MBB: Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Browneagle64]

Thanks for the schedules Scandii and Bob:

By the way, when did the SCIAC decide to make an end of the regular season SCIAC tourney?? IMHO, i still have mix emotions about the idea of putting one on because 1) the conference champ might have to play a 1st round playoff game immediately after this tourney, 2) the champ might not have fresh legs and 3) what if an injury to a key player on the conference champ team gets hurt during this tourney.(Bob, care to share any insight on this?) Hopefully these mix emotions can be cleared up.

[Sabretooth Tiger]

BrownEagle:

Are your emotions mixed or did they formerly belong to Tom Mix?

Here's a hint . . . you can make more old jokes with the Tom Mix reference.

[AndOne]

Oxy's 2007-2008 schedule is up...

http://www.oxy.edu/x12385.xml

The Tigers get the season started on Nov. 4 with an exhibition game against D-I University of San Diego of the West Coast Conference. Non-conference D-III foes include SUNYAC tournament champ Plattsburgh State, University of Southern Maine, Mt. St. Mary's College, St. Scholastica, and Illinois Wesleyan (which will guarantee a post or two from Mr. Ypsi).

The top four teams from the regular season SCIAC standings will participate in the conference tournament on Feb. 29 - Mar. 1.

OxyBob

Apparently, the Oxy schedule makers failed Calendar Reading 101 as their published schedule shows games in the Chapman--Oxy Classic on SAT 12/18, & SUN 12/19/07. Unfortunately, it appears that the 18th and 19th of December this year fall on a Tuesday & Wednesday, rather than a Sat & Sun!          

                  December 2007
S     M      T       W         T          F        S
                                                         1
2      3       4       5          6         7         8
9      10     11     12        13       14        15
16     17     18     19        20       21        22
23     24     25     26        27       28        29
30     31

[OXY Oswald]

Exciting to hear about the SCIAC tournament this year.  I think it's a great idea and it will only add to the excitement as we approach March Madness!

The playoff game between CMS and Oxy in 2006 was electric and a tournament that carries not only playoff implications, clear favorites, and obvious rivalries can only improve the buzz before the playoffs and place an exclamation point on conference play.

[scandihoovian]

Does anyone know how they're going to determine the tourney host?  Seems like it would have to be the regular season #1, right?

[Browneagle64]

I have reached a decision and have made my mind up on the issue of the SCIAC putting on an end of the year tourney: I am now 100 % happy that they made this decision, this change (change is always good) and getting the tumbs up to conduct it. Now, all we have to do is wait and see when this SCIAC tourney is allowed to take place on the hardwood floor of the infamous L.A staples center. Now that would be awesome

[Browneagle64]

As always, thanks for the answer Bob. 

[DIIIghetto]

Hoov,

Appreciate the insight.  I feel pretty strongly that if athletes get caught committing a crime against other students, the issue of their eligibility should absolutely be on the table, let alone their status as students. 

Cal Lu was the LAST SCIAC institution that I would expect to punish student-athletes committing stupid crimes by leaving their eligibility intact.  That seems to me to be the kind of treatment we read about all the time in the big D1 institutions with different ideals and values. 


   

[AndOne]

Rumor that Cal Lu has made the surprising decision to allow their athletes involved with theft allegations last spring to return.  Anyone have an update?

I say surprising because student-athletes at D1 campuses get kicked out for similar infractions.  Go to Cal Lu and fund your education by stealing?

It would shock me if a tight-knit community like they have at Cal Lu would do these young men the disservice of showing them that even at the DIII level they can bank on their athletic talents being prioritized over their character development.

I say this with the disclaimer that I don't know anything other than the rumor and look forward to someone informing me of the facts and setting me straight.

CLU Athletics Mission Statement

California Lutheran University is a private, residential, liberal arts institution and is a member of the NCAA Division III and the SCIAC conference. As such, the integration of the academic and the athletic experience is regarded with utmost importance. The primary goal of CLU student-athletes is high academic achievement and graduation in a timely fashion. CLU Intercollegiate Athletics supports the mission of the University, which is to "...educate leaders for a global society who are strong in character and judgement, confident in their identity and vocation, and committed to service and justice."

Participants in athletics have no unique privileges as it relates to academics, financial aid, or living arrangements. Our students participate as amateurs, engaging in sport for its education, physical, mental, and social benefits. CLU holds the health and welfare of its student-athletes regarding all facets of college life as an important aspect in their college experience. For them, participation in sport is an avocation.

CLU supports student-athletes in their efforts to reach high levels of performance by providing outstanding training, coaching, and appropriate competitive opportunities within our region. Both men's and women's programs are provided equitable resources and emphasis. Exceptional teams and individuals are awarded the opportunity to represent CLU through postseason play.

Participants, spectators, and members of the California Lutheran University are expected to always treat opponents, officials, spectators, and visitors with the utmost courtesy, hospitality, and good sportsmanship.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It appears allowing them to play would also make a sham and mockery of their Athletics Mission Statement.      

As I said before.......................

[David Collinge]

Hoov, if you have the scoop accurately, that is an embarrassment to Cal Lu and our entire conference.   It also does a huge disservice to those young men.  Break the law, get preferential treatment at our 'athlete friendly' school.  Atone for your crime through athletics.   

Ghetto-
I am also outraged by the acts that were committed.  However, I don't know enough about the specifics to say whether it's a huge embarrassment, and I don't think there's anything in my post that indicates that this is a case of atonement through athletics.  Or, for that matter, that these two are receiving preferential treatment because they are athletes.  My understanding is that the two who stayed in school went through a number of very demanding steps in order to keep their student status.  If I'm not mistaken those steps included a public forum in which they had to basically face the entire campus community and answer their questions and concerns.  It sounds to me like the powers that be at CLU weighed all of the facts and decided that this was the most appropriate way to handle the situation.  So in that regard I agree with Bob.

I will also say that Coach Rider has a long and established record of representing CLU with class, and therefore I'll give him the benefit of the doubt if he decides to allow Meier and Hagen to return to the team.

It seems that nobody who is posting on this issue, myself included, knows what really has and has not gone on at CLU, and I agree with Scandihoovian in that there's no reason to rush to judgment on this issue.  As Bob said earlier, if CLU is satisfied, who are we to object?

What strikes me about the reactions by AndOne and DIIIGhetto is that they seem to be predicated on the notion that varsity athletics is some kind of privilege in and of itself, making the suspension of this privilege a suitable punishment.  To paraphrase DIIIGhetto, I'd suggest that this presumption reflects "big D1 institution[al] ideals and values."  In Division 1, sports is often treated as an institutional mission in and of itself, and the athletes are often treated as athletes first and students second (or third, or not at all).  In Division 3, presumably we look at intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the collegiate experience, one that is valuable to the student-athlete in a number of ways.  In fact, I'd say that, compared to the average student-athlete, this group of young men might benefit even more from the discipline and responsibility that comes with playing sports at a D3 school.  To deny them this opportunity out-of-hand seems counterproductive to me.

Presumably they love playing the game, and denying them the opportunity to participate might be a desirable form of punishment.  But I think it's reasonable to assume that CLU has come up with other punishments for these young men, and hopefully they were punishments that will help them grow and learn from their mistakes, rather than sanctions--like "no sports"--that actually may work against their rehabilitation.

I recommend that everyone take a few moments to follow this link and read the thoughts of Allegheny College AD and former Olympic champion Betsy Mitchell on the value of sports in the D3 educational framework.

[scandihoovian]

Ghetto-
Again, I cannot accurately express the utter disappointment I felt when I learned about the extracurricular activities of Hagen, Meier and Pedden.  I take great pride in my lifetime association with CLU, and this has been a tough one to swallow.

AndOne-
I'll respectfully submit that you might want to revisit the portions of the mission statement you bolded, as I fear you may be misinterpreting or misapplying them in this particular case.  We can jump to the conclusion that they are receiving preferential treatment as athletes, but I have not heard any hard evidence proving that is the case.  I feel, therefore, that it's a huge mistake to jump to any such conclusions at this time.

Secondly, I find your implication that this comes down to $$$$$$$ curious given the fact that CLU generates zero revenue from sports.  The university had far more to lose, in my opinion, if they kept the players on campus and risked making their fellow students feeling uncomfortable or unsafe around them.  That's what makes me believe that whatever the process was, it was thorough and acceptable to all constituent groups in the campus community.

David-
I think you are dead on as it relates to this situation being a great opportunity to evaluate the way we envision the role of athletics, especially as it relates to character development, in the educational process.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I'm just an outsider with no knowledge of the Cal Lu situation except what I have read here.  But I am a bit mystified by the views of DIIIghetto and AndOne.  I assume that Lutherans believe in redemption, and we all (supposedly) believe in rehabilitation - if the perpetrators have met their legal obligations, made both public and private apologies to the victims and communities, and have satisfied the (presumably fairly strict and wary) requirements of the Cal Lu administration and coaches, why, exactly, should they not be given another chance?  This is not special treatment for athletes; it is what I would hope would be the case for ANY student.

From an outsider's perspective it doesn't seem like THEY are being treated in a d1 fashion, it seems that YOUR views are more a d1 fan's views (for a rival, of course).

[AndOne]

Hoov, if you have the scoop accurately, that is an embarrassment to Cal Lu and our entire conference.   It also does a huge disservice to those young men.  Break the law, get preferential treatment at our 'athlete friendly' school.  Atone for your crime through athletics.   

