" Bending the admissions standards to treat recruited athletes in a way more favorably than treating their sport as a high level extracurricular."
I am not sure that admitting athletes with slightly (notice my use of the term slightly) lower grades constitutes “bending” (while markedly lowers grades and scores probably does). Students who have high achievements in nontraditional academic areas (sports, music, art) may spend more time on these activities in order to excel in them. I don’t see any reason for that not to figure into the equation. That does not mean doing away with standards to essentially buy a better team, which some schools have done.
I realize that this thread is about sports but I always wonder why the prospect of lower grades and scores associated with athletes gets so much more attention than the issue of legacy.
At least the athletes have worked for their slots. Privileged/entitled wealthy (usually white) people get into college all the time by essentially buying themselves into it or, even more amazingly, presenting schools with the potential for future donations. It’s called legacy. This happens very often. It isn’t just a token idea. But few people are up in arms about it. Who is though and when? When anyone challenges the idea. You’ll probably see that here in responses to this post. Say hello, Brown. Only kidding. Because that isn’t the only school by a long shot. Few don’t give preference for the entitled offspring of former graduates. And unlike those good at sports, legacies are riding on their parents’ coattails. You’d think most would have too much pride to do so but they often don’t. And often the reason they don’t is because they perceive it as perfectly acceptable.