“It frustrates me that the U of M turns away highly qualified students and allows these football players in. I think the U is confused about their mission. Shame.”
A commenter responds to the Star Tribune’s article today about the ACT scores of its freshman football players. Details:
The eligibility issues surrounding prized recruit MarQueis Gray ["Gray's college entrance scores were red-flagged because of a dramatic increase from previous test scores, according to persons familiar with the situation."] typify the academic question marks associated with the first full recruiting class of Gophers football coach Tim Brewster, according to data obtained by the Star Tribune.
Gray was the centerpiece of a group of 31 February signees that was ranked among the nation’s top 20 by several recruiting services. But high-ranking university officials admit it was also a class filled with academic concerns.
The Star Tribune requested college entrance scores for incoming freshman football players from every Big Ten school last summer under the nation’s Freedom of Information Act.
Minnesota’s freshman class had the lowest scores among the eight Big Ten programs that complied with the request, and the scores were significantly lower than for the recruiting classes in the final years of Glen Mason, who coached the Gophers from 1997 to 2006.
The test score data does not include Minnesota’s seven junior college signees — an unusually high number — that school officials said represent a greater academic risk than the incoming freshmen. [Got that? The junior college guys are even less ready to go to college.] Six of the seven JC signees were non-qualifiers academically after graduating from high school — lower grades and test scores disqualified them from receiving an athletic scholarship directly after graduating from high school…
Scores for other students at Minnesota keep rising, so the university has brought in a bunch of guys extremely unlikely to be able to learn much of anything the university has to teach.
But who cares. Minnesota has spent millions and millions on a new stadium, and its losing streak is amazing, so unless it wants the stadium to sit empty, it simply has to accept people who will now undergo a cruel four-year process of discovering that a university only wants them for their bodies:
… Minnesota finds itself in a difficult cycle. As long as the football team continues to struggle — the school has not been to a New Year’s Day bowl game since 1962, the longest such drought in the Big Ten — it will be difficult to attract elite student-athletes. And if the school mandates dramatic upgrades in the academic profiles of football recruits, it’s more likely the cycle of losing will remain unbroken.
And make no mistake, college athletics is big business. University officials admit there is pressure to win at a time when the school is building a new on-campus stadium set to open in 2009.
Winning, in fact, is the cure-all for all things, including recruiting a better caliber of student-athletes.
“The more successful we get athletically, I think the larger pool we’ll get of better athletes,” Maturi said. “I believe that’s probably a natural progression.”
The problem facing the Gophers: How do you get to that point?
Yes, that’s the problem. Meanwhile, thank God there’s a slave market in university football players.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:55AM
I think that the U is very clear about its mission: a state-supported, tax-exempt business run by management professionals, with an underfunded and mismanaged training/educational front to give it legitimacy. Think Vatican.
August 27th, 2008 at 12:50PM
As well, it also looks like Indiana, Miami, Georgia Southern, Tennessee, and (I’m sure) a few others have all suspended players for their season openers–just in the past week.
Perhaps the suspended athletes can use the time to catch up on their studies?
Some things never change, I guess.
August 27th, 2008 at 10:10PM
The article notes that Minnesota’s football team has been losing with academically weak players. The fix is to recruit academically even weaker players.
August 28th, 2008 at 5:01PM
[...] Its editorial board comments on the institution-destroying cynicism at the University of Minnesota: [...]
August 29th, 2008 at 11:31PM
Having a good football program brings the university money and allows them to spend more on every other program/facilities. The revenue from mens sports make it possible for women to have the opportunity to attempt to play sports as well, even though they all lose money for the school. I don’t mind the U giving this opportunity to young people (who if not for their athletics would not likely have an opportunity to attend a big school) as long as they understand that they are going to have to work hard on and off the field.
I can also understand the other perspective of viewing the spots in the school being used up by intellectually inferior people, but I think having a respectable athletic program that draws fans/revenue allows the cost of tuition to remain at reasonable (although still expensive) levels.
Everyone needs to stop this criticism and give these kids a chance. If they fail to improve their classwork, suspend them or kick them off the team. If they end up being strong academically and perform well in athletics, then they can be used as examples and be looked upon as highly visible role models for younger kids.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:58AM
James, we know that academically weak so-called student-athletes get all sorts of special brain-coaching and placement in jock-friendly courses, with professors bought off as special guests on the bench or in the locker room.
That the intercollegiate sports often receive funding from student fees, that give students the opportunity to attend games at no extra charge (an option relatively few students exercise) suggests the sports programs neither lead to lower tuition and fees nor to entertainment for the students.
Given that your post opened with an internally inconsistent first paragraph, I suspect, however, that you’ll have trouble getting your brain around these points.