Kena’s Blog

 http://www.newsday.com/sports/college/ncaa-talks-realignment-paying-athletes-1.3268725

NCAA Paying Athletes

This pretty much explains what a good story is by explaining everyone’s viewpoint except the players because the first few paragraphs tell what the NCAA President made a decision about.  And on the other hand it explained what the student athletes are arguing about, but did not state clearly about what they wanted.  Now the only thing I criticize this website for is not telling us the reader why the NCAA does not want to pay their athletes.  I believe the author of this website covered it up by focusing more towards the President’s decision to resolve the conflict.  You are probably thinking what the conflict is, well it’s a huge problem and here it is.

            When a person becomes a student athlete for the NCAA and they get a scholarship, they don’t have to pay for their tuition, book and boards, and rooms.  So why are the student athletes complaining when they have all these things paid for?  Well, President of NCAA Mark Emmert says he understands that student athletes have to get extra money for their scholarship’s degrees and has decided he will add $2,000 to their scholarships.  I think that the website is being biased not sharing the players view towards about the President’s decision.  It only states about what the University Presidents think about the plan which makes this article weak.

            Now about the source and the accuracy, I believe the source is reliable because it is a news report website.  Although it has the .com we tend to believe it is just all opinions, but just the way the story was put made me believe it was accurate even though it had some slants.  The author for me is very believable because he has been a reporter for Newsday since 1970.  So, bottom-line is even though the author has good credentials, he report was somewhat biased.

Kena’s Blog

 http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/7187028/ncaa-stipend-not-lean-pay-play-president-mark-emmert-says

Stipend, “Not Pay for Play”

         

Unfortunately, for me this article was just plain slant and here are the reasons why.  First of all, this author is way off topic from the title because the title is Stipend “not pay for play” and the story goes on about accusations about all the scandals Mark Emmert did since he became the President in November of 2010.  Sure it does mention the decision the board and the President came up with, but almost half of the story was what the President did wrong.  Second, they make Mark Emmert seem like the most evil man on Earth adding negative sayings about him.  Third and the most infuriating of all was they left out the players!  Now you see why I call this article a slant, but let’s leave out all the wrong doings and turn to the facts.  The author wrote this article to inform the readers about the decision the board made which is adding $2,000 to the players, but critics argue that this makes the student seem like employees rather than players.  Emmert disagreed and responded by saying, “We're still supporting them as students, not as somebody we're paying to play a game.”  The source for me is very accurate since it came from ESPN, which is rated the best sports newscast, but the article is poorly written and not as proficient as I thought it would be. 

Kena’s Blog

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=360664

Wrong Time for NCAA to Push for Stipends

            This article might not be as perfect as I thought, but it is better than the others I read.  The author used third person point of view in a very clever way and this is because every time you read the story, it felt like the author was having a conversation with you instead of telling you the facts in a lame fashioned way.  He wrote this article to inform and somewhat for me, to persuade because it felt like he supported the Universities that were against the stipend.  President Mark Emmert said, “The stipend could be used for gas, trips home, iTunes purchases, Netflix subscriptions, Red box rentals, and Subway $5 Foot longs, whatever.  The article doesn’t slant towards anyone even though it doesn’t mention the players, rather the Presidents of the Universities.  The article says the stipend will be pushed to April because the Colleges did not favor it.  If in fact they did they would have been in a financial strain which could hurt them.

Brendan's Blog

 http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2011-10-24/athletes-petitioning-ncaa-reform

         This article is a good article because it really shows the emotions of the players well. “I really want to voice my opinions. The things we go through, the hours we put in, what our bodies go through, we deserve some sort of result. College football is a billion dollar industry,” says Denzel McCoy. However this article makes NCAA President Emmert seem careless. This is because it says “the idea is opposed by NCAA President Mark Emmert and others who cite the amateurism ideal as the backbone of college sports”. The author’s point of view on this is more slanted towards the player and gives more sufficient evidence on the players. The author wrote this article to inform the media what is going on and mainly what the players think. However he should have been more neutral because the article would have been a better all around article. The good thing is the author is believable for he or she works for the associated press and this article is on a scholarly website of this topic.

Brendan's Blog

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/ncaa-consider-payment-student-athletes-2000_n_1029712.html

                I think this article is a good article, if you only want to know about what the school, directors, and professors think. This article forgets the most important opinion, the players! If you were to read different posts before this you might have more information. The point of a newspaper article is to present multiple view points, in which this blog fails to do. The author’s purpose of writing this article is to explain the point of view of NCAA President Emmert and how feels on the topic. He feels that some student should be paid, not all though. The NCAA thinks it would be the most fair to pay all athletes because they put in a lot of hard work and can’t get a job because there sport. Emmert thinks some students should be paid to keep up with the extra cost of school. NCAA President Mark Emmert backed a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     proposal to allow conferences to increase grants to student athletes by $2,000, "to more closely approach" the full cost of attending college, beyond the athletic scholarships athletes receive for tuition, fees, room, board and books.

The author wrote this article to inform the media on what is going on. He forgot a big chunk of information, the viewpoint of the players. Otherwise this source has accurate information on the viewpoint of the faculty this is a reliable source because the website The Huffington Post is owned by AOL a respectable company and respectable publisher.

