The academic abilities of athletes at the Ivies are very, very different from the academic abilities of typical athletes at the “real” D1 schools, and the impact of athletics on the universities overall is quite different. This makes me look askance at generic praise for the contributions of athletes to their universities.
I don’t doubt the drive and dedication of athletes who compete at a very high level. To the extent that these qualities are transferrable to non-athletic activities, they can be valuable qualities for future success. On the other hand, I have not known many students who perform academically at a really high level, without having drive and dedication.
Discussions about athletes at the Ivies often focus on their ability to do “the work.” One of the great things about most universities is that there is no such thing as “the work.” There are many, many routes to a degree, and many different levels of rigor. As noted above, Caltech is an exception, since the minimum academic standard there is pretty high. The existence of various levels of rigor is true at many (though definitely not all) high schools. The minimum required to score an A is usually quite different from the time and effort required to gain a deep understanding of the subject.
The hours spent on athletics to perform at the Olympic level come at a cost. One cannot really think about solving a differential equation while performing a quadruple axel.