Paying college athletes is a hotly debated topic throughout all of the country and is talked about by a very diverse demographic. There is also the dynamic of the rule makers and the people that the rules affect in the NCAA. The rule makers are most often times older white men who are relatively wealthy, while the athletes that the NCAA governs over are majority African-America especially in the two main college sports, football and men's basketball. Also, a significant number of athletes in these two main sports do not come from well off families, so they do not possess a lot of extra financial clout. This racial and financial difference creates a disconnect between the two groups and can make it hard to come up with a solution to the problem. The way that the NCAA treats its athletes has caused some to call it exploitation, while some have gone even as far as to compare it to slavery. Under the current system, athletes receive a scholarship that pays only for tuition, room, board, books and fees; however, in 2015 the rule has changed to allow schools to pay for the full cost of tuition. Even with this rule change, there is a still a large disparity between what the athletes make for the school and how much they are compensated for their work. A proposed reason for some people's objection to paying college athletes is through the form of race, this is where my article comes in. It is written by Kevin Wallsten, Tatishe M. Nteta and Lauren A. McCarthy and explores the difference between races and their likelihood of supporting paying college athletes. The article was written the day before the College Football Playoff semi-finals were to take place. This is an excellent use of Kairos, in that it was published the day before one of the biggest days for the NCAA during a time when fans are looking for something to read about, but it is not this use of Kairos that makes the article so effective instead it is the Logos that the authors use that makes it so influential.

For the 2015-2016 college football season, the two coaches that faced off in the national championship made a combined 10 million plus dollars, while the players who played in the game made a total of $0. Also, the NCAA received $8 Billion from ESPN for the rights to televise the College Football Playoff and also received $11 Billion from CBS for the rights to televise "March Madness", but once again the players received no money for their participation in these events. There is something inherently wrong with those numbers, especially since if all of the hours that an athlete spends just on their sport was added up it is equivalent to a full time job. Due to the amount of time an athlete has to spend let alone on their sport it can be very difficult to have a job to fund any extra expenses, but then if you add in their classes that they must attended or risk suspension it is near impossible to work a job. This is where paying college athletes would come in, whatever the solution might be it is important to fairly compensate hard working individuals especially ones that are putting their health on the line for their schools.

In the article, there is a discussion about whether or not athletes should be paid, which then moves into why they are not already being paid. The authors show through data that there is a substantial gap between whites and blacks in terms of their willingness to pay college athletes with black people being much more open to it. The proposed reason for white people not wanting to pay college athletes is that most of the players in the two main sports, football and men's basketball, are majority African American. The article cites several examples of instances where there is a racial bias in issues that are racial in nature, these examples are welfare, healthcare, and law enforcement. This is important because it shows that there are still racial biases in people's reasoning and that it is possible for it to carry over to the payment of college athletes. The authors also cite a study that shows more than twice as many black people support paying college athletes than white people. Due to the majority of athletes being black, the image of a young black athlete is sure to come in to the head of everyone thinking about paying college athletes. According to a study that they cite that controlled for external factors, found that "Negative racial views about blacks were the single most important predictor of white opposition to paying college athletes." To check these findings the authors conducted their own experiment, where they "showed one group pictures of young black men with stereotypical African American first and last names. We showed another group no pictures at all." They found that the group shown the picture where much more likely to be against paying athletes. The emphasis on checking a study's findings shows an attention to detail with their evidence to make sure it can be supported.

The authors also quote reliable sources to add strength to their argument by showing that there are people who support their stance and that these people can be trusted. One example is Jay Bilas, who is an analyst and announcer for ESPN the largest sports broadcasting company. Bilas is also a strong proponent of paying college athletes for what they are worth. He is quoted as saying "It is not immoral for the NCAA to make money off of athletics. But it is profoundly immoral for the NCAA to restrict athletes from receiving compensation while everyone else profits." They also link to an article that he wrote that is about paying college athletes and this gives an extra opportunity for readers to get more information. Another person that they quote is John Oliver, a comedy news show host that investigates many topics in detail using comedy to make the topics more interesting for viewers. He is also very well respected and loved by viewers of his show. His quote is "there is nothing inherently wrong with a sporting tournament making huge amounts of money  --  but there is something slightly troubling about a billion-dollar sports enterprise where the athletes are not paid a penny." By adding these sources in the article they strength their argument by associating their names and writing with credible and influential people who know what they are talking about.

In conclusion, the authors' use of Logos in the article allows them to make their argument more solidified with the use of other credible works, and an attention to detail along with significant research into the topic. They make their argument very clear from the get go and use sound logic in their reasoning to get their point across. They also use Kairos to move their argument along; however, it is their use of logos that truly allows this article to reach and persuade its readers.

