Petition against DivIII changes

[fr joe]

Today's TU article is on a par with Saturday's story in the Troy Record. Ken Ralph's back from vacation so he's quoted in this later story. ;) Perhaps this is why there's been no 'official' RPI response... you think this would be initiated from the AD's desk.

BTW, the petition is up to 2856 signatures. I imagine that it could really move once students return from their summer wanderings. :D I hope we can get signatures from college hockey fans in general and primarily from other than RPI, SLU & CCT.

[Ralph Baer]

Frjoe,

I've said it before, but I think that the most important thing is to get signatures from people from the D-III schools that are not affected by this. It's almost a given that CC, Clarkson, RPI, and SLU folks will be in support.

[Chuck_N]

THE LINK (http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html)

[bigfish]

RB,
on your NACDA rankings. The Sears Cup is a publicity tool that USA Today and NACDA came up with in 1993.
Since hockey does not count for DIII, I'd be surprised if CC got any points.

"advantage"="dominate?

[bigfish]

Originally posted by RPIRED
Answer the question, or are you just being a fraud?
now those are not calm thoughts....
ever coming back to the Women's Forum thread?:D

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by bigfish
"advantage"="dominate? Of course not, but "advantage" is hard to quantify. I don't believe that taking an average of the positions of the affected schools and declaring that is higher than the average of all of the schools would indicate anything because just the fact that the schools play up is an indication that they place a value on athletic performance.

[fr joe]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
Frjoe,

I've said it before, but I think that the most important thing is to get signatures from people from the D-III schools that are not affected by this. It's almost a given that CC, Clarkson, RPI, and SLU folks will be in support.

Agreed! I've adjusted my earlier post. We're thinking the same thought but my forgot to type in 'other than' early this am! :o

It's great to have 2800+ signatures... which will grow as more people hear about it and respond to the inequity of the proposed changes. It's even better to have the petition reflect the sentiment of the larger hockey community.. DI & DIII! :cool:

[Ralph Baer]

RPI Press Release:



Rensselaer President Issues Statement Regarding NCAA Proposal for Reforms in Division III

The following statement was issued by The Honorable Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D., President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in response to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) proposal for reforms in Division III:

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute strongly opposes the National Collegiate Athletic Association's (NCAA) proposal to eliminate the awarding of athletics aid by Division III member institutions in sports classified in Division I. If it is approved, this proposal could place Rensselaer's well-respected hockey tradition in jeopardy, and hamper the ability of ice hockey players to receive the benefits of a Rensselaer education. Rensselaer has a fabulous tradition in ice hockey. It has sent a number of players to the National Hockey League (NHL), and has been inspirational and satisfying for our students, faculty, staff, alumni, and friends.

The NCAA President's Council recommended the proposal apparently in the belief that reforms are needed in Division III athletics to address the ongoing relationship between athletics and education. At Rensselaer, we scrupulously maintain a balance that encourages our hockey players to perform at optimum levels in academics and on the ice. These players truly represent the highest values of the scholar-athlete. Their grades, graduation rates, and their overall achievements in life are a testament to the success and integrity of our program. In short, Rensselaer already adheres to the spirit of the Division III philosophy, and, as such, is a credit to the NCAA.

In our view, the NCAA should not punish the multi-divisional schools to address Division III concerns. Rather, the NCAA should consider conducting audits of all Division III institutions. Rensselaer's program would easily withstand such scrutiny.

We are proud of our athletic programs, our players, our fans, and our long tradition of Division I men's ice hockey, which we intend to continue at Rensselaer as we support all of our athletic programs at the highest possible levels. Rensselaer will engage in a vigorous and sustained effort to defeat the NCAA President's Council's proposal.

[Sejast]

About time!

I must say I am encouraged by the strength of the statement. Especially the last part about continuing the program "at the highest possible levels". Granted there's plenty of room to move from this statement should things get ugly, but it's still nice to see.