Ghetto-
I am also outraged by the acts that were committed.  However, I don't know enough about the specifics to say whether it's a huge embarrassment, and I don't think there's anything in my post that indicates that this is a case of atonement through athletics.  Or, for that matter, that these two are receiving preferential treatment because they are athletes.  My understanding is that the two who stayed in school went through a number of very demanding steps in order to keep their student status.  If I'm not mistaken those steps included a public forum in which they had to basically face the entire campus community and answer their questions and concerns.  It sounds to me like the powers that be at CLU weighed all of the facts and decided that this was the most appropriate way to handle the situation.  So in that regard I agree with Bob.

I will also say that Coach Rider has a long and established record of representing CLU with class, and therefore I'll give him the benefit of the doubt if he decides to allow Meier and Hagen to return to the team.

It seems that nobody who is posting on this issue, myself included, knows what really has and has not gone on at CLU, and I agree with Scandihoovian in that there's no reason to rush to judgment on this issue.  As Bob said earlier, if CLU is satisfied, who are we to object?

What strikes me about the reactions by AndOne and DIIIGhetto is that they seem to be predicated on the notion that varsity athletics is some kind of privilege in and of itself, making the suspension of this privilege a suitable punishment. To paraphrase DIIIGhetto, I'd suggest that this presumption reflects "big D1 institution[al] ideals and values."  In Division 1, sports is often treated as an institutional mission in and of itself, and the athletes are often treated as athletes first and students second (or third, or not at all).  In Division 3, presumably we look at intercollegiate athletics as an integral part of the collegiate experience, one that is valuable to the student-athlete in a number of ways.  In fact, I'd say that, compared to the average student-athlete, this group of young men might benefit even more from the discipline and responsibility that comes with playing sports at a D3 school.  To deny them this opportunity out-of-hand seems counterproductive to me.

Presumably they love playing the game, and denying them the opportunity to participate might be a desirable form of punishment.  But I think it's reasonable to assume that CLU has come up with other punishments for these young men, and hopefully they were punishments that will help them grow and learn from their mistakes, rather than sanctions--like "no sports"--that actually may work against their rehabilitation.

I recommend that everyone take a few moments to follow this link and read the thoughts of Allegheny College AD and former Olympic champion Betsy Mitchell on the value of sports in the D3 educational framework.

David-----

Just MHO (and I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the answers), but----

Yes, you are correct when you say it appears I think playing varsity athletics is a
privilege! Also, my thinking is not merely punitive, but does incorporate a degree of rehabilitation in that I am not suggesting the offenders be permanently banned from athletic participation. Additionally, I do take issue with the statement "if CLU is satisfied, who are we to object"? Think about that. What CLU thinks is not the focal point here. What that statement neglects to consider is WHAT DO THE VICTIMS OF THE THEFTS THINK? Do their thoughts/feelings take a backseat to how the institution of CLU feels?

Hows this for an equitable solution and punishment?

1. The offenders make restitution to the actual victims.
2. The offenders comply with whatever form(s) of atonement CLU requires internally. (Sounds like this may have already been done).
3. For each car broken into/theft, the player is suspended for one game

This repays the victims, satisfies the school, and serves as a deterent to any such future behavior.

Not trying to be judge and jury here. Its just an opinion which I (naturally) believe
is well thought out and equitable on all fronts. Agree or disagree with me. It matters not. The main point here is its just an opinion, and isn't that what these boards are here for in the first place. So, thank you for your consideration, and for your opinion as well. 

[AndOne]

AndOne-
I'll respectfully submit that you might want to revisit the portions of the mission statement you bolded, as I fear you may be misinterpreting or misapplying them in this particular case.  We can jump to the conclusion that they are receiving preferential treatment as athletes, but I have not heard any hard evidence proving that is the case.  I feel, therefore, that it's a huge mistake to jump to any such conclusions at this time.

Secondly, I find your implication that this comes down to $$$$$$$ curious given the fact that CLU generates zero revenue from sports.  The university had far more to lose, in my opinion, if they kept the players on campus and risked making their fellow students feeling uncomfortable or unsafe around them.  That's what makes me believe that whatever the process was, it was thorough and acceptable to all constituent groups in the campus community.

David-
I think you are dead on as it relates to this situation being a great opportunity to evaluate the way we envision the role of athletics, especially as it relates to character development, in the educational process.

Scand----

1. Lets say the concerned individuals are NOT being given preferential treatment because they are athletes. However, what about the part of the Mission Statement that indicates that "Exceptional_ _individuals are given the opportunity to represent CLU_ _ _."  Athletes or not, I don't think you can say their actions were "exceptional." At least not in the desired sense of the word.

2. My use of the $$$$$$ signs was used solely to delineate the end of the Mission Statement from my comment. It was not intended to suggest that financial considerations were behind any of the decisions. In that sense, I can understand where you thought I was referring to the punishment being financially based, and accordingly it would have been better if I had hit the * key of the - key.

[Gregory Sager]

I'm just an outsider with no knowledge of the Cal Lu situation except what I have read here.  But I am a bit mystified by the views of DIIIghetto and AndOne.  I assume that Lutherans believe in redemption

Indeed.

"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong (sin boldly), but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2 Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign."
                    -- Martin Luther