more, but want more money in their pockets. The athletes allegedly, want to scam off the NCAA to have money to spend on their nights out. They just want to be

Minafra 2 able to go to fancy places to sweep girls off their feet. Some athletes receive a stipend of roughly $2,000. This stipend is supposed to help them with any struggles they have throughout college. The diction Mike interprets here is aggravation from the selfishness these athletes like Johnny Manziel obtain because of the corruption they get before college. Mikes tone shows that these athletes only want to think about money before they even reach the college level. Where the issue really comes from, are all these recruiters promising gifts just to get them to sign with the college and/or university. Really, the NCAA is also being blinded. Based on these facts, those recruiters and boosters are the problem to this argument. By Mikes facts, the NCAA should be going after the recruiters/boosters instead. Being that the NCAA goes after the athletes is hypocritical on their behalf. Mike argues that suspending the players for accepting gifts is being hypocritical when they allow the coaches to accept endorsements. Mike argues that in order to come to an agreement, you have to go after the core problem. Student athletes, no matter what, will always accept money from anyone offering it to them. Mike brings up broad questions about if the university put the athletes on the payroll they would stop accepting gifts. He inputs a rather more rhetorical question. Mike is arguing that the NCAA will always have a problem with athletes accepting cash. Any athlete is only thinking about making money with their talents they bring to their university and town. If having a paycheck, the athletes see an opportunity to endorse in more money for their social being. What these athletes dont understand, is how little of a budget their college is actually one. Being selfish, trains their brain to think inside the cover. Athletes look at how much they bring the school in revenue and believe its enough to reward themselves. What they dont realize is they dont think outside the box. When it comes to paying athletes, how would the NCAA know how much to pay the 3rd string quarterback compared to the Heisman quarterback? The diction here is theres absolutely no way to configure a salary for all these players. When the agents/boosters are offering money to an athlete, they are taking advantage of a vulnerable, unexperienced teenager in making it seem okay to accept gifts. The NCAA doesnt see how this is the core start in the argument.

Minafra 3 This debate is based on scamming on another. Division III athletes never complain about being paid. Hes arguing here about division I athletes allegedly scamming the NCAA. division I athletes receive more money in scholarships than division III athletes, yet they never complain. Mikes interprets these facts into the division I athletes want to make money without being suspended. He knows they dont need extra money to handle their college life. Rather, its being done to be on top of everyone and have money to blow on the fame. Being on a scholarship states an opportunity. Something athletes dont see. Unfortunately, we all know, athletes dont see it. The opportunity thats invisible is the fact of going to college for FREE. Thats the biggest paycheck any college student can achieve. student athletes tone amongst this debate is becoming rather annoyed. Its not directly stated, but Mike in terprets that what athletes dont realize is the money they bring in is keeping all the sports going. Some sports cant make enough revenue to support themselves and keep it active. Big names from football and basketball supports all those poor sports, and is what keeps the dream alive for the athletes of those specific sports. Paying athletes will eliminate these sports and ruin the privilege they obtain from scholarships to school. The real analysis is the athletes are being paid with knowledge of lifetime skills. This is the rhetorical statement on where the college athletes are getting paid from. In revenue, the NCAA received $771 million in television. Debaters argue, based on these earnings, it would destroy sports. Patricks interpreting a bunch of side debates and arguments will stir up upon other sports grasping too much money is going towards paying athletes rather than the other programs. The author analyzes the whole ordeal on athletes being paid to health insurance. Big name sports like football and basketball are whats keeping the unknown sports alive. In this analysis, the football and basketball program are the healthy doctors who provide care and treatment to the sick sports programs. What this interprets is the sports who lose money cant make it without the help from these big sports programs. The author interprets the healthy programs is the backbone to the sick programs. If the backbone breaks and makes the body paralyzed, the sports program cant fund the sport and it becomes inactive for the specific college. With the millions of dollars being made on the big programs,

