D3boards.com

General => General Division III issues => Topic started by: Ron Boerger on December 28, 2015, 11:18:07 am

Title: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on December 28, 2015, 11:18:07 am
Some interesting D3 proposals (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016_d3_legislative_proposals_qa_guide_20151221.pdf) at the NCAA Convention coming up in San Antonio (January 2016):
D3 only gets 3.18% of its member dues, the standard split for all NCAA revenues.   Under this proposal the division would get 100% of the increase (one hopes the overall NCAA brain trust approves of this).  With 449 schools and, I dunno, 40ish conferences that would be about 500K to the good of the division, which says "the increased revenue will help account for certain championships expenditures."
Your guess is as good as mine how a day of competition can be held prior to the competition.    Maybe I'm missing something.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: jknezek on December 28, 2015, 11:23:57 am
Interesting. I really only care if the first one passes, and even that I think is a ludicrously low fee. Hopefully getting the 100% will help them think more logically and change it to a "by sport participation" registration. $500 per sport, and use the money to help offset championships. That would raise $120K alone for football, which isn't a huge participation sport but also has a fairly small tournament.

I do understand not raising the fees unless DIII gets the benefits, but if the NCAA allows DIII to keep the benefits then I think the fees should be significantly higher.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 28, 2015, 01:58:49 pm
$1.3M is probably a cost of living adjustment from the last time the fees were raised.

As an ASC fan, I hope that the year-3/year-4 provisional/re-classifying measure passes. (I hope we can see the roll call of that vote.)

The spring football proposal came from the "Baptist Association of ASC Univerisities"...LOL.

Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on December 28, 2015, 07:58:54 pm
the UMAC, NCAC, MIAC, and NAC have proposed that coaching staff be allowed to contact prospective student-athletes "on a day of competition prior to the competition, provided that contact occurs on the institution's campus and the institution's campus is not the competition site." 
Your guess is as good as mine how a day of competition can be held prior to the competition.    Maybe I'm missing something.
I took it to mean on the day of the competition but before the competition takes place (so a morning when there's an evening game)
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on December 29, 2015, 08:14:13 am
As an ASC fan, I hope that the year-3/year-4 provisional/re-classifying measure passes. (I hope we can see the roll call of that vote.)

The final roll call votes for all proposals should be available on the D3 convention site, where there are line items for "voting grid" and "final roll call vote report":

http://www.ncaa.org/governance/2016-division-iii-convention-resources

Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 02, 2016, 03:41:17 pm
The fees increase is going to pass without much resistance. The only way they were going to raise fees was to make sure the NCAA allowed them to keep all of it rather than just 3.18% (which, technically would have been how it would work based on the NCAA constitution). I don't think they can call them dues or whatever the official word is, so I believe there is a special designation for the dues increase... but again, this wasn't going to get to a vote if Division III wasn't keeping all the money - or furthermore, it wouldn't pass Division III if they couldn't keep it. I have heard nothing from the NCAA that indicates the rest of the NCAA is about to try and take the money.

As for the football item - I suspect that won't pass. The entire division is in the middle of a thorough review of playing seasons and practices and presidents have shown of late they aren't keen about non-traditional practice seasons. I think this will get tabled until the entire review (which was started as a compromise after last year's 10% reduction was facing a massive defeat) is done and recommendations for all sports are presented. I have a feeling that many schools feel football is just trying to wedge in changes every year until something sticks and it is frustrating people. Last year's practicing with pads and helmets item was the most contentious of the debate and actually was the only item up for a re-vote. I just don't see them voting this through and then having the practice/playing seasons committee come back with different recommendations and things get more complicated.

Speaking of that playing and practice season committee, I think they are presenting their findings and maybe their recommendations at this year's convention (would take place Friday morning). That will be the most interesting thing happening if it happens. If it doesn't, it will come out sometime in the next few months so things can get rolling towards next convention. I highly suspect some sports are facing cutbacks in games (baseball, softball, maybe lacrosse and soccer - the last two my gut feeling more than what I am hearing).

Right now, I am planning to be at the convention, though I haven't secured my plans as of yet.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Just Bill on January 04, 2016, 10:36:51 am
the UMAC, NCAC, MIAC, and NAC have proposed that coaching staff be allowed to contact prospective student-athletes "on a day of competition prior to the competition, provided that contact occurs on the institution's campus and the institution's campus is not the competition site." 
Your guess is as good as mine how a day of competition can be held prior to the competition.    Maybe I'm missing something.
I took it to mean on the day of the competition but before the competition takes place (so a morning when there's an evening game)

"Day of competition" is the 24-hour period when a game is going to be played.

