Prewriting for OP-ED

Audience for Op-Ed:
TCU, specifically students.
Venue: The TCU Daily Skiff


The general tone is argumentative, but with support. In the four op-ed pieces I read from the Daily Skiff, all were arguing for their point, whether it was for the legalization of marijuana or the elimination of hassleing celebrity moms. However, these arguments were supported with good concrete evidence, which added support and substance for the writer’s argument. It is interesting how short they were. The pieces ranged from 300-400 words, and for that small amount of space, they all seemed to get their individual points across.

My topic covers the proposed plan to take the place of the current “post season” system, the BCS. I would like to take it and really focus on the fairness of this new plan, and truthfully, will it be any better than the current one right now. This new idea involves having a committee decide the eight teams that get to compete in a playoff for a national champuionship, and I wonder how this idea is not going to be just as arbitrary as the current BCS system. I think adding evidence of teams who have just missed the cut in the past should beef up my argument, and with all of these good teams, how does one pick one over the other…how will this new system be different…focusing on the fairness aspect should allow for some great discussion.

There will obviously be some great consideration and deliberation about this proposed idea, but just saying that will not be good enough. Each conference will have to check out this proposed idea from the MWC, and really and truly ask the tough questions. What has halted ideas in the past, and what just might kill this one is money. All the bowl games, from the biggest, like the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl, to the smallest, like the Papa John’s Bowl and the Poinsettia Bowl, ALL bring in tons of money for schools, the venues, and sponsors. It is going to be extremely difficult and near impossible to have this cash flow be unaffected if college football goes from having over 30 bowls, to seven bowls. Significant money will be lost, and that is not okay for sponsors, venues, or schools.

I think all the rhetorical appeals will be covered, but I think I will focus on pathos and logos the most. It happens virtually every year: someone’s team gets left out because of some stupid loophole, and instead of cheering for their team in a championship game, they have to watch them play a meaningless game, where instead of national praise and glory, they get to play for a gym bag filled with sweatshirts and an iPod nano. I think college students on this campus will identify most with this because their school, might finally have a way to avoid getting the shaft year in and year out. Logos will be useful because there will still need to be facts presented. You argument based on opinions can only take you so far. There must be concrete evidence to support my claims, and I intend to do that.

I think I touched on this in the last answer, but personal experience will definitely play a huge role because like I said, everyone has been disappointed because of a stupid rule that has prevented their team from going to the big show. Concrete evidence will ultimately be the best source because it is extremely hard to argue with facts that back your claims. Also, talking about previous plans in college football and why this system has yet to be replaced will add further backing to my points.

I think the only research I need to do concerns specifics with regard to teams who have “gotten the shaft” and not gone to a bowl because of an unfair rule. Texas Tech, Texas, TCU, Utah, and others have all received a harsh end to an excellent season. Looking up more details on the proposed plan might help as well.