Casey 1

Zach Casey

Professor Shielding
Writing 103
11 February 2016
Rhetorical Analysis Essay
Within his article published in the New York Times, entitled A Way To Start Paying
College Athletes, sports columnist and author Joe Nocera provides a detailed, step by step
solution on how to address the highly controversial NCAA issue concerning paying
college student-athletes. Nocera explores an effective, alternative method to handle the

problem surrounding the current model for paying or lacking to pay or compensate college
athletes in any form for the large sums of revenue, marketing attention, and attraction that they
potentially generate for their schools. Nocera argues that if sports players or teams
generate X amount of revenue for a college or university, that their value should be
compensated for in various ways including: full scholarship with post play academic
benefits (allowing athletes 8 years to complete a degree), less academic work load
that is spread out over the course of the years for those student athletes, health
insurance from the university during and after their athletic careers, and lastly, the
allowance to sell him or herself (in the form of autographs, merchandise sales,
promotional events, endorsements, etc.)(Nocera).
The author is very effective at proving his point through a logically and
emotionally sound argument. He is qualified to evaluate the situation and provides
a solution to the problem that exists that would be a compromise on both sides of
the argument. The flaws or holes involve compliance issues with Title IX laws and
regulations as well as cutting roster spots on teams and paying coaches less. The
quality of the sport will diminish and possible monopoly teams may be created

Casey 2
however it already functions in that way in the NCAA, according to Nocera. Through
the use of rhetorical appeals, the author tries to convince the NCAA to take a stand
against the current cruel system of limitations (financial) imposed upon college
athletes deserving of compensation for the large sums of revenue that they
generate for the universities from sports.

Noceras argument effectively appeals to the audience on more than just a logical and
credible level, as he also incorporates an emotional appeal. Nocera incorporates various
statistics regarding how many athletes realize that their professional sports career
is now over and suffer from having no degree upon ending their college athletic
careers, despite prior hope of making it professionally in that sport. Circumstances
such as injury, school controversy, drafting issues, competition, saturated drafting
market, etc. all could potentially ruin an athletes hopes of professional play. All of
these factors are worth sympathizing for. Noceras alternative Would give them
enough money to be able to live like college students (showing that they are
inferior now in terms of money which may be bias plus college students do not
typically earn $25,000 a year in money) (Nocera). As explained earlier, we know that the
NCAA and college sports business establishment exploit the players that generate
the billions that the grownups pocket (1)

Nocera explains how collegiate sports programs such as mens football and basketball
often generate large sums of income for their respective colleges and universities through the
sales of merchandise, game tickets, entertainment attractions, publicity, media, etc.
Currently, college athletes fall under prohibition of accepting money in any form from coaches,
organizations, sponsorships, endorsements, and extracurricular means, punishable by law if
violated. Some argue that this infringes upon the very rights of the athletes that deserve the
ability to market freely and independently of the school and earn wages based off of their

Casey 3
performance. Nocera claims that the NCAA and college sports business establishment
exploit the players that generate the billions that the grownups pocket (Nocera)
through its various forms of fraudulent modeling, a term coined to shadow the
corrupt ways in which NCAA chairmen take advantage of and use, for their value,
college athletes. Nocera argues that the most ethical option for the NCAA to shift to
is the Olympic Model which resembles the idea that athletes can sell themselves
and own the right to their own productivity.

FIGURE 1
A college graduate is unsure of how to move forward after college due to losing his hope of
playing a professional sport.

