[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=12255.msg120529#msg120529 date=1434078250]
They can't really be expected to perform academically given the time it takes to win in team sports.

I don't think that's what he means.  What Kelly means is that he doesn't think his players are worthy of admission outside of their athletic prowess and that as a result they struggle in the classroom.


This was along the lines of Robin Mamlet's mentality when she was Stanford Director of Admissions, and her devaluation of athletic success as part of the overall application was a MAJOR contributor to the downward trajectory of many sports in the early 2000s - not just football.
[/quote]
Well he was trying to imply multiple whammies really.  The kids are probably the least qualified academically.  And that would be hard enough, but on top of that they are expected to spend a significant portion of their time and energy playing sports.  And then ND Football also requires significant travel and media time too.  It is the combination that makes it almost impossible for them to stay eligible.  As he noted he has quite a few that are not surviving academically.  That real threat of ineligibility creates an incentive for them to cut corners academically on their own (see Golson).

I found interesting that the solution, implied admittedly, was for the University to institutionalize more corner cutting rather than for the coaches and to recognize that they need to find better STUDENT-athletes more likely to survive without changing the academic quality.

Almost seemed like he was saying, "Give me a bunch of easy classes without tests or papers for these kids, so that they can stay eligible without needing to cheat on tests or papers."

[Farm93]

[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=12255.msg120529#msg120529 date=1434078250]
They can't really be expected to perform academically given the time it takes to win in team sports.

I don't think that's what he means.  What Kelly means is that he doesn't think his players are worthy of admission outside of their athletic prowess and that as a result they struggle in the classroom.


This was along the lines of Robin Mamlet's mentality when she was Stanford Director of Admissions, and her devaluation of athletic success as part of the overall application was a MAJOR contributor to the downward trajectory of many sports in the early 2000s - not just football.
[/quote]
Well he was trying to imply multiple whammies really.  The kids are probably the least qualified academically.  And that would be hard enough, but on top of that they are expected to spend a significant portion of their time and energy playing sports.  And then ND Football also requires significant travel and media time too.  It is the combination that makes it almost impossible for them to stay eligible.  As he noted he has quite a few that are not surviving academically.  That real threat of ineligibility creates an incentive for them to cut corners academically on their own (see Golson).

I found interesting that the solution, implied admittedly, was for the University to institutionalize more corner cutting rather than for the coaches and to recognize that they need to find better STUDENT-athletes more likely to survive without changing the academic quality.

Almost seemed like he was saying, "Give me a bunch of easy classes without tests or papers for these kids, so that they can stay eligible without needing to cheat on tests or papers."