John Acquaviva Paying College Athletes Summary

In Dennis A. Johnson, Ed.D., and John Acquaviva, Ph.D., article Point/Counterpoint: Paying College Athletes, the authors say why they believe that college athletes should or should not get paid. Dr. John Acquaviva argues that college athletes should not get paid because they already get a free education, while Dr. Dennis A. Johnson tells why he believes that college athletes should get paid on top of their almost free education. Acquaviva has many great ways of stating what he believes by using good quotes and to get the attention of people who had to pay for their tuition. Both authors use some very good techniques and some very bad techniques throughout the article.
Dr. John Acquaviva compares the advantages that college athletes get compare to regular college students. He does a good job of saying how college athletes should not get paid because not only do they get a free education but they also have benefits like their own special meal plan, workout facilities, and medical care. Acquaviva states, “For example, a full scholarship over four years can range between $30,000 to $200,000 depending if the institution is public or private.” Another thing he mentions is that most college athletes are on some type

of scholarship and that because they are not paying much of anything to go to college and they know they have a good shot of going to the pros so they do not focus on their grades.
Acquaviva did an amazing job of talking to people that have had to pay for their college education by telling about how easy the educational aspect is for athletes because they are not there for an education and that coaches will do anything for their players so they can play in the games. Acquaviva also states, “Keep in mind that student-athletes are not employees of the university, rather they are students first athletes second.” Athletes even get free private tutoring sessions he says that help the students so they do not have to study any other time.
Dr. Dennis Johnson has many places where he made very bad points in why college athletes should be paid. One example is when Johnson states, “For instance, Robert Smith, former running back for Minnesota Vikings and pre-med student while at Ohio State, needed two afternoon labs in the same semester. Since the labs conflicted with practice, coaches suggested that he drop them because of the commitment he made to play football. Against the wishes of the coaching staff, Smith took the classes but was forced to sit out the season as redshirt athlete; a further example of the plantation effect.” This did not help his argument on why college athletes should be paid but it actually hurt it because early he said that people should be paid on how many minutes they play. In his example, Robert Smith was redshirted which means he did not play so that means he would not get any money from what he said earlier.
Johnson’s does a great explaining different way that the NCAA would pay the players or the way the different conferences would pay the players using statistics.

Johnson states, “This type of a proposal could pay athletes anywhere from $300-$1000 per game based on time played per game. Since most players do not play more than 30 minutes a game, a player could be paid on a per-minute of competition basis. At a rate of $20 per minute a player could net $600 for a game and approximately $6000-$7,000 per season.” I think this was a great thing to add because that way instead of just saying why the NCAA should pay college athletes, he has a way they could do it. This money he says will get with the $2,000-$3,000 gap that he says is not paid for by the

university.
Johnson also did a great job on capitalizing on writing the second half of the article by telling why Acquaviva was wrong. Johnson states, My colleague makes one point that is totally accurate – a college graduate can, in fact, make a great deal more money over a lifetime when compared to non-graduates. However, the remainder of the author’s points are half-truths and in reality just plain falsehoods.” This help give Johnson an advantage that he capitalized on. He goes into saying that most full ride scholarships do not pay for everything. He says most full ride scholarships do not cover anywhere from $2,000 to $3,000 worth of expenses. Another thing Johnson says Acquaviva was wrong about was that scholarships are only one year long and they must be renewed year to year depending on how well the students perform during the prior year.
Those were just some of the good and bad techniques that both authors used in their article. John Acquaviva used many facts to help out his claim of why college athletes should not get paid and Dennis Johnson did a good job of saying why Acquaviva was wrong and using stats to help his counterpoint on why college athletes should be paid. Lastly, both authors did their job in saying why or why not college athletes should get paid.