View Full Version : Petition against DivIII changes
miker
08-25-2003, 09:42 AM
http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html
Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Mike,
Just curious. What kind of a distribution did you fit to the data to get those numbers?
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you - the data was on another computer.
As Lynahfan and Patman indicated, the data (rankings) cannot be fit to a normal distribution. I used a ordinal logistic regression with crtieria as >=1, >=5, and >=8.
note.....all of the data failed the normality test with a p-value <.05 except Colgate (.545)....I'm not sure what this indicates, but it is interesting. Also, the "goodness of fit" test suggest a "loglogistic" distribution would fit best.
Ralph Baer
08-25-2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by MikeR
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you - the data was on another computer.
As Lynahfan and Patman indicated, the data (rankings) cannot be fit to a normal distribution. I used a ordinal logistic regression with crtieria as >=1, >=5, and >=8.
note.....all of the data failed the normality test with a p-value <.05 except Colgate (.545)....I'm not sure what this indicates, but it is interesting. Also, the "goodness of fit" test suggest a "loglogistic" distribution would fit best. Thanks.
miker
08-25-2003, 10:21 AM
question to all...What are the plans with the petition and letter writing campaign? I've noticed that the signatures has decreased to about 150/day. I know that the Golden Knight booster club is using the database, but how about others?
fr joe
08-26-2003, 10:33 PM
There are 5981 signaturs on the petition as of 10:30 pm. Will there be 6000 by midnight? GO FOR IT!
Finally got around to signing it... :)
Ralph Baer
08-27-2003, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by frjoe
There are 5981 signaturs on the petition as of 10:30 pm. Will there be 6000 by midnight? GO FOR IT! Still only 5992. :(
miker
08-27-2003, 09:07 AM
Two articles posted in the D3 thread by GoRITTigers (thanks)
DIII faces reform package (http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10069424&BRD=1169&PAG=740&dept_id=349537&rfi=6)
DIII Chairwoman faces tough times (http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10069422&BRD=1169&PAG=740&dept_id=349537&rfi=6)
Ralph Baer
08-27-2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by MikeR
Two articles posted in the D3 thread by GoRITTigers (thanks)
DIII faces reform package (http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10069424&BRD=1169&PAG=740&dept_id=349537&rfi=6)
DIII Chairwoman faces tough times (http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10069422&BRD=1169&PAG=740&dept_id=349537&rfi=6) Thanks for posting those links, Mike. I hope that Ms. Bassett isn't sleeping too well these days. :)
Ralph Baer
08-27-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Still only 5992. :( Up to 6K. :)
RowdyWolverine
08-27-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by MikeR
Two articles posted in the D3 thread by GoRITTigers (thanks)
DIII faces reform package (http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10069424&BRD=1169&PAG=740&dept_id=349537&rfi=6)
DIII Chairwoman faces tough times (http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10069422&BRD=1169&PAG=740&dept_id=349537&rfi=6) Wow, I hadn't heard about that survey. That's a little disturbing. I still don't see what their motivation for changing the rule is. Who is "playing up" hurting?Bassett said a survey of the Division III membership in the spring found that most schools want to make DIII institutions play at the DIII level in all sports.
'There was almost an 80 percent return on the survey,' she said. 'About 60 percent of those responding supported eliminating multi-division status as it existed.'
miker
08-27-2003, 09:56 AM
rats...Ralph -you were a step ahead of me !!!
6000 Total Signatures :D
I hope she has many restless nights until October when the proposal is rejected. Maybe we can talk to her husband;)
miker
08-27-2003, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by RowdyWolverine
Wow, I hadn't heard about that survey. That's a little disturbing. I still don't see what their motivation for changing the rule is. Who is "playing up" hurting?
here's the D3 newletter that helps me take a dump
D3 rag (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/d3_newsletter/200307_d3_newsletter.pdf)
The key survey parts are on page 20 (membership), and page 17 (financial aid).
