[OutsiderFan]

" McKinley probably wouldn't be given any opportunity at a CC/JC.  He needs a scholarship and most importantly, structure."

OK.  But only if we start a state clearing house for ALL the kids with needs.  Lotsa kids need structure.  Lotsa kids need a scholarship.  AND...lotsa kids go to community colleges.  I think what you are really saying = " a full ride to UC Berkeley is a sweet deal any kid would like...but by playing football, McKinley gets to go to the head of the line."

" Low APR U needs to have a football team that excites fans to pay for and support it and all its intendant costs.  Absent great athletes like McKinley, Low APR U won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price. "

And in addition to intendant costs, there are the attendant costs, too.  (Yes that was cheap shot)  But the "attendant" costs are associated with the athletic program,  not the mission of the university.  The California taxpayers should not pay the price of either exciting or dull UC athletics.  In fact,  the taxpayers have been subsidizing the Kal athletic dept. for decades even in the good, exciting years and only unrelenting overall budget pressure made that support drop below $10 million/year.  It's now pegged at around $5 million tax subsidy for the current year.  The idea that Kal must take substandard students to save the taxpayers money is bogus.  They've been taking substandard student athletes for no demonstrable budgetary benefit.  The only thing that's saving the taxpayers money in regards to Kal is an overall state budget crisis and fed up taxpayers.

I'm not going to say your points are wrong, but if the society really wanted, I mean REALLY wanted things to be as you suggest, they would be that way, wouldn't they?

[OutsiderFan]

" McKinley probably wouldn't be given any opportunity at a CC/JC.  He needs a scholarship and most importantly, structure."

OK.  But only if we start a state clearing house for ALL the kids with needs.  Lotsa kids need structure.  Lotsa kids need a scholarship.  AND...lotsa kids go to community colleges.  I think what you are really saying = " a full ride to UC Berkeley is a sweet deal any kid would like...but by playing football, McKinley gets to go to the head of the line."

" Low APR U needs to have a football team that excites fans to pay for and support it and all its intendant costs.  Absent great athletes like McKinley, Low APR U won't be able to generate the revenue it needs, and California tax payers will pay the price. "

And in addition to intendant costs, there are the attendant costs, too.  (Yes that was cheap shot)  But the "attendant" costs are associated with the athletic program,  not the mission of the university.  The California taxpayers should not pay the price of either exciting or dull UC athletics.  In fact,  the taxpayers have been subsidizing the Kal athletic dept. for decades even in the good, exciting years and only unrelenting overall budget pressure made that support drop below $10 million/year.  It's now pegged at around $5 million tax subsidy for the current year.  The idea that Kal must take substandard students to save the taxpayers money is bogus.  They've been taking substandard student athletes for no demonstrable budgetary benefit.  The only thing that's saving the taxpayers money in regards to Kal is an overall state budget crisis and fed up taxpayers.

I'm not going to say your points are wrong, but if the society really wanted, I mean REALLY wanted things to be as you suggest, they would be that way, wouldn't they?