Less-restrictive policy beefs up MIAC rosters

  • Article by: DENNIS BRACKIN , Star Tribune
  • Updated: September 25, 2012 - 11:37 PM

By letting D-I and D-II transfers keep their redshirt years, more talent has migrated to the league.

  • 12
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
BigPeteSep. 25, 12 9:19 PM

Thats too bad. They should go back to the old rules. The MIAC should be about brains, not braun

5
5
roymercerSep. 25, 12 9:49 PM

There are two MIACs now - the schools loaded up with D-I an II ringers, and the rest. It's time for the bottom half the league drop out. There's way too much disparity.

6
7
minneg56Sep. 26, 12 7:18 AM

'bout time they got back to having fun! Anyone wh has watched DIII sports can see it's not a job with the allurement of quick profit ... it's a hobby and sporting. Who cares where the athletes come from?

5
2
freedubaySep. 26, 12 7:22 AM

Its the MIAC folks. These kids are going nowhere,(not meant to be an insult.) Let them play and enjoy what is left of their football playing days.

7
4
pcole2001Sep. 26, 1210:37 AM

As noted in the story, the MIAC used to have the most restrictive transfer policy in Division III, more restrictive than even D-III's equivalent of the Ivy League. It was out of step for the league not to honor someone else's redshirt. Nobody can redshirt at a Division III school anymore but people that redshirt elsewhere used to be punished by the MIAC, but nobody else. It wasn't good policy for schools that are enrollment-driven (which is basically everyone in the league except UST).

2
2
truthhurts73Sep. 26, 1210:52 AM

Oh boo hoo Gags after 50 years you no longer enjoy the huge competitive advantage of having a male student body atleast double every other MIAC school (other than UST) and comparatively lower admission standards. Least us not forget the other huge advantage for UST is their FAR lower admissions standards which allow them to accept more D1 transfers than Mac, Carleton, St. Olaf and others. I see this rule ultimately hurting the conference as it excelerates the competitive advantages that already exist.

2
5
gopherfan11Sep. 26, 1211:19 AM

I think you meant to write 'Less-restrictive policy beefs up ST. THOMAS roster.' They're ruining the MIAC.

5
2
pehuepSep. 26, 1212:34 PM

As one who has accumulated some perspective on this issue (one son played baseball at St. Olaf, the other football at Gustavus), there is no doubt this policy has benefitted STU to the detriment of everyone else. While a couple of other schools have seen a rise in their football programs, from a total athletic program standpoint STU has simply become too dominant. It would be a shame if the MIAC split over a policy having nothing to do with academics. Maybe those old-timers with their "restrictive" policy knew what they were doing after all.

3
2
minneg56Sep. 26, 1212:36 PM

truthhurts73- what are the admissions standards UST vis a vis the others. Carlton has always been higher than the others- in the '80s and '90s Mac became more 'selective'- but I heard from a pretty good source that by and large UST isn't taking many if any under 27-28 ACT- that's not exactly low standards- what's your take?

3
1
jackson7864Sep. 26, 12 1:08 PM

There is a whole lot of whining regarding UST from others. This is a team, that to date, still trails the likes of Whitewater and Mount Union by quite a few steps. God forbid, anyone strives to attain too much success. Bethel has found a path to success as well in recent years. That path includes a couple transfers, including a key LB that came over from UST. Key building blocks to UST's turnaround like Fritz Waldvogel, Dakota Tracy, and countless others did not transfer into UST. The admission standard argument is a tired one for anyone not named Carleton. The disparity between other schools is marginal at best. If transfers and admission standards were a true corollary Augsburg should be the cream of the crop. They have a large number of transfer and have some of the lowest admission standards, albeit not significantly different than the others.

2
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Cincinnati - WP: J. Cueto 4 FINAL
Pittsburgh - LP: E. Volquez 1
LA Angels - WP: T. Skaggs 7 FINAL
Washington - LP: T. Jordan 2
Kansas City - WP: J. Shields 8 FINAL
Cleveland - LP: D. Salazar 2
Baltimore - LP: E. Meek 3 FINAL
Toronto - WP: S. Delabar 9
Chicago WSox - LP: C. Leesman 6 FINAL
Detroit - WP: J. Verlander 8
St. Louis - WP: A. Wainwright 3 FINAL
NY Mets - LP: D. Gee 0
Miami - WP: J. Fernandez 1 FINAL
Atlanta - LP: A. Wood 0
Minnesota - LP: K. Gibson 3 FINAL
Tampa Bay - WP: D. Price 7
NY Yankees - WP: M. Tanaka 9 FINAL
Boston - LP: J. Lester 3
Arizona - LP: B. McCarthy 2 FINAL
Chicago Cubs - WP: J. Hammel 9
San Diego - WP: D. Roach 2 FINAL
Milwaukee - LP: A. Figaro 1
San Francisco - LP: M. Bumgarner 1 FINAL
Colorado - WP: F. Morales 2
Texas - WP: A. Ogando 5 FINAL
Oakland - LP: L. Gregerson 4
Houston - WP: C. McHugh 5 FINAL
Seattle - LP: E. Ramirez 2
Philadelphia - WP: A. Bastardo 3 FINAL
Los Angeles - LP: J. Howell 2
Atlanta 85 FINAL
Indiana 101
Brooklyn 95 FINAL
Toronto 100
Washington 101 FINAL
Chicago 99
Tampa Bay 3 FINAL
Montreal 4
Boston 3 FINAL
Detroit 0
NY Rangers 4 FINAL
Philadelphia 1
San Jose 4 FINAL(OT)
Los Angeles 3
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: Grade the Gophers men's hockey season

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT