Petition against DivIII changes

[d3follower]

Originally posted by 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. . .

You seem to miss the point. The process to change the rules has already moved through 2 steps - only one step remains before the pending proposal becomes a rule. It is up to the advocates of the status quo to explain why the status quo should be preserved. So far advocates of the status quo on this board have done little more than argue the status quo is great for them.

Screaming about your objections to the reasoning of those who disagree is hardly a persuasuive argument when the powers-that-be in D3 have concluded that it is time for a change in that status quo. The only step remaining in the process is for the membership to ratify that conclusion. If you want to stop that ratification, you need to do more than than just jumping up and down and screaming about the sky falling while covering your ears as tightly as possible. The burden is on you to make your case as the train is roaring down the tracks. . .

[d3follower]

Originally posted by vicb
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 :) .

It's not much of a tradition if only 4 of the 12 member schools follow the practice of granting athletic scholarships. And one of those 4 has only been doing it for 6 or so years. And to claim that what former members of the conference once did long ago defines tradition is to make a mockery of the term "tradition." By your reasoning, anything that once happened would be defined as a "tradition," even practices not followed by two-thirds of the conference.

[vicb]

Originally posted by d3follower
It's not much of a tradition if only 4 of the 12 member schools follow the practice of granting athletic scholarships. And one of those 4 has only been doing it for 6 or so years. And to claim that what former members of the conference once did long ago defines tradition is to make a mockery of the term "tradition." By your reasoning, anything that once happened would be defined as a "tradition," even practices not followed by two-thirds of the conference.

I respectfully disagree. Tradition: A set of such customs and usages (athletic scholarships) viewed as a coherent body of prescidents (been allowed in the league for 41 years with no dissention from anyone) influencing the present :) . The fact that 8 schools in the 41 years have decided not to partake once again has no relevence IMHO in this argument.


Veritas vos liberabit and pasta fazulle for everyone :) .

[vicb]

Originally posted by d3follower
You seem to miss the point. .........If you want to stop that ratification, you need to do more than than just jumping up and down and screaming about the sky falling while covering your ears as tightly as possible. The burden is on you to make your case as the train is roaring down the tracks. . .

My ears have always been wide open on this. I'm not covering anything. I have not heard one argument from the Div III Management Council that they can back up with some basis in fact.

Goes against the Div III Philosophy (It's not a Div III sport we are talking about).

Provides an unfair advantage (Show me some evidence where a particular Div III school has been harmed).

My argument:

Div I allows the schools in their particular sport to grant athletic scholarships. This legislation still allows the schools to compete in Div I (that to me is the key point) therefore they should be allowed to compete in their one particular Div I sport by following the Div I rule of granting scholarships. Can't be any more specific than that.


Veritas vos liberabit and pasta fazulle for everyone :) .

[bigfish]

Originally posted by vicb
My ears have always been wide open on this. I'm not covering anything. I have not heard one argument from the Div III Management Council that they can back up with some basis in fact.

Goes against the Div III Philosophy (It's not a Div III sport we are talking about).

Provides an unfair advantage (Show me some evidence where a particular Div III school has been harmed).

My argument:

Div I allows the schools in their particular sport to grant athletic scholarships. This legislation still allows the schools to compete in Div I (that to me is the key point) therefore they should be allowed to compete in their one particular Div I sport by following the Div I rule of granting scholarships. Can't be any more specific than that.


Veritas vos liberabit and pasta fazulle for everyone :) .

well, this changes everything. I've seen the error of my ways:rolleyes:

[bigfish]

Originally posted by d3follower
You seem to miss the point. The process to change the rules has already moved through 2 steps - only one step remains before the pending proposal becomes a rule. It is up to the advocates of the status quo to explain why the status quo should be preserved. So far advocates of the status quo on this board have done little more than argue the status quo is great for them.

Screaming about your objections to the reasoning of those who disagree is hardly a persuasuive argument when the powers-that-be in D3 have concluded that it is time for a change in that status quo. The only step remaining in the process is for the membership to ratify that conclusion. If you want to stop that ratification, you need to do more than than just jumping up and down and screaming about the sky falling while covering your ears as tightly as possible. The burden is on you to make your case as the train is roaring down the tracks. . .

[vicb]

Originally posted by bigfish
well, this changes everything. I've seen the error of my ways:rolleyes:

I knew you'd eventually succumb to the dark side :) . Here I am, stuck in the middle with you :) .

Veritas vos liberabit and pasta fazulle for everyone :) .

[Jon]

D3- So now your argument has shifted from the laughable "fair and balanced" to the idea that your side is unstoppable... :rolleyes: I see...

