Nate Maciag

Mr. Longhany

ENC 1102

21 March 2014

Course Reflection

Analysis of Exploitation in the NCAA

            The process of researching the conversation on whether or not college athletes are being exploited has given me an understanding of how to engage in the subject of writing and rhetoric. The key to understanding this subject is its endless discourse communities. Through comprehension of my own discourse community, I have become aware of how conversations are formed and how to analyze its different aspects such as the experts and commentators debating the subject. This allowed me to create my own voice within the conversation and this was completed through my own inquiry based research. Through analyzing my discourse community I also produced a combination of analytic work containing multiple sources of evidence and my own research to create more context for the situation. During the entire I process I was able to further develop my own revising, editing and proofreading skills.

            My audience is most likely current student athletes in highly profiting sports since this issue directly affects them. This audience is comprised of young males between the ages of 18-22 playing either football or basketball. Among NCAA football players, 45.8% are black, 39.2% are white and 15% are other (Mondello et al). I chose this topic knowing that this audience is very relevant with their recent progress in unionizing. To appeal to this audience I utilized Kaburakis’ study on student athletes’ perceptions to understand their opinion. Only 31% believed the academic scholarship was enough (Kaburakis 18). I then included sources such as Blackistone, Johnson and Acquaviva, and Mondello et al who all had research and arguments on how the scholarship was indeed $3000 dollars short of being an actual full ride. Including points like these would sway more in favor and also attract support from other discourse communities such as athletic boosters.

            Following my research within the current conversation, I found that the voice of former student athletes was missing. I developed a set of questions for former athletes with division one experience. Each question was meant to create a dynamic inquiry. I did this through setting up context of their experience and then ask questions like, how much time did you spend a week putting in work for football? Would you have considered yourself an employee? And then move to more direct questions like, do you feel you were compensated enough? Do you feel the NCAA is a business? Leading to the main question, are student athletes being exploited? I wanted to build to the main question to obtain better responses. I then used these to prove points in my paper. For example, one participant outlined an average day schedule for being a football player showing how much work is put in. This schedule is contained within Table 1.

            Within my paper, I synthesized and analyzed complex texts by writing intertextually. Throughout my literature review I compared and connected sources to synthesize the issue. Within my section A Game of Monopoly: NCAA Athletics, I set up context on how the NCAA conducts a multi-billion dollar business, “…governing all aspects of college athletics, from imposing sanctions to monitoring athlete drug usage…” (Maciag 2) from one source. Then include lists of sources who make accusations of the NCAA being a business, “…figure indicating that the NCAA is a very successful organization engaged in capitalism (Blackistone; Johnson and Acquaviva 9; Kaburakis)” (Maciag 2). I would use this method throughout my literature review to set up my gap.

            After conducting research and analyzing the results, I was able to start producing my own arguments. I used other sources, in addition to my results, to make these arguments. I found that all six of the participants agreed that compensation was due for the use of their image but they agreed that a salary based pay would destroy the game as we know it. All six also stressed the amount of work put in each week for Saturday’s game. I compared my research to Mondello et al who created a study based on opinions of the public. Mondello et al believes that the public has a huge say in big decisions such as these. The researchers found only 33% of people believed players should be compensated. I argued that this was question of experience. I state that, “…the public lacks enough insight on the subject which causes the differences in perspective” (Maciag 8). If the public knew what an average player goes through, then they would side with them.

            Throughout this research paper, I developed a better sense of editing and revising due to the helpfulness of the professor and peers. This was done through the numerous drafts I produced until I believed the product was good enough. For example, my literature review was drafted 4 different times.  I saw this as a focal point of my paper so I wanted to accomplish a good draft. Major differences can be seen from the first draft until the final. The organization is better with the numerous paragraphs I sorted the information in to. I drafted inorganic questions such as, “Is the NCAA a monopoly? Are they credible?” (Maciag 3) to more in depth questions,” With this increase in opposition will the NCAA hold their ground or provide more for the athletes? Will more unions form against the NCAA? Will the NCAA’s non-profit status be taken away?” (Maciag 3). I followed this format to draft a final paper that went in depth instead of something that did less telling and more showing.

            Overall, ENC 1102 has, without a doubt, increased my writing skills. It is evident in the work I put out in the beginning of the semester compared to the end. It gave me a special opportunity to explore a topic that was unique to my interests and then also contribute to that conversation.  However, this class also provided life advice (Ted Talks) which are more valuable than the day to day lectures we receive in any class. The amount of flexibility I had with the paper allowed me to develop my own unique style. This class helped me think less “what” and more “why.”