"Competition" is the game itself.

Here is the idea on this one. A High School senior from Minneapolis is travelling with his team to play a game at a high school in Milwaukee. Wisconsin Lutheran College has been recruiting them. Given the distance, this may be the recruit's best opportunity to visit WLC. Under current rules, the WLC coaching staff could not have contact with the recruit until their game was over and the recruit was released from team obligations by their high school coach. But perhaps the HS team intends to load the bus and head directly home after the game.

The legislation wants to allow the recruit to visit WLC on the same day of the game, but prior to the game. Currently this isn't allowed. That's one scenario where this rule would come into play.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 04, 2016, 05:28:07 pm
That makes sense, tho I think it could be worded differently.  +k for both of you.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 07, 2016, 12:08:42 am
From a few conversations I have been had with some around the division... the dues is going to be a slam dunk; and the football item will be a pretty close vote (and probably warrant a revote), but not sure it will go through (I know those without football who will be voting against it).

The Playing and Practice Seasons group will present some clarification questions to the entire Division during the business meeting Friday - three in particular including opinions on non-traditional seasons, making exhibition games and allowances universal across all sports, and discussion about cut backs in a couple of sports. Thought is they will take the conversations, debate, and straw polls and come out with their recommendations in the next few months. Interestingly, some feel governance probably won't take up any of the topics except maybe non-traditional seasons (though, I might have that wrong) and leave the other recommendations on the schools and conferences to take up the cause for.

Friday should be interesting with a more interesting Saturday vote-wise.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 07, 2016, 12:38:37 am
Re: out-of-season practices (i.e., spring football).  Has a prominent argument been made that we get a fair number of players (football especially, but also other sports) who could be D1, but went D3 specifically because they wanted to play more than one sport?  The demands to specialize have gotten ridiculous.  Back in my Neanderthal days, THREE sport athletes were common.  Now coaches will sometimes prevent players from being even two sport athletes.

Isn't D3 supposed to be all about the student-athlete?
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 07, 2016, 06:49:37 am
There already have been spring practices in football for a decade. Football is the one fall sport that doesn't get to use all of its equipment in the spring.

Part of me wonders if a padded spring practice could eventually help bust up the monopoly at the end of the season for those teams that perennially get an extra four or five weeks of practice.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: jknezek on January 07, 2016, 08:32:05 am
I think I'd be perfectly happy with each sport having its practices only in-season. These kids aren't in training to be pro athletes (bar a very small minority) and they don't need to be playing all year round. Most teams have lifting and work out sessions in the off-season, officially sanctioned or simply peer pressure it doesn't matter, but they don't need to be practicing out of season.

Let the kids who want to play other sports focus on those sports in each season. Let the kids that only want to play one sport focus on academics in other seasons. I think it's kind of silly to just keep pushing for more and more time in athletics. It's not necessary.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: doolittledog on January 07, 2016, 08:45:17 am
I think I'd be perfectly happy with each sport having its practices only in-season. These kids aren't in training to be pro athletes (bar a very small minority) and they don't need to be playing all year round. Most teams have lifting and work out sessions in the off-season, officially sanctioned or simply peer pressure it doesn't matter, but they don't need to be practicing out of season.

Let the kids who want to play other sports focus on those sports in each season. Let the kids that only want to play one sport focus on academics in other seasons. I think it's kind of silly to just keep pushing for more and more time in athletics. It's not necessary.

Then D3 will need to outlaw all out of season practice.  It's allowed in other sports, but for some reason they want to take a stand with football and impose limits. 
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: jknezek on January 07, 2016, 08:48:54 am
I think I'd be perfectly happy with each sport having its practices only in-season. These kids aren't in training to be pro athletes (bar a very small minority) and they don't need to be playing all year round. Most teams have lifting and work out sessions in the off-season, officially sanctioned or simply peer pressure it doesn't matter, but they don't need to be practicing out of season.

Let the kids who want to play other sports focus on those sports in each season. Let the kids that only want to play one sport focus on academics in other seasons. I think it's kind of silly to just keep pushing for more and more time in athletics. It's not necessary.

Then D3 will need to outlaw all out of season practice.  It's allowed in other sports, but for some reason they want to take a stand with football and impose limits.

