Petition against DivIII changes

[CommAvHusky]

Originally posted by KLEINER!!!
I like to think of Clarkson as the New York Rangers of college hockey. :D

I had no idea Clarkson got their players from Edmonton:D

[miker]

The Management Council will discuss the reform package at their next meeting October 20-21 in Indianapolis, then send it on to the President's Council for its October 30 meeting in Indianapolis.


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

[miker]

Here's an article from NCAA.org discussing the lack of discussion regarding the proposal that eliminates endowment funds to be used for financial aid.

I say, if no institutions are concerned...then they already have other methods to use endowments to provide aid to student-athletes....another looks good on paper proposal.

Another quote picked out from the article, which I hope does not apply to the scholarship proposal...

In my own conference, everyone just wanted to know numbers -- who does this effect?" said Johnson, whose school is a member of the Empire 8 Athletic Conference. "I think that if they felt it affected a significant portion of the membership, then maybe they wouldn't support it. But I'm not hearing that from anyone."

NCAA article link (http://www.ncaa.org/news/2003/20031013/active/4021n02.html)

[vicb]

Well I read the article and I think I will puke if I hear the "P" word again (Philosophy) . This is against our philosophy and that is against our philosophy but boy we don't intend to stop people from donating, no sir re bob, just be sure your dontations don't go to helping support an athletically gifted student. WHAT A PIECE OF BULL S$IT. Does anyone really think that a similar piece of legislation that says you can't support a black student or some student of a certain ethnic background that that would be allowed to pass. But take an athlete, and all of a sudden all the rules go out the window. UNFREAKEN BELIEVEABLE.

[kashmunnie73]

...start their hockey season BEFORE the Bruins!!! All these Canadian juniors were all academically acclimated before they dropped the puck...the first week of October? SLU should pay these kids money/ a salary...not just a scholarship. When SLU was grand-fathered D1 Ecac hockey probably started mid/late November...now they play from Sept to April. kash

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by vicb
Does anyone really think that a similar piece of legislation that says you can't support a black student or some student of a certain ethnic background that that would be allowed to pass. But take an athlete, and all of a sudden all the rules go out the window. UNFREAKEN BELIEVEABLE. Yes! This is right on with what Dr. Brand talked about here at the Institute... a student who is a musician is considered to be worthy of acceptable scholarship, but only when that student is engaged in the "elite" music, such as classical, students in rock bands don't count. At the same time, the elite of academia consider athletes to be substandard in the classroom. This is totally out of whack with the old Athenian learning standards - developing both the body and the mind. Today's "philosophy" is junk... it spends too much focus on the mind at the expense of everything else, including common sense. :rolleyes:

[engineerhockeyfan]

Just a note for discussion.
I met with the swiming and diving coach at Union (my daughter is considering going there) yesterday and asked him what he thought of the D-111 proposal.
He had no idea what I was talking about.
Not only that, but his follow up comment was "all I care about is winning"
What does that say about D111 Philosophy?

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by engineerhockeyfan
Just a note for discussion.
I met with the swiming and diving coach at Union (my daughter is considering going there) yesterday and asked him what he thought of the D-111 proposal.
He had no idea what I was talking about. Amazing. :eek:

[miker]

Originally posted by engineerhockeyfan
Just a note for discussion.
I met with the swiming and diving coach at Union (my daughter is considering going there) yesterday and asked him what he thought of the D-111 proposal.
He had no idea what I was talking about.
Not only that, but his follow up comment was "all I care about is winning"
What does that say about D111 Philosophy?

Philosophy sounds good in the press.

It's not surprising hat he didn't know about the proposal. I feel the schools have done a horrendous job of getting the word out. Clarkson's historical approach with all things has been to do it behind closed doors (like Pedro Martinez shutting out the press)....I hope that doesn't spread to the other schools.

[miker]

Minnesota Star-Tribune Link (http://www.startribune.com/stories/503/4152458.html)




During this time of year, when the Colorado air turns sharp and the mountains fade to white, Joel Nielsen should be straining his voice at the soccer pitch and the hockey rink.

