Analysis Of Why College Football Should Be Banned By Buzz Bissinger

In his article “The Shame of College Sports,” Taylor Branch (2011) describes how universities are focused on advancing and receiving money from major athletics and having star athletes, but how the universities are not caring for the “student athlete.” The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has made college sports into an unmerited business. However, as years progress more athletes are getting smart and are taking the NCAA to court. The more students that challenges the rules by the NCAA and take them to court, the secrets and undermining values of the NCAA come out and the closer the NCAA comes to an end.

In the op-ed “College Athletes Should Not Be Paid,” written by Warren Hartenstine analyzes the issue on college football players being paid for their performance on the field. This op-ed article was published in The Baltimore Sun, which is a major newspaper in Maryland. Warren Hartenstine was an assistant dean at a large East Coast school and was playing Division I football while attending one of the Big Ten institutions. While playing football he was also very involved in extracurricular activities with school, such as being in a fraternity, Kappa Sigma. Warren Hartenstine was involved in his school and the schooling system majorly, he believes in having self discipline and dual success in a student’s favorite institution and their higher education.

Proponents emphasize that college athletics is a billion-dollar industry that generates significant revenue for its institutions and these institutions should share this revenue with their student-athletes. The NCAA generated over $845 billion dollars in 2012 from their college athletes’ performances at the highest level. This can be compared to a for-profit corporation that makes a lot of money but doesn’t have to pay its employees. (Why College Athletes Should Be Paid). According to a September 2011 study, for each NCAA Division I institution, their average football player generates $120,000 and their average men’s basketball play generates $265,000, annually for athletic department.

Bennett, Dashiell. “Only 22 Of 120 Division I Athletic Programs Made Money Last Year.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc., 15 Jun. 2011. Web. 28 Oct 2014.This supports Frank Crumley’s claim that most athletic programs “work in the red.” The author also shows how football is the big money maker. Not all departments can pay their players. Therefore, it would be unfair for departments that can pay their players to do so. The figures come from the NCAA annual report of revenue and expenses for Division I sports. This is one of my main arguments against paying football players.

College athletic programs are among the most popular sporting events in America. With this rise in popularity, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges have also seen a rise in revenue in recent years. In 2014, the NCAA made over 900 million dollars in revenue. Some collegiate coaches, such as Kentucky’s John Calipari, have yearly salaries in the millions, not counting incentives and endorsement deals. While, clearly, money is being made, NCAA regulations ban collegiate athletes from being paid. Many question this rule and argue that athletes at the college level earn and deserve pay for play. The debate to pay or not to pay college athletes rages on despite the latest court ruling supporting NCAA policies. Because colleges and universities earn such a profit from sporting events, many fans feel it is only fair to distribute some of the wealth to the players. Supporters of paying student athletes feel that these young men and women should be fairly compensated for the time demanded of the athletes and the stress put on the athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Those in favor of paying college athletes contend that athletic and academic work ethic at both high school and collegiate levels will improve, as well as, fiscal responsibility in these young adults. The NCAA argues that paying athletes would negatively affect their

“Although the NCAA claims college athletes are just students, the NCAA's own tournament schedules require college athletes to miss classes for nationally televised games that bring in revenue” the NCAA claims student comes first but the “students”are the ones missing class because of the games. Also they are the one risking their careers on the line because at any point at time they can have an ending career injury and most of time happens in college. The players are the ones making the money and the ones getting the ratings. Plus they are the ones showing up for the commercials on the brands they doing . “The typical Division I college football player devotes 43.3 hours per week to his sport -- 3.3 more hours than the typical American work week” this shows how much devotion they put in the sport but yet they don’t get

Ever since college students started playing sports, back in 1879 when Harvard played Yale in the first collegiate sports game, the question of whether college athletes should be paid was addressed. From that point on athletes, coaches, and college administrators have brought forward points agreeing or disagreeing with the notion of paying college students. The students argue that they deserve to be paid due to the revenue that they bring for the college and because of the games they play and the championships they win. At first the idea of paying college athletes was out of the question, but now the argument has gone from a simple yes or no to a heated debate. Since college athletes are given a free education, they should not also be paid.

