# data[].attributes.body
The name of my article is called "NCAA plans to allow college athletes to get paid for their name and images. The article was uploaded October 29th 2019. The article for the most part agrees with my claim. The name of the publisher is Colin Dwyr . The URL was .com showing the articles not as factual as websites like .edu, . The purpose of the article was to inform people on why the NCAA decided to started paying athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a surprise move, the NCAA says it intends to allow college athletes to earn compensation - but it says it's only starting to work out the details of how that would take place. The organization's board of governors said Tuesday that it had voted unanimously to permit student-athletes to benefit from the use of their name, image and likeness.

"We must embrace change to provide the best possible experience for college athletes," said Michael Drake, the NCAA board chair who is also president of Ohio State University. In a statement, Drake stressed the need for "additional flexibility" in the NCAA's approach.

Drake added, "This modernization for the future is a natural extension of the numerous steps NCAA members have taken in recent years to improve support for student-athletes, including full cost of attendance and guaranteed scholarships."

The timeline for implementing the changes was not immediately clear in the NCAA's statement.

The NCAA, the national governing body for collegiate athletics, said its decision followed input over the past few months from "current and former student-athletes, coaches, presidents, faculty and commissioners across all three divisions."

Notably, the decision follows California's adoption of a law that bans schools in the state from preventing student-athletes from accepting compensation from advertisers and allows them to hire agents. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the legislation late last month, calling it the "beginning of a national movement."

Indeed, it did spark a trend. Politicians in Illinois, New York, Florida and other states have introduced bills allowing endorsement deals for college athletes. And days after the California bill was signed, national politicians signaled they would push for something similar in Congress.

Amid this groundswell of political support for paying college athletes, the NCAA has quickly eased its public resistance to the idea. After initially pushing back hard on California's measure, the NCAA has recently been taking a more conciliatory tone, suggesting it would "move forward with ongoing efforts to make adjustments" to the organization's practices.

The NCAA has reported annual revenues topping $1 billion, largely on the strength of TV rights and marketing fees connected with its most prominent sports and events, such as the highly lucrative Division 1 men's basketball tournament.

And though the organization long argued that it was converting those revenues into scholarships and other opportunities for students, that line had lately attracted prominent skeptics - such as NFL cornerback Richard Sherman and NBA superstar LeBron James, who hosted Newsom's signing ceremony on his sports programming company la st month.

"As a national governing body, the NCAA is uniquely positioned to modify its rules to ensure fairness and a level playing field for student-athletes," organization President Mark Emmert said in a statement Tuesday. "The board's action today creates a path to enhance opportunities for student-athletes while ensuring they compete against students and not professionals."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NCAA Plans To Allow College Athletes To Get Paid For Use Of Their Names, Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The organization says it's just starting to work out the details of how athletes would be compensated. The governing body's decision Tuesday reverses course on its longstanding objection to the idea.

# data[].attributes.body
The image came with no title nor did it include a date. The image disagrees withe my claim.The author if the image was Asher Freeman. The image shows a college football player asking to be compensated, meanwhile he doesn't realize all of the benefits he already has which makes him look greedy. The purpose of this image was to entertain.

# data[].attributes.body
The image i choose did not come with a title. The original image was published on March 30th 2014. the image agrees with my claim. The publisher of the image was Nick Anderson. The image shows a football team helping row a football shaped ship while the coach does nothing but yell at them not having rights. the purpose of the image is to entertain by making a serious subject humorous.

# data[].attributes.body
The image i choose didn't have a title name. No date was added to the original sketch, but the image has been re-uploaded several times. The picture shows an image of a college coach counts millions of dollars and pays no attention towards the football players representing the 99.9% of unpaid college college athletes. The image was created by John Cole. There are minor spelling errors inside the speech bubbles. The purpose of the image was to entertain viewers with a funny image expressing how d-1 coaches treat athletes.

