On Tue, 12 Apr 1994, Ralph Christopher Slate wrote:
 
>    Regarding division III schools playing up in hockey, I was under the
> impression that this only came into play when it was time for the
> NCAA playoffs. Then, Division III schools could not get any of the
> money from the tournament.
>    In other words, if RPI won the NCAA Championship, they would get $0.
> I'm sure LSSU got some amount of the playoff pool, as well as the
> rest of the division I teams in the tourney.
 
Without trying to cast any doubt on whether this is true or not (cause I
have NO idea, believe me, one way or t'other) does this make sense?
 
I understand the rule against playing below your division- fielding a
number of sports in the cheaper, DII and DIII levels, and then using DI
roundball and "steroid-ball" as cash cows.
 
But if a school like RPI, playing only ONE D1 sport, assuming that it's
likely that prohibitive cost is at least part of the reason WHY the
school doesn't field D1 teams across the board, would then be DENIED any
money from winning the tourney?
 
If this is an NC$$ rule, it doesn't surprise me, but right now I fail to
see what abuse they are trying to prevent, and how this only seems to
hurt the DII/III schools that play one DI sport (in this case hockey,
which is *expensive* and doesn't generate NEARLY the revenue of roundball
and steroidball).
 
I know it's late, but I don't get it...
 
 
>    I'm pretty sure this rule went into effect 3 or 4 years ago. I'm
> not sure if therre was grandfathering involved or not. Surely a division
> III school gets the gate income from the regular season, at least to
> cover costs.
>
 
I'd hope so. But you'd think a small school that was able to make it to
that position should be rewarded at least as much, if not *more* (wishful
think).
 
> Ralph
> [log in to unmask]
>
 
David M. Josselyn
[log in to unmask]
 
GO MERRIMACK!  GO ARGUS!  /\
                         /  \
                        /(*) \
                       /      \
                      /________\