I give props to bigfish for being funny, but you keep posting the same things over and over again and none of them are convincing me... But I guess none of it matters since this is predestined to pass... ;)

Get this through your head: the majority of the ECAC CHOSE not to give scholarships. Playing at DI puts them outside of DIII jurisdiction in this sport. What do you do for an encore, tell Nebraska that they have to join DIII? :p The Huskers would look good against Mount Union, I think. Bad analogy, perhaps, but its kind of relevent when you're excusing DIII meddling in DI sports. And that's the issue I have with the proposal in general and you in particular.

But I guess DIII is privilege and the hockey schools affected should be thankful that they allow the playup schools to compete in utterly unaffected sports.
Veritas baby. Veritas. :cool:

[westerburg]

Originally posted by d3follower
Screaming about your objections to the reasoning of those who disagree is hardly a persuasuive argument when the powers-that-be in D3 have concluded that it is time for a change in that status quo. The only step remaining in the process is for the membership to ratify that conclusion. If you want to stop that ratification, you need to do more than than just jumping up and down and screaming about the sky falling while covering your ears as tightly as possible. The burden is on you to make your case as the train is roaring down the tracks. . .

Oh, I see. You have no argument, so turn the same comment around on us. Right.

The "status quo" has made a ton of arguments for keeping it that way ... here on this board ... in the letters from presidents ... in two front-page USCHO articles.

YOU, on the other hand, have not said a darn thing. So don't give us that BS.

[bigfish]

you know, that pettition site is pretty interesting. Poking around, I noticed that RPIRED has signed the one demanding that New York State stop trying to apply their laws to Troy, since there are several Canadians living in the city.
Westerburg has signed the one demanding REAL PROOF that GWB is president.
I could only find vic on the one demanding sunny weather when he has golf planned

[WordsSayNothing]

Originally posted by bigfish
you know, that pettition site is pretty interesting. Poking around, I noticed that RPIRED has signed the one demanding that New York State stop trying to apply their laws to Troy, since there are several Canadians living in the city.
Westerburg has signed the one demanding REAL PROOF that GWB is president.
I could only find vic on the one demanding sunny weather when he has golf planned

It is a fallacy on your part to attempt to make your point seem more justified by attacking the defenders of the opposing point of view. What petitions these guys have signed in addition to the petition against the planned D-III changes is irrelevant. Try again.

[bigfish]

quote:Originally posted by bigfish
you know, that pettition site is pretty interesting. Poking around, I noticed that RPIRED has signed the one demanding that New York State stop trying to apply their laws to Troy, since there are several Canadians living in the city.
Westerburg has signed the one demanding REAL PROOF that GWB is president.
I could only find vic on the one demanding sunny weather when he has golf planned


Originally posted by WordsSayNothing
It is a fallacy on your part to attempt to make your point seem more justified by attacking the defenders of the opposing point of view. What petitions these guys have signed in addition to the petition against the planned D-III changes is irrelevant. Try again.

a very subtle technique. Try to make me die laughing....

further research shows that Jon has signed two petitions, one to replace Pooley with Mr. Slice, the other the Platt for Hobey one.(Isigned that one too.)
MikeR appears to have lent his support to the petition demanding Clarkson sponsor a NASCAR team. More as research proceeds....

[miker]

I was on the SAE Mini-Indy team while at Clarkson...maybe Bigfish is telling the truth...???:)

[Jon]

Originally posted by bigfish

further research shows that Jon has signed two petitions, one to replace Pooley with Mr. Slice, the other the Platt for Hobey one.(Isigned that one too.)


That's the most intelligent idea I've heard all week.

[miker]

http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html

[bigfish]

Originally posted by Jon
That's the most intelligent idea I've heard all week.
well, it's hard when you've got your fingers in your ears;)

[RSTuthill]

What is needed is an e-mail distribution list of all the D-3 Presidents. Then we could fill their in-boxes with expressions of opposition.

Does such a thing exist and could it be posted? It would be a lot of work to create, but once done we could create a deluge.

[vicb]

Originally posted by RSTuthill
What is needed is an e-mail distribution list of all the D-3 Presidents. Then we could fill their in-boxes with expressions of opposition.

Does such a thing exist and could it be posted? It would be a lot of work to create, but once done we could create a deluge.

Have you been asleep the last week Dick :) ??? The list has been created. It is not quite complete but almost there. Contains every DivIII Pres and AD.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KeepPlayUp/post

Go to the data base and you can see it.

[Chefvad]

I am getting Server Down message on the NCAA site - anyone else having trouble?

[miker]

Same problem here accessing the NCAA site.