scott quakkelaar wrote:
 
> i believe it about the sat scores.  this is so annoying, that they allow
> students who fall well below the academic standards of such schools to attend
> (on full scholarship, no less) because they can do neat things with a
> basketball (or football or hockey puck).
>
> while i'm on my soap box, i'll venture to say michigan (or ucla) may not be
> much better...
>
> scott quakkelaar
> michigan, 1993
> ucla, 1995
 
 
 
But Scott, those athletes can also go on to make better livings in fields
that serve us well like, say, as technicians who fix our caps keys.  ;>)
 
Seriously, I don't readily agree, not because I take the opposite view,
but because I don't know how much annoyance is justified.  One thing
I'd like to see is a graphical analysis of the distribution of available
COMPETITIVE athletes at each SAT level.  Would it tell us that
schools with high academics may as well drop large team sports if
they only field teams from the pool that can strictly meet their SAT
and academic requirements AND practice several hours each day
AND lose study time to games and travel?
 
I've really enjoyed hearing Stanford players introduced before Rose
Bowl games because I never hear a phys ed major introduced.  I
enjoy seeing the Stanfords and Northwesterns have banner years,
especially when they beat Michigan, but I don't expect to see it very
often.  Should Tennessee and Alabama be the only schools with a
serious shot at the national football title that fans seem to think is so
meaningful?
 
What I find even more discouraging is that I'm still waiting to hear
the first truly insightful statement describing the justified role of
athletics in higher education.  I don't know how, without meaningful
discussion and concensus on what the basic objectives of college
athletics should be, we can assess whether its administration is good
or bad.  I don't think most fans have a serious idea about what the
objectives should be.  Given the intellectual resources in academia
and the influence athletics has on higher education, that's discouraging.
 
I'm just happy to have a hockey coach who was serious about being
a student when he looked for a college, picks his players from those
who are serious about academics and has managed to keep players
who are both good pro prospects and good students until graduation.
I'm afraid that might forever be just a function of individual leadership
rather than the expected standard for college athletics.
 
Bob
Michigan, 67
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.