Petition against DivIII changes

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by ultimateknee
When would this take effect? This season? or what? It sounds like you have been away for the summer. If that is the case, please sign the petition :) :

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

[Ralph Baer]

I found this post by Muskieman on the SLU Skating Saints message board. I don't recall it being posted here earlier, but if it has, it can't hurt being repeated.

Tue Oct 14 23:21:46 2003
Just found the following on the SLU Athletics website:
LETTER TO NCAA DIVISION III PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL FROM PRESIDENTS OF MULTI-DIVISIONAL SCHOOLS IMPACTED BY DIVISION III PROPOSAL

September 23, 2003

To the Members of the NCAA Division III Presidents Council:

We write, as presidents of the eight NCAA Division III institutions that compete in a Division I sport and award grants-in-aid in that sport, to urge you in very strong terms to reconsider and then withdraw your proposal to the NCAA Division III membership that would eliminate the exemption granted our institutions in 1983 (NCAA bylaw number 20.7.1.1.1) that allows us to award grants-in-aid in the Division I sports in which we compete.

Reasons for Rescinding the Management and Presidents Council Proposal

Our reasons for why this proposal should be reconsidered and withdrawn are several and we believe persuasive:

1. While the specifics are different in each case, each of our institutions became involved in what is now Division I competition in a sport for reasons particular to the histories and traditions of our institutions. That involvement by institutions otherwise deeply committed to the Division III philosophy pre-dated the formation of the current divisional structure within the NCAA, and involved sports and levels of competition that had become embedded in the very identities of our institutions. We are competitive in these sports on a national level,in some cases and at some times among the nation's most successful programs in these sports,while maintaining our commitment to a Division III philosophy overall. The NCAA recognized in 1983 that forcing us to compete only at the Division III level would cause unnecessary harm to our institutions. That decision also allowed us, along with the Division I institutions competing in these sports, to award grants-in-aid if we so chose. Justification for the exemption based on these reasons is as strong today as it was then.

2. We believe deeply in the principle that our student-athletes, regardless of the Division of competition, should be representative of the student body as a whole in academic ability and high school performance, and in academic and co-curricular performance and participation on our campuses. We use our grants-in-aid to increase the socioeconomic, geographic, gender, ethnic and racial diversity of our campuses,again, each in our own way, for we are a diverse set of institutions. Eliminating our ability to award grants-in-aid will be a step backward with regard to critical Division III goals that we all support.

3. The present exemption causes no harm to other Division III institutions. Current NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes receiving a Division I grant-in-aid from participating in a Division III sport at their institution. In addition, there is no evidence that our participation at the Division I level in one sport results in a recruitment advantage for student-athletes who will participate in our Division III sports. Continuation of the exemption causes no harm either to other Division III institutions or to the Division III reform agenda.

4. Each of us in different ways has relied on the existence of the exemption to make important institutional commitments with long-term implications. Continuing the exemption does no harm to other Division III institutions but revoking it causes harm to us, and in some cases to our communities.

5. As Division III members, the eight of our institutions receive no benefits routinely given to those institutions with full Division I status. Moreover, we maintain full commitment to the philosophy and practice of Division III. Should there be any misconceptions, please be aware of the following:

a. Representatives from our institutions are not allowed to hold leadership positions in Division I, or serve on Division I policy committees. We do not have the opportunity to have an institutional voice representing our interests within Division I.

b. We do not receive any portion of the Division I championship monetary disbursement.

c. We do not receive the annual Academic Enhancement payout of $51,000 per institution that all Division I institutions receive.

d. Our Division I sport student-athletes do not have access to the Student-Athlete Special Assistance Fund that allows Division I student-athletes access to funding for emergencies based on need.

e. We do not receive Division I funding for sport sponsorship.

f. We do not receive any Division I funding in support of the grants-in-aid we offer.

In short, we finance our Division I intercollegiate athletic programs in the same way that we finance our Division III programs.

With grateful thanks for your consideration of our views on this, and with deep understanding of the complexity of the task you face, we are

Sincerely yours,

cc: Members of the NCAA Division III Management Council

Myles Brand, President, NCAA

Dan Dutcher, Vice President for NCAA Division III

_________________

Tony Collins

President

Clarkson University

_________________

Richard Celeste

President

Colorado College

__________________

Richard P. Miller

President

Hartwick College

__________________

William R. Brody

President

Johns Hopkins University

____________________

Alan Donovan

President

Oneonta State University

_____________________

Shirley Ann Jackson

President

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

_______________________

Steven Diner

Provost

Rutgers-Newark University

______________________

Daniel Sullivan

President

St. Lawrence University

[kashmunnie73]

...The Colorado College prez makes a very weak case...."we don't take the extra money...". But page down to p2...read Davidson College...a NESCAC-type but D1...all sports...down South!!!....he dissembles a bit...only jocks from top 1/2 of class....geez...the rest of students are top 10%!!!...but RPI/SLU/CC go D! like Davidson. The real question....why don't all these junior/prep etc hockey players study harder than their counterparts....they play hockey all year round...take 2-3 years off to tune up for college....so why aren't they studying harder to acheive the privilege of playing college hockey? How many D1 hcokey players go directly to grad school these days...medical, law, business?...why are college players getting dumber? kash

[joecct77]

Kash

Let me throw this one at you. Let's take football....

Junior repeats his 7th grade year so he can be bigger for the HS varsity football team (don't laugh, it's done). He then goes to local HS for 2 years, he then transfers to Hallowed Hall Prep and repeats his sophomore year (not an uncommon thing).

So now Junior, instead of being 18 when he graduates is 20. He then goes to Sparkling Waters U where he is red shirted along with the entire freshman football class (again, not an uncommon thing).

Junior is now a 21 year old freshman football player.

The same can happen in basketball (less common because of the NBA 3 year before big bucks rule), baseball, track and field, and yes, hockey.

Even if Junior went to Trinity, Williams, Middlebury, or any other NESCAC school, he still be a legal 20 year old freshman who, if he had good grades, would be a welcome addition to the football program at any one of those schools.

So lay off hockey as the ONLY sport where 21 year old freshman abound.

[kashmunnie73]

....two points....1) it may happen in football and basketball....those are pretty corrupt at D1...but in hockey...it is systematic.....there are very few 19 yr old frosh....and D3 picks up the even older D1 rejects!!!.....there teams full of 24-25+ yr old seniors....2) at least those football/b-ball guys are staying in educational institutions...NCAA precludes these kids in junior hockey from pursuing serious studies as it cuts down on eligilblity...2-4 years out of school to get a scholarship....and finally...the season is way too long...it's a mercenary joke. kash

[Ralph Baer]

Article about the proposal by the RPI Grand Marshal (student body president) http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2509&part=1

[kashmunnie73]

...yesterday's Globe...Boston.com had long article about "ethics meeting" of nearly all D1 b-ball coaches+NCAA...to discuss St Bonnie team quitting...murder at Baylor etc. kash

[miker]

Just curious, as the decision day is getting closer. Assuming the AD's of the affected schools can get a "winning member" to put this proposal up for vote again....What would the vote look like?

President's Council informal vote

Known "YES" for the proposal:
McCardell (NESGAG)
Knobel (NCAC)


Probable "YES"
Roush (SCAC) chair of another committee
Stone (ODAC) chair of another committee

Maybe "YES"
Watson (Independent)
O'Brien (CAC)
Carter (Little East )


Known "NO: for the proposal:
Fry (Centennial)


Probable "NO"
Nelson (Independent)
Stanley (SUNYAC)
Berman (Skyline)
Howard (SUNYAC)

Maybe "No"
DiBiasio (OAC- Mt. Union is a member)
Wells (WIAC) (hockey schools)
Hernandez (ECAC-SIDA)

I get a count of 8-7:eek:

[Ralph Baer]

The following link was from the RPI Sports list: What will be lost if RPI gives up scholarships (http://www.metroland.net/feature_3.html)

Since the link will disappear, here's the article (without the pictures).

Dumb Jocks Need Not Apply


Contrary to national stereotypes of Division 1 college sports, RPI’s hockey program breeds success in the classroom
By Stephen Leon


On March 30, 1985, Adam Oates fulfilled every Division 1 college hockey player’s dream: He and his teammates at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute won the NCAA championship, defeating Providence College in the tournament final. For Oates, then a junior, it also proved to be his last game in an RPI uniform. He left school at the end of the semester to join the Detroit Red Wings organization, beginning a long and productive career in the National Hockey League.


With young stars like Oates and Steve Yzerman leading the way in the late ’80s, the Red Wings were beginning to rise toward the top of the NHL, and late spring usually found them in the playoffs, competing for hockey’s holy grail, the Stanley Cup. But summer also usually found Oates back on familiar territory: the RPI campus in Troy, finishing his degree.


“From the time he turned pro, he came back summers until he finished,” declares Bob Conway, beaming with pride as if Oates were his own son. “He had one year to go when he left. He came back and took courses every single summer, except maybe one, and he got his degree.”


Conway, 58, is now assistant to the vice provost at RPI; he’s been at the school 30 years, 24 of them as director of the Advising and Learning Assistance
Center, in which capacity he began offering academic counseling to hockey players in the late ’70s at the request of then-coach Jim Salfi. The program really got going under Mike Adessa, who coached the team to the ’85 title. Several of Adessa’s players from the championship era were good enough to move on to
the NHL—and move on they did, often before graduating.


So Conway, the coaches and players developed a system, in place to this day, to ensure the greatest possible chance of players making the time and effort to complete their degrees. Before Oates left, he and Conway sat down and figured out exactly what coursework the young star would need to graduate, and worked out a timetable; they also kept in regular touch by phone over the next several years so Conway could monitor his progress and motivation. The formula has proved so successful that Conway hasn’t changed it much. “Last week,” he says, “I talked with Marc Cavosie about his plan for finishing his degree,” referring to another RPI standout who left school a year ago, also after his junior year, to play pro hockey.

Actually, counseling players who leave early to go pro is only a fraction of Conway’s job; most players complete their degrees in the standard four years, and Conway is there to advise them from the day they lug their hockey gear onto campus. They have regular meetings; they discuss their coursework in detail; they go over the player’s academic progress and set goals; Conway advises them of tutors, study groups and other academic resources available on campus; and, if family or other personal problems are at the root of a classroom slump, students often find in Conway a supportive and fatherly ear. At the core of the program is planning: Conway urges student-athletes (in hockey and several other sports programs at the school) to schedule their study time in manageable blocks, say, getting some out of the way early in the day so it isn’t all looming at night. “What I don’t want to see,” he says, “is for a student-athlete to go to class, then practice, then dinner, then hang out with their friends for a couple of hours, then decide to sit down with four hours of work to do.”

The results appear to speak for themselves. Last spring, 19 of the 25 varsity hockey players made the dean’s list, and the overall team grade point average—3.136—exceeded the campuswide GPA of 3.131.


Beyond the numbers are the human beings, hockey stars past and present, of whom Conway can’t say enough. The brilliant goalkeeper Joel Laing, whose GPA was as impressive as his save percentage. NHL veterans Ken Hammond, who earned an MBA while playing pro hockey, and Joe Juneau, a French Canadian who spoke little English when he arrived at RPI, and finished his undergraduate degree in aeronautical engineering in three years. And the popular Mike Sadeghpour, captain of the national-title team: “By his quote,” Conway says, “ ‘The people in Boston were taking bets on how soon I’d be home.’ Well, he not only did well in school, he graduated with a bachelor’s and a master’s degree. He said, ‘I was a street kid from Boston, and nobody thought I could do it—but with the support I had at Rensselaer, I did it.’ ”


In fact, while there remain a few players who went pro and still haven’t finished their degrees, it’s been 18 years since Conway and the hockey program lost a player to academic dismissal. And even that one still gnaws at Conway. “Of all the guys I remember over the years,” he begins, before trailing off wistfully.
‘The main thing about this program,” Conway emphasizes, “is about bright people not buying into the dumb-jock syndrome. Everybody that gets into Rensselaer is a bright student—if you didn’t meet Rensselaer standards, you couldn’t get in.”


