Utica College: The gang's all here.

[UCBadger]

I get your point but I think your are overstating it. I don't see a school like Utica having significant difficulties on this front, not with that admissions rate and those SAT scores. This is Utica we're talking about, not Ithaca.

Hello, we are right here. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Fishman'81]

[QUOTE=Russell Jaslow;n3730860]

Because, Fishy Boy, as usual, has no idea what he is talking about.

There is going to be a transition. Heck, the first year alone they will probably still play some D3 teams like RIT did in their first year. By the time they are a full fledged D1 hockey team (i.e., they are eligible for the NCAA playoffs), their roster will be a full fledged D1 talent roster. At that point, we will truly see how well they are able to recruit that level of talent. [Quote]

Russell, attempt to avoid behaving like a dick, if only for a minute...

Of course I don't study the Byzantine endeavor that is D-3 hockey. I'd prefer to do my taxes again.

If you think that Utica or (ANY AHA team) is going to recruit "full-fledged D-1 talent", you haven't seen the AHA, ever. (Maybe time for YOU to check your facts, ya think?)

[Fishman'81]

I'm curious why you're saying Division II is dead? I don't think it's dead at all.

But what is the point of D-2's existence? So member teams have the option of playing either up or down? (Sincere question.)

Not trying to be contrary for the sake of it, but I don't grasp the calculus here. I buy the 4-pack of season tickets every year for around $250. Let's say that the price doubles, and Utica is getting its *** handed to it most every night... My guess is that attendance will fall off the cliff, Jumbotrons or not.

Fans everywhere ignore losing programs. The local media barely nods at Utica hockey even as it contends annually for a D-3 title.

This is looking like the hoops move to D-1 Lite: not going to work.

[Fishman'81]

Because St.A's made all these plans, got everything ready with tons of work behind the scenes before they were accepted into the Newmac for the rest of their sports. Newmac does not have Hockey so no idea where they were going for that.. They assumed it was a done deal. They learned the hard way to never assume anything. Newmac said St.A's did not fit the academic mission of its schools.. Babson, MIT, Springfield, WPI, Coast Guard, Clark and Wheaton plus Smith on the women's side. IMO D2 is like the NAIA now basically a dead end. Utica moving D2 for the rest of sports is a real bad idea. I think the D1 Hockey though is exciting because of the fan base Utica has. If Utica loses the fan base because they start losing heavy in D1 and the rest of the Sports are in a dead end D2 then the whole decision will have been a disaster.

What you said.

[HawksHockey]

But what is the point of D-2's existence? So member teams have the option of playing either up or down? (Sincere question.)

Not trying to be contrary for the sake of it, but I don't grasp the calculus here. I buy the 4-pack of season tickets every year for around $250. Let's say that the price doubles, and Utica is getting its *** handed to it most every night... My guess is that attendance will fall off the cliff, Jumbotrons or not.

Fans everywhere ignore losing programs. The local media barely nods at Utica hockey even as it contends annually for a D-3 title.

This is looking like the hoops move to D-1 Lite: not going to work.

At 95% of these Division II and Division III schools, it's NOT about fans or "revenue" from ticket sales - it's about enrollment and keeping the doors open. That's why you're seeing this influx of schools at small D3's adding sports like men's and women's ice hockey.

Think about it - unless these student-athletes are academically gifted and receive scholarships for their work in the classroom, these are sometimes kids paying $40K-50K just for the privilege of playing hockey.

That's why the partial scholarship model works for some of these Division II programs - they're not full scholarships (for non-hockey sports), meaning they're enticing student-athletes with a little athletics scholarship money and instead paying more than 75% of the bill out of pocket for attendance.

I don't know enough about Utica to say whether it's the right move or not.

[Russell Jaslow]

But what is the point of D-2's existence? So member teams have the option of playing either up or down? (Sincere question.)

Not trying to be contrary for the sake of it, but I don't grasp the calculus here. I buy the 4-pack of season tickets every year for around $250. Let's say that the price doubles, and Utica is getting its *** handed to it most every night... My guess is that attendance will fall off the cliff, Jumbotrons or not.

Fans everywhere ignore losing programs. The local media barely nods at Utica hockey even as it contends annually for a D-3 title.

This is looking like the hoops move to D-1 Lite: not going to work.

Preze is talking about Division II as a whole, not hockey.

[Mr.Right]

See for me I have more questions than answers.

1. Why is the NCAA working against itself? I do not understand forcing schools to move up ALL Sports to D2 just because you want to move ONE Sport to D1. You have a Sport here in Hockey that is trying to grow the Game at the College level in the US because so many more kids are playing the Sport. You should be trying to get to over 100 D1 Program's and 125 D3 Program's so if a school is willing to move up like Utica and pay the necessary costs to support the program so it can be successful at the D1 Level the NCAA should be making it as easy as possible for the school moving up( If Navy adds u better believe they will do it first class) not forcing it to jam all Sports into a Dead End D2. There is a reason all these schools are leaving D2 for either D3 or D1.