As I wrote, I'm OK with that.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: doolittledog on January 07, 2016, 08:54:09 am
I think I'd be perfectly happy with each sport having its practices only in-season. These kids aren't in training to be pro athletes (bar a very small minority) and they don't need to be playing all year round. Most teams have lifting and work out sessions in the off-season, officially sanctioned or simply peer pressure it doesn't matter, but they don't need to be practicing out of season.

Let the kids who want to play other sports focus on those sports in each season. Let the kids that only want to play one sport focus on academics in other seasons. I think it's kind of silly to just keep pushing for more and more time in athletics. It's not necessary.

Then D3 will need to outlaw all out of season practice.  It's allowed in other sports, but for some reason they want to take a stand with football and impose limits.

As I wrote, I'm OK with that.

As would I.  I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing out of season practice in other sports and then conveniently making a stand against out of season practice for football because that sport is more visible to the general public. 
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: jknezek on January 07, 2016, 09:00:54 am
I think I'd be perfectly happy with each sport having its practices only in-season. These kids aren't in training to be pro athletes (bar a very small minority) and they don't need to be playing all year round. Most teams have lifting and work out sessions in the off-season, officially sanctioned or simply peer pressure it doesn't matter, but they don't need to be practicing out of season.

Let the kids who want to play other sports focus on those sports in each season. Let the kids that only want to play one sport focus on academics in other seasons. I think it's kind of silly to just keep pushing for more and more time in athletics. It's not necessary.

Then D3 will need to outlaw all out of season practice.  It's allowed in other sports, but for some reason they want to take a stand with football and impose limits.

As I wrote, I'm OK with that.

As would I.  I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing out of season practice in other sports and then conveniently making a stand against out of season practice for football because that sport is more visible to the general public.

I think it's less the visibility than the violence of the full pad practices. There are plenty of studies that show football has a propensity toward injury greater than other sports, which is why many teams, even in the NFL, are backing off full equipment practices. The risk/reward as it is currently being studied does not pay off.

That being said, I'm fine with a blanket rule, but I also understand the special case that is football.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 07, 2016, 10:58:31 am

One thing I have heard from basketball coaches (and I imagine it would apply to other non-fall sports) is that it would be nice to get a week of contact at the beginning of the year - just to set a tone for the year, organize some schedule for (optional) out of season work and just make sure the freshmen understand what the groundrules are for playing - a little more than you can do with a welcome meeting or whatever they can get away with at the beginning of the year.

I hadn't thought about that before, but there is some merit there.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: jknezek on January 07, 2016, 11:06:53 am
You can't tell me these teams don't have out of season pick up games. Sure the coaches are absent, but that's what team captains are for. Heck we did this in h.s. Coaches just want more time. They are always going to want more practice time.

I just don't see why, at the DIII level, this is necessary. If it is necessary, someone needs to make a point about how it helps the student athletes in their collegiate experience, not a statement about how it helps the coach...
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on January 07, 2016, 11:23:09 am
You can't tell me these teams don't have out of season pick up games. Sure the coaches are absent, but that's what team captains are for. Heck we did this in h.s. Coaches just want more time. They are always going to want more practice time.

I just don't see why, at the DIII level, this is necessary. If it is necessary, someone needs to make a point about how it helps the student athletes in their collegiate experience, not a statement about how it helps the coach...

I think I had this conversation with Dave, too, at the Hoopsville classic - if so, he might have some specific examples as well.  Maybe its policy at certain schools that need to change, but technically, freshmen aren't on the team until practice starts, I don't know if that prevents coaches from being as involved in their transition to school as they'd like to be.

I also don't necessarily have a problem with a coach taking a practice or two to install an offense he wants the guys working on, on their own, leading up to the season.  Even if every team gets three days at the beginning of the year or whatever.  I'm not going to argue for such a thing, just simply that I sympathize with the reasons for it and I wouldn't be against it.  I just don't feel too strongly either way.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Hawks88 on January 07, 2016, 11:35:44 am
Part of me wonders if a padded spring practice could eventually help bust up the monopoly at the end of the season for those teams that perennially get an extra four or five weeks of practice.
Maybe an alternative would be to allow teams that don't make the post-season a week of practice, minus seniors/anyone not returning, the week of the first round of playoffs.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Just Bill on January 07, 2016, 05:15:25 pm
Part of me wonders if a padded spring practice could eventually help bust up the monopoly at the end of the season for those teams that perennially get an extra four or five weeks of practice.
Maybe an alternative would be to allow teams that don't make the post-season a week of practice, minus seniors/anyone not returning, the week of the first round of playoffs.

