Petition against DivIII changes

[miker]

Limits on athletic aid harmful to SLU
by Daniel F. Sullivan

First published: Tuesday, November 4, 2003
ON OCT. 30, the NCAA Division III President's Council forwarded to its full members a proposal that would eliminate the ability, in 2008, of eight very diverse Division III institutions to award grants-in-aid (athletic scholarships) in Division I sports in which we compete. The full Division III membership will consider this proposal in January.

I oppose this proposal based on reasons that speak to St. Lawrence University's fundamental nature. Grants-in-aid help us achieve what is the Division III ideal of true scholar-athletes.

When the NCAA adopted its three divisional structure in 1983, St. Lawrence University, a national liberal arts college philosophically Division III to its core, was a long-time, very competitive participant in intercollegiate ice hockey at the highest level.

The NCAA recognized our history and our tradition, and appreciated our deep commitment to Division III values emphasizing the student-athlete who attends college for a demanding education while also participating in a sport.

Our colleague Division III institutions agreed then to grant an exemption allowing us to continue participating at the Division I level in hockey while enjoying full membership in Division III for our other sports.
We had the choice under the exemption of awarding grants-in-aid or not, and we chose not to until 1997, when women's ice hockey became an officially recognized NCAA Division I sport. You may recall that St. Lawrence's women's team competed in the national championship game in 2001, the first Women's Frozen Four.

Seven other universities and colleges - Clarkson University, Colorado College, RPI in hockey; Johns Hopkins University in lacrosse; Hartwick College in men's soccer and women's water polo; and SUNY Oneonta in soccer; and the Newark campus of Rutgers University in volleyball … were also granted exemptions. For many reasons that we have in common, and for reasons particular to each of us, we protest the unnecessary and harmful proposal of the Division III President's Council.

At St. Lawrence intercollegiate athletics is primarily about education and student development. We believe that there are important things students can learn from organized intercollegiate competition at a high level of performance.

Intercollegiate athletics, done well and irrespective of the level of NCAA competition involved, has to be about the education and development of young people, or it has no place in a demanding liberal arts college.

Excellent teaching, here as in every other part of the university, will bring out the best in students, and coaches selected to be mentors will help students mature and develop as persons.

We further believe that it is essential that student-athletes at St. Lawrence be representative of the student body as a whole in academic ability, academic performance, gender, in their choices of majors, in their participation in nonathletic co-curricular activities, and hopefully also in their willingness to take advantage of St. Lawrence's 14 international programs.

At St. Lawrence, student-athletes are more likely than nonathletes to major in science or mathematics, have grade-point averages by their junior year that are higher than those of nonathletes, and are members of Phi Beta Kappa (the national academic honor society) at rates slightly higher than nonathletes.

Female athletes (53% of them) study abroad at exactly the same rate as women nonathletes, and both men and women athletes participate in nonathletic co-curricular activities at the same rates as non-athletes. This is the NCAA Division III ideal, and we believe our Division I athletes must have the same profile.

But we are the smallest university or college participating in Division I hockey. Where grants-in-aid are important to us is in attracting to St. Lawrence men and women hockey players who are truly representative of the student body as a whole.

For us, it's not about improving our chances to win, we were very competitive before giving grants-in-aid. It's about helping us to achieve a critically important Division III ideal in our Division I sports. Eliminating our ability to award grants-in-aid will be a step backward with regard to an important Division III goal. We will urge our colleagues to reject this proposal.
(The writer is president of St. Lawrence University.)

WDT link (http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/editorial/20031104/9044.asp)

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by MikeR
But we are the smallest university or college participating in Division I hockey. Didn't someone say that AIC was the smallest the last time that this topic came up?

[Rolevio]

Originally posted by MikeR
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



Not knowing any numbers whatsoever I am sure if you look at a comparison between athletes and non-athletes you will find at Union the athletes get slightly more but not by a huge amount over non-athletes. Hockey probably has the highest amount of aid due to the large number of Canadian students and the fund for foreign students, Union doesn't have to adhere to limits determined by the FAFSA and similiar forms to receive federal aid. Although you will find there have been a good number of hockey players at Union that pay full or near full tuition as well. Could easily be wrong here, but I don't think this will hurt Union too much in the long run, even though they may have to cut aid to atheletes by a small amount.

The second point you listed should have no affect on Union that I am aware of. The one issue people point to with Union having aid is the foreign student fund, but President Hull made sure that would not be specifially for athletes when it was created.

[miker]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Didn't someone say that AIC was the smallest the last time that this topic came up?

