A Rhetorical Analysis Of Shabazz Napier

College Varsity Athletes Should be Paid In this paper, I argue that college varsity athletes should be paid for playing sports that bring in revenue. In particular, College football and basketball because they bring in the majority of the revenue for the schools. The revenue accomplished by college sports programs continues to increase, due to the growth in interest of the NCAA basketball tournament and the college football playoffs (Berry III, Page 270). Throughout the past few years, one of the main topics debated in college sports is whether or not the athletes should be paid.

College is a place for students to obtain a college degree and help them to get ahead on their “real world” careers. Athletic departments in college have become huge money incomes in the past ten years; college football and basketball are even shown on the television. This has resulted in many believing these athletes deserve to be paid for their contribution to the schools athletic income. However athletes in college are given the opportunity to play the sport that they love as well as receive a top education. For some players a $20,000+ per year tuition is not enough, they want to be paid with more than just a scholarship.

College athletes put in a lot of time, effort, and work into the sport they’ve played since they were young, but they aren’t getting paid for it. These student athletes deserve to be paid because they put in countless hours of hard work and balance sports with school work. The first reason athletes in college do deserve to be compensated is because they don 't have time to fit in work with a school and athletic schedule. College athletes don’t have time to get a real job. Student athletes have a very busy schedule, they don’t have time to fit in a job.

After graduating from High School one may choose to further his or her education through college. People do this for many reasons. Some people do it for professional benefits, while others do it for sports athletics. This paper will be focusing on those who do go to college for athletic benefits. Specifically, this is focusing on how these college athletes do not get paid and why they should be paid.

A Rhetorical Analysis of “The Education of Dasmine Cathey” Writer, Brad Wolverton, in his article “The Education of Dasmine Cathey” first appearing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, conveys the journey of a former University of Memphis football player who was poorly educated and how he struggled to be academically eligible. Wolverton’s purpose is to illustrate the widespread of educational shortcomings of NCAA athletes and the complicated ways athletes struggles gets brushed under the proverbial carpet. (Wolverton) In this article Wolverton utilizes a straightforward tone by using pathos to appeal to the readers with Mr. Cathey’s difficult situation also utilizing logos and ethos etc. to help make a presentable argument to which I will be analyzing.

As we all know, college can be very expensive. With the scholarships and grants, college student-athletes can go to school for free and get their day-to-day needs such as food, housing, clothes, etc. Ackerman and Scotts, purpose is to show that college is a learning experience and with the help of college sports, the student-athletes will have a chance to grow and be successful in life rather than being exploited. However, critics believe that college student-athletes should be paid salary, like professional athletes, because they want people to see the “athletes are the rule, not the expectation” (par 11). They want the audience to think that it’s a rule for student-athletes to go play pro after two years, will no expectation.

Should college athletes be paid? Should student Athletes be paid to play College Football? Well in this essay I will be doing a Rhetorical Analysis on two different essays based on if college athletes should be paid, to play Football. Some say that the student athletes already get a scholarship for school, housing, books and more.

Sports reporter, Kate Murphy, succinctly summarizes an overwhelming standpoint that many people seem to cite in her article "Privilege, not a job: College athletes shouldn 't be paid. " First, she stipulates herself that student-athletes technically fit the criteria of hardworking employees. She also acknowledges that it is nearly impossible for athletes to balance a job while adhering to their strict schedules. However, because student-athletes are "living the dream" and are supposed to drink up the passion and sacrifices of their game, seeking compensation is grotesque and un-sportsman like. This argument rides on the coattails of "purity."

The NCAA says that they don’t want to pay college athletes because of their scholarships. As the money keeps flowing more and more each and every year, it comes with more arguments about the athletes getting the money that they deserve. Sounds as if college athletes are blindly signing a sheet of paper and the NCAA has an evil smirk saying “You have no idea what you’ve gotten yourself into”. A court case had also gone down about a young college athlete and a car dealership. The dealership was using the athletes to make more sales with his cars and was doing behind the athletes back without

" This quote proves that the students are bringing in lots of money and the school has plenty to give. College athletes should be paid because they contribute to the school revenues. When it comes to getting fans in the arena it all happens because of the stars coming out of the locker room. Student athletes can be looked at as advertisement because they persuade people to come watch their skills.

College athletes already get their education free why should they get paid for playing a sport they love playing. What do you think, should college athletes get paid for playing the sport there in? Well I don’t think so and in this paper I will tell you and give you reasons why they shouldn’t be paid. College athletes are already getting a free education they shouldn’t be allowed to be paid. My topic is why college athletes shouldn’t get paid.

When student-athletes received full scholarships, they should be privileged and thankful since the cost of higher education is very expensive. Student-athletes need to understand the circumstances and take of advantage of getting their degree from a well renowned university since the percentages are very slim to none on having a professional career in sports. The purpose of a student-athlete is to be a student first and then an athlete second. The main focus should be on earning a degree, and not worrying about when is the next game on the schedule. Many people are stating that college athletes should get paid, but how about the general student body that has little to nothing and working a job earning minimal pay.

Often known as the Father of American Literature to many educated individuals, Ralph Waldo Emerson in his oration “The American Scholar” brilliantly provides a sublime example of how Emerson earned his title through the appliance of diction, syntax, allusions, and many other rhetorical devices and strategies. Indicated towards his highly educated audience, the Phi Beta Kappa Society, Emerson introduces the idea that the common class and common concepts of everyday life are becoming the future of art and literature through purpose, credibility, and tone. As many great writers, Emerson does not simply tell about his idea, but instead uses rhetorical strategies to help show his central point, one such strategy being purpose. Being focused on informing his audience of the coming days, the use of purpose can be

The movie “Coach Carter” was based off of a true story. It was written by Samuel L. Jackson directed by Thomas Carter. A California high school basketball coach puts school grades above sports. His purpose is because he went against that success for young adults is achieved through the world of sports than the classroom. Being successful was to be a good role model and that is what the movie “Coach Carter” is all about.

A growing debate in the National Collegiate Athletic Association is whether or not student athletes should be paid. The controversy began in 2011 after three hundred coaches and athletes signed a petition to pay college-level athletes, and since then other athletes have made several more arguments. The NCAA has rightfully denied all of the requests, saying they include too much. To pay student athletes could be hugely expensive for colleges, especially because they would not only pay for each athlete’s degree and equipment, but also provide a salary and give bonuses revenue for tournaments. Moreover, college athletes should not be paid because there is not enough money, it takes away a student’s focus from schoolwork, and not every athlete is guaranteed a professional career after graduating; however it is argued that it they are already paid in a way.