There are many reasons why I am interested in this particular research. I am a college football player at the University of South Carolina that has experienced many situations that involves college athletes wanting to be paid more money. The reason I believe that college athletes should be paid more money, football players in particular, is because we put so much stress and hard work on our bodies that we aren't able to sustain the pain in which our body receive. After our bodies endure such stress, it is then mandatory that we wake up the next morning and repeat the process while also managing a full class schedule. One of the main reasons college athletes need more money is because of food situations. I do not feel as if the university provide enough food to hold us over one day. Football players in particular burn more calories than the average person, so therefore we need more food. There should not be a reason why top program universities aren't be able to provide for and pay their student athletes because our success on the field brings money and attention to the program. We work hard and we should be rewarded for what we do. 

In the article "Court Rules against Paying College Athletes" the main point is that the court ruled against paying college athletes. The court ruled that academic and scholarship awards are enough and even if a university has made money through your name, you should not be able to get any of that money. I do not know much about Laura Wagner, but she writes for a well-organized news company known as National Public Radio (NPR.) NPR is a national public radio news station that is privately and publicly funded by individuals. But, the article isn't biased for this particular reason. One major value in this article is that athletes value their time in the weight room, on the field, and in the classroom. Athletes feel like that should be compensated for that. The other major value is that athletes trust that the court is going to make the right choice based off of the information provided. 

In the article "Gettin' Played: How the Video Game Industry Violates College Athletes' Rights of Publicity by Not Paying for Their Likenesses" the main point is college athletes should be compensated. Athletes feel like they should be paid for their names being used on game systems. The major value in this article is that college athletes value their time on the football field. They work hard to look good and make a name for themselves, so they feel as though they should be compensated for their names being used on a game system because NFL players do. Matthew G. Matzkin is very familiar with the laws mentioned in this article and he is also a law student. This particular article is argumentative because there are many different thoughts throughout the article. What I mean by this is that in the article, they allow thoughts to go back and forth about the opinion of college athletes not being compensated. Some feel as if college athletes are paid enough, and some do not. 

In this article "A Way to Start Paying College Athletes" the main point is that college athletes are working very hard to better and provide for their university and they are not being paid for it. The Michigan coach was paid $7 million dollars and couldn't reward his players. The main value of this article is that these college athletes are working very hard in the weight room and on the field. They are finding a way to make it to class, stay awake, and do it all over again. They deserve to be rewarded by the university and coaches. Joe Nocera is a sport reporter and business columnist. He also writes for the New York Times. The sources that he used were bias towards his opinion in the article. This article expresses the court rules against paying college athletes. It highlights certain things in which college athletes have to go through and how this benefits them. The court is ruling against college athletes being paid because they feel like receiving a college education and scholarship money is enough. They believe it's wrong for the University to be getting money through the athletes figure, yet they still have created another rule so that college athletes can't get paid.

This research question is arguable because there are some people who believe that college athletes should be paid, and there are some who do not. One agreement between the articles is that people acknowledge that college athletes are working hard and deserves financial help. One disagreement is that universities believe that academic scholarships are enough and that is all that they need. But, this did not affect my opinion. I do not believe that any revision should be made to my research question because it is open ended and there is much research on this topic.

