Essay 3 Reflection

When I first began my essay, I thought it would be more challenging than it was.  My topic was on the controversy in college football.  I wasn't really sure how I would write a rogerian argument on this.  I knew that I had two opposing sides, with conflicting viewpoints.  I thought I would have trouble finding a compromise.  But as I researched, I found that one of the sides, is actually a compromise in itself.  After I realized this, writing the essay was easy.  I found plenty of sources and many were from colleges and universities.  My one concern is if I used enough rogerian language in my essay.

Essay 3.1: Reform in College Football Can Benefit Both Sides

Every autumn, thousands of football fans flock to colleges and universities to cheer on their favorite teams.  These fans all want the same thing: their team to win a national championship.  College football is currently set up in a BCS system.  This system ranks each team in the country using computer programs and polls by sports writers and coaches.  At the end of the season, the top eight ranked teams compete in four BCS bowl games.  The system designed to find the top two Division 1-A college football teams in the nation and have them play in a championship game.  Ever since this BCS system was created in 1998, controversy has arisen (N. Hanna, par. 8).  Many people, including myself, feel the BCS system is unfair and should be changed to a classic playoff system like in other sports.

The current BCS is favored by some people, mostly athletic directors, coaches, and people involved with the conferences.  Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, presented the results of a survey of every 120 Division I-A coaches.  The survey showed that a majority of coaches want to keep the system the way it is (Adelson, par. 3).  "Right now, we have a good system," said Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel, "I wouldn't be in favor of scraping what we do.  There are too many things to keep in mind: bowls, student athlete welfare, all the rest. I wouldn't start over" (Adelson, par. 4).  "I believe it is in the best interest of the universities,” said the executive director of the BCS, Bill Handcock, “College football has never been better and I believe the BCS is part of that" (Adelson, par. 10).

Those who are in favor of the current BCS system feel that the system is fine the way it is and does not need changing.  In fact, many of their reasons of why the current system should be kept are really just cons of a playoff system.  One of the major criticisms is that a playoff system would pose an increased risk for player injuries.  A playoff will extend the season by almost a month, thus resulting in potentially more player injuries.  Another criticism of a playoff system is that conferences without teams in the playoffs will lose possible revenue.  Under the current BCS system, if a team makes it to a bowl game, the entire conference and its teams share the profits (ProCon.org).  Without this system, the conferences and the teams will not get the money it is counting on making.  However, this is saying that conferences will only get money if one of their team is in the playoffs.

There are eleven conferences in Division 1-A with six of them being “BCS conferences.”  Under the current system, the winners of each of the six BCS conference are guaranteed to compete in a BCS bowl game.  While teams in the non-BCS conferences are not excluded from playing in the BCS Championship game, it is much more difficult for them to obtain a spot.  The winners of the non-BCS conferences will get into a BCS game only if the team is ranked in the top twelve in the final standings (J. Hanna, par. 16).  The BCS argues that the current structure successfully serves its intended purpose: creating a college football national champion.  As Scott Cowen, President of Tulane University, a non-BCS school, argues, “It [the BCS system] crowns a champion at the expense of the non-BCS schools in Division I-A.  Even if they finish the season undefeated, they have no chance of getting into a major bowl game, let alone the so-called national title game, under the BCS system” (N. Hanna, par. 12).  What many fans want is a playoff, much like that of the NFL.  This way, the best team in the country can truly be tested before being crowned champion (Zhu, par. 6).

According to a survey from Quinnipiac University, 63 percent of college football fans favor a playoff, while only 26 percent want to keep it the way it is (Brown).  Fans have become so passionate about a potential playoff, Congress has begun to get involved in the controversy.  In 2009, the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing to dissect the BCS.  The hearings purpose was to figure out if the current system needs to be tweaked, overhauled or done away with altogether.  Four witnesses testified.  BCS coordinator John Swofford and Alamo Bowl President Derrick Fox defended the current system.  Mountain West Conference Commissioner Craig Thompson and Boise State Athletic Director Gene Bleymaier testified in favor of a playoff (Lazo, par. 2-4).  Nothing recent has come from this hearing.  

In January 2009, Representative Joe Barton of Texas introduced a bill to Congress titled “The College Football Act of 2009.”  This act prohibited promoting, marketing, or advertising a post-season NCAA football game unless it is from a post-season playoff system.  This extreme bill obviously never became law as it was killed by a house subcommittee (H.R. 390 [111th]: College Football Playoff Act of 2009).  President Barack Obama has publicly expressed his desire for a playoff on CBS’s “60 Minutes” and on ESPN.  “I think it is about time that we had playoffs in college football,” Obama said on ESPN.  “I’m fed up with these computer rankings and this and that and the other. Get eight teams – the top eight teams right at the end.  You got a playoff.  Decide on a national champion” (Wetzel, par. 3).  Obama and his administration is currently exploring how to  successfully create a playoff in college football by legislation.

One of the requirements of sport is equal fairness for both sides.  Plain and simple, a playoff system would make the game fair while the current system is not.  If you are not in a BCS conference, your chance at competing in a national championship game is very slim.  Most of the teams who are in a non-BCS conference end up competing in a non-BCS bowl game.  Lots of people have noticed that the BCS system is only for Division I-A teams.  If a team is in Division I-AA, Division II, or Division III, they compete in playoff.  Fans feel that the NCAA, who is in charge of all these leagues, should keep the way a champion is determined consistent between all leagues.  As mentioned earlier, BCS system uses human polls and computer rankings to determine who plays in what bowl games.  There is a possibility that BCS human polls are bias.  One third of the standings are based on how coaches rank the teams.  This assumes that coaches have time to watch all of the games, which they don’t.  A playoff system, used by most other sports, would eliminate the controversy (ProCon.org).

Both sides have good support for their arguments.  But this controversy ultimately comes down to money and profits.  What many people do not realize is if a playoff system is created, it would not eliminate the non-BCS bowls.  If the top eight teams compete in a playoff, teams that missed out can still go to a non-bowl game.  Conferences are afraid of losing money but, with the current rules in place, if a team goes to a non-BCS bowl, the revenue will still be distributed throughout the conference.  Creating a playoff is favored by the fans.  And lets face it, with out the fans, college football would not be as profitable as it is.  It is better for the NCAA to create a playoff before the government forces it upon them by law.  The NCAA knows the BCS system is wrong but, they do not see how profit sharing and bowl revenue can exist in a playoff.  A compromise is not really needed since the both parties can get what they want if a there was a playoff in place; the NCAA and conferences can make their profits and the fans can get a truly fair game.

Works Cited

Adelson, Andrea. "Head Coaches Favor BCS System." Orlandosentinel.com. The Orlando Sentinel,      13 Jan. 2010. Web. 26 Mar. 2011.

Brown, Peter. "Use Playoff System To Pick College Football Champ, American Fans Tell Quinnipiac University National Poll." Quinnipiac.edu. Quinnipiac University, 29 Dec. 2009.            Web. 26 Mar. 2011.

Hanna, Joseph M., and Matthew V. Bruno. "Why Profits Trump Playoffs in College Football."       Sports Litigation Alert 7.8 (2010): 9. SPORTDiscus with Full Text. EBSCO. Web. 26 Mar.                 2011.

Hanna, Nicole. Unsportsmanlike Conduct Committed by the BCS. Www.luc.edu. Loyola University    Chicago School of Law. Web. 26 Mar. 2011.

"H.R. 390 [111th]: College Football Playoff Act of 2009." GovTrack.us. Govtrack.us. Web. 27 Mar.     2011.
Lazo, Larry. "BCS vs. Playoff Debate Comes to Capitol Hill." Cnn.com. CNN, 01 May 2009.        Web. 27 Mar. 2011.

ProCon.org. "College Football ProCon.org." CollegeFootball. ProCon.org. ProCon.org, 14 Feb.           2011. Web. 26 Mar. 2011.

Wetzel, Dan. "College Football Commander-in-chief?" Rivals.com. Yahoo! Sports, 2 Feb. 2011.           Web. 27 Mar. 2011.

Zhu, Yong-yi. "Problems With the BCS Playoff System: Testing the Champions." Tech.mit.edu. The      Tech - MIT's Oldest and Largest Newspaper, 9 Dec. 2003. Web. 26 Mar. 2011.

Essay 2.3 Reflection

I feel that my rebuttal argument went great.  After I found all my research it was fairly easy to write a rebuttal.  I wrote about the article in favor of fracking.  All the research I found was anti-fracking so all my support was there.  I did not make many changes between my first draft and second draft.  I think if flowed pretty well and my ideas were thought out.  I did two major things for my second draft.  I worked on my transitions.  That was the one major flaw to my first draft.  Second, I also found a better scholarly source.  The one that I used before was not credible enough.  I found a source that was perfect for my essay and I used it.  It wasn't a "jackpot source" but it was good enough.

