Petition against DivIII changes

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
[BBut now we're talking about 2 teams and 36 athletic scholarships contrary to the philosphy of D3/....ditto at Clarkson...and RPI? [/B] RPI's women play DIII and thus they don't offer scholarships. Upgrading the women's team to DI has been under consideration for several years, but I suspect is on hold until the Proposal situation is settled.

[kashmunnie73]

..The Williams president serves on the board of Marsh Mac/MMC...the parent of Putnam...where money managers have jacked their own fund investors since 2000...and one whistleblowing employee was pistol-whipped with a brick. Geez....how trust worthy and biz-knowledgeable is Williams prez? kash

[joecct77]

President McCardell will hold open office hours from 2:30-4:00 p.m. on the following Tuesdays:
September 23
October 21
November 4
December 2
No appointment is necessary and meetings are limited to 15 minutes out of courtesy to others.

[miker]

http://www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/D9491419-9A11-4453-BE7A-54DF29834802/0/jmmphoto.gif

[TimU]

Originally posted by 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.

Come on. The exemption said you could play up in one sport. It didn't say that you could only offer it to men if your existing men's team was the only existing D1 team at your school. It didn't even limit it to existing sports. You can't expect me to believe that you think that exemption was only meant to apply to existing teams and only for the genders already competing in Division 1. When they passed this, D3 teams could still create NEW Division 1 teams - like Union did around 1990. If a school plays up in one sport, it plays up in the sport, not for a particular men's or women's team.

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
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

First of all, there is no more reason to think that the SLU women players do not embody the ideal of the D3 student than there is to think that the men players do, so that's just not right. And I will guarantee you that the women hockey players at SLU represent the true student-athlete better than most athletes competing in Division 3. And please make up your mind: is SLU wrong for offering scholarships to women in violation of the D3 ideal, or is RPI hypocritical for failing to offer them?

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
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

Nope. You still haven't explained why it's bad to be a 20-year-old freshman, provided that you're qualified for admission and do your schoolwork when you get there. I went to college when I was 17, and ended up not getting as much out of my first year or so as I should have. My wife entered nursing school when she was 27 - was Castleton State College at fault for admitting her over an 18-year-old? Is it good to enter college as an adult if you don't play sports, but bad to do it if you do play sports?

Length of season? They play a schedule of between 29 and 36 games, with a break around the new year - that's really not so unreasonable. Ever seen a Division 1 baseball schedule? Division 3 teams play 25 games.

Students jumping to the pros? It's just as program- and individual-specific in hockey as it is in basketball and football. There just happen to be a lot more Division 1 basketball and football teams than there are hockey teams, so the list of programs where it doesn't happen is longer. But so is the list of programs where it does happen.

And all of these things did happen in college hockey at the time of the exemption. The season was just about as long, players did jump to the pros, and schools did bring in older freshmen. One of the most noteworthy things about Paul Castron, who played at SLU between 1981 and 1985 and was very good, was that he entered school at the age of 17. He was the exception.

Finally, what do any of these things have to do with whether or not a team offers scholarships? That's what we're talking about here - whether or not teams are able to offer scholarships. A kid on a hockey team is the same kid whether or not he gets merit scholarships and financial aid, or an athletic scholarship.

[kurt stutt]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
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.
With the exception of a (slightly) longer season, these things existed back when the exemption was created. Jumping to the pros started when the WHA needed players and salaries started to go up for both leagues. Many schools recruited older players from Canada for decades prior to the exemption. The only real change is a slightly longer schedule today, which has no connection with the exemption.

