08-03-2020, 08:25 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-03-2020, 09:15 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Most schools have totally pissed away the high ground they had on emphasizing academic value by lowering entrance standards so they can allow otherwise not capable of getting admitted athletes on campus to generate revenue for the school.
Stanford is probably the only school in the P5 that can legitimately say it truly values academics and doesn't see football players as mercenaries to generate revenue for the school. Now it may be that some or even most Stanford Football players couldn't get into school strictly on academic merits, compared to other applicants, but Stanford has at least set a high bar for minimal academic chops that allows it to credibly say those admitted can do the same work as others who have better grades and test scores. Moreover, there is also a "non-academic talent" component to admission.
If the NCAA required a 3.0 GPA for all scholarship athletes to be admitted to school as undergrads, then you'd have a whole lot of guys not able to qualify, which would be an impetus for a development league like the G league. But the universities have not stuck to what they claim to be, so they have - outside of Stanford - no credibility on the "but you get a scholarship" front. Even Duke famously lowered its admission standards in football a couple years ago after doing it for basketball many years ago, to get better players and ostensibly generate more revenue from football.
The whole enterprise is an exercise in contradictions and hypocrisy. until more schools start acting like Stanford, than the other way around, universities have no leg to stand on when it comes to fighting the players for a larger slice of the revenue pie. They made the bed and now they must lie in it.
Stanford is probably the only school in the P5 that can legitimately say it truly values academics and doesn't see football players as mercenaries to generate revenue for the school. Now it may be that some or even most Stanford Football players couldn't get into school strictly on academic merits, compared to other applicants, but Stanford has at least set a high bar for minimal academic chops that allows it to credibly say those admitted can do the same work as others who have better grades and test scores. Moreover, there is also a "non-academic talent" component to admission.
If the NCAA required a 3.0 GPA for all scholarship athletes to be admitted to school as undergrads, then you'd have a whole lot of guys not able to qualify, which would be an impetus for a development league like the G league. But the universities have not stuck to what they claim to be, so they have - outside of Stanford - no credibility on the "but you get a scholarship" front. Even Duke famously lowered its admission standards in football a couple years ago after doing it for basketball many years ago, to get better players and ostensibly generate more revenue from football.
The whole enterprise is an exercise in contradictions and hypocrisy. until more schools start acting like Stanford, than the other way around, universities have no leg to stand on when it comes to fighting the players for a larger slice of the revenue pie. They made the bed and now they must lie in it.