View Full Version : Petition against DivIII changes
GB Puck Fan
08-12-2003, 09:26 AM
First off, let me state I agree the changes shouldn't be made.
Earlier in the thread, someone asked what harm does having schools like Colorado College playing D1 hockey do to the other Divison 3 schools. While I don't necessarily believe it, I can see an argument going something like this:
====
Recruit in non hockey sport: "So, why should I come to CC?"
CC coach other than Owens: "Well, it's a great school, academics, etc. But even though it's a small place, we've still got the excitement of big-time college hockey. The community really gets behind the school. The facilities for hockey, such as the weight room, are used by the other teams. If you go to (school "X" for basketball) you just won't get that. Play here."
=====
Also, I'm sure other all D3 schools recruiting against them in the other sports believe a money-making hockey program ('cuz I'm sure they believe it makes money, scholarships aside), helps subsidize the rest of the athletic program. That helps pay for equipment, coaches, facilities, etc.
Now, as others have said I don't see CC winning national titles in other sports. But if you are a recruit in one of those other sports, the D1 hockey might present another lure to go there.
Ralph Baer
08-12-2003, 09:39 AM
GB Puck Fan,
The opposite argument can also be made. "The students are not going to care about my sport because it's a hockey school, so I won't go there." I don't know how it is now, but when I went to RPI no one attended basketball games because they played during hockey season.
As to the use of facilities such as weight rooms, I can't answer that. I add that I would be perfectly happy if other D-III schools would be able to move a sport of their choosing to D-I. I do understand why basketball and football can't be switched.
GB Puck Fan
08-12-2003, 01:02 PM
"I add that I would be perfectly happy if other D-III schools would be able to move a sport of their choosing to D-I. I do understand why basketball and football can't be switched."
Locally, St. Norbert College, a D3 hockey powerhouse, wanted to go D1 but found the rule which applies to CC, etc. doesn't apply anymore (a grandfather situation) so it can't go D1. SNC would have elevated women's soccer to D1 for gender equity issues.
It makes sense, I guess, for hoops and football so schools just don't pick moneymakers. Depending on the success of the program, hockey is a moneymaker to some programs.
I can live the SNC's of the world not being able to make the change now. But for those that have played the rules - in good faith - for many years should be able to remain as is.
Ralph Baer
08-12-2003, 01:53 PM
GB Puck Fan,
Yes, currently colleges like SNC cannot upgrade to D-I. I would endorse such upgrades. I think that the NCAA was wise to not allow schools to upgrade basketball, but every school should ahve the opportunity to compete in one men's and one women's sport on the D-I level if they so choose. The schools in question have a long history at the D-I level -- before there was a D-I. To me it's a no-brainer. Sports at the D-I level should be governed by D-I rules.
93champs
08-12-2003, 02:11 PM
Rather than try to fix the many large problems with college athletics, they decide to "fix" something that isn't even broken. And these are supposedly intelligent people...
Ralph Baer
08-12-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by 93champs
Rather than try to fix the many large problems with college athletics, they decide to "fix" something that isn't even broken. And these are supposedly intelligent people... The NCAA is headed by Myles Brand who majored in philosophy at RPI. If one was intelligent back in the 1960's, you didn't go to RPI to major in humanities. :eek: :rolleyes:
inobmaz
08-12-2003, 02:59 PM
There are so many threads concerning this subject that perhaps what I'm about to suggest has already been proposed;
Someone mentioned previously that this whole initiative was begun in an effort to curtail Mt. Union's overwhelming success in Division III football. It appears that disenchanted Div I players opt to transfer to that hallowed institution of learning [how else can you describe a div III football factory] without having to sit out a season (they get to play & study hard too :rolleyes: )
My alternative proposal would be to change the rule for transferring DOWN from Div I and require the 'scholar athlete' to pay a price for doing so. I propose that ANY athlete that transfers be required to sit out a specific period of time (1yr, 3 semesters, 2 yrs, or more).
