What a completely out of touch article that was probably written by someone who knows very little about UR, its athletics, and quite honestly just doesn't get it. This isn't an either or situation. No one wants to bring in kids to set them to fail. There are plenty of student athletes who succeed in college with the right mentorship and class schedule. We should be able to trust our coaches who see potential in a student-athlete even if his/her scores are a little less than our standards for them because tests are not the only metric to measure success. Think about peer institutions like UVA, Villanova, Wake Forest, and even Duke to some extent. They admit many students who may fall below the standards they set as an elite academic institution, but does it tarnish their reputation as an elite school in any way? Of course not.
In fact, athletics can help enhance a school's reputation by increasing its brand name and getting more student applications, which results in lowered acceptance rates. Athletics should not be seen in contrast to academics because as a school we should strive to have the best scientists, artists, writers, and even athletes who will go out into the real world and do big things in their respective fields.
I definitely think the school understands this notion, given the money invested in the basketball program over the years (3rd in the A10 I believe), mentioning continued success in athletics in their strategic plan, and the "stepping down" of our AD. However, this false mindset of athletics compromising academics will result in more "just good enough" out of our sports and not "annual national contenders" which is what we want and will truly benefit the University in the long run.
