Allen Pinkett needs to keep his mouth shut.
I've heard some discussion on this topic and I wonder what Pinkett really meant by using the word, "criminals" or "bad guys." On Mike and Mike this morning they seemed to believe that meant lowering admissions standards and, as a fan, would you accept your alma mater (or the school you root for) lowering those standards for having a very successful program and whether you actually need to.
I also wonder if Pinkett meant that he felt there should be more players that have more of a violent streak in them rather than players who actually commit criminal acts. I would hope no one would want players who commit violent criminal acts on their team. You can have players that have violent streaks that aren't criminals. Or I wonder if he meant, when he made mention of OSU, players who break NCAA rules. It depends on the rule, of course, but breaking an NCAA rule doesn't necessarily make one a criminal. In the eyes of some it may make a player a "bad guy" if he violates NCAA rules but they may not actually be "bad guys" in the strictest sense of the phrase since there are a lot of NCAA rules that are just stupid.
Every school lowers their admissions standards. I would bet there aren't a half dozen kids on Notre Dame's roster that would have been admitted without their football prowess.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz253ozgTLpQuote:
Former Notre Dame running back and Fighting Irish radio analyst Allen Pinkett has been pulled off the broadcast of Saturday's season opener against Navy in Dublin, Ireland, following his comments that teams need bad guys to give them an edge.
Here are ND's freshman class stats (http://admissions.nd.edu/admission-a...ns-statistics/). 89% were in the top 10% of their high school classes. 52% were in the top 2% of their high school classes. Do you really think half of ND's football team was in the top 2% of their high school classes? That almost all of them were in the top 10% of their high school classes?
Criminals are used for pretty much anything. They watch your kids, take out your garbage, sell you frozen yogurt, govern communities, entertain you, etc. So what's this guy's point? This guy's point is, "I need ratings. What's something controversial I can do?" Unfortunately for him, he took it too far.
That is, after all, part of the general body yes? I didn't say they were above average within the body, just that most fell within the normal admissions range.
The 25 percentile of ACT scores two years ago for Notre Dame was 31. Do I think most athletes being accepted have a 31? No. But that does mean 25 of every 100 students admitted into Notre Dame have a score less than 31. I would surmise most athletes are in this range.
I never said they were accepting only students that were in the upper echelon, just meant that they were mostly accepting athletes that were at the lowest end of their standards.
Last I saw, the average SAT reading/math composite was around 1100 for Notre Dame football players. The 25 percentile score was around 1200. My point here is that while most athletes are well below the general population average, most are within the lowest range of admissions. Notre Dame is far, far more consistent with admissions criteria than most. That I am absolutely sure of.
Basically, I think we agree. ND allows in a bunch of football players who would otherwise have no chance to get into the school. But they do have standards above NCAA minimums.