Petition against DivIII changes

[Dutchfan]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
...hey she is worth nearly $1million per year at RPI...and has spare time to protect the interest of public shareholders in 3-4 public companies...and she is part of the clean up of the over-compensation scandal at the NYSE. If RPI can afford Jackson and 18 hockey players...RPI can afford to get its mercenary "ways"
out of D3. Just go D1 and spread the money around.....I hope Ms. Jackson wants the women hockey players at RPI as well paid as their male counterparts...just as she expects to be as well or better paid than the presidents of MIT, Caltech, C-Mellon, Hopkins etc. kash

My god kash...tired of being the NESCAC's ***** yet?

[miker]

The full agenda has been posted on the NCAA.org site. January 12th is decision day on Proposal 2-69.

NCAA agenda (http://www.shortstravel.com/meetingReg/NCAAConvention/Schedule/index.cfm)

Here is the enitre legislative proposal document (http://www.ncaa.org/library/membership/spopl/2004/spopl.pdf) , and specific revisions to bylaw 20.7.1, and elimination of waiver 20.7.1.1.1

No. 2-69
Intent: To eliminate the waiver that permit’s a Division III institution
that conducted a sport classified in Division I during 1982-83 to
award athletically related financial aid in that sport, as well as a
sport for the opposite gender later reclassified to Division I.
Bylaws: Amend 20.7.1, Page 215, as follows:
[Division III]
“20.7.1 Applicable Legislation. A member institution shall observe
the applicable legislation and requirements of its membership division.
However, if the institution is eligible to participate in a sport in
another division (see Bylaw 20.4 for multidivision-classification privileges),
it shall apply the rules of the other division that govern the
sport in question.
[20.7.1.1 unchanged.]
“20.7.1.1.1 Waivers. If a member institution conducts a
men’s or women’s sport that was classified in Division I during
the 1982-83 academic year, the Management Council, on
recommendation of the Membership Committee, by a twothirds
majority of its members present and voting, may approve
waivers of the application of the Division III regulations
to such a sport. This provision also applies to such an
institution that later reclassifies a sport for the opposite gender
to Division I.”
Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council [Management Council
(Joint Subcommittee on the Future of Division III)].
Effective Date: August 1, 2008
Rationale: This proposal would eliminate the waiver that permits eight
Division III schools to provide athletics aid in programs that were
classified in Division I during 1982-83 and in a sport for the opposite
gender. The current waiver is a one-time waiver created and granted
approximately 20 years ago under circumstances unique to that moment
in time, including the relatively recent creation of the Association’s
three membership divisions. When it was adopted, the waiver’s
sponsors noted that new legislation would be necessary to alter or revoke
the waiver. As part of the on-going discussions regarding the future
of Division III, the Presidents Council believes the time is right
to question whether the privilege to award athletics aid should be
permitted to exist indefinitely. The prohibition against athletics aid
is the defining philosophical tenet of Division III, the one tie that
truly binds the diverse Division III membership. It should apply consistently
to all Division III members. Finally, the delayed effective
date is intended to provide affected schools with a reasonable time period
in which to begin to plan for the implementation of this legislation
and explore all membership options.

[Crease_Monkey]

What are the cost differences for Clarkson/St. Lawrence/RPI to go to Division I? I know they are far too high to even consider, but I am just curious. I am not well-versed in NCAA costs and regulations.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by Crease_Monkey
What are the cost differences for Clarkson/St. Lawrence/RPI to go to Division I? I know they are far too high to even consider, but I am just curious. I am not well-versed in NCAA costs and regulations. I don't know what the figures are, and it probably is very dependent upon what is counted -- a good acountant could probably prove anything -- however I suspect that it wouldn't be that much more expensive so long as football scholarships are not awarded. IIRC, RPI is bigger than most of the schools in the Patriot League. There is, of course, No requirement to go DI (or really DIAA) . DII would serve the purpose just as well.

