From the day I was born, sports have always been my passion. From playing, watching, and discussing to even sometimes coaching, I have always been enthralled by the athletic world. I would religiously follow Philadelphia sports because I grew up in Delaware where no professional team has been established. Due to my small upbringing, I never really had a local perennial powerhouse at the college level. Then when I came to the University of South Carolina, my love for sports grew bigger when I attended my first SEC football game. If tomorrow college athletes began getting paid my life would not change at all. It may make me question why I never pursued sports as a career, but I would not lose sleep over it. The only personal experience regarding this issue would be talking to some of my friends who are Division I athletes at power conference schools. After learning more about this issue and where the NCAA's actual funds are distributed, I feel I would be able to take a position and formulate a strong paper regarding this issue. Providing strong evidence, I would prove that college athletes are not entitled to any kind of paid compensation due to the already existing benefits they enjoy. 

This article does not beat around the bush. The author openly states that college athletes should not be paid. He provides strong reasons for his position such as discounted tuition, state of the art training facilities and medical care, as well as free professional development. However, at the end of this article the author interestingly expresses that in the future college athletes will be paid. He says that "college athletes will learn they are leaving money on the training table ... when that day arrives, collegiate athletes will start getting paid in cash instead of psychology classes, track suits, knee braces and ice baths." Since the author teaches at Syracuse University and teaches athletic related classes, I feel he is a credible source and able to offer his two cents. 

When formulating an argument, its helpful to hear both sides before choosing one for your own. This article speaks of the absurd amounts of money generated from college sports and how these funds are distributed into the wrong hands. The author clearly states that at first he was on the against side, believing that college athletes should not be paid, but once he examined the facts behind the numbers, he quickly switched. He makes a strong point of asking the very important question of how would the NCAA even allocate the funds equally. Simply stated, would the quarterback of Alabama earn as much as the field hockey goalie for Montana state? There appears to be a lot of gray area and potential back lash making this a slippery slope. This article brings about some new questions regarding the main research question. The writer of this article is a critically acclaimed author who has made a career following sports during my entire life-span.

Similar to the first article, this author gets right to the point and believes that college athletes should not be paid. He provides statistics in an effort to bolster his argument. He states that there is "gray area" when it comes to paying college athletes, which I strongly agree with. It is difficult to give paid compensation to some and not all without receiving some form of back lash from players, parents, universities, and the public in general. The author makes a strong point that if players honestly believe they should be paid for their efforts, then they will be gainfully reimbursed if they are to take their talents to the professional level. At the college level, there are too many schools and too many sports in order to fairly distribute any kind of paid compensation for student-athletes. Although I do not believe this author has many accolades or accomplishments that enable him to write this article, after reading his piece I thought it was well written and had a lot of strong points to support his thesis. 

This topic is very enticing to anyone you talk to. It is not easy to pick a side without hearing all of the facts first. Whether you are for or against paying college athletes, both sides have concrete evidence to support their position. Mostly all my sources have stated that the NCAA and TV companies are paid ridiculous amounts of money. Having said that, my sources disagree with that fact that this funding is able to satisfy college athletes all over the country. Hearing both sides of the spectrum has really torn me when picking my own position, but I feel there are so many factors that put me on the against side. I revised my research question, because Division II and III universities do not receive as much money as power conference Division I schools do. Also if in the future, Division I schools are permitted to compensate their athletes with pay, how will this change the current recruitment process? Boosters and college donors will play an imperative role under this new, hypothetical system.  I feel confident in my ability to defend my side using concrete evidence and statistics. 