While I wish this had come out sooner, better late than never :)

Also, I wish RPI had posted the petition link the way SLU did in their online release. Hopefully someone will get it across Renserve (or whatever they're calling it now).

Don't know if I missed it, but what have the statements been like from the other affected schools?

[RichS]

Kudos to RPI and Dr. Jackson for a forceful statement...especially the part about already adhering to the principles of D3. I believe that to be also true of Clarkson and SLU.

Maybe the Prez from Middlebury needs to look himself and his school in the mirror...part of his "holistic" approach...:rolleyes:

[miker]

as posted on goldenknights.com (comparing Clarkson vs. RPI press releases)

Originally posted by MikeR
Compare the two press releases. Significant difference in tone. The only word that may indicate disapproval by the Clarkson admin is "threatening", but not necessarily.

It could read...The Division I future of Clarkson University's Men's and Women's Hockey programs has been threatened by a proposal that has swept through Division III. We will begin transitioning to a highly successful D3 team by 2008.


Knights PR
DIVISION-III PROPOSAL THREATENS DIVISION-I FUTURE of CLARKSON HOCKEY
The Division I future of Clarkson University's Men's and Women's Hockey programs has been threatened by a proposal that has swept through Division III.

A proposal by the NCAA Division III Management Council, which was approved on August 7 by the Division III President's Council for forwarding to the full Division III membership in January, would eliminate the ability of Division III institutions which offer Division I sports to provide grant-in-aid scholarships in those Division I sports.

The proposal affects eight schools sponsoring 12 sports at the Division I level. In addition to Clarkson men's and women's hockey programs other impacted programs include men's and women's hockey at St. Lawrence, and men's hockey at Rensselaer among ECAC schools. The other hockey school impacted is Colorado College which offers Division I men's hockey and women's soccer.

Hartwick College offers Division I men's soccer and women's waterpolo, SUNY Oneonta offers Division I men's soccer and Johns Hopkins offers Division I men's and women's lacrosse among other schools affected by the proposal.


View USCHO Article
View NCAA Release - click on 8/7/2003 release

There is a petition on line opposing the proposal, which can be accessed and signed at http://www.petitiononline.com/NCAAD3/petition.html





Knights PR (http://www.clarkson.edu/athletics/hockey/news.html#aug13)

[Ralph Baer]

I too was quite surprised at and happy with the strength of Pres. Jackson's statement. As to the length of time it took to release it, I think that all of us (me too) are not properly looking at the time scales involved. The council only approved this last week, and it won't be until January before the membership votes. So that is only about 5% of the time available -- quite fast for an organization which usually operates on geological time scales. :) The only question is why something wasn't done before last week's vote. I still wonder how long this was in the works before Kurt Stutt started the first thread here.

[engineerhockeyfan]

I applaud President Jackson's statement and naturally agree with her position.
I was really disappointed in Mr. Brands reply. He seems to have his mind made up about this proposal and did not seem open to any opposition.
I can only hope that someone can open his eyes to the inequities of changing the rules in the middle of the game.
I don't think I like him.

[RichS]

Mike,

While I too am disappointed in the Clarkson statement for now, I do think it's a stretch to insert the comment about transitioning to a D 3 program by 2008. Have some faith my boy!

:D

[miker]

Rich -I'll make a valiant attempt. I don't think I realized how much I enjoy following the Knights until this proposal.

[fr joe]

President Jackson's strongly worded statement against the adoption of the 'Division III reform proposals' was excellent!

She correctly addressed the balance between academics and athletic participation as the integrity issue upon which this discussion should turn. Look at the colleges adversely affected by this proposal... RPI, Hopkins, Clarkson, St Lawrence, Colorado College. If these colleges cannot be credible examples of a mutually beneficial relationship between academics and intercollegiate athletics, then what really is the philosophy sought by the NCAA Division III Presidents' Council?

Establishing standards, measuring performance and auditing compliance is a good counterproposal to re-shape the discussion. Just where is Division III in need of real reform? Define the problem, document it, then adopt a policy response!

