When examining this ethical issue, one thing must be recognized: college athletes are not the same as average college students. The arena of college athletics is a business and the athletes are the ones who sell the products and, in this case, the schools. A strong athletic program adds prestige to
the university and a bond to the surrounding community. Similarly, college athletics bring in a lot of money if not through attendance, then through advertisements and merchandise. As the average student does neither of these things, athletes should have different requirements for college admission.

As a nation that still places athletes on pedestals, a strong athletic program adds prestige and a new level of desirability to the university. Obviously, you cannot have a strong athletic program without the talented athletes. An example of this correlation is found at the University of California at Irvine. Chancellor Ralph Cicerone says, " [I] view sports as giving the university a higher national profile while providing students with more activities in a bleak campus social scene. And a better social life means an easier sell to the elite students the university wants to attract." Stanley Ikenberry, president of the American Council on Education, further states , "Sports do make a difference on campus. They're a great community builder. Alumni, students and townspeople bond together and have a sense of identity through athletics they might not have had."(1) In another study,
athletic program success and freshmen SAT scores are positively related, which means that the better the sports teams are performing, the better the quality of the applicant pool will be. "Athletic programme success and freshmen SAT scores are positively related at universities in 'big-time' athletic conferences. A successful athletic programme may act as advertising, increasing the quantity and quality of the applicant pool."(2) Athletes should have more lenient requirements for college admissions because the schools are practically dependent on them to bring prestige to the school and, therefore, more applicants and a higher caliber of prospective students.

Similarly, college athletics is a lucrative business that brings in money to the successful programs. Even if the attendance doesn't bring in a profit, the school makes money from merchandise sales, and the NCAA makes a lot of money from television contracts; that money is then distributed among the participating schools. The following numbers are from a report in USA Today:
Picture from: Eitzen, D. Stanley. "Slaves of Big-time college sports." USA Today. Sept2000.

* The major conferences have an eight year package(ending in 2006) worth
$930,000,000 with ABC to televise Bowl Championship Series at the conclusion
of the regular football season. Each team playing in a B.C.S. game currently
receives about $13,000,000 and, under the terms of the new contract, will
receive around $17,000,000 in the final years of the agreement. Since the
teams share theses monies with their conference members, the 62 schools
involved will divide approximately $116,000,00 in payout annually.
*The NCAA has signed a $6,200,000,000, 11 year deal giving CBS the rights to
televise its men's basketball championship.(That's $545,000,000 a year, up
from the $216,000,000 annually with the current arrangement that expires
after the 2002 tournament.) The NCAA also makes money from advertising and
gate receipts for this tournament. To enhance gate receipts, the finals are
always scheduled in huge arenas with seating capacities of at least 30,000,
rather than normal basketball-sized venues.
*Universities sell sponsorships to various enterprises for advertising. (The
University of Colorado has 50 corporate sponsors. One of them is Coors
Brewing Co. which gives $300,000.)
* An estimated $2,500,000,000 a year in college merchandise is sold under
license, generating about $100,000,000 to the schools in royalties. The
University of Michigan receives the most income from this source-about
$6,000,000 annually.
*The dominant schools have lucrative deals with shoe companies (Nike, Reebok,
Adidas) worth about $1,000,000 a year to each institution in shoes, apparel,
and cash.
*The top programs have athletic budgets in excess of $30,000,000 a year, with
Ohio State University having the largest budget in 1999 at $64,900,000. The
leading college basketball teams generate more than $5,000,000 annually in
revenues, and the leading football teams generate over $20,000,000 to the
athletic department budgets of their schools. (3)

The numbers alone speak volumes. In addition to these numbers, is the money brought in, indirectly, from the students who were drawn to the athletic program's success. The average college student doesn't bring in the amount of money or prestige that a talented athlete has the ability does. Each student is important, but when a college has the opportunity to improve their
athletic program and therefore increase merchandise sales and increase other benefits, which will ultimately better the school, the university should be more lenient in the admissions process. The athletes physically, mentally, and emotionally work hard to bring in this money for the school, and the universities owe them the opportunity to do so and receive a good college
education.
Athletes should have different requirements for college admission because though they might not add the same amount to the academic caliber of the school, they add a bond to the community, they bring in prospective students, and lastly, they bring money to the school. If all of that means universities have to have more lenient requirements for admission, then that seems to be a small sacrifice for so much. There seems to be progress towards bridging the gap between athletes and non-athletes. "The NCAA adopted new regulations requiring that prospective college athletes attain certain grade point averages and scores on standardized tests."(4) Granted, these scores are still often much lower than that of the average student at many of today's premier universities, but it's a baby step in the right direction. Universities use a number of different things to measure a student for admission, they might sacrifice great tests scores for a person who they find interesting or promising. It is no different for athletes. Athletes should have different requirements for college admission because they, simply put, are different from the normal college student and have different things to offer the university.

Citations:

(1)Gotlieb, Jeff. "The Sport of Selling UCI." Los Angeles Times. May 7,2001.

(2)Keil, Jack."The relationship between athletic participation and academic performance: evidence from NCAA D3." Applied Economics.April 15, 2000.

(3)Keil, Jack."The relationship between athletic participation and academic performance: evidence from NCAA D3." Applied Economics.April 15, 2000.

(4)Nathan, Joe."Taking on the NCAA-We Can change the world." Phi Delta Kappan. Dec2000.

"The relationship between athletic participation and academic performance: evidence from NCAA D3." This article is written by Jack Keil about a statistical study between athletes and non-athletes on various topics. It gives statistical charts about things such as: GPA, GPA by sport, and class loads.

NCAA- The official website of the NCAA

CABMA (College Athletic Business Management Association)- "This is an organization devoted to the establishment, maintenance and implementation of the highest standards of integrity and efficiency in the scope, policies and procedures involved in the management and administration of business in the athletics departments and associations of colleges and universities."

Trials and Triumphs by Kate Morgan- What will college sports be like when you get there? What kind of inspiration do athletes there use for their foundation? The Truth about Sports as told by COLLEGE ATHLETES in their own words

AI Sports, Football Recruiting for the College Bound Athlete - "AI Sports is a sports management company designed to help the college bound athlete market themselves to universities -- We also help the University coach simplify the rigorous recruiting process."