FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[hazzben]

Concern about the "safety of students in contact sports" is a reason to eliminate your school's football program completely. It makes no sense as a reason to eliminate St. Thomas from every sport in the conference.

Clearly you aren't familiar with the vicious elbows the UST cross country team throws.

Or how hard the UST volleyball team spikes the ball. I mean, those girls are hitting it with the intent that the other team can't even return it! And at times they've even hit an opposing player in the face with a ball. 

[wm4]

I'm reminded of a great quote by Lou Holtz:

"If you burn your neighbors house down, it doesn't make your house look any better."

I'm with you Bench, so how's the conversation go between Craft and Horan? 

Craft:  I know you run the option, which is a physical, punishing style of football intended to control the line of scrimmage.  Can you tone it down a bit against the COL's this year? 

[GoldandBlueBU]

When an English PhD College President and a PR professional come together to craft a letter to the editor you get gems like this:

We let the MIAC media statement stand without further comment because we understood that we had agreed to do so.

A lot of words, no substance, Dr. Craft. I fully understand the need for the gag order. Every time they talk or write they dig the whole a little deeper. Pribbenow email, media statement, letter to the editor.

So everyone criticizes the Presidents for not speaking out, and now that one does, he gets criticized for speaking out?

No substance? Here it is. Quote: "All those familiar with the MIAC will know that it [athletic competitive parity] was not the only concern: some were troubled about problems with sportsmanship; some about the safety of students in contact sports; still others about the approach to varsity sports in the first place." Summarized in one sentence.

Completley ageee Chucker. That one sentence is clear and concise, he could go on and on but a short answer is effective.  This sentence does answer the question I had which is; why do this? Question is answered for me: They wanted UST out and they did it with trembling and hand wringing but they did it. Appears that you guys want to kill the messenger(s).

Disagree.  I don't think he's being criticized for speaking out, but for the logic that he's defending tomtoss with.  He's not immune to criticism of the position that he took just because he's finally now doing what he should have been doing from the very beginning.

[DFWCrufan]

So are these schools who pushed for the ouster, going to fund football, only if it is flag?

[formerd3db]

When an English PhD College President and a PR professional come together to craft a letter to the editor you get gems like this:

We let the MIAC media statement stand without further comment because we understood that we had agreed to do so.

A lot of words, no substance, Dr. Craft. I fully understand the need for the gag order. Every time they talk or write they dig the whole a little deeper. Pribbenow email, media statement, letter to the editor.

So everyone criticizes the Presidents for not speaking out, and now that one does, he gets criticized for speaking out?

No substance? Here it is. Quote: "All those familiar with the MIAC will know that it [athletic competitive parity] was not the only concern: some were troubled about problems with sportsmanship; some about the safety of students in contact sports; still others about the approach to varsity sports in the first place." Summarized in one sentence.

I would argue that Mr. Craft's much celebrated alumnus and current MN Viking Brandon Zylstra is FAMILIAR with the MIAC and this was his comment the day of the removal, "Before I say bad words, someone want to explain this to me.?" There were a ton of head shaking reactions from Cobber athletes and alumni based on what I saw.

So, no Mr. Craft, those most familiar (your student athletes and distinguished alumni) have little understanding the basis of your decision. Hence, why your decision is being ridiculed by the likes of the local crowd and the likes of The NY Times, Washington Post, ESPN, and others.

Concern about the "safety of students in contact sports" is a reason to eliminate your school's football program completely. It makes no sense as a reason to eliminate St. Thomas from every sport in the conference.

When an English PhD College President and a PR professional come together to craft a letter to the editor you get gems like this:

We let the MIAC media statement stand without further comment because we understood that we had agreed to do so.

A lot of words, no substance, Dr. Craft. I fully understand the need for the gag order. Every time they talk or write they dig the whole a little deeper. Pribbenow email, media statement, letter to the editor.

So everyone criticizes the Presidents for not speaking out, and now that one does, he gets criticized for speaking out?

No substance? Here it is. Quote: "All those familiar with the MIAC will know that it [athletic competitive parity] was not the only concern: some were troubled about problems with sportsmanship; some about the safety of students in contact sports; still others about the approach to varsity sports in the first place." Summarized in one sentence.

