But what about the schools that admit "student athletes" and then let them lose the student part. Chris McCray from the University of Maryland was admitted as a student-athlete. He then did not attend class and halfway through last season had to be cut from the team because he was not doing well enough, or anything at all in fact, academically. Once students are admitted to a Division I school, all of which are good academic institutions, who is supposed to be on them to make sure they do in fact remain not just athletes, but student-athletes at that? You pride yourself on doing well while still being on a varsity team though at a DIII school. Regardless of division, who pushed you to maintain your grades? Is it the responsibility of the university to be on the students, or should it be entirely on the student is what it comes down to. McCray clearly wasn't concerned with his learning, and it wasn't until the coaches had to pull him that it became a known fact. The motivation has to come from somewhere.

I agree with you that this is probably employed at many more institutions around the country than just Georgia. With that being said, I looked at the article in reference and Adams did not say they were accepting athletes that did not meet the academic standards of eligibility but that they were below the universities average standards. Like I have posted before, this presents a problem because they are deemed eligible to compete in college athletics because they meet the standard that has been set that says they are ready for college coursework. Then who is to say these kids don't deserve the chance to receive higher education? It also states in the article that Georgia is meeting their APR rate so what is the violation? Do I agree that higher education is losing its value? Yes, but that stems more to the preparation before college. The fact that no kid should be left behind philosophy allows more kids to be advanced before they are ready. The other problem is that no high school is created equal. So what you have is that outstanding athlete at a marginal school that is meeting the basic requirements to be eligible to play in college. So from being a college coach I know that we wanted not just to win games but truly wanted to give those kids an opportunity. The thing that was most interesting about the cited article was the comments that followed: it was about 8 to 1 against the article.

What I read here is unreal to me because I would not think that many universities would support the recruitment of players that are ineligible. At a college level, I know you want to compete because if you team makes a bowl game or goes to a tournament the institution will make millions of dollars, but that should not be the number one objective for a university.

The football program revenue pays for much of the entire athletic budget, which in turn provides opportunities to many others to attend school. That is something you give high praise to Notre Dame for. Notre Dame being who they are, they raise considerably more revenue than schools like Georgia, so it stands to reason they must do something with the extra revenue, "donating" it to the academic side is good PR.

I agree with you completely. Schools should not put the emphasis on winning first, college athletes are not professional athletes. Although I am not surprised by this, I am shocked that Adams did admit to this publicly.