Petition against DivIII changes

[Dutchfan]

That was a great article. It shows that this reform not only hurts the schools playing up in D-I, but it also hurts the D-III schools.

[vicb]

Originally posted by kashmunnie73
...Senator Hilliary grew up a Clarkson fan. kash

Now I'm really gonna puke. Bleeeeeeeeeeah

[Red Cloud]

Senator (she who will not be named) would probably be hard-pressed to point out the locations of any of the 3 school in question if asked. :rolleyes:

At least Schumer has gotten over his previous ignorance of anything north of Westchester County since his election.

[miker]

Unfortunately, the senator you are referring to knows where Clarkson is located. She's on my least favorite list. Kash may be right in this instance (Pres. Tony Collins on the right, look for the 5th person from the right):eek: :o
http://www.clarkson.edu/depts/alumni/clarkson_stuff/magazine/fall_03/images/clarkson_e-business1.jpg

[marty74]

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

Union can't figure out what to do because its current policy is akin to cheating. It claims not to give scholarships based on hockey and then gives the players money under the guise of diversity.

Maybe Union is afraid that if the ban takes place the other schools will all copy them and therefore the "cheating" will be out in the open.

This is one of many reasons that I am against the change. It will encourage cheating and punish the schools that don't cheat.

Doesn't it make you proud to be so pure, Union?!?!?!?


:confused:

[Ralph Baer]

marty74,
You expressed quite well my opinion of the Union scholarship situation. I don't blame Union because I feel that they should have been allowed to give scholarships to hockey players, as should all schools that play DI hockey. (The Ivies ban and the AH limitations are self-imposed -- so that is fine also.)

[Dutchfan]

Originally posted by marty74
Union can't figure out what to do because its current policy is akin to cheating. It claims not to give scholarships based on hockey and then gives the players money under the guise of diversity.

Maybe Union is afraid that if the ban takes place the other schools will all copy them and therefore the "cheating" will be out in the open.

This is one of many reasons that I am against the change. It will encourage cheating and punish the schools that don't cheat.

Doesn't it make you proud to be so pure, Union?!?!?!?


:confused:

Oh kiss my ***...If you feel the grant is cheating I guess scholarships are cheating too, except the scholarship schools can "cheat" on American players as well. The grant goes to all foregin students athletes or not. I don't see RPI giving scholarships to Canadian students that financially qualify who don't play hockey.

I'm against this thing, but it's attitudes like yours that get bills like these passed.:rolleyes:

[sera68]

What's up with all the Hillary bashing? She's been in every cowtown in upstate New York. Schumer is the media ho. He's sick of being overshadowed by Hillary, so his staff are always combing the hinterlands for issues he can get involved in and get his face on the news. That said, I voted for the guy and would again. These are politicians, people. What do you expect?

[Red Cloud]

They're both media whores. The most dangerous place in the world is between a New York Senator and a camera.

[miker]

Some recent quotes in the WDT (http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/editorial/20040111/5089.asp)

While the schools believe they have 250-300 votes in favor of 65-1, they are cautiously optimistic....

from Joe Marsh
I think we're waiting on baited breath. There's been a lot of work that's gone into it from this end. Our president (Daniel Sullivan) has been very active on it and he'll be at the meeting. He's been fabulous, as has (athletic director) Margie Strait. From our perspective, at St. Lawrence, I know we've done what we can do

Clarkson President Collins
We have left no stone unturned. We've contacted virtually every school, every conference, and explained our position. We feel when people understand the issue they'll vote in our favor and we'll prevail.

from SLU President Sullivan
The numbers that we're hearing, as we compile the votes that we think we're going to get, seem as if we're OK. On the other hand, I worry that some of the votes we're counting may be softer than we think. I think it will go right down to the wire. There are some people who are prepared to vote against proposal 65 who aren't that enthusiastic about 65-1. The dynamics will be interesting.
On the one hand, some of the people who are supportive of 65 are wary that the number of institutions, like the eight who are grandfathered, could grow in time. Sixty-five-one is designed to make that impossible. But it looks to some people as if it's a group of institutions that want to grab onto something they were given and exclude others from the opportunity.

from President McCardell on why Prop 65 is necessary even though it doesn't appear that the schools have an unfair advantage
You could argue that because these (eight) schools are mediocre in every other sport they offer that therefore proves that giving out scholarships does not give them a competitive advantage. One could argue that their very mediocrity in every other sport may be a consequence of their devoting their resources (to a Division I sport). I'm not saying one is right or one is wrong.

and why tradition explains why scholarships are not necessary

Precisely because Johns Hopkins has been a lacrosse powerhouse, they are not suddenly going to cease to become a lacrosse powerhouse. (Tradition) would seem to be as strong an argument for not needing scholarships.