Teams can continue practicing until the date of the national championship game no matter if they were in the tournament or not, so this is already in place. Teams that take advantage of it use that time to work 1-on-1 or in small groups with players a couple of times a week. To give them an idea of things they need to work on in the offseason.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 08, 2016, 12:45:53 am

One thing I have heard from basketball coaches (and I imagine it would apply to other non-fall sports) is that it would be nice to get a week of contact at the beginning of the year - just to set a tone for the year, organize some schedule for (optional) out of season work and just make sure the freshmen understand what the groundrules are for playing - a little more than you can do with a welcome meeting or whatever they can get away with at the beginning of the year.

I hadn't thought about that before, but there is some merit there.
You might have heard that from me... because that is what I basically said on the basketball boards per some coaches a few months ago. LOL

You can't tell me these teams don't have out of season pick up games. Sure the coaches are absent, but that's what team captains are for. Heck we did this in h.s. Coaches just want more time. They are always going to want more practice time.

I just don't see why, at the DIII level, this is necessary. If it is necessary, someone needs to make a point about how it helps the student athletes in their collegiate experience, not a statement about how it helps the coach...

I think I had this conversation with Dave, too, at the Hoopsville classic - if so, he might have some specific examples as well.  Maybe its policy at certain schools that need to change, but technically, freshmen aren't on the team until practice starts, I don't know if that prevents coaches from being as involved in their transition to school as they'd like to be.

I also don't necessarily have a problem with a coach taking a practice or two to install an offense he wants the guys working on, on their own, leading up to the season.  Even if every team gets three days at the beginning of the year or whatever.  I'm not going to argue for such a thing, just simply that I sympathize with the reasons for it and I wouldn't be against it.  I just don't feel too strongly either way.

Yes... until a freshman is on the team and practicing, the coach has nothing to do with them - isn't allowed. What coaches have said to me is that a week at the beginning of the year - or make it say a three week period where there can be, say, 10 practices or meetings, would allow them to get with their teams, meet the new players (they can meet with them, but not much else - not hand out playbooks and such currently), and get people acclimated. They can also hand out the playbooks, give them specific exercises or guidelines they want them to follow to get ready for the season, etc. In return, lop off say 10-days or two weeks from the pre-season.

One coach actually said to me he gets frustrated every year when a freshman who might be playing basketball gets in trouble and people try and pin it as being a basketball kid. As he said, don't blame me or the program, he isn't part of the program and we haven't met with him or gotten to know him let alone lay down our rules!

I think it is a win-win because I also think the four-weeks of practice - more than ANY other sport including hockey who is in the same boat as basketball - is getting to the point of ridiculous.

Per football... to avoid any confusion, and maybe it was just me reading it and getting confused with responses, they already have spring practices... they just can't wear any padding and helmets. Injury chances are certainly high on the list, but so are the costs of running those practices. If you are going to put the full gear on, there has to be at least one Athletic Trainer there, if not two (due to the size of team). Where are small, and even large, schools going to find that manpower in the spring when the ATs are needed for the sports who are in session? Plus the maintenance and equipment staffs (for those who have them) who needs to make sure pads, helmets, practice gear, fields, etc. are ready. Basically treating it like a fall practice. At the convention last year, injuries and the manpower costs were the two most prevalent arguments against allowing full pads and helmet practices in the spring.

Now brace yourself for the twist. One person I was talking to who knows plenty of what is being talked about says one thing the review may be considering and some may bring up for a vote in 2017 is making all non-traditional seasons in all sports ... be like football's is currently. So less gear and pads (i.e. lacrosse) and more of simple practices. Personally, I would be in favor of this. When I played, spring ball was important and we practiced hard (soccer), but we didn't necessarily use a full size field, we might participate in a small half-field, 7-v-7 tournament, but nothing like they do now-a-days. I think the non-traditional season has gotten a little out of control in Division III and I know for a fact the presidents of schools are looking to scale things back as they do believe in the STUDENT-athlete experience and fear students are being told and practices are being held like spring/fall ball is as important and run just as hard as the regular season. In other words, a student may feel (whether it is true or not) that if they don't participate for good reason in the out-of-season practice, their chances of being on the team were in jeopardy. Presidents want their student-athletes to participate in more things on campus than just sports if they are so inclined and bigger and bigger non-traditional seasons are clearly hampering that.