Prewriting Essay 3

As football begins to replace baseball as "America's Game" more and more football fans are turning their fan loyalty to college football teams.  Currently, the NCAA crowns a champion through a bowl system.  This system ranks each team and the top 10 teams in the country compete in "BCS Bowls."  The top 2 ranked teams play in the championship game.  There is a large controversy over this process.  Many fans feel that this system is flawed and unfair and it should be changed to a playoff system.  However, the people in favor of the current system are high up in the college football world.  If the system is changed to a classic playoff, these people will lose money and power.  This controversy is a classic battle of the rich vs the poor.  This issue has made such an impact, President Obama has publicly expressed his opinion on the issue and has even tried to pass legislation.

Essay 2.2: Fracking Causes More Harm Than Good: A Rebuttal to Thomas Kurth's Pro-Fracking Article

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7429009.html

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process to maximize the extraction of underground resources by injecting millions of gallons of fluid and chemicals deep underground to pry out natural gas that is tightly locked away (United States ES-4).  Natural gas provides almost 25% of the United State’s energy supply and is projected to provide about 50% by 2035 (Manuel A199).  The article, “In Support of Fracking: the Facts and the Science”, from The Houston Chronicle and written by Thomas Kurth, says “fracking provides a significantly cleaner from of fossil fuel” (Kurth, par. 2).  The United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, actually endorses fracking, saying “Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and [fracking] is one way of accessing that vital resource” (Hydraulic Fracturing, par. 1).  However, fracking is not the way to solve our energy crisis like the EPA and Kurth’s article make it out to be.  Fracking, in fact, causes more harm than good.  This article hides the true environmental consequences of fracking by giving insignificant reasons to why fracking should be a large source of energy.

As stated earlier, injecting fluids underground at high pressures is involved in fracking. There is one big consequence for doing this.  Some of the injected fluids remain trapped underground.  Many of these fluids are considered hazardous, and are toxic enough to contaminate groundwater.  The EPA wrote in a report, “hydraulic fracturing poses a minimal threat to drinking water and additional or further study is not warranted at this time” (Manuel A199).  Clearly, they do not plan to stop fracking.  There is a large amount of evidence that shows how large of a threat fracking is.  There are a number of cases in the U.S. where hydraulic fracturing is the prime suspect in incidences of polluted drinking water.  In Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, incidents have been recorded where residents have reported changes in water quality following fracking operations near their homes (Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells, par. 2).  Additionally, each hydraulic fracture requires two to four million gallons of water (United States 64).  There are much better uses for that water than using it for fracking.  For example, instead of using four million gallons of water for fracking, why not give that water to victims of natural disasters?

The EPA says, “Water pollution prevention and control measures are critical to improving water quality and reducing the need for costly wastewater and drinking water treatment.  Because water pollution can come from many different sources, a variety of pollution prevention and control measures are needed” (Pollution Control).  By participating in the process of fracking, the government contradicts this statement.  Polluting water sources is an irreversible consequence of fracking.  This has become so apparent, that in February 2011, Buffalo, New York, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania both banned the process of fracking.  Even though hydraulic fracturing has not yet started in Buffalo, the city does not want to face any sort of fracking repercussions (Trotta, par. 1, par. 4). 

Kurth’s article mentions the HBO documentary Gasland (Kurth par. 1).  He does this to show how fracking has recently gained media attention.  Ironically, Gasland is a documentary about how fracking causes harm to the environment.  In the documentary, Pennsylvania native Josh Fox received an offer from an energy company to lease his land for nearly $100,000.  He declines the offer and instead starts investigating the repercussions of fracking.  He travels west to Colorado and Wyoming, where fracking is very common.  He finds flammable, filthy water, sick people and animals, and families who no longer use their water wells but buy all their drinking water from grocery stores (Hale, par. 3, par. 4).  This documentary opened the eyes of all of its viewers and was one of the key motivators for the anti-fracking movement.  Gasland was so influential, it was nominated for Best Documentary at the 2011 Academy Awards.

Kurth also writes, “In 2004, an EPA study reported no confirmed instances of drinking water contamination by fracking fluids in the ground” (Kurth, par. 4).  It is interesting that Kurth used as statistic from 2004.  Maybe the EPA did not report any instances of contamination seven years ago.  But it is clearly shown in Gasland, which was released in 2010, and in other reported instances that water was defiantly contaminated.  There is a scene in the documentary where Fox lights faucet water on fire (Gasland).  Last time I checked, water does not light on fire unless there is some chemical in it.  Chemicals in water would make the water contaminated.  Kurth used a well outdated and proven wrong statistic to try to boost his argument.

