D3boards.com

Division III football (Post Patterns) => General football => Topic started by: bleedpurple on December 19, 2011, 07:42:49 PM

Poll
Question: Are the purple powers bad for D3?
Option 1: Yes votes: 36
Option 2: No votes: 66
Title: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: bleedpurple on December 19, 2011, 07:42:49 PM
This question comes up so often on the boards of different conferences that I thought it might be good to have a thread of it's own.  I apologize if this thread has been started elsewhere. 

Now my diatribe:

I have thought a lot about this question. Technically speaking, I think it is a red herring because the results of the playoff system should not be considered "good" or "bad" for the entirety of D3 based on which schools participate in the national championship.  Whichever teams advanced, they earned it on the field.  Obviously, any results would be better for some schools than others. It seems to me, for the particular schools who don't advance to the Stagg Bowl, the Purple Powers advancing shouldn't affect them any more negatively than any other schools making it instead of them. 

The most common argument I've heard is that fans are "sick" of watching the same two schools in the Stagg. I can understand that.  But in doing any serious level of analysis on "actual impact on D3", that would have to rank mighty low on any list.  Meanwhile, off the top of my head, I can think of three very tangible reasons that the Purple Powers have been GOOD for D3 football (I have no doubt I could think of more):

1. For seven years running, the showcase game has been competitive and a very high level of football, which should have done nothing but increase respect for D3.

2. Over the years, the noticeable talent of the skill players, the physical nature of the teams, and the excellent coaching have provided an opportunity for D3 coaches to approach a higher level of athlete and say, "consider us". A stud receiver near Dover or Belton or Crawfordsville watching Garcon or Shorts playing in the Stagg Bowl one year and in the NFL the next would surely take notice!  Even being able to point to Beaver or Kmic or Coppage, irrespective of the NFL, would have to help with high level recruits.  I don't buy that it ONLY helps UW-W or Mount. A good recruiter can surely turn this into a positive for his program relative to the quality of football at the D3 level.

3. Mount Union and UW-W has raised the bar of what alumni, fans, and even coaches themselves expect and demand from a program.  I believe Wesley, North Central, UMHB, Linfield, Wabash, St. Thomas, and Franklin (I know they've got a ways to go, but their coach impresses the heck out of me) are "all in" in staring down this challenge and are better programs because they are chasing down the purple powers.  I also THINK UW-LaCrosse and UW-Oshkosh are determined to get there.  I point to these schools as examples and not as an all-exhaustive list.  I'm sure there are others.

The first year, UW-W won a national title (2007), Mount Union had won 8 of the previous 11.  No one knew when anyone else would break through. UW-W has done it. Not because they are a public school or because they have a large enrollment.  It is because they have had the commitment to excellence, the drive, the vision, and very capable people in the administration and running the football program.  Remember, UW-W's commitment to excellence in the football program began in earnest back in the 1950's.  Perkins Stadium and excellent facilities was a dream born in the 1960's and given legitimacy by 5 conference championships in that decade. The dream became a reality in the 1970's and UW-W won three more conference championships. In the 1980's and 90's UW-W continued to improve facilities,  stayed committed to excellence, and won seven conference championships.  After subpar seasons in 1999, 2000, and 2001, winning seasons returned in 2002. In continuing their commitment to excellence, UW-W scheduled Mount in a home and home in 2002 and 2003 to find out what it took to get to the top nationally.  What has happened since 2005 is what has given rise to the question that prompted this thread.

After seeing the sacrifice so many have made to get UW-W to this level, it is a bit challenging to hear the complaints about the purple powers or the "enrollment/public school" rationalizations.  I know this is a MUCH more verbose response than some Mount or UW-W fans would use.  Maybe they have the right response when they say, "If you don't like it, get better!" I thought it may be more productive to give a more thoughtful response.

I'm not saying it will take any other program this long to reach the pinnacle.  I'm simply saying a whole lot has gone into UW-W reaching this level.

If nothing else, maybe this thread will give this question/complaint a new home (at least for awhile). Again, if it is a thread already, my apologies. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 19, 2011, 08:35:32 PM
Yes
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 20, 2011, 09:01:48 AM
Having two dominant teams at a clearly different level is bad for DIII, and since the two dominant powers are the Purple Powers, yes they are bad for D3. However, it's not UWW and UMU that are bad, per se, it's just the situation that having only 2 dominant powers created that is bad. There are roughly 240 programs in DIII and, in any given year lately, 2 have a shot to win the national title with, maybe, 4 more having a longshot. Even using a generous number of 6 teams, you are talking 2.5% of the universe of DIII teams. Any sport that has so much imbalance is problematic simply because it indicates that playing field is massively unfair.

Think about it this way, 2.5% of D1 is approximately 3 teams. There are more teams in the SEC with a legitimate chance of winning a national title than there are in all of D3. Boring. Would you watch pro-football if only 1 team had a legitimate chance of winning the SuperBowl ever year (2.5% of 32 = .8). How about baseball, largely considered the most imbalanced pro league in the U.S., with 30 teams you are talking 1 team again. Would you watch if only the Yankees had a legitimate chance to win every year? Or how about the English Premier League or La Liga, two of the most imbalanced leagues globally. With around 20 teams you are again talking about only one team. La Liga has at least 2, 10% of the league, and the EPL currently has 4-6, the two Manchesters, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and possibly Spurs, an incredible 30%!

The thing is, all these leagues that are considered "imbalanced" have way greater depth at the top than D3 football, and that's just being generous giving 6 teams a shot every year. If there are only 2 teams, the numbers are incredibly pathetic and make for one of the largest competitive jokes across sports, something that ESPN harps on every year in their Stagg broadcast and even in the article that appeared on ESPN.com's front page. The headline this year? "UWW Wins D3 football -- Again" appeared on the box on the right side of front the screen.

