Petition against DivIII changes

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by nubobcat
Colorado College (men's and women's ice hockey); That should be women's soccer.

It's good to see this come out as an AP story.

[Ralph Baer]

Albany T-U article: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=168056&category=SPORTS&newsdate=9/9/2003

[Ralph Baer]

A picture from the meeting yesterday. That's RPI's Ken Ralph at the podium. the others must be the AD's of Clarkson, SLU, Hartwick, and Johns Hopkins. Can anyone identify who is who?

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/NewsComm/sub/Pressimgs/div1pressconf.jpg

[RowdyWolverine]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
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. That doesn't make sense to me. Without citing a source, it could be construed as plagarism. I think Moy was probably concerned about copying and pasting the whole text of an article (w/o permission) because it might violate a copyright. However, it is perfectly legal to link the article and even quote passages, as long as you reference the author, as far as I know.

Anywho, has anyone contacted the people listed in the release to let them know about our databases?

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by RowdyWolverine
That doesn't make sense to me. Without citing a source, it could be construed as plagarism. I think Moy was probably concerned about copying and pasting the whole text of an article (w/o permission) because it might violate a copyright. However, it is perfectly legal to link the article and even quote passages, as long as you reference the author, as far as I know.

Anywho, has anyone contacted the people listed in the release to let them know about our databases? Jayson was concerned about me posting the RPI SID's phone number and email address where they could be "harvested". Of course, now I posted the phone numbers of seven AD's. :D

I would post these releases as links except that I get them by email from the RPI Sports mailing list. They do eventually get to the net and here is a current link http://www.rpi.edu/web/News/press_releases/2003/ncaa_090803.html . The link from that page is to the picture that I posted below.

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
A picture from the meeting yesterday. That's RPI's Ken Ralph at the podium. the others must be the AD's of Clarkson, SLU, Hartwick, and Johns Hopkins. Can anyone identify who is who?
From left to right:
Clarkson's Sean Frasier
St. Lawrence's Margie Strait
Johns Hopkins' Tom Calder
Hartwick's Betty Powell

I don't know what's up with Oneonta... they're D-I in men's soccer mostly because of the soccer tradition in the Oneonta area (including the US Soccer Hall of Fame). According to the AP, Oneonta isn't interested in fighting the proposal. Strange.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by RPIRED
From left to right:
Clarkson's Sean Frasier
St. Lawrence's Margie Strait
Johns Hopkins' Tom Calder
Hartwick's Betty Powell

I don't know what's up with Oneonta... they're D-I in men's soccer mostly because of the soccer tradition in the Oneonta area (including the US Soccer Hall of Fame). According to the AP, Oneonta isn't interested in fighting the proposal. Strange. Thanks. Did you attend?

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Thanks. Did you attend? Yes, I was there.

[joecct77]

Something interesting has just happened:

Vanderbilt has eliminated their athletic department, integrating it into the school. The link from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51716-2003Sep9.html

[vicb]

Originally posted by cct2div3
Something interesting has just happened:

Vanderbilt has eliminated their athletic department, integrating it into the school. The link from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51716-2003Sep9.html

Looks to me to be basically the same old house with some sprucing up here and there. The two things that were interesting were the expansion of the tutor program to include the entire student body and not just athletes and the supposed elimination of classes for jocks. Now I wonder what will happen with a limited number of tutors available when a confict arises. Joe or Jane student needs help and has to vie for a tutors time with Buck or Missy athlete :rolleyes: .

[miker]

Originally posted by RPIRED
Yes, I was there.

Any comments that were noteworthy & not in the press release?

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by MikeR
Any comments that were noteworthy & not in the press release? http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/sports/default.asp?ArID=39786

This pretty much covers anything not in the release, with the exception of the absence of Oneonta, which I'm not at liberty to talk about. It's got a definite RPI bias because it's an Albany news station, but everything mentioned goes for all of the affected schools.

There's a video link here if you want to meet the real RPIRED, I was interviewed for the story.

[Ralph Baer]

Nice interview, Tom. :)

[miker]

I second Ralph's comments:) and thanks for the link.


Hopefully, we can see this fight gain some momentum. I like seeing the RPI administration taking a strong and public stance...just wish Clarkson would be as forceful.

[bigwhistle]

How about a devil's advocate point of view? Let me preface my comment by saying I'm in favor of defeating this nonsense but maybe from a different angle and I did indeed sign the petition. However, this recommendation does not infringe upon any of the D3 schools right to play up; it only forbids athletic scholarships. Is this correct? If that's the case, then RPI would be comparable with its cross town rival Union and Clarkson & St. Lawrence would be on the same footing as all the other schools in the ECAC (except UVM). The negative impact is more in the form of "ego" and the fact that the prospect of competing for a national championship would be diminished without the ability to offer scholarships. Is that so bad? Is playing D1 hockey contingent upon shcolarships? I think Union has shown, particularly this past year, that without scholarships they can be competitive in the league (I won't draw a comparison amongst Harvard and Cornell because we all know the story there). Can they be competitive against national powerhouses like BU, BC, Michigan, etal. No. But then again, year after year there are only a handful of upper echelon teams and they always seem to be the same schools. RPI, Clarkson & St. Lawrence haven't faired any better lately with their scholarships in the ECAC compared to the non scholarship schools. Maybe it's much ado about nothing. My problem is with the "big brother" mentality that seems so obvious in this movement and I'd rather see each school be allowed to do their own thing without bureaucratic crap. I hope we all get our wish and this goes down to defeat. But I'm cheering from a different perspective; I want to see the 800 lb. gorilla go down.

[kashmunnie73]

...Colorado College has gotten much more competitive in the early 1990's( see team history link). Was that when they started explicitly offering athletic scholarships? kash

[miker]

Bigwhistle,
I appreciate the attempt to find some good in this proposal and the fact you signed the petition.
1. Union finishing 6th in the league ONE time in the last 5 years, and never finishing better than 5th, is not considered competitive.
2. Union has "special financial aid" described in this thread
3. The league itself will also be "watered-down" to a very low level...lower than Atlantic Hockey.
4. The affected schools have funded their programs with the expectation of competing for the national title. If they chose to not do as such, see Colgate or Union, that is their choice - not a bunch of prissypant bureaucrats that are jealous because of some perceived advantage.

The ability to actually compete for the national championship would be eliminated, not just diminished. I guess they could say "well, we were the best of the non-scholarship teams...."
Although the affected schools do not play on a level playing field...this would tip the scales further.

There are more points I believe others can emphasize better than myself....I'm tired of the arguments when I have not found one single good reason for this proposal.

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
If that's the case, then RPI would be comparable with its cross town rival Union That would suck. No offense to Union.

[TimU]

Originally posted by bigwhistle
How about a devil's advocate point of view? Let me preface my comment by saying I'm in favor of defeating this nonsense but maybe from a different angle and I did indeed sign the petition. However, this recommendation does not infringe upon any of the D3 schools right to play up; it only forbids athletic scholarships. Is this correct? If that's the case, then RPI would be comparable with its cross town rival Union and Clarkson & St. Lawrence would be on the same footing as all the other schools in the ECAC (except UVM). The negative impact is more in the form of "ego" and the fact that the prospect of competing for a national championship would be diminished without the ability to offer scholarships. Is that so bad? Is playing D1 hockey contingent upon shcolarships? I think Union has shown, particularly this past year, that without scholarships they can be competitive in the league (I won't draw a comparison amongst Harvard and Cornell because we all know the story there). Can they be competitive against national powerhouses like BU, BC, Michigan, etal. No. But then again, year after year there are only a handful of upper echelon teams and they always seem to be the same schools. RPI, Clarkson & St. Lawrence haven't faired any better lately with their scholarships in the ECAC compared to the non scholarship schools. Maybe it's much ado about nothing. My problem is with the "big brother" mentality that seems so obvious in this movement and I'd rather see each school be allowed to do their own thing without bureaucratic crap. I hope we all get our wish and this goes down to defeat. But I'm cheering from a different perspective; I want to see the 800 lb. gorilla go down.

Two more points:

1. Union only recently moved up to Division 1 hockey (sometime around 1990 maybe?). Clarkson, RPI, and St. Lawrence have a tradition of competing nationally that goes back as far as the NCAA. As an example, St. Lawrence played in the national championship game in 1961 (thank you for not asking the score). Clarkson is the winningest program in the history of Division 1 hockey. RPI has a couple of national championships. It's not the same.

2. SLU, Clarkson, and RPI would NOT be on the same footing with the rest of the league. UVM would still offer scholarships, and the Ivies would still be the Ivies. Recruiting a kid to go to Canton and attend St. Lawrence is not the same thing as recruiting a kid to go to Boston, or to attend Princeton. It just isn't. The Ivy League Schools have prestige that nobody else in the country can touch, and they have enough money in the bank to maintain top-quality facilities and solid financial aid packages (for all students - don't mistake that for an accusation that they offer athletic scholarships in disguise). RPI, Clarkson, and SLU would be on relatively equal footing with Union and Colgate, but in this day and age that doesn't cut it for a school trying to live up to the histories of these three.

[Ralph Baer]

Bigwhistle,
Let me try my hand at this again, although like MikeR said, it is getting awful tiring.

The four schools in question all have long histories of competing at the highest level of college hockey. Two of them have won multiple national championships, and the other two have reached the championship game. The reason that the schools kept their programs in D-I when the NCAA divided was precisely to stay at this level. Others chose differently. For example, Colby was seeded second (IIRC) in the first ECAC playoff (and beat RPI :eek: ) but chose not to keep their program at that level. It was their decision, and it should have been their decision, not anyone else's.

Anyway, if CC, Clarkson, RPI, and SLU cannot play with the same rules as the other D-I hockey teams, then why should they bother at all? It will be a slow death, but one all the same. I see no reason why they should not be allowed to play D-I hockey with the same rules that BC, North Dakota, etc. play under, and no one has said anything even slightly relevant to convincing me otherwise.

****, I hate having to agree with a Clarkson alum.