Collegiate sports have been a source of entertainment and pride among the people of the United States for decades.  The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) has been the leading organization that controls all things athletics in the college world.  They enforce rules that prevent athletes from making money or receiving extra benefits, whether that be receiving money from signing autographs or being given money to buy food.  Over the past couple years, the NCAA has been criticized for making millions off of teams and athletes, when in return the athletes themselves make nothing themselves.  The NCAA brings in upwards of $1 billion a year, causing controversy over whether college athletes are getting the short-hand of the stick and receiving no benefits from the financial success they bring others.  In an article recently written on this matter, Tyson Hartnett argues that collegiate athletes should be paid.  He describes his experience as a collegiate basketball player and how "being an athlete is a full-time job."  Being a former college athlete does give Tyson credibility to write on this topic, but his strong implementation of bias and close-mindedness instead works against the strength of his ethos and ultimately weakens it.

There is no doubting the fact that college athletes create a large source of income for universities and the NCAA.  Through merchandise, tickets, and even commercial time during large games or events, athletes bring in chunks of change.  In his article, Tyson describes his life as a Division 1 basketball player.  He emphasized how difficult it was to be on the road and balance school during the season and how they would only receive "$7 per meal [..] but anything else was an NCAA violation." Tyson strengthens his ethos and credibility on this topic when he mentions he was a collegiate athlete and provides these examples of the difficulties that come along with being an athlete.  But, Hartnett's ethos continually weakens as he fails to provide examples other than basketball and his own personal experience.  It is evident that the author did not go out of his way to involve other sports in his argument, which discredits many of the accusations he states. One cannot make an argument that is generalized about all sports in college athletics. Hartnett also states that "A $25,000 scholarship may seem like a lot of money, but it really only covers the basics. It covers thousands of dollars in mysterious, unknown university fees, tuition, housing, a meal-plan and multiple hundred-dollar textbooks."  This statement further shows Hartnett's biased view on the issue.  A full scholarship is supposed to cover all the fees that a normal student pays to attend school.  In saying this Hartnett implies that athletes are not receiving enough with their full scholarships because they only cover "the basics."  He fails to understand that a full tuition, meal plan, book costs, etc., are not "the basics," they are the costs that must be paid to attend college, and anything more than that would be considered a salary for an athlete.  With biased comments like these, the author slowly diminishes his ethos, which effects the readers understanding of the topic and the overall argument of the article.

Upon first reading this article, the author's opening sentence really grabbed my attention.  He started with a comment that would draw the attention of opponents by giving a common opinion that college athletes are "..already getting a scholarship! That's more than anybody else!" I do agree that this is a good way to start off his article because it gives the reader something to sympathize and agree/disagree with.  Being a Division 1 college athlete myself, this drew in my attention.  I completely agree with the opening statement and the argument that college athletes should not be paid.  While I do agree that being a student-athlete is very challenging, I would not go as far as to say that it is a "full-time job."  There is one thing that we are always told when we enter the world of college sports and that is we are students before athletes.  Sometimes, with five hours of practice each day it feels like the athletics are taking over, but I then have to remind myself that the reason I am being given a scholarship to come here is for the education.  That is what Hartnett is failing to realize.  He is too absorbed in the jealousy that people are making money off of his hard work that he fails to recognize he is already being given the opportunity to attend college for free and to compete in a Division 1 program while receiving all of the benefits of being a collegiate athlete.  In the article, Hartnett explains how coaches "earn at least $100,000 per year" and NCAA executives make "about $1 million per year," and he then relates it to athletes who cannot even make money off of "signing a few autographs."  The whole point of attending college is to receive an education, not a salary.  He goes on to explain that even if each college athlete received "$2,000 over the course of the semester, this would give them spending cash and an opportunity to start managing their money." The real issue with this is how would the NCAA know that athletes are using their money wisely.  He also mentions how sports such as football, basketball and baseball are the money-makers for universities, which is a true statement.  He fails to state how the NCAA would pay athletes if some are on revenue-producing teams while others are on teams that he describes are "struggling to survive." By only giving examples of his basketball background, and not getting an opinion from an athlete of a different sport, Hartnett's claims are weakened.

Overall, this article by Tyson Hartnett portrays a very clear argument that collegiate athletes should be paid, but Hartnett's bias and close-mindedness keeps him from getting his point across and giving reasons why collegiate athletes should be paid. The majority of his article explained how executives, NCAA employees and coaches are making millions off of collegiate sports and the athletes make nothing.  His jealousy and greed keep him from realizing that it is their jobs to promote and control college sports, and that is their source of income, whereas collegiate athletes are amateurs whose job is to get an education while competing for their school. I am also a collegiate athlete like Tyson Hartnett, and I disagree with his statements.  I understand the difficulty of being a student-athlete but I in no way feel that we need to be compensated for our athletic abilities.  Hartnett uses his status as a student-athlete as a platform to speak on this issue, but instead diminishes his ethos by being biased and not open to other possible solutions. 

