Genre Analysis Rough Draft #2-Should College
Athletes Be Paid?
Introduction
Every year, thousands of
student-athletes will graduate from high school, some that feel they are ready
to jump immediately into the pros and start making money. However, most
professional sport organizations have banned them from going straight to the pros
out of high school. With these kinds of rules in place, these student-athletes
are given a decision; they can either sit out until they are eligible, or they
can continue to play sports in college. Most chose the latter, to keep their
skills fresh and intact, instead of sitting for two or more years of not doing
anything to preserve their skills. Colleges make millions, sometimes billions
of dollars off of these athletes, by way of merchandise sales, television
license deals, endorsements with uniform suppliers, and many other forms of
income, with approximately 0% of that income going to the players that make the
income possible, which leaves many people asking, “Should college athletes be
paid?”
Genre 1: Blog post from
a Ph. D. and Chair of Sports Management at Rice
The first genre is an
article called Should
college athletes get paid? by Clark D. Haptonstall, Ph.D. and chair of the Department of Sport Management at Rice University. He
starts off his article by posting a link to an interview he did earlier that
morning, and then says that he is going more in-depth in the article, since he
wasn’t able to in the interview. He then provides some basic facts, such as the
number of colleges in the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA, the governing
body of college sports), the fact that “Most of America only cares about the
340 colleges competing at the Division I level” and “Most of America’s casual
fans only care about the 120 college that compete in the ‘Football Bowl
Subdivision’ (FBS)” (Haptonstall, Should college athletes get paid?). He then moves
on to the money side of the topic, by stating that “The national media devotes most of their time and attention
to the colleges that play in the FBS that are part of the five major
conferences” (Haptonstall,
Should college
athletes get paid?) which control most of the TV money. Then, instead of really
taking a side on whether or not athletes should be paid, he offers four
solutions to the problem, two of which would involve the colleges paying the
students directly.
Breaking the first article down
The first solution would be
allowing the athletes to be able to profit off of their own names, by selling
their autographs, signing endorsement deals, and collecting royalties from the
sales of jerseys with their name on them. By taking this path, the universities
wouldn’t be paying the athletes directly, but the universities would be losing
money from uniform manufacturers, since the athletes would be able to do that
on their own.
The second option would be to
create a 16-team tournament-style playoff system for college football, instead
of the current Bowl Series, which automatically puts the Number 1 and Number 2
teams in the National Championship game. Haptonstall
believes that a tournament-style playoff system would generate $1 billion in
revenue for the NCAA, which could then be used to pay all of the athletes from
all of the universities minimum wage, which Haptonstall calculated the cost to
come out to $912 million, so the NCAA would still be making a profit.
The third option would involve the five power
conferences forming a new division in the NCAA, where the main objective would
be to change the way athletes are compensated. Since half of the schools in the
five conferences generate a profit from sports, the money could be shared
between the schools. One of the flaws with this solution would be that only the
athletes in the new division would be compensated.
The
fourth and final option is similar to the third, in that it involves the five
power conferences. In this scenario, the schools would break away completely
from the NCAA and create their own collegiate
athletic association. Then, the schools could cut out the sports that don’t
make as much money as football and basketball. The schools would have to have
an equal number of female athletes as male athletes. With a football team of
100 males and a men’s basketball team of 15 students, which would make 230 student-athletes
each university would have to pay, which is easier to do than the 500
student-athletes for universities in the NCAA. The drawbacks would be that
without the money from the five major conferences, the NCAA would lose 80% of
their revenue, and probably cease to exist. Like the third option, only
athletes playing for schools in the five major conferences would be getting
paid.
Genre
2: A cartoon from a website
The next genre is a cartoon from The Week website. The
cartoon depicts two athletes carrying the NCAA
and professional sports, which are represented as a limousine. One of the
athletes asks the other, “No money, no gifts, no cars, no endorsement deals…
tell me again, why are we doing this?” (The Week) The other student-athlete
responds with “For an education, but I’m not feeling too smart” (The Week). The
cartoon is referring to the rules that many professional sports organizations
have put in place, which requires athletes to either attend college or sit out
for a couple years before they can become professional. Most students choose to
go to college, and are offered scholarships from different colleges. However,
this cartoon shows that many athletes are feeling dumb for missing out on the
ability to go professional and earn all the money, endorsements, cars, and
gifts since they have been forced to go to college so they can ‘earn an
education.’ In fact, many feel that they are being forced to work for free,
much like slaves, to carry the load of colleges and professional sports, and
earn them money.