                  Brendan's Blog                                 

 http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-ncaa-pay-for-play-final-four_N.html

     This article is the best article I have ready yet on this topic for it shows a neutral position and gives a lot of information on the players and boards point of view. If I was doing a research on this topic this is the article I would definitely prefer. "It's grossly unacceptable and inappropriate to pay players … converting them from students to employees," Mark Emmert says. This makes a lot of sense why students aren’t paid and proves a good point. Instead of criticizing and making false accusations like most other article do this one gives you an honest report. "Human nature," Williams says, "is those kids are saying, 'Look at all this money we're bringing in. And I have to beg, borrow and steal to get an extra meal?' “This second point of view also shows a great argument. The author’s point of view is to inform us the readers that there are two points of view to every story and this topic could go both ways. This article is organized into to sections: the player and the students. This author has definitely earned its credentials as the publisher is the USAToday which is one of the best newspapers in North America.

My bias opinion on the stipend.

     To me, this stipend is overrated and pointless. $2,000 for every NCAA athelete to blow is pointless. Athletes will need a lot more than $2,000. If you add in the fact about "greed", the players will start asking for alot more because 2K isn't enough for them. After a year, the players will get paid $3,000. After 2 years, players will get paid 4k. And the price will get higher and higher and colleges will run out of money for other things like education, equipment, emergencies, etc. From my extremely bias opinions and thoughts on the stipend, I, Personally, persuade readers to disagree with Mark Emmert's wish.

Players and students viewpoints

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2011-03-29-ncaa-pay-for-play-final-four_N.html

     This best article I have read yet on this topic, for it shows a neutral position and gives a lot of information on the players and boards point of view. If I was doing a research on this topic this is the article I would definitely prefer. "It's grossly unacceptable and inappropriate to pay players … converting them from students to employees," Mark Emmert says. This makes a lot of sense why students aren’t paid and proves a good point. Instead of criticizing and making false accusations like most other articles do, this one gives you an honest report. "Human nature," Williams says, " as those kids are saying, 'Look at all this money we're bringing in. And I have to beg, borrow and steal to get an extra meal?' “This second point of view also shows a great argument. The author’s point of view is to inform us the readers that there are two points of view to every story and this topic could go both ways. This article is organized into to sections: the player and the students. This author has definitely earned its credentials as the publisher is the USAToday which is one of the best newspapers in North America.

Emotional Players

http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/2011-10-24/athletes-petitioning-ncaa-reform

         This article is a good article because it really shows the emotions of the players well. “I really want to voice my opinions. The things we go through, the hours we put in, what our bodies go through, we deserve some sort of result. College football is a billion dollar industry,” says Denzel McCoy. However this article makes NCAA President Emmert seem careless. This is because it says “the idea is opposed by NCAA President Mark Emmert and others who cite the amateurism ideal as the backbone of college sports”. The author’s point of view on this is more slanted towards the player and gives more sufficient evidence on the players. The author wrote this article to inform the media what is going on and mainly what the players think. However he should have been more neutral because the article would have been a better all around article. The good thing is the author is believable for he or she works for the associated press and this article is on a scholarly website of this topic.

Everyone has their opinions, but not the players?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/ncaa-consider-payment-student-athletes-2000_n_1029712.html

                I think this article is a good article, if you only want to know about what the school, directors, and professors think. This article forgets the most important opinion, the players! If you were to read different posts before this you might have more information. The point of a newspaper article is to present multiple view points, in which this blog fails to do. The author’s purpose of writing this article is to explain the point of view of NCAA President Emmert and how feels on the topic. He feels that some student should be paid, not all though. The NCAA thinks it would be the most fair to pay all athletes because they put in a lot of hard work and can’t get a job because there sport. Emmert thinks some students should be paid to keep up with the extra cost of school. NCAA President Mark Emmert backed a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     proposal to allow conferences to increase grants to student athletes by $2,000, "to more closely approach" the full cost of attending college, beyond the athletic scholarships athletes receive for tuition, fees, room, board and books.

The author wrote this article to inform the media on what is going on. He forgot a big chunk of information, the viewpoint of the players. Otherwise this source has accurate information on the viewpoint of the faculty this is a reliable source because the website The Huffington Post is owned by AOL a respectable company and respectable publisher.

Is The Stipend Good or bad?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2011-12-14/ncaa-stipend-challenge/51929894/1

          NCAA president Mark Emmert decided to pay all athletes a $2000 allowance. Is this really a smart decision? The NCAA division I Board of Directors believes scholarship limits should be expanded. Many players, fans, and Americans disagree and argue about Emmert’s decision and what the NCAA division I Board of Directors has to say about this. Multiple complaints throughout America were made about the additional $2000 toward the full cost of attendance of athletes. Some critics agree that $2000 is not nearly enough to pay for books, tuition, room, fees, etc... The average money a college athlete pays for his/hers college costs is roughly $3000 to $4000.  Since October of 2011, more and more people have been getting upset on this decision. Some schools have expressed opposition because they say it violates the NCAA’s philosophy on amateur sports. So is the $2000 stipend good or bad? Well from the facts in this post, it is bad.