I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so. Abolishing 2.0 rule
finally comes to passSeveral years back I wrote a column calling for the abolishment of the Board of Education's 2.0 grade-point rule, which requires students to achieve a C-grade average in order to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities.
My argument -- which only reflected the feelings of most OIA athletic directors -- for doing away with the rule, however well-intentioned, was that it took away all incentive from marginal students to improve their grades. Sports, in particular, kept them interested in attending classes.
Athletic directors, coaches and other educators soon realized that students who weren't allowed to play because of poor grades had no motivation to improve and also missed out on the discipline provided by sports.
Besides discipline and teamwork, sports provides important after-school supervision, something sadly lacking among many youngsters.
The irony of the rule, too, is that even though you can't play if you don't make a "C," you can still get a high school diploma with a "D."
I'm not minimizing education. Perhaps, as I suggested at the time, some sort of scaling incentive, a carrot, if you will, should be available for students who try to better themselves. One modification of the rule might be to make 1.0 the starting requirement to participate for sophomores, 1.5 for juniors and 2.0 for seniors.
At least it would give students an opportunity and incentive to improve their grades progressively. It's a start.
Any suggestion is better than the well-intentioned but counterproductive 2.0-rule, which hasn't proved beneficial since it was adopted 10 years ago.
BLACKENED BRUIN: It's good to see that crime doesn't pay. The NCAA finally caught up with UCLA for its unethical softball program. I mean, when you start cheating in softball, where do you draw the line?
The UCLA softball team was stripped of its 1995 national championship and the school's entire athletic program was put on the death-penalty watch for three years, beginning Feb. 1, 1997.
Not only did the Bruins bring in a "ringer," Tanya Harding, from Australia to pitch them to the College World Series championship, they fudged on the 11-scholarship limit at the time by "borrowing" three more from the soccer team.
Using Harding in the first place was bad enough. She didn't even bother to complete her semester while pitching the Bruins to both victories over the University of Hawaii in the NCAA Regionals in South Carolina and all four victories in the CWS in Oklahoma City.
But cheating on scholarship numbers? It was simply a blatant attempt to cheat and UCLA got caught.
Trying to suppress a Cheshire-cat smile, UH softball coach Bob Coolen feels vindicated. UCLA was all over him for recruiting Aussie Brooke Wilkins, who was originally turned down by the Bruins.
HE had no remorse over what has happened to the Bruins' softball program after they questioned his integrity.
Although not named by the NCAA, Judith Holland was UCLA's women's athletic administrator at the time. Not one of my favorite people -- she even had the gall to apply for the Hawaii AD job -- Holland has been reassigned within the department.
"They knew exactly what they were doing," Coolen said about those in charge of the Bruin softball program. "If they appeal and go to this year's playoffs, it would be a total injustice."
I'm surprised the Bruins appealed the NCAA's sanction. It might expose more worms in a bad-apple program.
The sad thing wasn't that UCLA was stripped of the 1995 national softball championship. Rather, that its illegally trumped-up team deprived Hawaii of the chance to win it.