# data[].attributes.body
The title of my second video is "Ex - college basketball player: NCAA shouldn't pay players,." The video was published on YouTube April 6th 2019. The video shows a disagreement with my claim and gives out multiple counterclaims. The publisher is CNN.  The URL is .com showing that the video is most likely biased. The purpose of the video was to sell the idea that not all colleges have enough money to pay athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ex-college basketball player: NCAA shouldn't pay players

# data[].attributes.body
The title of my video is " here is why the NCAA should pay college football players." The video was published on YouTube January 20th, 2016. The video agrees with my claim. The publisher of the video was Colin Cowherd. The URL is .com showing its not as factual as other websites.The purpose of the video was to sell the idea that colleges have more than enough money to pay the college athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's why the NCAA should pay college football players | THE HERD

# data[].attributes.body
The title of my article fifth article  called  "should college athletes be paid?" The article was published April 4th 2018. Just like the majority of my articles, this article gears towards my side of the argument. The name of the publisher is Jeff Cockrell. The URL of the web page the article came from was .com. This shows like all of the other articles.its heavily influenced by opinion. The purpose of the article was to inform people on what majority of people think is right for college athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the United States, college athletics have long been a lucrative business. As of 2017, there were more than two dozen schools that generated upwards of $100 million in annual revenue through their athletic programs. Among 127 of the 131 schools in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivison, the average revenues from football alone exceed $30 million. The NCAA itself-a large portion of whose revenues come from its recently completed men's basketball tournament-raked in more than $1 billion in 2017.

But while some, including many coaches, are making small fortunes off of college sports, compensation for one group is meticulously limited: that of the athletes themselves. To be eligible to play NCAA sports, players must maintain amateur status, which means they can't be paid for participating. This prohibition includes indirect payment, such as money from endorsements, though they may receive compensation of a sort via scholarships to live and study at their respective schools.

The NCAA says that "maintaining amateurism is crucial to preserving an academic environment in which acquiring a quality education is the first priority." However, the growing imbalance between how much money college athletic departments generate and how fully they can compensate their players has led to questions of fairness.

Do the NCAA's rules restricting player compensation benefit schools at the expense of players? To find out, Chicago Booth's Initiative on Global Markets polled the members of its Economic Experts Panel, who answered with a resounding 'yes.' Among respondents, 92 percent agreed that "NCAA Division I schools coordinate compensation for men's basketball and football players (precluding actual pay and limiting non-monetary benefits), providing rents to member schools (which may be shared with others) at the expense of those players." The remaining 8 percent of respondents registered no opinion.

Some respondents noted that though the statement may be true, the NCAA's rules could still be justified.

"There may be socially appropriate reasons for the practice described," wrote Stanford's Darrell Duffie.

Austan Goolsbee, Chicago Booth
"A top NBA coach gets $7 million-$8 million per year, and a top player makes four times that. A top college coach gets $6 million, but the players get nothing."
Response: Strongly agree

Michael Greenstone, University of Chicago
"Only hesitation in complete agreement is that there is lots of redistribution across sports and even within basketball/football players."
Response: Agree

Robert Hall, Stanford
"Wrong question. Should be 'Are the NCAA's limitations on contracting with athletes socially harmful?'"
Response: Agree

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the United States, college athletics have long been a lucrative business. As of 2017, there were more than two dozen schools that generated upwards of $100 million in annual revenue through their athletic programs. Among 127 of the 131 schools in the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) Division I Football Bowl Subdivison, the average revenues from football alone exceed $30 million.

# data[].attributes.body
The title of my 4th article is "Why NCAA athletes shouldnt be paid. The website that posted it was named "The New Yorker". The article was posted October 14, 2015. Unlike my previous articles, this particular one goes against every claim i state, making it a counterclaim. The publishers name is Ekow N. Yankah. The url being ".com" shows that the authors argument is mostly biased. The purpose of the article was to persuade people that paying student college athletes takes away from their education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two weeks ago, as Americans were settling into the harvest comfort of football Saturdays, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the antitrust suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The decision drew blood on both sides. The court sided with the players in affirming that the N.C.A.A. is not immune to antitrust regulation, but simultaneously reversed a lower-court ruling that would have granted former athletes as much as five thousand dollars a year in deferred compensation-essentially back pay-for the use of their images in video games and other commercial ventures. At the same time, the court required that the N.C.A.A. increase scholarship payouts to cover the full cost of college attendance, thus making mandatory an option that the N.C.A.A. first permitted a few years ago.

These legal niceties did very little to address the deeper question of fairness. The N.C.A.A. ideal of amateurism in college athletics has come to border on farce. In the highest-revenue sports-football and basketball-the argument in favor of paying players is so searingly obvious as to seem undeniable. These athletes collectively generate tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars annually for their schools. Many college coaches are the highest-paid public employees in their states-a five-million-dollar salary is no longer eye-popping-and that paycheck doesn't include gifts from boosters, who will occasionally pay for a coach's house to make sure that he stays happy.

