Mark Rauterkus & Running Mates ponder current events: letter

Showing posts with label letter. Show all posts

Thursday, February 18, 1999

Shared facilities between Pitt and the Steelers, NCAA and NFL -- a rule breaking arrangement

Header

Message-ID: <31B3718F1371D1119E4800805F6F209F01EB284F@NCAA_04>
From: "Batson, David" 
To: "'mrauterkus@sportsurf.net'" 
Cc: "Cuka, Kathy" 
Subject: RE: Planning Issues: NCAA & Professional Facilities
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 15:57:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

From: "Batson, David" dbatson@ncaa.org

	Mark,

	Thanks you for the e-mail.

	Question 1 and 2:

	The NCAA National Office does not compile a list of institutions
sharing facilities with a professional team.  You may want to contact the
appropriate professional sports association to see if they can provide such
information.

	Question 3:

	You are correct that the NCAA wants to maintain a line a demarcation
between college athletics and professional sports along with maintaining the
amateur status of the student-athletes by limiting their involvement with
professional teams and agents.  However, legislation permits some limited
involvement between a member institution and a professional sports team such
as permitting a professional team to rent institutional facilities subject
to normal institutional contractual agreements and permitting Institution's
to host and promote an athletics contest between two professional teams as a
fund-raising activity for the institution.  However, the former
Interpretations Committee had determined that the member institution's team
and the professional team may not use the facility jointly at the same time.

	I hope that this information is helpful in your research.





> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mark Rauterkus [SMTP:mrauterkus@sportsurf.net]
> 
> Sent:	Saturday, February 13, 1999 7:27 AM
> To:	csmrt@ncaa.org
> Subject:	Planning Issues: NCAA & Professional Facilities
> 
>     
> Dear NCAA Enforcement Folks,
> 
> I need some clarifications, please, on some general rules issues about the
> build in measures that are in place to create some distance (firewall, if
> you will) between PROFESSIONAL athletes/organizations and Div. I NCAA
> programs.
> I gave a few calls on the phone to you all last week, bouncing between
> enforcement and membership voice mail boxes-to no satisfaction. Thanks for
> your attention to this email.
> Who am I? This is always one of your first questions-so I'll tell you.
> I'm a publisher of many sports releated titles (books, etc.) as well as
> Internet Journalist-as well as local advocate for some community issues as
> per sports/fitness and such. I'm also leading a non-profit coalition of
> sports agencies in the tri-state area, meeting with school boards and
> such.  So, I'm not affiliated with any NCAA member institution-and it is
> okay to treat me as a media person as what is discovered will be reported
> upon in different position papers and perhaps news releases or public
> committee meetings.
> Mark Rauterkus, 412-481-2540
> 108 South 12th Street
> Pittsburgh, PA 15203-1226
> email: mrauterkus@sportsurf.net
> 
> 
> Questions:
> 1.	What Div. I football programs share PRACTICE FACILITIES on a day to
> day basis with PROFESSIONAL (NFL) FOOTBALL Teams?  Are there any?
> 
> 
> 2.	We realize that there are some NCAA programs that share stadiums
> with pro teams:
> 	Tampa Bay NFL & Univ. of South Florida
> 	Army/Navy Game at Veterans Stadium
> 	Rutgers Univ. at Meadowlands
> 
> What others am I missing? 
> 
> 3.	We realize that there are some strong rules in place with NCAA
> institutions to distance themselves, their athletes and even the recrits
> from PRO teams, agents, and such. With this in mind-does it make sense to
> share practice facilities on a day to day basis with pros and college
> athletes? Would it be permitted or not by the NCAA?
> 
> Thanks.
> Mark Rauterkus
> 412-481-2540
> mrauterkus@sportsurf.net

Thursday, January 22, 1998

Trying to acquire the SuperCard software to make it open source

This didn't work. Thankfully, in due time, MetaCard was turned into LiveCode.

Tuesday, March 18, 1997

Email about the Avatar Book and concepts with author

Date: March 18, 1997
From Mark R (helper guy)
To Peter Small - Author of the Web Avatar Project

Hi Peter,

All along one of my biggest pushes for you have been to "write some example, real-world avatars." In a selfish way, I've got some needs for them now. But I was thinking that the avatars would be good end of book example cases. I said you should start working on the end of book now, getting an income, and getting those all-important examples working, filtering, generating results. The examples are going to take time.

You seemed to want to delay avatar creation.

Well, after seeing these reviews -- I think my original ideas were on the money. I should speak it even louder. You need to give Avatar Examples (specific case studies with big results) right away before anything else. Do the book in reverse order. All the philosophy, A-Life examples and wonderful things you've already expressed need to be headed to the back of the book.

This is a how to book. Even better, learn how the sport surf network put avatars to work on its web site and became the #1 web-site in the world.

