In case you missed the 6,000 times it ran during March Madness, the NCAA’s latest attempt to prove it cares about academics and the welfare of its student-athletes is a fairly lame commercial. The ad features a swimmer and a voice over that says, “I swim for races, I cram for tests.”

Well, it’s a good thing she’s American, and it’s a good thing she decided to swim instead of play tennis. Because according to the governing body of college sports, English tennis players like Northwestern’s Cristelle Grier and Ruth Barnes aren’t allowed to finish what Americans would consider high school before attending college.

Instead of passing “A” exams as 18-year-olds like most other English students who plan to pursue higher education, the rules say they must jump onto college campuses and into the world of college athletics within a year of taking “O” level exams as 16-year-olds. So Grier and Barnes — along with about 50 other English tennis players — have been unintentionally breaking NCAA rules because they wanted to have the same amount of education as their college classmates.

Doesn’t it seem pretty absurd to expect 16 year olds to be ready for college — especially if it also involves moving to a new continent?

“Absolutely,” said Grier. “I would have failed out of school already. I wouldn’t have been mature enough socially. I certainly wouldn’t have thought to travel so far from home then.”

NU and the other schools were unaware they were breaking the tennis-specific rule (because it’s bizarre and illogical) until the NCAA decided to start enforcing it two days before the regional tournament.

To be fair, the rule was crafted with good intentions. The idea is to prevent English players from playing professionally for several years, then becoming, as Grier puts it, “28-year-old freshmen.”

But the NCAA made one very stupid mistake in writing the rule — the policy should be that English players must start college within one year of taking either “O” or “A” exams.

This is where the NCAA, contrary to its bombardment of absurd commercials, shows that it doesn’t actually care about academics or the welfare of its student athletes. If it cared it would realize this rule punishes the athletes who attend college for the education. Let’s see how well this would go over if it applied to Americans as well — if you were valedictorian of your high school class, you lose a year of eligibility. Too many players who took AP exams? That’ll cost a scholarship.

The thing is, this should have been a remarkably easy problem to fix. Once the NCAA realized it had a moronic policy on the books, it should have suspended the rule until it could have been re-written after the season. When the rule is hazy, telling a team it can’t play two of its top players the day before its most important tournament of the year is bad. Taking five days to respond to an appeal to reinstate Grier, the No. 9 player in the country, for the NCAA singles championships is inexcusable.

NU Director of Athletics Rick Taylor, who has been a champ through the whole fiasco, put it well.

“Here’s an organization that projects that student welfare is one of its top priorities,” he said. “They will point their finger at everyone, but they don’t help the student athletes. It’s mind boggling that you can’t get an answer from anybody.”

Taylor said a final decision is expected from the NCAA today.

An intelligent (and thus unlikely) decision from the NCAA could reinstate Grier in time for the singles championships, which start on Monday in Gainesville, Fla. But if the current ruling stands, Grier, Barnes and the other 50 or so other players may have to sit out all of next season.

Grier said she wouldn’t consider leaving school to go pro if she can’t play next year — “I’ll stay on at college as long as they’ll have me,” she said. But for some, it’s hard to imagine that leaving college for the pros wouldn’t be tempting as an alternative to sitting on the sidelines for a year.

The last time I checked, driving 19-year-old kids out of college and into the pros was something the NCAA was trying to prevent, not cause.