# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiluPtgwk8o

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should the NCAA pay college athletes? | College Football on ESPN

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ursinus.edu/live/news/4477-the-burning-question-should-college-athletes-be
C- In the article it says it was published on March 9, 2020. This isn't the most recent information. Its almost 2 years old. It might help with some stuff but it probably wont help with a lot.
R- The information does relate to the topic but its not the best source of information. Its kind of repeating the same things over and over again.
A- It doesn't say much about the author, it just says her name and what her subjects are. Her subjects include Anthropology and Sociology. These subjects don't have anything to do with college athletes and if they should get paid or not.
A- This article came from a college. It has .edu at the end of it. So this means it was written by college students. This could make it a little bias because their college students talking about college athletes getting paid or not.
P- The information in this article isn't the best to research. The people who wrote this just kept saying things over and over again. It was like the he same stuff every time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ed Ogeron, head coach of the 2020 college football national champion Louisiana State University (LSU) Tigers, earned $1.7 million in bonuses for winning the national title. He also has a chance to earn another $200,000 in bonuses for his players' academic performance at the end of the 2019-2020 academic year. These bonuses are in addition to his $4 million base salary in 2019, which is less than half the salary of his championship game competition-Coach Dabo Swinney for the Clemson University Tigers-whose $9 million salary doesn't include the additional $5 million in bonuses he's earned in the last two seasons.

The players, by comparison, had to explain the few hundred dollars NFL wide receiver and LSU alumnus Odell Beckham Jr. handed out to LSU players in good-natured on-field celebration after their win because players are banned from being compensated for their contributions to the team. These differences in public response to payment of participants in college football highlight the innate hypocrisy of NCAA college athletic policies. Coaches and athletic directors "earn" their exurbanite salaries each season, but players can only "earn" college tuition, and room and board. Even as the NCAA earned over $1 billion in revenue in 2018, and universities like LSU and Clemson clear hundreds of millions in revenue over the same time period.

But the state of college athletics has changed considerably since becoming big business in the early 1990s. Increasingly, college-athletes, especially football and men's basketball players-the only sports which generate a revenue surplus each year-spend less time in the classroom, and more time preparing for the big game. In fact, my survey and interview data from players like these across the country suggests they spend three times as many hours on athletic responsibilities in comparison to academic ones during their time as "student-athletes." Coaches and athletic directors at these schools care about academic performance insofar as it contributes to their own financial windfalls because it has little to do with what happens on the field.

Football and men's basketball players already report the lowest graduation rates of all student-athletes and non-athlete students; a lack of compensation while competing at the NCAA level creates difficult economic and educational paths in the future. This is especially true for black players from low-income communities who make up almost 70 percent of Division I football and men's basketball teams. For all but the two percent of players who will go on to play in professional leagues, this means many will leave college without an adequate education and no money made during a time in their lives where they're at peak marketability. These players don't have the time to concentrate on academics, and therefore cannot adequately take advantage of the education they "earn" on the football field or basketball court. Instead, players sacrifice their bodies, and their educations to win, and as a result make a few additional million dollars for their coaches.

Recently, the NCAA announced rule changes that allow all student-athletes to accept compensation in exchange for work, even during the sports season, in response to state legislation passed in California, and being prepared in a handful of other states, including Pennsylvania, which overrode NCAA policy and threatened to upend the NCAA as we know it. But allowing players to be compensated for the use of their likeness and image is not the same thing as revenue sharing. Players are only allowed to seek out their own compensation rather than being awarded a portion of the revenue their labor sustains, actions which require more time and energy away from academics and focused squarely on sports.

At Ursinus, student-athletes already overloaded with schoolwork may now be lured to go in search of their own revenue streams to supplement the cost of college attendance beyond just tuition, and room and board. And can we blame them? As the cost of living continues to increase while jobs paying livable wages post-graduation decrease, for many student-athletes, it's now or never to make money on their athletic participation. But we must ask ourselves how much we want our student-athletes to invest in academics. If they're spending a majority of their time on athletics, then is an education really ample compensation for their labor?

Harris's research interests include race, class and gender, and the intersectionality of those identities, particularly as they pertain to minority experiences. She has conducted extensive research about compensation in Division I athletics and her expertise has been recently featured on NBC10, in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Business Insider, The Houston Chronicle, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and other national publications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Burning Question: Should College Athletes Be Paid?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ed Ogeron, head coach of the 2020 college football national champion Louisiana State University (LSU) Tigers, earned $1.7 million in bonuses for winning the national title. He also has a chance to earn another $200,000 in bonuses for his players' academic performance at the end of the 2019-2020 academic year.

# data[].attributes.body
https://sno.dvrhs.org/6116/uncategorized/why-college-athletes-shouldnt-be-paid/
C- This article was published March 19, 2021. This is a pretty recent article and it will have fresh information.
R- This information does relate to the claim but its disagreeing with it.
A- The author is younger. She's been writing for delphi for 3 years.
A- The website is a .org website. This doesn't seem like the best article to use during research. It's also going against the claim.
P- This information is trying to convince you that college athletes should not get paid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For some time now, people have been debating over whether or not college athletes shouldn't be paid. Personally, they shouldn't be paid for pretty obvious reasons.

The main reason why athletes don't deserve to be paid is because it's simply not the colleges' duty to do so. Colleges are primarily used to better your education, not kick start your athletic career. Besides, there are already some benefits to being a student athlete on campus. For example, by getting college degrees, students can get offered job market opportunities that they normally wouldn't have.

By paying a student athlete more than just the scholarship, it takes away the competitive element of sports. According to Pay to Play: Should College Athletes Be Paid, developing such an economy in the athletic department " would result in a monetary race to buy the best athletes in the country. " Top colleges would get the superstar athletes, while most colleges get the "rejects."

Instead of rooting for a variety different teams, there would only be a few that people would want to watch. With fewer people wanting to watch these games, the colleges will result in a loss of revenue. So would a college really want to lose more money just by paying students to play a sport?

Lastly, paying for student athletes can affect the students' college decision-making process. In the past, students would make decisions based off of how successful they will be at that school. Now, these athletes will base their decisions off of how much each college pays. Rather than focusing on the schoolwork aspect of college, they will compare colleges and see who pays their athletes the highest.

An important question to ponder is what will a college athlete really spend their money on? According to College Athletes Should Not Be Paid, "And trust me on this, you give a bunch of teenage, wannabe professional athletes a stipend and a significant portion of that money will be going directly to the local "pharmacist" for steroids and marijuana, another good chunk will get guzzled down a beer bong and the rest will be a down payment on a platinum necklace." Teenagers already spend their money poorly. By giving them more, this just guides them in a worse direction.

Some can make the argument that a full scholarship doesn't totally cover the cost of living on campus. Athletes still have the opportunity to take out loans like every other student.

Universities can also help finance their students' educations. Beginning in 1985, the National Consortium for Academics and Sports aids students by finishing their degrees at no cost. On the flip side, students still had to participate in 10 hours of community service. This allows the athletes to help out the community and have all their costs paid off.

Colleges should not pay their athletes at the expense of hosting entertaining games. The colleges will be wasting their money and "Cinderella teams" will be a thing of the past, making sports less fun to watch. If it would negatively affect the thrill of the sport, why bother paying the athletes then?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For some time now, people have been debating over whether or not college athletes shouldn't be paid. Personally, they shouldn't be paid for pretty obvious reasons. The main reason why athletes don't deserve to be paid is because it's simply not the colleges' duty to do so.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes will be paid as employees. It's just matter of time.

# data[].attributes.body
https://baylorlariat.com/2021/08/31/student-athletes-shouldnt-be-paid-by-their-universities/
C- This article was published August 31, 2021. This is a sort of new article but it's a little old but not to much. So the information would be pretty solid.
R- It does relate to the claim but it does go against it. It gives good reasons on why they shouldn't be paid. This would be a good article to use if the claim was against paying college athletes.
A- It doesn't say much about the author. The website she posts her articles on is a college website for students. She only has 2 posts on the website.
A- The information is coming from a .com website. This article is very opinionated and believes college athletes should not get paid.
P- This article is against the claim. It wouldn't do much for the research. This wouldn't be a good article for the claim.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Alexandra Laurence | LTVN Reporter/Anchor

Although a university paying its student-athletes may sound good in theory, it logistically could cause challenges and difficulties.

No. 1 reason: Student athletes already get a yearly stipend with their scholarships.

Student athletes on scholarship receive yearly stipends to ensure all their expenses are covered. These stipends can vary from school to school, but they usually range from a few hundred dollars to a couple thousand dollars, depending on the location of the school. The stipend is intended to cover the cost of living, including rent and meals not provided by the university. If student-athletes are good stewards of these funds, they could save thousands of dollars by the time they finish college.

No. 2 reason: Student-athletes are provided with multiple types of resources to help them be successful.

In addition to receiving a yearly stipend, student-athletes have their tuition and fees paid for through scholarships for free textbooks and other academic needs. The student-athletes are provided with a high level of resources to make sure they are set up for success inside the classroom while managing their sports' demanding schedules.

No. 3 reason: Student-athletes are set up for success after college, with the potential to make big dollars.

Being a student-athlete means you have developed a work ethic that is very valuable to future employers. Student-athletes have a platform that can be used as an advantage over other job candidates due to their networking opportunities. If student-athletes network at college the right way, they can use that to their benefit in job searches.

No. 4 reason: Other sports could get cut.

If a university starts paying student-athletes, it could negatively affect other sports programs. There would not be enough funds to pay every single student-athlete equally and to be able to keep every single sport. The smaller sports that do not generate enough revenue to sustain the program would definitely get cut. The schools would have to address Title IX issues for equality, which could mean the cutting of athletic programs that may generate revenue but are not Title IX compliant. This would further limit opportunities for future student-athletes. Other areas of an athletic program could be negatively impacted, such as employees taking a pay cut or the maintenance people being laid off. It's a domino effect. Colleges are not swimming in money. This would affect more than just the student-athletes. The athletic department could possibly crumble, and the smaller sports would be no more.

No. 5 reason: Where do you draw the line?

In high school, schools make money off of athletes and games too. Does that mean that high school athletes should also be paid? Does that mean college athletes could be considered professionals instead of amateurs? The hypothetical situations could go on forever. This creates a lot of grey area and room to possibly push the boundaries.

No. 6 reason: Big schools will get bigger, and small schools will get smaller.

It is no secret that the big public powerhouse schools have some very generous, high-profile donors, but what about the small schools with a fraction of the donors? Recruiting would not exist anymore. This would lead to big schools becoming powerhouses, as many donors and recruits would only want to go to those schools because they would be paid significantly more money. As a result, the smaller Division II schools could disappear simply because they cannot compete with the amount of money that bigger Division I schools have.

Student-athletes are not employees of their university, and it would be foolish to treat them like they are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student-athletes shouldn't be paid by their universities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Alexandra Laurence | LTVN Reporter/Anchor Although a university paying its student-athletes may sound good in theory, it logistically could cause challenges and difficulties. No. 1 reason: Student athletes already get a yearly stipend with their scholarships. Student athletes on scholarship receive yearly stipends to ensure all their expenses are covered.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/09/07/should-college-athletes-be-paid/
C- In the article it says it was published September 7, 2021, and that it was last updated December 16, 2021. This goes to show this article has fresh information and the most recent news. The topic needs the most recent things and this article shows that.
R- This article is definitely more for paying the college athletes then against it. It does give us reasons for against and for but it more leans towards for.
A- The author who wrote this article has a lot of experience. He has 30 years of experience. It says he graduated from Harvard which is a D1 college. He also wrote magazines for The New York Times.
A- The website does have a .com at the end of it which means they might be advertising something. But there hasn't been any advertising for anything.
P- The information is for the claim. Most of what he's saying is for college athletes getting paid. He's giving good reasons and information on this subject.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should College Athletes Be Paid? | BestColleges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Student-athletes bring in millions each year for their schools, but only recently have they begun to profit from the big business of college sports.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/11/student-athletes-should-get-paid-college-students-say.html
C- This article was published September 11, 2019. This article is an older one. It has good information but it's not as recent as some of the others.
R- The information does relate to the claim. It also gives other solutions too. It says we can only pay the players that bring in fans and make profits for the college.
A- The author has wrote many articles for CNBC. The author was a college athlete which could make it a little bias.
A- The information is supported by evidence. Theres quotes of famous people in it.
P- The author got her point across and she mostly focused on paying the athletes rather than not paying them.