A quote from the Concordia president about the safety of students playing contact sports is the biggest joke I've ever heard. They are routinely the most physical team in the MIAC, play the most physical style of offense and schedule UW-Whitewater as a non-conference opponent.

And if it is the "concern" of other member institutions, need I remind them that the very essence of football is the physical imposition of your will over your opponent. If that opponent is weaker, they should get stronger, like Bethel, SJU, Concordia or Gustavus. All schools who have stood toe-to-toe with UST and/or defeated them. If you are not up to that task, then you should CUT YOUR FOOTBALL PROGRAM for the "safety" of your players.

So everyone criticizes the Presidents for not speaking out, and now that one does, he gets criticized for speaking out?

No substance? Here it is. Quote: "All those familiar with the MIAC will know that it [athletic competitive parity] was not the only concern: some were troubled about problems with sportsmanship; some about the safety of students in contact sports; still others about the approach to varsity sports in the first place." Summarized in one sentence.

Completley ageee Chucker. That one sentence is clear and concise, he could go on and on but a short answer is effective.  This sentence does answer the question I had which is; why do this? Question is answered for me: They wanted UST out and they did it with trembling and hand wringing but they did it. Appears that you guys want to kill the messenger(s).

1. This statement is a letter to the editor, weeks (and months) after these presidents should have been speaking out. It's not an interview where they have to field questions and pushback. There's very little accountability with this statement.

2. They did this under the cover of darkness and only now make vague statements about who was concerned about what. "All those familiar with the MIAC" ... really, because of all the public statements made up to this point? I call B.S. We had rumors and hearsay and second hand info. Don't wine that the PR sucks when you put a gag order on this, did it in an underhanded way, and then do a press release that flat out says it was because of competitive imbalance. Should we just guess which schools concerns fell where?

- UST's not nice when they beat us = Olaf?? Augsburg??
- Our boys weren't safe in a collision sport = Carleton?? Mac?? Hamline?? [Augsburg wrestling is clearly the next threat if these schools are being consistent]
- UST cares about winning too much = Olaf?? Carleton?? Mac?? 

3. Don't pretend UST and other schools with the desire to compete weren't drug down this path against their will. As if in the end the MIAC had a final moment of warm fuzzied agreement where everyone, even if for different reasons, felt at peace with what was happening. Schools were threatened, one was "involuntarily removed", and others are left wondering if they're next.

There was a much more honest solution. Some of these schools should have realized the issue isn't UST or D3 or athletes/coaches actually trying to win and pursue excellence. It's that they are better off going the route of club sports across the board. It's varsity collegiate athletics. Maybe it's not a good fit for your schools, make them club sports. Don't try to expunge excellence from the league or try to reimagine what college athletics should be about. And you wonder why uninformed people have the notion the average D3 team couldn't beat a good HS team. 

When an English PhD College President and a PR professional come together to craft a letter to the editor you get gems like this:

We let the MIAC media statement stand without further comment because we understood that we had agreed to do so.

A lot of words, no substance, Dr. Craft. I fully understand the need for the gag order. Every time they talk or write they dig the whole a little deeper. Pribbenow email, media statement, letter to the editor.

Total agreement with SFury.

The other thing that jumped out to me was this quote:

The MIAC presidents acted to preserve our conference. Presidents' Council Chair Rebecca Bergman notes in her remarks on the full-page statement that "after extensive discussions, the Presidents' Council determined that there was no path forward that preserved the MIAC in its current form." Had the presidents not negotiated an exit for St. Thomas, it was clear that the MIAC, one of the very best Division III conferences in the U.S., would soon no longer exist in anything like its current form, and a great strength for our schools—and more important, our students—would be lost.

1. It is obviously lost on the presidents that the ouster of UST has actually diminished the MIAC. Are we still "one of the very best"? Maybe...I hope so...I'm far from convinced. At the very least, it's clear the COL wield power. They are willing to threaten the other schools, who not only play for the joy of the game, but also have the will to compete, and relish the pursuit of victory, even when falling short of the goal.

2. "It's all about the students," the presidents piously clamour. Except the UST students, they don't count because they are good at things and win too much. Or the SJU & BU (and GAC, Concordia...) student athletes, who took pride in competing against great teams. Go back and listen to Bethel's Assistant AD's interview. He said Bethel Student Athletes were stunned and saddened. They wanted to play against the best, realized it made them better, and recognized the struggle was what made the victories sweeter. Don't pretend you did this for the students. Not when you're issuing threats. This was done to coddle the weak.

