Petition against DivIII changes

[miker]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Proposition 65 is the main topic of an article in today's USAToday about the NCAA meetings starting tomorrow. A sidebar confused 65.1 with 65.

good find Ralph, too bad they can't get it right

USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2004-01-08-notes_x.htm)

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by johnk
I see that Charles Schumer will be speaking at RPI today to try to urge the 47 NYS schools voting on this proposal to vote against the proposal or for the amendment depending on how you look at it.I have never liked Mr. Schumer but his leverage in the US Senate is unquestioned, since the NC$$ has to deal with them quite often and the Senior Senator from the country's 3rd biggest state holds sway.

At least it wasn't (she who will not be named).

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/NewsComm/sub/photos/schumer.jpgFrom left to right: Senator Charles E. Schumer, Troy Mayor Harry Tutunjian, Schumer, RPI coach Dan Fridgen, senior captain Ben Barr, senior captain Scott Basiuk, Schumer, VP for Student Life Eddie Ade Knowles, Athletic Director Ken Ralph.

Also, Ken Ralph states that in case this proposal goes through, RPI has a contingency plan of some type. The plan has them staying D-1 in hockey. Since we're close, I suppose it's fine to announce this now - a reassurance to the fans after having spent so long fighting this and giving no indication that there was any contingiency scheduled.

I will be going back to class on Monday but keeping an ear on the happenings in Tennessee.

[johnk]

IMO, the only contingency plan would be either a lawsuit or a move to D-II. Trying to run this as a D-1 program without scholarships will be very difficult for RPI.

[vicb]

Originally posted by johnk
IMO, the only contingency plan would be either a lawsuit or a move to D-II. Trying to run this as a D-1 program without scholarships will be very difficult for RPI.

Amen to that. If it comes to this I hope the affected schools do both.

[USCHO News Editor]

New article here:

http://www.uscho.com/news/2004/01/08_007630.php

[RPIBMW]

Originally posted by USCHO News Editor
New article here:

http://www.uscho.com/news/2004/01/08_007630.php

If everyone will follow the above link, they then can locate an opportunity to send Myles Brand an email indicating the need for these programs to continue to give athletic scholarships and continue their traditions.

Everyone please get involved and send email please. Numbers count.

[Penwhale]

Remember that Today is the first day of that meeting!

Please petition!

[Ralph Baer]

Article in the Albany Times Union http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=SPORTS&storyID=206599&BCCode=&newsdate=1/9/2004 . The article mentions that Union has not yet decided how they will vote on this yet. If they are still on the fence that makes me quite concerned about other schools that are not as familiar with the situation.

OTOH, if RPI eventually decides to go the D-II or D-IA route, I wouldn't mind sticking the Dutchman's Shoes in Unions collective *****. :D

[miker]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Article in the Albany Times Union http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=SPORTS&storyID=206599&BCCode=&newsdate=1/9/2004 . The article mentions that Union has not yet decided how they will vote on this yet. If they are still on the fence that makes me quite concerned about other schools that are not as familiar with the situation.

OTOH, if RPI eventually decides to go the D-II or D-IA route, I wouldn't mind sticking the Dutchman's Shoes in Unions collective *****. :D

Unbelievable, does jealousy play a part? I'll never root for another Union team again, and hope the Knights lead the way to D2 -

[DrDemento]

Todays's Wall Street Journal (weekend edition) page w3 has an interesting albeit somewhat damaging article about the proposition. Focus is mostly on Hopkins and the lacrosse situation but does mention the 8 schools and hockey.

[miker]

Baltimore Sun article (http://www.sunspot.net/sports/bal-sp.hopkins09jan09,0,3729785.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines)

Hopkins readies its arguments for waiver
NCAA: With the status of its hallowed lacrosse program on the line, the university and seven other schools try to win a vote in Nashville and retain their Division I scholarship exemptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Christian Ewell
Sun Staff
Originally published January 9, 2004

Striving to protect its Division I lacrosse tradition while keeping the rest of its athletic program in Division III, Johns Hopkins is collaborating with seven other schools in an intense lobbying effort planned for an NCAA convention this weekend in Nashville, Tenn.

