So as part of our in class activity on logical fallacies, I stumbled upon this article on the New York Times Room for Debate. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/13/ncaa-and-the-interests-of-student-athletes/college-athletes-should-be-compensated


In the article, the author states "The N.C.A.A. states clearly that athletes are to be like any other student. Yet the association involves the athlete in such a heavily commercialized, multibillion dollar endeavor, that it ends up restricting the athlete from any college benefit beyond a scholarship." Although I do agree NCAA tournaments and other such events are highly commercialized, the author is clearly begging the question. Many college athletes go on to lead succesful careers in their field of choice. Look at Joe Paterno's old Penn State football team. Paterno boasted an 80% graduation rate, that says to me these athletes, of whom many do not make it to play on the professional level, did well in college. They got more than a free ride. 80% of Paterno's athletes recieved a diploma. To further argue, my sister, an undergraduate at Virginia Tech, attended classes with their start quarterback David Wilson. David went to every class dressed like he was going to a senior prom out of gratitude for all that Virginia Tech has given him. Although David will most likely end up with professional football career, he will still have a diploma from Virginia Tech. The author of this article is making an assumption, although I'm sure some athletes just compete for the money, not all of them are focused on just that.