But this understates the exploitation. The athletes in major football and men's basketball programs are disproportionately black, many from poor and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. For too many of them, the N.C.A.A. is the only game in town. In some dispiriting cases, the students are so unprepared that academic failure seems inevitable. In worse cases still, their scholarships are cynically undermined by the schools themselves. Coaches steer students into empty classes (what one recent report from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill characterized as a " shadow curriculum ") or supply so-called academic support that amounts to cheating. It hardly seems coincidental, then, that sports with less African-American participation, such as baseball and hockey, maintain robust minor-league systems without the national gnashing of teeth.

And yet I believe that the drive to pay college athletes is a grave mistake-not because it misdiagnoses the disease but because it suggests that the only cure is to put the patient out of his misery. It fails, first of all, to recognize the value of sports as a part of education. This value can be seen in the countless student athletes, from gymnasts to softball players, who pour hours of work into training and competing with no hope of going pro. (Similarly, many of those in even the biggest sports show dedication long after it is clear that they will never be professionals.)

This value is again revealed in the fact that many N.C.A.A. teams are vastly more popular than their professional counterparts. My beloved Michigan Wolverines pack the Big House with more than a hundred thousand spectators each football Saturday; the Detroit Lions, meanwhile, do not. (I know, I know-it's the Lions. That's why their stadium is smaller.) Minor-league arenas attract even fewer spectators. Fans are not only seeking athletic excellence as such-the biggest and fastest players in descending order. Our connection to the athletes is deeper. These student athletes walk the same halls, have the same professors, and sweat the same midterms that we did, however long ago. At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where I once taught, the inscription on the statue of Alma Mater reads, "To thy happy children of the future, those of the past send greetings." It's easy to dismiss that sentiment as saccharine, but it gets at an important truth: we are embedded in our cultures and social groups, and we revel in their excellence.

Paying student athletes erodes that association. If a high-school football prodigy reported that he chose Michigan not for its academic quality, tradition, or beautiful campus but because it outbid all other suitors, a connection to the university's values would be lost. This is not naïve idealism. Auburn fans still bristle at accusations that Cam Newton auctioned them his services; prideful Michigan fans still smart over the sanctions surrounding Chris Webber, and over stinging comments intimating that he might just as well have attended a rival school. These episodes reveal what happens when college sports are reduced to a market; that this occurs all too often already is no reason to surrender to it.

The law plays a critical role here, and the Ninth Circuit's ruling can be a constructive step. It recognizes that the N.C.A.A. is subject to antitrust regulation-unlike, say, Major League Baseball -and refuses to put a monetary value on college sports. In the future, Congress could, through antitrust and commerce legislation, promote a more just landscape in college and professional sports. Professional leagues, in particular, could be encouraged to invest more seriously in their minor-league programs-the N.B.A. Development League is at least the right idea-and drop the relevant age restrictions. This would mean that the extraordinary few could go pro out of high school, and some other highfliers, could enter the developmental leagues, paid whatever the market will bear. College sports might well lose some spectacular stars, but the stars alone were never really the point.

None of this would be easy to accomplish, of course, given the money that is at stake, and there would be casualties. Some of the players who might at least have been exposed to college would forgo it entirely. We might lose the story of the exceptional athlete, often poor and dark-skinned, who goes to school solely to play sports but then sees the world widen before him. Nor should we imagine that those who opt for the developmental leagues have made it; minor-league baseball and the lower tiers of European soccer remind us how thankless and poorly compensated such a life can be. But this is no less true for those who skip college to pursue music or theatre, and, more to the point, there is no reason to think that we wouldn't hear stories of intellectual discovery among slightly less athletically gifted athletes from the same streets. Even if we cannot save sports (or music, or theatre) from its high-risk nature, we can go some way toward making sure that a few élite college programs are not unduly feeding off it.

At sports bars, when I hear people dismiss these (or other) ideas for preserving college amateurism, I realize that it's not simply a question of their being overwhelmed by the practical difficulties involved. It is, rather, another manifestation of that corrosive American belief that anything that has value must also have a price. The recent ruling, though, hints at a path ahead, a way to cheer for our student athletes without being held hostage to money, exploitation, racism, or cynicism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two weeks ago, as Americans were settling into the harvest comfort of football Saturdays, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the antitrust suit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The decision drew blood on both sides. The court sided with the players in affirming that the N.C.A.A.