Proposal 65, part of a Division III reform package, would eliminate a 20-year waiver that allows Johns Hopkins to offer athletic scholarships to men and women to compete in Division I lacrosse. The rule revision would take effect in 2008.

The proposal is set to come up for a vote Monday, toward the end of the convention, in what is expected to be a close ballot. Hopkins and the other schools have introduced a counterproposal that would preserve the waiver in the various sports affected, which range from hockey to water polo.

Over the past four months, officials of the eight schools - Johns Hopkins, Clarkson, St. Lawrence, Oneonta, Colorado College, Hartwick, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Rutgers-Newark - have sent out brochures and made countless phone calls to the rest of the Division III members, which do not offer athletic scholarships.

"It's one of the strongest lobbying efforts I've seen in my 15 years here," Salisbury athletic director Michael Vienna said. "When you consider a proposal that just affects eight institutions, they're doing a great job of getting their point across."

The schools state in a brochure: "The only significant difference between us and other Division III members is a history and tradition of prominence in a particular sport, generally a sport that has a relatively low national visibility but that is important locally or regionally."

Hopkins has competed in lacrosse throughout its 127-year history, winning 42 national titles, including seven NCAA Division I titles. Also, the campus houses the sport's hall of fame.

Since the reform package was introduced last summer, Johns Hopkins president William R. Brody has made it clear that the school would continue to give athletic scholarships for lacrosse. "Our options are to move every sport to Division I," he said recently.

If Proposal 65 passes, Hopkins likely would try to get the NCAA membership to reconsider the matter in the future. Before then, it would make Division I the next stop, allying itself with schools more compatible with itself than ones in Division III. Hopkins probably would look to the Patriot League or Colonial Athletic Association for membership for most of its teams.

Though Hopkins officials have been hoping to keep the majority of their 28 varsity teams at Division III in the Centennial Conference, and stress they haven't yet made contact with a Division I league, the backup plan is in place.

"We can't not prepare for the worst," said athletic director Tom Calder. "I think we've been gathering research that would affect the decision we would make, should we lose."

The roots of the Division III reform package are in a survey conducted last spring by a task force looking into the future of Division III athletics.

The package includes measures that would reduce teams' schedules and eliminate redshirt designations that allow athletes to sit out a year while retaining eligibility. Of roughly 335 schools that completed the survey, 60 percent supported or strongly supported the elimination of the waiver.

This is the third challenge to the waiver since 1983, when it was given to the eight schools.

Dennis Collins, commissioner of the North Coast Atlantic Conference since 1984, said he helped broker a 1991 deal that forced Division I Dayton to promote its football program from Division III, while preserving the waiver that allowed Johns Hopkins to play lacrosse at the Division I level.

"I thought the offensive nature of the multi-division classification was corrected at the meeting in 1991," Collins said. "We don't understand why this is coming up again."

But at the same time, Collins said the schools in his Ohio-based conference - with Oberlin and Kenyon as notable examples - were split on the issue, just as the matter appears to divide the entire Division III membership.

In Nashville, the debate will center on what members perceive matters most to their Division III identity: Is it a core philosophy that prohibiting athletic scholarships keeps the focus on academics and the overall college experience? Or is it institutional autonomy and the continuation of a tradition such as Hopkins' in lacrosse - as long as that doesn't create a disadvantage for Division III opponents?

The head of the Presidents Council, which put together the reform package, recognizes that none of the eight schools represents the ills of big-time athletics.

"The issue is athletic scholarships. Let's debate that issue," said John McCardell, outgoing president of Middlebury College in Vermont. "The evidence is the waiver. It's a general acknowledgement that what they're doing is at variance from what is the Division III philosophy."

The argument by the eight schools is that Proposal 65 will have little effect other than to injure them.

As it is, scholarship athletes at Hopkins can't participate in any of the school's Division III sports. The intangible benefits the school might obtain from having a Division I sport, such as better facilities, are a matter of debate.

Hopkins fields 22 teams in the Centennial Conference, whose commissioner disputed any perception of an unfair advantage. Steve Ullrich said the league's other members would be concerned "if [Hopkins] had more of an advantage or if we felt like the scholarship athletes were getting perks. If anyone should have a problem, it should be the schools that play Hopkins day in, day out."