That is correct. AIC total enrollment ~1500 (<1100undergrad)
and SLU is ~2100.

AIC numbers (http://www.universities.com/Schools/A/American_International_College.asp)

Edit: JHU Gazette article (http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2003/03nov03/03ncaa.html)

[Got 6, Want More]

Does AIC offer Scholarships and/or is AIC D-3 in sports other than hockey?

[Patman]

Originally posted by Got 6, Want More
Does AIC offer Scholarships and/or is AIC D-3 in sports other than hockey?

Division II, Northeast-10 like Lowell, Merrimack, and Bentley

[miker]

I think this is unrelated, but CC's AD Joel Nielson has stepped down, and will be replaced Julie Soriero (associate AD, previously held AD position). Maybe CC fans can give us some more insight...
CC Press Release (http://www2.coloradocollege.edu/Athletics/PressReleases/PR0304/110403.html)
excerpt
"My family and I are excited about the challenges that lie ahead at South Dakota,” Nielsen said. “My background in the Midwest, as well as playing and coaching in the league, were obvious draws to the position. Athletics at USD offers one of the premier comprehensive Division II programs in the country.”

Edit: I read the tigers forum, same discussions as when Clarkson's AD had the interview with UMD.:(

[kashmunnie73]

...while Williams prez fails as director of Marsh Mac/MMC/Putnam Funds....John Reed wants the prez of RPI to join NY Stock Exchange board of directors to join Madelaine Albright...geez....more public relations unqualified directors. kash

[Ralph Baer]

Article from the RPI student newspaper about the Presidents' Council vote: http://www.poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=2602&part=1

[Colo Hockey]

Originally posted by MikeR
I think this is unrelated, but CC's AD Joel Nielson has stepped down, and will be replaced Julie Soriero (associate AD, previously held AD position). Maybe CC fans can give us some more insight...
CC Press Release (http://www2.coloradocollege.edu/Athletics/PressReleases/PR0304/110403.html)
excerpt
"My family and I are excited about the challenges that lie ahead at South Dakota,” Nielsen said. “My background in the Midwest, as well as playing and coaching in the league, were obvious draws to the position. Athletics at USD offers one of the premier comprehensive Division II programs in the country.”

Edit: I read the tigers forum, same discussions as when Clarkson's AD had the interview with UMD.:(


Most CC people are not said to see him go. Joel was not all that great as an AD. They only think he could do well was kiss up to people who could approve his professional position. If you could not do anything for Joel, he wanted nothing to do with you. Also, he treated the people that worked for him terribly. When he first came to CC, all but one or two people in his office resigned within a few months.
Joel made the mistake of leaking the story of him interviewing for the AD job at South Dakota, which really upset a lot of CC fan and CC faculty. It is even worse that he is leaving now. So go riddance, and I hope he is happy in South Dakota.

[Ralph Baer]

I've already posted a message on the RPI Recruits thread about RPI and probably Clarkson losing a recruit (Tyler Burton) to Colgate. It is of course possible that the RPI would have lost him anyway, but IMNSHO, it is another indication that the D3 schools have got to decide what they are going to do if the Proposal passes and make it public. I originally thought that the INCH was correct in writing that the D3 schools shouldn't play their hand before the vote in January, but I have changed my opinion.

Knowing RPI and all the dancing that it did in deciding whether to join HE or remain in the ECAC back when Powers was coach, they won't decide upon anything until July 2008. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[vicb]

I'd first threaten a law suit. I am very serious and I think they would have a **** good chance of winning it. As you pointed out before Ralph, this will just make the uncertainty last longer and cause more recruiting harm but I'd take that rather than cause the schools the extra costs of moving up to DIV II.

Now that the Council has screwed Hobart also, maybe they would like to join in it.

Next best thing is to just say "SCREW YOU" and make plans to go Division II.

[Ralph Baer]

Vic,

I am sure that I have said it before on this thread, but I think that a lawsuit is a waste of time because it will just drag on and ahrm will occur while it is dragging. I do think that the eight schools would have a good chance of winning. (Side note: Oh sure, Ralph, you can predict what its going to happen. Please look at your choice of stocks to invest in. :( )

I assume that the lawsuit would be based upon the harm that it would do the schools. That's true, but it would IMHO set a very bad precedent for when the basketball pseudo-colleges have things go in a way that they don't like.

I really would like to find out how much additional it would cost RPI to go D-IAA or D-II and what harm, if any, it would do to the sports on campus.

