Use the article below "Would March Be Less Mad If Players Were Paid?" by Alan Greenblatt to answer the questions.

Question

Would March Madness be terribly different if the players were paid? Probably not. The college basketball tournament might become more professionalized, but it wouldn't look much different from what we're seeing right now. "I don't see it changing one iota," says ESPN basketball analyst Jay Bilas. Last week's National Labor Relations Board ruling that football players at Northwestern University should be able to form a union triggered dire warnings from the NCAA that the ideal of the student-athlete would be forever corrupted if players were treated as employees and paid as such. But for fans, the reality is that the game wouldn't change. The real question is how the pie would be sliced, with players suddenly demanding a share of the take. "It's another NCAA scare tactic," says Bilas, who played basketball at Duke University. "They're saying it's going to crumble when they talk about giving the athletes a penny over their expenses, and it's wrong." The Game's Already For Sale. It's hard to imagine March Madness getting any more commercial. The tournament is already a billion-dollar event, with as many Burger King and AXE body wash commercials as television can carry. "Any time we cover an NCAA tournament event, the NCAA will not allow you to sit courtside with beverages that do not have the label from one of their sponsors," says Kevin Blackistone, a sportswriter who teaches journalism at the University of Maryland. Fans would still be able to buy jerseys emblazoned with team names and the numbers of their favorite players — with those players maybe seeing a cut. It's possible that ticket prices could go up, but that's been happening for years anyway, as coaching salaries have soared into the multi-million-dollar range. And it's not like the pro version of the sport will suddenly be dominated by big-money programs — the Stanford Facebookers or the Kansas Koch Brothers — or at least no more than it's dominated by big money programs already. As things stand, plenty of players from top programs go pro early. Yahoo Sports reported Thursday that University of Kansas center Joel Embiid will enter the NBA draft this year as a freshman. "Paying them could keep them in college longer," says Rick Eckstein, a sports sociologist at Villanova University. Players Will Gain Rights But will it be possible for coaches to control pro players? "Imagine a university's basketball players striking before a Sweet Sixteen game, demanding shorter practices, bigger dorm rooms, better food and no classes before 11 a.m.," Tennessee GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander, a former University of Tennessee president, said in a statement. "This is an absurd decision that will destroy intercollegiate athletics as we know it." Alexander has a point. Such things could happen. In fact, they already have. Last fall, football players at Grambling University boycotted practice and forfeited a game, unhappy about shoddy facilities and their coach being fired. They didn't have to belong to a union to strike. And the University of Tennessee athletic department didn't have to pay its players to rack up hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. Fans Ultimately Won't Care. It's true that fans don't like the idea of college players going pro. An HBO Real Sports/Marist poll last week found that 75 percent of Americans oppose the idea of college athletes joining a union to receive payments and benefits. (Nearly a third of those polled — and a majority of African Americans — say they believe there is at least some truth to the notion that players are not paid because of race.) Bilas says that fans will always complain when the sanctity of a favorite game is undermined by money — after a players strike in professional sports, for instance. But fans always end up watching. They kept watching the Olympics, even though it has long since stopped being populated solely by amateurs. "If you had posed this questions years ago, when coaches' salaries went from $30,000 to $8 million, people would say, 'I'd stop watching,' " Bilas says. "You know what, they haven't stopped watching." It's Money That Matters Last year, Moody's Investors Services said it could lower the NCAA's credit rating, as former players push for shares of revenue from televised games and video games. In the wake of the Northwestern ruling, Moody's warned that the association's finances would come under further pressure if players are allowed to unionize and eventually are compensated. Clearly, paying players would cost money. It's possible that the cash cows of college basketball and football would no longer be able to subsidize other athletic programs. "People cheering this ruling should acknowledge the possibility it could lead to elimination of non-rev[enue] sports," Seth Davis, a college basketball reporter for Sports Illustrated and CBS Sports, tweeted Thursday. Eckstein, the Villanova professor, says that wouldn't be such a bad thing. He says giving scholarships to field hockey and lacrosse players costs colleges lots of money, but no one goes to those games anyway. "Far more people go to musical theater productions than these non-revenue sports, but the acting students don't get scholarships," he says. "If you do just end up paying college football and basketball players, you can stop hiding behind the illusion that we have student athletes, rather than athletes and students."

