| vv, What is the justification that having bench warmers and walkons grades count inaccurately inflate the overall grades of a team? Do these student athletes not get the same standards to meet as the starters? You implied we may not expect a player who is such a star on the field to also score well in the classroom. That makes no sense. The walk on and benchwarmer/second stringer/nonstar is spending the same amount of time on the field, in the weight room and film study trying to make the team. What separates him is his individual talent. But he has his talents better rewarded in the class room, just like the star athlete who still works hard on his studies with homework, and yes, even tutors to try to keep up his grades. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
You seem to accept that Michigan (under the 'where there is smoke there is fire' concept) has not taken care of their student athletes in the classroom, but with no smoke and only high grad rates to show the exact opposite at ND, you then do not believe it is probable.
I thought of an analogy- It is like seeing the Michigan players jumping in the pool and trying to swim to the opposite side. But a high number of these players don't make it across. So a study is conducted, showing a number drown, are eaten by sharks or just disappear (flunk out, draft early, transfer, quit).
Now the ND players jump in the pool and a very high percentage make it across- over 90% (compared to the Michigan players 69% or whatever the number is). Yet you conclude a similar study should be conducted because the numbers can't be right. They must be using kick-boards, arm floaties or using the shallow end of the pool to wade across, so it can't be fair.
But I thought the whole exercise was to cross the pool in the water to emerge on the other side (wihere the diplomas are give to start the next leg of your lifes journey).
Just my mind wandering...... |