Paying College Athletes One of the biggest issues in college athletics that has been put to question for a number of years is whether or not college athletes should be paid for the amount of money they bring in for their schools. Well-known columnist Joe Nocera of The New York Times insist that it is time for change in the college world and that players should be paid. In his article “Let’s Start Paying College Athletes” he begins by introducing an antagonistic claim to what he believes, and then explains why he supports athletes being paid sustaining his statements with a solution to go about doing it. He begins his article by deliberately trying to distort the credibility of Mark Emmert, president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), to gain the reader’s favor. In Nocera’s view, he calls Emmert “the almighty overseer of American college sports,” who “likes to think of himself as a reformer.” In making this comment, Nocera criticizes Emmert, who has only held the position for a year, for the series of improvements he has implemented only a few months back. He goes into further detail about one of the improvements made by Emmert to give a $2000 stipend to division I athletes to help with college expenses, and then attacks him in person claiming that it is a form of payment to the players. Again, he tries to ruin the face of Emmert but this time through the form of hypocrisy. It is quite obvious that he detests Emmert and the rest of the NCAA who agree with him. After ruining Emmert’s credibiltyand persuading his readers to dislike him with a feeling of aggravation, he again aims for the emotional appeal by elaborating on the hypocrisy of the issue. Nocera states, “College football and men’s basketball have become such huge commercial enterprises that together they generate more than $6 billion in annual revenue, more than the National Basketball Association.” He further supports the absurdity of the issue by mentioning how much money is being generated through the salaries of coaches alone, “A top college coach can make as much or more than a professional coach; Ohio State just agreed to pay Urban Meyer $24 million over six years.” With this statement and a few others mentioned right after, he does a great job setting up for his argument. Nocera emphasizes that what the players receive for their work and what everyone else receives has led to two things. First, and he says this as simple as he can that the players realize what is going on. Nocera states, “Players aren’t stupid.” According to him, they realize what is going on and “it’s breeding a deep cynicism among them.” He strengthens this point by stating how they see their jerseys everywhere and how thousands of fans come to watch. They know that it is the athletic department that is making the money, but yet the NCAA still tries to cover its tracks by stating it protecting the players from “excessive commercialism.” However, Nocera makes the comment that they are only protecting their income stream. The other thing it led to “is the increasingly loud calls for reform.” To strengthen this point, he compares the difference between football and chess. They are both considered extracurricular activities but have become completely different from each other because of the TV deals and the excessive commercialization. He then goes on and aims for your values when he mentions that these deals have ruined the integrity of college athletics. People, not just the players, see what is happening and argue that the only way to bring integrity back into it is to “end the hypocrisy” and accept that college football and basketball are huge businesses; the only reason why they are so huge is because of the players. Therefore, why not just pay them? He again aims for your values by stating, “This is, by now, a moral imperative.” bluntly implying if you had any kind of sense between what is right and what is wrong then you would realize it too. So far through out the article, he poses himself extremely credible just because of how well organized his thoughts are. Point after point is laid out in such a perfect logical way that it makes it hard to disagree with what he is saying. He is a very persuasive writer attacking with hate one moment and gently coming back with a loving statement the next. The rest of the article consists of his solution to go about implanting his claim. By mentioning the time he has spent with sports economists, antitrust lawyers, and other reformers, he presents to the reader that he is not just writing the article because it was a good topic and his boss told him too, but because he actually has a dire passion for the issue. His five-part plan goes into plenty of detail and is actually well put together. The fist thing that changes is the way the players are recruited. Instead of being sweet-talked to by the coaches, they are offered real contracts, the exact same process that is done in the National Football League. Whichever team wants a player the most will pay the most. Leading into the second part of the plan is an equal salary cap for every team. This shows his fairness by creating an equivalency among every team from Harvard’s football team to Texas’s football team. The third part of the plan gives the player the option through an additional two-year scholarship of finishing their degree or pursuing a master’s but only if they have already completed four years. This allows them to either go play professional ball or to actually stay and pursue an academic career. The next part is a lifetime health insurance controlled and maintained by the last part, an organization created to represent both current and former college athletes. As mentioned before, he excelled in getting the reader to take sides, especially through evoking a mixture of emotions. Not only did he do that, but also every sentence was in the best possible place it could be. He could not have rearranged anything to make it any better than what it was. Well-planned and well organized, everything logically made sense. All of his claims were supported by evidence from further supplemental information to data and statistics, which made him extremely credible. Using all three parts of the rhetorical triangle effectively makes him a successful author.

Works Cited
Nocera, Joe. "Let's Start Paying College Athletes." NYTimes. 30 Dec. 2011. Web. 08 Feb. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/lets-start-paying-college- athletes.html?_r=1>.