Introduction

One of the strengths of this paper is that in giving elaborate and precise recommendations on the measures that should be taken to improve academic performance while at the same time developing and promoting talents. Metric Reform which if implemented it would drive away all the evils that have corrupted the whole leadership scheme of National Academic Progress Rate and the Graduate Success Rate. The paper proposes that a More Effective Academic Metrics should replace this.This would help eliminate situations where the institutions take advantage of students who are not academically prepared and engage them in athletics for their benefit. According to the paper, the colleges and the leadership are usually concerned with the financial gains that come from the participation and winnings of these students and not talent development.

Another strength of the paper is that its recommendations are explicitly backed by research and facts from which the decision is made. The recommendations on this paper are not mere opinions but they are backed up by facts and research.for example to understand the root cause of the problem, the pap[er vividly discusses the history of the NCAA initial eligibility standard. This is in the attempt to discover the loopholes so that it can be able to give useful recommendations.The sources used as provided by footnotes are legitimately making the paper to have a more valid argument. The suggestions offered after analysis into the loopholes within the academic, athletic system are understandable and relevant to the problem. This makes the paper, in general, to be rich in content.

Also,the paper is balanced. This paper is free from emotional influence and unbalanced views. This is because the paper analyses the situation at hand and provides feedback based on the result of investigation and data from research. Throughout the article from the executive summary to the conclusion, the author has maintained an unbiased approach to the situation. This makes the paper to have a sense of direction and focus and help to remain focused on giving its recommendations.

However the paper some weaknesses. Some of the points of the article are not adequately researched hence making them less convicting than others. For example, example, the  recommendation three on close the 4-year to 4-year transfer loophole is not sufficiently investigated therefore not that much convincing compared to the first point on the requirement for institutions to match for initial eligibility of high school students. This point is well backed up with data from research, and it’s more convincing. The recommendation is made after researching 2-year college transfers to NCAA member institutions. The results of the study are presented and used to back up the proposal, making it more convincing. The close the 4 Year to 4-year transfer loophole does not prove by any means how the closure if the loophole will result in the betterment of the situation. The recommendation does also not provide the criteria used in settling on the requirements that it indicates the institutions admitting athletes must provide. It, therefore, looked arbitrary and less convincing.

Conclusion

To conclude, the paper is well researched as elaborate enough to cover the problem and solutions to what the college athletics are facing. Based nonpersonal experience and analysis of the viability of the above-presented solutions to the issues at hand, the recommendations are and legitimate hence their implementation would not only increase integrity in college athletics but would lead to high talent development as well as academic improvement.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?