|
Post by lscapcrus11 on Feb 1, 2018 21:43:55 GMT -5
I figured if I was going to come back... this would be the thread to do it in an attempt to debunk information regarding NCAA rules.
The NCAA rule on competing on various levels reads as follows: The NCAA adopted by all divisions in 1981 to permit a member of Division II or III to petition to be classified in Division I in any one men's sport, other than football or basketball, and in any one women's sport.
This is how Lock Haven competing in the Atlantic 10 for women's field hockey and John Hopkins can compete DI in men's lacrosse.
The more important and interesting rule is how sports sponsorship works: Division I member institutions have to sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports for each gender. Each playing season has to be represented by each gender as well as well as adhere to Title IX rules.
|
|
|
Post by blueandgold on Feb 1, 2018 21:47:29 GMT -5
I'd guess angryal runs Restore Our Tradition but we all know he loves bold 12-pt font and last I checked Facebook doesn't allow that, so it can't be him.
|
|
|
Post by SICguy84 on Feb 1, 2018 22:26:06 GMT -5
What if dropping two divisions is objectively the best thing for the university but not for the fraction that really care about basketball? Betrayal.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,549
Likes: 6,415
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 1, 2018 22:44:19 GMT -5
This isn't an argument worth having. What about the 300+ D1 athletes at the school. Come on. What about all of the former athletes that don't want to see their histories moved down to that level. You’d be super good with consultants.
|
|
hideaway
Mop-Up Time
Posts: 86
Likes: 122
|
Post by hideaway on Feb 1, 2018 23:07:21 GMT -5
Were you at the faculty meeting or did you talk to anyone at it where that was said? If you re-read the first post, I was stating what was said there and told to me my two people present. It may have been said in passing or cited as an option, but it was said. Fake news would've been saying it if it was never mentioned in the meeting. Everyone who's told me that was never said was not actually at the meeting, so I'm left with what two people I know were at the meeting heard. If it wasn't an option, the consultants shouldn't even have mentioned it, whether in passing or not, to the faculty, where people would walk out of the room thinking it's being considered and discussed. Did you ever hear the game Telephone? I think you have just been caught up in it. Next time you hear something that doesn't sound quite right, it might make sense to confirm it with those in charge before hitting social media. Social media is very powerful and one needs to take that VERY seriously. At least that's what we're trying to teach our children. I wasn't at the meeting but I have double checked and going Division 3 is not what the University is looking to do. I am not sure if somehow the topic came up in the meeting but that's what happens in focus groups. Maybe you haven't been involved in focus groups but in them consultants look to elicit views of participants and discuss them. Maybe even some discussion occurs which aren't real alternatives for the University. That's what goes on in focus groups. The senior person I talked to within the administration confirmed AGAIN, we are NOT GOING DIVISION 3. This person also confirmed that in their prior discussions with the consultants, division 3 was NEVER brought up. WE MAY NOT EVEN CHANGE CONFERENCES. Again, read the President's message. Nothing has been decided and that is 100 percent true. Nobody is hiding anything. They are studying our TOTAL position in athletics (conference, # of teams, costs, how our funding compares to peers, the impact on admissions, etc, etc.....everything they can look at). That is all and let me reiterate the #1 thing they'd like to do is do what is best for our flagship sport of basketball. I commend them for doing it. So I guess nobody is trying to tell you some discussion on division 3 didn't occur. What I have been trying to tell you is that is not a real alternative and is not happening. You also stated that somehow it came across in the meeting like things had already been decided...I can reiterate again that ABSOLUTELY nothing has been decided...not even close. But I am sure you are going to come back with something, but I don't know what to tell you. And yes, you personally caused the Prez to put out the press release. To reiterate, DIVISION 3 IS NOT ON THE TABLE. Maybe they'll come back with recommendations like it is best to stay in the Atlantic 10, stay in these x # of sports and increase funding to them. I don't know and nobody else does either because NOTHING has been decided. It is being studied.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Feb 1, 2018 23:45:22 GMT -5
