I've thought about what I said in the previous thread and realized my statements have been slightly unclear. I'll try to restate this in a way to spur the discussion and correct my own inconsistencies.
1. The NCAA is THE minor league for the NFL.
2. There are minimum academic standards to get into the NCAA football establishment.
3. Michigan minimums = NCAA minimums.
1. Admitted athletes go to class and are academically engaged at an appropriate level.
2. Athletics, whether or not it is explicitly outlined in the mission statement, is a HUGE focus for top universities. The school/AD spent $225M to renovate a hole in the ground so people have a nice place to watch football 6-8 days a year.
3. People acknowledge that in order to be an athletic powerhouse AND a top academic school, typical admission standards need to be compromised.
My points of contention with the current system and questions I ask posters to address:
1. While Michigan is not a vocational school, there is no vocational school for football players. One doesn't need a university degree to be a plumber, just to be excellent at plumbing (and pass trade school). Why SHOULD football be different?
2. There are arbitrary standards from the NCAA on academic qualification (GPA, SAT/ACT). Schools are free to set their own at higher levels. However, since the NCAA is the de facto gateway to the NFL, people seeking a career in a physical discipline are forced to meet intellectual standards. Is a non-qualifier better off struggling to jump through (totally unrelated to their intended pursuit) hoops at a community college or at a school with vast resources where they can pursue their desired career in a mutually beneficial way?
3. Referencing assumption 3, admission standards are already compromised. In effect, by even allowing athletes below normal admission standards, a school is clearly stating "you do not belong here, but we are making an exception because you have a certain talent". As a result, why does the degree to which an athlete is below the standard matter? A clear statement of "you don't belong here" is already present. The massive hypocrisy is astounding. Athletes are actively recruited to join a university, at which point they are immediately branded 2nd-class citizens of the institution. A university does NOT have to do this, they do so because it is a very beneficially endeavor for itself. This leaves a final choice: no athletic scholarships and be like Ivies, continued, institutionally sponsored hypocrisy, or acceptance of reality and restructure the student-athlete concept to be more equitable?
Multiple Choice (Choose all the apply)
Question 1: How do I deal with Michigan recruits dropping places in the rankings?
A) Bitch about them dropping for being already committed.
B) Fret about not having any top 100 recruits in May.
C) Get enraged that Rivals sucks at ranking players and isn't fair, then shamefully realize my last post was demeaning Rich Rod for offering 'middle of road' WRs, where middle of the road is determined using rankings like Rivals. Oops.
D) Point out RR track record in excelling with recruits that are low ranked, and hell, it's only fucking May, these kids are juniors in high school and this addiction is borderline pedophilia even to the greeks/spartans (the ancient ones, not the rollerbladin' brahs in the EL).
E) Just D.
Question 2: How do I communicate my feelings about reduced rankings to said recruits?
A) MySpace. Immediately. I'm friends with them all.
B) Facebook wallposts. It makes me feel connected to 16/17 year old freak athletes I have nothing in common with.
C) What are MySpace and Facebook?
D) Whooaa, people actually friend recruits and then talk to them? That's really fucking creepy.
F) Do I get extra credit for interviewing recruits?
Question 3: My next post on recruiting will be about -
A) How Scout is better than Rivals because they rank current Michigan recruits higher.
B) How Star Ratings don't matter because Pat White.
C) How Star Ratings don't matter because Kevin Grady.
D) OMG 2 mny slot recevers!!11!!!!
E) I recruit "Talent", if you know what I mean (/wink /ninjafootball).
Question 4: I spend too much time following recruiting.
Question 5: My wife would divorce me if she knew how much time I dedicated to 17 year old boys.
Question 6: I am aware that Michigan is at a huge disadvantage in recruiting to the Southern schools, and at a smaller disadvantage to OSU.
Question 7: I now realize how much better my life was before I followed recruiting. Finding out about who was recruited to Michigan only when they hit the field was much less involved.
B) I'm in Denial.
Question 8: In 54.7 words or less, justify how questioning Michigan's recruiting strategy (eg, questioning if RR knows he needs defensive recruits) two months into the first full cycle RR is part of (among other evidence proving it's not RRs first rodeo) does not make you some kind of reverse sycophant that is still 100% pure fail.
Kirby Line Breaks
1. D or E. We would also have accepted "I'm so sorry. I didn't realize."
2. C (half credit) or D (full credit)
3. Kate Beckinsale, Rachel McAdams, or Elisha Cuthbert.
4. A. We also would have accepted "I spend too much time criticizing people for following recruiting."
5. A or B.
6. Answering E$$-EEE-CEE, O$UCK$, or U$C results in immediate death by harpoon.
7. A, or if you opened up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program immediately after.