[log in to unmask] writes:
 
> 1.)  A school will be considered a Div I school if and only if (sorry I'm
> an engineer) it has the specified number of men's and women's teams
> participating at the Div I level (this number is currently seven I believe)
 
The number is currently SIX EACH. It was proposed to raise this
to seven each, I believe that this was not changed.
 
>   ...       A school will be allowed to participate in Div I with a sport,
> such as hockey, but as stated will only receive traveling expenses from the
> Div I tournaments they participate in.  They will receive a share of the
> Div II or III NCAA tournament profits (if any) if they participate in the
> Div I tournament.  This ruling penalizes the Div II and III schools, but
> allows them some benefits for winning, small though they may be.  The basic
> gist of all this is that all schools currently playing Div I hockey will
> continue to do so if they can afford it.
 
This is part of the new plan for redistributing the megabucks
from the Division I basketball tournament -- much less is given
out based on how far a team goes, instead team expenses are paid, and
all the money goes into a pool for all the *division 1* schools
to share, based on a complicated formula that is designed to
reward those schools that run a complete program (including more
minor sports), and not reward just the powerhouse schools year
after year. [Note: this is the intention, I cannot say if the
formula will accomplish this].
 
> 2.)  Teams are limited now to a head coach, one paid assistant, a trainer
> and an unpaid graduate assistant.
This is the NEW rule, which doesn't take effect for a year or two
(sorry, I can't remember exactly when each rule starts). This
seems to be the number 1 rule change that hockey people want to
"correct" during the technical corrections phase (which started
as soon as the convention ended :-) )
 
 
> 3.)  Training table meals will be limited to two meals a day (currently
> three).
 
I think it is 1 meal per day. This is for all sports.
 
> 7.)  The number of scholarships will be cut.  Being down in the South they
> didn't report what hockey is allowed.  FYI Most 'Bama alumni I work with
> don't even know they have a hockey team.
Hockey will be cut to 18 scholarships, from the current 20. A few
years ago, hockey volluntarily cut scholarships from 24 to 20, in
order to save money for their schools. The claim is now that they
are being punished for being good guys -- if, like most every
other sport, they hadn't cut scholarships, the reduction would be
from 24 to 22.... [This argument seems a little greedy to me...]
 
> 9.)  The number of games will be cut, forgot the number.
 
from 38 to 34.
 
"Lt. Matt Jonson" <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>
> <[log in to unmask] writes>
> > 5.)  Tutors and academic assistance must be provided to all athletes in Div
> > I sports.
> >
> Who funds this?  My tuition?  My tax dollars?  And the big devil's advocate
> question:
> Why does a division I athlete deserve any more academic assistance than
> any other given student...?
 
The NCAA is trying to force schools to take academic responsibility for
their student-athletes. By making tutoring mandatory, every school
(even those that don't have a problem with athletes who aren't
really students) bears the burden. I don't know if this rule is
the solution, or if it will create more problems....
 
 
	--david