The problems with college sports grow larger still — and academics stand opposite athletics in this week’s scuffle. The problems with college sports grow larger still — and academics stand opposite athletics in this week’s scuffle.

The NCAA Division I Board of Directors announced in October that it would raise its incoming-freshman minimum GPA from 2.0 to 2.3. And at the time, we praised them for their apparent commitment to their student-athletes’ academic efficacy.

But Gerald S. Gurney, co-author of a study that will be presented today at the annual NCAA convention in Indianapolis, argues that the increased GPA requirement makes little difference.

The NCAA uses a sliding scale to determine freshman academic eligibility. A high GPA may compensate for a low SAT score, or vice versa. This means that, under current rules, a student with a 2.3 GPA would need an SAT (verbal and math) score of 900. A student with a 3.0 would only need a score of 620.

Gurney says this scale is the reason that thousands of student-athletes are admitted to four-year institutions despite the fact that they lack the basic skills required to succeed academically.

Major clustering, cheating and failure to graduate are all symptoms of the same disease: the ostentatious prioritizing of college athletics over academics. We don’t think we should blame the athletes or the guidelines that determine their eligibility.

It’s time we blame the way administrators, alumni and fans view college sports.

Student-athletes are known as such for a reason. But still they are treated brazenly by their universities as nothing more than employees.

Countless universities are now involved in an arms race with the NCAA. Colleges skirt NCAA rules, and in turn the NCAA creates new rules. It’s time the two establish a common goal: to place academics on the forefront of college sports.

We realize that student-athletes sign up for the college experience that they get. And we also realize that the way the nation views college sports is not going to change any time soon.

But we don’t think Gurney’s call for higher academic qualifications for freshman enrollment will do much to change that perspective.

Preventing less-qualified students from playing won’t prevent the cultural mindset that favors athletic excellence over academic excellence.

Instead, the same restrictions could be placed on students who are already in college. With a relatively level playing field, myriad academic resources and a team support system, there’s no reason why student-athletes can’t fulfill academic requirements once they are enrolled. And, to address Gurney’s concerns, those resources could provide any kind of remedial assistance a student-athlete might need to meet his or her college’s academic requirements.

As it stands, a student-athlete’s academic career is solely monitored on a completion basis. He must complete 40 percent of his degree by the end of his second year, 60 percent by the end of his third year and 80 percent by the end of his fourth year. Student-athletes are allowed five years to graduate while receiving athletically related financial aid.

So whether or not student-athletes are actually taking steps to learn and become capable members of the workforce isn’t currently a concern.

Instead of Mr. Gurney’s idea of restricting them from coming in, we think it’s time to hold them to higher academic standards once they enroll.

But until people start realizing that academics should take a seat in front of athletics, change will not come to the world of college sports.