Thesis Question: How would paying revenue-creating student-athletes influence their academic motivation and performance?
Entry Question: Would paying student-athletes hurt them academically?
Source: Peebles, Maureece. "7 Common Sense Reasons Why College Athletes Should Be Paid (According to Jay Bilas) - Good Players Would Stay in School Longer." Complex. N.p., 3 Dec. 2015. Web. 07 Mar. 2016.
This source is essentially composed of quotes from ESPN analyst Jay Bilas, who is a major advocate of paying revenue-creating college athletes. It gives reasons why college athletes should be paid. The main point Bilas argues are that college athletes create the revenue, therefore they should receive compensation.
Bilas' seventh reason brings me to new thinking. His seventh reason, "Good players would stay in school longer," made me re-think my reasoning. The argument basically states that money would give students incentive to stay in college, which is undoubtably true. For college football and basketball athletes that are unsure if they will succeed in the pro's, the guaranteed income provides a net. One flaw of this argument, however, is that top picks like Karl-Anthony Towns and Jameis Winston will not stay in school because it's guaranteed that they will acquire earnings.
Bilas can be put into conversation with my first source, which argues that students shouldn't be paid. My first source describes many ways why being employed would be bad for students, but if he listened to Bilas, I think he could sympathize with the academic furthering of student-athletes. Both bring up solid points regarding student motivation, but I personally think that Bilas' points are stronger.
Now I want to hear the other side of the story. I understand Bilas' opinion, but I would like to hear the argument not to pay students, and how it would harm them academically. Once I hear that side, I think I could move on to concluding my thought process.
No comments:
Post a Comment