It's difficult to say what factors might determine the result of the vote, with many conferences apparently split and delegates waiting until arriving in Nashville to make up their mind on the issue.

"I think it's going to be a historical weekend in Nashville," said Chris Graham, spokesman of the Midwest Conference, "and I believe that not everyone will leave there happy."

[kashmunnie73]

....geez...why does Hopkins go from the brass ring....get Bloomber to promise $200 million in endowment if Hopkins joins Ivies......and foregoes all scholarships. Now that would be change for change's sakes....regardless of Sen Schumer. kash

[kashmunnie73]

on D1 page...see also my typo..."Why doesn't Hopkins join Ivies"...and "Bloomberg"...and hey...let's get $100 million from John Malone. kash

[TonyP]

Just what you need...with support like that, we might as well pack up the hockey programs now!

Just wondering, with all he has on his plate, why is he getting involved in this thing?

[kashmunnie73]

...why doesn't sen chuck address the SUNY D# hockey teams that only recruit north of the border. Was he against NAFTA? BTW...Senator Hilliary grew up a Clarkson fan. kash

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by MikeR
Unbelievable, does jealousy play a part? I'll never root for another Union team again, and hope the Knights lead the way to D2 - Clearly. ;)

Actually, I think it's just a by-product of Hull being a super-philosophy kinda guy. It definitely can't be Belmonte's doing, he's a hockey guy, he's gotta know what the 4 programs mean to college hockey.

[ambersuds]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Article in the Albany Times Union http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?category=SPORTS&storyID=206599&BCCode=&newsdate=1/9/2004 . The article mentions that Union has not yet decided how they will vote on this yet. If they are still on the fence that makes me quite concerned about other schools that are not as familiar with the situation.

OTOH, if RPI eventually decides to go the D-II or D-IA route, I wouldn't mind sticking the Dutchman's Shoes in Unions collective *****. :D

Union deserves an atomic wedgie for even hesitating to back up the affected ECAC schools on this one. Brickbats to Union.

[kashmunnie73]

As this grand-fathering pre-dates all the Title XI laws( or is it IX?) shouldn't these colleges be required to offer 18 "offsetting" female athlete scholarships? I understand Hopkins, CC , and maybe St.Lawrence offer gender-balancing scholarships in lax, soccer, and hockey(?). But where do the other colleges come out on that...especially RPI and Clarkson? How can a jack-booted liberal like Sen Schumer defend such gender inequity if so? Nice implicit threat to withold favors by Sen Schumer.....and I'll bet the Money-Honey Jackson will campaign for Chuck next time. Where in NOW, Emily's List etc...on such a gender issue? kash

[OSU2002]

Schumer backs local colleges in Division III scholarship voting
Times staff and wire reports
Associated Press
First published: Friday, January 9, 2004

WASHINGTON - Sen. Charles E. Schumer stepped in from the sidelines Thursday on a measure that could end athletic scholarships at St. Lawrence University and Clarkson University.
Mr. Schumer, D-N.Y., said the National Collegiate Athletic Association should scrap a proposal (Proposal 65) that would bar those colleges, and three others in New York, from offering athletic scholarships.

The NCAA's Division III convention is expected to vote Monday in Nashville, Tenn., on a measure that would stop Division III colleges and universities from offering athletic scholarships to their Division I sports teams.

Supporters say the move would put more emphasis on academics. Opponents, including Mr. Schumer, say it would cripple athletic programs and damage local economies that depend on sporting events.

"At the end of the day, this new proposal is change for the sake of change, with no good reason behind it," Mr. Schumer said in a press release. "There is nothing to be gained from eliminating athletic grants-in-aid for their Division I student-athletes. There is, however, plenty to lose.'

"These programs serve as positive role models in major college sports, and decimating them means hindering student-athletes from earning degrees at some of our State's finest institutions," Mr. Schumer said.

The senator wrote to presidents and athletic directors at 47 New York schools that have a vote at the convention, urging them to keep the current practice.

The other affected schools are Oneonta State, Hartwick College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

[miker]

since some of us miss the D3 home page...another article by USCHO's Chris Lerch

http://www.uscho.com/news/2004/01/08_007631.php