Petition against DivIII changes

[Ralph Baer]

Letter to the Editor in the RPI student newspaper: http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2353&part=1

[miker]

Happened to catch this on the web....It's from the "council of independent colleges". Apparently an attempt at a "presentation":rolleyes: to other presidents, looks to me like a "let's all get together, and make "good choices" hug fest" . Now ensure we get the crayola font, that way everyone will buy-in to our ideas and not feel threatened!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Makes me want to PUKE!
.CIC/dale carnegie notes (http://www.cic.org/conferences_events/presidents/previouspres/PI2003athletics.pdf)

[vicb]

Originally posted by MikeR
Happened to catch this on the web....It's from the "council of independent colleges". Apparently an attempt at a "presentation":rolleyes: to other presidents, looks to me like a "let's all get together, and make "good choices" hug fest" . Now ensure we get the crayola font, that way everyone will buy-in to our ideas and not feel threatened!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Makes me want to PUKE!
.CIC/dale carnegie notes (http://www.cic.org/conferences_events/presidents/previouspres/PI2003athletics.pdf)

It is really not a bad presentation per sea. However I will repeat myself for the 100th time. If Div I sports is the problem, then you gotta say sorry guys but to be in Div III you must have all sports in Div III.

The presentation topics:

Time away from class

Pressures on the student athlete in Div I

Not being able to join in other school activities

The sport being a year round endevor

Length of season and practice

How does letting the schools stay in Div I but not offering scholarships solve any of these supposed problems. And are any of these problems really that different for a Div I vs Div III school in a sport such as hockey???

The athletes are supposed adults :) . They have been playing competetively all their lives. They have been living with all these issues during high school or prep school (may be not to the same extent). They know what they are getting into I would think. They want to be at these school playing this sport. To deny them financil aid based on their talent when the Div I rules allow it IMHO is wrong. It should be an institutional decision, not legislated by the Presidents Council.

[miker]

Maybe my gripe with the presentation is my lack of understanding how this proposal fixes any of "D3's problems". And the misuse of the "philosophy" as the guiding light to solve the entire problem without regard to root cause, or circumstances.

Are the affected schools a problem in D3???

In this particular case, rather than identifying and correcting specific problem areas and institutions, they have taken a broad brush stroke (cookie-cutter) approach - without regard to the effect or circumstances. A typical approach is cause and effect, the brush stroke method is used when you have no clue what the problem is!

Now the D3 council's only method to defend this portion of the proposal is because it follows our philosophy. Although the proposal does not correct any of the problems that the original intent of the "philosophy" attempted to solve or avoid.

What has this proposal "fixed"??? :confused:

[LynahFan]

Well, if the D3 schools are no longer allowed to give scholarships, they'll presumably not be as attractive to the "blue-chippa" talent. Therefore, they're more likely to recruit and land non-blue-chip talent. These "2nd tier" players probably take hockey a little less seriously than their blue-chip brethern. Therefore, they probably will put more time into their classes, not feel under as much pressure to perform (they know they're not the best, anyway), join in more other school activities, and not put in as much time training during and after the seasons. By taking away scholarships, the intent is to stick these D1 programs with players who would (individually) approach their sports more like D3 players would.

But to believe this argument would be to believe that the D3 council is plain mean-spirited and a bunch of spoilsports, and that couldn't possibly be true, could it?

[miker]

I like it Lynah!

To the weasels, brats and spoilsports of D3:

Please have some kahunnahs and propose to eliminate the grandfather clause. This current proposal is a back door way of accomplishing the same thing. Both disregard the autonomy of an institution, the separate administration of the D1 sport on campus, and the fact that it is a D1 sport....you don't play!!

We apologize that our traditions, history and academic excellence do not appease you. I'd like to thank you in advance for eliminating my joy in following D1 hockey at Clarkson.

Sincerely,
a lowly, non-athlete, aging engineer
- MikeR

Edit: Just in case you change your mind and wish to add happiness to my life, please sign the petition below.

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

[bigfish]

Mike,
If I signed put the Starwars Kid In Episode III, will that add any happiness to your life?;)

[bigwhistle]

If anyone believes that a D3 player takes his hockey any less vigorously or seriously than a D1 player has no idea of what they speak. I am the father of one of each. My No.2 son played at Canterbury Prep for (God rest his soul) Charlie Huntington. Just about everyone in his class off that team went D1 except him--he was small and fast but didn't have the D1 size. He went to play at Lake Forest and is still playing men's league today out in Denver. He lives and breaths hockey. He just didn't have the body size for D1. His younger brother, on the other hand, is a 210 lb defenseman playing D1 who was blessed with his Mother's genes. The "student athlete" argument that is postured by the D3 schools is specious at best. Somehow I feel there is an ulterior motive behind this push to de-D1 these schools and someday the truth will come out. But for now every friend and fan of college hockey should be on board to support these schools and end this foolishness.

