Saturday, June 5, 2010

Rhetorical Analysis 5 - Source for Paper C

I’ll just say it again, and early on in this post . . . I love football. I’ve been surrounded by it for as long as I can remember, played it myself for more than a decade straight, and let it consume my weekends every fall with the greatest pleasure. There is still one thing that bothers me about the sport: the college football championship is still a biased machine. It’s operated by greedy engineers that fear change and revel in control. It should end.

Rhetorical Analysis 5 - Source for Paper C: Word Count = 333 Words

My topic for Paper C is a pro-active essay that supports a college football play-off system and perhaps the best source I discovered is a very interesting finding. The article is actually intended to steer fans away from a play-off system by convincing them it is in their best interest to remain with Bowl games, and I would like to analyze the fallacies of his argument.

The columnist for the website, armchairgm.wikia.com argues that the play-off system would be a hassle and a detriment to both students and fans alike. He gives to all college football fans a list of seven specific points that range from scheduling difficulties for student athletes to a complicated schedule and even reaches out to an idea that minor conferences still wouldn’t have much sway in the tournament. However, his argument falls apart as he merely appeal to logos, and let’s be honest, how many football fans will take logical reasoning into account when they adorn their school’s colors from head to toe, often revealing more body than covering (with the exception of paint) while in 40 degree weather standing in the same spot for three hours? Logic is probably the least effective technique for such fanatic crowds who even pray for a “Cinderella Story” for their beloved Alma-Mater. Plus, he lacks supportive details to make a sufficient argument. He speaks in behalf of collegiate athletes without their input, and most of his points fall outside of the idea of relevant because although he may be a well informed writer, he doesn’t lace up his cleats everyday for practice hoping to win a national title for his school. By the fact that so many commentators, including myself, heavily disagree with his logic on his own web-page, I would easily venture to say that such a pathetic attempt to quite the masses about the necessity of a play-off was only effective in stirring up a dust storm on this debate and not in calming the tempest about this topic.