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.

Gregory Sager

I didn't misconstrue it at all, Bombers. I extrapolated a viable theory that explained the results of Measure 68, based upon my knowledge of how American college students, and Americans in general, think and act in voting situations. Taking the concept of apathy to its logical conclusion, it's reasonable to deduce that the non-voting students not only refused to vote, they refused to even make themselves aware of the process as well. The operative principle at work here among UCSC students is "interest causes action", with not voting being an inaction (and therefore a sign of disinterest) rather than a passive action.

Thus, the quorum rule that you mentioned -- the need to have 25% of the student body participate in order to make the vote binding -- can't be construed as a possible negative response to Measure 68, a sort of "pocket veto", if you will. That's not really how Americans are used to approaching a ballot situation. Heck, the vast majority of Americans couldn't even tell you what the word "quorum" means, nor do they have any interest whatsoever in parliamentary procedure. When they approve of something, they vote for it -- and the activist-minded among them campaign for it as well. When they disapprove of something, they vote against it -- and, again, people opposed who tend to be activists will campaign against it. Those who don't care one way or the other, well, they just don't vote at all. A passive negative response expressed via the quorum rule, in other words, would've been alien to the UCSC students' understanding of how a vote works, so that's not how they would've expressed their opposition to Measure 68. They would've expressed it by voting against it.

Also, I did not smite you. I kind of resent the accusation, actually, since you had neither cause nor evidence to make it.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)



You'd also have to prove that the student body was largely aware of the quorum requirement - something that is exceedingly unlikely.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Bombers798891

Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 21, 2017, 06:45:54 PM

Also, I did not smite you. I kind of resent the accusation, actually, since you had neither cause nor evidence to make it.

That was a general statement toward whoever was smiting me, not an accusation to you specifically, though I can see it obviously would come across as a personal attack, and for which I apologize profusely.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 21, 2017, 06:45:54 PM

When they approve of something, they vote for it


Sigh. That was my initial point, Greg. Only 28% of the student body approved of it and voted yes. And, in my opinion, 28% of the student body approving of something is not the same thing as Dave's statement of, "UC Santa's Cruz's student body approves." Yes, from a journalism standpoint, it's easier and simpler to write it as such. But this topic isn't about journalism, it's about the future of D-III sports.

And I don't know if 28% of the student body approving of something necessarily speaks to a good level of long-term support. As you said, the athletes mobilized and got them to the ballot boxes, which is great. But even with this fee increase, supporting athletics (just like supporting anything on a college campus) isn't about going to a ballot box one time. It's about going to games, spreading the word, giving to programs, all that great stuff that we all probably do here. It's the long game. If, after a strong mobilization, only 28% of students take the one-time action to cast their vote for yes, how many of them can be counted on to be long-term supporters? That's the pertinent question you have to find the answer to if you're Santa Cruz.

Gregory Sager

#2253
Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 23, 2017, 10:41:14 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 21, 2017, 06:45:54 PM

When they approve of something, they vote for it


Sigh. That was my initial point, Greg. Only 28% of the student body approved of it and voted yes.

Actually, the fact that 80% of the voters approved of it is more pertinent, because that's the fact that's binding.

But as to that low voter turnout, I don't think that it's such a damning thing at all. In American culture, the mass of almost any collective that's grouped together for reasons other than the topic at hand will likely be apathetic to said topic. Voter turnout for civic elections is a prime example of this. As Ryan alluded earlier, college students don't tend to turn out for student government elections, either; my small private school was similar to his in terms of having miniscule turnout for student government elections, and you'd think that a small private school like his or mine, where a greater percentage of students know the candidates personally and students tend to be more residentially-based (and therefore more active in general with regard to extracurriculars), would have big turnouts for these votes.

This is why American colleges and universities periodically get successful joke-candidate write-in campaigns. In 1979 Minnesota Twins reserve outfielder Bombo Rivera received hundreds of write-in votes in the University of Minnesota student council presidential election; some apocryphal sources say that he actually won the election. My junior year at North Park, my friends and I staged a write-in campaign for a crimson-painted papier-mâché llama head called the Red Llama (named for a misread joke from the opening credits to Monty Python and the Holy Grail) for Student Council president. It came in third, losing to the second (serious) candidate by only one vote. The Central Student Government at the University of Michigan actually sought to suppress joke candidates last year, because they were so perennially successful.

In other words, I'm at a loss as to why you're including the word "only" in your statement, given the cultural context. Actually, 28% was probably a healthy turnout by UCSC student-body standards, and a testimony to the strong mobilization efforts of the student-athlete population.

I doubt that anything short of a vote on whether or not to double tuition, or to close the school or not, would rouse UCSC students enough to come out in droves.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 23, 2017, 10:41:14 AMAnd, in my opinion, 28% of the student body approving of something is not the same thing as Dave's statement of, "UC Santa's Cruz's student body approves." Yes, from a journalism standpoint, it's easier and simpler to write it as such. But this topic isn't about journalism, it's about the future of D-III sports.

He's not right from a journalism standpoint; he's right from a legal standpoint, "legal" in this sense referring to the constitution and bylaws of UCSC student government and to whichever governing body (likely the UC Board of Regents) authorized the UCSC student body to assess the Intercollegiate Athletics and Athletics Activities Access Fee. The two requirements of a "yes" vote were to meet a 25% quorum and to win a majority of the ballots cast. The "yes" position met both requirements, which means that in a legally binding sense D-Mac is right that the UC-Santa Cruz student body approved Measure 68.

Quote from: Bombers798891 on August 23, 2017, 10:41:14 AMAnd I don't know if 28% of the student body approving of something necessarily speaks to a good level of long-term support. As you said, the athletes mobilized and got them to the ballot boxes, which is great. But even with this fee increase, supporting athletics (just like supporting anything on a college campus) isn't about going to a ballot box one time. It's about going to games, spreading the word, giving to programs, all that great stuff that we all probably do here. It's the long game. If, after a strong mobilization, only 28% of students take the one-time action to cast their vote for yes, how many of them can be counted on to be long-term supporters? That's the pertinent question you have to find the answer to if you're Santa Cruz.

This is really a separate matter, because your "pertinent question" could be applied to any D3 school, regardless of whether or not the student body has ever voted on a proposition that, in essence, could make or break the school's intercollegiate athletics. My impression -- and since D-Mac and Pat (and perhaps Ryan) have had exposure to administrators, coaches, and students from a wider variety of D3 schools than I have, I'd like to read their impressions as well -- is that, broadly speaking, intercollegiate athletics are not a big priority among students at large on most D3 campuses. And keep in mind that the schools with which I am most familiar are in a conference (the CCIW) that generally does very well in D3 conference attendance rankings. There are likely D3 schools here and there that do drum up a lot of interest in school sports among their students, and even in less-sports-intensive schools there may be a program or two that gets great student turnouts at games. But, by and large, my read on D3 sports with regard to students is that they are mostly an activity followed by friends and family and by fellow student-athletes from other sports. In other words, I see that 28% turnout for the Measure 68 vote at UCSC as being a pretty typical response by D3 standards in terms of student-at-large interest in school sports.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Bombers798891

Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 24, 2017, 12:38:33 PM

Actually, the fact that 80% of the voters approved of it is more pertinent, because that's the fact that's binding.

So one post after saying "If they approve of something, they vote for it" you're adding the addendum "But they also approve of it if they don't vote for it"

Okay, sure.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this, so I'm just going to drop it. Good talk

Gregory Sager

No, I'm saying that if they approve of something, they vote for it. Non-voters are essentially neutral by way of their apathy.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

smedindy

It passed. That should be the end of it. It may not be, but it is for now.


Ralph Turner


Gregory Sager

Voting fraud in Chicago? What a shock!

Next, you'll be telling me that the Chicago River flows backwards, mass-transit trains run up above the ground, and White Sox fans hate the Cubs. :D
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

NCF

Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 28, 2017, 03:02:16 PM
Voting fraud in Chicago? What a shock!

