Annotated Bibliography Final Livia

Daugherty, Paul. "College Athletes Already Have Advantages and Shouldn't Be Paid." Sports Illustrated. Sports Illustrated, 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. <>.

This article explores the advantages student-athletes receive, which, in turn, implies why they shouldn't be paid stipends. The author, Paul Daughtery, incorporates his experience as a college professor of how students in his Advanced Reporting class struggled to keep up with schoolwork, student debt, lack of sleep, and juggling several jobs. He compares this with the life of a college student-athlete and explains that as an athlete (specifically a football or basketball player), you not only get a full, free ride at a university, but you obtain many benefits. Some of these perks include taking chartered jets to away games, staying in first-class hotels, receiving individual tutors and have study tables, being enrolled in classes designed to keep the athlete eligible, and having compliant and complicit professors who are interested in your sports career.

The article was published in January of 2012 and deals with the financial, social, medical, and educational benefits college athletes receive. There are no links included. The intended audience is readers of Sports Illustrated magazine, particularly those interested in college sports. The author, Paul Daugherty, used to be a professor in Advanced Reporting at Cincinnati, but is now a writer for Sports Illustrated (credible). The article was published by a well-known sports magazine. The purpose of this information is to inform readers of the already-existing benefits student-athletes receive and argue that because of these advantages, they shouldn't be paid.

This source provides me with factual evidence of what D1 and D2 student-athletes receive as being part of a sports program, which I will be able to use in my argument that combats the use of stipends for athletes. Its credibility and use of emotion through experience will help me convey that same sentiment through my research.

"Division I Schools Spend More On Athletes Than Education." USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., 14 July 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. <>.

This article focuses on exactly what the title implies: how public universities who compete in NCAA D1 sports spend as much as six times more per athlete than they spend to educate students. According to the article, spending by athletic departments rose more than twice as fast as academic spending (per student basis) between the years of 2005 and 2010. The inclusion of factual statistics supports the main claim in that schools with top-tier sports programs concentrate more on building their sports programs up to finance the school in its entirety than it does on building students' education.

The article was published in July of 2013 (relatively recent) and provides insight pertaining to money and student-athletes. There is one relevant and functioning link. The intended audience is the readers of USA Today, particularly readers interested in college sports. Although there is no cited author, the article was published by a well-known newspaper. The purpose of this information is to inform readers about the startling finding that D1 schools spend as much as six times more money (on average) on their sports programs rather than students' education.

Even though there is no citation of an author, I believe that this source is still credible since it was published by a renown newspaper. This article will be beneficial for me to use in my research as it contains information regarding expenditures of D1 schools and how the focus seems to be shifting from education to the betterment and maintenance of college sports programs. I think this article provides a crucial insight on the growing business of college athletics.

Gregory, Sean. "Some College Athletes Will Now Get Paid - a Little." Time. Time, 7 Aug. 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2015. <>.

This article focuses on the arguments surrounding a relatively recent (August of 2014) vote made by the NCAA to allow 65 teams from the "Big 5" power conferences (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC) to make their own rules. According to the article, this vote allows these selected teams to offer student-athletes not only a scholarship, but eh full cost of attendance (extra money for food, clothing, trips to the movie theater, etc.). The author, Sean Gregory, describes some of the arguments surrounding this vote, which includes the differing opinions of several University Presidents who oversee Division 1 sports programs. The main dispute Gregory combats towards the end of his article is whether or not stipends for athletes will destroy the competitive balance in college sports. He notes that a competitive balance already doesn't exist now because top high school players end up playing for the top colleges. Gregory also states that many talented players are overlooked by the big schools and will continue to be overlooked; paying student-athletes will not make a different in this competitive balance since it's already skewed.

This article was published in August of 2014 (current) and relates to my research topic exactly. It contains two functioning links that relate to the subject. The intended audience is the readers of Time magazine and/or anyone interested in college sports (specifically D1 sports). The article was published by Time (well-known magazine). The author, Sean Gregory, is a senior writer for Time magazine and has covered sports along with topics regarding the football concussion crisis and young baseball players in the Dominican Republic for over a decade. The purpose of this information is to inform readers about a new NCAA vote that allows a select number of universities to make their own rules regarding stipends for student-athletes.

I believe that this is a good source for me to include in my research because of its credibility and relation to my topic. The recent publication of this article exposes new information to readers that would fit perfectly in my research paper. I will be able to use this source as a real-life example of what will happen when stipends are given to student-athletes rather than try to rationalize possible situations. It also includes opinions from several University Presidents of D1 schools on this topic that would add emotion and first-hand knowledge of what may happen as a result of this vote.

Harker, Patrick T. "Student Athletes Shouldn't Unionize." The New York Times. The New York Times, 1 Apr. 2014. Web. 21 Feb 2015. <>.

This article was written in response to the ruling made by the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board that declared that players on Northwestern University's football team were school employees, and thus eligible to unionize. The author begins by stating that player unions would be a disaster for universities, college sports fans, and student-athletes themselves. Harker (the author) emphasizes that turning student-athletes into salaried employees would endanger the existence of varsity sports on many college campuses. Since only 10% of D1 college sports programs turn a profit, most universities lose money. Changing scholarship dollars into salary would increase the amount schools have to spend on sports. According to Harker, athletes who want to be paid shouldn't be targeting the universities but professional sports leagues like the NBA and NFL.