[fr joe]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
...and (Shirley Jackson) has spare time to protect the interest of public shareholders in 3-4 public companies...and she is part of the clean up of the over-compensation scandal at the NYSE... kash

to become a member of a corporate board of directors is not something where you just submit an application and wait to be interviewed... you won't find these positions advertised in the Sunday NY Times or the Wall Street Journal... corporations seek out prospective board members rather carefully... generally, corporate board members are selected from the ranks of corporate executives and college and university presidents... it speaks well of Shirley Jackson that she is invited to serve on several corporate boards... as, I'm sure it is an honor for John McCardell to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Bank of Middlebury... ;)

www.middlebury.edu/NR/rdonlyres/FD40064F-3637-4013-AEA0-5D3A99B0FD37/0/jmm_cv.pdf

[kashmunnie73]

Ms. Jackson must have sent the check...cause Skids hockey was saved today. Glamorous useless board members include Kissinger at HLR( top mgt fired today for stealing $32 million of non-compete money from shareholders); Sen Bob Kerrey, college prez of the New School university in NYC...Tenet Health Care/THC fiasco...performing unnecassary heart surgery and ripping off Medicare etc; Madelaine Albright on NYSE; prez of Wiliams on MarshMac/MMC parent of Putnam criminal conspiracy; Al Gore on Seagate/STX board...under SEC inquiry. Any undergard or MBA? student at RPI is better qualified than Ms Jackson to protect the rights of shareholders/stakeholders in NYSE.....let's hope she is not put on the Compensation or audit committee...how good is her accounting? I can't imagine why she serves on 4-5 boards...???....she doesn't have enough background or free time to do a good job..and will never rock the boat...tha's how you get on more boards...worth $259-500K per year. BTW...Martha Stewart was the most recent woman to depart NYSE board. kash

[vicb]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
I can't imagine why she serves on 4-5 boards...???....she doesn't have enough background or free time to do a good job..and will never rock the boat...

At least I agree with you on something kash :) . And this is no knock on Ms Jackson. I'd have the same opinion of anyone doing this. How the he$$ do any of these people that have a full time job have the time to really devote to serving on 4 or 5 different corporate boards.

As for why they do it; as Cuba Gooding Jr so aptly put it in Jerry McGuire: SHOW ME THE MONEY :D .

[kashmunnie73]

McCardell announced his decision to step down in June...but re-committed that his proudest legacy will be to get D3 athletics back to its student-athlete amateur roots....and will coerce D1 wannabe's back to or out of D3. BTW...no wonder he referred to hockey players as "puck slappers"...the guy is a Southern who went to Washington and Lee...their only winter sport is Sweet Briar. kash

[vicb]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
.....and will coerce D1 wannabe's back to or out of D3.

What he and the other idiots on the Presidents Council are doing is far from coersion.

The prohibition against athletics aid is the defining philosophical tenet of Division III, the one tie that truly binds the diverse Division III membership. It should apply consistently
to all Division III members.

What a crock of BS. If that is truly the case, then there should be NO WAIVER WHATSOEVER in allowing them to stay Div I while tieing their hands at being competitive at the Div I level.

In stating its objection, FARA said, "Less than two percent of current Division III member institutions and roughly 250 participating student athletes operate under this waiver. These institutions have developed identities through the success of their Division I sport that greatly impact recruitment among the general student population as well as alumni relations and gift-giving. Elimination of this waiver may create an undue burden on these member institutions.

"Eliminating the waiver will impose a burden on the affected institutions in terms of potential damage to their institutional identities, while no significant benefit will accrue to other membership institutions."

No truer words have been spoken in this whole sordid mess.

[Got 6, Want More]

Just a few comments:

First, any rumors out there that SLU is going D-3 in Hockey are false. The school is remaining in D-3 but the hockey program will be D-1 with or without scholarships according to the leaders that be. Someone misconstrued one of the coaches saying "we are going to stay D-3" as an indication we were planning to drop D-1 hockey. As it sits, nothing is further from the truth.

Second, Kash maybe ought to change his name to Hash as it seems he is doing some of that. Who gives a rip what Ms. Jackson does. If she weren't fulfilling her responsibilities to RPI I am sure the Board of Trustees would remove her. I do happen to agree that being recommended as a board member is a compliment on one hand but a lot of corporate boards are also full of rubber-stamping, yes men and women who add little value and rake in big bucks and stock options.