3. This statement gives me no confidence that the COL is done purging anything approximating greatness from this league.

I have been following this entire unfortunate event and the resulting discussion/debate and have also posted a couple of times as most of you have seen.  I wasn't going to comment further, however, I changed my mind.   I agree with hazzben and miac952 regarding the statement.  Yes, Chucker, it "summarized" it in one sentence, however, what I find most troubling is the lack of transparency.  The statement was essentially a summary of generalized statements/concepts and talking points.  It did not go into substance/detail as to exactly why they supported those aspects, no specific examples, etc. (for such highly trained academics, that was surprising-were I grading them in a class, I would give them a C- and that is being generous. )  And shame on them for that cop out excuse that they let the statement stand for itself, giving no further explanation, which, again, in essence, it didn't.  We would expect more from such accomplished academic administrators and this is very disappointing.  As a few other posters noted their opinions, that was the presidents prerogative to say as much (or little as it was) as they wanted, however, IMO, that doesn't cut it in this situation.  I think the one president who gave the interview should retire   Would it not be surprising if they headed toward that misquided Hutchins road?  I hope not.

Overall, IMO, this is entire development is very sad and disappointing and, again, as hazzben had astutely pointed out previously, an example of absurdity at its highest.  But. what is done, is done and they have made their decision.  From what most of you others have shared here, it appears to not be such a confident picture for the MIAC in the longer term future.  That would be sad as well.

[TheChucker]

By all the overly-dramatic faux outrage response today to the ONLY MIAC president's public comment, is there any wonder why no-one else is talking?

[TheChucker]

So are these schools who pushed for the ouster, going to fund football, only if it is flag?

DFWCrufan, Texas and the breakup of the SCAC just might have provided a lesson to the MIAC on what happens when a conference breaks up. I hear the few remaining football-playing SCAC schools found themselves in a tight spot with poor options. That situation could have happened to the MIAC if it had broken up.

BTW, I saw the Hardin Simmons (game 1) and St. John's games in person last year. UMHB assembled some defensive talent like I've never seen on a D3 team. Pretty impressive. The campus is beautiful too.

[DFWCrufan]

ST J's gave the Cru fits, your QB is an absolute stud a very good side.

[sfury]

By all the overly-dramatic faux outrage response today to the ONLY MIAC president's public comment, is there any wonder why no-one else is talking?

It was a statement that said absolutely nothing interesting so I don't know why it's surprising no one is really impressed by it. And beside the actual substance in the letter -- again, nothing -- it was also just poorly written. It's not exactly Sullivan Ballou's letter to his wife.

That said, I don't think it's a bad strategy for them to say nothing. To just stay quiet. The outrage will blow over. The national media has already moved on. Stay in the bunker, take the blows and just go about your life and wait for the Tommies to be gone. MIAC fans will still be MIAC fans. Then they just have to worry about the outrage again in a few years when they toss the Johnnies. But same strategy will work then as well, wait for it to blow over and move on.

[formerd3db]

By all the overly-dramatic faux outrage response today to the ONLY MIAC president's public comment, is there any wonder why no-one else is talking?

Come on,Chucker, really? Overly-dramatic faux response? I take our fellow posters here at their word and apparent sincere intent.  I also believe that you and I and everyone else here are intelligent enough to recognize when people are posting statements "tongue in cheek" i.e. sarcastic and/or humorous response. I assume you were joking? As to no "one else talking," they are free to post a response, so let them come on and provide some further response and bring it to the discussion.  That's what this is all about here on the boards.  And what did the president expect once he put out such a public statement? As sfury said, he is/they are playing it safe by further staying quiet, although, again, not the way some people would do it, but that is their perogative.  Yet, conversely, that also doesn't mean that others shouldn't continue to respond if they so choose to do so .  Anyway, I would hope that some here are not being like the left wing pundants who want to stiffle any opinion different than than theirs and not engage in a realistic discussion.  We can have that here, even if we are very passionate in our opinions whether they are in disagreement or not.

Edited to correct spelling typos (including the word "public." )

[DuffMan]

TheChucker = Dr. Craft

[Texas Ole]

This is actually getting pretty funny from my perspective.  There is nothing the MIAC Presidents can say that will appease any of you.  Remaining silent is absolutely the best course of action.  They have removed St. Thomas, and the absolute worst thing you can do is say something that would cause harm to them.  Do we really need to air all of the dirty laundry for the MIAC?

As for the complaints about how this was done with backroom deals and other stuff it is even more of a joke.  Several years ago St. Thomas looked at leaving the MIAC for D1 hockey.  They decided against it.  About 3 years ago an article was in the Star Tribune questioning St. Thomas' fit for the MIAC.  Phil Esten has stated he knew other schools had issues with St. Thomas when he took the job.  He knew UST could be out of the MIAC in a short period of time.  It wasn't a secret.  The fans just found out about it late.

Eventually it all fell apart.  It was clear to other schools St. Thomas was starting to look more like Tulsa University than the average MIAC school.  The other schools aren't telling St. Thomas they can't pursue their goals.  They are saying those don't fit within the structure of the MIAC, and it is time for them to move forward elsewhere.

I know this may sound strange, but many of the MIAC schools don't want to change for the sake of athletics.  They aren't athlete factories.  Sure you can be great at academics and athletics, but some of you seem to think that sacrifices need to be made in the name of athletics.  Not every school shares that philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to lower their admissions standards to build a football team or cut funding to their library so they can hire a better coach.  Some schools have student-athletes that are far more focused on their academics which involves missing practices and even games.  Winning is fun, but is it worth the cost?  If you are looking for athletic glory to propel you to the next level in the MIAC you are in the wrong conference.

[57Johnnie]

'You play to win the game
HELLO
You play to win the game'
Herm Edwards

[jknezek]

'You play to win the game
HELLO
You play to win the game'
Herm Edwards

Yes. But you play at a given level where you choose to compete as well. That's why there is NFL, FBS, FCS, DII, and DIII for football and various other levels in other sports. If most of the rest of the MIAC felt that UST was playing at a different level, which is clearly the case given the athletic dominance over a long term across many sports, they chose to try and reset the scenario to where they were more comfortable.

Do you do that by becoming the outlier or by removing the outlier? In competition we like to say you become the outlier. In reality, almost all other countries remove the outlier through promotion and relegation. We are about the only country that does not use this form of athletic reward/punishment in our leagues. And no, it's not just soccer. Pretty much every sporting league throughout the world, except North America, uses promotion/relegation. And even we do it at youth levels. Our collegiate and professional leagues are stupidly resistant to this concept and it's 100% about money.

Do I support what the MIAC did? Not really. But I understand it. There wasn't another mechanism to use to create the effect they wanted. So they removed the outlier. The few statements we've gotten have been consistent and appropriate. This was done mainly for competitive purposes, they aren't ducking that, they are fully admitting it. The MIAC was in danger of breaking up without this happening, and for the fence sitters, this was the lesser of two bad choices. They aren't going to bash UST, and they aren't going to provide a roll call for how everyone was feeling.

What you want and think you deserve from them is different from what you are going to get. Personally I think the MIAC Presidents have played this fairly well. They took their lumps for a few days and now it is over. As they knew it would be. Did they probably take more than expected? Yeah, I doubt they thought it would be a national story for a day or two. But that's all it was. Personally I think it was something of a mistake to give UST 2 years to find a new home. This is going to be ugly for those 2 years on the field. I probably would have cut that pain in half.

[miac952]

I know this may sound strange, but many of the MIAC schools don't want to change for the sake of athletics.  They aren't athlete factories.  Sure you can be great at academics and athletics, but some of you seem to think that sacrifices need to be made in the name of athletics.  Not every school shares that philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to lower their admissions standards to build a football team or cut funding to their library so they can hire a better coach.  Some schools have student-athletes that are far more focused on their academics which involves missing practices and even games.  Winning is fun, but is it worth the cost?  If you are looking for athletic glory to propel you to the next level in the MIAC you are in the wrong conference.

This is all well and good but St Olaf has the nicest fieldhouse in the conference, a new hockey palace, an Athletic Director from the University of Maryland, and a lot of resources MIAC schools envy. They are playing the game as much as anyone. And unless you have information otherwise the only sports program that has been rumored to lower admissions standards was Meidt's football team at St Olaf. That was a widespread whisper through the conference at the time. So it is a bit disingenuous for Um Ya Ya to be leading this charge.