Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: Look out, college hockey: The NCAA has noticed us again.
It seems that a good deal of the underlying impetus for these proposals comes from the "Division II Life in Balance Initiative" which is linked within Alton's original link or can be found here.
It often denies that the proposed shortened seasons are financially motivated, but rather financial savings are just an extra benefit of better balancing the life of student athletes. It's a great justification and a great sell to the presidents and chancellors, but I'm not sure I buy it. Universities and specifically athletics are increasingly run on private business models in which cost savings are paramount.
It seems one of the primary motivators behind DII even taking this up was this:
"Division II student athletes in some sports are devoting almost as much time to athletics -if not more- then their Division I counterparts"
It seems clear to everybody, even the DII people that there is quite a difference between DI and DII athletes and athletics. Yet it seems the DI board wants to adopt the DII proposals to DI. That seems inconsistent.
As far as maintaining the same number of contests in a shorter season, the DII people repeatedly say "nuts to that." The oft repeated rationale is "Maintaining the same number of contests or dates of competition in a shorter season is detrimental to student athlete well being"
Good Lord. If the NCAA becomes convinced they can act in a noble way and save $$ at the same time, well, who on the comittee is going to vote against that?
-------------------------------------------------------------
I think a big obstacle to the apparell contract thing is that schools like MI, WI, OH St., etc. just arent going to give up control of future, potentially lucrative private contracts without a huge fight. I wouldn't. And I just don't think the NCAA will be able to force them to. Although you make a good point about the split being on a sales basis Red Cloud.
It seems that a good deal of the underlying impetus for these proposals comes from the "Division II Life in Balance Initiative" which is linked within Alton's original link or can be found here.
It often denies that the proposed shortened seasons are financially motivated, but rather financial savings are just an extra benefit of better balancing the life of student athletes. It's a great justification and a great sell to the presidents and chancellors, but I'm not sure I buy it. Universities and specifically athletics are increasingly run on private business models in which cost savings are paramount.
It seems one of the primary motivators behind DII even taking this up was this:
"Division II student athletes in some sports are devoting almost as much time to athletics -if not more- then their Division I counterparts"
It seems clear to everybody, even the DII people that there is quite a difference between DI and DII athletes and athletics. Yet it seems the DI board wants to adopt the DII proposals to DI. That seems inconsistent.
As far as maintaining the same number of contests in a shorter season, the DII people repeatedly say "nuts to that." The oft repeated rationale is "Maintaining the same number of contests or dates of competition in a shorter season is detrimental to student athlete well being"
Good Lord. If the NCAA becomes convinced they can act in a noble way and save $$ at the same time, well, who on the comittee is going to vote against that?
-------------------------------------------------------------
I think a big obstacle to the apparell contract thing is that schools like MI, WI, OH St., etc. just arent going to give up control of future, potentially lucrative private contracts without a huge fight. I wouldn't. And I just don't think the NCAA will be able to force them to. Although you make a good point about the split being on a sales basis Red Cloud.
