Rhetorical Analysis Of Football At Stanford? Maybe Not By Glen Kramon

Glen Kramon of the Los Angeles Times wrote an article titled “Football at Stanford? maybe not”(Kramon). The main point he is trying to convey through this article is that Stanford's football program is not efficient and there is really no need for it. The tone he uses to express these thoughts is informative, because he uses strong words and information throughout the article to communicate the main point of the stanford football program collapsing. Kramon’s reason for writing this article is because Stanford was a very dominant team 5 years ago,but it is now in freefall. His targeted audience that he wrote this article for is college football fans, more specifically Stanford fans. To effectively convey his main point in the article, Kramon utilizes rhetorical devices such as parallelism, anecdote, and

He states, “After 51 years of pulling for Stanford, I rooted for its archrival USC at their game Saturday night. How odd not to celebrate when Stanford scored” (Kramon). This fits in perfectly with the article because the main subject of the article is the downfall of Stanford football. He was watching the game when he cheered for USC, which is Stanford's rival school, after cheering for Stanford all those years. The reason he did this is because he knows that Stanford's football program is collapsing. His statement fits in perfectly as an anecdote because an anecdote is a personal experience that happened. Kramons' experience was the game that Stanford and USC played against each other but then rooted for USC. This also ties back to the audience because Kramon is trying to persuade the Stanford fans reading the article that their team is falling apart. It also goes back to the reason for the article, as it talks about USC vs Stanford and a nearly lifelong Stanford fan supports the rival team USC. It says to the readers that this guy has an idea and we should listen to