Sometimes the NCAA needs a reality check.

The Southeastern Conference would love to give it to them.

The NCAA is a good entity in general, at least I think it is. Its founding principles are in the right place for sure. It's there to make sure collegiate athletes actually get a college education while in school and competing.

It doesn't sound so bad, does it?

But then the NCAA oversteps its boundaries time and time again.

It tells athletes things like, "you can't sell your own personal property that is affiliated with an NCAA athletic competition even though it's yours." Or, "you can't accept small personal favors that a non-athlete could receive without severe consequences."

Meanwhile an average fan can sell his replica merchandise on eBay without it being a problem in the least.

Accepting a car? That probably should be a violation. Borrowing a small amount of money shouldn't be.

But it gets even more absurd in the recruiting game.

All of these unnatural rules. You can't do X except for this specific time frame, Y. You can't call at this time. You can't text back a recruit. On and on.

Well, SEC commissioner Mike Slive has a few suggestions for the NCAA.

It's written in a little fancier language but it suggests the NCAA take their recruiting rules and - eat them.

Essentially, the SEC recommends the NCAA do away with ever-changing restrictions depending on the time of year and let coaches simply recruit.

Why can't the NCAA's rules parallel normal college student's "recruitment to college" rules. The NCAA wants to normalize student-athletes' college experiences, correct?

Slive said rules like the text messaging ban and confusing rules about what is permissible contact and what is not should be "looked at." That's code for abolished.

The SEC further suggests the NCAA allow coaches to respond to recruits' phone calls, text messages and other electronic messages whenever they want to.

That would mean recruits and family members of recruits could contact coaches and have the coach answer a question that could be pivotal to the recruit's final decision. That kind of reminds me of how an average high school student can call a university and receive answers to questions regarding majors and finances.

Where did the NCAA go wrong?

If the organization could stick to keeping student-athletes on par with basic students rather than restricting athletes to sometimes crazy extremes, the world would become a slightly better place.

I love NCAA competition but the organization itself has taken micromanagement to a new level.

What's so wrong with holding athletes to the same standard as a normal student?

No matter what the NCAA tries to do athletes will always be regarded as special and shady fans will seek them out for special favors more often than people are willing to help out average students. Obviously an athlete will have to turn down insane gifts like a vacation but what's wrong with a free meal?

Even I got free meals from time-to-time in college whether I made friends with the manager, was short on change, went somewhere consecutive days or someone wanted to talk sports over dinner. That's just real life in action.

Some NCAA rules just shouldn't have been written. Slive wrote back.

I would be lying if I said I had watched the United States-Mexico soccer game.

I would have liked to but I had to move into an apartment that day. But by seeing the score and without actually watching to know what actually happened, I was still angered.

Mexico won 4-2.

I don't know a whole lot about soccer but I like watching the national team and I know I hate losing to Mexico.

Political strains aside, Mexico is essentially our in-state rival here in Texas and things can get pretty heated when United States and Mexican soccer fans meet up somewhere to watch the games.

Let's be honest. The only thing Mexico can beat the United States in is soccer.

Is that true though?

If the United States pooled its absolute best athletes together and formed a soccer team, could we beat Mexico? I think the answer has to be yes.

We have more people.

We almost always produce the best athletes in the world.

So why can't we win in soccer?

The biggest problem is that the United States has too many popular sports. Football and baseball win hands down while basketball and hockey are also more popular than soccer.

We dilute our talent pool and soccer, regrettably, just isn't as high on the pecking order as other sports.

If you're an American good at both basketball and soccer, which would you pick? Kobe Bryant picked basketball. So did Steve Nash although he's Canadian.

In Mexico, soccer trumps all other sports.

I think when the United States plays Mexico in soccer it's a matchup of Mexico's most talented players against a B-team of sorts for the Americans. I just think we could put together a better soccer team if there was more interest in the game here at home.

Maybe a series of crushing losses to Mexico will inspire something like our Sputnik response when the Soviets were the first to send something into space and the United States responded by emphasizing math and science in school.

Not that we should force soccer upon our kids at school like we did with a reinvigorated approach to math and science in the '60's but there's certainly a value in encouraging kids to try soccer.

I think a winning soccer team might actually help the country's confidence right now in the same way the Miracle on Ice got people feeling good for a while. Soccer is after all the sport that most consistently spurs international competitions.

We're certainly getting better at the game but there's a lot of improvements we can make and it starts with getting more athletes into the game of soccer.

And then we could beat Mexico with more regularity.

That's something I'm all for.