# data[].attributes.body
image 1
C-Dec 3,2019
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-Nitram Torres

A-No
P-teach

# data[].attributes.body
Image 2
C-April 19,2018
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-Timmy Allen

A-No
P-entertain

# data[].attributes.body
Image 3
C-Nov 20,2019
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-malcom lemmons
A-No
P-entertain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years. Not just a regular issue at that, but a structurally racial issue on many levels. African Americans make up the majority of college athletes at the top levels in three major sports: men's and women's basketball (Division I) and the upper FBS level of the NCAA's Division I, according to Travis Walton's HuffPost article "Black Americans Support Paying College Athletes. White People? Not So Much." These also happen to be the highest revenue-generating sports in college athletics.

Race isn't the only issue, but statistically it plays a huge part in the reason why many people oppose the fact that college athletes should be getting paid. According to the same article, "A majority ― 52% ― of black respondents are strongly or somewhat in favor of paying college athletes, while only 15% strongly or somewhat oppose the idea. Among whites, however, the numbers flip: Just 27% support paying those athletes, while 43% oppose it."

If a majority of these college athletes, who are bringing in staggering amounts of money to these schools were white, would this even be a conversation?

Ed O'Bannon, a former professional basketball player, won a lawsuit in 2014 where the NCAA was ordered to pay $44.4 million in attorneys' fees and another $1.5 million in costs to lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA.

former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon Jr. sits in his office in Henderson, Nevada. (AP Photo/Isaac Brekken)

O'Bannon and 19 others sued the NCAA, claiming the organization violated United States antitrust laws by not allowing athletes to get a share of the revenues generated from the use of their images in broadcasts and video games. Many former collegiate players were compensated, but some felt it was inadequate and they were owed more.

In 2014, Shabazz Napier was quoted:

"We do have hungry nights that we don't have enough money to get food in. Sometimes money is needed. I don't think you should stretch it out to hundreds of thousands of dollars for playing, because a lot of times guys don't know how to handle themselves with money. I feel like a student athlete. Sometimes, there's hungry nights where I'm not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities."

All of this begs the question, that if the NCAA did choose to pay college athletes, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of doing so? Below are a few potential pros and cons of paying college athletes.

Pros

1. Support their families ― Players would be able to actually afford a decent meal and possibly send some money back home. Many of these athletes come from urban, low-class families and often leave school early because of the unimaginable pressure to be the main provider for their family at a young age.

2. Players may stay longer ― To back up the last point, players wouldn't have to leave school early and would still be able to pursue an education while taking care of their family back home. This would possibly increase graduation rates, allow fans to see their favorite players mature through college, and ensure coaches are preparing athletes as much as possible for the next level.

3. Limits corruption from external influences ― Compensating athletes in college will limit the corruption involving agents, boosters and others. Over the years we have seen and heard scandals involving players taking money and even point-shaving. Wouldn't paying them eliminate a lot of these issues?

4. Giving them what they deserve right? ― In Business Insider last week, there was an article that stated, "It is estimated that the University of Louisville has the most valuable players at $1.72 million per year based on the program's $45.6 million in annual revenue. Overall, the average Division I player is worth $170,098 per year with the 351 Division I basketball programs taking in more than 4.5 million in revenue on average each year." These athletes are bringing in incredible amounts of revenue to these schools ― why aren't they receiving what is due? I mean the bottom line is, isn't this what they deserve for their labor?

Cons

1. Financial irresponsibility ― Amateur players receiving compensation just seems like a complete disaster. They don't know how to manage their money, and there wouldn't be anyone their to guide their financial decisions. Colin Cowherd states, "I don't think paying all college athletes is great; not every college is loaded, and most 19-year-olds (are) gonna spend it-and let's be honest, they're gonna spend it on weed and kicks!"

2. Unfair compensation between players ― How will players be compensated? Will each player receive the same amount? What about the top level talent? Should they receive more because they were All-Americans? In theory, wouldn't it bring problems between players, due to one teammate potentially receiving more money?

3. Athletes may never go to class ― Let's face it, if they give these kids money, they'll never have any incentive to go to class. Many of them don't want to go already, combined with the fact that some may be receiving grades without doing any work. Money will only add to this fact.

4. Removes athletes competitive nature and passion for the game ― Players will take on a "pro mindset" where the only motive is money. They will lose that hunger and passion that we see in college. It will be traded for lackadaisical plays and half-ass efforts that we sometime see from pros.

As always, there are two sides to any argument. Even as a former college athlete, I am at a point in my life where I can understand each side. But I do find it interesting as to why so many are widely opposed to this idea. Is it racial? Is it because it's unnecessary? Is it unfair?

Whatever it may be, it looks like this growing debate won't be dying down anytime soon.

Related

Legal Issues Basketball March Madness Division I

Athlete, Author & Entrepreneur

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Athletes Getting Paid? Here Are Some Pros And Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During this year's NCAA tournament, there has been obvious speculation about college athletes and the significant amount of revenue they have been bringing to their schools and the NCAA. This isn't something new. This is something that has been a growing issue in recent years.

# data[].attributes.body
image 5
C-N/A
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-N/A
A-No
P-teach

# data[].attributes.body
image 4
C-March 25, 2019
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-N/A
A-No
P-persade

# data[].attributes.body
Video 2
C-March 24 2015
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-N/A
A-No
P-Persade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ed O'Bannon, former UCLA basketball star, shares his support for compensation for student athletes when their likeness is used.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 2
C-Oct 9,2019
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-Spencer Bokat-Lindell
A-No
P-persade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing. He writes:

College basketball players are worth a lot of money, but they aren't legally allowed to make it. So the schools, coaches, agents and shoe companies make the money instead - all in the name of "amateurism."

Katelyn Ohashi, a former University of California, Los Angeles, gymnast, has criticized the unfairness of N.C.A.A. rules that prevented her from making any money from a video of a perfect floor routine that went viral earlier this year. She told Mr. Newsom:

Here's the fame, but then there's no compensation, and it's so crazy. People are like, "Oh, you must be so rich." And I'm like, "You must not know the N.C.A.A." ... When my routine went viral, [N.C.A.A. President] Mark Emmert called me to congratulate me, and I'm like, "You should be thanking me."

In fact, according to an analysis cited in The Economist, if players were paid in proportion to the amount of revenue they generated for their colleges, "the top 10 percent of football and 16 percent of basketball players would be paid around $400,000 and $250,000 a year respectively." While the N.C.A.A.'s desire to keep so-called professionalism out of college sports may have made sense before they became such a big business, the author writes, it's clearly an illusion that no longer holds:

The two most lucrative college sports, American football and basketball, are highly competitive. Many universities are willing to bend over backward to enroll talented players. And the argument that university athletics remains amateur would hardly earn passing marks in even an introductory college course.

Removing the N.C.A.A. restrictions on endorsements would create a winner-take-all dynamic within and among universities, writes Cody J. McDavis, a former Division I basketball player. The best players at the best schools would reap all the benefits, Mr. McDavis says, while less popular sports and athletes would suffer. He writes:

Major brands like Nike would pay top football and basketball talent at the biggest schools, while student-athletes in other sports or at smaller programs would be ignored. Currently, corporate funds go to athletic departments and are generally distributed among all sports; with third-party payments, those funds could instead mostly go directly to a few student-athletes, starving the rest.

The N.C.A.A., for its part, has said the California law "would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletes." Even The Los Angeles Times editorial board, which came out in favor of the law, acknowledges that some change to the spirit of college athletics would be inevitable. They write:

The measure would inevitably eat away at the distinction between professional and college sports. Celebrated collegians could make money not only by endorsing sneakers and sports drinks, but also by autographing jerseys, pitching workout videos and putting their name on baseball bats and hockey sticks. In short, they could profit from the fame that their work as an athlete brings.

As those on opposing sides of California's law debate how the fruits of the college sports economy ought to be distributed, others assert that the solution is simply to decommercialize the activity altogether.

Jonathan R. Cole, a professor at Columbia and author of "Toward a More Perfect University," suggests in The Atlantic that the emphasis placed on campus athletics is " totally out of control." In 41 states, he writes, the highest-paid public employee is not a professor or neurosurgeon, but rather a college football or basketball coach. For students, meanwhile, the difficulty of keeping up with both coursework and demanding athletic schedules has created an incentive for academic fraud. Taken together, a picture emerges of college sports as a pseudoprofessional industry that encroaches upon the mission of higher education. He writes:

For the highly selective colleges and universities, the leaders ought to roll back the percentage of recruited athletes. ... The highly selective colleges ought to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and form their own league since they are not trying to build national championship programs. ... Finally, university leaders should consider forming special institutions located in different geographic areas that are devoted almost entirely to athletics and bodily-kinesthetic intelligence.

One school that has provided something of a model on this front is Spelman, a historically black college for women. In 2011, Spelman learned that its N.C.A.A. division was losing three members. Rather than find another conference in which to compete at great expense, the school decided to withdraw from the N.C.A.A. and eliminate its athletics department in favor of a fitness program for all students. Beverly Daniel Tatum, then Spelman's president, wrote in The Times in 2013:

Whether it's diabetes, high blood pressure or heart disease, black women are more likely to suffer from these ailments - and die from them - at young ages. All are linked to obesity and lack of physical activity. ... We decided that it was more important to support our entire campus with a wellness initiative than 80 student athletes with N.C.A.A. funding.

California's changes aren't scheduled to take effect until 2023, leaving the N.C.A.A. ample time to mount court challenges to the law, which the organization has suggested violates the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. If the law is upheld, the N.C.A.A. will have to decide whether to penalize the schools with fines, which may or may not be legally enforceable, or even expel them.

For now, California is betting that the outsize importance of its universities within the world of college sports will make those threats impossible to carry out. "I don't necessarily take it to heart," Newsom said.
It's the one-month birthday of this newsletter! Do you have a topic you'd like us to cover? Is there anything you want to see more or less of? Email us at debatable@nytimes.com to tell us what you think so we can make it even better for you.
Jemele Hill makes the case for black athletes to leave white colleges for historically black ones. [The Atlantic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Should College Athletes Be Allowed to Get Paid? (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College athletics is less a nonprofit enterprise than an industry exploiting its workers, writes Brian Rosenberg, the president of Macalester College, in The New York Times. He points out that universities with top teams can rake in nearly $20 million a year from Nike or Adidas sponsorships, while the athletes themselves, whose talent is what attracts such sponsorships in the first place, walk away with nothing.

# data[].attributes.body
article 1
C-November 1st
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-Elad De Piccioto

A-No
P-teach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a yearfor broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly). However, the NCAA recently decided to allow college athletes to financially benefit from the use of their names, images and likeness. This decision follows the move byseveral states, led by California, to pass laws allowing the same right, which has been part of a longtime debate about whether college athletes should be paid or not. The question arises primarily regarding football and basketball student-athletes, since they bring in most of the money.

Here are three arguments for and three arguments against paying college athletes:
The difficulty to implement is no excuse
An important argument coming from those who oppose paying college athletes is the expected difficulty involved with implementing such a move. The following are just some of the questions that pinpoint the complexities: Who will pay the college athletes (the NCAA or colleges)? How often will they receive pay? Will there be a salary cap? The main question regards the equitable application of paying college athletes, namely who will get paid and who won't. The details of the new NCAA rules are still being discussed, and will need input from different state legislators and sports associations.

However, since the debate was first sparked over the NCAA's income from broadcasting, the answer seems simple: Theoretically, the athletes to get paid should the ones playing the sports that bring in the big money, namely, men's college basketball and football players. College basketball and football players in particular are the ones who provide a good time for fans who are willing to pay to watch the games, so they deserve to get paid. This is capitalism, and this is how it works in America. In its ruling, the NCAA has distinguished between amateur athletes and potential professional athletes, i.e., those most likely to be recruited by professional teams. Time will tell who ultimately benefits from this decision.
Athletes risk their body and are exposed to permanent damage
One of the best aspects of college sports is the players' enthusiasm. Their love and passion for their respective game is admirable and infectious. But, there is a downside to it; in their fervor to play their best, many college athletes suffer serious injuries that sometimes prematurely end their career.

Setting aside the disturbing fact that a career-ending injury will stop their scholarship, those college athletes put their bodies at risk of permanent damage, without being paid. Hurting your knee might leave you limping for the rest of your life. Suffering concussions can cause dementia and depression, not to mention CTE. Those college athletes who put their bodies on the line for each training session and game they play deserve to be paid for the health risks they are taking.
There's big money involved in college sports anyway
It`s common to think paying college athletes can detract from the purity of the game and ruin that magic. But it won`t. The passion fans see on the court or field is attributed to the fact that there is no money involved.

However, that's not exactly accurate. Big companies are profiting off of branding college athletes, namely, asking them to wear brand apparel during games without paying them to do so. As such, these players feel used. And rightly so. The new rule allowing them to get paid shows that the NCAA and fans are really concerned about preserving the purity of college sports.

Three Reasons Why College Athletes Should Not Get Paid
The difference for college athletes is marginal in term of money
If salaries were to replace scholarships in college sports, athletes would not earn much more. In fact, an impressive $100,000-a-year salary for a college athlete would grant him only a few hundred dollars more per year than a scholarship. According to Money.com, a full athletic scholarship at an NCAA Division I university is about $65,000 a year. This includes tuition, room, board, and books (if you enroll at a college with high tuition). In contrast, a salary will be subjected to federal and state income taxes. Therefore, out of the $100,000, a net of $65,100 will remain for the student. The difference is marginal.
Earning big money too soon can be harmful
People argue that paying collage athletes will help create a sense of financial awareness for them. However, in reality, poor investments, trusting unethical financial advisors and lavish spending habits are some of the main reasons professional athletes find themselves broke after they retire, according to ESPN documentary, "Broke." Without sound financial education, young college athletes may not be equipped to handle so much money.
Paying big money for college students miss the purpose of college
College is about preparing oneself for real life. It is supposed to provide students with tools and abilities to succeed after college. In that manner, college athletes are no different than other college students who practice or intenr in hospitals, law firms or advertising agencies for little to no money. So why should athletes be get paid while the others don't?

A lot of young adults today are impatient and lack the ability to delay gratification. College can teach them a great life lesson: in real life, you have to work hard and wait for your chance. Paying big money to any college student, athlete or academic is far from being the ideal preparation for life.

The Bottom Line: Paying big money to college athletes defeats the purpose of college as a preparatory lesson for life, especially when the monetary difference between a salary and a scholarship is marginal. On the other hand, not paying athletes who risk serious long-term injuries is morally wrong. Was the NCAA right to change the current practice?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CBS Sports and Turner paid over $1 billion a year for broadcasting the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament up until 2023. Until now, the broadcasts' college sports stars themselves had no chance of receiving much of that sum (at least not directly).

# data[].attributes.body
Article 4
C-Oct 8 2018
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-  Alexia Fernández C

A-No
P-persade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California is shaking up the big business of college sports.

Earlier this week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that would let college athletes make money from endorsement deals for the first time. Right now, they're the only ones involved in the $14 billion industry who aren't cashing in.

The new law, which doesn't go into effect until 2023, is meant to pressure the National Collegiate Athletic Association to change its rules before then. The NCAA is still clinging to its long-held view that college athletes should spend their time earning a degree for playing sports, not making money.

But times have changed. In the past 20 years, college sports has ballooned into a multibillion dollar industry. While coaches are earning millions, athletes are often penniless, frustrated that they can't monetize their YouTube channels or make money through endorsements or other ways.

"I'm tired of seeing these college athletes get ripped off," Draymond Green, forward for the Golden State Warriors, said during a press conference Monday.

The NCAA has threatened to drop colleges from tournaments if they let players make money. Universities have protested the bill too. But so far, it's been useless. At least a dozen other states are considering similar moves and a congressional bill may also come out of it. The era of free labor from college athletes may soon be over.

Everyone in college sports is making money except the athletes

The controversy over California's Fair Pay to Play Act is about who controls all the profits from college sports and who truly earns it.

Many people are getting rich from the current setup. In the past decade, coaches' pay has skyrocketed. The highest-paid head coach in 2018 was Alabama's Nick Saban, who raked in $8.3 million. Even the lowest-paid coaches in the SEC are making at least $1 million.

Individual colleges make a ton of money, too. Cable networks pay each Big Ten school about $50 million a year just for broadcast rights, and universities also cut multimillion dollar sponsorship deals with Nike, Adidas, and other athletic brands. University employees working in athletics departments often make six-figure salaries.

The few people who coordinate the leagues make even more. The head of the Big Ten Conference, Jim Delaney, made $5.5 million in 2018. The head of the NCAA, Mark Emmert, made $4 million.

The only ones who aren't making money are the athletes themselves. Under NCAA rules, student athletes can get scholarships and small stipends but no sponsorship or endorsement deals of any kind. California State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who wrote the Fair Pay to Play Act, calls it "exploitation."

"For decades, college sports has generated billions for all involved except the very people most responsible for creating the wealth. That's wrong," she tweeted on Monday.

The new law doesn't actually require schools to pay athletes directly, as if they were employees. Instead, it makes it illegal for schools to prevent an athlete from earning money by selling the rights to his or her name, image, or likeness to outside bidders.

The law also allows college athletes to hire an agent to represent them. There are a few restrictions, such as one that prevents athletes from signing endorsement deals that conflict with their team's sponsors. For example, a football player could not wear Under Armour gear during team events if the student's school is sponsored by Adidas.

This isn't just about letting star basketball and football players cash in on their fame. It's also about giving female athletes, who have few opportunities to make money when they go pro, a chance to earns some endorsements. It's also about all the college athletes who don't make it to the pros but who could still make some money while they're in school.

As with most legislation, those who oppose the California law are the ones who stand to lose the most. Emmert, president of the NCAA, sent a letter to California lawmakers earlier this year asking them not to pass the bill. He later called it an "existential threat" to the college sports model in an interview with CBS Sports.

It's not hard to imagine their concern that companies and brands will spend more money making deals with individual athletes and less money on deals with universities and cable advertising.

After Newsom signed the bill, the PAC-12 Conference decried the move, saying the new law would lead to the "professionalization" of college sports, with "significant negative consequences."

That statement was likely a warning to other states that are considering similar laws.

Momentum is building to change the business of college sports

There's actually a lot of public support for the idea of letting college athletes earn money from the games they play.

Lawmakers from more than a dozen states have shown interest in proposing similar laws or have already done so. Some of their bills are slightly different. Some require schools to pay athletes directly or to pay for their health care after they leave college.

A lawmaker in Illinois just introduced a bill Monday that mirrors California's. Pennsylvania lawmakers are in the process of introducing one, too.

"We will soon introduce legislation that will empower our college athletes and make sure that they are fairly compensated for their work and efforts - especially in a system where so many others profit off their talents while they have to be careful to avoid a work-related injury which could end their athletic career and negatively impact their future," Pennsylvania state Reps. Dan Miller and Ed Gainey wrote in a recent memo, according to the Patriot News.

Even Congress is toying with the idea.

US House Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, an Ohio Republican and former wide receiver for the Ohio State Buckeyes, said this week that he would consider introducing a bill at the congressional level.

"I actually think that we need to do something quickly, within the next year," Gonzalez told ESPN. "I don't think you have three years to figure this out. I think decisions will start happening immediately."

It's not that far-fetched. There's seems to be wide bipartisan support for this. In California, Republicans and Democrats voted unanimously to pass the Fair Pay to Play Act. It could happen in Congress, too.

Gonzalez already has a House colleague on board with his plan.

I fully agree. People should get the benefit of the value they create in America.

The @NCAA has devised a system where predominantly young, black adult student-athletes create value at huge cost to their bodies. Then, predominantly old, white administrators see the benefit. BS! https://t.co/6ZOBSEkbtI
- Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) October 2, 2019

Now the waiting begins to see what the NCAA will do. Will it change the rules or will it sue every state that passes a law like California's? The group has three years to decide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free labor from college athletes may soon come to an end

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California is shaking up the big business of college sports. Earlier this week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that would let college athletes make money from endorsement deals for the first time. Right now, they're the only ones involved in the $14 billion industry who aren't cashing in.

# data[].attributes.body
Video 1
C-oct 9 2019
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-
A-No
P-persade

# data[].attributes.body
Article 3

C-march 26,2015
R-yes it agrees with my claim

A-
A-No
P-Entertain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March Madness is in full swing, with the college basketball championship raking in big bucks for the NCAA. Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon thinks those players should also get paid.

O'Bannon, who currently has a lawsuit against the association, told CNBC's " Closing Bell" the athletes who play in the tournament "want to be there and are honored to play in that tournament.

"I just think that along with their possible degrees that they are getting, they should be compensated for it."

While the NCAA has 17 official corporate sponsors that have each paid the organization $10 million to $35 million, O'Bannon said the athletes' compensation doesn't have to be $1 million but just a "little something" to recognize that they are bringing in money to their schools.

Read More Sweet 16 a slam dunk for advertisers

Nearly five years ago, O'Bannon sued the NCAA, Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company over the use of his name and image.

Lawyers for O'Bannon reached a $40 million settlement with EA and the Collegiate Licensing Company, which handles licensing rates for many universities. However, the case against the NCAA is still working its way through the courts.

Last August, a federal judge ruled the association violated antitrust law by prohibiting college athletes from being compensated for use of their names, images and likenesses. The court also ordered that schools be allowed to offer athletes full cost-of-attendance scholarships and put up to $5,000 per athlete, per year of eligibility, into a trust.

The NCAA has appealed the decision. Oral arguments were held last week in the case.

At the time it filed the appeal, the NCAA said it did not believe it violated antitrust laws.

"In its decision, the Court acknowledged that changes to the rules that govern college athletics would be better achieved outside the courtroom, and the NCAA continues to believe that the Association and its members are best positioned to evolve its rules and processes to better serve student-athletes," the NCAA's chief legal officer, Donald Remy, said in a statement last August.

Read More Pay for play: NCAA schools keep eye on legal cases

O'Bannon said the lawsuit was never about the money, it was about righting a wrong.

"If a company or someone was to use your likeness then you should be compensated for it, at the very least asked if your likeness can be used."

Since the legal action, the issue has grown from using a college athlete's likeness to whether he or she should be paid while in school.

For O'Bannon, the biggest thing is that the conversation is now happening.

"I feel strongly that if everyone involved can get together and talk about things they can work things out, whether it be pay when you are in school or collecting when your eligibility is up."

-CNBC's Steven Desaulniers, CNBC's Eric Chemi and Alicia Jessop contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College athletes should be compensated: Former UCLA star

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March Madness is in full swing, with the college basketball championship raking in big bucks for the NCAA. Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon thinks those players should also get paid. O'Bannon, who currently has a lawsuit against the association, told CNBC's " Closing Bell" the athletes who play in the tournament "want to be there and are honored to play in that tournament.

# data[].attributes.body
C-jul 18,2018
R-yes it agrees with my claim
A-Art Carden
A-No
P-Entertain

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College Athletes Are Worth Millions. They Should Be Paid Like It.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bryce Love should be applauded for skipping Pac-12 Media Day to go to class, not criticized.