The article. titled “Should college jocks be paid? ” was written by Allen Sack and published on March 7. 2008 in the Christian Science Monitor. Allen Sack is a professor at University of New Haven. He attended college at University of Notre Dame. where he was on the 1966 National Championship football squad. He has a published book. many journal articles and has given multiple presentations on the direction of athletics industries. Allen Sack’s chief points when he wrote this article was either give college jocks all the benefits of pro jocks. or put them on an amateur position.
His article focuses on how the organisation. NCAA. has changed throughout the old ages as a whole. and at first his sentiment tends to back up non giving college jocks any pro benefits. In reexamining the article. Allen Sack makes a strong statement for college jocks to be non on a professional degree. but to give them an instruction if committed to playing. He does this by being able to reflect on his personal experience as a college jock who was rewarded a scholarship and by giving historical events that related to his sentiment. However. while many issues were presented in the article. Allen Sack’s decision tends to roll away from his original sentiment that college jocks should non be paid.
Throughout the article. Sack stresses that he’s a major protagonist of jocks go oning to be amateurs. He besides believes the current system of renewable annual scholarships has strayed far off from the NCAA’s original mission. Sack uses his personal experience as a football participant at University of Notre Dame to demo how the structural history of the NCAA has changed. Sack provinces that in 1957. the NCAA adjusted its’ mission to let athletic scholarships. and he believes that this was the turning point for college’s to get down handling their jocks as professionals. “At foremost. NCAA regulations allowed these scholarships to be awarded for four years…… Unfortunately. since I graduated. scholarships have taken on the furnishings of an employment contract. ” ( Sack. 1 ) Sack writes.
He swayed from his original sentiment by explicating that presently merely a really little figure of jocks are the chief cause of colleges’ athletic plans to be able to go on to make gross. which is why jocks aren’t paid. At the terminal of the article. Sack writes. “At the really least. nevertheless. the jocks who put fans in the seats and in forepart of Television sets deserve a echt chance to have the instruction they were promised and a stipend to cover the full cost of their instruction. ” ( Sack. 2 )
Allen Sack’s quality of grounds started strong. showing chronological events that supported his sentiments. However. his specific support ended in the early 1970’s. over 30 old ages ago. Therefore he does non give up to day of the month incidents that support his sentiments. The quality of his authorship was strong. giving his statement a good foundation because he presented several different issues with the current system and gave back uping illustrations. One issue he presented was scholarships. When he attended college. he was awarded a no strings attached four-year scholarship. and “was assured when I was recruited – regardless of my public presentation on the athletic field. ” ( Sack. 3 ) Unfortunately. since so things have changed. Scholarships for college jocks are no longer offered for the full four-years. “Today. scholarships are awarded on a year-to-year footing. Athletes who have been injured or who turn out to be enrolling errors can be fired. ” ( Sack. 4 )
Allen Sack so switches cogwheels and focal points on what college jocks deserve if they aren’t given pro benefits. “They deserve the same rights and benefits as other employees. including medical benefits. workers’ compensation when injured. and the right to utilize their God-given endowments to construct some fiscal security for their households while still in college. ” ( Sack. 5 ) By saying this fact. Allen Sack loses focal point on his no-benefit to college athletes’ stance. His statement becomes weaker by pulling attending to what benefits jocks should be entitled to. alternatively of go oning his place on maintaining the NCAA at an recreational degree. Allen farther offprints from his original resistance by speaking about Ivy League Schools and how they treat their college jocks. Sack tells us that the college jocks are “students first” ( Sack. 6 ) but yet they give jocks “a interruption in admissions” ( Sack. 7 ) . touching to the fact that even Ivy League college jocks do acquire some kind of benefit for playing for their school.
In decision. although this article had strong quality and was technically well-executed. Allen Sack’s sentiment and grounds became weak towards the terminal. He provided good background information on how the current scholarship environment came to be. but his grounds became much sparser doing even Allen Sack himself to hold a somewhat different sentiment. His attitude towards college jocks holding professional athlete benefits crumbled. and what started as a no changed to a possibility if given a stipend towards their instruction.
Sack. Allen. “Should college jocks be paid? . ” Christian Science Monitor 07 Mar. 2008: 9. Regional Business News. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.