In her blog post, “Moneyball, Wall Street and Change,” Mallory McDuff effectively argues that we must tax the top 1% to help with the current financial troubles. She alludes to the new Brad Pitt movie, which has gotten a lot of hype lately, in her title as a hook. “Moneyball” is a movie about the general manager for the Oakland A’s who comes up with a different way to evaluate players. In Major League Baseball there is no salary cap, so the big market teams, like the Red Sox and the Yankees, are able to spend many more times what the smaller market teams do for their player salaries. The A’s had just gone fairly far in the playoffs, but the bigger market teams quickly bought their star players, leaving the cupboard bare. The team’s experienced scouts wanted to replace their lost all-stars with players of a similar caliber. This was not going to work because the owner would not allow them to spend more than what they had spent the previous season. The GM was in a bind. He (the GM) had to find a way to work with what he had, but he wanted to produce like the Yankees and the Red Sox while spending much less money than they were spending. It looked like they were going to have a horrible season, but through a new and innovative way of thinking the A’s set the record for the most consecutive wins in the regular season. This is an excellent background of a movie that the author uses to set up her article on the current recession. We are in a bind. We know that we can’t spend like we have in the past. US citizens are just as resistant to more taxation as the owner of the A’s was to more spending.



McDuff mixes formal and informal diction with direct quotes from the movie, and her commentary. She also encourages emotions of hope by speaking of change, new ways of thinking, and relating Americans as playing together as part of the same team. Overall, her rhetoric compels the audience to go and carry out the changes that are wanted on Wall Street. She appeals to conservatives that want change in how we resolve this crisis by quoting theologian Richard Rohr and speaking of change. She also appeals to the progressives by quoting Obama several times and suggesting his way of solving the crisis by taxing the rich.
The first quote that she uses from the movie says, “There are rich teams, and there are poor teams; then there is 50 feet of crap. And then there's us.” This quote come from general manager Beane, describing the gap between winning major league teams and the Oakland A's. It reminds those of us that have seen the movie of one of its comical scenes, bringing Brad Pitt’s effectual way of expressing things abrasively to the point. The audience feels a sense of urgency of our economic situation and makes them more open to her next point and quotes from the movie that suggest we must be open to change, "We've got to think differently."

Mallory begins the blog post talking about how President Obama has asked that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, appealing to the middle class that feels overtaxed and underrepresented by congress and the legislation that they pass. She then goes on to make the connection between the movie and our crisis by stating, “The game of baseball, as depicted in "Moneyball" is about statistics; our current national pastime of political wrangling about taxation is about math, as Obama reminded us from the Rose Garden.” This makes an appeal to fiscal responsibility to those of us that are in favor of balancing the budget, lowering and eventually eliminating the national debt. There are several ways to balance the budget. The two main ways are to increase taxes and cut spending. Democrats generally talk more about increasing how much the wealthy pay in taxes, while Republicans generally focus more on cutting spending in someone else’s back yard. The winning equation that Obama and she are alluding to is that government spending must equal tax revenue.

After the comparison of statistics in baseball to taxation and math (thus bringing first logic into the argument) she then has an emotion filled oration, “But the movie -- and our fate as a country -- is also about openness to change, innovative problem-solving, and a moral ground that will benefit the team, rather than showcase individual players.” First off is “openness to change.” Anyone that is dissatisfied with any part of our economic situation, which is almost everybody, is open to change. Then she speaks of “innovative-problem-solving.” With one of the best innovative-problem-solvers of our day, Steve Jobs having just passed away we begin to think of all the good that has come with not accepting the norm and not accepting an irresolvable problem. It brings out the emotions that we felt when we heard that Steve Jobs had died and our appreciation for what he did. “Innovative-problem-solving” also brings to the mind the semi-recent success of companies like google and facebook who did not accept the Yahoo’s and MySpace’s of the day. Innovative problem solving is something that every hiring business would like to see on a resume.

When trying to inspire emotions that support change, such as dissatisfaction with the economic situation, she compares overly paid superstar baseball players to those on Wall street that are making tons of money while there is an 18% unemployment rate among youth, twice the nation average. Trying to inspire those of us that haven’t exactly hit many homeruns in the economy to bring about a change she states, “with help from Yale economics graduate Peter Brand, played by Jonah Hill, the general manager decides to recruit players who get on base most often, rather than star players who can throw the farthest or hit the most home runs.” For those of us that sat and watched the government bail out the “star players” in the US economy such as Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and GM it makes us think of how the government should be more thoughtful of those of us that do not spend irresponsibly.


