Future of Division III

Started by Ralph Turner, October 10, 2005, 07:27:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

frank uible

I believe the pledge is misstated. Athletics should not be treated as if it is apart from education any more than other extracurriculars should be. Students as young adults should have the experience and option of participating or refraining from participation in extracurriculars as a part of their education - participation including strongly influencing and in most cases controlling determination of the nature and extent of the extracurriculars in which they participate.

bbald eagle

Quote from: frank uible on November 06, 2005, 01:50:25 AMIn DIII if it is done right, athletics, including inter-collegiate football, is part of education.

How can anyone dispute this?

bbald eagle

Quote from: frank uible on November 06, 2005, 01:50:25 AMIn DIII if it is done right, athletics, including inter-collegiate football, is part of education.

Heck ... If D1 & 2 were done right ... this would be true of everybody.

redswarm81

Quote from: frank uible on November 06, 2005, 08:09:06 AM
I believe the pledge is misstated. Athletics should not be treated as if it is apart from education any more than other extracurriculars should be.

Did I misstate the pledge?  How do you think it ought to be stated, Frank?  Division III is an affiliation of the National Collegiate Athletic Association.  Is there a national collegiate organization regarding all extracurriculars including athletics?

Your statement re: athletics and extracurriculars with respect to education is fine in the abstract.  For the sake of this wonderful openminded discussion let's assume that the colleges have pledged "athletics and extracurriculars before academics."

I keep driving everyone to distraction by pointing out a big difference when it comes to Division III football playoffs:

The playoffs are an addition to the regular season, of unknown duration.  The playoffs last five weeks for two teams,  with each of the five successive weeks growing in stakes and distraction from academics.  I don't know of any extracurricular activity during the fall semester that affects as many students with an unscheduled additional distraction from academics as powerful as the Division III playoffs.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

frank uible

redswarm: I suspect that for the sake of arguable balance in education I would be willing to forego (and possibly desirous of foregoing) DIII football playoffs entirely well before most people would and certainly even more before most posters on these boards would. After all, these DIII colleges got along very well in the education business long before there were any playoffs. Nonetheless the number of games played by any college, the dates and times of those games and the opponents involved should be decided by the stakeholders of that college (and  of course the stakeholders of its opponents since the consent of each of the opponents is indispensable with respect to the game with that opponent). What I think about the subject is only relevant to the extent that I am a stakeholder in the college in question.

redswarm81

Quote from: frank uible on November 10, 2005, 08:18:51 PM
DIII colleges got along very well in the education business long before there were any playoffs.
Point well taken, one which Williams, Trinity, Wesleyan and Amherst et al appear to endorse. . . . for football.

Quote from: frank uible on November 10, 2005, 08:18:51 PMNonetheless the number of games played by any college, the dates and times of those games and the opponents involved should be decided by the stakeholders of that college (and  of course the stakeholders of its opponents since the consent of each of the opponents is indispensable with respect to the game with that opponent).
Subject, of course, to the Division III pledge of academics before education, right?

Yours is a point which I think deserves a lot of attention, but one which none of our too-polite-for-this-topic academic intellectuals have raised.  I think that the NESCAC schools get as much value out of their longstanding regional rivalries as other Division III schools get out of the NCAA playoffs.

What I think is terrific food for thought is the question whether all DIII schools have sufficient local rivals to make it worthwhile?  I went to a the 103d game in a terrific local rivalry between RPI and Union, for the Dutchman's Shoes Trophy.  This game was HUGE for everyone involved--the Liberty League Board had dozens of posts by alumni who claimed to have called in sick from work due to the excitement of the game.  It's difficult to imagine either team investing much more in any playoff game, and (I hope the very sensitive Mr. Collinge won't choke on his crumpet) I see that either team would stand little if anything to gain in terms of life lessons from a playoff game, over and above what the Dutchman's Shoes game taught.

