Quote Originally Posted by guttle11 View Post
Easy answer: Everything happens because it's a business. Alums want their degrees to mean something so "regular" students pay full price (a business transaction) while great students are covered by scholarships. The exposure that comes from big time D-1 athletics is invaluable, so great athletes are cut more slack. Basketball players get treated better than golfers and field hockey players.

Ivy League schools will admit a poorer student on scholarship over an equally qualified student with money because the poorer student is more likely to give back after he or she graduates and starts making Ivy League grad money. At the same time a poorer student that would be on full scholarship gets bumped because a wealthy alum will donate money if his son is admitted. Is either one right or wrong? Not really. It's a business, and the school has to sustain itself.
But that still doesn't change the fact if you're going to have rules, enforce them or do away with them. I get your argument. I'm not even disagreeing with the practice. But in the application and enforcement of admissions of athletes, it's pointless to have these initial eligibility standards if every school is going to abuse them by using the exception that was meant for rare cases. Forget the business stuff for a minute. I am not disagreeing on the "why" aspect. Clearly we know the "why." Either the NCAA needs to bite down on this or completely do away with admissions standards.