The sentiment is echoed by coach Dan Fridgen, who has earned a reputation among players and others close to the team for taking academics
seriously and keeping hockey in perspective.


“At the pro level,” Fridgen recalls, “I saw guys that, even though they had gone to school, really were afraid of making the transition from hockey into the real world. I happen to feel that the academic foundation is basically a foundation for life.


“Not only are they [RPI players] getting the opportunity to play at the highest level of college sports,” Fridgen continues, “but to get a quality education that—hey, the game is only going to take you so far. Some of them might not even get to that point. Academics has always been a very important part of this equation, because they wouldn’t be here just if they were good hockey players. They needed to qualify academically first and foremost.”


“They have an opportunity to play the game they love,” Conway says, “but they also have an opportunity to graduate from one of the finest school in the United States. At some point [hockey] is over with.”


That concept is not lost on players like senior defenseman Scott Basiuk and junior forward Nick Economakos. “You know, it would be great to play professional hockey,” says Economakos. “But you’ve got to prepare for a future, and who knows, even if you have the ability to play professional, you never know when you might have an injury, or what might happen to you.”


Basiuk says it was clear from the beginning of the recruitment process that the RPI coaches weren’t kidding about the academic side—and that only enhanced the appeal. “I knew right off the bat that it was going to be a little more serious” than the schools some of his hockey-playing friends were attending, Basiuk says. “That actually motivated me more.”


Economakos credits the regular meetings with Conway and the coaching staff, as well as the many academic resources available to students, as reasons why athletes perform so well academically at RPI. “That’s what’s good about the RPI community,” he says. “They really encourage you to get help when you need it. There are great tutors here, help sessions. . . . If there’s any trouble, there’s always help right away.”


Besides, he adds, “With the meeting every two weeks, you don’t want to come in with bad grades.”


Conway says he meets with all freshmen, and anyone with a GPA below 2.5, every three weeks. Everyone else is once a month. And besides helping
student-athletes manage their time and find extra help when they need it, Conway works with the high achievers to help them set ambitious goals. “If they come in with a 3.7, we talk about whether they want to maintain that”—with a reminder that their academic performance not only might help them get into graduate school, but might also get that school paid for.


Conway is quick to point out that “the help that they get is available to any student here. . . . There are not special tutors for the hockey team.
Student-athletes should be treated like members of the student body.”


As the NCAA continues to reexamine its policy on academic standards—and as many schools with successful Division 1 sports programs continue to keep the minimum-GPA bar ridiculously low and to post appalling graduation rates for student-athletes—RPI’s hockey program stands as an exception—and, perhaps, an example.


“Too many schools use athletes as meat,” Conway asserts. “When their eligibility is up, people kind of forget about you academically. They don’t really care whether you finish.


“RPI has never sacrificed academics for athletics,” he continues. “When we work with students who play a sport, we see them as student-athletes, in that order. And they can be good at both.”


“Working with student-athletes has been a labor of love for me,” Conway says, as if it weren’t obvious. “I’d like to think I’ve done something to affect their lives over the years. The difficult part is, when whatever you do doesn’t help the kid. . . .”


Conway is still thinking about the one that got away, the player he lost to academic dismissal 18 years ago.


“I still wonder whatever happened,” he says, “and how he is.”

[Ralph Baer]

In the RPI Media Guide there is a copy of the picture, posted earlier on this thread, showing RPI AD Ken Ralph at the podium during the press conference with the AD's of Clarkson, Hartwick, JHU, and SLU. The Media Guide just states that it was a press conference but doesn't say why it was held.

[kashmunnie73]

.....I recall reading that hockey players just slightly outperform regular students in graduating( the test w/i 5 or 6 years?)....but my real question is why is the overall rate so low at RPI....75%+/-. I assume that's much lower than the 90%++ at all Ivies, NESCACs, and most of Patriot League. Read it here...somewhere. kash

[Red Cloud]

One can take two things from this:

1) RPI does not coddle any student based on athletic prowess with academics - they are offered the same opportunities as all other students to get help and take independent classes - see Ralph's article.

2) RPI is a difficult school... I know.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
.....I recall reading that hockey players just slightly outperform regular students in graduating( the test w/i 5 or 6 years?)....but my real question is why is the overall rate so low at RPI....75%+/-. I assume that's much lower than the 90%++ at all Ivies, NESCACs, and most of Patriot League. Read it here...somewhere. kash FWIW, it was lower than 75% in my day.

[kashmunnie73]

....geez....do MIT,Caltech, WPI or Tufts engineering lose 25% of students? Is this an academic issue.....or a commuter college-type issue...or lack of qualified applicants? Is it considered a problem at RPI? kash

[miker]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
....geez....do MIT,Caltech, WPI or Tufts engineering lose 25% of students? Is this an academic issue.....or a commuter college-type issue...or lack of qualified applicants? Is it considered a problem at RPI? kash

This is the link to see all D2/D3 schools grad rate
D2-D3 grad rates (http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2003/d2-3/index.html)

IMO, it is a combination of the applicant pool, and the difficulty of the programs. Dependent upon the school, each will have a different weight on the overall graduation rate.

Some numbers for reference:

College General Population (Athletes)
Middlebury 91 (N/R)
MIT 90 (N/R)
WPI 75 (N/R)
Trinity;) 83 (N/R)
RIT 53 (N/R)
SLU 72 (78)
Lake Superior 79 (53)
CC 80 (93)
Clarkson 64 (81)
RPI 76 (82)
Oswego 54 (N/R)
CalTech 83 (N/R)
Tufts 88 (N/R)

[TimU]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
.....I recall reading that hockey players just slightly outperform regular students in graduating( the test w/i 5 or 6 years?)....but my real question is why is the overall rate so low at RPI....75%+/-. I assume that's much lower than the 90%++ at all Ivies, NESCACs, and most of Patriot League. Read it here...somewhere. kash

There are schools that sometimes take some grief for their retention rates, including - maybe especially - some Ivies. Once you get in it's pretty hard to flunk out, is the criticism. Looking at the numbers below, Lake Superior State has a higher graduation rate than RPI, Clarkson, or St. Lawrence. I don't know enough to say what causes this, but I definitely have my doubts as to whether it's because Lake Superior is choosing from a better-qualified applicant pool.

[kashmunnie73]

...perhaps RPI reflects the shortage of US students interested in engineering....fewer qualified applicants may mean...admissions standards are relaxed to fill class. Ivies..esp..Harv famous for being hard to flunk out of...worse...90% graduate with honors....50%+ laude/another 30%!!!! magna/ balance summa....truly ridiculous.....see Prof Harvey C( "minus")Mansefield on grade inflation. kash

[Red Cloud]

RPI is actually tightening admission's standards, and enrollment is higher this year than it has ever been. My SAT score was well above average my class year (this year's seniors). According to this year's freshman class, it is just below average. Seems like they're tightening standards to me, and in a relative hurry... but that's just me.

[kashmunnie73]

...SATs probably peaked at RPI in 1970+/-...when they peaked nationally....and engineering was more popular among Americans. 700's today are more like low 600's before the re-centering 7 years ago or so. kash

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
...SATs probably peaked at RPI in 1970+/-...when they peaked nationally....and engineering was more popular among Americans. 700's today are more like low 600's before the re-centering 7 years ago or so. kash Unfortunately for your rationalization, we're talking about the span of 4 years.