Tony will think I've inhaled too many protons, but I think the response
from Dan Dutcher is very well written, and addresses the issues, history
and expected events very well, given his position.

I do take issue with the implication that the "recent survey" in any way
has relevance to the grand fathered schools, or that 46% percent
supporting an issue is even a majority.

Thanks for posting it, Tony!    cheers, wayne

P.S. A quick search of NCAA.org, and a bit of cleverness, would provide
Mr. Dutcher's e-mail address, should one wish to write to him directly.

Anthony J. Buffa wrote:
> 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