Were you at the faculty meeting or did you talk to anyone at it where that was said? If you re-read the first post, I was stating what was said there and told to me my two people present. It may have been said in passing or cited as an option, but it was said. Fake news would've been saying it if it was never mentioned in the meeting. Everyone who's told me that was never said was not actually at the meeting, so I'm left with what two people I know were at the meeting heard. If it wasn't an option, the consultants shouldn't even have mentioned it, whether in passing or not, to the faculty, where people would walk out of the room thinking it's being considered and discussed. Did you ever hear the game Telephone? I think you have just been caught up in it. I wasn't at the meeting but I have double checked and going Division 3 is not what the University is looking to do. I am not sure if somehow the topic came up in the meeting but that's what happens in focus groups. Nothing has been decided and that is 100 percent true. Nobody is hiding anything. What I have been trying to tell you is that is not a real alternative and is not happening. You also stated that somehow it came across in the meeting like things had already been decided...I can reiterate again that ABSOLUTELY nothing has been decided...not even close. Again, read my first post. I never said anything was decided or happening definitively. I reported what two faculty members told me they heard as options that were being probed by a consulting group. Neither called the meeting a focus group when they spoke with me. If something was lost in translation in that meeting, then it probably behooves the consultants to chose their communications more carefully in a forum of faculty who are already feeling distrustful of administration after the art museum decision...which is partially why both told me they felt decisions had been made and the consultants were just here to justify it. Don't shoot the messenger on that last bit..it was faculty perception. I'm happy that the D3 thing is not a real alternative, as, I think, most people are. It probably should never have been mentioned by them if it wasn't a "real" option. I'm happy they are studying it and will come to a conclusion that will be best. I'm not convinced that hiring a consulting group to do this was the best use of limited University resources, but here's hoping they deliver an actionable plan and La Salle can implement it, and we see an uptick in our flagship sport's success.
|
|
|
Post by hideaway on Feb 2, 2018 8:48:29 GMT -5
I think hiring an expert in the field to study our positioning is a prudent course of action.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Feb 2, 2018 9:19:11 GMT -5
I think hiring an expert in the field to study our positioning is a prudent course of action. I thought La Salle did that when they hired an experienced athletic director to sort through these things.
|
|
|
Post by jellybean on Feb 2, 2018 9:38:19 GMT -5
I figured if I was going to come back... this would be the thread to do it in an attempt to debunk information regarding NCAA rules. The more important and interesting rule is how sports sponsorship works: Division I member institutions have to sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports for each gender. Each playing season has to be represented by each gender as well as well as adhere to Title IX rules. I said this on Page 1 of this thread. I guess that's ancient history today.
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Feb 2, 2018 11:26:44 GMT -5
I'm happy they are studying it and will come to a conclusion that will be best. I'm not convinced that hiring a consulting group to do this was the best use of limited University resources, but here's hoping they deliver an actionable plan and La Salle can implement it, and we see an uptick in our flagship sport's success. I'm not saying this is you, but will we be able to - collectively - still support the study and use of a committee if they recommend a conference change or some other substantial changes (cutting particular sports, etc)? While I'm overwhelmingly in favor of this study, because our current course was unsustainable, these outcomes may be very realistic.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,549
Likes: 6,415
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 2, 2018 11:29:04 GMT -5
The collective "we"? Absolutely not. Realistic goal setting has never been a board strength.
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Feb 2, 2018 11:39:16 GMT -5
The collective "we"? Absolutely not. Realistic goal setting has never been a board strength. Maybe a collective consensus was unrealistic from the jump. But this place will lose its’ shit if a recommendation for a conference change is made, going from "this is a good idea" to "why the hell did we do this again" in a moment's notice, simply because anything other than the A10 is a failure to some. It's a very realistic outcome, but how much of us are going to blindly believe that we can fix this without a big change?
|
|
|
Post by thelasallelunatic on Feb 2, 2018 12:11:03 GMT -5
I'm happy they are studying it and will come to a conclusion that will be best. I'm not convinced that hiring a consulting group to do this was the best use of limited University resources, but here's hoping they deliver an actionable plan and La Salle can implement it, and we see an uptick in our flagship sport's success. I'm not saying this is you, but will we be able to - collectively - still support the study and use of a committee if they recommend a conference change or some other substantial changes (cutting particular sports, etc)? While I'm overwhelmingly in favor of this study, because our current course was unsustainable, these outcomes may be very realistic. If we move down in conferences, I'm out. Not that it means much to anybody important, but I will pull a Jellybean/Michael Brooks move.
