D3boards.com

General => General Division III issues => Topic started by: Just Bill on November 13, 2014, 07:43:49 PM

Title: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: Just Bill on November 13, 2014, 07:43:49 PM
This petition has been circulating among various SAACs at Division III schools in advance of the NCAA Convention in January...

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Save-DIII-Schedules
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on November 13, 2014, 10:55:05 PM
I just sent it to my son and askedhim to share it with his teamates and friends.
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on November 16, 2014, 11:42:00 AM
FYI - the bill has been sent back to the NCAA to review whether there might be some gender equality problems with it. There have been some sports who wonder by not including a sport like football (all once-a-week sports have not been included) if that makes it genderly unequal. Nothing to report as of yet, but it is being looked into back at the President's Council and I believe by those in the legal department.

At this point, it will be brought up at the Convention in January. However, the President's Council could pull it's support (usually an indication the bill will be voted down or killed), the bill could still be presented so debate may happen (I think debate on the topic is a worthwhile endeavor), or they can announce at the time the bill is brought up that it has been tabled.
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on January 21, 2015, 02:13:00 PM
This proposal was referred back through the legislative process.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/diii-presidents-council-changes-course-key-legislation

It may go away or it may become a lager initiative.
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 21, 2015, 03:27:47 PM
Quote from: Bishopleftiesdad on January 21, 2015, 02:13:00 PM
It may go away or it may become a lager initiative.

I'll drink to that. ;)
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: AndOne on January 25, 2015, 09:12:52 PM
The NCAA purports to promote the interests of student-athletes, but so often has its head so far up its ass that it looses track of the reason for its existence. This is the same hippo critical organization that allows countless excesses at the D1 level, but now attempts to limit the positive athletic experience of players who largely play for the love of the game as opposed to playing for the opportunity to make obscene sums of money.
Why in the world would the NCAA attempt to limit the number of games played by kids who, after graduating from college, have little chance of ever playing organized, wide-spread competitive sports again in their lives. Add in the fact that D3 kids don't get a free ride on any level. Not only do they still have to pay thousands of dollars to play, they also have maintain eligibility while not being able to take classes in subjects like basket weaving or multiple "independent study" classes.
Through the NCAA's malfeasance gross excesses exist in the upper echelon of college athletics. Their thought that the current allowable number of games at the D3 level is excessive is laughable.
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2015, 09:32:51 PM
AO,

As always, it's not the NCAA as an organization that is doing this. It's Division III members who propose these rules and vote on them. The NCAA as an organization is who does the enforcement.
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: AndOne on January 25, 2015, 11:57:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 25, 2015, 09:32:51 PM
AO,

As always, it's not the NCAA as an organization that is doing this. It's Division III members who propose these rules and vote on them. The NCAA as an organization is who does the enforcement.

When I looked at the article and saw "NCAA Division III legislation............" I interpretated it as something put forth by the the NCAA. It seems strange that some of the powers that be in D3 would propose competition limits on themselves. Is this a cost cutting move? Is that why they are trying to do this? Not sure about anyone else but I find this confusing.
Does D3Sports have an official position on this proposal?
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: Just Bill on January 26, 2015, 11:10:15 AM
The NCAA does not propose legislation. Only member schools and conferences do.

A group of schools felt that there was a need to control costs and this was one way to do it. They also seem to feel that D-III is getting away from their core principles and shortening seasons was a way to regain balance. (I disagree on both counts.)

Ultimately, it appears the the schools in favor arrived at the NCAA Convention and didn't find as much support as they anticipated. Many other schools brought up legitimate questions and opposition. Ultimately the D-III body decided to refer the proposal back for further examination and study rather than to take a vote on it. The proposal can't come back for at least 18 months and until then a subcommittee will look at the problem and decide on future proposals and courses of action.
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: Bishopleftiesdad on January 26, 2015, 11:42:14 AM
Bet it was the same groups that wanted D4.
Title: Re: Petition to oppose shortening of D-III playing seasons
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 26, 2015, 01:42:21 PM
Quote from: AndOne on January 25, 2015, 11:57:41 PM
Does D3Sports have an official position on this proposal?

Our position was that it was a bad idea. We didn't see the need to do a lot of writing about it because it appeared to lack support but my basic take on it is as such:

1. Unlike at D-I, these kids are paying customers and we shouldn't be taking competition opportunities away from them if we don't have to.

2. Whatever problem there is here does not require a broad-brush solution. The people proposing legislation need to get the courage to tackle problems on a sport-by-sport basis. (For example, do we need 40 baseball contests if most of the Division III baseball-playing schools are located in parts of the country where outdoor baseball season is six weeks long?) If there are individual sports that need a tweak in the number of permissible contests, let's tackle that and not take away competition opportunities from other sports that are better in balance.

3. This is a problem that can be addressed on the conference level, as some conferences already self-restrict the number of contests below the Division III rulebook maximum.