The money was irrelevant, the SIGNIFICANT amount of aid and lenience afforded to college athletes in the states was the point.
Hey, look, it wasn't really my point to make this into a conversation about the money or student athletes in college.
But as Vadim said above, we are talking women's hockey here.
I was involved in University sport, albeit in Canada. Some profs gave leeway to us, and others treated us worse simply because we were "jocks."
In every case, the idea and justification is to support student athletes to varying degrees, due to the fact that the student has a full time job requirement with the university that literally takes up more time than the education they are there for (one in which they are not paid for). Yes, at some US schools, in sports of where $$ is the driver for the school, I bet athletes are given "leniency": in inappropriate ways. But women's hockey? And Harvard? Prof's may work together with an athletic department to provide ways around conflicts etc., but to suggest that this is inappropriate or unfair to to a student without those conflicts in representing the school in collegiate sport is downright silly.
I do not buy your premise in any way in this case.
And the fact that she was able to get a degree at such a school while working for her sport, while managing these two massive commitments, would say a great deal about her ability to work in any role and any company.
Having said that, I do not know anything more about her than the rest of you, and I have no idea what role she would be Best for in an organization like the Canucks.