[kashmunnie73]

....older players are systematically now recruited...entire teams are 2-4 years older than frosh counterparts...and it is worse in D3 with looser rules where the passed over end up. 25 years ago...guys "1 year-pg'd" to upgrade academics. Season seems much longer now....SLU/CU/RPI play one month longer than the Ivy ECAC counterparts....while Middlebury holds to academic tradition of hockey as a winter sport. Candian Juniors has turned NCAA hockey on its head...formerly the tail...it is now the hole dog. ps...baseball is crammed into a short spring at most northern colleges...and is much less wear and tear on the players. kash

[kurt stutt]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
Candian Juniors has turned NCAA hockey on its head...formerly the tail...it is now the hole dog.
Can you provide an English translation for this sentence? I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by Kurt Stutt
Can you provide an English translation for this sentence? I have no idea what you are talking about. I think that one is supposed to guess the missing words which have been replaced by ellipses in Kash's posts. ;)

[TimU]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
....older players are systematically now recruited...entire teams are 2-4 years older than frosh counterparts...and it is worse in D3 with looser rules where the passed over end up.

I still don't understand why one is bad and the other worse. So what if they're 2-4 years older? I don't think you've explained why that is a problem. If anything, those kids may tend to be better students.

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
ps...baseball is crammed into a short spring at most northern colleges...and is much less wear and tear on the players. kash

And . . . ? How does that make hockey and hockey players any less oriented toward academics?

[Colo Hockey]

CC (and maybe the other schools) are in MAJOR trouble. From what I was told by an insider in the CC athletic department, Richard Celeste, CC's president, thinks that he is going to be able to talk his way into convince John McCardelln to change his mind. Also, he is not planning on doing anything about this problem until the vote goes to the members in January!
If this is true, we are in trouble. It is up to us CC fans (and haters) to convince Celeste that he needs to act now and that if he fails to campaign to save CC's DI hockey program he will always be remember as the CC president who destroyed hockey! Please write, call, email, him and tell him that we want him to do what it takes to save DI hockey.

[Got 6, Want More]

Originally posted by Alton
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.

I disagree after talking with friends who are attorneys. First, the NCAA is a monopoly. Schools are members of the NCAA not necessarily by choice but for lack of other options. Just like schools seek accreditation so they can justify their outrageous tuition prices to students and parents, membership in the NCAA is a needed association as well so they can offer a full curricular and extracurricular slate. If there was an alternative to D-3 NCAA membership that was affordable and meaningful, I am sure the schools would look at it. The schools have a legitimate right to sue on this basis.

Second, if any proof can be provided that this legislation has been pushed by members of the presidents council in a malicious sort of way or a self-serving sort of way (like making NESCAC schools more appealing, they could sue on this basis as well. This would be very tough to prove.

The third point is not tough to prove, and is where the lawsuit will come from if there is one, and that is the investment and commitments these schools have made were done so under an exemption and the reasonable expectation this exemption would not be overturned. There is no question the 8 schools will be negatively impacted by this proposal especially at schools such as SLU and Clarkson where hockey is life. This in combination with the monopoly of the NCAA leaves these 8 members without any viable options to maintain the status quo.

You are right though about the President of the NCAA being not much more than a figure head, and about D-2 and D-1 schools not being involved in crafting this POS legislation. This is all the work of the NCAA D-3 Presidents Council based upon surveys sent to member instititutions. It is taking a one size fits all members organization and imposing even more restrictive one size fits all rules on top of the membership without addressing the real issue here which is funding for athletic departments and financial aid to athletes...a convenient ommission by McCardell and his wealthy and arrogant college.

I have heard some rumors floating around that the proposal or this part of the proposal may be delayed for one year, but I have seen nothing official on this and think the chances of that are diminished given the 10/30 refusal to reconsider.

[miker]

Looks like the lax fans are up to the same guesswork we are...http://forums.laxpower.com/read.php?f=1&i=80441&t=80441 (go to the top for other topics on the d3 proposal).

As far as the affected schools plans, I have heard nothing official from any of the presidents....how do they plan on presenting the case to the membership prior to the vote??? I hope President Collins is running the numbers to determine the feasibility of moving to D2. I suspect the membership are sheep, unless it affects them. I don't remember the quote I posted, but it was from Hobart? AD and went something like this....after the vote the other members get to go home happy, while the affected schools get to see all hell break loose.

