NCAA Division III Student-Athletes opposed to cutting schedules
309 Comments
H
hanna roppe-guerdet
11 years ago
I oppose the cutting of D3 athletic schedules
C
Chelsea Buchanan
11 years ago
The same cuts should have to be applied to D1 and D2!
G
Garrett Grinnell
11 years ago
Students pay large sums of money to go to college. Athletes should not be cut out when it comes to competing.
H
Haley Salazar
11 years ago
We have to fundraiser almost all of our money as it is. Don't cut anything!
C
Caitlin Thomson
11 years ago
Featured
Look to other places besides DIII, we play solely because we love it. We get nothing else out of it; no scholarships, fame, etc. Just because we are the division that makes you the least amount of money doesn't mean we deserve to be taken away from to save NCAA costs.
A
Adam Lange
11 years ago
Why dont we cut division one and two?!
A
Allison Wells
11 years ago
Featured
Track and Field is not a sport that is easy to pick up after a long seasonal break, especially for those althetes who participate in events that require special equipment. This is especially unfair for DIII athletes who receive no scholarships or financial benefits.
P
Parker Nolden
11 years ago
The purpose of this proposal is for some rather smaller division three schools to potentially save some money by eliminating competitions. First let us look at this from a business stand point which I can almost guarantee the schools that are proposing this have done, this proposal is guaranteed to backfire because it is not stated whether or not that will be a home game or away game for the school. From a completely unbiased viewpoint that competition is actually both an away and a home competition. What I mean by that, is say basketball which will be losing two games, for one of those games it is an away game for School A and a home game for school B. While yes School A will be saving money because they no longer have to travel for that game, however, School B is now losing revenue from ticket sales and concession sales. Hence while saving School A money, you are taking away from School B's profit hence is there really any money saved? Secondly, let's take this from the perspective of athlete safety, which is infinitely more important than money on any level. I am pole vaulter, which is a very dangerous event, which involves me falling from a height of 12-16ft multiple times a week. Without adequate training time from my coach I would not feel comfortable doing this. I have suffered from a concussion this year while vaulting and had to sit out for a few weeks while recovering. By cutting into the time that I have to train with my coach and still expecting me to perform at the level that I do while also being safe is ridiculous. My sport is not the only affected by this though, I can think of countless of other contact sports where an athlete may receive a concussion if they do complete a move properly, a move that is coached and if practice and competition is cut down, emphasis may be removed on how to execute the move properly and instead be placed on how they can win this game and the next one. Cutting down on how much they can practice is ridiculously unsafe.
C
Cassandra Thorngren
11 years ago
This is totally unfair to any athlete, division 1, 2, or 3. I am personally a division 3 track athlete, and think we can find another way to earn money. We can fundraise more or something.
J
Jeremiah Burish
11 years ago
DIII athletes compete for the love of the sport in which they compete, as they are not offered scholarships or any other perks. So to take away from their passion is counter productive. They want to compete because of the love for the sport and this proposal would take from them.
J
Jeffrey Hill
11 years ago
This proposal is asinine and eliteist to only propose change at the D III level and let the other two prosper.
A
Alexander Guillen
11 years ago
that's just unfair!
M
Mark Schmitz
11 years ago
Do not put forth this motion.
S
Susan Daxon
11 years ago
We need to keep sports active in our schools for our children.
K
Krysta Parson
11 years ago
Featured
Track Indoor and Track Outdoor are two completely different seasons. We need to fill out different NCAA paperwork for both seasons so they should be considered as such. It is unjustifiable to take away athletic competitions from athletes that earned their spots on their prospective teams.
K
Kimberly Gutierrez
11 years ago
I do not agreewith this legislation and it would not benefit my school.
C
Charles Shackett
11 years ago
Schools should have the choice, not be made to compete less.
M
Mitch Dowell
11 years ago
I am a track and field athlete at UW-Platteville, and I am outraged that the NCAA wants to limit my practice and competition! Schools that can't afford to send their athletes to many competitions shouldn't stop others from competing. Indoor and outdoor track and field are considered two different sports in most (if not all) NCAA legislation, but they consider the two as a single sport here.
M
Michelle Atkinson
11 years ago
We work really hard, no matter if it's a division 1 or 3. Please don't take away parts of what make us who we are.
I oppose the cutting of D3 athletic schedules
The same cuts should have to be applied to D1 and D2!
Students pay large sums of money to go to college. Athletes should not be cut out when it comes to competing.
We have to fundraiser almost all of our money as it is. Don't cut anything!
Look to other places besides DIII, we play solely because we love it. We get nothing else out of it; no scholarships, fame, etc. Just because we are the division that makes you the least amount of money doesn't mean we deserve to be taken away from to save NCAA costs.
Why dont we cut division one and two?!
Track and Field is not a sport that is easy to pick up after a long seasonal break, especially for those althetes who participate in events that require special equipment. This is especially unfair for DIII athletes who receive no scholarships or financial benefits.
The purpose of this proposal is for some rather smaller division three schools to potentially save some money by eliminating competitions. First let us look at this from a business stand point which I can almost guarantee the schools that are proposing this have done, this proposal is guaranteed to backfire because it is not stated whether or not that will be a home game or away game for the school. From a completely unbiased viewpoint that competition is actually both an away and a home competition. What I mean by that, is say basketball which will be losing two games, for one of those games it is an away game for School A and a home game for school B. While yes School A will be saving money because they no longer have to travel for that game, however, School B is now losing revenue from ticket sales and concession sales. Hence while saving School A money, you are taking away from School B's profit hence is there really any money saved? Secondly, let's take this from the perspective of athlete safety, which is infinitely more important than money on any level. I am pole vaulter, which is a very dangerous event, which involves me falling from a height of 12-16ft multiple times a week. Without adequate training time from my coach I would not feel comfortable doing this. I have suffered from a concussion this year while vaulting and had to sit out for a few weeks while recovering. By cutting into the time that I have to train with my coach and still expecting me to perform at the level that I do while also being safe is ridiculous. My sport is not the only affected by this though, I can think of countless of other contact sports where an athlete may receive a concussion if they do complete a move properly, a move that is coached and if practice and competition is cut down, emphasis may be removed on how to execute the move properly and instead be placed on how they can win this game and the next one. Cutting down on how much they can practice is ridiculously unsafe.
This is totally unfair to any athlete, division 1, 2, or 3. I am personally a division 3 track athlete, and think we can find another way to earn money. We can fundraise more or something.
DIII athletes compete for the love of the sport in which they compete, as they are not offered scholarships or any other perks. So to take away from their passion is counter productive. They want to compete because of the love for the sport and this proposal would take from them.
This proposal is asinine and eliteist to only propose change at the D III level and let the other two prosper.
that's just unfair!
Do not put forth this motion.
We need to keep sports active in our schools for our children.
Track Indoor and Track Outdoor are two completely different seasons. We need to fill out different NCAA paperwork for both seasons so they should be considered as such. It is unjustifiable to take away athletic competitions from athletes that earned their spots on their prospective teams.
I do not agreewith this legislation and it would not benefit my school.
Schools should have the choice, not be made to compete less.
I am a track and field athlete at UW-Platteville, and I am outraged that the NCAA wants to limit my practice and competition! Schools that can't afford to send their athletes to many competitions shouldn't stop others from competing. Indoor and outdoor track and field are considered two different sports in most (if not all) NCAA legislation, but they consider the two as a single sport here.
We work really hard, no matter if it's a division 1 or 3. Please don't take away parts of what make us who we are.
This should not happen.