coolhandgopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 5,333
- Reaction score
- 2,081
- Points
- 113
In the age old tradition, we have passive-aggressive admirers of the athletes who pledge allegiance to the sports team, follow them through the season and the off-season, take the time to spend significant time on a message board and then take snarky shots at said athletes' intellect. When evidence of academic success is provided, it's scoffed at, belittled, dismissed. To validate themselves, they work into the conversation their "superior" intellect, program of studies, major, etc. (how long before the GopherHole tradition of a poster who scored in the high 20s/30s on their ACT works that into the conversation?)
Plain and simple, these student-athletes are brought onto campus and given scholarships not for their academic skills but their athletic skills. You can validly dispute the role of D-1 college athletics influence on the college campus and the appropriateness of admitting these student-athletes onto campus, but the reality of the situation is for the University of Minnesota to be competitive in D-1, Big 10 athletics they have to admit students who are not candidates for CSOM, IT, or CBS, just as Duke wins their national championship with players who would not be admitted to the general student body of their university.
To snicker and belittle the accomplishments of those achieving success in the "inferior" programs strikes me as incredibly insecure and small-what exactly would impress you? Only football players admitted to the aforementioned programs above making the honor roll? If that's the aim, welcome to D-III athletics or the spirited competition of Debate and College Quiz Bowl with the U of Chicago. If you demand to see a team competing for January 1 bowls and Sweet Sixteen appearances, you make your bed with the majority of your student-athletes involved in less rigorous academic programs. And when those student-athletes do well in those majors and move towards earning a college degree, I say it's better than the alternative-which is student-athletes skipping class or flunking out of these less rigorous programs.
Plain and simple, these student-athletes are brought onto campus and given scholarships not for their academic skills but their athletic skills. You can validly dispute the role of D-1 college athletics influence on the college campus and the appropriateness of admitting these student-athletes onto campus, but the reality of the situation is for the University of Minnesota to be competitive in D-1, Big 10 athletics they have to admit students who are not candidates for CSOM, IT, or CBS, just as Duke wins their national championship with players who would not be admitted to the general student body of their university.
To snicker and belittle the accomplishments of those achieving success in the "inferior" programs strikes me as incredibly insecure and small-what exactly would impress you? Only football players admitted to the aforementioned programs above making the honor roll? If that's the aim, welcome to D-III athletics or the spirited competition of Debate and College Quiz Bowl with the U of Chicago. If you demand to see a team competing for January 1 bowls and Sweet Sixteen appearances, you make your bed with the majority of your student-athletes involved in less rigorous academic programs. And when those student-athletes do well in those majors and move towards earning a college degree, I say it's better than the alternative-which is student-athletes skipping class or flunking out of these less rigorous programs.