Miles Kietzer

Professor Bailey-Hartsel

Annotated Bibliography

NCAA Mens Basketball Tournament

As a group we decided to research the Mens Basketball NCAA Tournament and
its surrounding issues. These issues being, paying NCAA athletes, expanding the
tournament, gambling on the tournament, and overall tournament revenue. During our
selection for our project it was early march and the NCAA tournament was quickly
approaching. This prompted us to take a look at some of the other topics surrounding the
tournament besides for just basketball. Another reason we wanted to research this topic
was because of the amount of scrutiny that has been given to paying NCAA players and
the outrageous amounts of money universities make off of collegiate athletes at the D-1
level. Our audience is those interested in underlying NCAA rules, regulations, and
processes. Basically what is happening with the money and if its the right thing. Another
more specific audience is the NCAA regulators and commissioners themselves. Although
our research and ideas are unlikely to reach them, they are likely candidates to have
relevant and influential views on what we have to say.
My own subtopic of this overlying topic is paying NCAA athletes. I selected this
topic because it is very prevalent today since the media has been tearing this subject up
lately. Did you know the Northwestern football team recently unionized that will allow
them to argue for better collegiate athlete rights? To me this is a very interesting ongoing
development Right now I believe college athletes should be paid, it seems crazy that
people from usually lower-class backgrounds are being compensated for their athletic
work by an education that must take second fiddle to their athletic schedule. Another
point being that the amount of money coaches and athletic directors make off of their
players is at a ludicrous high, coaches can often be signed for millions of dollars, while
their athletes have nothing close to that. Even though some of these athletes make it to
the Pro level of sports, only a small percentage of them do, and their college playing days
might be the only chance to make money off of their abilities.

1. Reed, Ken. "Here Are Some First Steps for Northwestern's Union." The Huffington
Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 May 2014.
This article outlines some suggestions for what the Northwestern football teams
players should do with their unionization. A few of these being, guaranteed scholarship
through injury, cover cost of college for five years, allow athletes to use likeness to make
money with appearances, and develop policies that limit weekday games. The article goes
on to detail these suggestions. One point made was that from 2011-2015 under NCAA
amateur rules, athletes will be denied 6.2 billion dollars. That is a staggering amount of
money to deny people just because they are amateur athletes.
This article details some good stepping-stones for collegiate athletes in their battle
for fair NCAA rights. I think the points made in the article arent asking too much, if you
were to explain to someone that these basic ideas need to be implemented they would
have no problem with it. It isnt asking for a chunk of money from the NCAA, just a few
guarantees for the athletes. I think if the NCAA took a look at this they would realize the
simplicity of some of the basic things collegiate athletes want. Such as being guaranteed
your education even if you can no longer play your sport due to injury. For people
wanting to know what the union at Northwestern could be doing, this is a good article to
learn the basics of what these student-athletes want.

2. McKiernan, Seamus. "4 Ways the NCAA Is Like the Fast Food Industry." The
Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 May 2014.
This article details 4 ways in which the Fast Food industry and the NCAA are
alike. Its points being that the majority of the money made is kept with the coaches and
CEOs of their teams/companies. The athletes and workers dont have a real say in the
process of their wages and rights. Both industries are forms of low wage labor, and there
is a similarity between the races of people whom work/play in these industries. Both have
a majority of low-class African Americans.
It is very well known knowledge that those in the fast-food industry are not being
compensated correctly for their work, and the management of the company is making
enormous amounts of money. By comparing the NCAA to Burger King and McDonalds
it really makes the NCAA seem like a villain, also establishing some amount of pathos in
the reader. For my purposes it presents facts that help to really understand what kind of
system the NCAA is using, basically being a feudal system, where the serfs do all the
work.