Basically, everyone gets an opportunity to play at the level they 'sign up for'. If things don't work out (coach looked at me funny, I want to play more, etc,) well . . . . you can either tough it out and still get your education, or transfer and pay a hefty price.
While this may not completely eliminate the problem, it should greatly reduce it and make it harder for the MT. Unions of the world to dominate their sport.
bigfish
08-12-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by inobmaz
Someone mentioned previously that this whole initiative was begun in an effort to curtail Mt. Union's overwhelming success in Division III football. It appears that disenchanted Div I players opt to transfer to that hallowed institution of learning [how else can you describe a div III football factory] without having to sit out a season (they get to play & study hard too :rolleyes: )
someone may have mentioned that, but it doesn't make it true...
Originally posted by bigfish
someone may have mentioned that, but it doesn't make it true...
Someone also mentioned that the Div III schools that play Div I sports and give Div I scholarships have an advantage. Does not make this true either.
bigfish
08-12-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by vicb
Someone also mentioned that the Div III schools that play Div I sports and give Div I scholarships have an advantage. Does not make this true either.
and I've always been careful to talk about this 'belief'. But at least there is a quote from the Management Council chair saying that "some schools" feel that way.
Here, we have a poster taking a poster on this board as "truth"
Got 6, Want More
08-12-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by MikeR
http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html
Red Cloud
08-12-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by bigfish
Here, we have a poster taking a poster on this board as "truth" Who are you to say that it's not true? Just because it doesn't compare with your "belief?"
You're starting to sound like some dope I met one day several years ago on IRC... tried to convince me that there are no truths. When I queried him on what 1+1 equals, he said the answer was variable.
westerburg
08-12-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Ralph Baer
The NCAA is headed by Myles Brand who majored in philosophy at RPI. If one was intelligent back in the 1960's, you didn't go to RPI to major in humanities. :eek: :rolleyes:
Myles Brand has ZERO to do with legislation.
Red Cloud
08-12-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by westerburg
Myles Brand has ZERO to do with legislation. I don't believe Ralph was implying that he was, just making an observation.
bigfish
08-12-2003, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by RPIRED
Who are you to say that it's not true? Just because it doesn't compare with your "belief?"
:rolleyes:
lie down and think calm thoughts red
Red Cloud
08-12-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by bigfish
:rolleyes:
lie down and think calm thoughts red Answer the question, or are you just being a fraud?
dubbie31
08-13-2003, 03:24 AM
I dunno what these D-III guys are smoking...but what I wanna know is where did they get it??? Boulder CO??? Miami??? Whatever it is...it must be some good S---.
Ralph Baer
08-13-2003, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by RPIRED
I don't believe Ralph was implying that he was, just making an observation. Yep.
Ralph Baer
08-13-2003, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by vicb
Someone also mentioned that the Div III schools that play Div I sports and give Div I scholarships have an advantage. Does not make this true either. The following link was posted on a thread in the Div-II/III board http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/nacda/genrel/auto_pdf/0203D3FinalStandings.pdf . It lists the final standings for the NACDA Div-III Directors' Cup. It shows that JHU is #14, SLU #54, CC #73, RPI #106, Oneonta #115 (tied), Hartwick #190 (tied). Clarkson and Rutgers-Newark don't appear to have received any points and thus are at or below #279. Although this shows that the schools are doing better than average, it doesn't show that they are dominating D-III athletics. Also note that for some strange reason (considering D-III philosophy) the teams that play up receive points for how they do in their D-I sports. Thus, if JHU didn't get credit for finishing #2 in D-I lacrosse, they would be #19, not #14. I assume that CC likewise received points for finishing tied for #5 in the NCAA D-I hockey tourney, but I am too lazy to try to find the winter stats.
Ralph Baer
08-13-2003, 06:05 AM
Article from the Albany Times-Union about the proposal and its possible effect on RPI: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=160274&category=SPORTS&newsdate=8/13/2003 .
vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.