Genre 3: A video clip
from ESPN
The final genre is a segment from ESPN’s Recruiting Nation. In this particular
segment, Dave Telep, Craig Haubert and Paul
Biancardi are the three analysts that are presented with Kansas coach Bill
Self’s comments that players should be paid. Dave Telep starts off by saying
that there is enough money generated from colleges through media deals and
conference alignment that colleges now have the ability to pay athletes. He
says that “it’s the right thing to do, but… it’s not gonna happen” (Telep, RecruitingNation). Then, Craig Haubert argues that “People
under-value the expense of a college education” (Haubert, RecruitingNation RecruitingNation).
He argues that many people are forced to take out a loan just to be able to go
to college, and once they graduate, they are stuck with a huge amount of money
that they have to pay off. He says that student-athletes are able to bypass
having to take out a loan because all of their college expenses are paid for by
the college. Finally, Paul Biancardi starts his piece off by listing all
the people affiliated with college athletics that get paid, and says that all
the athletes get is their education is paid for by the college. He says that
since the athletes are the ones earning the money that colleges get from the
athletics, that they should get some of that money.
Similarities
All three of the genres were made to
provide an opinion on the subject, since it has been in the news more and more,
and has become almost a national debate subject, like gay marriage or
legalizing marijuana. All three of the genres use an image, whether it be
moving (which would be a video) or static, like the cartoon. All three of the
articles take on a serious tone, and don’t stray far from the topic of whether
or not athletes should be paid. I feel that the analysts in the ESPN video and
the Doctor and Chair of Sports Management at Rice University are the most
credible to speak on the subject, as they actually work in the field of college
athletics. Even if they are overseeing it (like the Chair of Sports Management)
or they analyze it (like the analysts on ESPN), they are still more credible
than a cartoon drawer who is just throwing in his two cents drawing for a website.
Differences
Of the three genres, I felt that the ESPN video had the best
format or layout. They used a quote from a college coach, and then had three
college sports analysts debate the topic. The cartoon is just an image format,
so you click on the link and you see the image. The blog post from the doctor
at Rice University provided a link to an interview, and then he went further in
depth in the post, providing possible solutions to the problem, then providing
some pros and cons to each solution, as well as if he could see the each
solution happening in real life. The three genres also are designed for
different viewers. The ESPN video is designed for someone who looks mostly at
the sports side of the subject. Although it doesn’t stick to one side of the
argument, it does provide evidence that supports either side. The cartoon
pertains more to someone who would perhaps be reading about the subject, and
then decided to do a Google search for more information about the subject. The
blog post is aimed more towards people who saw the interview live, or students
who are doing research on the subject.
Analysis
Of the three genres, I think the ESPN
video was most effective at getting their message out. Even though the analysts
didn’t all pick one opinion, they still presented their opinion, gave
supporting evidence, and stood by their opinion. Yes, they weren’t all on the
same side of the argument, but that is really the nature of a debate; there are
going to be people on both sides of an argument. The least effective genre was
the cartoon, mainly because the writer didn’t back up their opinion with
supporting evidence. However, with a cartoon, the artist is going to be limited
to what they can fit into the space they are given, so I don’t think a cartoon
or an image would be the best genre to use for this subject, or really with any
subject which would require supporting evidence to be presented. The blog
posting was somewhat effective; the biggest mark against it is that the writer
didn’t pick one side of the argument. With blog postings, though, that can be a
problem, since the writer can really slant their opinion towards one side of an
argument by presenting evidence that will make their side look good or the
opposing side look bad. So, in terms of bias, I think the writer of the blog
did a good job not presenting any bias.
Works
Cited
Bagley,
Pat. "College Athletes' Heavy Load." Cartoon. The Week. N.P., 2011. Web. 1 Mar.
2014.
RecruitingNation: NCAA Athletes Payment Debate. Prod. ESPN. Perf. Dave Telep, Craig Haubert, and Paul
Biancardi. YouTube. N.P.,
25 Oct. 2012. Web. 1 Mar. 2014.
Haptonstall, Clark D., Ph. D. "Should College Athletes
Get Paid?" Web log post. Haptonstall-Rice. Rice University, 10
Sept. 2013. Web. 5 Mar. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment