Research Blog #9 : Argument and Counter-Argument

The main argument focuses on the system of college athletics being centered on universities' attempts to create national recognition, marketability, and greater sources of mass revenue through establishing brand equity.  In order to do this, the universities put a strict emphasis on athletic spending by allocating significant funds towards coaching salaries and the programs as a whole, completely redirecting the much needed funds away from academics.  The university mission is evidently in favor of creating brand recognition through sports, at the expense of its academic values.  In turn, the argument transitions into how this emphasis creates a powerful Role Conflict for student-athletes and causes them to struggle to distinguish between being a student and being an athlete.  Additionally, the argument extends even further in describing how this system affects the university's moral code of behavior, leading to academic fraud and dishonesty.  All of this demonstrates and points to the fact that college athletics compromise universities educational/academic values.

The counter arguments are generally focused on the fact that most of these student-athletes are rewarded scholarships that act as a means for them to attend college they otherwise would probably be unable to attend.  They further emphasize that the NCAA continuously implements reforms and regulations that are meant to send messages to high-schools and universities that academic achievement does in fact matter.  They set new minimum academic requirements and provide additional academic advising and support.  However, to counter this, those who oppose college athletics as it stands now argue that these programs focus on maintaining eligibility, not learning.  These programs are administered by the athletic departments rather than the academic faculty.

They furthermore argue that sports are an important component of American education, in that it increases school spirit among the fan community, and also that it generates such significant revenue that can subsequently be redistributed to athletics.  However, as my paper and argument emphasizes, the gap between spending per athlete and spending per student is so significant that this redistribution is simply a farce.