NEW BOOK OUTLINE:

This is me and my "client". (who)
Here is what we did:
Here is what could be done in general for your business.
Here is how we did it:
Here is why we did it:
Back of book timeline (when)
Here is why you too will be faced with avatars today and tomorrow. (your book goes here)
Prepare yourself so you can sell these ideas to your organization.

Peter asked:
I now appeal to you for you help in getting this book across. Where am I >going wrong? Where do I go from here?
Examples: Working Models. Prove it from the get go. You gotta put the cart before the horse. The good get delivered - and it is easy to see that the goods are good. Put some avatars right into their faces from the get-go. Then, you can put chapter 1 as chapter 10 (nine examples later). Proof of what I'm thinking is found in the reviewers notes:

>without a strong endorsement from people more expert in the field than I am, I cannot pursue this book.
Have them endorse the avatar or the agent. Not the concept of the avatar book.

> I need books that are cutting edge, yes, but also books with a clear purpose, tight focus, and solid grounding in available technology.
Clear purpose! - this pathway for this avatar is x --> y --> Z. Very clear. Very focused. Very tight. The grounding is solid in a commercial endeavor.

>I could find no interesting technical insights
The technical insights are right in the example avatars. Put the avatars and agents in there first and then you have interesting technical insights.

> I think the majority will be broadly interested in the techniques and applications,
Let's do a book on the interesting techniques and applications that you applied to Sport Surf.

>In my experience people buy technology books to understand technology on a high level (business managers), or to solve technical problems on a detailed level.
Give the readers the - solved problems on technical level first - I did X, Y, Z with sport surf - . Then give them the high level business manager for the later part as to the wave of the future.

>This book doesn't state what it will help you achieve.
The Sport Surf site is going to jump from nothingness to greatness with avatars. Your site can do the same. Let's make a fairy tale come true and then people will know it is not a fairy-tale any longer.

Nuff said on that.

Now what. I think I need to give you a better tour as to what I have in mind with my mega site and my plans.

There are areas in my plan where I can see you playing a key role. I visualize this whole operation. How to share all of these ideas (mine and yours) is another matter that would best be solved with a face to face visit of a few days.

How are your frequent flyer miles? Can you come to Pittsburgh, PA, USA?

Peter building a list of lists
Peter building the list avatars for Sport Surf.

Take care.

Mark Rauterkus mrauterkus@pittsburgh.net

Thursday, October 05, 1995

Business noise

Not sure about the next pages.

Wednesday, November 09, 1994

Tehran, Iran, seeking our software

Saturday, January 01, 1994

Support Syndicate for Audiology - ordering from Tehran, Iran

Date unsure.

Friday, January 01, 1993

Australian Institute of Sport gets water polo book

Date unsure.

Sunday, November 01, 1992

ASCA Certification, units for Mark Rauterkus

Monday, March 16, 1992

Letter to the OSU Swim Coach

Mark Rauterkus

Sports Support Syndicate, Inc.

108 South 12th Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15203

3-16, 1992

OSU

MEN's SWIMMING COACH

Dear Bill Wadley,

We just got home from the Penna. State High School Meet in State College and a good time was had by all.

Jim Rumbaugh swam to a first place finish in the 100 back and 200 IM.

Times of 51.49 and 1:52.58, a new state record in the IM.

Jim beat Derek Williams from North Penn in the IM, both swimmers went faster than the existing state record. But D. Williams has already signed with Minnesota. Williams swam fast relays, including a 20.+ in lead-off in the 200 free relay, setting a new state record for the 50.

Our girls team swam faster at the WPIAL meet, getting second place by 2 points. First went to North Allegheny, defending and repeating state champs. We went a 3:35.66 for a 400 free relay and a 1:50.26 Medley relay. Other fast times were 59.01 100 back, 1:58.5 200 free, 53.01 100 free, 2:11.02 200 IM, 24.57 in the 50 free, plus some others not quite as impressive.

As of now, Jim is thinking about Tenn, IU, NC State?, Virginia, and OSU. You have got to get on the inside track with him soon.

I look forward to hearing getting the time to complete our book this spring.

Sincerely Yours,

SPORTS SUPPORT SYNDICATE, INC.

Mark Rauterkus, President

Tuesday, March 03, 1992

Bombay letter, 3-25-1992

Back side of light, frail, green colored paper:

Monday, March 02, 1992

Recap of Plum High School Swimming season, Mark's first as head coach

Letter from Mark Rauterkus

Sports Support Syndicate, Inc.

108 South 12th Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15203

March 2, 1992

Plum High School

Athletic Director

Dear Bob,

The Plum High School Swimmers finished a most successful 1991-92 season with first-year head coach, Mark Rauterkus, by setting two new WPIAL records and gaining the highest ever team finish in school history.

Jim Rumbaugh, ('92), set new WPIAL records as he won the 200 IM and 100 backstroke in time of 1:55.61 and 52.34.

The Girls team finished the WPIAL Championship meet in second place with 144 points, only 2 points ahead of Mt. Lebanon, and behind defending state champions, North Allegheny.

The Girls 400 free relay of Karen Van Tassel ('93), Erica Van Tassel ('94), Karin Painter ('94), and Katie O'Neil ('92), won their event with a champion's time of 3:35.66.

At the one-day, WPIAL meet, the Plum swimmers set nine school records. Nearly 20 new school records were set throughout the dual meet season, as the girls team defended its Section title going undefeated, while the boys posted a 7-7 record.

Sincerely Yours,

SPORTS SUPPORT SYNDICATE, INC.

Mark Rauterkus, President

Sunday, March 01, 1992

memo to fellow WPIAL coaches

Mark Rauterkus

Sports Support Syndicate, Inc.

108 South 12th Street

Pittsburgh, PA 15203

WPIAL Meet, 1992

Memo @ WPIAL & PIAA Swimming

Dear Fellow Coaches,

Here are some suggestions that I’ve been considering. We all know that there are many different ways to promote fast swimming. This list of ideas is my way of sharing some thoughts with you, and I do not intend to push for any one or all of these ideas at this time. Let’s just talk about them.

1. There are too many meets and these meets take away from the more valuable training time.

2. The Home and Away competition in meets could work if there were only four teams per section.

Let’s double the number of sections in the WPIAL keeping the good local rivalries alive.

Swim Section meets on Mondays, as scheduled by the WPIAL office, and make Thursdays the day for schools to schedule meets as they so desire.

3. Benefits Single-Sex meets:

Schedule boys meets on Mondays and girls meets on Thursday, giving the other sex an opportunity to train instead of going to the meet.

As justification to allow more competitors, we could push for JV and Varsity heats in big-school sections at single-sex meets.

Big school team should consider swimming against each other on the same day with girls at one school and the boys at another with JV and Varsity heats.

Single-sex Varsity only meets would allow teams to swim together for a 80 minute warm-up/practice followed by the meet.

3. We need more championship meets. Let’s not be forced to swim all of the late-season, dual meet schedule, and instead let’s hold bigger, multi-team, seeded meets. I suggest:

WPIAL, Boys vs. Girls, Freshman Swim Off - January 2

Boys and Girls JV Section Championships - January 20

WPIAL Distance Classic with 800 Free Relay, 1000 Free, 400 IM - Feb.1

WPIAL 6-Dive Championships - Feb. 1

Boys and Girls Varsity Conference (8 schools) Championships - Feb 10

4. Coaches and officials need to be responsive to more experimentation within the meet program.

At certain meets, let’s re-design the meet program and scratch some events in favor of different event and let’s use multiple heats.

Include:

• 400 Medley Relay, 800 Free Relay

• 200 strokes, and 400 IM

• 100 IM, 25 strokes

• 1000 free with 2 swimmers per lane instead of the 500

• Freestyle only meets with multiple heats per event

(no Medley, IM, or stroke races)

• Stroke only meets with multiple heats per event

(no 50, 100, 200, 500 or free relays)

5. In swimming, it is wrong to ask swimmers to make a State Qualifying time and place in the top 7 finishers. This is not the Olympic Trials. This is not a season ending meet. Make a time standard and stick to it. We are forcing kids to swim against each other and coaches to out-think each other, when we all should be racing against the clock.

Example: One team may want to train 4 or 6 swimmers for the same event in one season. That team would be punished in the WPIALs as they would knock each other out of going to states. But, they may all be able to do the time!

Example: One swimmer wants to make finals at states and avoid the shave and taper for the WPIAL meet. A WPIAL swimmer can not simply achieve the time standard at WPIALs and go for a better performance at States. A coach can be certain that a swimmer is going to hit a certain time, but no coach can guarantee an athlete as to what his or her final place will be and if a trip to states and shaving and tapering is possible. Hence, all the WPIAL swimmers have to either rest and shave to make states or worry about the final WPIAL place. From what I’ve been told, the WPIAL swimmers who could be getting seconds swims at states, don’t make many improvements at the PIAA meet.

We should improve the time standard and send any and all swimmers who make the PIAA cut-time advance to states, regardless of place. We should make an objective, published, study of the time standards and make recommendations based on a five-year average on each event, perhaps taking the 5th place time and adjusting the time standards accordingly.

We must push for this at the state level and use all of our political clout. I would rather take less kids to states and have a firm time standard to make it to states. This is the biggest problem in WPIAL swimming today.

6. For state championships, Illinois has tremendous success holding all the events of prelims on Friday and then all of the Finals on the second day. This allows swimmers to double in events more reasonably.

I’m not sure how a 2-sex meet on one weekend would work. Holding all the Prelims for both boys and girls on the same day might make an impossible day.

Day: Evening:

Day 1: Girls Prelims + Girls Diving

Day 2: Boys Prelims + Girls Finals

Day 3: Boys Diving + Boys Finals

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Thanks.

Sincerely Yours,

Mark Rauterkus, President