FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

Good to see the NCAA can take time out of getting totally torched in a California courtroom to hammer down on Denison. This is LAME.  Was Denison purposefully and systematically funneling money to superior athletes?  The lack of mention of their swimming programs would suggest not.  The way the "alternative" application process is described seems a bit clumsy, but honestly, I'm having a hard time seeing intent by the school to divert aid money unfairly to athletes. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Good to see the NCAA can take time out of getting totally torched in a California courtroom to hammer down on Denison. This is LAME.  Was Denison purposefully and systematically funneling money to superior athletes?  The lack of mention of their swimming programs would suggest not.  The way the "alternative" application process is described seems a bit clumsy, but honestly, I'm having a hard time seeing intent by the school to divert aid money unfairly to athletes.

Agreed...maybe I'm a little slow, but the way that I'm reading it, any prospective student that played a high school sport could use this path, right?  It's not clear to me whether this was ONLY available to prospective student-athletes or to all prospective students, but it LOOKS like any incoming student could do this regardless of whether they planned to play for Denison or not...if that's the case, isn't that just a way of rewarding prospective students for being well-rounded HS kids by participating in HS sports?  What if they'd given bonus points on the application for being on the chess team or the chemistry club?

The NCAA is really good at hammering schools for minor issues while major ones go undetected, though.  I will acknowledge that they've got an awful lot of schools and ground to cover, so it's understandable how something like the UNC scandal slipped through their cracks, because it's impossible to have eyes & ears everywhere at every school.  But still, it makes me cringe when I see a school hammered for something pretty benign (Boise State a couple years ago was still my favorite: "The nearly $5,000 in  "benefits" received by 63 players from 2005-09 included "impermissible housing, transportation or meals, where an incoming student-athlete was provided a place to sleep (often on a couch or floor), a car ride or was provided free food by an existing student-athlete.")

[wally_wabash]

What's ironic is that for the last three weeks, the NCAA has built its defense on the idea that their rules and models are necessary to integrate athletics and education.  Here, Denison's admissions office has seemingly included (integrated?) the athletics portion of a student's high school experience as part of how they decide who gets admitted and what merit-based aids are awarded...aaaand they get probation.  I don't know how much more inconsistent the message could be. 

[Anon E Moose]

It's counter intuitive Wally. I suppose I can understand the reasoning behind the rationale driving the process (and this seems to be strictly a process violation) but as you point out, it makes no sense. A student who eschews standardized testing as part of their application is banking on the strength of their grades and extra-curricular activities to gain admission. Isn't the focus of Division 3 athletics the "student athlete"?  Isn't a kid who excels at his or her sport putting in the same time and effort and as accomplished at their craft as the the applicant who is a pianist, a thespian or standout at any non-athletic pursuit? Unlike the phony resume builders that are so prevalent with high school students today, there's no faking participation in a sport. Does participation in your high school drama production warrant consideration for a merit based portion of your financial aid? If the answer is yes (and we  know it is) then why isn't this permitted  for the student athlete.  This should be the case even more so at an institution where your grades need to be superior for admission. The ability to balance the tremendous commitment of playing a sport with the effort needed for high performance in the classroom is supposed to be a core value of participation in Division 3 sports. Consistency of message is not a strong suit of the NCAA.

All that being said, this incident doesn't necessarily involve improper financial aid awards, only a process where the financial aid office knew that 24 applicants were also athletes. 24 applicants who's grades and extra-curricular activities were so strong that they felt comfortable applying without having their standardized test results considered.  Students who met the stringent standards of admission and then had the same holistic approach applied to their financial aid applications. THAT is what the NCAA is so concerned with? I agree with Wally, that's lame. It also borders on being disingenuous.

[sigma one]