2. Somehow it needs to be easier for schools to add Men's and Women's Hockey at the D3 level. I look at all these Prep Schools, Jr Preps and even High Schools that have facilities and programs and obviously some money but it is frustrating that it does not translate to more College's having the Sport. If u have Hockey as a club sport than it is possible to upgrade if the schools wanted to invest in it.

[Russell Jaslow]

See for me I have more questions than answers.

1. Why is the NCAA working against itself? I do not understand forcing schools to move up ALL Sports to D2 just because you want to move ONE Sport to D1. You have a Sport here in Hockey that is trying to grow the Game at the College level in the US because so many more kids are playing the Sport. You should be trying to get to over 100 D1 Program's and 125 D3 Program's so if a school is willing to move up like Utica and pay the necessary costs to support the program so it can be successful at the D1 Level the NCAA should be making it as easy as possible for the school moving up( If Navy adds u better believe they will do it first class) not forcing it to jam all Sports into a Dead End D2. There is a reason all these schools are leaving D2 for either D3 or D1.

2. Somehow it needs to be easier for schools to add Men's and Women's Hockey at the D3 level. I look at all these Prep Schools, Jr Preps and even High Schools that have facilities and programs and obviously some money but it is frustrating that it does not translate to more College's having the Sport. If u have Hockey as a club sport than it is possible to upgrade if the schools wanted to invest in it.

One word -- money.

The restriction on play ups all started when some schools (think St. John's in NYC) only had a D1 team in basketball. When the huge TV contracts started coming in for March Madness, the full fledged D1 schools did not want to share the money with what they perceived as cherry pickers.

So, the initial restrictions started for some sports. Then, even though many other sports are not big money sports, the big D1 powers in those sports also did not want to see certain schools cherry pick their championships. Plus, the big D1 powers felt that schools like Clarkson can put all their monetary effort behind hockey (or whatever that one sport a particular school is playing up) because Clarkson would not have to spend a lot on the rest of their sports being they were all D3. Thus, there was a perception of unfairness. Therefore, all sports restricted themselves to only schools that were going to make a commitment to the appropriate division in all sports, grandfathering those who were already doing so. And in some ways, you can see their point. You want to compete in D1 or D2? Then make the full commitment.

Remember, the NCAA's job is not to care about one sport. It's to care about their entire membership. And it is that membership which votes on the policies enacted by the NCAA. The NCAA is just a governing body. Nothing more. It's the members who decide what the rules are.

[HawksHockey]

One word -- money.

The restriction on play ups all started when some schools (think St. John's in NYC) only had a D1 team in basketball. When the huge TV contracts started coming in for March Madness, the full fledged D1 schools did not want to share the money with what they perceived as cherry pickers.

So, the initial restrictions started for some sports. Then, even though many other sports are not big money sports, the big D1 powers in those sports also did not want to see certain schools cherry pick their championships. Plus, the big D1 powers felt that schools like Clarkson can put all their monetary effort behind hockey (or whatever that one sport a particular school is playing up) because Clarkson would not have to spend a lot on the rest of their sports being they were all D3. Thus, there was a perception of unfairness. Therefore, all sports restricted themselves to only schools that were going to make a commitment to the appropriate division in all sports, grandfathering those who were already doing so. And in some ways, you can see their point. You want to compete in D1 or D2? Then make the full commitment.

Remember, the NCAA's job is not to care about one sport. It's to care about their entire membership. And it is that membership which votes on the policies enacted by the NCAA. The NCAA is just a governing body. Nothing more. It's the members who decide what the rules are.

The stubbornness of the NCAA to allow the Division II non-scholarship hockey schools to simply play down to Division III is one of the many problems that the NCAA has caused itself here. That's why there are now these NCAA Division II schools playing in the NEWHA and why you're also seeing a lot of this uncertainty in Division I.

I honestly don't know what the argument to not let the Division II's play down is. I also don't understand what the argument is to not let each school designate ONE sport to make that jump to Division I, in both men and women. Could be hockey, could be baseball, could be lacrosse - with the amount of Division II and Division III schools that currently feature full Division I programs (Hobart, Johns Hopkins, etc.), why not let each school pick the one sport that is regionally appealing to fans, student-athletes in the area, etc. and play Division I?

I get your argument about the D3 schools throwing all available financial resources at that one sport... but if they are within the scholarship rules, etc., what's the problem?

In terms of the D2 ice hockey programs, they weren't offering scholarships and in most cases, the D3 facilities/teams had all the advantages over them. The argument is likely what Russell was saying - doing it for men's ice hockey opens the door for other sports (like men's volleyball, who is currently in "National Collegiate" limbo). Would Utica keep its hockey teams in Division III and promote its other teams to Division II?

[Sir Nubs]

Fans everywhere ignore losing programs. The local media barely nods at Utica hockey even as it contends annually for a D-3 title.