Effects on recruiting....
Coach Roll
It's affected us with certain kids, and it hasn't with others. We're telling them on the 12th we'll have a decision and they respect that

Other stuff
Coach Marsh mentioned SLU has lost 2 recruits, and the same thing was happening at Clarkson. Noted that SLU AD Margie Strait was the originator of Prop 65-1, as an alternative, for other institutions to vote YES.

IF Prop 65 passes

JHU has talked about moving to D1, CC has discussed moving to D2, and Clarkson has hinted the same, SLU would remain D3

Clarkson President Collins
We have worked hard, met with a number of recruits, men and women, and have made it known that this school is committed to competing at the highest levels in hockey and that we will consider all alternatives. We've asked (recruits) to bear with us.

Sorry Ralph, Tom, et al...not much from a RPI perspective

[RPIBMW]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
marty74,
...I don't blame Union because I feel that they should have been allowed to give scholarships to hockey players...

Can someone elaborate further? Is Union not allowed to give scholarships? I may have misread this, please correct my understanding...thanks...

RPI President Shirley Jackson did speak last Friday night during the RPI-Union hockey game. Some of her highlight comments would be representative of the school's current situation and optimism, if anyone has the speech transcript.

[Ralph Baer]

RPIBMW,
It's my understanding that only schools that started to play up before some date are allowed to offer scholarships. I am sure that MikeR knows the details. It's mentioned somewhere on this thread already, but it might be hard to find.

Mike,
Interesting comments about 65 vs 65-1 by President Sullivan. I thought that 65-1 was introduced so schools that didn't want to give blanket approval for schools playing up to be allowed to offer scholarship might allow just the ones who currently do so to be grandfathered. It sounds like it may have just the opposite effect on voting.

As I have said several times, I have nothing against allowing any D-III school that wants to do so to play up in one non-football/basketball sport for men and one for women. Those schools should be allowed to run those sports as D-I schools do and should not be subject to D-III regulations.

[Ralph Baer]

There are several recent relevant threads on laxpower discussing Proposal 65 and its consequences. See http://forums.laxpower.com/list.php?f=1 . The threads should be obvious.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by MikeR

from President McCardell on why Prop 65 is necessary even though it doesn't appear that the schools have an unfair advantage

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could argue that because these (eight) schools are mediocre in every other sport they offer that therefore proves that giving out scholarships does not give them a competitive advantage. One could argue that their very mediocrity in every other sport may be a consequence of their devoting their resources (to a Division I sport). I'm not saying one is right or one is wrong.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<marquee>This is ridiculous.</marquee>


President McCardell,
Before you argued that the eight schools had a competitive advantage in other sports because they have a team that plays up. Now you are essentially saying just the opposite. Have you considered the possibility that there is no correlation between the two at all, and this argument is pure b*** s***? :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Red Cloud]

In other words, he's now trying to save the schools from themselves?

Idiot.

[kurt stutt]

Ralph, at what time have you ever seen, anywhere, that a person or group, which is advocating that others should act according their philosophical opinions, listens to a rational argument against those opinions?

[RPIBMW]

Ralph, thanks for the clarification. Great response - so Union College had to work around a ridiculous rule.

Both Proposition 65 and the Union-College constraints are illogical:

1) NCAA needs to promote growth of the sport and growth of youth opportunities - if a school can move one sport to D1, that is growth.
2) If a school has a D1 sport it should be fully allowed to operate that sport in accordance with D1 scholarship regulations.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by Kurt Stutt
Ralph, at what time have you ever seen, anywhere, that a person or group, which is advocating that others should act according their philosophical opinions, listens to a rational argument against those opinions? One keeps hoping. :D

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by RPIBMW
Ralph, thanks for the clarification. Great response - so Union College had to work around a ridiculous rule.

Both Proposition 65 and the Union-College constraints are illogical:

1) NCAA needs to promote growth of the sport and growth of youth opportunities - if a school can move one sport to D1, that is growth.
2) If a school has a D1 sport it should be fully allowed to operate that sport in accordance with D1 scholarship regulations. You said that much better than I ever have.

[TCTornado]

Originally posted by Kurt Stutt
Ralph, at what time have you ever seen, anywhere, that a person or group, which is advocating that others should act according their philosophical opinions, listens to a rational argument against those opinions?
certainly not in this thread:D :p :D