The documentary, “Schooled: The Price of College Sports” gives a perspective on whether or not college athletes should be paid. This documentary essentially states that the NCAA exploits student athletes who participate in college sports, but the athletes do not reap any benefits from the profits the NCAA is making. The film begins with presenting this problem. It then goes on to give a history of the NCAA and how they established their organization. One of the basic principles in which the NCAA was found upon was the fact that students coming to school to play sports would not be paid to play. Instead, they would be given a scholarship to attend school for free. In the beginning, athletes wanting to be paid was not a huge issue, but with the introduction of high profile companies sponsoring college athletics and the broadcast of the sports on national television, the problem skyrocketed. Student athletes felt violated by this system. The rest of the film focuses on interviews of highly recognizable sports figures, and anecdotes of college athletes who have suffered as a result of the NCAA. The context, audience, purpose, and point of view are all easily identified and combine together to make a highly compelling argument for the pay of student athletes.
The context
of this film is college athletes who have come out and said they have had
enough of being subjugated by the NCAA. There have been multiple accounts of
athletes who have said they cannot afford to buy food, they need help paying
rent, or they want money to send back home to their family because they are in
need of money. However, they have no power to do this because they do not have
any way to make any sort of revenue due to NCAA regulations. Once these issues
were brought to the public eye, many people started to question the legitimacy
of the NCAA, prompting many people to write books or make moves such as “Schooled”
about the on going issue.
The audience
for this documentary was primarily intended to be those who are on the fence or
do not agree with the idea of paying student athletes. This is clear because
the film is 100% on the side of paying student athletes. Because of its one sidedness,
it is tailored strictly to help persuade those who do not fully agree with
paying student athletes. The argument could also be made that they movie was
made to be seen by people who have no knowledge about the issue. There are
numerous facts and interviews that explain the situation thoroughly enough to
where the audience could become educated enough to where they could make their own
opinion about the subject.
The purpose
of this film is to gain sympathy for student athletes and show the corruption
of the NCAA. This is effectively done by ethos, logos, and pathos. The credibility
of this film (logos) is seen by interviewing high profile athletes and
personalities such as Arian Foster, Jay Bilas, and Bob Costas. Hearing what
these highly recognizable people giving their opinion about this issue will make people to listen. The facts (logos) that this documentary presents to gain sympathy
for the athletes is when it discusses the account of Jonathan Franklin, a
running back at UCLA. The film states the scholarship UCLA grants is approximately $28,000 a year, but it falls about $3,500 short of the “cost of
attendance”. These facts show the audience that
athletes are not given the money to buy meals, groceries, or other items they
need for school. The emotion (pathos) for this documentary include an account
by a former student athlete from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Devon Ramsay made use of a tutor provided by the athletic department, but because
of one small change the tutor made to his paper, the NCAA accused him of
academic fraud. After that, he was permanently ineligible from athletics. The
NCAA does not allow the use of a tutor, but they are not afraid to make billions
of dollars from these athletes and keep it. This anecdote is included in
the movie solely to make people upset and appeal to their emotions.
This
documentary is written form the point of view of people that are strictly
advocating for the pay of college athletes. The majority of the people in the
film are for the issue, so any time a problem is presented with the matter, it
is quickly rebutted because of the vast number of people bring many different perspectives
to the table. It is also important that the story of this film is basically
told by athletes. This gives a real life perspective of people that have
experienced this first hand. Not to mention, as I have previously stated, it
gives the film some credibility and makes the average person listen to what
they have to say.
I have always
been on the fence about this issue. However, this documentary was
incredibly convincing and gave numerous reasons as to why student athletes
should receive compensation. Due to the film’s ability to fully persuade
an avid sport’s fan like myself to one side of the issue, I am giving the documentary five stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment