Petition against DivIII changes

[d3follower]

Originally posted by RPIRED
. . .As far as I know there's nothing stopping those other D3 schools from deciding to "play-up" once the moratorium expires.
. . .

That's a pretty big if . . The reality is that there is a moratorium in place and no other D3 schools can play up to D1 in hockey. It couldn't be more obvious that a select group of schools has an opportunity that is not available to other schools and is exempt from basic rules that apply to all other D3 schools.

[Ralph Baer]

Originally posted by d3follower
That's a pretty big if . . The reality is that there is a moratorium in place and no other D3 schools can play up to D1 in hockey. It couldn't be more obvious that a select group of schools has an opportunity that is not available to other schools and is exempt from basic rules that apply to all other D3 schools. I would sign an on-line petition that would allow any non-D-I school to play up in one men's and one women's sport (not basketball and football). When are you going to start it?

BTW, which D-III schools would start D-I hockey programs if given the opportunity?

[Ralph Baer]

RPI President Jackson's statement is currentlly linked directly from the school's home page http://www.rpi.edu as well as from the athletics dept. home page http://http://www.rpi.edu/dept/athletics/

[Red Cloud]

Originally posted by d3follower
That's a pretty big if . . The reality is that there is a moratorium in place and no other D3 schools can play up to D1 in hockey. It couldn't be more obvious that a select group of schools has an opportunity that is not available to other schools and is exempt from basic rules that apply to all other D3 schools. The only problem with this logic is, the moratorium is only temporary. You're advocating a permanent solution to a temporary problem... kinda like suicide.

Dutchfan... I'm proud to say that I agree with you on an awful lot lately... this... AYA... lotsa stuff. Most of it comes when RPI actually plays Union... you're good people in my book. :D

[Ralph Baer]

A good article from the Troy Record about RPI President Jackson's comments. http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10006103&BRD=1170&PAG=740&dept_id=349551&rfi=6

[Ralph Baer]

A while back, someone asked on one of these threads what Myles Brand's email address is. According to RPI's alumni page http://www.alumni.rpi.edu/ it's mbrand@ncaa.org

[westerburg]

A new article

http://www.uscho.com/news/2003/08/14_006856.php

[jmh]

Did a quick browse through the petition and noticed a number of former players on the list of signatures. That can only help.

[miker]

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

[GB Puck Fan]

Originally posted by Ralph Baer
I would sign an on-line petition that would allow any non-D-I school to play up in one men's and one women's sport (not basketball and football). When are you going to start it?

BTW, which D-III schools would start D-I hockey programs if given the opportunity?


I believe St. Norbert College in De Pere, WI, might. It studied it three years ago - and had strong support locally for it - but stopped because of the current rule structure.

Given its location near Wisconsin and MI Tech, it was (internallY at least) discussing the WCHA first and the CCHA or CHA after that. But that's way premature....

I don't think any of the Minnesota conference schools would - just because of location and competition. I find it hard to believe any of the other NCHA schools would (except maybe Lake Forest - although UIC didn't have much success in Chicago) because of state budget issues.

SNC is a unique position given location and its market size/arena situation. in Green Bay.

I can't speak to the eastern schools....

[TimU]

Originally posted by d3follower
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).

Are you serious? My heart bleeds for Middlebury and Williams. Have you ever been to Canton or Potsdam, NY? How about Middlebury, or Williamstown? Come on. D-I hockey is NOT lavishing these schools with money. Middlebury can and does leave SLU in the dust when it comes to spending money.

Look, the amount of money available to the schools in question(since we're not talking about Notre Dame football) has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a big-time hockey program. Middlebury gets as much attention from its hockey program as does SLU, by the way. It gets more attention from, and spends a LOT more money on, its ski team, too. The school has its own ski area.

The same is true in terms of the quality of competition. Middlebury has gobs of money because over the course of its history it has been able to build up a huge endowment, allowing it to spend more money than just about any other Division III school on academic - and athletic - facilities. Middlebury can do more to structure appropriate aid packages for all its students than SLU. Does that mean that Middlebury has an unfair advantage in lacrosse, and should withhold grant money from lacrosse players to give SLU more equal footing on the field? St. Lawrence has a Division I hockey program not because it uses scholarships - it uses scholarships because it has a Division I hockey program. Just like Middlebury's academic strengths and classroom facilities, SLU's hockey program was built over decades and decades based on its location, culture, and alumni base. It's not unfair, it just is.

[d3follower]

Originally posted by TimU
Are you serious? My heart bleeds for Middlebury and Williams. Have you ever been to Canton or Potsdam, NY? How about Middlebury, or Williamstown.

The issue is not whether Middlebury and Williams have more generous alumni or have managed their investments better than RPI, Clarkson, or SLU. That is not what the proposed legislation is designed to address. The issue is whether it is fair to grant a select group of D3 institutions a special privilege - the right to play up to D1 and grant athletic scholarships, privileges which are not available to other D3 schools.

There are a range of D3 hockey schools, many of which do not have the resources of SLU, RPI, or Clarkson. An obvious case in point is Norwich, a school with a fine hockey tradition, limited financial resources, and no right to play up to D1 (yes the moratorium is a de facto prohibition on the play up otion and is unlikely to be lifted). And there are many other similarly situated D3 hockey schools . .

The issue is whether "history" and "tradition" somehow trump basic fairness and justify establishing special rules for a tiny group of D3 schools. Since it turns out that the "tradition" of granting athletic scholarships has been effect at SLU for a something like a big 6 years, it hardly qualifies as a longstanding tradition that warrants a special exemption. And since most of the ECAC institutions against which SLU, Clarkson, and RPI compete in hockey do not grant athletic scholarships anyway, I suspect that the three institutions would survive as hockey powers despite the dire predictions sprinkled throughout this board.

[TimU]

Originally posted by d3follower
The issue is not whether Middlebury and Williams have more generous alumni or have managed their investments better than RPI, Clarkson, or SLU. That is not what the proposed legislation is designed to address. The issue is whether it is fair to grant a select group of D3 institutions a special privilege - the right to play up to D1 and grant athletic scholarships, privileges which are not available to other D3 schools.

But YOU suggested that these schools enjoy an unfair advantage because of a special privelege that other schools don't enjoy. The same is true of schools like Middlebury, and the advantages enjoyed by Middlebury manifest themselves in their competitiveness in the classroom AND on the playing fields. My point is that these schools all have certain aspects of their histories that make them special. This CHANGE in the rules would jeopardize the special qualities of the D-I hockey schools. This exemption did not give these schools a leg up from D-III status, or allow them to develop D-I programs and play by the D-I rules in that one sport. They had ALWAYS been able to do that - it just so happens that these schools were competitive nationally in hockey and the other D-III schools were not. Same with CC.

And why do you think SLU instituted scholarships 6 years ago? Because times have changed, and in order for them to keep up in the world of D-I hockey, they decided they needed to take advantage of a tool that has been always been available to them, but they had previously not used. The number of schools offering D-I hockey is growing, and the cost of an education is skyrocketing. And by the way, St. Lawrence has been able to improve the academic profile of its hockey team by increasing the number of qualified students willing to play hockey there.

Edit: By the way, the notion that some schools' generous endowments are "not the issue" is somewhat galling to those of us from the "play up" schools. Let's face it, with enough money, Middlebury could in the most extreme example just give out enough aid that the average student only shelled out $5,000 a year to go there - and they could build the best athletic facilities in D-III sports. That would be fine. Any school can set its admissions standards at a level that allows them to admit athletes who are bad students. And that's OK, too. The very real economic advantages Middlebury enjoys are "not the point," but the ASSUMED advantages enjoyed by these D-I hockey schools - which I would dispute in the first place - need to be changed right away, even though each of these schools upholds the spirit of the true student athlete better than 90% of the Division III schools in the country.

[d3follower]

Originally posted by TimU
But YOU suggested that these schools enjoy an unfair advantage because of a special privelege that other schools don't enjoy. The same is true of schools like Middlebury, and the advantages enjoyed by Middlebury manifest themselves in their competitiveness in the classroom AND on the playing fields. . .

No matter who much money Middlebury has or may acquire, it cannot play up to D1 or grant athletic scholarships (and still retain its D3 status). And as I said earlier, most D3 schools do not have Middlebury's resources and they too are denied the privileges that SLU, Clarkson, and RPI have acquired for themselves and would like to extend while still enjoying all the other benefits of D3 membership.

It seems to me that SLU, Clarkson, and RPI are using loopholes in the D3 rules to try to reduce the wealth and stature advantage that a number of their Ivy competitors enjoy. I'm hard pressed to see how it is D3's responsibility to carve out special exceptions to its rules to increase the competitiveness of a small group of D3 schools vis-a-vis the Ivies.

[westerburg]

Originally posted by d3follower
It seems to me that SLU, Clarkson, and RPI are using loopholes in the D3 rules to try to reduce the wealth and stature advantage that a number of their Ivy competitors enjoy. I'm hard pressed to see how it is D3's responsibility to carve out special exceptions to its rules to increase the competitiveness of a small group of D3 schools vis-a-vis the Ivies.

Where to begin with this twisted logic. ... Loopholes? It's not a loophole. These schools played against D-I opponents for 70 years - before they were called D-I. At the time of the split in classes - it made perfect sense to allow SLU/Clarkson/etc... to keep playing their classic rivals, against whom they were competitive against - including Ivies. Clarkson had just finished playing Cornell in the NCAA tournament championship game. Would it have made sense to force Clarkson's hockey program into D-III, just because suddenly 3 classes were created and the rest of Clarkson's program were obvious D-III candidates?

If you don't see how obvious that is - then you're only being contrary to be a pain the rear.

These so-called "special exceptions" were made for very obvious, and sound reasons. There's absolutely no sound reason why this should be suddenly revoked - unless you are being clueless to the history - or spiteful.

Tell me again how this nod to history hurts the other 5,000 Division III sports teams.

[bigfish]

Originally posted by westerburg

These so-called "special exceptions" were made for very obvious, and sound reasons. There's absolutely no sound reason why this should be suddenly revoked - unless you are being clueless to the history - or spiteful.



what a reasonable guy, open to the viewpoint of others:D

[westerburg]

Originally posted by bigfish
what a reasonable guy, open to the viewpoint of others:D

bigfish - you're just a troll who continues to avoid answering the very direct question repeated dozens of times ... How, specifically and with data, does Clarkson's play in D-I hockey taint D-III athletics?

[TimU]

Originally posted by d3follower
I'm hard pressed to see how it is D3's responsibility to carve out special exceptions to its rules to increase the competitiveness of a small group of D3 schools vis-a-vis the Ivies.

But you think it's D3's responsibility to change the original and long-standing status of several of its most prestigious members' hockey programs in order to decrease their competitiveness vis-a-vis the Ivies, and increase their competitiveness with other D3 schools that don't even play them in this sport, and that have not demonstrated, or even claimed, any real, quanitifiable problem.

[Jon]

Fairness my arse. whatever braintrust came up with this idea needs to keep its nose out of DI hockey... If this was hoops or football, DIII wouldn't have tried to pull this nonsense... Clearly, seventy plus years of history trumps any parity idiocy that DIII cam up with in the meantime...

[RichS]

Originally posted by d3follower


It seems to me that SLU, Clarkson, and RPI are using loopholes in the D3 rules to try to reduce the wealth and stature advantage that a number of their Ivy competitors enjoy. I'm hard pressed to see how it is D3's responsibility to carve out special exceptions to its rules to increase the competitiveness of a small group of D3 schools vis-a-vis the Ivies.

The question of "loophole" has been adressed already so...

Please tell us how the current status of the programs in question "reduces the wealth and stature advantage that a number of their Ivy competitors enjoy". If anything, the continuing existence of these D3 school sin the ECAC enhances the stature of the Ivies in the league, as it has done for years! If you can't accept that, just contact the ADs of the hockey Ivies and ask if they'd be in favor of an ECAC without Clarkson, SLU, and RPI.