Should Athletes Be Paid There are many different arguments going on right now in colleges about student athletes. The main one is if athletes should or should not be paid. In the article titled 7 Common Sense Reasons Why College Athletes Should Be Paid (According to Jay Bilas), Peebles interviews Bilas on the controversial topic: payment of college athletes. Many people believe that scholarships, grants, and loans are enough for the athletes. However, Peebles and Bilas are strong believers of college athletes being paid. Even during the interview he uses the opposing side to prove his views on paying college athletes. This statement works well because Bilas’ arguments in Peebles’ interview are well supported with great ethical
…show more content…
In the beginning of each point he uses the counter argument. Then after the counter argument he disagrees with it and urges that colleges should pay their athletes. Bilas urges, “Boy, we pay the athletes and all of a sudden everybody is going to drop every sport” ( Peebles qtd 8). This is the counter argument for his fourth point. In the counter argument he says that all of the sports that do not get as much money, like the rowing teams, as the bigger programs will lose athletes like the rowing teams and the sport will become less popular, but Bilas declares: “ That’s a lie. It’s all a lie” (qtd in Peebles 8). After, he says this they will not cancel the programs if it is in the universities’ and athletes’ interests. He continues to talk about the the interest of the universities’. Next Bilas pronounces, “First of all people will say ‘What's next?’ Do you want to pay high school players next?” (Qtd in Peebles 4). Following this he talks about how high school athletes are not a multi-billion dollar industry, like college sports are. He continues by talking about how the athletes and premonitions are nowhere near the college level, but there are some similarities. The ethical appeals work really well with the interview. It works well with Bilas’ interview because he points out the counter arguments and …show more content…
The appeals that he uses all refer back to why athletes should be paid. Peebles starts off with an excellent logical appeal in the introductory paragraph. In the introductory paragraph he points out that the college coaches are making millions. In this section Peebles outlines, “The head coaches of the championship game, Mike Kryzewski of Duke and Bo Ryan of Wisconsin, made a combined salary of $12,628,032 this year” (Peebles 2). This appeal works to help prove the point perfectly. It shows that the coaches are making a ton of money and that the colleges could do something else with that money. He continues by proving that NCAA and colleges make billions of dollars, and the players make none. Proving that the NCAA and colleges makes a ton of money and the players make none. It really helps him persuade the people reading that there is money that the colleges have plenty of money to be pay the players. For Bilas’ first point he refers to the NCAA as a machine. Bilas shares, “If you’re an athlete that happens to make the schools in the NCAA machine billions of dollars, then the athletes are told, ‘You get only your expenses’” (qtd in Peebles 3). This quote works really well because it basically says that the NCAA and colleges are making a surplus of money and then the athletes are told that they just get expenses from scholarships. He also uses it throughout the interview, by calling the NCAA
In the beginning of each point he uses the counter argument. Then after the counter argument he disagrees with it and urges that colleges should pay their athletes. Bilas urges, “Boy, we pay the athletes and all of a sudden everybody is going to drop every sport” ( Peebles qtd 8). This is the counter argument for his fourth point. In the counter argument he says that all of the sports that do not get as much money, like the rowing teams, as the bigger programs will lose athletes like the rowing teams and the sport will become less popular, but Bilas declares: “ That’s a lie. It’s all a lie” (qtd in Peebles 8). After, he says this they will not cancel the programs if it is in the universities’ and athletes’ interests. He continues to talk about the the interest of the universities’. Next Bilas pronounces, “First of all people will say ‘What's next?’ Do you want to pay high school players next?” (Qtd in Peebles 4). Following this he talks about how high school athletes are not a multi-billion dollar industry, like college sports are. He continues by talking about how the athletes and premonitions are nowhere near the college level, but there are some similarities. The ethical appeals work really well with the interview. It works well with Bilas’ interview because he points out the counter arguments and …show more content…
The appeals that he uses all refer back to why athletes should be paid. Peebles starts off with an excellent logical appeal in the introductory paragraph. In the introductory paragraph he points out that the college coaches are making millions. In this section Peebles outlines, “The head coaches of the championship game, Mike Kryzewski of Duke and Bo Ryan of Wisconsin, made a combined salary of $12,628,032 this year” (Peebles 2). This appeal works to help prove the point perfectly. It shows that the coaches are making a ton of money and that the colleges could do something else with that money. He continues by proving that NCAA and colleges make billions of dollars, and the players make none. Proving that the NCAA and colleges makes a ton of money and the players make none. It really helps him persuade the people reading that there is money that the colleges have plenty of money to be pay the players. For Bilas’ first point he refers to the NCAA as a machine. Bilas shares, “If you’re an athlete that happens to make the schools in the NCAA machine billions of dollars, then the athletes are told, ‘You get only your expenses’” (qtd in Peebles 3). This quote works really well because it basically says that the NCAA and colleges are making a surplus of money and then the athletes are told that they just get expenses from scholarships. He also uses it throughout the interview, by calling the NCAA