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Feb 2, 2018 12:17:57 GMT -5
While I laughed at the Jellybean-Michael Brooks comparison, thanks for the response - I'm legitimately curious where such a decision would leave people.
|
|
|
Post by jellybean on Feb 2, 2018 12:22:55 GMT -5
I'm happy they are studying it and will come to a conclusion that will be best. I'm not convinced that hiring a consulting group to do this was the best use of limited University resources, but here's hoping they deliver an actionable plan and La Salle can implement it, and we see an uptick in our flagship sport's success. I'm not saying this is you, but will we be able to - collectively - still support the study and use of a committee if they recommend a conference change or some other substantial changes (cutting particular sports, etc)? While I'm overwhelmingly in favor of this study, because our current course was unsustainable, these outcomes may be very realistic. 88 and maybe someone else has posted the Athletic budgets of the A10 basketball programs for years. La Salle has consistently been in the middle of the pack. It would be interesting to see after the recent defections and adding Davidson. Memory is getting bad but some years we are slightly above St. Joe's and some years we are not. So it appears to me that the school is spending the money (forget the facilities discussion for a moment) but not getting the return on investment. Especially in the last 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by SICguy84 on Feb 2, 2018 12:33:21 GMT -5
We fleshed this out in the ten pager "MAAC was Mentioned" thread of last season.
I can't lie; my interest, support and emotional investment would dramatically drop to a point where maybe the degree would be on my wall, but that would be about it? Carrying water for a NEC team come on? And when the investment in the flagship sport is gone what happens to the connection to the school itself? Following the basketball team is an envoy for many alumni to reconnecting with the University. (Btw. Many of the casual alumni that I talked with were pissed about the Homecoming cancellation this year.)
I think it would be tantamount to a betrayal. Especially for the loyal and supportive fans who weathered the mid west experience, the awfulness of one summer in 04, and the truly down years in A10. I think others feel the same way and are disheartened that the program has made some question our very existence in this conference. Christ, an NIT appearance (2009?) and two more NCAA appearances with G over 14 years and this wouldn't even been realistically discussed, we'd just be vocal malcontents like SJU of Penna, fans.
Competitive conference realignment should be the final-last straw option.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,549
Likes: 6,415
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 2, 2018 13:03:59 GMT -5
So lets pretend everyone who says they'd be done forever really would be (versus never leaving or jumping right back in the second La Salle is in the finals with the _______ Conference auto-bid on the line) ... what if more people in total would get on board at a higher winning percentage at a lower level? That's part of the equation as well because, as I think everyone agrees, *all* of this isn't working. We can have preferences for outcome but being annoyed at the analysis or pre-ruling out options doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 2, 2018 13:05:41 GMT -5
So just for the record, how a lot of people are dismissing caring about an NEC or MAAC team is how a lot of fans of Big East, ACC, SEC, etc. schools feels about caring about an A-10 team. It's stupid of them, and it's stupid of us to belittle people caring about their alma maters.
Short of us leaving Division 1, I'm always on board as fan. Now, does that mean if we leave for a lower conference tomorrow without an explanation, I'm unequivocally fine with it? Of course not. I hope it doesn't come to that. And if it does, I expect an explanation of the decision-making process, laying out why this is a good move, and then putting those plans into place (and having them be effective).