Third, while there is a hint of jealousy on my part, I am a bit concerned about Clarkson and JHU saying they will move up if this legislation passes. This weakens the argument being made collectively that playing up is compatible with D-3 sports and that the current members that will be impacted are philisophically aligned with D-3. While I wish SLU would explore the possibility of moving up, they won't and they won't because of the negative impact on all of the current D-3 athletes, the D-3 athletic traditions and rivalries and because they are philisophically a D-3 school. I wonder if the threats made publicly by Clarkson and JHU and likely to be made by CC help or hurt the cause. My feeling is that this isn't the time to bluff. Explore the feasibility of moving up is fine, but I would prefer the universities take the fight and valid points made to the finish line before jumping or threatening to jump ship on D-3 membership.

Four, this faculty recommendation is significant. Every D-3 member has a faculty representative that is the liason to the administration and athletic departments for the faculty. They will play a huge role in educating the members that will vote in January. The odds still are not good due to 416 of 424 (or whatever the number is) being apathetic to those 8 schools, but it sure doesn't hurt. Had they made an opposite recommendation, it would surely be a death blow to the opposition. Well done faculty!!!

McCardell still sucks!!

Clarkson and SLU have already lost one highly sought after recruit thanks to this horrible legislation.

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by Got 6, Want More
Second, Kash maybe ought to change his name to Hash as it seems he is doing some of that. Who gives a rip what Ms. Jackson does. If she weren't fulfilling her responsibilities to RPI I am sure the Board of Trustees would remove her. I do happen to agree that being recommended as a board member is a compliment on one hand but a lot of corporate boards are also full of rubber-stamping, yes men and women who add little value and rake in big bucks and stock options. I just keep wondering... why do Kash and others care so much what others make? Why is it their business? Do they pay her salary? No, they don't. I'm an RPI student... I pay her salary.

Third, while there is a hint of jealousy on my part, I am a bit concerned about Clarkson and JHU saying they will move up if this legislation passes. This weakens the argument being made collectively that playing up is compatible with D-3 sports and that the current members that will be impacted are philisophically aligned with D-3. Explore the feasibility of moving up is fine, but I would prefer the universities take the fight and valid points made to the finish line before jumping or threatening to jump ship on D-3 membership. I have heard rumors about every school, most of which may be leaks. This has got to stop. I mean, it's obvious that all of the schools need to determine ahead of time what to do if it DOES go through, but shouldn't be saying "oh, we'll just do this." I don't like the CCT-RPI-JHU to the Patriot League rumor because A) I don't believe the schools would actually conspire together, and B) it gives the impression that we don't care about the proposal.

Clarkson and SLU have already lost one highly sought after recruit thanks to this horrible legislation. This is the legacy of this nonsense even if it doesn't go through. RPI was fortunate to have a top recruit fall in love with the school and decide to commit regardless, but I don't doubt that we are losing other top recruits the same way Clarkson, SLU, and no doubt CC are as well.

[kashmunnie73]

....I care because I invest....and during her rubber-stamp tenure at AT+T board decisions and votes have blessed one of the great declines in American industry...from $100 to $13. Geez...and she has time to serve on 5 other boards? Think of all the employees, widows and orphans who had ther life's saving squandered in the scratch golfer Robert Allen-Michael Armstrong sink hole of AT+T. How big did Ms. Jackson think "bundling" of catv-telco services could be?...it's not exactly rocket science...not even theoretical physics. How many board positions will be enough to satisfy her ego and greed?...how much on-the-job training can we afford? kash

[Ralph Baer]

Kash,
You may soon become the first person to be on my Ignore list. Considering some of the other posters, this would be a great achievement on your part. :D OTOH, you have the advantage of currently posting on some threads that I read while most of the others post on threads that I have learned to stop reading after they get past about a page in length. :)

[miker]

Originally posted by Got 6, Want More
Third, while there is a hint of jealousy on my part, I am a bit concerned about Clarkson and JHU saying they will move up if this legislation passes. This weakens the argument being made collectively that playing up is compatible with D-3 sports and that the current members that will be impacted are philisophically aligned with D-3. I wonder if the threats made publicly by Clarkson and JHU and likely to be made by CC help or hurt the cause. My feeling is that this isn't the time to bluff. Explore the feasibility of moving up is fine, but I would prefer the universities take the fight and valid points made to the finish line before jumping or threatening to jump ship on D-3 membership.


