College sports is a major part of American culture, and the center of a major discussion. College athletics bring in a huge portion of revenue for the NCAA, but do the "employees", or players to be more specific, deserve a portion of that revenue? This is a problem that affects a number of people, and is an important issue amongst fans and professionals everywhere. The question of whether college athletes should or shouldn't be paid and why, is something that has a number of different opinions and information. It has enough information to make a compelling argument for either side, but it is not overly simple. The major controversy that surrounds this is whether or not collegiate athletes should be paid for playing and bringing in money for the NCAA. The NCAA is a huge industry that brings in tons of money, yet pays their employees virtually no money. A lot of people are questioning whether or not that's right and if it needs to be changed. This is what I hope to explore in my research paper.

This particular research question came to me after I narrowed down the fact that I knew I wanted to write a research paper about sports in particular. After completing some of the the ILPs, my interest for the topic only grew, mainly because I didn't realize there was this much information on the topic, and I didn't realize this was such a hot and important topic. This particular topic interests me because I enjoy sports so much. Also, I think that it's more interesting and more important to me now that I am actually in college myself. The NCAA is an organization of amateurism, but athletes bring in a lot of recognition and money to the NCAA. Even if they aren't getting paid in cash, athletes should be rewarded maybe in some sort of way. For me, I became particularly interested a few years ago following the Marcus Lattimore story. He was one of the best college running backs, and after he blew his knee multiple times it was apparent he wasn't the same and he may be done with football. This is where I started to think that athletes like him, should be compensated in some way because if he could no longer play what happens to his scholarship, how will he be effected later, and so on. 

This research question relates to my personal values because I don't really agree with people being exploited for their abilities, but this particular question is different. Collegiate athletes are given an education in return for their play, but not all are given money in the form of scholarships. If players are playing for a school and representing that school, is it not fair for the school to compensate the athlete in some way? Coming into this project, I had a little bias, because I thought that athletes should be paid or compensated in some way, but at the same time I also think it's a privilege to play on a collegiate team. I would not however say that I have a strong view point or strong opinion leading one way or another. This topic is really interesting and I am interested in learning more about it and reading both sides of it before I form my opinion. This will help, I think, avoid bias because this topic is actually something I am interested in and actually want to learn more about. When it comes to this particular question, I only know about major stories, and the details that have appeared in the news. I don't know how many athletes compete and don't receive anything for it. Another thing I don't know is how athletes really feel about the issue. I want to know more than just what the experts say. It would be interesting to see how some big name athletes feel about the issue and how many people are offered scholarships in return for playing for some college teams.

Through my research, I hope to develop a view point as well as my own argument as to whether or not athletes should be paid or compensated. I want to be able to take in all the information and argue either for or against my topic. Through my 8-10 page paper I think I can effectively answer this question not only with my own opinion but also with facts and profession research. I do however, think that its going to be a challenging question just because there is really no right answer. People are going to argue for both sides regardless, but I think I will be able to answer the question in my own way and through a solid paper. In the articles and view points I've read there have been quite a bit of disagreements like paying athletes would take away the amateurism of collegiate sports. However, others believe that athletes are being exploited and are not being fairly compensated for their performances. When revising my research question, I think I can change it so as to not answer if they should or shouldn't be paid, because that would be too simple, but rather why athletes should or shouldn't be paid. With all that being said however, I still feel as though my question is a good question in terms of the spectrum of scope, complexity, and controversy. The question draws in a good bit of attention so I think it's good in terms of scope. This is a question that has even reached the courts so I believe that its rather important. In terms of complexity, it isn't an easily answered question. Research actually has to be done in order to answer this question. As previously mentioned, the question is pretty controversial but not to the point of untouchable. For some college sports is a game of amateurs and for others it's like other sports industries in which the players that make the organization money should be paid for it as if they were regular employees. 