4)Eliminate multidivision classification,i.e.,require all sports to be sponsored in Division III (46% strongly support or support,13%somewhat support,10%somewhat oppose,31%strongly oppose or oppose).Six conferences unanimously supported or supported with one vote of opposition;two conferences unanimously opposed or opposed with one vote of support
No anwers though other than philosophical purity.
miker
08-27-2003, 11:27 AM
This also was a cause for concern from the 1st article...
'The amendment would make the (reform) proposal more like the current rule,' Dutcher explained. 'They could delay the effective date, institute a waiver process with perhaps a review every 10 or 15 years or cap the number of scholarships at a level below the Division I limit. Those are some of the proposals I'm hearing.'
None of these options are acceptable- maybe if they made it 100 or 150 years....
Ralph Baer
08-27-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by MikeR
cap the number of scholarships at a level below the Division I limit. I'd like to hear the logic behind that one.
Red Cloud
08-27-2003, 11:34 AM
So the "jealous kid on the playground" scenario is real? Wow, truth can be stranger than fiction sometimes...
miker
08-27-2003, 11:56 AM
Unfortunately, it is real.:confused:
This philosophical argument is not kosher with me as well. It is easy to be philosophically correct when you are not affected. It makes a grand statement and looks impressive in print. But what does it correct? I'm sure some of you have been involved with these in business.
:)
Edit: I did some searching, looking for additional answers, other than philosophical reasons...where anyone stated D1/D3 coexisting was a problem previously. I found nothing.
I did find a interesting release from Franklin and Marshall regarding Centennial Conference reforms, which John Hopkins is a part of. Apparently they have already implemented a majority of the proposals.
FandM release (http://www.fandm.edu/departments/athletics/releases/03D8036556.html)
And this editorial from a Dickinson VP...no mention of the affected D1 teams here either
Collegenews.org (http://www.collegenews.org/x2680.xml)
and comments from the Wesleyan AD to Mr. Brand regarding his primary concerns.
John Biddiscombe, director of athletics
Wesleyan University (Connecticut)
"From a Division III perspective, the advice I'd give to Dr. Brand is to understand that the NCAA has a very diverse membership. Each division has very different needs. He needs to take the time to understand and analyze the differences in needs among the divisions.
"In Division III, the biggest issues right now have to do with championships and subdivisions. There is a sentiment for expansion of national championships, but how can that best be accomplished in harmony with the Division III philosophy, which really emphasizes in-season play? The administrative structure of the NCAA will also need to address the possibility that we may eventually see a Division III-AA or III-B."
What I have read supports this...fear of a D3 split and fear of D3 athletics turning into D1.
Ralph Baer
08-28-2003, 04:58 AM
Article in the RPI student newspaper including a link to the petition: http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2335&part=1 .
Also an ediitorial http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2322&part=1 .
Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Article in the RPI student newspaper including a link to the petition: http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2335&part=1 .
Also an ediitorial http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2322&part=1 .
Very well written articles. I guess some engineers can write.
Ralph Baer
08-28-2003, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by vicb
Very well written articles. I guess some engineers can write. The editorial did mention that it would compromise the quality of hockey at over a dozen schools which is an exaggeration unless it will affect the quality of hockey at CC, CCT, RPI, and SLU's opponents also. Maybe it will. :D
engineerhockeyfan
08-28-2003, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Article in the RPI student newspaper including a link to the petition: http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2335&part=1 .
Also an ediitorial http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2322&part=1 .
Great articles Ralph.
After reading them I realized that I might not have a handle on the history of D-111 schools "playing up".
When divisions were put into place, the D-111 schools were allowed to "play up" in one sport. Who authorized that? Was it the NCAA or was it the newly formed D-111 division?
If in fact it was the NCAA at large, shouldn't they be the one to step in and say that this is an untouchable rule?
How did D-111 get the authority to overide an NCAA directive?
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.