Again, this will be discussed on Friday next week formally (though informally all week), there will be some straw polls, and then the committee looking into all this will go back and provide it's recommendations a few months later... then we wait and see if governance (Presidents and Management Councils) or any schools/conference take up any of the recommendations and endorse them for a vote at the 2017 convention.

In the meantime, I think football has a close vote, but loses again... and I think the ice hockey proposal (can't remember the details off the top of my head) is voted down as well based solely on the fact that the committee is reviewing things and broader decisions will be put forth. Unfortunately, in hind-sight, a moratorium on game, practice, etc. items was NOT put in place at the last convention... so football and ice hockey are trying to wedge in legislation.


AND if you are in for a long read, here is the final notice of what will be up for a vote (for the most part) at next week's convention (Division III only): http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016%20DIII%20Official%20Notice.pdf (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016%20DIII%20Official%20Notice.pdf). A lot of what is in the second half is talked about at the business meeting and voted through on the whole, as it was last year. It is the first half that features the votes and ALL the details there in. If you want the cribs note version, here you go: http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016_DIII_Proposal_Chart.pdf (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016_DIII_Proposal_Chart.pdf).

I will be in San Antonio from Wednesday night through everything on Saturday. You can follow me on Twitter for news and updates. I will primarily use @davemchugh, but @d3hoopsville and @WhyD3Show will be used when necessary (or accidentally if I'm not paying attention to which account I am on!). I believe the hashtag for the entire event will be #NCAAConv, but that is for EVERYTHING. I don't think there is a specific D3 one, but we certainly could start something like #NCAAD3Conv or #D3NCAAConv... anyway.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: joehakes on January 08, 2016, 10:27:10 am
Dave,

Good food for thought on the non-traditional season issue.  This is something that is tremendously more complicated than people think.  It has to do with the nuts and bolts of personnel, facilities and budget as well as philosophical issues of how students should spend their time in college, what their focus should be in regard to co-curricular activities and why they went to college in the first place. 

I can make the argument in both directions.  if athletic participation is such a good thing why do we limit it so severely?  If coaches are wonderful role models and mentors, why do we take opportunities to fill those functions away?  If a student is an oboe player and they spend all their non-class time playing the oboe, we marvel at their dedication but if an athlete spends too much time in the gym that is considering detrimental to their education. 

But if we allow a sort of un-limited practice schedule and coaches' control over the lives of the student-athletes, wouldn't we expect that there would be abuses of that trust?  Would we be producing one-dimensional graduates who haven't experienced the full range of a college campus experiences?  Are there physical limitations that might be blown through with increased athletic activity?

These are both valid positions and they illustrate the futility of thinking that there is an ideal solution.  If college presidents want athletics to continue to be an enrollment driver, limiting the athletic experience may have serious retention issues.  On the other hand, if we are not really recruiting and retaining student-athletes are we being true to what we say our philosophy is?  This is not a quick or easy answer.  Knowing the right questions to ask and the right people to answer them are the first steps toward having a useful policy.

In regard to the coach that lamented the fact that a first year athlete gets in trouble before "he gets to know them" I have to chuckle a bit.  If the kid was recruited and the coach didn't know him, how good a job did he do in recruiting him?  I have never heard a coach say that he didn't know much about a kid coming in.  On the other hand, if a party gets out of hand and there are student-athletes there, it will undoubtedly be labelled a "X team" party.  That is one of the surest things in higher education.  At a previous institution, I was made aware that a "lacrosse party" had involved some student conduct issues.  They said that there were several non-lacrosse players there so I asked how many history majors were there.  "Why do you ask that?"  "Because if the percentage of history majors was higher than the percentage of lacrosse players, it defaults to being a history major party and you should be speaking to the chair of the history department."  Needless to say, that enlightening comment was quickly dismissed and we dealt with the lacrosse players.  I guess you just have to keep chipping away.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 08, 2016, 05:30:51 pm
For any going to San Antonio for the NCAA meeting, my favorite dining experience in San Antonio is Mi Tierra's,  for breakfast.

I like the Huevos Rancheros!  Plenty of cholesterol!  Fewer crowds at breakfast but a breakfast that will... as they say... stick to your bones (and arteries too.)
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 08, 2016, 06:49:43 pm
For any going to San Antonio for the NCAA meeting, my favorite dining experience in San Antonio is Mi Tierra's,  for breakfast.

