Actually, it would be good if every company just listed this sort of "how we hire" on their web site, so that you can steer clear of the ones you find absurd.
When someone in my research group went to interview at a national lab, a young professor in my department made a similar point to him. He said they're already impressed with your research - that's why they're flying you out to do go through the interview process in the first place. What they're evaluating now is you - do they want to work with you every day for the next ten years?
Hiring athletes is a lot like hiring programmers. There are certain positive qualities that athletics can promote, as well as certain beneficial skills and worldviews one can acquire. But this doesn't guarantee that the person in question has any of those. Most don't.
Placing people with these qualities, skills, and worldviews in the right positions can be a huge boon for any organization. But first you need to know which positions are well suited for athletes, and you need to know what things to look for.
That line struck me as a bit off base. My father works at a corporation where they were looking at hiring a security engineer. His boss wanted to hire a guy who had leadership qualities, and one candidate was on a basketball team that went to nationals. His boss was excited, and really wanted to hire this guy. The other candidate was fresh out of college, had a security background, skills and passion. The candidate wasn't nearly as well received, but he did end up getting the job.
Would you have hired the basketball player? I'm curious, not flaming. I legitimately want to know why accomplishments in the field are less important then those outside. I mainly want to know because my resume is chock full of things I've done in the field. If I need to change that, I definitely want to know ahead of time.
I for one could potentially list my BSA rank and efforts, but I'm not sure what business value that has.