[RichS]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
If anyone believes that a D3 player takes his hockey any less vigorously or seriously than a D1 player has no idea of what they speak. I am the father of one of each. My No.2 son played at Canterbury Prep for (God rest his soul) Charlie Huntington. Just about everyone in his class off that team went D1 except him--he was small and fast but didn't have the D1 size. He went to play at Lake Forest and is still playing men's league today out in Denver. He lives and breaths hockey. He just didn't have the body size for D1. His younger brother, on the other hand, is a 210 lb defenseman playing D1 who was blessed with his Mother's genes. The "student athlete" argument that is postured by the D3 schools is specious at best. Somehow I feel there is an ulterior motive behind this push to de-D1 these schools and someday the truth will come out. But for now every friend and fan of college hockey should be on board to support these schools and end this foolishness.

Agreed....I know and knew plenty of D3 athletes and they work as hard as anyone. Also the idea that D1 athletes are lesser students by definition is garbage.

[Got 6, Want More]

Originally posted by 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.

1962? Wasn't the NCAA final that year University of Denver versus St. Lawrence? Or was that 61?

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by Got 6, Want More
1962? Wasn't the NCAA final that year University of Denver versus St. Lawrence? Or was that 61? It was 1961. http://www.augenblick.org/chha/h_ncch.html . FWIW, RPI finished fourth that year.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by MikeR
Sincerely,
a lowly, non-athlete, aging engineer
- MikeR That's scary! Someone born after I graduated from college calls himself "aging". :eek:

[LynahFan]

Bigwhistle - I meant no slur to your sons. However, I would think that most people would agree that, in general, a typical D3 athlete (which at some schools are not really at a much higher level than intramurals - in keeping with the "ideal" that the new philosophers of D3 are espousing) doesn't spend as much time playing or preparing for his sport as comparable D1 athlete. That's not to say that there's no overlap in effort - there are clearly plenty of D1 loafers who rely on talent alone - just generalizing a little bit for the sake of my strawman. Do you have a more logical explanation for how eliminating scholarships solves any of the harms outlined in the presentation?

[bigwhistle]

You meant no slur and no offense was taken. I was merely pointing out the effort of two boys within a personal experience. However, I strongly disagree agree with your assertion that a "typical d3 athlete doesn't spend as much time..." Having sent 3 sons to prep schools and being active in youth hockey in Connecticut and New York since 1979 (and being a ref; hence Bigwhistle), I have witnessed first hand the ardent desire of almost every teenager that plays strong competitive hockey; and that is to play D1 college hockey. It's a numbers game. There are only so many open slots in D1 and those schools get the pick of the litter. The other aspirants who are not lucky enough to get selected, go D3 or club. That doesn't suggest they didn't put in the same effort; perhaps they even put in more because they knew they weren't the leading recruit on their team and had to try harder. There are probably some who have academic aspirations and strike for a D3 school such as Williams or Middlebury, etc. But I would bet you that those kids are in the minority. The majority of D3 players are there because they couldn't make the grade at D1 for whatever reason; not because of any loftier goals. And once they're there, the weight training, practice, off ice sessions, travel, etc. is almost as vigorous as D1. No, this D1 issue is not being proposed because of some virtuous academic goal. There's something sinister about this whole issue that only time will reveal.

[LynahFan]

Ah - I think I understand the disconnect now. I was thinking of D3 athletics in general, not just hockey. D3 hockey in particular is clearly far superior to intramural hockey and requires much more dedication. However, I doubt that this is the case for many D3 sports at many D3 schools. I don't know enough to come up with an example, but I'm sure there are many, many D3 (non-hockey) teams out there that don't recruit and just accept whatever walk-ons happen to show up for the first practice each year (D3 basketball would seem to be a possibility to me, since there are so many D1 teams - D3 would truly be quite a low level in the grand scheme of things). These "intercollegiate intermural" teams drag the average D3 athlete far down on the dedication scale in my mind.

[miker]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
That's scary! Someone born after I graduated from college calls himself "aging". :eek:

Didn't you know....after 10 years in the business, we all become irrelevant;)


Bigfish...maybe you can sign the petition to have the Star Wars kid become D3 Chair of the President's Council.:D He probably has more common sense.


D3 petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html)

[Ralph Baer]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 8, 2003

ATHLETIC DIRECTORS LAUNCH COORDINATED EFFORT TO ELIMINATE NCAA PROPOSAL

A coordinated effort to stop an NCAA proposal to eliminate the waiver that allows Division III schools sponsoring a Division I sport to offer athletics scholarships was announced today following a meeting of the Athletic Directors from seven of the eight Institutions affected by the proposal.

Athletic Directors from Clarkson University (Mr. Sean T. Frazier), Colorado College (Mr. Joel Nielsen), Hartwick College (Ms. Betty Powell), Johns Hopkins University (Mr. Tom Calder), Rensselaer (Mr. Ken Ralph), Rutgers University-Newark (Mr. John K. Adams) and St. Lawrence University (Ms. Margie Strait) joined in the discussion today at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, N.Y. to coordinate a strategy to defeat the proposed rule change. Mr. Nielsen and Mr. Adams took part via telephone.

The group re-affirmed the academic excellence and strong traditions and history that have been attached to their various programs. Discussion also centered on the importance of these particular programs to their local communities. The group also focused on the importance of raising the awareness of this issue amongst all interested parties.

"We had a very productive meeting, and are confident that we have a strategy that will benefit all of our institutions," said Ralph of Rensselaer. "We are committed to working together to ensure that all parties understand what is at stake here, and to develop alternatives to proposals now on the table."

The NCAA proposal in question is part of a sweeping package of reforms aimed at Division III athletic departments including adjusting playing seasons, financial aid and recruiting. The Council also noted that its word was not the last on any of these proposals since the membership has the next five months to consider the merits of the proposals, including the amendment-to-amendment process, before it will vote on them at the 2004 NCAA Convention. The Council further noted that it would be communicating with the eight affected Division III institutions that give scholarship aid in their Division I programs and receiving their feedback to its October meeting.

The proposal, announced in August, is scheduled to be discussed at an October meeting of the NCAA President's Council. Unless the proposal is withdrawn, it is scheduled for a vote by the 424 Division III Institutions at a NCAA Convention in January in Nashville, Tenn.

CONTACT: Clarkson University: Chris Ritter at (315) 268-6487
Colorado College: Lisa Ellis at (719) 389-6466
Hartwick: Rob Clark at (607) 431-4031
Johns Hopkins: Dennis O'Shea at (410) 516-7109
Rensselaer: Theresa Bourgeois at (518) 276-2840 or Kevin Beattie at 276-2187
Rutgers-Newark: John Stallings at (973) 353-5474
St. Lawrence: Lisa Cania at (315) 229-5567

[RowdyWolverine]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 8, 2003

ATHLETIC DIRECTORS LAUNCH COORDINATED EFFORT TO ELIMINATE NCAA PROPOSAL Ralph, did you write this press release? :p If not, please cite your source.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by RowdyWolverine
Ralph, did you write this press release? :p If not, please cite your source.

Oops. It is an RPI press release from RPI's SID Kevin Beattie. I cut that part off because Jayson Moy once told me that I shouldn't include it.

Note that SUNY-Oneonta didn't take part.

[nubobcat]

RPI, schools work together to maintain waiver


Published on 9/9/2003

Associated Press


TROY -- Athletic directors from seven Division III schools pledged Monday to work together to defeat a proposal that would bar them from offering athletic scholarships for their Division I sports.

The NCAA Division III Presidents Council in August recommended ending the waivers that allowed the schools to offer the scholarships. The proposal, part of a larger reform package, would affect programs at eight schools, including lacrosse at Johns Hopkins and ice hockey at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

"At this point all the Presidents Council is saying is let the membership vote on it. They're not saying, 'We think it ought to go this way, or we think it ought to go that way,"' said NCAA spokeswoman Kay Hawes.

School officials complained their programs could be undermined without the waivers.

"It really helps us to attract not just lacrosse players, but lacrosse players that have really high academic standards," said Johns Hopkins athletic director Tom Calder. Johns Hopkins men's lacrosse has won seven Division I NCAA championships.

Athletic directors who met at the RPI campus on Monday said afterward that they would work together to lobby NCAA officials to stop the proposal.

The Division III Presidents Council meets in October and could alter or withdraw the proposal, the athletic officials said. A final vote on the larger reform package is set for January at the NCAA convention in Nashville.

"This is a long way from being finalized and we don't want anyone to get the impression this is a done deal," said RPI athletic director Ken Ralph.

The schools represented at the RPI meeting and their affected Division I programs are: Colorado College (men's and women's ice hockey); St. Lawrence (men's, women's ice hockey); Clarkson (men's, women's ice hockey); RPI (men's ice hockey); Hartwick College (women's water polo); Rutgers-Newark (men's volleyball), and Johns Hopkins (men's and women's lacrosse.)

Officials from Colorado College and Rutgers-Newark participated by telephone.

An eighth school, the State University of New York at Oneonta (men's soccer), did not participate in the meeting. Oneonta sports information director Geoff Hassard said the school would probably not lobby against the proposal.

The NCAA in 1983 barred Division III schools from awarding financial aid based on athletic performance, but eight schools that were already giving scholarships were allowed to continue. In 1985, the NCAA allowed the "grandfathered" schools to add scholarships for one Division I women's sport to comply with Title IX.