Instead, the Colorado College athletic director has been hunkered down in his office, driving himself hoarse with a frantic campaign to save his school's signature sports.

Tigers men's hockey and women's soccer have conferred a taste of Division I glamour on a campus where other athletes compete in Division III. An NCAA reform proposal, however, threatens to force Colorado College and seven other schools to leave Division III or risk the status of their historic D-I programs. As a new hockey season hatches, CC and three Division I on-ice compatriots -- Clarkson, St. Lawrence and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) -- are working to sway opinion before a January vote decides their futures.

The proposal, part of a larger reform package, would require Division III member schools with Division I programs to stop awarding athletic scholarships in those sports.

The eight affected schools could continue to sponsor D-I sports, but their ability to succeed would be devastated without scholarships. The issue will be reviewed by the D-III Presidents Council on Oct. 30, and if approved, it will be voted upon by all 424 D-III members at the annual NCAA convention early next year. If passed, the changes will go into effect in 2008, leaving schools time to decide their next move.

The affected programs also include women's hockey at St. Lawrence and Clarkson; men's and women's lacrosse at Johns Hopkins; men's volleyball at Rutgers-Newark; men's soccer at State University of New York-Oneonta; and men's soccer and women's water polo at Hartwick. While the eight schools represent only a small fraction of Division III membership, the issue has whipped up a sirocco of controversy.

"These are not what I would call renegade programs with renegade athletes," Nielsen said. "Our Division I athletes act more like Division III athletes. I'm very proud of the way we operate, and I'm disappointed that message has not been loud and clear."

Others say that message should not overshadow the larger one: the Division III philosophy statement. The reform package is meant to pull D-III schools back to their ethical roots through strict interpretation of the division's principles, which include a prohibition on athletic scholarships.

Carleton athletic director Leon Lunder, a member of the NCAA Division III Management Council that drafted the reform proposal, said he doesn't dispute the integrity of the eight schools' programs. But to be part of D-III, he argued, all of their sports should follow all of its rules.

"The bottom line is, the Division III philosophy states quite clearly that we do not give athletic-related financial aid," Lunder said. "Schools have a choice whether they want to be Division I, Division II, Division III or NAIA. There may be a desire to have their cake and eat it, too.

"But if Division I is good for one program [at a school], why isn't it good for all programs? And if Division III is good for one, why isn't it good for all? These are great schools with great traditions and great respect for academics and athletics. This is no small issue. But it is a critical issue."

Hits hockey hard

It's uncertain how many of the affected schools would downgrade their Division I programs or compete without scholarships should the legislation pass. Colorado College President Richard Celeste says the school is "firmly committed" to its D-I teams, and it has been speculated that if necessary, CC would move its other sports to Division II, which is unaffected by the pending reform. Johns Hopkins officials have indicated they would elevate all sports to D-I.

The issue has sparked particular outrage in college hockey circles, where the four endangered men's teams have brought pride, publicity, athletic prestige and championships to small institutions better known for their brainpower. CC has won two NCAA titles, in 1950 and '57, and has made the D-I tournament eight of the past nine seasons. RPI captured titles in 1954 and '85. St. Lawrence has played in 15 NCAA tournaments, and Clarkson's 18 invitations include nine in the 1990s.

Earlier this year, hockey lost two Division I programs when Iona and Fairfield decided their athletic funds could be better spent elsewhere. That left 58 members in a sport that just increased its NCAA tournament bracket to 16 teams, and any further defections would cause more pain.

"It's certainly a cause for concern in the hockey community," said Ron Grahame, chairman of the D-I men's ice hockey committee and assistant athletic director at Denver. "If these schools decide they can't make it work, it would have a huge impact. It would take three or four schools out of the hockey landscape, and any time you do that, it's not positive."

Colorado College coach Scott Owens said no recruits have expressed concern about the pending legislation. He and Nielsen both said they are committed to maintaining the 66-year-old program in its current state. Gophers coach Don Lucia, who led the Tigers from 1993 to '99, expects each of the schools involved to keep their teams right where they are.

"I think this [legislation] will go through, but I think everything will remain the same with all of them," Lucia said. "They have far too much tradition to let it go. I can understand where Division III is coming from, but these schools have a good argument. They're doing things the right way."

Lunder has listened, but he isn't swayed. Nearly two years ago, Division III leaders began lengthy discussions about whether member schools believed in and followed its philosophy. That process gave birth to the reform proposal, which also would prohibit redshirting, shorten seasons and eliminate endowments or scholarships tied to athletics.

Only two components of the package -- the prohibition of scholarships for Division I athletes and the end of redshirting -- were not approved unanimously. The scholarship issue engendered the most passionate debate. The current rules were set in 1983, when D-III created an exemption that enabled members with existing D-I scholarship sports to continue awarding aid.

Some reform supporters say the changes would remove other potential advantages for schools with a D-I scholarship sport. Lunder said if a D-I scholarship athlete were to play a second sport at the D-III level, that athlete would be treated differently than D-III teammates, which would be unfair. Others argue the mere presence of a D-I sport on campus gives schools an edge.

Nielsen doesn't buy that reasoning. "That is not the case at CC," he said. "You can't paint this with a broad brush. We operate under a Division III philosophy, and I feel we have a very viable argument as to how we do business."

Intense lobbying

That is exactly the case the Embattled Eight are pushing. They have joined to lobby support among D-III members in the hope the scholarship provision will be dropped or altered by the Presidents Council. If it remains intact, the group will continue to campaign up to the January vote.

The schools' presidents and ADs have enlisted alumni, supporters, hockey conference officials and D-I colleagues to trumpet the virtues of their programs. Through letters, e-mail and phone calls, they echo an unofficial motto: if it isn't broken, why fix it? More than 7,500 people -- including trustees of some affected schools -- also have signed an online petition supporting the status quo.

It's impossible to predict how the vote might go. NCAA President Myles Brand, an RPI graduate, said he thinks there is "a better than 50 percent chance" the eight schools will get to keep their current status. Carlyle Carter, executive director of the Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, anticipates many league members will favor the reforms.

"It's going to be a tough one," he said. "You can see the contradiction that a multidivisional member can pose. I can empathize with the situation of those getting caught by this. But when you come down to it, this is the philosophy we hold to, and you can live by it or find another home."

That isn't as easy as it sounds. Schools could face vigorous debate as to whether they can or should absorb the added costs of having all sports compete in a higher division. Moving up also would require changing conferences, ending established D-III rivalries and adjusting the athletic department's philosophy to reflect its new division's mission.

Lunder promised that no matter what happens, it will be decided in a fair manner. "This will be debated with emotion, but with respect," Lunder said. "That's another part of our division that's great -- everyone has a vote. It will be a very democratic process."

[kashmunnie73]

...geez...how di the editor let that by..? The CC coach is dissembling when he says his hockey players are "more like D3 athletes". D1 and D3 hockey is the most quasi-professional of all college sports....guys defer college for 2-3+ years to tune up to be 22 year old frosh( worse in D3)...the season runs over all semesters from Sept to April.....and CC guys are hearing from the NHL all the time. When was the last CC football player who left early for NFL?.....those guys aren't like D3 athletes. The Canadian junior system now runs D1 and D3 hockey.....not a system famous for its interest in the academy. kash

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
...geez...how di the editor let that by..? The CC coach is dissembling when he says his hockey players are "more like D3 athletes". D1 and D3 hockey is the most quasi-professional of all college sports....guys defer college for 2-3+ years to tune up to be 22 year old frosh( worse in D3)...the season runs over all semesters from Sept to April.....and CC guys are hearing from the NHL all the time. When was the last CC football player who left early for NFL?.....those guys aren't like D3 athletes. The Canadian junior system now runs D1 and D3 hockey.....not a system famous for its interest in the academy. kash It sounds like D-III hockey is in need of reform, not D-I hockey. Perhaps the D-III council is going after the wrong end of the spectrum. :)

