I agree with the author, that Rolle made a good decision. I also agree with your opinion about many years in study but a few years for a great athlete (caveat:

I agree with the author, that Rolle made a good decision. I also agree with your opinion about many years in study but a few years for a great athlete (caveat: for sports where speed and power are critical factors). But the theme here, as applicable to a more general audience, sports-inclined or book-inclined alike, is the weighing of opportunities. In absolute terms of wealth and success and impact, you're probably right. It's much more likely that Rolle would play a larger role in the NFL (after all, the turnover rate is high, so there's room for many superstars). Here's what I think is the catch. Going to Oxford is a double win, because 1. it's a different culture, 2. it's the elite of a different culture. The value isn't in the books. It's in the environment and the discussion. It's in how the experience will change his worldview, and will prime him to think with an expanded mindset. It's a bit unscientific for me to say this, but I have become convinced that global thinking is literally impossible to people who don't actually live through it; for those who have, the later they experience it, the less they are able to appreciate it. So Back to Rolle: if he had two options of seemingly equal value, say, 2 years of NFL superstar + 2 years of Oxford, or the other way around, I would always pick the latter option, simply because it's earlier.