I like the Huevos Rancheros!  Plenty of cholesterol!  Fewer crowds at breakfast but a breakfast that will... as they say... stick to your bones (and arteries too.)

Are doctors supposed to give such heart-unfriendly advice?! :o
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 08, 2016, 10:15:23 pm
For any going to San Antonio for the NCAA meeting, my favorite dining experience in San Antonio is Mi Tierra's,  for breakfast.

I like the Huevos Rancheros!  Plenty of cholesterol!  Fewer crowds at breakfast but a breakfast that will... as they say... stick to your bones (and arteries too.)

Are doctors supposed to give such heart-unfriendly advice?! :o
Walking from the Henry B Gonzalez Convention Center, it is about 1.1 miles one way.

If you generously add the picante sauce, the jalapenos will cut the fat and kill the bad stuff! ;)
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on January 09, 2016, 12:25:07 am
For any going to San Antonio for the NCAA meeting, my favorite dining experience in San Antonio is Mi Tierra's,  for breakfast.

I like the Huevos Rancheros!  Plenty of cholesterol!  Fewer crowds at breakfast but a breakfast that will... as they say... stick to your bones (and arteries too.)

Are doctors supposed to give such heart-unfriendly advice?! :o
Walking from the Henry B Gonzalez Convention Center, it is about 1.1 miles one way.

If you generously add the picante sauce, the jalapenos will cut the fat and kill the bad stuff! ;)

I'm tempted to switch from my current doctor to you, but her office is a thousand or so miles closer! ;D

(Though I can't handle the really hot stuff.  I won a jalpeno eating contest in college, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. ::))
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Gray Fox on January 09, 2016, 06:06:13 pm
You can't tell me these teams don't have out of season pick up games. Sure the coaches are absent, but that's what team captains are for. Heck we did this in h.s. Coaches just want more time. They are always going to want more practice time.

I just don't see why, at the DIII level, this is necessary. If it is necessary, someone needs to make a point about how it helps the student athletes in their collegiate experience, not a statement about how it helps the coach...
I know that NESCAC baseball players have captains practices out of season.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 09, 2016, 09:23:43 pm
In regard to the coach that lamented the fact that a first year athlete gets in trouble before "he gets to know them" I have to chuckle a bit.  If the kid was recruited and the coach didn't know him, how good a job did he do in recruiting him?  I have never heard a coach say that he didn't know much about a kid coming in.  On the other hand, if a party gets out of hand and there are student-athletes there, it will undoubtedly be labelled a "X team" party.  That is one of the surest things in higher education.  At a previous institution, I was made aware that a "lacrosse party" had involved some student conduct issues.  They said that there were several non-lacrosse players there so I asked how many history majors were there.  "Why do you ask that?"  "Because if the percentage of history majors was higher than the percentage of lacrosse players, it defaults to being a history major party and you should be speaking to the chair of the history department."  Needless to say, that enlightening comment was quickly dismissed and we dealt with the lacrosse players.  I guess you just have to keep chipping away.

Don't take the coach's comment as word for word... I was paraphrasing his frustration. Not to "know" him in the sense of they are because obviously they would through recruiting. But they don't know them as college students, on the campus, adjusting to college life. They don't have a chance to help guide them through the process or mold them to what they expect from their players.

Your entire post is the ongoing challenge of Division III. It is also at the crux of the review into playing and practice seasons. Sure, student-ATHLETES want to play more games and don't want to be cut back. But those who understand that these are STUDENT-athletes want them to be just that - students. We aren't supposed to be running things in Division III like Division I. Yes, sports are a recruiting tool and a enrollment driver, but the schools are looking for, supposedly, well-rounded students who do more than just one thing.

Again, your post is outstanding to the point of what they face... however, I would say we are looking more towards the well-rounded students and sometimes we have to reign them in. (That's my argument about how many games are being played in some sports, but that's for another time).

As for a breakfast place... not sure when I will get to that place. The NCAA Convention has 8am or earlier starts each morning and I have a 9am flight Sunday... I highly doubt I will get a chance to enjoy a good breakfast.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 11, 2016, 05:31:44 pm
You've got nice weather this week in SA, Dave - enjoy.   Wish I was able to get down there to have dinner with you one night but the job I took last year doesn't exactly throw vacation time around - the joys of supporting IT in a large retail environment.   Have a great time and look forward to hearing what you have to say. 
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 11, 2016, 09:08:31 pm
Ron - that is inexcusable... get some time off so we can talk some IT stuff because I am starting to hit some challenges even at my home. LOL

In reality... understand. Take it easy yourself.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 12, 2016, 12:17:33 pm
For any going to San Antonio for the NCAA meeting, my favorite dining experience in San Antonio is Mi Tierra's,  for breakfast.

