Conclusions

    My conclusion for my rational argument is something that I took a different approach with. After seeing other examples and seeing where my research took me I came up with an unconventional way of making a conclusion (for me as a writer). In my conclusion I do end up agreeing that my original stance of the NIL is bad for college sports, but my view opens up. The big question is “Why is the NIL and the payment of collegiate athletes so harmful to collegiate sports and programs?” I noticed throughout my paper my original stance on this practice of payment for students, changes a tad towards the opposition.

    “The NIL is harmful to college sports, it harms smaller schools, schools that can't afford to pay, and the fans. It gets rid of the competition and the integrity of the sports, and the money is too strong of an advantage to powerhouses. This leads to stacked teams and these programs making even more money that they can offer to players. It’s not the players' fault, if they are offered a lot of money at a very young age like Nijel Pack, it's very difficult to turn down. If the money is there for them, they are most likely going to take it, I would too. The issue is the NIL as a whole, and the advantages it gives to the large schools. A fair compromise would be players are able to profit off of their own products, meaning Jerseys and anything with their name on it. Along with that, players should be offered more in scholarships for their academics, then money straight up. The entire point of these players playing college sports is to be a STUDENT-athlete, Student comes first. Schools shouldn’t be able to offer these players money that is not related to profits they make selling their jerseys, and school/scholarship related transactions. This is to ensure and keep the integrity of the players getting an education, and the players having loyalty.”