Petition against DivIII changes

[moe24]

Originally posted by bigfish
I only have about 150

I do however, have my Mom's LP collection of about 250,
and will get someday my Dad's, though I want him to live forever:) , collection of 2,000 + LPs and maybe 800 cds.... I envy the collection of LPs. I have no record player, nor do I have any jazz (or music at all) on LP. I wish I did.

[miker]

Originally posted by Chuck_N


PS- The petition link (http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html )

[bigfish]

Originally posted by Moe24
I envy the collection of LPs. I have no record player, nor do I have any jazz (or music at all) on LP. I wish I did.
yeah, there's something about LP's I like, though I have lots of cd's and am not anti-digital by any means.

I am working my way through my own collection of about 3,000 rock LP's trying to see if I can part with some....

[d3follower]

Originally posted by jmh
The 8 of 12 ECAC D1 schools that do not offer scholarships do so because they CHOOSE not to offer scholarships, not because of any reason relating to the policies of DI, DIII, the NCAA, or the ECAC. Your point here isn't relevant at all.

Of course it's relevant - it goes to the question of whether SLU, Clarkson, and RPI would be disadvantaged in the conference in which they compete. And it also goes to the question of "tradition" as there is no "tradition" of athletic scholarships for the conference on which the "tradition" arguments rest. . .

[d3follower]

Originally posted by vicb
I have not flamed anyone on this argument one way or the other :) . I still think if this got to court (and it won't I believe) some good lawyer would be able to make a case that would get the no scholarship part thrown out.

Div I members have the right to scholarships

Div II members who play in Div I have the right to scholarships

Div III members who play in Div I can't have scholarship rights??????

A good lawyer can make any argument that he or she is asked to make. A good lawyer could also fashion arguments to challenge the unfairness of the existing rules allowing for play up schools to grant athletic scholarships. In any event, I doubt that either a legal challenge to the existing rules or the proposed rules would go very far as the NCAA has a lot of discretion to set its own rules.

[bigfish]

Originally posted by d3follower
Of course it's relevant - it goes to the question of whether SLU, Clarkson, and RPI would be disadvantaged in the conference in which they compete. And it also goes to the question of "tradition" as there is no "tradition" of athletic scholarships for the conference on which the "tradition" arguments rest. . .

[miker]

Originally posted by d3follower
Of course it's relevant - it goes to the question of whether SLU, Clarkson, and RPI would be disadvantaged in the conference in which they compete. And it also goes to the question of "tradition" as there is no "tradition" of athletic scholarships for the conference on which the "tradition" arguments rest. . .

Why do you insist on centering your argument to "the conference in which they compete".
How 'bout the division in which they compete? Would they be disadvantaged? Yippee - we finished 4th in the ECAC, but cannot win a game outside of the conference. I know the OOC record isn't great now...imagine what it would be like....This is not acceptable to traditions. Just ask any RPI, SLU, or Clarkson fan about the down years.

Edit: The use of tradition is in the wrong context as well. Tradition means to these schools....a long history of successful competition at the highest level, that has become interwoven into the fabric of the community and alumni base. Watch what happens when these teams (a) downgrade to D3, or (b) continue at D1 without scholarships. The reason a tradition was created was because of this success. No feelings of inferiority, just a realization of the fact...Ivy's have earned their recruiting advantage with academic reputation and large endowments, and the large schools have earned their hockey success with resources and name recognition . Where do these schools fit? Someplace in between...good academic schools with less name recognition.

If they downgrade to D3 the downfall will be much quicker. How many people attend a SUNY Potsdam game or follow the team consistently? No offense intended, because some people do enjoy the smaller feeling of D3 hockey. The numbers are just not that great. Success brings interest, and the higher the level of competition, the additional fan interest the team will generate.

[Sejast]

Originally posted by vicb
I have not flamed anyone on this argument one way or the other :)

hehe, you i don't worry about. :cool:

I just don't like to post things where I don't have the references (in this case - names of cases) 'cause in a lot of online communities you do get flammed. Hell, normally I wouldn't worry about it in here, but things seem to have gotten a little tense lately ;)

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by d3follower
Get a grip on reality. Your school is a D3 school and subject to whatever rules D3 may establish governing such matters as scholarships and playing up. . . That's life. D-I is D-I and D-III is D-III. Period. That's reality.

edit: If you want to go toe-to-toe with me on this point, that's fine... I have first hand experience with how RPI athletics is run, and I can see just how seperate the D-I and D-III aspects are. It's like night and day.

[bigfish]

Originally posted by RPIRED
D-I is D-I and D-III is D-III. Period. That's reality.
hey Murray, get a load of this....:D

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by MikeR
tactical mistake...:eek: Hardly. There is a marked difference between D-I programs and D-III programs, and there is no crossover. In my experience at RPI, having a D-I program does not affect our D-III programs in any way, and it certainly does not affect our academic integrity. From my research into similar schools for help with a policy decision (namely, Clarkson and St. Lawrence), I have found similar situations. For D-III schools to ask D-I programs that happen to be situated in a largely D-III environment to change their policy is utterly ridiculous since there's no interchanging effect.

