Collegiate Athletes

One of the most debated topics within all of college athletics is whether or not college athletes should be able to receive more than just a scholarship. Two articles discussed this very question, with the first article called “Why Collegiate Athletes Could have the N.C.A.A, ET AL. Singing a Different Tune.“ which was written by Amber Jorgensen, who received her juris doctorate from the University of California, and is currently the president of the sports law federation at the Los Angeles school of law. The second article is called “Assessing the Economic Concerns of the Pay-For-Play Issue in Collegiate Sports” which was written by Brynlee Forik, who is a graduate student at Western Kentucky University. The two articles take different stances

“poll conducted by N.C.A.A similarly shows that FBS athletes commit approximately 43 hours per week to their sport” (Jorgensen 384). While on the other hand, Foriks quote never gives credit to who it was conducted by. “In 2011-2012 academic years, only 23 of 288 N.C.A.A Division I programs were able to make enough money to pay for sports expenditures” (Forik 29). Jorgensen has an more effective supporting argument because she even interviewed a former collegiate division one football player, who played at Kansas State, that had his academic advisor strongly encourage him to major in social sciences because it was an easier path through college. (Jorgensen 384). Both articles also always started with very strong argument strategies, by consistently building upon and supporting everything that they were saying, although the ideas and viewpoints on the topic were on complete opposite sides of the

Forik on the other hand puts into perspective how much exactly the N.C.A.A puts into not only increasing the athlete’s athletic ability, but to allow each athlete to receive the best education possible. Next, Jorgensen offers the view point that the N.C.A.A is signing billion dollar contracts and that, that money will go into one of the N.C.A.A executive’s pockets, instead of the people that are the rightful reason that, that contract was signed in the first place: The athletes. However, Forik puts into perspective the financial struggle that will arise if athletes ever get paid because the universities themselves are falling short on money, and with athletes already getting financial aid, anything beyond that could be detrimental to college sports. When looking at the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments, there is a lot more positive things to say about it, then negative. both articles do a very good job of leading into their arguments and having evidence to support it. Both articles also use a lot more of facts and statistics to back up their arguments, along with their own personal thoughts to have a happy medium and make both of their arguments effective