Petition against DivIII changes

[miker]

Originally posted by d3follower
No matter who much money Middlebury has or may acquire, it cannot play up to D1 or grant athletic scholarships (and still retain its D3 status). And as I said earlier, most D3 schools do not have Middlebury's resources and they too are denied the privileges that SLU, Clarkson, and RPI have acquired for themselves and would like to extend while still enjoying all the other benefits of D3 membership.

It seems to me that SLU, Clarkson, and RPI are using loopholes in the D3 rules to try to reduce the wealth and stature advantage that a number of their Ivy competitors enjoy. I'm hard pressed to see how it is D3's responsibility to carve out special exceptions to its rules to increase the competitiveness of a small group of D3 schools vis-a-vis the Ivies.


Acquired????...read my signature...tradition, and commitment sound like more appropriate words to use when mentioning these schools and hockey programs. Maybe if some of the schools you mentioned really had the commitment and tradition as CC, SLU, RPI, and Clarkson....they would have moved to D1 when the opportunity was available.
.
Benefits of D3 memberships? I'm beginning to question that statement. Explain further...

When the grandfather rule were originally ratified (1983?), I highly doubt the motivation was "to increase the competitiveness of a small group of D3 schools vis-a-vis the Ivies".

So...it's okay that Middlebury has an outrageous endowment because of the tradition and committment of the alumni? But no, take that away as well, because not everybody has the opportunities that Middlebury acquired.:rolleyes:

Just as I'm sure that alumni support of Middlebury is part of the tradition, successful hockey is to these schools.

[bigfish]

Originally posted by westerburg
bigfish - you're just a troll who continues to avoid answering the very direct question repeated dozens of times ... How, specifically and with data, does Clarkson's play in D-I hockey taint D-III athletics?
you're in your own little world, aren't you?

Have I alleged a 'taint'? Please show me where?

[d3follower]

Originally posted by MikeR
. . .
Benefits of D3 memberships? I'm beginning to question that statement. Explain further...



Apparently you and most of the others involved in this campaign have concluded this it is impossible for Clarkson, SLU, and RPI to leave D3 and move to D2 or D1. In reaching that conclusion, you must have concluded that there is a significant benefit to being a D3 member. If you see no benefit to D3 membership, then perhaps you should retool your campign and plan a departure from D3 to a happier place . . And if it turns out that the truth is that Clarkson, RPI, and SLU are D3 members only because it is a great place to have your cake and eat it too, then your case for retaining exceptions to the rules for the favored few is far from compelling.

[Jon]

Originally posted by d3follower
And if it turns out that the truth is that Clarkson, RPI, and SLU are D3 members only because it is a great place to have your cake and eat it too, then your case for retaining exceptions to the rules for the favored few is far from compelling.

:rolleyes:
Yeahhhh...

Or maybe the DIII proposal is baseless and the only people who should be telling RPI, CC, SLU, and Clarkson whether or not they can have scholarships are the ECAC or WCHA (respectively). You know, DI? Where RPI, CC, SLU, and Clarkson play hockey?

WHERE THEY HAVE ALWAYS PLAYED HOCKEY.

[bigfish]

Originally posted by Jon
:rolleyes:
Yeahhhh...

Or maybe the DIII proposal is baseless and the only people who should be telling RPI, CC, SLU, and Clarkson whether or not they can have scholarships are the ECAC or WCHA (respectively). You know, DI? Where RPI, CC, SLU, and Clarkson play hockey?

WHERE THEY HAVE ALWAYS PLAYED HOCKEY.
oh, I get it. Jon is usually a funny guy, so this is a joke right?:rolleyes:

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by d3follower
And if it turns out that the truth is that Clarkson, RPI, and SLU are D3 members only because it is a great place to have your cake and eat it too, then your case for retaining exceptions to the rules for the favored few is far from compelling. d3follower, These schools are D-I in hockey because of tradition -- nothing about having your cake and eating it. RPI has had a hockey team that played the top teams in the nation since the early 1950s. In other sports that isn't the case. (Well there is an exception. The lacrosse team was once among the best in the countr also during the Harkness era.)

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by bigfish
oh, I get it. Jon is usually a funny guy, so this is a joke right?:rolleyes: And you, my friend, are a troll. The result is also that this is a joke. :)

[bigfish]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
And you, my friend, are a troll. The result is also that this is a joke. :)

I must admit I'm dissapointed in you, ralph. You've always struck me as someone who thinks for himself and also have not before, in these discussions, seemed to let your allegiance to RPI blind you to irrationality/lack of connection to reality.

[d3follower]

Originally posted by Jon
:rolleyes:
Yeahhhh...

Or maybe the DIII proposal is baseless and the only people who should be telling RPI, CC, SLU, and Clarkson whether or not they can have scholarships are the ECAC or WCHA (respectively). You know, DI? Where RPI, CC, SLU, and Clarkson play hockey?

WHERE THEY HAVE ALWAYS PLAYED HOCKEY.

As long as RPI, CC, SLU, and Clarkson insist on staying in D3, they will continue to be subject to D3 rules, including those pertaining to scholarships. And they will be exempted from those rules only of they make a compelling case to the powers-that-be in D3. Typing in caps will not change reality and nor will claims of entitlement. .

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by bigfish
I must admit I'm dissapointed in you, ralph. You've always struck me as someone who thinks for himself and also have not before, in these discussions, seemed to let your allegiance to RPI blind you to irrationality/lack of connection to reality. I do think for myself, and I feel that these schools have the right to do what they have done in the past and continue as D-I hockey schools. As D-I hockey schools, I feel that they should be allowed to do whatever other D-I hockey schools can do. D-I hockey now allows 18 scholarships. Until a few years ago (well about a decade now), they were allowed more, but this was a D-I-wide change. I b1tched about that too, but at least everyone was under the same rule.

You stated that you are a BU fan. What was your feeling when BU gave up the ghost in another sport?

[bigfish]

well, it is probably not an analogous situation, because
1. I really don't like football
2. As it became a "Silber=bad" thing and I like the guy, I cared even less, if possible

my comments were more addressed to you joining westerbug in trying to label me a troll and thus not have to deal with someone not agreeing with him
Jon's post, even by the 'standards' of this discussion, was awful.
let the leagues decide? C'mon, acknowkedge reality a little....

[TimU]

Originally posted by d3follower
Apparently you and most of the others involved in this campaign have concluded this it is impossible for Clarkson, SLU, and RPI to leave D3 and move to D2 or D1. In reaching that conclusion, you must have concluded that there is a significant benefit to being a D3 member. If you see no benefit to D3 membership, then perhaps you should retool your campign and plan a departure from D3 to a happier place . . And if it turns out that the truth is that Clarkson, RPI, and SLU are D3 members only because it is a great place to have your cake and eat it too, then your case for retaining exceptions to the rules for the favored few is far from compelling.

Wrong. These schools are D-III because they are small, private liberal arts and technical schools that fit the Division III profile, with one minor exception - the fact that they have historically been among the elite schools in the country in college hockey. They all uphold the integrity of student athletics, and they do it better than the vast majority of other D-III schools. They can't move up to D-II or D-I because they can't afford to, because they aren't geographically positioned to do so, and because IT WOULD BE STUPID, because they have nearly everything in common with other Division III schools, and almost nothing in common with other Division I schools.

I know you don't like to discuss it, but I will keep on bringing up skiing. You (at least I think it was you, I'm sorry if I'm remembering it wrong) think skiing has one championship because there are only a very few schools that offer it as a sport. This is absolutely not true.

Look here: http://www.uscsa.com/colleges.htm

Even better, look here: http://web1.ncaa.org/ssLists/sportByDiv.do?sport=MSK

Still care to argue that poor Middlebury and Williams just don't have anyone else to ski against? Or that there just aren't enough Division III schools for the NCAA to sponsor a Division III championship? By the way, there are other Division III schools, like Castleton State College here in Vermont, that also have ski teams and have joined this organization (USCSA) since this list was published.

The NESCAC schools that participate in NCAA skiing participate in a college sport at the Division I level, plain and simple. They gain every bit of recognition and prestige that Clarkson gets from its hockey team, which they can "unfairly" use to their advantage according to your own thinking. They can pump money into this high-profile sport in order to enhance their image. What's more, they actually do, probably more than RPI puts into its hockey program. They don't do it because they've found a "loophole" in the rules through which they can slip - and make no mistake, they could start competing solely within Division III tomorrow should they choose to do so - they do it because they have a long and accomplished history in skiing competitively at the very highest levels. It would be silly to make them stop. But in order to be consistent in their rhetoric and action, they should do just that. I'll repeat that if a member of the management council offered a resolution that D-III schools may only participate in D-III-sanctioned sports against D-III schools, the NESCAC membership would change its tune in a big hurry.

[westerburg]

Originally posted by bigfish
my comments were more addressed to you joining westerbug in trying to label me a troll and thus not have to deal with someone not agreeing with him Jon's post, even by the 'standards' of this discussion, was awful.
let the leagues decide? C'mon, acknowkedge reality a little....

The problem is, you're not disagreeing - you are just making these off-hand comments which have nothing to do with anything - and that never actually address the specific issues you are disagreeing with. And when someone states specific evidence to you - you dismiss it with more offhand comments which make no sense, and are apparently attempts at humor, which aren't working.

That's the definition of a troll.

[westerburg]

Originally posted by d3follower
As long as RPI, CC, SLU, and Clarkson insist on staying in D3, they will continue to be subject to D3 rules, including those pertaining to scholarships. And they will be exempted from those rules only of they make a compelling case to the powers-that-be in D3. Typing in caps will not change reality and nor will claims of entitlement. .

Sure they're subject to the rules ... And they already made the compelling case, 30 years ago. So what's changed now? Nothing.

The people attempting to change this rule are the ones who need to make the compelling case for why - and they haven't. They have just brought up vague notions of "unfair benefits" and "tainting the D-III philosophy" --- charges which have no basis in fact or reality.

So, now these 12 programs will be subjected to the whims of this mass of D-III - who have some misguided notion that they are making noble reforms -- and who clearly haven't thought this one through, nor understand the historical ramifications.

And I will continue to say that this legislation was created simply by people who have no idea the history and misguided notions of "reform" ... and it is being defended by 2 people on this board who also have not brought up any specific reasons why a grandfathered rule should rescinded, or how specifically it is unfair, and who continue to bring up discussion points which are flagrently irrelevant.

[Jon]

Bigfish- Nope.
My post was concise, correct and is not a point that you and D3 can successfully argue against without repeating vast five paragraph megaposts that the majority of the people here think are false.
"Awful" has nothing to do with you being wrong. :D


Have fun hiding under the bridge and scaring the Billy Goats gruff.

[Jon]

Originally posted by westerburg

And I will continue to say that this legislation was created simply by people who have no idea the history and misguided notions of "reform" ... and it is being defended by 2 people on this board who also have not brought up any specific reasons why a grandfathered rule should rescinded, or how specifically it is unfair, and who continue to bring up discussion points which are flagrently irrelevant.

What? You mean that you don't find D3's epic novels compelling? Nor do you enjoy Bigfish's short, staccato jabs at the people he's arguing against? For shame!

[vicb]

The thing that really has me steamed about this whole thing is this. The legislation still gives these schools the right to stay in Div I. Does not say that if you want to stay in Div III, EVERY ONE OF YOUR PROGRAMS must be in Div III. So d3follower your hissey fit about these schools having this privlidge and no other schools having this priviledge granted to them I don't understand. Go back to the Presidents Council and have them recind that part. The ******er is, go ahead and play Div I if you want but you can't give scholarships, a right that every Div I school has when you play a Div I sport. I'd love to get this ruling infront of any judge in the country and see if it would stand up.

If you want to talk fair, EVERY Div III school IMHO should have the same "priviledge" these schools have. If you want to play up one mens and womens sport in Div I go ahead.

[bigfish]

Originally posted by Jon
Bigfish- Nope.
My post was concise, correct and is not a point that you and D3 can successfully argue against without repeating vast five paragraph megaposts that the majority of the people here think are false.

what is in the water in Dracut, Jon?
Saying that the leagues should handle is , as I said, so ignorant or disdainful of reality that it still shocks me now, several hours later.
edit: you act as if what "the majority of people here" think matters in some way:rolleyes:

[bigfish]

Originally posted by westerburg


The people attempting to change this rule are the ones who need to make the compelling case for why
Please stop, you're killing me.
This is why, among other reasons, I do not try to 'engage' you or anyone else.
If you cannot even acknowledge that the situation is the exact opposite, how can anyone attempt to discuss this with you?
The constant posing of "one simple question" both ignores what the NCAA has said and what D3 and I have tried to say...
As I said to MikeR, it makes you understand the Balkans
on the "attempted humor", I'm my own best audience, and have little expectation that you guys will even acknowledge if I do get off a good one(MikeR excepted)
finally, your little diatribe that I commented on earlier would make most people hesitate before namecalling. you know, that old pot-kettle thing?

[TimU]

Originally posted by bigfish
If you cannot even acknowledge that the situation is the exact opposite, how can anyone attempt to discuss this with you?

That sums things up pretty nicely.

If you won't agree that I'm right and you're wrong, how do you expect me to carry on a rational argument with you?

bigfish, westerburg is right - at the very least I think you need to admit that the proposal being debated would create a brand new environment for the affected schools. These schools have always played hockey at the same level against the same group of schools. As long as there has been NCAA hockey, they have played for the highest-level championship. As long as Divisions have existed, they have played hockey in Division I. As long as there have been rules about Division III schools playing a Division I sport, they have been allowed under the rules to do just that, under the applicable Division I rules. There has never been a time when any rule said they couldn't. This isn't a "loophole." A loophole is an unintentional weakness exploited by someone violating the intent of a rule. This rule was enacted on purpose. Now there's a proposal to change it, purportedly to "restore" a situation that has never, ever existed. There have been some reasons put forward for the need to change things now, none of which appears grounded in fact or actual experience.