Petition against DivIII changes

[miker]

Originally posted by engineerhockeyfan
The Priesidents Council meets today in Indianapolis. Do we have any particulars? Such as what time they meet? Or what we might expect from this meeting. When might we expect some comments on what transpired at this meeting?

Here is your answer-
Clarkson statement regarding President's council actions (http://www.clarkson.edu/news/releases/rel.cgi?ncaa_proposal_collins_statement_065-03.rel)

[miker]

St. Lawrence Univ. statement (http://web.stlawu.edu/news/ncaa10_30_03.html)

Edit:

John Hopkins statement (http://hopkinssports.ocsn.com/genrel/103003aaa.html)

[Ralph Baer]

I guess that this vote was not unexpected. It's good to see that at least some of the schools immediately put out a response. Hopefully, the rest will also. I thought that the question and answer list on the JHU site was enlightening: http://www.jhu.edu/news/univ03/oct03/ncaa_faq.html .

[Ralph Baer]

RPI Press release:

RALPH REACTS TO NCAA PRESIDENTS COUNCIL'S DECISION NOT TO WITHDRAW PROPOSAL

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Director of Athletics Ken Ralph released the following statement in response to today's vote of the NCAA Division III Presidents Council declining to withdraw a proposal that would prohibit the university from continuing to offer athletic grants-in-aid to athletes in its historically important Division I men's hockey program while operating the rest of its athletic programs in Division III.

"While we are disappointed by the Presidents Council's decision, we remain optimistic that we will prevail in January," said Ralph. "We strongly oppose the NCAA proposal because it ignores the outstanding academic tradition of our athletics program here at Rensselaer. Over the next several weeks leading up to the January NCAA Convention we fully intend to work vigorously, in conjunction with the other seven universities, to tell our story of Rensselaer's great hockey tradition. We remain committed to offer hockey at the highest level."

Proposal 2-69 is part of a sweeping package of reforms aimed at Division III athletic departments that includes proposals to adjust playing seasons, financial aid and recruiting. The proposal concerns a ruling that in schools that sponsored a Division I sport through the multidivisional classification rule prior to 1983, that school could offer scholarships in their Division I sport. If the proposal passes, any Division III schools that offer a Division I sport would not be able to offer athletic scholarships in that sport. For Rensselaer, that would mean the elimination of scholarships for its Division I men's hockey program.

The proposal, announced in August, is scheduled for a vote by the 424 Division III institutions at an NCAA Convention on January 12 in Nashville, Tenn.

Note to reporters: A frequently asked questions package on Proposal 2-69 is available http://www.jhu.edu/news/univ03/oct03/ncaa_faq.html

Edit: Link (http://www.rpi.edu/dept/athletics/news/athletics103003.html)

[miker]

RPI minds must think alike with the admiration of the JHU FAQ's.;)

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by MikeR
RPI minds must think alike with the admiration of the JHU FAQ's.;) :D Actually, I got the link from the SLU release which you posted. The RPI release arrived in my mailbox a few minutes later. Did you notice that RPI was repeatedly mentioned in the Q&A list for the "quality" of its D-III facilities? Someday, I'll learn the difference between a natatorium and a swimming pool. ;)

It's hard, however, to joke about the situation.

[Muskieman]

This is truly a sad, sad day for college hockey, in particular for the 4 schools directly impacted. The only hope IMO for this to go down was for it to be withdrawn today.

It looks like college hockey will ultimately go the way that football and basketball have, where only the larger schools can consistently compete for the ultimate prize. The pathetic people who sponsored this propopsal and said "go right to hell" with the meaning of tradition, should be completely ashamed of themselves.

I'm too ******ed (as in NC$$) right now to post anything else.

Brian

[miker]

McCardell said. "We were guided in our deliberations by the recommendation of the Management Council, where these issues received a thorough airing, and also by the responses communicated to us by the membership."


INCH coverage (http://www.insidecollegehockey.com/7Archives/News/reform_0209.htm)

Edit: NCAA press release (http://www.ncaa.org/releases/diviii/2003103001d3.htm)

[miker]

Not even a close vote...

McCardell said if the affected schools wanted to continue offering scholarships, they could choose to move to Division II.



AP wire story (http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/myrtlebeachonline/sports/7143676.htm)

[KenP]

Originally posted by MikeR
McCardell said if the affected schools wanted to continue offering scholarships, they could choose to move to Division II.

Other than losing traditional rivals in other sports, what would be the implications of these schools moving to D-II?

[Got 6, Want More]

KenP, the biggest implication by far is the cost of moving to Div. 2 and trying to field competitive teams. It just isn't feasible for some of the schools or so we are told.

McCardell makes me want to puke!

Each of these schools is in line with the D-3 philosophy in every other way other than the exemption which was passed long ago for very good reasons. SLU doesn't want to compromise the success and tradition of programs such as Men's Soccer, and other competitive D-3 teams by moving, which is understandable. However, I still believe these eight schools could form a cost contained D-2 league and continue playing each other in sports other than the D-1 sports they offer.

What McCardell and the others that voted for this ridiculous proposal don't understand is that what they are doing is the same as some hair-brained judge trying to rewrite the US Constitution. The reasons for all of the contents of the original constitution are still valid and important, yet McCardell and the President's council think they no how to improve on it. Such arrogance and hypocrisy!!! This issue is hurting the impacted schools in recruiting already...to anyone considering Middlebury or other NESCAC schools I hope they stop and consider whether they really want to go to a school that has a complete d-head as a president.