Overall her diction was impressive. Her blogpost shows that she has a PhD, thus giving her more credibility. She does inspire change and give us a sense of informality mixed with formality with her diction. She does an excellent job, at the end of her article, alluding to the movie and comparing success in the game of baseball to our overcoming this financial crisis. Those of us who read this article, probably are not in the top 1% of the population as far as wealth goes. We are used to multiple people in the home working to provide for the needs of the family. We cannot rely on one person or in our society just a few people or as she puts it, “individual stars” to help us get out of this recession. We know we have to work together. So this last quote is kind of a “Raa! Raa!” moment in the article. And who else better could she have finished with other than the Great Bambino himself. ‘As Babe Ruth once said, "The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime." With the bases loaded and the stakes high, it's now our turn to play ball.’

Ms McDuff uses baseball as a metaphor for the US economy. Teams in baseball do not have a salary cap. So, the rich teams like New York and Boston are able to get the best players while the poorer teams such as the Oakland A's are stuck with doing the best with what is left over from the larger market teams. She states that, "creative thinking and risk-taking can change the game of baseball, but also the world. The Oakland A's questioned an existing recruiting system that had worked for 150 years: those questions threatened a way of life for the scouts. Such is the perceived threat faced by the mega-rich today in our country. Many of the protesters on Wall Street are youth, who face an 18 percent unemployment rate, double the national average. Using a sports metaphor, Washington Post opinion writer James Downie states, 'youth have skin in this game,' especially given that the average college graduate carries $27,000 in debt at graduation. Only imaginative thinking will sustain a vibrant, civil society that now includes young and old, rich and poor." It is a bit vague what she is comparing the existing recruiting system of 150 years. If she is wanting her audience to question the free market system that the writers of the constitution set up I think it's not direct enough.

1st draft. Will need a lot of work

In her blog post, “Moneyball, Wallstreet and Change,” Mallory McDuff effectively argues that we must tax the top 1% to help with the current financial troubles. She alludes to the new Brad Pitt movie, which has gotten a lot of hype lately, in her title as a hook. She mixes formal and informal diction with direct quotes from the movie, and her commentary. She also encourages emotions of hope by speaking of change, new ways of thinking, and relating Americans as playing together as part of the same team. Overall, her rhetoric compels the audience to go and carry out the changes that are wanted on Wall Street. She appeals to the conservative that wants change in how we resolve this crisis by quoting theologian Richard Rohr and speaking of change. She also appeals to the progressive by quoting Obama several times and suggesting his way of solving the crisis by taxing the rich.
The first quote that she uses from the movie says, ‘“There are rich teams, and there are poor teams; then there is 50 feet of crap. And then there's us,” says general manager Beane, describing the gap between winning major league teams and the Oakland A's.’ It reminds those of us that have seen the movie of one of the comical scenes in the movie, bringing Brad Pitt’s effectual way of expressing things abrasively to the point. The audience feels a sense of urgency of our economic situation and makes them more open to her next point and quotes from the movie that suggests that we must be open to change, "We've got to think differently."
Mallory begins the blog post talking about how President Obama has asked that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, appealing to the middle class that feels overtaxed and underrepresented in congress and the legislation that they pass. She then goes on to make the connection between the movie and our crisis by stating, “The game of baseball, as depicted in "Moneyball" is about statistics; our current national pastime of political wrangling about taxation is about math, as Obama reminded us from the Rose Garden” This makes a appeal to logic and fiscal responsibility which is what the Tea Party movement is largely in favor of.
After the comparison of statistics in baseball to taxation and math (thus bringing first logic into the argument) she then has a emotion filled oration, “But the movie -- and our fate as a country -- is also about openness to change, innovative problem-solving, and a moral ground that will benefit the team, rather than showcase individual players.” First off is “openness to change.” Anyone that is dissatisfied with any part of our economic situation, which is almost everybody, is open to change. Then she speaks of “innovative-problem-solving.” With one of the best innovative-problem-solvers of our day, Steve Jobs having just passed away we begin to think of all the good that has come with not accepting the norm and not accepting an irresolvable problem. “Innovative-problem-solving” also brings to the mind the semi-recent success of companies like google and facebook who did not accept the Yahoo’s and MySpace’s of the day. Innovative problem solving is something that every hiring business would like to see on a resume.
When trying to inspire emotions that want change such as dissatisfaction with the economic situation she compares overly paid superstar baseball players to those on Wall street that are making tons of money while there is an 18% unemployment rate among youth, twice the nation average. Trying to inspire those of us that haven’t exactly hit many homeruns in the economy to bring about a change she states, “with help from Yale economics graduate Peter Brand, played by Jonah Hill, the general manager decides to recruit players who get on base most often, rather than star players who can throw the farthest or hit the most home runs.” For those of us that sat and watched the government bail out the “star players” in the US economy such as Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and GM it makes us think of how the government should be more thoughtful of those of us that do not spend irresponsibly.
Overall her diction was impressive. Her blogpost shows that she has a PhD, thus giving her more credibility. She does inspire change and give us a sense of informality mixed with formality with her diction. She finishes the post with ‘As Babe Ruth once said, "The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don't play together, the club won't be worth a dime." With the bases loaded and the stakes high, it's now our turn to play ball.’

