Petition against DivIII changes

[westerburg]

Try these:
http://www.thesabre.com/message_board/lacrosse/
http://forums.laxpower.com/list.php?f=1
http://www.brine.com/brinebb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=1

A startling amount of misinformation on there - but that's all I could find.

[miker]

Thanks Westerburg...posting on them now.


Edit: only able to post on 2 of 3 (automatic register was suspended)

did find this very interesting article from the baltimore sun

http://www.sunspot.net/sports/college/bal-sp.hopkins09aug09,0,4234764.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines

[miker]

John Hopkins response (http://hopkinssports.ocsn.com/genrel/080803aaa.html)


Alright now....I've read SLU's open letter, as well as CC's comments, and this from John Hopkins.

Where is Clarkson??? RPI?:confused:

[UConn4Life]

www.inthezone.blogspot.com

I have an article on there. It's the unofficial official website of the WHUS Sports Department.

We plug it heavy-like on our talk show every Friday.

The talk show can be heard anywhere in the world online.

:D :D

[Wildcat_Chris]

I noticed on MikeR's sig that he lists the all-time record of Clarkson's hockey team. I'm wondering how difficult it could be to find out the all-time records of all the teams wich would be affected by this proposal, the number of national titles won, length of time program has existed, and maybe a few other important historical facts. And then, find out some of the same info for the sports that those schools participate in for D III. Since it seems that one of the issues regards the competitive balance of those D III schools when one team "plays up," it would be interesting to see if those schools have had any kind of historical advantage in any other sports. Another thing I question is the importance the proposal has placed on the philosophy and integrity of D III. What about the philosophy and integrity of those schools which have "played up" since before playing up was even a term. What about the history and tradition of the athletic programs at those schools such as Clarkson and RPI which have played against current D I programs since the 50's, or earlier? These schools did not add programs to D I in order to make more money to fund an athletic department in order to shift the competitive balance in their favor for their D III programs! I think it's great that schools are looking at how to improve their programs, but at what cost? It seems absurd that a decision with this kind of impact will be made by many people who may not even be aware of the historical signifigance of those programs "playing up." As MikeR's sig indicates, Clarkson has the most successful winning percentage in all of D I hockey, but without scholarships, the program may (would) not be able to compete at a high level any more. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[westerburg]

The focus needs to be on the historical significance ... and on the fact that these schools were already grandfathered in a long time ago - and grandfathered in for a reason. A very significant and sound reason.

Further - the basis of this proposal seems to be that the schools' D-III sports are unfairly advantaged. Yet there is not one shred of evidence to support this.

Those are the two points that need to be hammered in. I reiterate the need to change the petitition wording to reflect this.

Also - there are numerous people in the petition making uninformed comments about the NCAA, and about how this is something "Large schools" are doing to "screw the little guy" ... Things like that are wrong, and not helpful.

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

The focus of the petition is also just on hockey, note the second line.

If you want the other programs that are affected to join in and sign, the petition needs to be ameded to reflect all sports, not just hockey.

[Ralph Baer]

The focus of the petition is on hockey, but the petition does state that it is against the change in all sports.

1106 signees.

[miker]

I have been thinking about the same thing, previously (in this thread) I believe a D3 supporter mentioned some other improvements to the petition to get D3 support as Westerburg mentioned....First I would email John Blauvelt to determine if any amendments or changes can be made without affecting the number of signatures
highlander_rpi@comcast.net <highlander_rpi@comcast.net>

If no changes are made, Ralph's statements are valid...this is against the proposal, and all sports affected. No limitations are placed on such.

[miker]

Originally posted by Wildcat_Chris
I noticed on MikeR's sig that he lists the all-time record of Clarkson's hockey team. I'm wondering how difficult it could be to find out the all-time records of all the teams wich would be affected by this proposal, the number of national titles won, length of time program has existed, and maybe a few other important historical facts. And then, find out some of the same info for the sports that those schools participate in for D III. Since it seems that one of the issues regards the competitive balance of those D III schools when one team "plays up," it would be interesting to see if those schools have had any kind of historical advantage in any other sports.

From my observations of the board, I would probably ask "Randy May" for CC, and "TimU" for SLU about this information....

[miker]

this is from the GoldenKnights.com forum. Thanks to "Papa Smurf" for posting.

Quote from B Sun article: "William Smith College AD Susan Bassett, who chaired the committee that made the reform recommendations, said some schools believe the visibility and revenue that come with a Division I sport convey an overall athletic advantage to multi-division schools. "

This jumped off the page at me because Hobart (William Smith's companion school) is D III but they compete D I in men's lacrosse. After a bit of research, I found that the reason that Hobart wouldn't be affected by this is because they made the jump to D I lacrosse in 1985, which wasn't early enough to be grandfathered in to allow scholarships, and so they're already in the position that we face. Maybe there's a bit of sour grapes at play here.

Interesting side note: Hobart's men's lacrosse team currently plays in the Patriot League, which recently decided to dump all of its "associate members" (guessing that means schools that only compete in certain sports). And so they recently found a new league to play in... you guessed it, the ECAC.


Link where Papa Smurf got the info (http://www.fltimes.com/Main.asp?SectionID=39&SubSectionID=122&ArticleID=1958)


http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html

[UMDbulldogs#1]

I'm sure this has already been mention, but have any of the affected schools thought about jumping to DII if this goes through? I know that it's easier said than done, but it is an option because DII schools can give scholarships for athletics.

[bigfish]

Originally posted by MikeR
t

This jumped off the page at me because Hobart (William Smith's companion school) is D III but they compete D I in men's lacrosse. After a bit of research, I found that the reason that Hobart wouldn't be affected by this is because they made the jump to D I lacrosse in 1985, which wasn't early enough to be grandfathered in to allow scholarships, and so they're already in the position that we face. Maybe there's a bit of sour grapes at play here.


http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html

Mike,
1, she said "some schools", but you're assuming that is her view?

2. You're aware, I hope, that Hobart has been pretty successful in D1 lax?:D

[Randy May]

CC has a 951-982 mark all time in NCAA play with 2 NCAA titles in 50+ years and 4 WCHA titles in the last 10 years alone. Not to mention the fact that CC invented the frickin' NCAA ice hockey tourney, the Broadmoor trophy, and the entire **** WCHA!!!!! (the latter with the help of rival DU). :mad:

[Rich]

I have to catch a plane, so I can't add too much, but one other note about CC is that they hosted the NCAA tournament at the Broadmoor for the first 10 years - 1948-1957.

source (http://www.uscho.com/m/ncaad1/?data=thistory)

[miker]

Originally posted by bigfish
Mike,
1, she said "some schools", but you're assuming that is her view?

2. You're aware, I hope, that Hobart has been pretty successful in D1 lax?:D


1. Yes. It's difficult for me to believe that anyone can separate themselve from an issue that directly affects them. Just see this proposal for proof of that.
2. Yes. Even if I wasn't all I had to do was read one of those articles.;)

[Timmah!]

John Blauvelt and I have been coordinating the efforts on the distribution of this hockey petition to various media outlets. One of the points brought out on this board, and in an email sent to us this weekend from Johns Hopkins is that the petition must be expanded to specifically incorporate all the affected sports for them to link it on their page. Unfortunately we are not able to make any edits to the current petition. After much discussion we have decided that the only way to address this problem is through writing a second petition which is specifically geared at all of the non-hockey programs affected. This is far from ideal, but is the only way we can see to addressing the concerns of the non-hockey schools. Please take a look at the new petition, and continue to distribute both versions of the petition to anyone and everyone you know. Keep up the good work!!!!

Hockey Petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html

Non-Hockey Petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/D3NCAA/petition.html

[Rolevio]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that on the petition there are at least 2 signees that signed only to get other people to visit political websitres/petitions, and one fake singature from a Don Sweeny.

[westerburg]

Originally posted by tvanderpoel
After much discussion we have decided that the only way to address this problem is through writing a second petition which is specifically geared at all of the non-hockey programs affected. This is far from ideal, but is the only way we can see to addressing the concerns of the non-hockey schools.

Great, except you kept in this paragraph:

"Ratification of this proposal would prevent these schools from competing on the same level with other Division I schools, as they would be prevented from attracting highly talented players to their teams with the offer of scholarship money. With other Division I teams allowed to use scholarships as an enticement, players would be more inclined to choose a school to play for that would pay their tuition over a school that would not. "


This is very wrong. Well, actually, what you say is true -- but that is not a persuasive argument. The argument you state is precisely the reason why the legislation is being passed. How is that supposed to win anyone over? D-III wants to stop that practice specifically.

Scrap that petition ASAP - and let someone who understands the issue write it up properly.

You have a lot of important people who want to sign the petition -- it's very wrong to have the principles of the petition be behind a faulty ideal.

The issue, again, is short-sightedly scrapping decades of tradition - and something that was grandfathered into these schools long ago.

If you talk about how taking away scholarships is going to make these players go to other schools -- well, then that is obvious -- and you going to get no sympathy on that point. That's what D-III wants.

[bigfish]

Originally posted by MikeR
1. Yes. It's difficult for me to believe that anyone can separate themselve from an issue that directly affects them. Just see this proposal for proof of that.
2. Yes. Even if I wasn't all I had to do was read one of those articles.;)

1. Well, yes and no. Here, as I noted WAY back, people's oxen are being gored, so the separation is hard. I especially admire your willingness to consider the merits of the proposals in that context. But Hobart is not "affected" in that way, so not near as hard for the separation to occur.

2. So you see where I'm going;)