[miker]

Originally posted by RPIRED
Hardly. There is a marked difference between D-I programs and D-III programs, and there is no crossover. In my experience at RPI, having a D-I program does not affect our D-III programs in any way, and it certainly does not affect our academic integrity. From my research into similar schools for help with a policy decision (namely, Clarkson and St. Lawrence), I have found similar situations. For D-III schools to ask D-I programs that happen to be situated in a largely D-III environment to change their policy is utterly ridiculous since there's no interchanging effect.

that is why I deleted it after reading your edit...thx RPI

[bigfish]

Originally posted by d3follower
Get a grip on reality. Your school is a D3 school and subject to whatever rules D3 may establish governing such matters as scholarships and playing up. . . That's life.

[Red Cloud]

Repeating half-truths does not make them any more accurate, friend. Veritas vos liberabit!

[vicb]

Originally posted by d3follower
........And it also goes to the question of "tradition" as there is no "tradition" of athletic scholarships for the conference on which the "tradition" arguments rest. . .

Now this statement is out and out wrong. Remember guy, the ECAC was formed in 1962. There is a looooog tradition of athletic scholarships in this conference. Remember, in the split in 1984, the Hockey East teams LEFT THE ECAC, not the other way around. i.e. This league has been allowing scholarships for as long as it has been in existance, 41 years and counting.

Veritas vos liberabit and pasta fazulle for everyone :) .

[Jon]

Why do I get the impression that this thread is going to involve a lot more repetition... :p

If I have to hear the word "fair" one more time I'm going to start drinking a heckuvalot more Dracut water (BTW Bigfish: Dracut used to steal its water from Lowell. Draw your own conclusions...)

[miker]

August 15, 2003
STATEMENT FROM TONY COLLINS, PRESIDENT of CLARKSON UNIVERSITY on DIVISION III PROPOSAL
Clarkson University is joining St. Lawrence University, Colorado College and Rensselaer in publicly expressing its deep concern about proposed NCAA legislation that would eliminate Division I athletic scholarships for student athletes from eight colleges that offer mostly Division III sports.

We were quite surprised that the NCAA Division III Presidents Council forwarded this recommendation to its membership. The Presidents Council has acknowledged that this recommendation, unlike every other element of their proposal, was not unanimous and was vigorously debated. Further, an NCAA-sponsored focus group study of 43 Division III schools stated that, "Many felt that institutions with already established multidivisional programs should not be restricted."

While we are opposed to the recommendation, we commend the Presidents Council for inviting input from the eight colleges who would be affected by this legislation. The Council is asking the schools to respond prior to an October meeting where it can act to remove this recommendation from its proposal. Clarkson will make its case to the Presidents Council on why this recommendation is unnecessary in reinforcing the Division III Student/Athlete Philosophy.

The first reason for our opposition is that athletic scholarships enable Clarkson University to attract student/athletes who can both compete at the Division I level, and benefit from a Clarkson education. Their graduation rates and success after graduation are testament to their abilities as students as well as their abilities on the ice. Among our hockey alumni are individuals who have become business, science and technology leaders, as well as professional hockey players and managers. Their experience confirms that Clarkson University has been able to attract Division I student/athletes who receive the full benefit of a Clarkson education.

The Presidents Council's recommendation suggests that it is incompatible for a school to have Division I programs that grant athletic scholarships alongside Division III programs that do not. However, at Clarkson, students who are involved in these athletic programs are treated equitably and all benefit from a philosophy of academics and athletics that promotes their total development. The presence of a Division I program at Clarkson in no way diminishes our commitment to Division III values and philosophy.

A second reason for Clarkson's opposition is that in 1982 the NCAA "grandfathered" its approval of these Division I offerings in Division III schools. They did so in recognition of the strong traditions, pride and competitive spirit that these programs brought to the schools. Indeed, Clarkson has a long and deep history that includes competitive Division I athletics.

Based on the 1982 NCAA ruling, Clarkson has made strategic investments in these programs in good faith, including the development of a women's Division I program that promotes gender equity. The NCAA sends a very troubling message if it removes its approval, thereby undermining investments made in valued athletic programs and people.

There is a petition on line opposing the proposal, which can be accessed and signed at http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarkson Press Release (http://www.clarkson.edu/athletics/hockey/news.html#aug15)

[bigfish]

Originally posted by Jon
Why do I get the impression that this thread is going to involve a lot more repetition... :p

If I have to hear the word "fair" one more time I'm going to start drinking a heckuvalot more Dracut water (BTW Bigfish: Dracut used to steal its water from Lowell. Draw your own conclusions...)
Lowell, the All American City?
FAIRest city in Massachusetts?;)

Scream it over and over until their brains turn to putty is a great American tradition, Jon.....

[westerburg]

Until either of these two guys bring up a specific example of how having one play-up sport is unfair or taints the rest of Division III, then I suggest everyone just ignore them. The points they raise are either meaningless, or irrelevant, and sidetrack the whole issue.

So far, their entire argument over the course of 1,000 posts has centered around whether or not D-III has the right to impose these rules -- and not on whether D-III has come up with an actual reason whey they must impose them. No one, including John McCardell, has even attempted to make an argument for how Clarkson awarding scholarships in D-I hockey affects what they, or anyone else, do in D-III.

Forget the dynamics of how this came about, and attempting to make everyone the same. Give 1, ONE, concrete example of how anyone is affected. We've been asking this question for 1,000 posts, and no one has offered an example ... so from now on, just ignore them.

[Ralph Baer]

Good to read the Clarkson press release with the link to the petition.