I have also said this before and someone else did before me, but couldn't RPI, Clarkson, and SLU all go DII and start their own conference? There probably are other D-II schools that we could lure, and Union, Hobart, and Hartwick might also be interested. It wouldn't take that many more schools.

I also still wonder if the RPI and JHU to the Patriot League rumor had any basis in fact.


Vic, I must have missed something. What happened to Hobart?

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
I really would like to find out how much additional it would cost RPI to go D-IAA or D-II and what harm, if any, it would do to the sports on campus. Irrepairable. The system as it is now is already at a breaking point, the increased costs for I-AA or D-II would easily make it snap. I've mentioned the traditional football rivalries that would be lost (Union, WPI, and Coast Guard) and the successes gained in football, baseball, field hockey, and women's soccer.

I have also said this before and someone else did before me, but couldn't RPI, Clarkson, and SLU all go DII and start their own conference? There probably are other D-II schools that we could lure, and Union, Hobart, and Hartwick might also be interested. It wouldn't take that many more schools. This had been mentioned from the start, and I don't think it's necessarily a terrible idea given possible circumstances. I doubt Oneonta would be willing to jump on board, but I have a feeling that a cost-contained, non-scholarship D-II conference including RPI, Clarkson, St. Lawrence, Hartwick, Rutgers-Newark, Johns Hopkins, and any other big-time D-III schools or small-time D-II schools that could be recruited from the area between Potsdam and Baltimore, possibly including Hobart but probably not including Union :(

It'd be a hardship compared to the current situation, but we'd probably make the best of it within a decade or so. In addition, the schools would probably agree to continue following D-III guidelines. It'd be sort of an "exile" league, thumbing their noses at McCardell and his ilk.

I only wish Colorado College had an option like this.

I also still wonder if the RPI and JHU to the Patriot League rumor had any basis in fact. Due to facility concerns, I'd have to pin the school that would most likely have success in the Patriot League as being St. Lawrence. Although an interesting concept to compete against schools like Colgate, Army, Navy, and Hopkins on a regular basis, I doubt we'd ever have much of a chance.

Vic, I must have missed something. What happened to Hobart? Aye, it would be good to have another school in the trenches with us.

[miker]

Originally posted by MikeR
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)


Ralph, I believe Vic was referring to Hobart wishing to provide scholarships and being denied.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by RPIRED
This had been mentioned from the start, and I don't think it's necessarily a terrible idea given possible circumstances. I doubt Oneonta would be willing to jump on board, but I have a feeling that a cost-contained, non-scholarship D-II conference including RPI, Clarkson, St. Lawrence, Hartwick, Rutgers-Newark, Johns Hopkins, and any other big-time D-III schools or small-time D-II schools that could be recruited from the area between Potsdam and Baltimore, possibly including Hobart but probably not including Union :( Of course, the other sports wouldn't really have national championships to shoot for if the league followed DIII guidelines.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by MikeR
Ralph, I believe Vic was referring to Hobart wishing to provide scholarships and being denied. Oh! I either missed that or it didn't register. I agree with RPIRED that it will be good to get them in our corner. We get William Smith's vote too then, don't we? ;)

[Slash01]

Sigh ....enough

[joecct77]

Vic

Interesting that Adam Wodon last night on CSTV mention the word "lawsuit". I hope it does not get that far.

joe

[Crease_Monkey]

Statements like this appear jealous, in my opinion:

G. Plattsburgh- Use to have games against SLU, RPI, Clarkson. Being only an hour away could draw in some big numbers of fans...making more $$$$.

Not as many fans will come to two opposing D-3 teams, especially when one team was "thrown out" of D-1. No additional people or money will be generated. The same number of fans will cross the turnstiles because the number of games you get to play will not be increased. You will just have different teams to play in your allotted schedule.

H. Potsdam- The Bears have a new coach, and will be able to use games against Clarkson-SLU as recruiting tools. What team wouldn’t want to play at a rink like Cheel? (Minus Middlebury and Norwich)

Cheel would not be in existence if not for the belief that the Knights would be able to compete on a level such that a large(r) venue was needed. This is the most D-3 jealous statement I have ever heard. "We want to play on the nice rink, so tell them they can't be Division I anymore." That is how I interpret that statement. Plus, upkeep of Cheel would fall due to greatly reduced revenues.

I. Oswego- Could be in the same conference as SLU-Clarkson-RPI. Great recruiting tool.

Once again, how is making SLU and Clarkson less competitive a great recruiting tool.

J. Anyone who ends up playing any of these teams...

Same as previous statement.