3. "Top College Players Could Be worth $1M on Open Market." CNBC.com. CNBC, 12
Apr. 2014. Web. 12 May 2014.
This article draws upon statistics that the university of Drexel compiled to
determine the estimated value per year of collegiate athletes in basketball and football.
The average worth of a college football player was 175,000 and that of a basketball
player was 375,000. The article also details that the argument isnt whether if we should
pay collegiate athletes, but if these athletes are employees. If they are employees they
should be subsequently be paid. It also makes a point that the U.S. is the only country that
uses colleges as a training system for our younger athletes.
By showing us the worth of a collegiate athlete per year it helps reveal that they
are most likely not being compensated correctly. Again an article makes the NCAA seem
like they are up to something fishy. By also demonstrating that the question is not
whether college athletes should be paid, but if they are in fact employees, it helps
distinguish what the argument really is that the athletes and NCAA are facing. Most
people would probably agree that if they were employees they should be paid
accordingly. This article pertains to my research in that it has many visuals by the way of
graphs and charts. Some people might be interested in these visuals that reveal the large
amounts of money made by universities.

4. Groves, Roger. "Public Asked The Wrong Question About Paying College Athletes."
Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 01 Apr. 2014. Web. 13 May 2014.
This article discusses whether or not players should be paid for using their
likeness. Arguing that the public would most likely agree that an athlete should get some
money if their jersey with their name on the back is being sold and worn. Or that the
public would agree that athletes should receive compensation for their likeness being
used in college sports videogames. The article makes a good point that people are not
asking the correct questions about how/why college athletes should be compensated.
The rhetor tries to sway the registrars point of view by placing us in the athletes
position. If our jersey were sold, wed also probably want a portion of the sales, wouldnt
we? No matter the amateur status given to us. For my purposes the article gives me
another arguing point of how we should be viewing the situation of paying college
athletes. Others may want to view this article themselves because it specifically details
instances in which past college athletes were compensated for their likeness being used in
college sports video games.
5. Prewitt, Alex. "Large Majority Opposes Paying NCAA Athletes, Washington Post-
ABC News Poll Finds." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 23 Mar. 2014. Web. 13
May 2014.
This article details the results of a poll from the American public on who opposes
college athletes and who agrees with the idea. According to the poll only 33% agree with
paying college athletes, leaving an outstanding 67% who do not agree. 40% of men agree
with paying players, while only 27% of women agree with paying players. A pretty big
difference between the two genders. Another stat was that 66% of non-whites agree with
unionization of college athletes, while only 44% of whites agreed.
This article is a good basis of what different groups of people think on the subject.
The author takes a non-biased stance on the subject and uses views from both sides as
reasons for whether or not to pay players. The rhetor uses examples from analysts on the
subject to provide arguments. For my own research I can use these statistics to provide a
look into what the general public thinks and to see what the majority of people think
about the subject. This can help me to develop my ideas since I know most people wont
be agreeing with me.

6. Michael Wilbon. "College Athletes Deserve to Be paid." ESPN. ESPN Internet
Ventures, n.d. Web. 11 May 2014.
This rhetor writes about his past views on paying collegiate athletes and how
recently they have changed. Since he learned a great deal about the amount of money
made from TV deals and endorsements he has since changed his mind. He believes
athletes in the two major sports mens basketball and football should be given a stipend
for their efforts since they make so much for the NCAA. He also believes that star
athletes should be allowed to be featured with businesses in order to make extra money.
By establishing that the rhetor used to not believe in paying college athletes he
places himself in the shoes of those who oppose college players being paid. He then goes
on to explain why he has switched sides and that others should do the same. He also
establishes that not all players should be paid, only the really good ones. I think he loses a
bit of credibility there because it seems unfair to many to only pay the really popular
male athletes. For my research I think this is a good approach to paying players, and
brings up the prevalent topic of what to do about paying athletes in less popular sports,
and womens sports.

7. Ahles, Dick. "The Day - NCAA: It's Time to Start Paying Your Athletes | News from
Southeastern Connecticut." The Day. The Day, 27 Apr. 2014. Web. 12 May 2014.
This article brings up the issue of 2014s NCAA mens tournament making
comments after the season about how he often went to bed hungry because he had no
extra money and couldnt attend the closed student-athlete cafeteria. This in turn led to
the NCAA making an unlimited snacks to-go policy for the student-athletes. The author
brings up points about how when he and his peers used to be in college they had the
money to go out and eat at night, but since athletes put in 50-hour work weeks for their
teams they cant get jobs to afford late night food. He also describes how there is a slowly
changing view of athletes now being an exploited working class. This turn of public
opinion may be a factor in the case for paying collegiate athletes.
The article does a good job of putting you in the shoes of a young person by
explaining that we all used to always be hungry at that age. It establishes pathos because
it makes the reader feel bad that the best player in the NCAA tournament goes to bed
hungry. For my research this all you can eat snacks rule is a small step in the right
direction, but seems like the NCAA is trying to buy time by appeasing those who were
upset by the athletes claim.

