Petition against DivIII changes

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by engineerhockeyfan
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? I always thought that it was the NCAA itself. However, let's face it, every organization wants as much power for itself as possible, and the D-III council feels that because the schools in question declared themselves as D-III, they should be under their control, even when the school is playing a sport at a different level. I still think that the argument that having a D-I sport is a plus to all the school's sports is pure lunacy. Just look at RPI's hockey and football programs when NCAA President Myles Brand '64 was at RPI. The hockey team made the NCAA Tourney twice and the football team was 0-28 in those four years. It sure helped them.

[miker]

This is how they have gotten around the issue....in the D1 and D3 manuals it states -

20.7.1.2 Division III Application. A Division III member institution that has a sport classified in
Division I must apply the rules of both divisions, or the more stringent rule if both divisions have a
rule concerning the same issue except that in either instance, the Division III institution may
apply the Division I playing and practice season regulations of Bylaw 17 in the Division I sport.
(Revised: 1/11/94)

this is where the affected schools are grandfathered....
20.7.1.2.1 Waivers. If a Division III member institution conducts a men’s or women’s sport
that was classified in Division I during the 1982-83 academic year, the Division III
Management Council, by a two-thirds majority of its members present and voting, may
approve waivers of the application of the Division III regulations to such a sport. This provision
also applies to such an institution that later reclassifies a sport for the opposite gender to
Division I.

Now the D2 manual is different...1 because it has no national championship in hockey, 2 the legislation rules

20.4.1.1 Classification of a Sport in Division I. A member may petition to be classified in Division I in any
one men’s sport, other than football or basketball, and in any one women’s sport, other than basketball,
and in any single sport in which the only NCAA championships opportunity is the National Collegiate
Championship. In addition, a member may be classified in Division I in a sport in which there is a Division
I and a Division III championship, but no Division II championship. (Revised: 1/11/94 effective 8/1/94)

20.7.1 Applicable Legislation. A member institution shall observe the applicable legislation and requirements
of its membership division. However, if the institution is eligible to participate in a sport in
another division (see Bylaw 20.4 for multidivision-classification privileges), it shall apply the rules of the
other division that govern the sport in question.

[miker]

What this proposal really does, and more critically, is eliminate the 20.7.1.2.1 waiver. They will still be able to play, but now under the more stringent rules of D3 (20.7.1.2), except practice and playing seasons. That is why this is actually more threatening to the future than just scholarships. :mad:

Edit: thinking it through a little, another option would be to add verbiage that states "approves waivers of the application of the Division III regulations to such a sport, except the granting of athletic scholarships.

Also, since it is in the D1 manual, do they have to approve this as well??

[jerrynu26]

Since it required a 2/3 vote to implement, should it also require (to be fair) at least a 2/3 vote to rescind????

[kashmunnie73]

....appeal to their liberal bias...make it a cultural argument.....hockey along the St. Lawrence River watershed is an ancient cultural rite of passage...like lacrosse and high steel in the Five Nations. kash

[bigfish]

Originally posted by jerrynu26
Since it required a 2/3 vote to implement, should it also require (to be fair) at least a 2/3 vote to rescind????

that is the Management Council. If it is/was required, then when they made their recomendations to the President's Council they must have had a 2/3 vote.

[miker]

Sign the DIII petition! (http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html)

Another article (8/23) with comments from SLU President Sullivan, and Clarkson AD Frazier

here is the link...
As posted on Hobart/William Smith site (http://www.hws.edu/news/sports/showwebclip.asp?webclipid=991)


Edit: CC has a good site with links to some related articles, Q&A section, as well as quotes from the administration..
CC Athletics (http://www.coloradocollege.edu/athletics/)

[miker]

President’s Council chairman John McCardell of Middlebury College in Vermont said it’s time to address the "anomaly" in Division III philosophy represented by schools such as CC.

"If they still want to give athletic scholarships, they can move up to Division II or Division I," McCardell said.

"If that’s more important than anything else, that would be a regrettable but plausible option."
__________________________________________________ __
What a DORK.:mad:

[Ralph Baer]

Mike,

Thanks for the links.

Some factual errors in the Hobart article.

