Once again, the NCAA creates a measure it says will change college athletics for the better.
And, once again, the association, through that measure, leaves college athletics vulnerable to more trouble than ever.
The NCAA announced Thursday that, starting in the 2019-20 season, it will dole out a good chunk of its revenue from its media rights contracts with Turner Sports and CBS - the networks that broadcast the NCAA men's basketball tournament - based on academic achievement of student-athletes. If a program holds an Academic Progress Rate of 985 or higher, a Graduation Success Rate of at least 90 percent or a federal graduation rate 13 percentage points better than the school's overall rate, it's eligible for that revenue.
Sounds great in theory.
Add me to the growing list of voices shouting it's a horrible idea.
Academic fraud already has been a problem in college athletics. Advisors write athletes' term papers. Teaching assistants pass out quiz answers as the quiz is being held. Some universities have been accused of turning entire majors into eligibility factories, funneling student-athletes there to boost their grade-point averages through easy classes.
If the star athlete stays eligible, he or she can remain on the field of play. If he or she remains, there's a better chance of winning the game and reaping the financial benefits of on-field success.
Yet there's an equalizer there. The teams still have to play and win. With this measure, athletic programs have an even greater temptation to doctor grades, because they now have a direct financial benefit from those higher academic scores.
There's another problem this brings up, one that former University of Maryland and NFL defensive back Domonique Foxworth mentioned on Twitter on Friday morning.
"Think about the player who is taking a challenging major who will now be pressured out of it by the coach," he wrote.
Chances are much greater than not that he's correct.
During my years on the Florida State beat, Myron Rolle was a member of the football team. Rolle was a Rhodes Scholar. On the day of his scholarship interview, he won the award, hopped on a plane and flew to Maryland, where he walked into the Terrapins' stadium in the first half to a standing ovation.
One day, he walked into player interviews holding an organic chemistry book. Any science major reading this probably just shuddered. Organic chem was the class that can send brilliant pre-med students running to their advisors and requesting a change in major. Rolle was tackling this class while having his brains beaten in on a regular basis.
Rolle is now an FSU medical student. He's a special kind of student-athlete. He could handle the rigors of both. But what of the student-athlete who wants a challenging major, isn't a Rhodes Scholar, and might actually struggle in a class or two, as any other student in that class would? Is he or she told to pick something less rigorous in order to preserve a GPA and maybe some NCAA money?
I know college athletics is a business, one that universities are rabid to protect. In 2014-15, the top 24 Division I athletic programs brought in at least $100,000,000 in revenue each. It's an important investment.
But college marks the years of a person's life where he or she can expand horizons, accept challenges and broaden world views. Student-athletes shouldn't be pressured to limit themselves. Yet the NCAA just green-lit a measure that tempts coaches to do just that. Hopefully, they won't. Most won't. Yet there's nothing that can sway me from the notion that some will at least give it a shot.
Noble intentions don't always make for sound policy. One would think the NCAA would have figured that out by now.
Contact Derek Redd at 304-348-1712 or derek.redd@wvgazettemail.com. Follow him on Twitter @derekredd.