At one point in his article, Kurth addresses the Safe Water Drinking Act in the energy bill of 2005.  He talks about how natural gas drilling was exempt from the act (Kurth, par. 4).  This is commonly known as the Halliburton Loophole (Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs).  He goes on to talk about how diesel was the only fluid that was banned but was reported to be used between 2005 and 2009 in nineteen states.  He continues to say that the EPA took no action (Kurth Par. 4).  By talking about this he contradicts his entire article.  Isn’t it a bad thing that diesel was used for fracking even thought it was banned?  It does not make much sense to why he would write a negative paragraph about fracking when the purpose of the article is in support of fracking.  To appeal the Halliburton Loophole, the FRAC Act has been proposed to Congress.  This bill will also require natural gas companies to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing FAQ).  

While reading Kurth’s article, I noticed that even though Kurth is in support of fracking, he never provided concrete evidence and examples to why fracking is good.  He notes that people have problems with it but a large part of his article is about the process of fracking and how it works.  He assumes that his readers know nothing about the process have no opinion on the issue.  He seems well informed by citing statements from the EPA.  But because the EPA is pro-fracking and is his only source, all of his facts seem credible and all try to make fracking out as a positive energy source.  

Fracking is not the only source of energy that is looked down upon.  However, it is one of the only ones where people feel its negative effects almost immediately.  Water contamination is not the only consequence from fracking.  Gas extraction has documented and measurable destructive effects on air quality as well (Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs).  Kurth is trying to convince his readers that fracking is a good and clean way to obtain natural gas.  He could not be more wrong.  Even though fracking might be efficient, the negative effect far out weigh the positive ones.  

Works Cited 

Gasland. Dir. Josh Fox. Perf. Josh Fox. HBO Documentary Films, 2010. TV. 

Hale, Mike. "The Costs of Natural Gas, Including Flaming Water." www.nytimes.com. 20 June 2010. The New York Times. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.

"Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs." Gasland: A Film by Josh Fox. 2010. n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2011. 

"Hydraulic Fracturing." www.epa.gov. 9 Feb. 2011. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. 

"Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells." Earthworksaction.org.  n.d. EarthWorks. Web. 26 Feb. 2011. 

Kurth, Thomas. "In Support of Fracking: the Facts and the Science." www.chron.com. 15 Feb. 2011. The Houston Chronicle. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.

Manuel, John. "EPA Tackles Fracking." Environmental Health Perspectives 118.5 (2010): A199. Print.

"Pollution Control." www.water.epa.gov. n.d. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 26 Feb. 2011. 

Trotta, Daniel, and Edith Honan. "Buffalo, NY Bans Hydraulic Fracturing." Reuters.com. Ed. David Gregorio. 08 Feb. 2011. Reuters. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.

United States. U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Fossil Energy.  Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer. Oklahoma City: Groundwater Protection Council, 2009. Print.

Reflection 2.1

I chose to write a rebuttal argument against the essay on fracking.  The article is one of few that I've seen that is pro-fracking.  Therefor, research was very easy.  The number of anti-fracking articles and essays far out number the pro-fracking ones.  Anti-fracking activists are very passionate and vocal about the issue.  One challenge was finding credible sources.  Most activists are everyday people like you and me, who are not credible enough to get information from.  Finding a research worth source was challenging, but not impossible.

Essay 2.1: Fracking Causes More Harm Than Good: A Rebuttal to Thomas Kurth's Pro-Fracking Article

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/7429009.html

     Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process to maximize the extraction of underground resources by injecting millions of gallons or more of fluid and chemicals deep underground to pry out gas that is tightly locked away (Brady, par. 2, Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information).  The article, In Support of Fracking: the Facts and the Science, from The Houston Chronicle and written by Thomas Kurth, says that “fracking provides a significantly cleaner from of fossil fuel” (Kurth, par. 2).  The United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, actually endorses fracking, saying “Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and [fracking] is one way of accessing that vital resource (Hydraulic Fracturing, par. 1).”  However, fracking is not the way to solve our energy crisis like the EPA and Kurth’s article make it out to be.  Fracking, in fact, causes more harm than good.  This article hides the true environmental consequences of fracking by giving insignificant reasons to why fracking should be a large source of energy.
     By definition, fracking is the process of injecting fluids underground at high pressures, forming fractures in the rock, and oil or gas will flow more freely out of the formation.  There is one big consequence for doing this.  Some of the injected fluids remain trapped underground.  Many of these fluids are considered hazardous materials and carcinogens, and are toxic enough to contaminate groundwater resources.  There are a number of cases in the U.S. where hydraulic fracturing is the prime suspect in incidences of impaired or polluted drinking water.  In Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, incidents have been recorded where residents have reported changes in water quality following fracturing operations of gas wells near their homes (EarthWorks, par. 2).