But take away that rivalry, and I do see a significant deficit.  RPI was giving serious consideration in the late 70s to dropping its football program entirely.  Would Union have been able to fill such a hole in its school spirit/athetics/extracurricular education by attaching rivalry status to . . . Hobart?  St. Lawrence?

St. Lawrence is way the heck up in near Canada, fer Chrissakes.  Its natural geographic rival is Clarkson, but Clarkson doesn't play football.  Who is Utica's natural rival?  Or Alfred's, or Hobart's for that matter?  Can local rivalries occupy every Division III school's schedule?

Quote from: frank uible on November 10, 2005, 08:18:51 PM
What I think about the subject is only relevant to the extent that I am a stakeholder in the college in question.
Well Frank, I'm thrilled that you're enough of a stakeholder to post your thoughts here on a public forum intended for the posting of thoughts.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

frank uible

In my judgment, merely posting here or anywhere else does not qualify me to be a stakeholder in any college for the purpose of my being entitled to influence its policies. In other words, colleges should regard what I say here as only hot air and should act accordingly. On the other hand, if I should contribute a hundred million dollars....

redswarm81

Quote from: frank uible on November 13, 2005, 10:43:47 PM
In my judgment, merely posting here or anywhere else does not qualify me to be a stakeholder in any college for the purpose of my being entitled to influence its policies. In other words, colleges should regard what I say here as only hot air and should act accordingly. On the other hand, if I should contribute a hundred million dollars....
It would never have occurred to me that posting a message on Post Patterns at D3Football.com might have anything to do with actually influencing colleges' behavior.

I thought that the Post Patterns were simply for posting opinions to share with other D3Football.com readers.

I wonder how/why I lost karma overnight?  For that matter, I wonder why anyone would care enough about others' opinions to read Post Patterns, yet give me negative karma for posting my opinion.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

frank uible

redswarm: I don't vote on karma. I believe that it is harmless silliness, but don't be surprised that your karma may ebb and flow for no apparent reason. I'm sure people invest more emotion in these boards than I can imagine with any specificity.

redswarm81

Quote from: frank uible on November 14, 2005, 08:47:49 AM
redswarm: I don't vote on karma. I believe that it is harmless silliness, but don't be surprised that your karma may ebb and flow for no apparent reason. I'm sure people invest more emotion in these boards than I can imagine with any specificity.
Concur.

In LLspeak, I believe that's "RS81 agrees with everything the U of Frank just said."
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

albinomascot19

I would love to see more coverage of DIII!  I think this site does a very effective job in doing that.  But, what I mean here is media coverage, such as some national network.  I know we already saw Grinnell with their "system."  But how about more DIII sports coverage (media) 

Ralph Turner

Most recent NCAA News focuses on the "anti-reform" amendments that will come up for votes in the January meeting.  These have been proposed by the CCIW, NCAC, WIAC, Commonwealth Coast, etc., and include redshirting, non-traditional segments, and in-region philosophy.

http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/association_news/ncaa_news_online/2005/11_07_05/division_iii/4223n23.html

oldpa

Athletics are a distraction from acedemics if you don't consider athletics part of the overall education. If you do, a playoff game is no more than extra credit.

Coach C

Ralph -

And those enlightened proposals ahve NO SHOT at actually winning approval.  It's actually far more likely that things will get worse for us as even more stringent reforms are put in place. 

At the risk of saying something bound to be unpopular, here I go.  The problem here is that most college presidents don't like athletics and many do wahtever they can to limit the power of athletics programs without ticking off alumni.  By using the NCAA process to "reform" D3, the presidents are gaining more campus control and oplay to the folks who say "academics should be first."

What they arent saying is that they are afraid of the faculty and they dont want to lose power to athletic departments.  So, in one move, the presidents ingratiate themselves with the faculty and also minimize the athletic programs.  They  do this at the expense of the student athletes and they should be ashamed of themselves.

C


Warren Thompson

Coach C:

While I don't necessarily share your sentiments about "most college presidents" -- I simply don't have the hard facts -- I will admit that some may well act like the south end of a northbound horse about athletics (and, at times, even academics) ....