# data[].attributes.body
The title of my 3rd article is "Pay for play:should college athletes be compensated?" The article was published on April 4th, 2011. The artical, just like me states that student athletes deserve to be paid. The name of the publisher is Brennan Thomas. The purpose of the article was to persuade paying student athletes for the work they put in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pay for Play: Should College Athletes Be Compensated?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Grinding through grueling workouts, practices and games every day of the year, combined with rigorous college courses, student-athletes are some of the hardest working people in the country…

# data[].attributes.body
The title of the video is "Is it time we pay college athletes after the Zion Wiliamson alligations?" The vide0 was published on Youtube April 8th 2019. Durning the video multiple sides  of the argument were shown. The channel that uploaded the video was ESPN. The purpose of the video was to entertain the veiwers as they hear everyones different opinoins.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is it time to pay college athletes after the Zion Williamson allegations? | First Take

# data[].attributes.body
The article was first posted on April 5th 2019. The name of the artilce is "why the NCAA should pay student athletes - and let them unionize." This article agrees whith my claims and states that college athletes should be paid. The publisher of the article is Brian Wakamo. The url reveals that this article is mostly opinoin. The purpose of the article is to inform people why its only fair to pay college athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Zion Williamson's foot broke through the sole of his Nike shoe on Feb. 20, the sporting world stood still.

The consensus number-one player in college basketball was playing in the biggest game of the season-North Carolina versus Duke-and suffered his startling injury in the opening minute. Williamson's sprained knee cost Nike $1.1 billion in stock market valuation the next day.​

The injury came on the doorstep of March Madness, the NCAA's most profitable event of the year-to the tune of $900 million in revenue.

Despite the billions riding on his performance, the NCAA insists that athletes like Williamson are "amateurs"-student-athletes there only for the love of the game. It forbids them to make money off their performance even as they support an industry worth billions. Duke alone makes $31 million off its basketball program.

Williamson has been a force of nature this season, captivating audiences and NBA scouts alike. Enticing those NBA scouts is the only way this 18-year-old can build his own future career-and any sort of injury imperils that future.

High-level "student-athletes," after all, don't get to spend much time being students.

They're supposed to spend only 20 hours a week on sports-related activities. In reality, they spend around 40 hours on practice alone. Schoolwork falls by the wayside, so many schools have outside tutors do the players' schoolwork and create classes-in-name-only where the only requirement is to turn in a paper.

A few years ago, some former athletes at the University of North Carolina sued the school and the NCAA, claiming they'd been denied a meaningful education. It's hard to argue with that.

The athletes, in exchange for scholarships, give these schools their lives and put their health at risk. Concussions of football players have sparked lawsuits, and an injury like Williamson's could cost a player millions in the professional leagues. If they can't go pro-and their education didn't do them any favors-what option do they have?

That risk is where the travesty lies. These thousands of athletes who play in the NCAA are often not allowed to enjoy the benefits of the schools they attend (and enrich). If they're not able to make use of their education, they should be paid for the work they put in.

When college sports revenues are as high as they've ever been, the failure to pay the athletes is absurd-but not surprising.

Inequality of all kinds is on the rise, and the gap between the top and bottom of the pay scale is the highest since the Gilded Age of the early 1900s. The NCAA not allowing athletes to be paid-or even sign autographs for money!-is an extension of an economy where unions are busted and people have to work three jobs to make ends meet.

It needs to change. College basketball players are on average worth $212,080 to their program, much more than the cost of their scholarships.

Schools should pay these athletes a share of the revenue their sport brings in. And the NCAA needs, at the very least, to allow for these people to make money selling autographs or appearing at sports camps.

Just as importantly, athletes should be allowed to unionize their teams and fight for their own rights.

Billions of dollars are going to be spent on betting on March Madness games. CBS and Turner paid around $19 billion for the television rights to the tournament. And over $1 billion in advertising is spent on the tournament.

This event is all about the money. We should spread it around to the people who make it worthwhile.
This article was originally published by Other Words. It has been republished here with permission

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the NCAA Should Pay Student-Athletes-And Let Them Unionize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Zion Williamson's foot broke through the sole of his Nike shoe on Feb. 20, the sporting world stood still. The consensus number-one player in college basketball was playing in the biggest game of the season-North Carolina versus Duke-and suffered his startling injury in the opening minute.