And, yes, Dr. Jackson, thank you for strong words of support of RPI hockey. And for your institutional commitment to a 'vigorous and sustained effort' to defeat the NCAA Presidents' Council proposal.

PS-RE: the timing issue. Today's Times Union article reported that AD Ken Ralph had returned from vacation on Monday. As AD, you would expect that he was part of the conversation that led up to the President's statement today...

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by bigfish
now those are not calm thoughts....
ever coming back to the Women's Forum thread?:D In case anyone is wondering what he's talking about, bigfish has been slipping this one question that he backed himself into and now refuses to answer.

So how about it, bigfish? Name me one school in D-III that benefits from this part of the legislation being proposed, eh? Name one, or admit that you're wrong, it's that simple. I'm not letting you off the hook. Stop stalling and answer the question. Don't play these mind games, this has nothing to do with my political orientation or even me.

If anyone wants to see what an animal does when he's cornered, check out the Women's Forum thread regarding this matter. It actually saddens the heart to see.

Time to put up or shut up, friend.

[d3follower]

Originally posted by RPIRED
. .
So how about it, bigfish? Name me one school in D-III that benefits from this part of the legislation being proposed, eh? Name one, or admit that you're wrong, it's that simple. . .

Your question seems to be way off the mark. Why should Bigfish have to name a particular D3 school that would benefit from enactment of the proposed legislation? After all, we all know exactly who has been benefiting and who will continue to benefit from the absence of the proposed legislation. That would be SLU, Clarkson, RPI, and CC ( and a couple of other lacrosse and soccer schools).

The real issue is equity, consistency, and fairness within D3. No, it is not fair that a small group of D3 schools get to play big time hockey and receive the attention and money associated with it while the rest of D3 plays a pure D3 schedule and complies with all the limits associated with D3 hockey (shorter season, fewer games, lower quality competition).

It is understandable why those who benefit from the status quo want to preserve it but it is unreasonable for them to argue that there is no unfairness involved in allowing one set of D3 schools to grant athletic scholarships while precluding all other D3 schools from doing so.

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by d3follower
Your question seems to be way off the mark. Why should Bigfish have to name a particular D3 school that would benefit from enactment of the proposed legislation? After all, we all know exactly who has been benefiting and who will continue to benefit from the absence of the proposed legislation. That would be SLU, Clarkson, RPI, and CC ( and a couple of other lacrosse and soccer schools).
From this I take two things.
1) The proposed legislation would not be beneficial two the schools you mentioned.
2) You can't name a school for which it would be.

I mean, what are we really talking about here... divisional jealousy? "Not fair?" As far as I know there's nothing stopping those other D3 schools from deciding to "play-up" once the moratorium expires.

So, apparently, equality has to come in the form of everyone being equally miserable? Jealous D-III school who want to play up but for some reason or another can't/won't, and therefore other schools have to suffer?

The last one really perplexes me. Men's hockey is a D-I sport at RPI, not a D-III sport. Having sports in different divisions at RPI or SLU or anywhere is not a problem for that school or any other school... I'd like to understand why you think it gives some sort of an advantage at the D-III level.

[Dutchfan]

Originally posted by RPIRED
From this I take two things.
1) The proposed legislation would not be beneficial two the schools you mentioned.
2) You can't name a school for which it would be.

I mean, what are we really talking about here... divisional jealousy? "Not fair?" As far as I know there's nothing stopping those other D3 schools from deciding to "play-up" once the moratorium expires.

So, apparently, equality has to come in the form of everyone being equally miserable? Jealous D-III school who want to play up but for some reason or another can't/won't, and therefore other schools have to suffer?

The last one really perplexes me. Men's hockey is a D-I sport at RPI, not a D-III sport. Having sports in different divisions at RPI or SLU or anywhere is not a problem for that school or any other school... I'd like to understand why you think it gives some sort of an advantage at the D-III level.

Agreed 100%. Infact, this is probably the only time we will agree on something.:)