Still hasn't learned a thing.

[Russell Jaslow]

I honestly don't know what the argument to not let the Division II's play down is. I also don't understand what the argument is to not let each school designate ONE sport to make that jump to Division I, in both men and women. Could be hockey, could be baseball, could be lacrosse - with the amount of Division II and Division III schools that currently feature full Division I programs (Hobart, Johns Hopkins, etc.), why not let each school pick the one sport that is regionally appealing to fans, student-athletes in the area, etc. and play Division I?

I explained it all. Money. The D1 schools are spending a ton of money supporting entire D1 sports programs. They don't want a school to "cheap out" and spend way less money supporting a D3 sports program, but play one sport up to cherry pick that championship.

I get your argument about the D3 schools throwing all available financial resources at that one sport... but if they are within the scholarship rules, etc., what's the problem?

How about building massive Taj Mahals for their hockey team, fantastic weight rooms, special dorms for the D1 athletes, etc., etc. Just look at Utica. Everyone is saying they will have a recruiting advantage because they play in a great facility. That's exactly why D1 schools don't want D3 schools to play one sport up.

In terms of the D2 ice hockey programs, they weren't offering scholarships and in most cases, the D3 facilities/teams had all the advantages over them. The argument is likely what Russell was saying - doing it for men's ice hockey opens the door for other sports (like men's volleyball, who is currently in "National Collegiate" limbo). Would Utica keep its hockey teams in Division III and promote its other teams to Division II?

You can't play down anymore either. If they went D2, their hockey team cannot compete for the D3 national championship, just like any of the NE-10 schools cannot. And for Utica, that would defeat the whole purpose.

[Russell Jaslow]

Still hasn't learned a thing.

Well, to be honest, the local Rochester newspaper does **** for coverage of the RIT hockey teams. So, Fishy Boy isn't too far off.

[Fishman'81]

I explained it all. Money. The D1 schools are spending a ton of money supporting entire D1 sports programs. They don't want a school to "cheap out" and spend way less money supporting a D3 sports program, but play one sport up to cherry pick that championship.



How about building massive Taj Mahals for their hockey team, fantastic weight rooms, special dorms for the D1 athletes, etc., etc. Just look at Utica. Everyone is saying they will have a recruiting advantage because they play in a great facility. That's exactly why D1 schools don't want D3 schools to play one sport up.



You can't play down anymore either. If they went D2, their hockey team cannot compete for the D3 national championship, just like any of the NE-10 schools cannot. And for Utica, that would defeat the whole purpose.

The first half of your first point is kinda valid. (Blind hog/acorn thing I guess), but the vast majority of even *successful* D-1 hockey teams lose money every year. And a grandfathered "D-1 in hockey only school", eg Clarkson, Union, St. Lawrence, Union, RPI, et al..? None of them turn a net profit. Not even close. You can bet that the grandfathered ECAC teams are bleeding money playing at the D-1 level lately.

To your 2nd point, not so much. Esche didn't get the money to renovate The Aud via UC's gate, clearly. He managed -somehow- to get the dough via attracting an AHL team there. (I still don't how he accomplished that feat in a 4,000 seat arena, but it HAS worked). I have to give him extreme credit for having both things happening successfully at once, as well as building a huge sports complex right next door.

Your third point, I agree with. No one has said anything on here to persuade me that it's a good idea for Utica to go D-2, or to even join the AHA. I guess that would have have to been another brain-child of the folks who decided to re-name the school.

All style, no substance.

[Sir Nubs]

Well, to be honest, the local Rochester newspaper does **** for coverage of the RIT hockey teams. So, Fishy Boy isn't too far off.

I was referencing yet another unfounded perennial national contender reference.

[Mr.Right]

Well if what u are saying is true and this is happening because NCAA D1 "members" are voting down these proposals because they are scared of new competition then that is pathetic. So all Sports are lumped together by the NCAA governing body and its members then vote? Or does each Sport have its own separate body on these specific issues? I know each Division has a body but really it should be separated by Sport not Division. That would be the first problem that needs fixing. If it is by Sport then these D1 Hockey programs have splainin' to do. That would be like massive D1 schools insulating themselves and making it almost impossible on the smaller schools How is that good for the other dues paying "members"? Every D1 Sport is different and needs its own set of standards tailored to the needs of their own Sport(i.e Hockey growing its Sport at the collegiate level in both D1 and D3). Otherwise this is going to be a painstakingly long process to grow the Game at the collegiate level. Hockey needs a "lobby" to really push this issue with the NCAA and its own members that vote and a "lobby" for university's and College's to really push them to look at investing in Hockey at their respective school's. Look at the noise the Michigan Women's team is fighting their own school over. That noise will eventually have an impact.

Question: What are the differences b/w Canadian University system and NCAA D3 talent wise. Is the Canadian system considered the 2nd option for kids out of Junior? Would D3 schools be considered greater, equal or less than? Just curious