Debating to pay college athletes for their time, effort, and the money the help generate for the school they attend has been an ongoing debate for countless years. This issue has become more prevalent in recent years because of the expense of living in today’s economy, and the fact that big-time college athletes contribute but do not receive any of the millions of dollars generated by their sports. Stanley Eitzen, a professor emeritus of sociology at Colorado State University, former president of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, and the author of Fair and Foul: Beyond the Myths and Paradoxes of Sport, stands up for athletes and demands that society and the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association], reconsider

Kristi Dosh and Mark Cassell have contrasting opinions about compensation of college athletes. Dosh’s opinion is that college athletes should not be paid because there are problems associated with it. She inquires, “The first question I ask people when they say college athletes should be paid is: where is the money going to come from?” (477). She exposed only a few colleges are turning a net profit. She mentions that paying athletes who are mostly male could cause issue with federal laws like the

The words someone chooses to use when writing have an enormous impact on the mood, tone, and rhythm of the work. In the text “The Death of the Moth” by Virginia Woolf, Woolf uses mood to instill a sense of wonder, power, and sophistication into her writing. In the short narrative essay, Woolf writes about a small day-moth. She describes the environment around it, its actions, and her own personal observations. In this essay Woolf follows the last moments of the moth's life, until in the end, death takes it.

Every Saturday during the fall season, everyone will tune into watch the coveted college football games. Watching The Ohio State Buckeyes or The Notre Dame Fighting Irish, battle on the field to see who is the true victor. But no one every truly ask what the money is behind the programs. The Ohio State Football teams annual cost is $34,026,871 while the whole university annual budget is $5.7 Billon (). Just the football team is .59% of all the budget, even though this seems like a very minimal number it is quite huge mathematically. If the college would choose to make budget cuts the odds of the program being cut are so minimal, they would rather cut the English department even though it is way less beneficial for the college. College football is one of the few varsity level sports that all colleges have, most sports programs a black-holes money wise. Sucking in vigorous amount of funds while returning little to none. In 2014 out of the 130 DI Football teams only 24 teams actually made a profit from the sport (). Football being the number one sport in most colleges. The bigger the school the more money it will be able to produce from the football team but this is very rare. The whole subject about why college sports are even a thing is very controversial. One has to truly look at if the whole athletic programs are truly worth it. College athletic programs are very controversial and should be cut in some schools. College athletic programs cost way too much, are rarely

Most student-athletes playing a sport in college are there on an athletic scholarship. The scholarship is granted to them by their respective schools and is worth anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000. According to Edelman, the football program alone at University of Alabama brought in roughly 143.3 million dollars of revenue. In perspective, that’s about 2 million per player. Even though Alabama is an elite program and brings in more than the average football program, the NCAA brought in nearly $845 billion in 2011 per Sonny. Now it is obvious there many ways a university brings in revenue, but it is safe to say that a player is worth more than that $100,000 scholarship. In fact, a substantial share of college sports’ revenues stay in the hands of a select few administrators, athletic directors, and coaches. Now think about what college athletics would be without the world class athletes it has today, or without any athletes at all. If a school didn’t “award” athletes these scholarships, there would be

The “contradiction at the heart of big-time college football,” as Michael Oriard describes it, is the competing demands of marketing and education. The 1890s proved to university administrators that there was an enormous market for collegiate football, which postulated opportunities for university building. Since this ubiquitous realization, there has coincided this blatant, yet unchanging contradiction that academic institutions are permitted to profit off of the services provided by its student-athletes while the athletes must idly accept that they are amateurs, donating their efforts to their respective schools. The schools then direct this revenue toward strengthening their athletic departments, and thus continues this seemingly endless growth of big-time college sports, all while athletes remain uncompensated and academics continue to take a backseat.

Jonathan Swift, like any human, has his views on money, which is one of the aspects that he used to connect with the audience through this passage:

A long time ago the king of everything whose name is chron was at a banquet along with all his yellow minion creatures. While they were partying and having fun, chrons horse cibium escaped from his stall. Cibium galloped all throughout space creating giant balls of cheese. After the banquet was finished, chron went to mount his horse, but his horse was missing. Chron looked everywhere for him, but all he could find was giant balls of cheese everywhere in space. Chron became furious and set the balls of cheese on fire so that they would melt away. Instead the balls continued to burn and never shrunk or disappeared. Chron smelled the vastness of space and said “Man! That smells good!!” and the stares were created. Chron finally found his horse