Thesis for RA

In her blog post, “Moneyball, Wallstreet and Change,” Mallory McDuff effectively argues that we must tax the top 1% to help with the current financial troubles. She alludes to the new Brad Pitt movie, which has gotten a lot of hype lately, in her title as a hook. She mixes formal and informal diction with direct quotes from the movie, and her commentary. She also encourages emotions of hope by speaking of change, new ways of thinking, and relating Americans as playing together as part of the same team. Overall, her rhetoric compels the audience to go and carry out the changes that are wanted on Wall Street.

The blog post that I am most heavily considering to use for my rhetorical analysis is called "Moneyball, Wallstreet, and Change" by Mallory McDuff of the Huffingtonpost. I had previously blogged that I would use my blog as a sports column. Even though this article is more about politics, it compares the new sports movie Moneyball, starring Brad Pitt, to our current economic situation.

Pay for Play?

This past basketball season there wasn’t a day that went by that I didn’t either see Jimmer Fredette t-shirts, hear a YouTube song about him or ESPN commentators talk about his crossover and 3 point shot. In this frenetic atmosphere that we proudly christened Jimmer-mania, many people saw the opportunity to make a buck. Corporate tycoons like ESPN, local entrepeneurs, and even the university and its affiliates saw great financial gains as a result of the national exposure surrounding The Jimmer. Out of all the money that was made because of Jimmer Fredette not one dime came back to him as a college-athlete.

As of today it is prohibited for college student-athletes to be paid. They receive money for their tuition, books and boarding, as well as an opportunity at a college degree. However, unlike most other college students, they are not allowed to have jobs during the school year. Subsequently, many college athletes get into financial trouble their first year of college while the schools are making millions from their services. I am in favor of paying college athletes due to the financial needs of the students, and because they are the reason the money is being made.

Michael Wilbon, an ESPN columnist, while explaining if the money would be divided up evenly among all athletes gave a compelling argument explaining why they deserve the money in the first place. ”Let me declare up front I wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in distributing the funds equitably or even paying every college athlete. I'm interested in seeing the people who produce the revenue share a teeny, tiny slice of it. That's right, football and men's basketball players get paid; lacrosse, field hockey, softball, baseball, soccer players get nothing. You know what that's called? Capitalism. Not everything is equal, not everything is fair. The most distinguished professor at the University of Alabama won't make $5.9 million in his entire tenure in Tuscaloosa; Nick Saban will make that this year. So I don't want to hear that it's ‘unfair’ to pay the quarterback of Alabama more than all the sociology students in the undergraduate college.”

There are several opposing arguments against paying college athletes. Some say that it takes away from the integrity of the game. My response is that the integrity of the college game as already tainted. It is common knowledge that Cam Newton’s father took over $180,000 from someone associated with Auburn University last year. The University of Oregon is under investigation for paying one of their running backs $25,000 for his services. The former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel stepped down from his position this summer because of several of his players receiving “improper benefits” from a tattoo parlor. The University of Miami’s football program could be under severe penalty from the NCAA for receiving “improper benefits” from ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff. If we were paying college athletes a reasonable stipend, the athletes would be less likely to accept illegal payments that ruin the integrity of the game.

The main question brought up when we talk about paying the student-athletes is, “where is the money going to come from?” I ask where does the money come from now? For BYU, our football players’ scholarship money, (tuition, books, rent) comes from boosters. The University of Alabama pays their coach, Nick Saban, much more than most other schools. The way they are able to do this is because boosters and alumni came up with millions of dollars a year apart from what the university promised to pay him. Just as they raised money for the coach they can raise money for the players. And thus we can see, boosters represent a real means of obtaining the funding we could use to pay the student-athletes.