I like the Huevos Rancheros!  Plenty of cholesterol!  Fewer crowds at breakfast but a breakfast that will... as they say... stick to your bones (and arteries too.)

Are doctors supposed to give such heart-unfriendly advice?! :o
Walking from the Henry B Gonzalez Convention Center, it is about 1.1 miles one way.

If you generously add the picante sauce, the jalapenos will cut the fat and kill the bad stuff! ;)

I'm tempted to switch from my current doctor to you, but her office is a thousand or so miles closer! ;D

(Though I can't handle the really hot stuff.  I won a jalpeno eating contest in college, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. ::))
I am flattered. Every family needs a good gynecologist.   ;)

http://www.uthealth.org/physician-finder?alpha=T
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 12, 2016, 04:08:00 pm
For any going to San Antonio for the NCAA meeting, my favorite dining experience in San Antonio is Mi Tierra's,  for breakfast.

I like the Huevos Rancheros!  Plenty of cholesterol!  Fewer crowds at breakfast but a breakfast that will... as they say... stick to your bones (and arteries too.)

Are doctors supposed to give such heart-unfriendly advice?! :o
Walking from the Henry B Gonzalez Convention Center, it is about 1.1 miles one way.

If you generously add the picante sauce, the jalapenos will cut the fat and kill the bad stuff! ;)

I'm tempted to switch from my current doctor to you, but her office is a thousand or so miles closer! ;D

(Though I can't handle the really hot stuff.  I won a jalpeno eating contest in college, but it was a Pyrrhic victory. ::))
I am flattered. Every family needs a good gynecologist.   ;)

http://www.uthealth.org/physician-finder?alpha=T

(https://chadhyams.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/laughing-and-pointing.jpg)

(http://kannadigaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/laughter_workplace_good.jpg)

(http://laughapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Laughing_and_pointing.jpg)

Classic!
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: David Collinge on January 12, 2016, 05:47:31 pm
Hey, don't make fun of Ms. Ypsi. She means well.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 16, 2016, 10:50:20 am
Proposal 1: Dues Increase to $2K for schools, $1k for conferences
455-18-2 ADOPTED

Proposal 2: Electronic Transmissions
Sections A&B divided
263-192-9

Proposal 2: Electronic Transmissions Sections A&B (Social Media Communication)
106-365-2 FAILS

Proposal 2: Electronic Transmissions Section C (deregulate publicity legislation)
62-410 FAILS

Proposal 3: Football Nontraditional Segment (14 days spring training, 3 days in pads)
154-232-88 FAILS

Proposal 4: Off Ice Training (Ice Hockey, obv)
223-45-185 ADOPTED

Proposal 5: S-A Only Weight Facilities and Reservations (SA self-guided use of weight facilities in offseason; allow strength coaches to reserve facilities for voluntary workouts)
409-53-6 ADOPTED

Proposal 6: Institutional Fundraisers Involving Athletics Ability
333-128-6 ADOPTED

Proposal 7: Contact Restrictions at Specified Sites, Exception for On-Campus Contact
461-3 ADOPTED

Proposal 8: Elimination of Reinstatement Requirement, Use of Banned Drugs (don't have to apply for reinstatement after fulfilling terms of drug-related suspension)
452-14 ADOPTED

Proposal 9: Conference AQ Requirements for Provisional, Reclassifying Members (schools in 3d/4th year of reclassifying count towards # of conf participants)
418-44-3 ADOPTED

Proposal 10: Minimum Participants for Women’s Golf, Sponsorship (team minimum of 4 participants, not 5)
423-21-21 ADOPTED
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: tweisman5 on January 16, 2016, 04:09:21 pm
So with the spring football proposal voted down, what exactly is the current setup like for coaches during the spring? Are football athlete only allowed to participate in strength conditioning or is there some allowance for on-field instruction?

Also, what does the proposal for allowing student athlete reserved strength training proposal change from what is currently allowed?
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 16, 2016, 11:01:38 pm


Proposal 9: Conference AQ Requirements for Provisional, Reclassifying Members (schools in 3d/4th year of reclassifying count towards # of conf participants)
418-44-3 ADOPTED

Proposal 10: Minimum Participants for Women’s Golf, Sponsorship (team minimum of 4 participants, not 5)
423-21-21 ADOPTED

Prop 9...

which conferences might benefit from this?