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Feb 2, 2018 13:20:29 GMT -5
So lets pretend everyone who says they'd be done forever really would be (versus never leaving or jumping right back in the second La Salle is in the finals with the _______ Conference auto-bid on the line) ... what if more people in total would get on board at a higher winning percentage at a lower level? That's part of the equation as well because, as I think everyone agrees, *all* of this isn't working. We can have preferences for outcome but being annoyed at the analysis or pre-ruling out options doesn't work. I honestly don't know how I would react if we moved down in conference. I do know that I'm getting more and more apathetic because G continues to lose routinely and I'm afraid the school won't do anything about it. But to answer your question, no I wouldn't be happy with more wins in a lesser conference because the bulk of the inws would probably come from lower level schools (from and RPI and SOS standpoint). Even if we won the auto-bid, that conference would have less respect and we'd be terribly seeded, ending up as a 1 and done. Our chances are better in the A10 IF the program can be turned around. And I don't see anything wrong with pre-ruling an option out if that option is drop down a conference. I'm strongly against that no matter what argument the consultants concoct.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Feb 2, 2018 13:24:16 GMT -5
I'm not saying this is you, but will we be able to - collectively - still support the study and use of a committee if they recommend a conference change or some other substantial changes (cutting particular sports, etc)? While I'm overwhelmingly in favor of this study, because our current course was unsustainable, these outcomes may be very realistic. That's a really good question. Reading people's thoughts on here, the overwhelming desire to stay in the A10 has been interesting. For alums who played the sports being cut (if any...for the record I'm not on here saying sports are being cut before people jump on me), I'm sure it would be difficult to support. Some (not all) of the alums my age I've talked with aren't married to the A10, but we were here for the MAAC years (and one year of MCC). Maybe we were spoiled going to 2 NCAAs and 1 NIT in my 4 years here, and I guess one thing that has to be assessed is, what exactly is the goal of the program. Is the goal to finish middle of the pack in the A10 and spend in the middle of the pack and hope to catch lightning in a bottle again, or is the goal to be playing in March for a conference championship and look for post-season play? I can't answer that question, but for students graduating in 2018, the answer looks decidedly like the former, with a 59-66 record right now for their 4-years at La Salle). We've earned 1 of the 72 NCAA bids awarded to the A10 since we joined. If the school and alums are fine with that, then maybe stay A10 is the answer. I'm guessing, though, that people want more. Ultimately winning trumps everything. If La Salle went to the NCAA tournament 2 times in 6 years in a "lower ranked" conference, I wonder if alums would be more excited. (And all of this is not taking into account performance and investments in other sports...I'm focusing on men's basketball as a revenue producer)
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,549
Likes: 6,415
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 2, 2018 13:32:16 GMT -5
But to answer your question, no I wouldn't be happy with more wins in a lesser conference because the bulk of the inws would probably come from lower level schools (from and RPI and SOS standpoint). Even if we won the auto-bid, that conference would have less respect and we'd be terribly seeded, ending up as a 1 and done. My counterpoint here would be that the hypothetical first auto-bid would match our two decade A-10 bid total and that you can't get much more terribly seeded than not actually in the tournament yet, which was our 2013 seed.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Feb 2, 2018 13:50:08 GMT -5
But to answer your question, no I wouldn't be happy with more wins in a lesser conference because the bulk of the inws would probably come from lower level schools (from and RPI and SOS standpoint). Even if we won the auto-bid, that conference would have less respect and we'd be terribly seeded, ending up as a 1 and done. My counterpoint here would be that the hypothetical first auto-bid would match our two decade A-10 bid total and that you can't get much more terribly seeded than not actually in the tournament yet, which was our 2013 seed. And I would say that if the program turns around in the A10 and we had a reputation as a perennially higher tier program in the A10 our seeding would improve. Would it ever be as great as the Power 5? Of course not, but it could improve if our profile rose in the league. It wouldn't matter a damn though if we were in the MAAC when it came to seeding.
|
|
|
Post by thelasallelunatic on Feb 2, 2018 13:55:01 GMT -5
Just to put all my cards on the table, I'm going to buy season tickets and make whatever mandatory donation that is entailed with purchasing those tickets, as soon as a coaching change is made. It's my way of putting skin in the game, and getting behind what I see as a step in the right direction. I've communicated this to a few alums on the board.
However, should we drop conferences, that check has a better chance of finding Spokane, WA than 1900 Olney Ave.
We could become Penn of the early 2000's and I'd still feel the same way. Besides the regular season becoming irrelevant, we are at best a 14th seed in the tournament in the MAAC. That Sweet 16 run that we enjoyed 5 years ago might as well be the National Championship of 1954 if we choose to downsize. Getting to the round of 32 in the MAAC would be equivalent to the Elite 8 in the A10. Look at the previous 15 years as proof.
No Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 2, 2018 14:01:54 GMT -5
Yeah, this is where it gets theoretical, on top of a hypothetical, which is tough. And I'm not sure us dropping down a conference would bring us to a level where we're automatically at the top of said lower conference, but IF I granted that- and the argument was "Perennial top team in the MAAC/CAA/NEC, etc" and enter March most years with a realistic shot to win the Conference Tournament and get to the NCAA's, or win the Conference Regular Season title and at least get an NIT berth, even if it meant almost certain 13-14-15 seeds and getting bounced in the first round, I'd take it vs. where we are now.
I wouldn't take it against "Perennial A-10 contender" or even "Occasional A-10 Contender" but right now we're neither of those things. And just wanting us to be there, or assuming because we play in Philadelphia that we somehow SHOULD be there, doesn't mean anything vs. the current reality.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,549
Likes: 6,415
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 2, 2018 14:20:45 GMT -5
And I would say that if the program turns around in the A10 and we had a reputation as a perennially higher tier program in the A10 our seeding would improve. Would it ever be as great as the Power 5? Of course not, but it could improve if our profile rose in the league. It wouldn't matter a damn though if we were in the MAAC when it came to seeding. Absolutely. Assuming the Big East doesn't come calling, staying in the A-10 is my #1 preference by a mile ... I'm just saying I see where the other options come into play and could be seen as the more logical choice.
|
|
|
Post by talkinbball on Feb 2, 2018 14:26:45 GMT -5
I can't begin to see that without a major upgrade in facilities which the school is not in a position to make in the foreseeable future we can't begin to think we can consistently contend In the A10. It's just not realistic to think otherwise. A new coach (which I am in favor of under any scenario) may buy us a very short term, and I would guess not very large, boost in interest but would ultimately amount to the continued treading of water that we are doing now. As a '73 graduate I have been around for all the highs and lows that the program has gone through for some time. As much as I hate to admit it, I think it would be better to try to dominate a perceived lower level conference than continue this nonsense. To have a realistic goal of getting to the tournament every year, and quite possibly the NIT in other years, seems a lot better to me than what we have now.
|
|
|
Post by luhoopsfan on Feb 2, 2018 14:54:53 GMT -5
So lets pretend everyone who says they'd be done forever really would be (versus never leaving or jumping right back in the second La Salle is in the finals with the _______ Conference auto-bid on the line) ... what if more people in total would get on board at a higher winning percentage at a lower level? That's part of the equation as well because, as I think everyone agrees, *all* of this isn't working. We can have preferences for outcome but being annoyed at the analysis or pre-ruling out options doesn't work. The same level of investment is required to have an equal chance at winning a 1-bid league as it does to be regularly in the top 4 of a multi-bid league. Especially a league like the MAAC where you’re competing with Monmouth, Siena, Quinnipiac. In addition, the ONLY way you make an NCAA from that league and reap the rewards of the money comes if you win the league tournament which can be a crapshoot at best. I would argue it’s more risky to move down than stay put if the investment level is going to be the same.
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,549
Likes: 6,415
|
Post by MisterD on Feb 2, 2018 14:59:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by heftyexpl on Feb 2, 2018 15:03:46 GMT -5
What I dont understand is...
Why,as a University, are we wasting time and money hiring a consultant firm to figure out if our athletics should drop to D3 or realigned in a weaker conference?
When we should be putting all our resources into finding a GREAT BASKETBALL HEAD COACH (who will make us competitive in the a10). If La Salle dedicates itselt and fully commits to hiring this coach and after a few years it doesnt work. Then we need to rethink our position in the A10.
What scares me, is that we are going to drop conferences and Doc is still going to be here. If not why drop conferences with a new coach?
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Feb 2, 2018 15:06:47 GMT -5
Let me also say, I don't foresee a scenario right now where we drop Conferences absent any other circumstances. What I could see is 3-5 years from now and there's another Conference shake-up throughout the country (probably starting with something relating to football and filtering down) and suddenly we have to make that choice.
|
|