Casey 4
Now What? (FIGURE 1) An abundance of college student-athletes here in America
face a similar demise stemming from a corrupt and paradoxical system, as portrayed within the
PSA. Between only 1 and 5 percent of NCAA Division 1 college athletes go on to play at a
professional or Olympic level. And of this small percentage, roughly 1 percent sustain a
comfortable, livable career in that sport. Unfortunately, many student athletes graduate after
being forced with workloads unbearable due to the expectation to perform on game day, practice,
watch film, work out, and also maintain a normal, working life. Many athletes declare easy
majors so that they can focus on their sport instead of the classwork. And of the few professional
hopefuls, some get injured, some fall victim to a saturated draft market, and some arent able to
wait out the tiring process of becoming a professional athlete. The process involves pro-days,
combines, tryouts, workouts, in and out of double and triple -A ball and scout practice teams or
even being cut and having to wait an entire year again just to redo the entire process to make a
roster. And for those that make it; they face the fact that the retention rate on a team is very low.
The average career life of these professionals is only a few years, and despite the high wages,
many of these individuals do not know how to spend the money and budget properly when they
expect to make the big bucks for years. It is only right that we not prioritize the student athletes,
but allow them to have some leeway with their academic and athletic demands. Within Joe
Noceras article published in the New York Times he proposes an effective alternative. The
intended audience of this PSA includes any sports interests consumer or player. Now What?
and the confused students face serve as the dominate colors and texts in the ad as they show the
innocence of the typical college student-athlete. Instead of a diploma, the student holds a sign
that a homeless person would hold pleading for a donation. The individual also doesnt have a
smile on his face, indicating the seriousness of the issue.

Casey 5
This image displays a credible source of great authority and trust as the data used is from
Noceras article published on the NCAAs information regarding college athletes. The NCAA is a
professionally established administration that has been around for quite some time and has
hundreds, if not thousands of involved employees. The tone of the PSA suits the audience and
also fulfills the purpose of the text as it draws a sympathetic behavior out for those reflecting on
whether or not college athletes should be compensated. With these employees comes great
responsibility. The NCAA is not a non-profit but paying the student athletes would be considered
a charitable act if changed in the near future. They release information regarding the statistics
and facts of the student-athletes and coaching personnel that they employ. The NCAA has the
power to dramatically alter the course of someones life and due to this ability, they serve as a
credible source. The published facts are also recent and updated.
The image of a graduated, college student logically appeals to the argument with this
poster board saying Now What? as he is unsure of what direction to move in after graduating
but with a loss of hope for playing a sport professionally. As indicated in Noceras article, many
college student athletes graduate with a non-intended degree as they intended on playing a sport
professionally. The picture strikes an emotional path of those who can sympathize with a child,
innocent and unemployed and unaware of what direction to move forward in. The facts also
allow the reader to sympathize with the student athlete(s).
Joe Noceras article detailing the many corrupt doings of the NCAA regarding college
student athlete protocols directly compliments the Now What PSA illustrating a graduated
college student-athlete without direction of his future. The PSA is ambiguous as to what sport the
athlete plays, or even why he is compelled to say Now What, but the reader assumes that he,
due to a number of varying reasons, is now unsure of what direction to move forward in upon

Casey 6
completing his college athletic career. The PSA states the facts regarding the few student athletes
who go on to play professional sports. The NCAA could argue that this PSA defends their
argument that athletes should prioritize work, but it does not disclaim the difficult workloads,
high playing expectations, and lack of compensation. The article, simply due to its array of
information and various viewpoints, serves as more effective, detailed, and convincing as to why
the NCAA needs a change in its system. The PSA evokes a strong emotional appeal through the
image of the player as well as logical appeal in its statistics regarding athletes however it lacks
the in-depth plan that Nocera provides in the detailed article. Therefore, when evaluating the
rhetorical effectiveness of the two pieces, one could say that the PSA serves as a stronger
emotional appeal whereas the article has much better credibility (Due to Noceras stated
experience) and logos or logical appeal due to Noceras strategy as to how to address the issue at
hand.

Casey 7

Works Cited
Nocera, Joe. "A Way to Start Paying College Athletes." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 08 Jan. 2016. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.
"The Hub 7." The Hub 7. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.
"Estimated Probability of Competing in Professional
Athletics." NCAA.org. N.p., 06 Mar. 2015. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.