Another way to raise money to pay college-athletes is through the televised deals that colleges make with ESPN. This summer the University of Texas singed a 20 year $300 million deal with ESPN to televise their home football games. BYU also signed a deal with ESPN to televise their home games for 8 years. The amount BYU received from ESPN was not released to the public but it has been speculated that BYU received $40-$50 million. BYU played Oklahoma two years ago and received $4 million from ESPN just for that one game. The newly formed Pac-12 recently signed a TV deal with ESPN and Fox Sports worth $225 million over the next 12 years. Distributed evenly among the 12 teams each team will get $18.75 million a year. And if the TV deals with Texas, BYU and the Pac-12 haven’t convinced you that there is enough money to go around, consider the deal that the NCAA made with CBS/Turner Sports for rights to March Madness from 2011 to 2024 worth $10.8 billion. So while the NCAA is investigating former Alabama defensive end Marcel Darius’s $300 flight to Miami paid for by an NFL agent and suspending him for two games for accepting these “improper benefits” it is accepting billion dollar deals to broadcast the games. Clearly there are funds sufficient to increase student-athlete compensation.

Many of these funds go back to schools to help pay for their coaches’ salaries. South Carolina’s football coach Steve Spurrier suggested this summer that his football players could be paid $300 per game from his own personal salary. He makes several million dollars a year but here’s what he would be paying. $300 times 50 scholarship players times 12 games comes out to $180,000. All colleges could not do this but it is an option for those that could.

I am not in favor of giving all of the profits from the football program to the football players. A lot of good comes from spending the money on other parts of campus. But with colleges making millions of dollars from their student athletes it only seems just to have a more equal distribution of wealth among those that are creating the revenues. We live in a country where the free market system is highly valued, where we see it as oppressive if an organization such as the government or the NCAA feels that it’s best if they decide how the money should be best distributed.

BYU has a webpage that shows how people can help student athletes now. Take a look at it. (http://cougarclub.com/ways-get-involved) My invitation to you, as a BYU student to the BYU student body, is to become aware of the situation here at BYU and how we could change the student-athlete compensation when most of the other colleges change to pay their athletes.

Op-Ed Draft (The Most Under-Paid Revenue Generators in America)

This past basketball season there wasn’t a day that went by that I didn’t either see Jimmer Fredette t-shirts, hear a YouTube song about him or hear ESPN commentators talk about his crossover and/or 3 point shot. There was a young man in my Portuguese class that traveled to Las Vegas to sell Air Jimmer shirts at the Mountain West tournament. Out of all the money that was made because of Jimmer Fredette not one dime came back to him as a college-athlete.
As of today it is prohibited for college student-athletes to be paid. They receive money for their tuition, books and boarding as well as an opportunity at a college degree. Unlike most other college students they are not allowed to have jobs during the school year. Subsequently, many college athletes get into financial trouble their first year of college while the schools are making millions from their services. I am in favor of paying college athletes due to the financial needs of the students and because they are the reason the money is being made.
There are several opposing arguments against paying the college athletes. Some say that it takes away the integrity of the game. My response is that the integrity of the college game as already tainted. It is common knowledge that Cam Newton’s father took over $180,000 from someone associated with Auburn University last year. The University of Oregon is under investigation for paying one of their running backs $25,000 for his services. The former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel stepped down from his position this summer because of several of his players receiving “improper benefits” from a tattoo parlor. The University of Miami’s football program could be under severe penalty from the NCAA for receiving “improper benefits” from ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff. If we were paying college athletes a reasonable stipend the athletes would be less likely to accept illegal payments that ruin the integrity of the game.
The main question brought up when we talk about paying the student-athletes is “Where is the money going to come from?” I ask where does the money come from now? For BYU, our football players’ scholarship money, (tuition, books, rent) comes from boosters and not the members’ tithing. I am from Alabama and the boosters are the ones that pay Nick Saban’s $5 million salary every year. So that’s one way we could pay the student-athletes.
South Carolina’s football coach Steve Spurrier suggested this summer that his football players could be paid $300 per game from his own personal salary. He makes several million dollars a year but here’s what he would be paying. $300 times 50 scholarship players times 12 games comes out to $180,000. All colleges could not do this but it is an option for those that could.
Another way to raise money to pay college-athletes is through the televised deals that colleges make with ESPN. This summer the University of Texas singed a 20 year $300 million dollar deal with ESPN to televise their home football games. BYU also signed a deal with ESPN to televise their home games for 8 years. The amount BYU received from ESPN was not released to the public but it has been speculated that BYU received $40-$50 million. BYU played Oklahoma two years ago and received $4 million from ESPN for the game.
I am not in favor of giving all of the profits from the football program to the football players. A lot of good comes from spending the money on other parts of campus. But with colleges making millions of dollars from their student athletes it only seems just to have a more equal distribution of wealth among those that are creating the revenues.