1. Point of view/voice
2. Evidence of bias
3. Appeal to logos
4. Appeal to ethos
5. Appeal to pathos
6. Logical fallacies

Write down things from the article that fit into each category, and identify any appeals that you notice. You should have at least two or three examples for each section. (Requirements: The answer provides at least 12 items from the article that fit within the categories. The pieces of information are explained, indicating thoughtfulness and attention to detail. There are no or very few mechanical errors.

Answer 1

Certainly! Here’s an analysis of the article "Would March Be Less Mad If Players Were Paid?" by Alan Greenblatt, organized into the requested categories:

1. Point of View/Voice

• The author's perspective leans towards skepticism regarding the NCAA's concerns about player compensation, suggesting that the tournament would not change substantially.
• The commentary from ESPN analyst Jay Bilas is prominent, reflecting a voice that challenges the NCAA's narrative and supports player rights.
• Rick Eckstein, a sports sociologist, offers an academic point of view that raises questions about the implications of paying players and the current state of college athletics.

2. Evidence of Bias

• The author quotes Jay Bilas and other critics of the NCAA, giving more voice to those who support player compensation, hinting at bias against the NCAA's stance.
• The piece mentions a poll indicating public opposition to college athletes unionizing, but it does not provide counterarguments or voices from those in favor of player compensation, suggesting a selective approach to the evidence presented.
• The use of phrases like "NCAA scare tactic" and "absurd decision" indicates a critical stance towards the NCAA's arguments and actions.

3. Appeal to Logos (Logical Appeals)

• The article mentions that the NCAA is already a billion-dollar enterprise, suggesting that players being compensated wouldn't significantly alter the financial dynamics of college sports.
• The argument that players leaving for the NBA early would remain unchanged implies that paying players would not reduce their motivation to go pro, thus maintaining the current structure of college athletics.
• The mention of Moody’s Investors Services threatening to lower the NCAA's credit rating provides a logical consequence of not addressing player compensation.

4. Appeal to Ethos (Credibility Appeals)

• The author includes perspectives from recognized figures such as Jay Bilas, who has credibility due to his experience as a former player and current analyst, adding weight to the argument against the NCAA’s fears.
• The reference to the National Labor Relations Board's ruling serves to establish a legal and authoritative basis for the discussion on player rights, enhancing the piece's credibility.
• The inclusion of names like Rick Eckstein, whose expertise as a sociologist lends academic credibility to the claims made about the implications of paying college athletes.

5. Appeal to Pathos (Emotional Appeals)

• The mention of athletes striking for better conditions evokes a sense of empathy for student-athletes, highlighting their challenges and desires beyond mere athletics.
• By discussing the financial and physical sacrifices players make, the article appeals to readers’ feelings about fairness and equity in college sports.
• The poll results indicating public opposition to player unionization, especially with racial undertones, suggest emotional undercurrents in the conversation about race and compensation in athletics.

6. Logical Fallacies

• The statement that if players were paid, they might strike before a major game introduces a slippery slope fallacy, suggesting extreme outcomes without substantial evidence.
• The idea that players forming unions and demanding better conditions would ruin college athletics may be an appeal to fear fallacy, exaggerating potential negative outcomes.
• The argument that paying players would lead to the elimination of non-revenue sports presents a false dilemma, implying that the only solution is to either pay players or maintain the status quo, without exploring other avenues for financial support.

This detailed analysis covers various aspects of the article, highlighting its main ideas, biases, logical appeals, and emotional connections.