Caleb Krueger Jan Lee Research Techniques and Technologies March 23, 2014 Evaluation of Sources Database Articles

Stone, C., Wertheim, J. (2013). The Conclusion WHAT IT ALL MEANS. Sports Illustrated, Vol. 119, Issue 12, 70-71. 1. The primary audience for this article is any sports fan because it is published inside a normal Sports Illustrated issue. This information meets the audiences expectations because it is a topic that is very popular in the sports world right now. This article does fit my needs as well. 2. This works perfectly for my paper because I can use the information on how college athletes are being paid directly and indirectly to write about the opposing sides of the argument of whether or not college athletes should be paid. 3. I do not detect any biases in this article. The authors do a good job of explaining the pros and cons of the BCS program in college football relating to paying college athletes. 4. Knowing that this article was published by Sports Illustrated lets me know that it is a reliable article that can be used for scholarly research. 5. This source is up to date, published in late 2013. 6. Yes they do. 7. Since this topic is such a controversial and popular topic in the world of sports, Sports Illustrated publishing this article gives the topic even more exposure to the world.

8. This article has little to no impact on other scholarship. 9. This article will have huge implications in future research if a reform is passed that allows schools to pay its players. This article will be used to research what the old reform was like. 10. 5, because it gives good explanations on why college athletes should or shouldnt be paid.

Sack, A. (2014). How to Save the NCAA From Itself. Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 60, Issue 17, A39-A40. 1. The primary audience for this source is anyone interested in learning more about the pros and cons of paying college athletes. This information meets the expectations of its audiences. 2. This applies directly to my research project because it covers exactly what my topic is. 3. I did not discover any biases or such in this article. The author does a good job of supporting both sides of the argument. 4. The notes let you know that the author is very educated in this field and knows what he is talking about. 5. The source is up to date, published in early 2014. 6. The author, Allen Sack, is a professor of sports management at the University of New Haven and president of the Drake Group. 7. Little to no impact. 8. No impact on other scholarship. 9. It will have huge implications if reform comes to the NCAA.

10. 5, because Sack does a great job getting down to the bare bones of the argument of whether college athletes should be paid or not.

Book Griffin, G. (2008). Should College Athletes be Paid? Detroit, Greenhaven Press. 1. The primary source is anyone interested in reading essays over whether college athletes should be paid. 2. It applies greatly because it is a group of essays with varying opinions over the subject matter. 3. I do because some people focus only on what the good is for the side that they are arguing for. 4. It tells me that the essays were written by scholarly people who are experts in this field. 5. Yes, it was made in 2008. 6. Yes, it is a collection of experts in this field 7. They play the role of putting together different views on the topic so that the audience understands the different stances taken on the topic. 8. No impact on other scholarship. 9. It will have little impact on future research. 10. 5, because it gives me different view points on the topic coming from experts in this field.

World Wide Web Articles Prewitt, A. (2013, March 22). Large majority opposes playing NCAA athletes, Washington Post-ABC News poll finds. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/large-majority-opposes-paying-ncaa-athleteswashington-post-abc-news-poll-finds/2014/03/22/c411a32e-b130-11e3-95e839bef8e9a48b_story.html 1. The primary audience for this article is any sports fans. 2. This source applies to my research project because it gives poll results from the general public on how they feel about college players being paid. 3. I do not detect any biases. The article clearly states the results of polls and peoples reactions to them. 4. There are no notes, bibliography, or works cited. 5. Yes, it is up to date. 6. Yes, he worked for ESPN as well as the University of Maryland athletics. 7. It plays the role of solicitor, getting the article out to the public. 8. This is an original article that is one of a kind, so it has no impact on other scholarship. 9. It will have little to no implications in the future. It is simply just the general publics thoughts on the topic. 10. 5, because it give the general publics side of the argument and their beliefs on the topic.

Hartnett, T. (2013, October 21) Why College Athletes Should be Paid. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://ottawa.libguides.com/content.php?pid=372730&sid=3053789 1. The primary source for this article is anyone that is interested in the topic. 2. This article applies perfectly to my topic because it gives a professional basketball players take on his time in college athletics and his thoughts on how it should be handled.

3. Hartnett does focus on why college athletes should be paid, but not why they shouldnt be. 4. There are no notes, bibliography, or works cited. 5. Yes, it is up to date. 6. Yes, the article is strictly his opinion based on his experiences in college athletics. 7. The publication plays the role of making sure that the article is open to the public. 8. It is an original article because it is Harnetts own experiences in college. 9. This article will not have much implications if reform happens in the NCAA because it is only one mans experiences. 10. 4, because it is only just an opinion and not rock hard research to go off of.