Also, the lawsuit option seems the least appealing with the effects just being extended beyond 2008..and maybe more expensive than moving to D2.:rolleyes:

[soccermaniac919]

Heard over the weekend at a game that Union had already decided to drop to d3 if the motion passes. Anyone have any substantive information?

[Ralph Baer]

I am surprised that the so many people seemed unfamiliar with the Proposal on the Lax thread that Mike linked. There were several threads about this there when this all started.

[miker]

Ralph- from the content of the threads, just a couple of possible reasons for their (lack of )knowledge on the issue
1. median age of the members on the laxboard is lower.
2. only 1 lax team affected, therefore fewer alum responding
3. average intelligence of the lacrosse fan is lower ;)

To be fair, a couple of members (jhu and commentator seemed to know the issues)

Apparently the NCAA has been reading this board, and decided to help us with the confusion between "NCAA" and their Divisions. Also, the NC$$ has described their plan to present the proposals, by attending conference meetings, and forums, the question remains, what is the affected institutions plan?

Definition of the NCAA (http://www.ncaa.org/news/2003/20031027/awide/4022n23.html)

Edit: Here is a link to ask Clarkson AD Sean Frazier any question you like, I submitted mine!
Ask the AD (http://clarksonathletics.com/askthead.asp)

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by MikeR
Ralph- from the content of the threads, just a couple of possible reasons for their (lack of )knowledge on the issue
1. median age of the members on the laxboard is lower.
2. only 1 lax team affected, therefore fewer alum responding
3. average intelligence of the lacrosse fan is lower ;)
It's interesting that you quoted the median for #1 and the average (mean) for #3. That must have taken a lot of research. :) You are correct about #2, although people repeatedly wondered why Hobart isn't affected. I wonder if Hobart is an a similar situation to Union that they may be affected in the long run because their lacrosse players are getting on average (not median ;) ) more aid than the general student population.

#3 may be true, but from reading this board, you could have fooled me. :D The Ivy League fans here must really bring up the average.

[Rolevio]

Originally posted by soccermaniac919
Heard over the weekend at a game that Union had already decided to drop to d3 if the motion passes. Anyone have any substantive information?

Haven't heard anything about this, but as Union is unaffected, I highly doubt they would.

[miker]

Since you bring it up, the age of some people on this board would skew the average, therefore the use of the median. Yes, the Ivies bring the average up, but there is an equal number of fans that bring the average down:eek: (the rest in the middle)


I think you are correct about the Hobart/Union situation, and maybe why the rumor posted below has been circulated. I'm convinced the respective administrations know they don't have a argument to stand on to defeat the new financial aid/reporting requirements.

[miker]

Originally posted by Rolevio
Haven't heard anything about this, but as Union is unaffected, I highly doubt they would.

Would Union be affected by either of these?
A. Establishing an annual electronic reporting process to examine and compare, on an institutional basis, financial aid awarded to student-athletes with that awarded to nonathletes;
Ref: 15.4.1
The percentage of the total dollar value of institutionally administered grants awarded to student-athletes
shall be closely equivalent to the percentage of student-athletes within the student body. A differential
is defensible if it can be demonstrated that the average need of the student-athletes at the institution
is equivalently greater than the average need of other students.


B. Eliminating financial aid funds or endowments that benefit athletics. Such athletics funds or endowments had been permitted under an exemption if the funds had been received by the institution prior to 1979;

Also, very interestingly this has been very quiet, Hobart previously petitioned the council to provide athletic scholarships


ISSUE: Offers of Financial Aid for Multidivisional Institutions.
Management Council Action:
Approved the committee’s recommendation to deny the request for a waiver of Bylaw 20.7.1.2.1 from Hobart and William Smith Colleges in the sport of men’s lacrosse.

Especially since "Future of D3" chair and Management Council member is Susan Bassett from William Smith....

Edit: above was from MC/PC Joint Aug Meeting Minutes (http://www1.ncaa.org/membership/governance/division_III/presidents_council/summaryactions/2003/Augustsummary.htm) (near the bottom)