[Ralph Baer]

Got 6,
It's hard to believe that CC could be in the same league as the other seven schools and still be "cost containment". Travel alone would negate that. Even JHU is relatively far SLU and Clarkson, but that might be manageable. Hasn't CC already mentioned a DII league that it would join?

[miker]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Got 6,
It's hard to believe that CC could be in the same league as the other seven schools and still be "cost containment". Travel alone would negate that. Even JHU is relatively far SLU and Clarkson, but that might be manageable. Hasn't CC already mentioned a DII league that it would join?

I believe it was the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference, but it would be better to ask a Tigers fan.

[kashmunnie73]

...if it required grandfathering form 1983 for the men's team to be/stay D1.....how is it that SLU women is D1 program...was all( men and women's) hockey so grandfathered....or is SLU pushing the D3 philosphy again. BTW....the women are ranked #7....do they get equal athletic scholarships as the men?....if not...who is being hypocritical now. SLU has sort of pushed the generosity of D3....21 year old frosh maybe....ever longer playing season...and now scholarships pleading small size inability to recruit as no Ivy academics. kash

[TimU]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
...if it required grandfathering form 1983 for the men's team to be/stay D1.....how is it that SLU women is D1 program...was all( men and women's) hockey so grandfathered....or is SLU pushing the D3 philosphy again. BTW....the women are ranked #7....do they get equal athletic scholarships as the men?....if not...who is being hypocritical now. SLU has sort of pushed the generosity of D3....21 year old frosh maybe....ever longer playing season...and now scholarships pleading small size inability to recruit as no Ivy academics. kash

You are dead wrong this time.

Yes, the grandfathering is for one sport, not just for one men's sport, and SLU has not "pushed the generosity of D3."

So what if the women are ranked #7? There aren't nearly as many women's teams, and since when does the '82 exemption say that you can play up in one sport provided that you suck?

"21-year-old frosh?" Aren't you the one who keeps telling us that this problem - if it is one - is worse in Division 3?

As a matter of fact, the women do have the same number of available scholarships as the men at SLU. Eighteen for each team. If they didn't, it wouldn't make SLU hypocritical with regard to the D1 exemption. The play-up rule was not instituted in order to provide gender equity relative to athletic scholarships. It was instituted in recognition of the fact that certain schools had long-standing traditions of high-level competition in a particular sport. SLU women's hockey was good before the D1 jump, just like the men's team was good before the divisions were created.

By the way, if anyone knows how Middlebury stacks up to SLU in terms of relative funding levels of men's and women's hockey, I'd be interested to know.

[engineerhockeyfan]

I am still confused on the NCAA/NCAA D111 relationship.
If the schools were grandfathered as a concession to the affected schools. Why doesn't Mr Brand have more influence over the proposal. Does not D111 come under the national NCAA umbrella or are they an independent organization?
Do they answer to nobody? What has happened in the not so distant passed that even brought this proposal to the table? And don't give me that garbage about philosophy. Who does this benefit and what will the D111 gain if all of the schools move to D-11 or higher?
I have read most of the posts on this thread, pro and con and I still don't know why this proposal was even suggested. It helps no one and hurts not only affected schools but also their communities. Why should any institution have say over a public community.
I would love to see the mayor of Troy sue D-111 for breach of contract and than we'll see what kind of response we get from the distinguished gentleman from Middlebury.
:rolleyes:

[vicb]

I will go on record here as guessing :) that if this piece of crap legislation passes, the effected schools will file suit against the NC$$.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by vicb
I will go on record here as guessing :) that if this piece of crap legislation passes, the effected schools will file suit against the NC$$. You certainly could be correct, but it probably will take ages to be settled and while that is going on, the affected schools will lose recruits left and right. My vote is to immediately go DI/II if it happens.

[Alton]

Originally posted by engineerhockeyfan
I am still confused on the NCAA/NCAA D111 relationship...Why doesn't Mr Brand have more influence over the proposal. Does not D111 come under the national NCAA umbrella or are they an independent organization?

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the way the NCAA works. President Brand is like the Queen of England--essentially no power within the organization, but expected to support the decisions of the voters. If the proposal passes, Brand will say "it will be good for Division III..." or something like that. If the proposal fails, he will say "It is a good thing that it failed..." He may lobby on one side or the other, but that will be done in private so he doesn't look bad if it turns out the other way.

Division III and the other 2 divisions set their own rules within the NCAA, by votes of the presidents of the member institutions. It's kind of like a country club: members vote on conditions of membership, and since nobody is forcing anybody to belong to a country club, it would be hard for a member to sue the club after a vote that they didn't like.

Unfortunately, the presidents want to look like they are "doing something" about what people tell them is a "problem." Logic and rationality have nothing to do with how this vote will turn out, I think.

[kashmunnie73]

....I'm amazed that in 1983..before women's varsity ice hockey existed ...anywhere...that the exemption captured the issue of women's hockey...it was probably silent on the topic. I'm glad to hear women at SLU get equal treatment...and 18 athletic scholarship!!!. But now we're talking about 2 teams and 36 athletic scholarships contrary to the philosphy of D3/....ditto at Clarkson...and RPI? Perhaps Midd et al are more worried about competing for women's hockey players. College hockey is the most widely and institutionally contrary to "student-athlete" of all college sports....the recruitment of older players...the length of season Oct 1 to mid April)..and students jumping to the pros. Those things weren't contemplated at the time of the exemption. (Basketball and football are more program- and individual-specific corrupt than college hockey.) kash