McCardell still sucks!!



I have not seen anything publicly from the Clarkson administration that states they will move up to D2. The closest comment was "explore all options available to us and leave no stone unturned to find a solution that is in the best interest of our student-athletes and the University."
The same is not true for JHU, and to a lesser degree CC. IMO, Clarkson is attempting to follow exactly what you stated - take the fight and valid points to the finish line, but also plan for the future to maintain a competitive team. Whatever choices are made will be difficult as they are philosophically a D-3 institution.
The only difference I have seen between Clarkson/SLU public comments is that SLU has stated they will remain D3 regardless of the outcome. You could question whether this is a good tactical move...the thinking being "well, they will stay anyways and do not think it is important".

In the end though, I don't believe the rumors/posturing will make a difference with McCardell and those of similar ilk, who state that you can be D3 or leave.

[Spaceman]

He will step down June 30th.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/bfpnews/local/1000h.htm

[ambersuds]

I don't know what McCardell's problem is with the status quo. Middlebury's endowment is huge. It is an elite and slightly snobbish old New England institution. The college has its own golf course. The athletic facilities are state of the art. What's broke, McCardell?

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by ambersuds
I don't know what McCardell's problem is with the status quo. Middlebury's endowment is huge. It is an elite and slightly snobbish old New England institution. The college has its own golf course. The athletic facilities are state of the art. What's broke, McCardell? For one thing, there are eighteen holes in the golf course that need fixing. :rolleyes:


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Gate93]

I tend to agree with MikeR on the issue of whether or not CU/SLU/RPI/CC should indicate a willingness to leave if this POS is passed. For any of these schools leaving DIII would obviously be an unpleasant move - to indicate that passage would force them to adds weight to their position. Also, it removes the incentive for some schools to vote for the proposal in the hopes of gaining storied programs as new rivals.

On a related note, I have seen the Patriot League mentioned several times as a potential place for the eastern teams to migrate to if necessary. While I understand the academic reasons behind this suggestion (not only are the academics similarly rigorous but several of the PL teams are heavy on the sciences, particularly for liberal arts schools) I don't see it as a particularly hospitable locations for former DIII programs looking to move up. The PL is generally trying to play itself up to the mid-major level in most sports - a rival to the A-10 as can be seen in the performance of HC in basketball, multiple I-AA playoff spots this year (hopefully), etc. Further, while started as a non-scholarship leageu, at this time only Lafayette remains ride free. Colgate's "limited" scholarship program coupled with an institutional knowledge of how to find kids who need fin. aid is going to translate into essentially a full scholarship situation. American, Army & Navy already provide full scholarship programs. Tough place to learn to play with the big boys. Finally, the league has been saddled with the responsibility of raising several new programs over the past several years in Football (Fordham - successful, G-Town - WIP but looking good, & Towson- well a parent can only do so much...) and I'm not sure they would want to do that again. I am sure that HC wouldn't put up with it in B-Ball. Those are my thoughts on it - Contrary opinions?

And finally - we can't be sure that the recruit CU and RPI "lost" because of this situation wasn't actually "won" by 'Gate due to the new scholarship programs. The ability to offer them has been a distinct CU/SLU/RPI advantage over Colgate that, at least for the forseeable future, will no longer exist no matter how the vote goes in January.

[vicb]

Originally posted by Gate93

And finally - we can't be sure that the recruit CU and RPI "lost" because of this situation wasn't actually "won" by 'Gate due to the new scholarship programs. The ability to offer them has been a distinct CU/SLU/RPI advantage over Colgate that, at least for the forseeable future, will no longer exist no matter how the vote goes in January.

The guy Clarkson lost was to Vermont.

[Spaceman]

SLU lost a recruit last week to Bowling Green because of this thing.