[Ralph Baer]

Not the most important body to convince ;) , but the RPI Student Senate condemned the proposal: http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2474&part=1

[joecct77]

It appears that El Prez is speaking with forked tongue:

NCAA President's message on D3 reforms (http://www.ncaa.org/news/2003/20031013/editorial/4021n42.html)

[miker]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I don't even know what to say at this point...I'm sick.

random thoughts-
see the vote in January???? gd "reclaiming the game" garbage, if I hear the philosophy statement ONE MORE TIME

some things released that are glaring...


While they may differ on some details, Division III institutions overwhelmingly have demonstrated throughout the reform process that they are united in their commitment to the Division III philosophy. The reform package as a whole reflects that unity.

How Division III wishes to shape its future truly is a membership decision. While I do not have a vote, I feel strongly in this case that the package is well thought out and progressive, and it advances the philosophy of Division III.

The Council should not attempt to amend the legislation, or even anticipate potential amendments to the package at this time, for that would infringe upon the membership's right to debate legislation on the Convention floor.
:mad: :mad:

Edit: does the above contradict with this:

"There is a hurricane of reforms out there, and I think institutions like RPI and Johns Hopkins have been caught up in the waves," said Brand, in a lecture entitled "The Ethical and Academic Challenges of College Sports."

"I think there is a better than 50 percent chance that [scholarship reform] won't pass," Brand said.

or this...
Dr. Brand expressed his sincere hope that the 300-plus voting members of Division III would see the “wisdom” of keeping things the same, and stated his confidence that the current effort by the Rensselaer administration to block the amendment would succeed

[Red Cloud]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you want to find schools that adhere to D-III "philosophy," look no further than Clarkson, Colorado College, Johns Hopkins, RPI, and St. Lawrence. They are EXCELLENT arbiters of the D-III philosophy while utilizing scholarships to stay competitive in the top tier of their selected sports.

[miker]

found this on collegenews.org regarding the proposals...interesting read
CC's president made some comments as well..
Comments from top Liberal Arts presidents (http://www.collegenews.org/InBrief.xml)

[ultimateknee]

When would this take effect? This season? or what?

[miker]

Originally posted by ultimateknee
When would this take effect? This season? or what?

August 2008, but affects recruiting now.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by MikeR
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

I don't even know what to say at this point...I'm sick.

random thoughts-
see the vote in January???? gd "reclaiming the game" garbage, if I hear the philosophy statement ONE MORE TIME

some things released that are glaring...


While they may differ on some details, Division III institutions overwhelmingly have demonstrated throughout the reform process that they are united in their commitment to the Division III philosophy. The reform package as a whole reflects that unity.

How Division III wishes to shape its future truly is a membership decision. While I do not have a vote, I feel strongly in this case that the package is well thought out and progressive, and it advances the philosophy of Division III.

The Council should not attempt to amend the legislation, or even anticipate potential amendments to the package at this time, for that would infringe upon the membership's right to debate legislation on the Convention floor.
:mad: :mad:

Edit: does the above contradict with this:

"There is a hurricane of reforms out there, and I think institutions like RPI and Johns Hopkins have been caught up in the waves," said Brand, in a lecture entitled "The Ethical and Academic Challenges of College Sports."

"I think there is a better than 50 percent chance that [scholarship reform] won't pass," Brand said.

or this...
Dr. Brand expressed his sincere hope that the 300-plus voting members of Division III would see the “wisdom” of keeping things the same, and stated his confidence that the current effort by the Rensselaer administration to block the amendment would succeed I guess that proves that Brand knew who his audience was when he spoke at RPI. It also proves that you shouldn't trust someone who majored in philosophy at an engineering school. :eek: I am going to have to check my yearbook, but I would be surprised if more than two or three people majored in Philosophy in my class.