1. Clarkson has played for the NCAA championship three times - 1962, 1970 and 1991. I know they played in 1966.

2. The NCAA limits scholarships in both hockey and lacrosse to 12.5 and 11.5, respectively. 18 in hockey, as we all know.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by MikeR
What a DORK.:mad: I think that all Dorks should feel offended by this comparison. :D

[bigfish]

Originally posted by MikeR

What a DORK.:mad:

that's reasoning with him, Mike;)

[miker]

Just venting, since I don't think he would take my opinion into consideration. Besides, I've read his resume...let's just say it is a little more substantial than mine and reasoning would not work.

Actually not paying attention, I thought I was posting on another board:D (i.e. one without Bigfish;) )

[miker]

What others within the D3 world think..
Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/sports/lacrosse/ny-div3173416873aug17,0,2023510.story?coll=ny-collegesports-headlines)
Many of the colleges in the Long Island and New York City area may be voting in January. Farmingdale State athletic director Mike Harrington said giving scholarships contradicts the Division III philosophy. "If I was asked to vote right now, I would want all Division III schools to stay Division III ," he said. "Even if I had a friend at Hopkins who pleaded with me."

Harrington said Hopkins should have a Division I lacrosse program, "but that doesn't mean they should be Division III in everything else."

Hunter College AD Terry Wansart said having a Division-I program on campus gives Division III teams an advantage in terms of facilities and training. "It's not a fair playing ground," she said.

SUNY-Old Westbury AD John Lonardo echoed those sentiments. "I think if you are Division III," he said, "you should be Division III across the board."

Wansart and Lonardo said they would probably vote for an amended proposal that will allow the current eight schools an exemption but prevented other schools from joining them.
([I] sounds reasonable to me!)

Pietramala said he has spoken with his recruits about the issue, which would not affect players already committed to Hopkins. Incoming high school juniors will be the first class affected if the proposal goes through. Pietramala said he isn't worried, though

"This is something that has come up a number of times," Pietramala said. "Hopkins has always said if it came down to it, it would go Division I. That's what I've been told and I'm very confident in what I've been told."
----------------------------------------------------------
Looks like some educating needs to be given to the D3 AD's. :rolleyes:
Searching on the web, it appears that CC has been the most vocal with the AP release of an article that has been picked up by quite a few newspapers. Here's another link from Hartwick-
Hartwick College release (http://www.hartwick.edu/x5036.xml)

[kashmunnie73]

....according to Prez Brody in that Will/Smith article.....note also CC has D1 women's soccer. Wow....Hopkins D1 across all sports.....Mayor Bloomberg and John Malone pull out the alumni check book. Good geographical position for football and basketball.....what league would they join?.....nfw on the Ivy League...right? What league is G'town in? kash

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by MikeR
Wansart and Lonardo said they would probably vote for an amended proposal that will allow the current eight schools an exemption but prevented other schools from joining them.
( sounds reasonable to me!) Interesting that they would say that after their other comments. While from the RPI POV that would be fine, I see nothing wrong about other schools doing the same in a non-basketball/football sport. I also wonder what this would do to RPI's women's team if they finally decide to go D-I.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
What league is G'town in? kash Big East, last I heard. ;) Patriot League in football.

[miker]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Big East, last I heard. ;) Patriot League in football.

Just a quick check on the web....indicates G-town likes to have more league affiliations than I have underwear!:eek:
With suggestions of moving baseball to the patriot league..

ECAC for lacrosse,
Big East for soccer, basketball, baseball
Patriot League for football


NFW on the John Hopkins to Ivy League move.

[RichS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ralph Baer
[B]Mike,

Thanks for the links.

Some factual errors in the Hobart article.

1. Clarkson has played for the NCAA championship three times - 1962, 1970 and 1991. I know they played in 1966.


Clarkson lost in the semis to Tony Amonte's BU team. In '62, '66, and '70, Tech lost in the championship game.

[chilly]

Clarkson was in the final four in 1963 also, losing to Denver in the semis. They beat BC in the consolation game.

[Ralph Baer]

It's interesting to see who has signed the petition. One sees a great sampling of college hockey throughout the years from both the schools that are the subject of the proposal and those that aren't. To me this says a lot about the support that the petition to overturn this has.

The following from Dave Burke (#6473) who played defense for Cornell about 1990:
As a former competitor against the schools affected, I believe it would be an injustice to current student-athletes, high school student-athletes dreaming about university athletics, and the students and community members on those campuses who derive pleasure from watching their schools compete with "major" institutions. One could argue that there are many more who have not signed the petition than those that have, but I suspect that this is in large part due to the word not getting out and perahps the Pastor Martin Niemoller syndrome.