College Athletes Cons
Peer Review of The NCAA Gets It Right With College Athletes Jeremy's paper is about college athletes, and how they should not be paid. His thesis is "The National Collegiate Athletic Association should not give in to growing pressure because college athletes should not be paid". The paper makes a value of belief. The author believes that what the NCAA is doing is correct, by not paying athletes at college level. The author has fully comprehended his topic. He understands the pros and cons of paying the athletes, and compares the two different sides. For example, one of his opposing viewpoints was that, "
the student-athletes make schools millions of dollars, yet receive no cut of the profit". This pro statement is then countered
with, " advocates fail to note that not all colleges and universities make this type of money". The author knows his topic well, and describes his side of the argument well. The author did not have any ambiguous terms that he needed to define clearly. The author could however show more examples, of how someone paid the college-athlete, and the consequences of the person or the college. The authors choose this topic because of the debate of paying student-athletes. One of his standards was that the money that the college makes form football and basketball go into funding other minor sports, such as track. The author writes, "If profits were used on athletes, many schools would have to cut many sports and activities, leaving countless student-athletes without any forum for competition". This shows two things, that the author is basing education as his criteria, and he also relates it back to his thesis, that college athletes should not be paid. The author has taken only one opposing argument into account. The author's opposing argument is that the student athletes "make schools millions of dollars". He also argues this opposing view, by writing that if schools started paying their students, then the school will not have enough money to pay or other, not so popular sports. I think the author should have used more than one opposing argument. For example, college-athletes are talented, and we pay people for putting their talent's to use. Why not college athletes? A very intelligent person uses his skills to earn scholarships, which is basically getting money for being intelligent. Why should the athletes not be paid for using their skills? I believe these are some arguments the author should have taken into consideration. For the most part the author uses relevant sources. Here is an example of him using a relevant source, "In many cases, those schools with football and basketball programs that do make a profit use the money to underwrite the school's other sports'." However, towards the end the author starts to deviate form his claim. The author starts to talk about how someday high school athletes will also start getting paid, because college-athletes get paid. This is a bold statement that needs to be backed. The author needs to support this statement.
with, " advocates fail to note that not all colleges and universities make this type of money". The author knows his topic well, and describes his side of the argument well. The author did not have any ambiguous terms that he needed to define clearly. The author could however show more examples, of how someone paid the college-athlete, and the consequences of the person or the college. The authors choose this topic because of the debate of paying student-athletes. One of his standards was that the money that the college makes form football and basketball go into funding other minor sports, such as track. The author writes, "If profits were used on athletes, many schools would have to cut many sports and activities, leaving countless student-athletes without any forum for competition". This shows two things, that the author is basing education as his criteria, and he also relates it back to his thesis, that college athletes should not be paid. The author has taken only one opposing argument into account. The author's opposing argument is that the student athletes "make schools millions of dollars". He also argues this opposing view, by writing that if schools started paying their students, then the school will not have enough money to pay or other, not so popular sports. I think the author should have used more than one opposing argument. For example, college-athletes are talented, and we pay people for putting their talent's to use. Why not college athletes? A very intelligent person uses his skills to earn scholarships, which is basically getting money for being intelligent. Why should the athletes not be paid for using their skills? I believe these are some arguments the author should have taken into consideration. For the most part the author uses relevant sources. Here is an example of him using a relevant source, "In many cases, those schools with football and basketball programs that do make a profit use the money to underwrite the school's other sports'." However, towards the end the author starts to deviate form his claim. The author starts to talk about how someday high school athletes will also start getting paid, because college-athletes get paid. This is a bold statement that needs to be backed. The author needs to support this statement.