Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyEagle  Well if you don't believe a high percentage are actually there for only the basketball, then I have nothing else to say. |
Again, not that this has anything to do with my point, but how is this a bad thing? Actually I was basing it on a University where I know from experience that the students are held to high academic standards to maintain their scholarship. But this was never discussed. They maintained the high academic standards of the University, they brought in millions of dollars to a University in return for a scholarship. Again that is the point, ESPN is leading people to believe that because the person did not graduate then the University must have less than credible academic standards. This is simply an idiotic assumption on their part. Actually I would tend to believe that the higher the academic standards, the harder it would be the average student to obtain a degree in 4 years, if you want to get technical. Again, having gone to the University, I know of few student in general, many on academic scholarship, that obtained a degree in 8 semesters. Why should we hold the athletes to higher standard.
Although this report uses 6 years as a criteria, which is idiotic in itself for making an accurate conclusion. Where there is little incentive over a multi-million dollar contract to continue the additional 2 years. So again, how can you use this as a criteria of the academic nature of the University. Why is such little thought given to the success rate of the student athletes. The idea to an education is to become a success in your field. I have little doubt that if many of the players portraited in this did not make it in the NBA, or in a similar related field, they would have no problem completing their degree and being successful elsewhere. But are you of the impression they should give up proceeds of their talent to prove their point?
Based on ESPN's article, we should be of the opinion that because these players did not graduate, the program obviously must have low academic standards. The main point to my argument, while they seemed to have succeeded with their goal in many cases, it was certainly not based on respectable reporting on their part. Again, fed a tractor to a mouse and it died. Farming must be really hazardous. I thought the idea behind the credence of an academic institution was based on the success rate and achievements of their students. Why is the success rate not even mentioned, and why should we hold basketball players to a different standard if in your opinion is their objective to being at the university. Again, there was nothing presented as far as the academic curriculum of the the University, but instead just graduation rate. So that ship has sailed.