Next, you'll be telling me that the Chicago River flows backwards, mass-transit trains run up above the ground, and White Sox fans hate the Cubs. :D

And vice versa!! 8-) ;D
CCIW FOOTBALL CHAMPIONS '06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13
CCIW  MEN"S INDOOR TRACK CHAMPIONS: TOTAL DOMINATION SINCE 2001.
CCIW MEN'S OUTDOOR TRACK CHAMPIONS: 35
NATIONAL CHAMPIONS: INDOOR TRACK-'89,'10,'11,'12/OUTDOOR TRACK: '89,'94,'98,'00,'10,'11
2013 OAC post season pick-em tri-champion
2015 CCIW Pick-em co-champion

Gregory Sager

The overwhelming majority of Cubs fans are largely indifferent to the White Sox, outside of when the two teams play each other.

The team that Cubs fans hate is the St. Louis Cardinals, which only stands to reason, since the Cubs and Cards have been league rivals for over 125 years and divisional rivals for almost half a century.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

smedindy

In Cub fans mind, the team on the South Side is a minor league squad.

NCF

Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 28, 2017, 03:50:37 PM
The overwhelming majority of Cubs fans are largely indifferent to the White Sox, outside of when the two teams play each other.

The team that Cubs fans hate is the St. Louis Cardinals, which only stands to reason, since the Cubs and Cards have been league rivals for over 125 years and divisional rivals for almost half a century.

We must know different Cub fans, because the Cub fans I know hate the White Sox. ;D 8-)
CCIW FOOTBALL CHAMPIONS '06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13
CCIW  MEN"S INDOOR TRACK CHAMPIONS: TOTAL DOMINATION SINCE 2001.
CCIW MEN'S OUTDOOR TRACK CHAMPIONS: 35
NATIONAL CHAMPIONS: INDOOR TRACK-'89,'10,'11,'12/OUTDOOR TRACK: '89,'94,'98,'00,'10,'11
2013 OAC post season pick-em tri-champion
2015 CCIW Pick-em co-champion

Gregory Sager

Your friends are a distinct minority among Cubs fans, NCF. Most of us really don't care about the other team in town one way or another. Those among that small minority that do are usually people who have acquaintances, family members, or co-workers who are ardent White Sox fans that (like quite a few White Sox fans) spend more time jaw-jacking Cubs fans about their team, their ballpark, their fan base, their excessive money, their perceived lack of baseball knowledge, and any number of other bones of contention that they want to pick with fans of the North Siders, than they do in actually talking about their White Sox. In essence, the hatred of the White Sox by those Cubs fans is a reactive one; you keep getting in my ear every day about my team and my support for them like that, eventually I'm going to respond in kind. But, again, that's not that big of a slice of Cubs fandom. Now, smed's take might seem a tad uncharitable, but it's really not that far from the truth in terms of the amount of thought that most Cubs fans put into the White Sox. (He's actually not that far from the truth in describing the competence of the current edition of the White Sox, either, but that's another story.)

Mark Grace, who was in the eye of the hurricane during Crosstown Classics for several years, has a spot-on take on the difference between the two sets of Chicago baseball fans.

As I said, Cubs fans for the most part are very clear on the identity of their team's archrival -- it's the St. Louis Cardinals. On the other hand, for all of the decades that the White Sox have shared their division with the Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, and Kansas City Royals, one can't help but get the suspicion that for the White Sox fanbase none of those teams even comes close to capturing their ire the way that the Cubs do.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

hickory_cornhusker

Quote from: Gregory Sager on August 28, 2017, 09:31:37 PM
As I said, Cubs fans for the most part are very clear on the identity of their team's archrival -- it's the St. Louis Cardinals. On the other hand, for all of the decades that the White Sox have shared their division with the Cleveland Indians, Detroit Tigers, Minnesota Twins, and Kansas City Royals, one can't help but get the suspicion that for the White Sox fanbase none of those teams even comes close to capturing their ire the way that the Cubs do.

This is because the White Sox don't have nearly as long and of history of battling them for the top of the standings table. The Tigers, Indians, and White Sox have been in the American League since Teddy Roosevelt was in office but from 1969-1993 the Sox were in the West and the Tigers and Indians were in the East. The Twins and Royals have always been in the same division as the White Sox when divisions existed but the Twins didn't begin play until 1961 and the Royals started in 1969. The Cubs and Cardinals have been in the same standings table since the 1800s