The DII Penalty--You Can't Compete

[carveman]

What in the world is going on with the "technically" DII programs not being able to compete in the DIII tournaments? I've heard that because DII schools can offer scholarships in a single sport, such as basketball, that the other sports are then excluded. In the case of teams like St. Mikes and St. Anselm, it seems too bad that the girls don't have anything to play for in leagues or on the national scene. St. A's, for example, looks like it is going to be a good club pretty soon and would add quality to the sport. Can't anything be done?

[3703]

Regarding the league tournaments, the DIII teams can't play because if one of them were to win, the league would lose it's automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. Each league's athletic directors are given a choice as to how they will award their bid. If they pick the tournament, and a DII team wins it, the bid doesn't just default to the runner-up team, or the next best team that happens to be DIII. Unfortnately for the DII teams, that is not the way the NCAA rules work. So the DII teams, or a DI team like Holy Cross, can't participate in the official tournament.

[uvmcats]

What in the world is going on with the "technically" DII programs not being able to compete in the DIII tournaments? I've heard that because DII schools can offer scholarships in a single sport, such as basketball, that the other sports are then excluded. In the case of teams like St. Mikes and St. Anselm, it seems too bad that the girls don't have anything to play for in leagues or on the national scene. St. A's, for example, looks like it is going to be a good club pretty soon and would add quality to the sport. Can't anything be done?

If one was picking a school just for the hockey experience then the coach should have told the recruits prior to committing to the program that post-season play at this time in D2 is not a reality. I suspect this is why St. Mike's has never been able to attract upper level d3 players even though the school has a good academic reputation. Kids who are picking the school for reasons other than hockey are probably glad hockey is available as a diversion and are not really concerned with post-season play.

[carveman]

If one was picking a school just for the hockey experience then the coach should have told the recruits prior to committing to the program that post-season play at this time in D2 is not a reality. I suspect this is why St. Mike's has never been able to attract upper level d3 players even though the school has a good academic reputation. Kids who are picking the school for reasons other than hockey are probably glad hockey is available as a diversion and are not really concerned with post-season play.

You're absolutely right--players interested in a DIII level hockey experience should know the scoop before committing to any school, and I daresay they do. But that doesn't change the fact that the current state of affairs is good for noone, at least from where I sit.
Making exceptions to allow these programs to compete in regular and post season play would make the programs more enticing to a wider group of players, increase parity across the board, strengthen each league, give the student athlete more bona fide goals, and better represent women's ice hockey.
I'm a newbie when it comes to all the rules, NCAA babble, the role of the AD's in the political makeup of the leagues, and so on. But I suspect that the last concern is for that of the athlete and the sport.
For all I know, the Manhattanvilles and Middlebury's and Plattsburg's work behind the scenes to make sure these rules stay in place to better assure auto-bids. Sorry if I've offended anyone unnecessarily.
What I do know is this--women's hockey is really coming along and should be leaving some of these ill-conceived or antiquated setups behind. Good heavens, we've made it to outer space and voted in Iraq, and we can't figure out how to let a few women's programs into the regular and post-season game? Shame on us.

[uvmcats]

I don't disagree with your sentiment. However, the d2 schools in New England who have committed to women's hockey need to convince other d2 schools in the greater Northeast to get on the bandwagon. The talent is improving and deepening to begin to support more teams. The NCAA despite some ineptness is attempting to keep playing fields level. Sometimes it costs schools like RPI for it decision to go d1 or a St. Mikes or St. A's who step out ahead of the curve at their level. I can't believe St A's would put the effort into building a program if it didn't have some idea that other schools at their level would follow. I hope so.

[carveman]

I don't disagree with your sentiment. However, the d2 schools in New England who have committed to women's hockey need to convince other d2 schools in the greater Northeast to get on the bandwagon. The talent is improving and deepening to begin to support more teams. The NCAA despite some ineptness is attempting to keep playing fields level. Sometimes it costs schools like RPI for it decision to go d1 or a St. Mikes or St. A's who step out ahead of the curve at their level. I can't believe St A's would put the effort into building a program if it didn't have some idea that other schools at their level would follow. I hope so.

I don't see why convincing other D2 schools to do anything is really the point. The D2 designation doesn't relate at all to the hockey programs, nor to many other of the programs. Besides, getting other weak programs to "get on the bandwagon" wouldn't do much in terms of promoting competitive play.
To me the point is that the D2 schools who are playing D3 schedules, don't give scholarships, etc., should be welcomed with open arms.
For the life of me I can't see what the legitimate administrative or political issues are; keeping the playing field "level" may have been the case in the past; maybe programs tried to hoodwink everyone and sneak in scholarship players, but I don't see that being an issue in this case and certainly safeguards could be built in. Is the NCAA seriously suggesting that because, for example, St. Anselm offers scholarships in boy's basketball that the women's hockey team would automatically be more competitive than other existing D3 programs?
I've seen in other posts references to the importance of competing for a national championship; I don't ses that as the issue, either. Using the St. Mikes and St. Anselm's as examples again: they aren't going to be the ones lowering academic standards nor buying teams (see Elmira/Manhattanville).
More to the point, the issue is enabling all our athletes to compete with and against their peers and have the same goals to shoot for as anyone else.
Get the smoke screens and politics out of the way.

[uvmcats]

I don't see why convincing other D2 schools to do anything is really the point. The D2 designation doesn't relate at all to the hockey programs, nor to many other of the programs. Besides, getting other weak programs to "get on the bandwagon" wouldn't do much in terms of promoting competitive play.
To me the point is that the D2 schools who are playing D3 schedules, don't give scholarships, etc., should be welcomed with open arms.
For the life of me I can't see what the legitimate administrative or political issues are; keeping the playing field "level" may have been the case in the past; maybe programs tried to hoodwink everyone and sneak in scholarship players, but I don't see that being an issue in this case and certainly safeguards could be built in. Is the NCAA seriously suggesting that because, for example, St. Anselm offers scholarships in boy's basketball that the women's hockey team would automatically be more competitive than other existing D3 programs?
I've seen in other posts references to the importance of competing for a national championship; I don't ses that as the issue, either. Using the St. Mikes and St. Anselm's as examples again: they aren't going to be the ones lowering academic standards nor buying teams (see Elmira/Manhattanville).
More to the point, the issue is enabling all our athletes to compete with and against their peers and have the same goals to shoot for as anyone else.
Get the smoke screens and politics out of the way.

The point is that it is totally the school. The school decided to offer the sport knowing how the NCAA aligns divisions and knowing the 'state of the art' for d2 hockey. It would be nice to take a youth sports view and say put the kids first but that isn't college athletics. The issue comes down to money. Schools that invest in scholarships for athletics expect a return on that investment whether at the d1 or d2 levels. Granted d2 may not be as lucrative as d1 but the basic fact is that there is reinvestment in the schools by the school being very competitive in its athletic program. You see it to a lesser extent in d3 but look at Norwich and Middlebury, more at d2 look at St. Mikes, St. A's, Stonehill as compared to d3 schools like S. Maine, NEC, Castleton etc. and even more when you look at Clarkson, St. Lawrence, RPI, & Union. Competing at an upper level in one or more sports does have a trickle down effect on facilities and support for the non-scholarship sports. Would St. A's have attracted the team they have if there wasn't a new arena, etc? So it is about trying to create level playing fields in the alignment of divisions.

[stetem]

I don't see why convincing other D2 schools to do anything is really the point. The D2 designation doesn't relate at all to the hockey programs, nor to many other of the programs. Besides, getting other weak programs to "get on the bandwagon" wouldn't do much in terms of promoting competitive play.
To me the point is that the D2 schools who are playing D3 schedules, don't give scholarships, etc., should be welcomed with open arms.
For the life of me I can't see what the legitimate administrative or political issues are; keeping the playing field "level" may have been the case in the past; maybe programs tried to hoodwink everyone and sneak in scholarship players, but I don't see that being an issue in this case and certainly safeguards could be built in. Is the NCAA seriously suggesting that because, for example, St. Anselm offers scholarships in boy's basketball that the women's hockey team would automatically be more competitive than other existing D3 programs?
I've seen in other posts references to the importance of competing for a national championship; I don't ses that as the issue, either. Using the St. Mikes and St. Anselm's as examples again: they aren't going to be the ones lowering academic standards nor buying teams (see Elmira/Manhattanville).
More to the point, the issue is enabling all our athletes to compete with and against their peers and have the same goals to shoot for as anyone else.
Get the smoke screens and politics out of the way.

I think the NCAA has the rules for exactly that...to allow schools to compete at a level they can afford

What i dont understand... because hockey is relatively new college sport for woman... why dont the DII schools apply to become DIII
after womans hockey expands....they would then go back to thier respective divisions
I'm not sure any of that is possible...but at least it would be worth looking into

[carveman]

The point is that it is totally the school. The school decided to offer the sport knowing how the NCAA aligns divisions and knowing the 'state of the art' for d2 hockey...Would St. A's have attracted the team they have if there wasn't a new arena, etc? So it is about trying to create level playing fields in the alignment of divisions.

Though the school knew that it would be assigned a D2 designation and its women's hockey team would be stuck with predictable limitations, I don't think the point is that "it is totally the school". If a school is currently a D2 operation and starts a new team, it has no choice. Yes, the school knew the rules and the "state of the art". The real point is that there should be a review process by which a team could play in the right league at the right level. It seems to me that at this time that isn't possible.
With regard to the trickle down effect, I suppose you mean that a St. A, for example, built the new rink with profits generated from its basketball program. My guess is they had benefactors and fund raising.
I don't know much about the D2 financial empire, but I think its a stretch to say that a school with one D2 sport could suddenly field a women's hockey team that would blow away the competition because it had resources unavailable to other schools.
And with regards to being able to attract players because of a new facility, I'd only agree to the extent that initial contact might be more effective; in the end, players (excluding those choosing a team solely to win a national championship) would be choosing a school because its the right fit.
Since St. A's can't, for the forseeable future, compete in post season tournaments (and I'm sure the players knew it when they chose the school), why would the new rink be such an influence? I'd guess a quality coaching staff, supportive faculty and student body and superb academics had a little to do with it.
I do appreciate your information, necdad, and thank you for the conversation. But I think I'm just tired of what sounds a lot like the the "company line", particularly when it just doesn't seem to make sense.
I'd love to see D2 reps and NCAA officials become a little more "youth hockey" like, and let these kids play with and against their peers.
The concept of creating "level playing fields in the alignment of divisions" seems like a complicated place to hide.

[nut_case]

Although I am not positive, I believe that the ultimate answer to these issues will be found in the NCAA rules, and I also believe that the rules (or at least some of them) will actually make some sense if they are considered in the larger context of the overall universe of the NCAA . Whatever one may think of the NCAA, it would be hard to argue that trying to keep up with rules which might be designed to promote a reasonably level playing field is anything but a difficult task. Study the often changing history of Ivy League or Nescac policies on the admission of athletes for good examples of situations where member institutions have (supposedly) standards and understandings among conference members for a good example of how difficult it is to keep any particular institution in line. Of course a truly accurate study would require some public honesty from administration officials(admissions, athletics, financial aid, etc.) which would be impossible to expect. Those universes are fairly small, however, and many schools consider the same students for admission. Thus, to use a purely hypothetical example(to protect the innocent), when a hockey player who is a legacy is turned down by Dad's alma mater but is accepted by another school in the conference, both sides are aware of the facts.

[carveman]

[QUOTE=nut_case]Although I am not positive, I believe that the ultimate answer to these issues will be found in the NCAA rules, and I also believe that the rules (or at least some of them) will actually make some sense if they are considered in the larger context of the overall universe of the NCAA .

The "NCAA rules" and the "overall universe of the NCAA", huh?
Forgive my cynicism, but from my point of view so far--the NCAA lives to keep the most number of people happy it can while turning a blind eye to what it would really take to "level the playing field". I'm sure lots of fan forum folks could come up with what it would REALLY take to level the playing field. And while we're at it, let's not level the playing field down, let's level it up to the "successful" programs!
Forget the smoke screens, let's get real here.

Here are some of the rules I'd make:

1. all schools must have at least 50-75% Canadian players who didn’t have to compete at the same academic levels as did their American counterparts to gain entrance.
2. must give $ 10,000 scholarships for making 1,000 on sat’s
3. must have roster openings for at least a few impact players whose minimum entrance requirement was to have a strong pulse.
4. must have at least 50% of the team bearing little or no resemblance to the rest of the student body, either socially or academically. :D

[fan for life]

Carveman i guess diversity in a student body is not viewed as an asset in the homogeous circles you travel in. pity

[nut_case]

Carveman- I am far from the brightest person in the world, so forgive me if I tell you that I have not yet figured out what exactly you mean in your response. If you are trying to say that many programs tend to run amuck, with little or no regard to the overall standards of the particular school, or its conference,etc., then I would agree, but I would certainly not place the blame entirely on the NCAA. Instead, I would characterize that fact as an example of the problem which will always arise when different institutions place different emphasis on winning. In my view the issue is, on one level, not that different from any situation involving some level of regulation. Theoretically we could imagine a situation where people in a particular area might decide that highway rules such as speed limits were no longer necessary, and that the driving population could simply agree to follow certain rules without the need for supervision or enforcement. Would that work? On the other side of that coin, do we blame the regulators when we see people drive with no regard to the rules of the road? I suppose we do to some extent, but the source of our irritation is likely to be focused on the fact that the rules are not enforced enough, not that the rules should be abandoned . By the way,how is it that St. Anselm's has been able to start from scratch and do so well so soon? How did Elmira do the same thing to an even higher degree? Please don't interpret that as my implying that they did not follow the rules. However, in each case these schools have demonstated a serious commitment to success. Another school which wants to catch up with these schools might be tempted to stretch the rules in the process, or more likely will find a way to "fit" within the rules which might not have been consistent with the original purpose or spirit of whatever rule we might be talking about. I have 4 daughters, all of whom have played, or are playing, at least one sport in college. I was in college myself when Title 9 was enacted, and I appreciate the opportunities it has provided for girls in all sports. However, when a D1 college carries 30 or 35 players on its women's lacrosse team( so that the school's overall gender numbers work), I don't think that does anything for the 15 kids on that team who will never get into a game in their career, and I'm not sure that this advances the goals of Title 9. Similarly, if a kid with a 4.0 GPA is on a team solely to improve the academic profile of the team, and has no chance of really participating,that doesn't do much for that kid either. Is that the fault of the NCAA or the schools it governs?

[carveman]

Nut Case:
Maybe I’m confusing myself!
I was just trying to have a little fun with an issue I find very transparent and therefore very frustrating: the idea that a D2 women’s hockey team can’t compete in regular and post season play at the D3 level because “the NCAA wants to maintain a level playing field”. It’s not about keeping things level-it’s about turf control and auto bids and inept administrators trapped in years past. And it’s the athletes who get hosed.
Let’s call a spade a spade—the Manhattanvilles, Plattsburgs and Elmiras are going to dominate because they allocate lots of money, “relax” admission standards and don’t mind being farm teams for the Canadian National effort. And the Middlebury’s, Bowdoins and Williams of the world have such deep pockets that no D2 program is going to sneak up and compete consistently in the foreseeable future.
Believe me, I bear no grudge against any of the schools; they can create any culture they want with whoever they can get.
But it doesn’t pass the laugh test to argue that St. Mike’s can’t play a regular schedule because they benefit unfairly from the scholarship situation in other sports.
And why is St. A’s doing so well so quickly? Obviously not because they went out and wheeled and dealed for a team destined for the national championship—they can’t play for it anyway! Just maybe a dedicated group of girls who love where they go to school and are committed to a sound coaching strategy could make a difference…

[carveman]

Carveman i guess diversity in a student body is not viewed as an asset in the homogeous circles you travel in. pity

Student body diversity is an important key to university life, no question. How a school reaches that diversity is the issue, isn't it?

[nut_case]

Carveman- I am guessing that if you and I were able to have a private discussion (as opposed to a public correspondence) on these topics, we would probably find that we agree on most of the issues(although I do not profess to remember much of whatever I may have read regarding the rules which apply to D2 schools). Regarding the topic of calling a spade a spade, I could tell you a few firsthand stories involving some of the academically elite, and athletically competitive, institutions which have hockey teams (at least one of whom sometimes appears,through selective representatives, to have a "holier than thou" attitude which is not necessarily justified by its own practices).