Minafra 4 its keeping the other programs walking and giving all the other athletes opportunities they deserve. Which is interpreted by lawsuits. If a patient becomes sick based on the insurance companies fault, they become sued. The rhetorical statement being provided is the poor programs being the ones to sue by the healthy programs refusing to help out the programs, it leads to unwilling lawsuits brought up to the universities. Offering paychecks will lead college athletes to change the NCAA into a business. NCAA president Mark Emmert states it would be utterly unacceptable to convert athletes to employees. Behind these words stands firm support based on the aspect of what it means to be a student athlete. Giving athletes a salary will turn the college sport into a business and athletes into employers. It will defeat the aspect of a student athlete, and the college portion will diminish into no meaning. Emmert argues it indirectly, it will give these athletes multiple benefits they shouldnt be enduring yet. Its to set them up for a lifelong career. Ins tead, it gives them benefits of strikes, workers comp, and benefits based on nonprofessional work. Whats interpreted is benefits are for when you are retired. Being just starting your career there shouldnt be benefit opportunities just for graduating college. In realization, based on the scandals athletes are enforcing on themselves, they have been getting paid the whole time. In Cam Newtons rein at Auburn University, he was obtaining a revenue of approximately $180,000 without directly accepting. Athletes performed underground economy in making money for themselves. In other interpretations, this is a scandal behind the NCAA to seem less obvious in getting caught. The athletes allegedly accept gifts and money through other people so it wont link to th em. This brings the case of underground economy to the surface light. The diction on this case is interpret to just let the athletes accept money without going through the NCAA. Make it legal to accept absurd offers. Patrick brings up a broad point arguing to let these athletes run a small business within themselves and the people. Hes saying to let them get recognition for their incredible talent people recognize on and off the field. He says, if it has their last name or a piece of memorabilia they received, let it be their choice to make money from it. The NCAA shouldnt have to give

Minafra 5 approval or suspend an athlete for selling a jersey, ring or award to a fan. The author states facts to show the people paying for autographs are stupid for agreeing to, so let the athlete benefit from it all. He argues, its their fame and accomplishments they are making money off of, it doesnt harm or interfere with the way the NCAA runs, let it slide. An argument that becomes present in the debate makes the whole ordeal interesting. Keeping strict rules on athletes enables them to respect and honor the economic value. In other words, not making thousands of dollars off of memorabilia or jerseys makes the athletes realize the true value of a dollar. Being in economic struggles, it teaches them to savor their money and learn how to manage it wisely. He interprets, rather giving them opportunities to endure in endless money, they learn no value and will struggle once theyre out of college and in the real world. Whats being analyzed is the fact of the NCAA always teaching these athletes to become responsible with money when being in a tough spot with money. By denying them to make money in college, its showing the athletes what its like to live in tough times. Those experiences will carry on with them and as college comes to an abrupt halt, they will steer towards successful paths. I believe the NCAA does what they do to teach these athletes valuable lessons outside of the sports world. As they know, not every athlete takes a career in professional sports. Towards ending his article, he brings up keen facts about musically inclined college students accept beer money, or a sorority sister is accepting jewelry from other people. After carefully analyzing these facts, it shows how much of a hypocrite the NCAA and College Board are being. Without implying, the author states these facts to get an understanding why they dont face consequences for such actions. In other words, punishing a football player for doing the same thing a musically inclined student or sorority sister is doing brings confusion to the college world. Whats being asked rhetorically is how come its different for them from football players. Based on these articles, the audience is pointed towards the NCAA. For these unusually understandings only the NCAA can answer them. The authors tone towards the end becomes rather more strict. The author implies to allow free tattoos, money handshakes, and any form

Minafra 6 of accepting money. These statements show rhetorically the athletes will lead normally college lives and wont face any troubles based on any illegal scandals. In an informative sentence, the author truly asks, wouldnt you want the NCAA not to seem hypocritical towards these athletes? the way he states his argument, shows the NCAA is accusingly out to get these athletes in some way. Its almost as if they are the ones scamming these athletes from thei r noticable talents and gifts. All in all, from the authors logical explanations and arguments, he interprets rhetorically that the NCAA should notice that athletes accepting money will ultimately increase the public revenue towards college sports. To where the NCAA stands with this dilemma of questions and arguments, it is only fair to allow stipends to continue and money offers accepted, it shall not be obtained through salary. NCAA and college sports is not a business, its a rather life dream privile ge and opportunity to be endured in a talented athlete. Whats being implied shows the NCAA shouldnt be overanalyzing the illegal aspects of accepting money, but setting goals out for the college world to increase their revenue per year with big named schools? WORKS CITED: Shanklin, Mike. "Should College Athletes Get Paid?" DYST Now. N.p., 28 Sept. 2013. Web. 31 Oct. 2013. Hruby, Patrick. "The Atlantic." The Atlantic. N.p., 6 Apr. 2011. Web. 31 Oct. 2013