Annotated Bibliography Hillger

Bowen, Fred. "Should College Athletes be Paid?" The Washington Post. 9 April, 2014. Web. 19 Feb, 2015.

Bowen just asked if they should pay college athletes while looking at the Northwestern case. A government official has ruled that Northwestern football players are employees and not student-athletes. Although they are stilling battling the NCAA in court to finalize it, Bowen thinks there could be a possibility of this happening throughout the NCAA. One fact that Bowen brought up was that there are 24 coaches in the NCAA that make over $3 million a year. At the end of the article Bowen says, "I don't know if paying the players would make college football and basketball better or worse."

Fred Bowen is an author of 18 sports books for kids that combine sports fiction and sports history. The article was published on 9 April, 2014 on The Washington Post. The purpose of this article is to see if college athletes should be paid or not. He has an unbiased opinion and the information was factual.

The article was short in a sense and it really didn't give much information. So in that case I would use some of the source but I would prefer if the author had more to offer.

Brill, John. "Should College Athletes be Paid?" The Shirley Povich Center For Sports Journalism. (2013). Web. 18 Feb, 2015.

This article is pretty much about why college athletes should be paid. The NCAA has generates about six billion dollars annually, which is more than the NBA. Brill believes the only reason why the NCAA is making that amount is because of the players and they deserve to be compensated. He argues that the scholarships for athletes aren't supplying enough money to cover all the needs for student-athletes. He also believes that the NCAA is a "plantation system" because basketball players only require one year of college to be eligible to enter the NBA draft and the NCAA are the ones benefited while the students receive nothing. At the end of the article Brill says, "This paper isn't meant to create a payment plan for players, but they should get something in return for their time."

Brill is a writer for The Shirley Povich Center For Sports Journalism and published this article sometime in 2013. His audience is anyone who is interested in college athletics. The main purpose of this article is that college athletes should be paid. The article has some relevance but only on one side of the argument.

While Brill does give a good point about why athletes should be paid, he only focuses on the one side of the argument without even mentioning the other side. It may not be the best article for this argument but I would use some of the content.

Chait, Jonathan. "Fixing College Sports: Why Paying Student Athletes Won't Work." New York Magazine 29 Nov, 2011. Web. 23 Feb, 2015.

This article is about what student-athletes are already receiving and how it can affect the NCAA if they did start paying them. Chait says that the majority of college athletes are in college because they want a degree, in many cases it would be something to fall back on if an athlete doesn't make it to the pros. He also goes on to say that the majority of revenue comes from men's basketball and football. This revenue is then used to fund all other sports such as; volleyball, swimming, and baseball. At the end of the article he explained how the NCAA can reform college sports to be beneficial to every athlete.

This article was published on New York Magazine by Jonathan Chait in 2011 and has not been updated and doesn't need to be. Yes, it does answer my topic question, but I am uneasy about citing it because there are no references. The intended audience is people who are wondering if student-athletes should be paid. Chait occasionally writes about sports for the New York Magazine so he qualified to write about this topic. He has his twitter account within a link on the article. He was unbiased and a lot of the information about the revenue I have seen in many articles. The purpose is that if the NCAA does pay student-athletes it will affect every sports program within the school. It was mostly factual with little opinion.

I would potentially use this article because I am against student-athletes be paid because they already receive scholarship, but the fact that he doesn't cite anything in his article makes me uneasy.

Forde, Pat. "Myth of Exploited, Impoverished Athletes." ESPN 18 July, 2011. Web. 23 Feb, 2015.

This article is about how student-athletes aren't as poor as they believe they are. Forde states that student-athletes aren't the only ones who have debt while going to college and matter of fact the majority of people who go to college have debt when finishing. Forde used an example of Allan Guei, who attended Cal State-Northridge. Guei knew that if his professional sports career didn't pan out he would be able to fall back on his degree.

This article was published on ESPN by Pat Forde on 18 July, 2011 and has not been updated. Yes, it is a prime example of what I believe. I would use this as a resource becasue of the examples he has displayed. The audience is intended for people who watch college sports and think athletes shouldn't be paid. I would be comfortable citing this resource because of my stance on this topic. Forde is a senior writer for ESPN and has the credentials to write this article. This information comes from his personal experience as well as others. The article does lean towards athletes not being paid but for all the right reasons. The purpose is simply student-athletes aren't the only ones who are in debt.

I would use this article because of my stance on this topic and it covers exactly what I need. It is very resourceful considering that most articles I find believe that student-athletes should be paid.

Sanderson, Allen R. and Siegfried, John J. "The Case for Paying College Athletes." The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 115-137. Winter 2015. 18 Feb. 2015.

This article indulges in the pros and cons of college athletics while mainly focusing on college football and basketball, the two major markets in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The authors state that only 20 to 25 Division I colleges are profitable from their collegiate sport teams. If colleges started paying their athletes the authors believe that revenue would go down and hurt smaller schools which could potentially lead to reducing the number of programs and conferences in Division I.

The authors, Allen R. Sanderson and John J. Siegfried, are both Economics majors are both qualified to write this article. They published it earlier this year, without an exact date, with the intention of people involved in or enjoy college athletics to read their article. The information supplied in this article is sufficient and reliable with all of the given statistics and study provided. It purpose of this article is exploring the pros and cons of paying college athletics with an unbiased opinion and using factual information.

I would use this article because it supplies a wide variety of statistics and both of the authors are credible. With the article being focused on both sides of the issue it makes for a better argument.

"The 'Illegal Procedure' Of Paying College Athletes." NPR 28 March, 2012. We. 24 Feb, 2015.

This article is about Josh Luchs, a former agent for NFL players, who would loan money to college athletes in order to keep them close in hopes of them signing with him one day. Luchs eventually got suspended for rules infractions.

This article was first published on Sports Illustrated in 2010, then on NPR on 28 March, 2012. It covers my topic because it only proves that some college athletes have been paid under the table and I am sure it is still happening today. The intended audience is for people who are interested in the illegal actions within college sports. The article didn't provide an author but it used pieces from the book, Illegal Procedure, which is by Josh Luchs and James Dale. They would be credible because Luchs was the one doing the illegal act. The purpose is that some college athletes do get paid even though it is illegal.

I would cite this source because it proves that student-athletes have taken money when they shouldn't have. It only shows that athletes will take a buck here and there but don't use the other benefits available for them.

"Student-Athlete Benefits" NCAA Web. 24 Feb, 2015.

It isn't an article, but a list of the benefits college athletes have available for them. It covers education to catastrophic injury insurance. It pretty much is everything student-athletes can acquire and in no way they can claim that they aren't being compensated enough.

It was published by the NCAA and is updated whenever some policies change, which is usually annually. It does relate to my topic by proving that student-athletes have a wide variety of benefits. The intended audience are those who are wondering what college athletes receive in benefits. The NCAA is very credible considering they are the ones that make the rules for college sports. The purpose is to show what benefits college athletes receive.

I would absolutely use this because it list all the benefits students-athletes have available to them.

Peer Review

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