Hi Sara and All,

I  feel like a large dark cloud looms over this season of RPI hockey,
until January when hopefully this stupid proposal is shot down. It wil
be hard for me to follow the team and think what might be happening in
mid-season to begin dismantling the program. I have yet to hear a valid
reason for it.

Over the last 40 yrs I have observed college sports at the D-III level
as an undergrad student (RPI), as a grad student at a bigtime sports
university (Illinois), as a faculty member at a D-II institution (Cal
Poly, pre 1996), and as a faculty member at a D-I institution (Cal Poly,
post 1996). If I had my druthers (based on slush fund scandals I
observed at Illinois and the way I have seen athletics compete with
academics at D-I schools), I would probably choose to dismantle all of
the corporate-driven D-I NCAA sports machinery and start over.

But this will never happen.

Thus schools being allowed to play D-I sports by the D-III consent
should be able to play by D-I rules, that is, to offer athletic
scholarships. Otherwise it is a sham (much like the so-called "purity"
of D-III sports, give me a break.)

Sure there are schools who field D-I teams without athletic scholarships
(usually not very successfully) but schools like RPI and Clarkson,
amongst others, with  a limited range of major, high admission
standards, and costing close to 40k per year are not going to compete
without them. No way. Not in this day and age. Maybe before 1980, but
not now.

Asking these school to do that is tantamount to ending their D-I programs.

As Ralph Baer said, these schools dont do it as a money-maker, it is
purely tradition. There is no correlation between having a D-I program
in one sport and major success in the school's other D-III sports, period.

Why are the D-III schools trying to change things? I dont know and I
doubt they do.

I have seen at the Johns Hopkins website, that their D-III league is
solidly against this proposal. They want JHU to continue D-I lacrosse as
it exists today. I would hope that the other schools get that same kind
of support from their D-III leagues, and that this proposal goes down to
a sound defeat.

Tony Buffa
RPI '64

==============

Sara M. Fagan wrote:

> I am still rather concerned about the proposals being put before the
> Div. III schools.  I find it hard to believe that 8 schools out of 424
> (I think it is) are a threat to the Div. III philosophy.  I do believe
> that SLU makes very sure that the students that get the athletic
> scholarships are well suited to SLU and its emphasis on academic
> standards.  It would be a shame if the programs at 8 schools, which are
> all steeped in tradition, were adversely impacted by people who are
> either jealous or uninformed.