I can hardly believe I am going to get into this because I am no supporter of how the NCAA sometimes discovers and enforces (or does not enforce) its rules for Division I, or in general for that matter. But for Division III whatever we think the rules should or should not be it's clear that an institution cannot provide financial aid using athletics as part of its decision making.  Note that the Division III rules do not specify on what criteria a student may be admitted, only that the admitted student-athlete cannot receive aid based on athletics.  The closest the  NCAA Division III manual comes on the issue of admission is in the following statement (BYLAW, Article 14):  "A student-athlete shall not represent an institution in intercollegiate athletics competition unless the student has been admitted as a regularly enrolled, degree-seeking student in accordance with the regular, published entrance or admissions policies of that institution."   That statement, my friends, is so full of holes as to defy explanation or understanding.  What about the "slots" that some schools appear to reserve for student-athletes who do not meet a school's admissions criteria, for example? But more to the point here, from what I've read Denison decided to award aid using athletic participation in high school as one (and only one, but a crucial one) factor in constructing financial aid packages--as well as in the admissions process.  Or at least it appears that way.  How much weight DU put on athletics participation is beside the point; the NCAA rule is clear.  BYLAW, Article 15, of the NCAA Division III manual is specific on the matter.    That Denison's staff in admissions and financial aid over a period of several years were unaware of the NCAA rule is the fault of the institution,
     The language of Article 15 (specifically, 15.01.3) says that "a member institution shall not award financial aid to any student on the basis of athletics leadership, participation, or performance."  Did Denison award aid at least in part based on athletics, apparently so.  In fact, the previous section (15.01.2) even goes so far as to say that "any student-athlete who receives financial aid other that that permitted by the Association [NCAA] shall not be eligible for intercollegiate athletics." That statement is one that is so wrongheaded.  As in other instances, it punishes a student-athlete (declares the student ineligible for intercollegiate participation) for the institution's mistake--when the student-athlete in all probability has no idea that his/her financial aid award is based in part on athletics.
     So, my understanding is that Dension's process was flawed--that's been pointed out in several previous posts.  And because of that flaw, oversight, lack of understanding the NCAA dinged DU, according to the rules established for membership in Division III.  No athletically-related financial aid means none at all, not taking athletics into account when awarding aid.  It's one of the pillars of Division III membership. 
     It's too bad for Denison and the student-athletes that this happened, but I for one am not going to fault the NCAA for enforcing the rule when they discovered the violation.
     A footnote:  Denison is a fine school, not a place that would purposefully find a way around the Division III rules.  In this instance they made a mistake, one that perhaps someone on campus should have caught.  It's too bad that some of the sanctions are so severe, but as I've said the financial aid rule is a pillar of Division III membership, and I'm guessing that the NCAA does not want to appear soft on this particular type of violation lest the door becomes more that just cracked open a smidge.

[Bishopleftiesdad]

I agree with Sigma with this one. While it may have not been a willfull attempt to skirt NCAA rules it still granted aid with athletics being a component. Similar to many of the old Leadership scholly's that used to be given out by schools.

I have a question. So we know if an athlete is going to compete for a D3 school they cannot receive any aid based on athletics. Lets say that a young man/woman wants to attend a d3 school but will not be participating in any sports. The way I read the rules described so well, by Sigma One, is that they can also not receive any aid based on athletics in HS.

[wally_wabash]

I don't disagree that they broke a rule.  They pretty clearly did...like I said, the way they implemented this alternative application process was clumsy (specifically with using their "points" system to determine aid).  The whole thing is just antithetical to the dialogue that the NCAA has been spewing forth over the last several weeks about integrating academics and athletics and not treating athletes differently (ironically, by treating them completely differently). 

[sigma one]

That's a fascinating question: if a student participated in athletics in high school and does not plan to play a sport in college can s/he receive financial aid based on that h.s. participation, leadership in athletics, etc. (for example, using Denison's criteria for aid in their alternative admissions process).  I've never thought about it, never heard the question asked.  My first thought is that to be safe a school should not award any aid based using h.s. athletics as a factor. Who can anticipate whether in, say, the student's sophomore, junior, or senior year in college s/he changes his/her mind and wants to participate in a sport after having received aid with athletics as a determining component; what then?  Would the school prohibit athletics participation based on the aid awarded.  I'd say that any school would be wise not to have to face such a dilemma.  But it's an interesting scenario that could develop, though unlikely.  What would the NCAA say if asked about such a circumstance?   

[wally_wabash]

In other news...Oberlin is laying down turf this summer.  I believe that will make all NCAC teams playing their tackle football on artificial surfaces. 

[ADL70]

New grandstands as well.  1500 home side  500 visitors

http://www.goyeo.com/documents/2013/11/20/131114.NAC_graphics_ground_breaking.pdf?id=1904

[bashgiant]

In other news...Oberlin is laying down turf this summer.  I believe that will make all NCAC teams playing their tackle football on artificial surfaces.

Has there been any research comparing severity of leg injuries playing on artificial turf versus a natural turf? Maybe its me being old school but it seems like leg injuries tend to be more severe playing on artificial.

[DPU3619]

Has there been any research comparing severity of leg injuries playing on artificial turf versus a natural turf? Maybe its me being old school but it seems like leg injuries tend to be more severe playing on artificial.

I think there are lots of factors that could be a cause. It would be tough to pin that on turf. I think it's nothing more than players being faster and  stronger. They create more force when they hit each other. It could also be the change in rules that make players avoid the head. I'm just spouting off now, but do medical advancements lead to more accurate diagnoses than we had even just a generation ago?

I think turf is more forgiving. Your feet come free easier than they do on grass or in mud, which leads to less torque of the knees & ankles. Plus, it's uniform all over. There are no mounds or holes on turf. It's tough to maintain a great grass field at this level.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Has there been any research comparing severity of leg injuries playing on artificial turf versus a natural turf? Maybe its me being old school but it seems like leg injuries tend to be more severe playing on artificial.

I spent my formative years playing on grass, my first two college seasons playing on old-school AstroTurf, and my last two college seasons playing primarily on new-school FieldTurf  (with a couple of road games on grass).

My order of preference: new turf, grass, old turf.  Not even a question about this.

I don't believe that the new style of turf really increases risk of injury at all over grass.  I did think that the "old" turf increased risk of non-contact injuries, since I saw a couple of guys tear ACL's just by cutting the wrong way, but that never happened with the newer turf.  And once I got used to playing on FieldTurf, I really didn't like grass very much...I felt slow, sluggish, and honestly (though this may have been mental) felt more likely to twist or hurt something on grass than I did on new turf.

It does rankle me a bit as a traditionalist, and I did sorta miss walking off the field all muddy.  But I felt much better about FieldTurf than grass, and certainly MUCH better than the older turf.

[formerd3db]

Has there been any research comparing severity of leg injuries playing on artificial turf versus a natural turf? Maybe its me being old school but it seems like leg injuries tend to be more severe playing on artificial.

I spent my formative years playing on grass, my first two college seasons playing on old-school AstroTurf, and my last two college seasons playing primarily on new-school FieldTurf  (with a couple of road games on grass).

My order of preference: new turf, grass, old turf.  Not even a question about this.

I don't believe that the new style of turf really increases risk of injury at all over grass.  I did think that the "old" turf increased risk of non-contact injuries, since I saw a couple of guys tear ACL's just by cutting the wrong way, but that never happened with the newer turf.  And once I got used to playing on FieldTurf, I really didn't like grass very much...I felt slow, sluggish, and honestly (though this may have been mental) felt more likely to twist or hurt something on grass than I did on new turf.

It does rankle me a bit as a traditionalist, and I did sorta miss walking off the field all muddy.  But I felt much better about FieldTurf than grass, and certainly MUCH better than the older turf.

I agree with your order of preference!  However, I would just add my own perspective to this.  While I agree with you that the old style turf was much likely to have chances for some injuries, I would disagree that it was more likely to increase ligamentous injuries, including the non-contact types than grass.  If you review all the studies that were done back then, they are split about 50-50 on that issue. And from a personal standpoint, I can say that I experienced in one year at Alma College when the old style turf was in place back then, all the knee injuries that particular year were on natural grass and not on the old style turf.  A "fluke"? Perhaps, for that year.  That said, I agree with the opinion (and Old Pal Wes) that the old-style turf was much more dangerous for concussions, though some of that was due to the underlying design and type of materials for the undersurface sport.

While the great smell of newly groomed grass for a football game is tradition and enjoyable, I will say that these new style turfs seem and feel almost like natural grass.  Plus the "speed sensation" factor is a thrill, but, again, without as hard as a fall to the turf when one is hit (sometimes!).   Many have discussed this topic on the various boards here in the past, yet it is always good and enjoyable to revisit the issue as well as for some of the newer posters here.

Hope all is well with you and your recent 4th of July holiday weekend enjoyable.  Also, my best regards to everyone on this board as well.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Fair enough, Doc.

My suspicion about ligament injuries on old turf was driven by purely anecdotal evidence; I admit that I was unaware of studies on the topic (though I didn't look).  In any case, nobody's going back to that surface so it's kind of a moot point.

Agreed on the grass vs. new-turf points.  Something did always feel "right" about showing up for a game and smelling the grass, the mud, feeling the moisture in the air and in the sod...but once I got used to the new turf, playing on grass felt very old-school.  It's almost like comparing vinyl records to digital music; vinyl has a fantastic traditional feel, but the digital product is unquestionably better.