ASC-Football?
Empire 8 baseball?

Please advise (and sorry that I am not up-to-date on this one. )

Prop 10.

Great!  Makes sense!
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 17, 2016, 01:45:21 pm
Sorry... haven't been available as I am always very busy at the NCAA Convention and the best time to check these boards is at night when I get back to my room... but it's late and I really need to sleep because everything at the convention starts REALLY early. Of course, right now I am on a plane back to Baltimore and need to get Hoopsville squared away... but I will try and get back to some of the items asked already in the near future.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ron Boerger on January 22, 2016, 09:49:43 am
As an ASC fan, I hope that the year-3/year-4 provisional/re-classifying measure passes. (I hope we can see the roll call of that vote.)

The final roll call votes for all proposals should be available on the D3 convention site, where there are line items for "voting grid" and "final roll call vote report":

http://www.ncaa.org/governance/2016-division-iii-convention-resources

For those interested, the final roll call votes have been posted (and have probably been up for a while):

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016DIII_Convention_Final_Roll_Call_Vote_Report_20160121.pdf

I didn't realize that conferences got votes; makes sense given that they pay dues :-)
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2016, 12:14:10 am
As an ASC fan, I hope that the year-3/year-4 provisional/re-classifying measure passes. (I hope we can see the roll call of that vote.)

The final roll call votes for all proposals should be available on the D3 convention site, where there are line items for "voting grid" and "final roll call vote report":

http://www.ncaa.org/governance/2016-division-iii-convention-resources

For those interested, the final roll call votes have been posted (and have probably been up for a while):

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016DIII_Convention_Final_Roll_Call_Vote_Report_20160121.pdf

I didn't realize that conferences got votes; makes sense given that they pay dues :-)
I have done my best to run the numbers on Prop #3 (Spring Football)

I get these tallies:                    FOR / AGAINST/  ABSTAIN /NOT VOTING

Football school                         103       130               4            2
Football conference                    10          14              2             0     
Non-football school                   38           78              76            2             
Non-football conference              3            10              1            1

TOTAL                                      154         232           88  ABSTENTIONS AND NOT-VOTING           
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: jknezek on January 23, 2016, 12:24:26 am
Not a real close vote. You'd basically need all football schools and conferences to unanimously agree to flip the outcome.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: FCGrizzliesGrad on January 23, 2016, 11:09:39 am
Not a real close vote. You'd basically need all football schools and conferences to unanimously agree to flip the outcome.
I don't think that's really true. Had just 40 institutions that voted against instead voted for, it would have been 194-192 in favor
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Ralph Turner on January 23, 2016, 12:18:09 pm
                                               FOR        AGAINST  PERCENTAGE FOR

Football school                         103       130           44.2%
Football conference                    10          14           42.9%

i believe that the more instructive stat is that the number of football playing conferences and schools seem to reflect the difference in opinion in D3 about the "off-season" and the student-athlete. Those are virtually identical percentages.
Title: Re: D3 proposals at the 2016 NCAA Convention
Post by: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on January 25, 2016, 05:23:28 pm
Someone said it to me, I can't remember where, but I agree with it... keep in mind there is a strong percentage of schools that don't want non-traditional seasons at all. Considering that say 20-25% are already voting against any non-traditional season to begin with, football already has a very large hill to climb.

No... the vote wasn't close at all. That vote basically said one thing: stop bring this up in it's current form. Let's be honest, the different in last year's bill and this year's was minute. If they want four more total practices (12 to 16) along with pads, helmets, etc. they have to come up with a better plan. Concerns are serious when it comes to not only player safety (more hitting), manpower (athletic trainers and others), facilities (making sure fields and equipment are set), along with other items. Schools who are voting against this, including some vocal football programs, are not doing this to be difficult... they have problems with the plan.

It is also telling that a former New England Patriot player who played in the Super Bowl and is now an AD at a Massachusetts school (sorry, forgetting name and location right this moment), speaks up AGAINST the plan especially saying that if coaches can't teach proper technique and evaluate players without pads that they basically should learn to be better coaches... the fight is very much uphill. The NFL is doing away more and more with padded practices and while the game may not be as high-quality as it used to me... it has less to do with pads and more about trying to make a highlight hit or catch.

Football can keep trying, but the membership is telling them either stop or find a better idea than what you have come up with the last few years. Plain and simple.