Hello Hockey-Lers from the land of The Recall,

For those of you are following the stupid D-III proposal which would, de
facto, eliminate D-I hockey at RPI and others, not to mention lacrosse
at Johns Hopkins:

Several of us RPIers wrote to Dr. Brand, who then referred our emails to
a Dan Dutcher for further explanation of the D-III proposal. I actually
did not get a response from Dutcher, but several did, and they appear to
be "canned" much as Brand's was.

Below his response is an initial letter from an RPI alum, Jack
Cunningham. I have his permission to forward both to you.

FWIW, here it is. I find it, at best, irritating. In spots, he certainly
is wrong - - - like RPI could play D-I hockey without scholarships.
Sure, and the Midget football teams could play the 49ers too. Yeah, right.

And what is this about the hockey landscape having changed? To me, the
big change was when divisions were created. Before that (up til about
1965) schools like RPI could compete without scholarships, since the
sport wasnt big time in a lot of schools and one could field a good team
with 10 good players (I recall most of my RPI teams had a max of 12).
When the big schools began really going after it , then the only way the
Clarksons and RPIs could continue to schedule them was to offer
scholarships. I believe brief consideration was given to dropping to
D-III in the 70s (esp after the poor record of the late 60s), but then
the opportunity to offer scholarships and compete at D-I was taken.

So what is so different now? In a sense, it is even more imperative
nowadays for the D-III schools to give scholarships, because more
schools are taking it seriously. If not, we will be D-I in name only and
that will be very sad.

Please feel free to respond to either Brand or Dutcher. I might respond
to Dutcher, but likely not. It seems we might have the votes to cancel
this thing. Scary thing is if it is on the floor, it has a chance to pass.

Tony Buffa
RPI '64

-------- Original Message --------








----- Original Message -----
From: "Dutcher, Dan"
To
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 4:29 PM
Subject: RE: Revising Div. III Rule

Thank you for your comments on this important issue. The proposal to which
you refer is one in a series of proposals that will be brought to the NCAA
Convention in January 2004 with the support of the Division III Presidents
Council.  These proposals seek to reaffirm the Division III philosophy and
to bring the division's practices into harmony with that philosophy.   In
that sense, this is a defining moment for Division III, and the legislative
package attempts to set a future course for the division as a whole.

The process that produced these proposals began in January 2002, and it has
included many opportunities for feedback and discussion among the 424 member
schools of Division III.  During the process, the Division III membership
has expressed an interest in addressing the issue of multidivision
classification (i.e., permitting a Division III school to sponsor a sport or
sports in another division). A recent survey of the Division III membership
indicated that 46 percent "strongly supported" or "supported" eliminating
the opportunity for Division III schools to sponsor a sport in Division I,
while another 13 percent "somewhat" supported that concept.

The proposal under discussion does not go that far.  It would not eliminate
multidivision classification, and schools would continue to have the
opportunity to sponsor a sport or sports in Division I.  Rather, the
proposal simply says that athletics aid may not be awarded in those sports.
Nothing in the proposal under discussion would require the affected schools
to leave Division I in ice hockey.  Several schools (e.g., Union, the Ivies)
already quite successfully follow the proposed model.

The prohibition against athletics aid is the defining philosophical tenet of
Division III.  The Presidents Council determined that it should remain so.
For that reason, the Council decided it would sponsor legislation to
eliminate the waiver through which eight schools, including RPI, have been
permitted to award athletics aid in the sports they sponsor in Division I.
The Council recognized that the current waiver was created and granted 20
years ago, under circumstances peculiar to that particular moment in time.
The Council questioned whether that privilege should be permitted to exist
indefinitely, given its fundamental inconsistency with the division's
philosophy.

This proposal will receive a considerable amount of attention and discussion
during the coming months, and its adoption is far from certain.  This
includes a review of the proposal by the Management Council and Presidents
Council during their October and January meetings, as well as the
opportunity for the affected schools and other schools that are interested
to sponsor an amendment to the proposal by November 1.  Ultimately, the
schools in Division III will decide this issue, one school-one vote, at the
2004 NCAA Convention in January.

The NCAA is committed to assisting the affected schools explore every
legislative and procedural option available to them.  In the meantime, you
should consider sharing your views with RPI officials, and encouraging them
to engage fully in the NCAA's legislative process.

Thank you again.

Dan Dutcher
Vice President for Div. III
NCAA
[log in to unmask]
www.ncaa.org



-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Cunningham
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 3:34 PM
To: Brand, Myles
Subject: Revising Div. III Rules

Dear Dr. Brand:
As an alumni of Rensselaer, I too rise to add my voice against the proposed
change to dis-allow eight Division III universities from giving shcolarships
for their one Division I sport. You, I am sure, know that many, many of
Rensselaer's ice hockey players have excelled in the business world as a
result of the financial assistance given them by the Institute for their
hockey skills. Should future student-atheletes be denied this Rensselaer
education or an education from the other seven universities?
In the past 50 years, our teams have been national champions twice in ice
hockey. This is quite a record for a premier engineering and science
university which supplies leaders to our nation, to the world, and even to
the NCAA.
Before the NCAA Divisions were established, what, in the 1960s, Rensselaer
fielded a major lacrosse team able to compete competitively with John
Hopkins (who also would be affected by the proposed change), UVA, Princeton,
Syracuse, and the other lacrosse powerhouses. Of course, now we compete in
lacrosse in Division III and that is unfortunate.
But to eliminate the ability to allow these eight universities to have their
one Divison I sport, in exchange for providing an education for many players
who could not afford one, is unconscionable. How much effort is being
required by the NCAA in monitoring these eight Division I sports teams when
there are major universities able to bend the NCAA's rules in many other
sports without getting caught?
I trust that you along with more rational minds will prevail. Thank you.
John H. Cunningham, Jr., P.E., DEE (ret.)
B.C.E. - 1956 - Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
M.S. in Mgt. - 1959 - Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute