http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/14/SPIB1KMGVE.DTL

He has some interesting ideas, but the part that the NCAA "provide incentives to schools with high Academic Progress Rate scores and graduation rates" seems to favor Furd with their no flunk out policy and grade inflation.

Bowlsby reminds me of Ira Michael Heyman. He is a little more savvy than Heyman when it comes to support of his institution's sports programs, but he seems to have the same sort of "ivory tower" academic attitudes.

Spiro Agnew would have described Bowlsby as an "effete snob". I'll go one step further -- he is a clueless effete snob, and here's why:

He had this to say about making freshmen ineligible --

"It would give them the opportunity for getting established on campus, academically and athletically as well," he said. "It's academically sound."

In the first place the old rule making freshmen ineligible was intended to keep them from getting injured and had nothing to do with academics. In those days universities had enough money to support freshmen teams.

There would be no freshmen teams in this day and age. Freshmen would simply sit out a year and would have one less year to play before being eligible to join the pro leagues. One-and-done in basketball would become one-and-never. Lots of scholarship money down the drain from a collegiate sports point of view.

The impact from the standpoint of scholarship limits would be a heavy burden on the teams. In some sports the quality of play would be detrimentally affected.

Not Sorta OT. Sorta irrelevant.

First of all, what is the point pontificating about an idea that is going to get no traction whatsoever?

Second of all, why not say no parties, no intramural sports, no student club participation, etc.

Athletes on most campuses get plenty of support if for no other reason then their coaches want them to stay eligible. I could see participating fully in sports being too much for SOME kids. The good programs would be on top of that and make sure they get the help they need.

There is no real world possibility that this is going to happen. If he wanted to say something that would make a difference, he would recommend something like Cal's summer bridge program so that players can get acclimated and get a head start on course credits before diving into the regular academic calendar - that is something that might actually be implemented at a lot of schools.

UrsusTexicanus;545362 said:

---

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/14/SPIB1KMGVE.DTL

He has some interesting ideas, but the part that the NCAA "provide incentives to schools with high Academic Progress Rate scores and graduation rates" seems to favor Furd with their no flunk out policy and grade inflation.

---

Starting with a proviso: I like Bob Bowsby. Classy guy who speaks his mind, and he has the student athletes best interests at heart. That said, his ideas are unrealistic, and won't get any traction in today's big money sports environment. As long as freshman players are making money for basketball programs and enhancing TV ratings...

Any policies favoring more stringent academics always will favor more academic oriented schools. Furd would not be the only one to benefit. Cal, Duke, UCLA, etc. would all benefit.

To me, the best solution is to have two types of schools in the major sports. One set competes almost like Eurpean club teams, where players are paid somewhat nominally, there are few limits on boosters or commercialism, and the rules are lax to encourage competition of the strongest. The other is a more Ivy League approach, in which rules are stringent, athletes are students first, etc. Bowlsby can then decide in which world he wants his football and basketball program to operate.

Of course, this is not gonna happen. To much money at stake in the current system, with all its faults.