8. Rexrode, Joe. "Big Ten Still Debating 'cost of Attendance' Better Known as Paying
College Athletes." Detroit Free Press. Freep.com, 14 May 2014. Web. 14 May 2014.
This article details a possible cost of attendance rule that may be brought to
effect in the Big Ten conference. The rule would give each athlete a stipend of cash for
the year that would be estimated for each school based upon average cost of living needs
for a student. Annually it would cost each school between $500,000-$1,000,000. The
author says this is a small distribution for the millions of dollars coaches and athletic
directors make each year. Many colleges in the Big Ten say they wouldnt have a
problem paying this annual fund.
This article is non-biased, and pretty much just an overview of whats happening
with the ongoing situation of paying college athletes. For my research it includes a lot of
thoughts from athletic directors and coaches with their thoughts on the situation.
Something that may be useful for my paper. Others can read the article and learn about
what their representative schools coaches are saying on the situation of paying their
players. Overall it was kind of a bland piece.

10. Chiari, Mike. "Cowherd: NCAA Pay for 'Weed, Kicks'" Bleacher Report.
Bleacherreport.com, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 May 2014.
This article details an ESPN analysts thoughts on paying college players and
what they will do with the money. The analyst, Colin Cowherd, says that if we give
money to young college kids they will undoubtedly spend it on weed, booze, girls, cars,
shoes, and swag. The author then uses tweets from notable sports writers that responded
to Cowherd. These tweets mentioned that it shouldnt matter how they spend their money
since they are humans just like the rest of us. They also said that since Cowherd was a
capitalist he shouldnt be trying to restrict the spending/earning of these college kids.
I think the author of the article sets up an argument between two different sides
very well. He uses an ESPN analysts opinion as one side, and the response from
peoples tweets as the response to the argument. It made for some very interesting 140
character arguments. For my purposes I can use this article to talk about what will the
athletes do with the money, and does it even matter? We are after all in a capitalist
system where everything should be an open market. Others may be intrigued to read this
article to see the entirety of what Cowherd had to say on the subject.



















Full List of Annotated articles
Works Cited
Ahles, Dick. "The Day - NCAA: It's Time to Start Paying Your Athletes | News from
Southeastern Connecticut." The Day. The Day, 27 Apr. 2014. Web. 12 May 2014.

Chiari, Mike. "Cowherd: NCAA Pay for 'Weed, Kicks'" Bleacher Report.
Bleacherreport.com, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 14 May 2014.

Groves, Roger. "Public Asked The Wrong Question About Paying College Athletes."
Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 01 Apr. 2014. Web. 13 May 2014.

McKiernan, Seamus. "4 Ways the NCAA Is Like the Fast Food Industry." The Huffington
Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 May 2014.

|, Michael Wilbon. "College Athletes Deserve to Be paid." ESPN. ESPN Internet
Ventures, n.d. Web. 11 May 2014.

Prewitt, Alex. "Large Majority Opposes Paying NCAA Athletes, Washington Post-ABC
News Poll Finds." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 23 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 May
2014.

Reed, Ken. "Here Are Some First Steps for Northwestern's Union." The Huffington Post.
TheHuffingtonPost.com, 31 Mar. 2014. Web. 13 May 2014.

Rexrode, Joe. "Big Ten Still Debating 'cost of Attendance' Better Known as Paying
College Athletes." Detroit Free Press. Freep.com, 14 May 2014. Web. 14 May 2014.

"Top College Players Could Be worth $1M on Open Market." CNBC.com. CNBC, 12
Apr. 2014. Web. 12 May 2014.