The EPA says, “Water pollution prevention and control measures are critical to improving water quality and reducing the need for costly wastewater and drinking water treatment.  Because water pollution can come from many different sources, a variety of pollution prevention and control measures are needed” (Pollution Control).  By participating in the process of fracking, the government contradicts this statement.  Polluting water sources is an irreversible consequence of fracking.  This has become so apparent, that in February 2011, Buffalo, New York, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania both banned the process of fracking.  Even though hydraulic fracturing has not started yet in Buffalo, the city does not want to face any sort of fracking repercussions (Gregorio, par. 1, par. 4). 

Kurth’s article mentions the HBO documentary Gasland.  He does this to show how fracking has recently gotten media attention.  Ironically, Gasland is a documentary about how fracking causes harm to the environment.  In the documentary, Pennsylvania native Josh Fox received an offer from a company to lease his 19.5 acres of land for nearly $100,000.  He declines the offer and instead starts investigating the repercussions of fracking.  He travels west to Colorado and Wyoming, where fracking is very common.  He finds flammable, filthy water, sick people and animals, and families who no longer use their wells but ship in all their household water.  In some cases, the fracking companies provide water after settling a lawsuit (Hale, par. 3, par. 4).  This documentary opened the eyes of all of its viewers and was one of the key motivators for the anti-fracking movement.  Gasland was so influential, it was nominated for Best Documentary at the 2011 Academy Awards.

Kurth writes, “In 2004, an EPA study reported no confirmed instances of drinking water contamination by fracking fluids in the ground” (Kurth, par. 4).  It is interesting that Kurth used as statistic from 2004.  Maybe the EPA did not report any instances of contamination seven years ago.  But it is clearly shown in Gasland, which was released in 2010, that water was defiantly contaminated.  There is a scene in the documentary where Fox lights faucet water on fire.  Last time I checked, water does not light on fire unless there is some chemical in it.  Chemicals in water would make the water contaminated.  Kurth used a well outdated and proven wrong statistic to try to boost his argument (Gasland).

At one point in his article, Kurth addresses the Safe Water Drinking Act in the energy bill of 2005.  He talks about how the act exempted natural gas drilling from the act.  This is commonly known as the Halliburton Loophole.  He goes on to talk about how diesel was the only fluid that was banned but was reported to be used between 2005 and 2009 in nineteen states.  He continues to say that the EPA took no action.  By talking about this he contradicts his entire article.  Isn’t it a bad thing that diesel was used for fracking even thought it was banned?  It does not make much sense to why he would write a negative paragraph about fracking when the purpose of the article is in support of fracking.  To appeal the Halliburton Loophole, the FRAC Act has been proposed to Congress.  This bill will also require natural gas companies to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking (Hydraulic Fracturing FAQ).  

While reading Kurth’s article, I noticed that even though he was in support of fracking, he never provided concrete evidence and examples to why fracking is good.  He notes that people have problems with it but a large part of his article is about the process of fracking.  He assumes that his readers know nothing about the process have no opinion on the issue.  He seems well informed by citing statements from the EPA.  But because the EPA is pro-fracking, all of these statements show obvious positives.  

Fracking is not the only source of energy that is looked down upon.  However, it is one of the only ones where people feel its negative effects almost immediately.  Water contamination is not the only consequence from fracking.  Gas extraction has documented and measurable destructive effects on air quality as well.  Kurth is trying to convince his readers that fracking is a good and clean way to obtain natural gas.  He could not be more wrong.  Even though fracking might be efficient, the negative effect far out weigh the positive ones.  

Works Cited 

Brady, Jeff. "Face-Off Over 'Fracking': Water Battle Brews On Hill." www.npr.org. 27 May 2009. National Public Radio. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.

"Buffalo, NY Bans Hydraulic Fracturing." Reuters.com. Ed. David Gregorio. 08 Feb. 2011. Reuters. Web. 25 Feb. 2011.

Gasland. Dir. Josh Fox. Perf. Josh Fox. HBO Documentary Films, 2010. TV. 

Hale, Mike. "The Costs of Natural Gas, Including Flaming Water." www.nytimes.com. 20 June 2010. The New York Times. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.

"Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information." water.epa.gov. 13 Sept. 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.

"Hydraulic Fracturing FAQs." Gasland: A Film by Josh Fox. 2010. n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2011. 

"Hydraulic Fracturing." www.epa.gov. 9 Feb. 2011. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. 

"Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells." Earthworksaction.org.  n.d. EarthWorks. Web. 26 Feb. 2011. 

Kurth, Thomas. "In Support of Fracking: the Facts and the Science." www.chron.com. 15 Feb. 2011. The Houston Chronicle. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.

"Pollution Control." www.water.epa.gov. n.d. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 26 Feb. 2011.