This article was published in April of 2014. There is one relevant and functioning link. The intended audience is readers of The New York Times newspaper, college sports fans, and college student-athletes. The author, Patrick Harker, is the president of the University of Delaware and a member of the board of directors of the NCAA D1, so he is very credible. The article was published by The New York Times newspaper, which is a renown American newspaper. The purpose of this information is to argue against a recent vote that allows athletes of selected universities to unionize.

I think that this article underlines new insight on this topic in that giving stipends to student-athletes will cause the university as a whole to lose money. It makes me think more about the big picture surrounding this topic rather than focusing solely on the benefits athletes receive already. Since the author is a member of the board of directors of the NCAA for D1 athletes, I feel he is able to give a more accurate perspective on the subject in terms of the university's best interest since he's involved in the decision-making regarding the NCAA. For these reasons, I believe this source will be very useful in my research.

Huma, Ramogi, and Ellen J. Staurowsky. The Price of Poverty in Big Time College Sports. Rep. NCPA, 2011. NCPA. NCPA, 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2015. <

This report explores a joint study done by the National College Players Association and Drexel University Department of Sports Management that blames college sports scandal on a "black market" created by unethical NCAA restrictions on college athletes. The study examines football and basketball teams from Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) colleges and calculates athletes' out-of-pocket education-related expenses associated with a "full" scholarship. It also compares the living arrangements of players' scholarships to the federal poverty line and coaches'/athletic administrators' salaries, and uses NFL and NBA shared bargaining agreements to estimate the fair market value of FBS football and basketball players. This study particularly highlights college presidents' admission of their inability to improve college sports and calls for federal intervention to help yield a new model of amateurism in college sports. This new model would emphasize education, minimize violations, and allow players to seek commercial opportunities.

This report was published in 2011 and explores the statistics surrounding the basic college life of a student-athlete. Since this is a report, there are no links but many sources at the end. The intended audience is anyone who supports the National College Players Association, student-athletes, and the general public. The two authors who co-wrote this report are credible. Ramogi Huma is the NCPA President and Ellen Staurowsky is a professor in Sports Management at Drexel University and has a doctorate in education. The report was published by the NCPA and takes a somewhat biased perspective on college student-athletes in terms of lacking resources for players. The purpose of this information is to inform its readers about the daily life of a college student-athlete and how, despite debate, they continue to struggle financially. It provides factual evidence and displays credibility throughout the interviews/opinions of several college sports coaches/athletic directors.

This report provides me with a different perspective surrounding the financial aspect in college sports. Due to its credibility and use of statistics to support its information, I will definitely be using it as one of sources in my research paper to combat its claims and support my stance that D1 student-athletes (based on my present opinion) are very well-off during their college years as an athlete.

Ryan, Jaime. "Should College Athletes Be Paid?" The Corpus. WordPress, 04 June 2007. Web. 21 Feb. 2015. <>.

This article explores the debate of whether or not student-athletes should be paid. The first main point brought up explains how athletes get exploited at their universities; they're used as recruiting tools for both future athletes and regular students to sell apparel in bookstores and tickets to games. Jaime Ryan, the author, acknowledges this statement but combats it by saying there is no reason to pay student-athletes. He starts his argument by incorporating his experience as a four-year college athlete and how he managed to complete his degree. He states that the many perks offered to college athletes make life much easier for them. He continues his argument by referring back to a regular student's life while comparing it to an athlete's. He ends his argument by restating his stance on the issue that college athletes should not be paid for their sporting success since they are already rewarded a free education, an invaluable experience, and four or five extra years of doing what they love.

This article was published in 2007 and relates to my topic (and my stance) exactly. It does not contain any links. The intended audience is readers of The Corpus, which is a collaborative online project of the Physical Cultural Studies Program at the University of Maryland, College Park. The author, Jaime Ryan, has written many articles pertaining to various topics, though the site does not contain any autobiographical information about him. The article was published through WordPress (an online, open source website creation tool), which may question its credibility since anyone can use it. The purpose of the information presented in the article is to argue why college student-athletes should not be paid stipends because they are already being paid through a number of various perks.

I think this article provides a different insight surrounding the debate of whether college athlete should be paid or not. Because the author incorporates his own experience as a college athlete, I believe this article can be viewed almost as an interview with first-hand knowledge of what college athlete receive. This article also represents my stance on this topic that college athletes should not be paid, so I will definitely use this in my research.

"Student-Athlete Benefits." NCAA. NCAA, 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. <>.

This article summarizes the benefits that student-athletes, specifically D1 and D2 athletes, receive as a result of being part of a sports program. In particular, the article outlines the educational, financial, and medical benefits athletes receive. The educational benefits range from scholarship programs to degree-completion grants to internships. Some of the financial benefits include the NCAA Catastrophic Injury Insurance Program as well as various insurance programs that help student-athletes with unmet financial needs. In all, the article includes a numerous amount of different health, financial, and educational programs offered to D1 and D2 student-athletes.

This article was written by the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and updates its content annually. The URL address ends in ".org", therefore, relaying its credibility as a top-level domain non-profit organization. There are no links included in the article. The intended audience may be for college student-athletes, college coaches, and anyone interested in the intents of the NCAA. The purpose of this information is to inform the reader about the educational, financial, and medical benefits D1 and D2 student-athletes receive as being part of a sports program.

Since my research topic is based on the NCAA, this source is incredibly important. It outlines the many benefits athletes receive, which I will be able to refer back to as I go deeper into my research. This source provides factual and unbiased evidence that I will be able to use as support in my paper.

Annotated Bibliography Peer Review Livia

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License