Bottom line, the lack of any semblance of competitive balance is bad for D3. You can justify why your program deserves to be the best and I completely agree with you. I don't believe in punishing teams for being the best. But that wasn't the question you asked. You asked if the Purple Powers are bad for D3???

ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY, so long as we are talking not about the teams themselves, so much as the situation that they have created.

But the rest of D3 needs to haul them back, there is no reason to punish them for being out ahead. D3 is a massively unfair playing surface and has always lent itself to dynasties. I don't think that will change, but I'd like to see more teams at the top than just 2, which is just poor for the league.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: bleedpurple on December 20, 2011, 05:53:05 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 20, 2011, 09:01:48 AM
Having two dominant teams at a clearly different level is bad for DIII, and since the two dominant powers are the Purple Powers, yes they are bad for D3. However, it's not UWW and UMU that are bad, per se, it's just the situation that having only 2 dominant powers created that is bad. There are roughly 240 programs in DIII and, in any given year lately, 2 have a shot to win the national title with, maybe, 4 more having a longshot. Even using a generous number of 6 teams, you are talking 2.5% of the universe of DIII teams. Any sport that has so much imbalance is problematic simply because it indicates that playing field is massively unfair.

Think about it this way, 2.5% of D1 is approximately 3 teams. There are more teams in the SEC with a legitimate chance of winning a national title than there are in all of D3. Boring. Would you watch pro-football if only 1 team had a legitimate chance of winning the SuperBowl ever year (2.5% of 32 = .8). How about baseball, largely considered the most imbalanced pro league in the U.S., with 30 teams you are talking 1 team again. Would you watch if only the Yankees had a legitimate chance to win every year? Or how about the English Premier League or La Liga, two of the most imbalanced leagues globally. With around 20 teams you are again talking about only one team. La Liga has at least 2, 10% of the league, and the EPL currently has 4-6, the two Manchesters, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and possibly Spurs, an incredible 30%!

The thing is, all these leagues that are considered "imbalanced" have way greater depth at the top than D3 football, and that's just being generous giving 6 teams a shot every year. If there are only 2 teams, the numbers are incredibly pathetic and make for one of the largest competitive jokes across sports, something that ESPN harps on every year in their Stagg broadcast and even in the article that appeared on ESPN.com's front page. The headline this year? "UWW Wins D3 football -- Again" appeared on the box on the right side of front the screen.

Bottom line, the lack of any semblance of competitive balance is bad for D3. You can justify why your program deserves to be the best and I completely agree with you. I don't believe in punishing teams for being the best. But that wasn't the question you asked. You asked if the Purple Powers are bad for D3???

ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY, so long as we are talking not about the teams themselves, so much as the situation that they have created.

But the rest of D3 needs to haul them back, there is no reason to punish them for being out ahead. D3 is a massively unfair playing surface and has always lent itself to dynasties. I don't think that will change, but I'd like to see more teams at the top than just 2, which is just poor for the league.

What is massively unfair about D3? What solutions would you recommend if you were handed the reigns and told, "Fix this"?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: gordonmann on December 20, 2011, 06:00:14 PM
D3 is a massively unfair playing surface and has always lent itself to dynasties.  (//http://)

I wonder if this is true in sports other than football.  Or if it's true only with sports where it's expensive to start and maintain a program.  Or sports that require a lot of players on the roster.

It's an interesting question that's actually somewhat answerable.  Pick a sport and look at the playoff results over a long period of time (at least 10 years).  Does Division III have more elite level success concentrated in a few teams than other levels of college sports?  Look at the number of programs that reached the final four or national title game. Which level has the greatest variety in terms of teams? 

To avoid the problem associated with different sample sizes, you could divide the number of programs that have reached elite level success by the number that sponsor the sport now.  That would avoid the problem with sports where only a small number of schools offer a program (Hypothetical example: Only 15 teams have played for the Division III lacross title in the last 10 years, but only 80 schools offer the sport).

It's an interesting research question. You can't do it with football easily because of the BCS, but you can do it with other sports.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: bleedpurple on December 20, 2011, 07:04:15 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on December 20, 2011, 06:00:14 PM
D3 is a massively unfair playing surface and has always lent itself to dynasties.  (//http://)

I wonder if this is true in sports other than football.  Or if it's true only with sports where it's expensive to start and maintain a program.  Or sports that require a lot of players on the roster.

It's an interesting question that's actually somewhat answerable.  Pick a sport and look at the playoff results over a long period of time (at least 10 years).  Does Division III have more elite level success concentrated in a few teams than other levels of college sports?  Look at the number of programs that reached the final four or national title game. Which level has the greatest variety in terms of teams? 

To avoid the problem associated with different sample sizes, you could divide the number of programs that have reached elite level success by the number that sponsor the sport now.  That would avoid the problem with sports where only a small number of schools offer a program (Hypothetical example: Only 15 teams have played for the Division III lacross title in the last 10 years, but only 80 schools offer the sport).

It's an interesting research question. You can't do it with football easily because of the BCS, but you can do it with other sports.

Like Jk it appears you are equating results with "massively unfair playing surface". Maybe it's unfair that Mount Union is the only school to have Larry Kehres.  To me, that is a huge reason for Mount's success.  I am very lost as to what that has to do with the playing field being "massively unfair".
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 20, 2011, 07:37:11 PM
What percentage of the 239 DIII colleges have qualified at least once for the playoffs in the last 15 years? My guess is less than 40%, at least a fifth of which have never advanced beyond the first round. Consequently the vast majority of DIII colleges should concentrate their efforts on putting together a suitable regular season schedule and not concern themselves with whether the playoffs are "fair".
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: wesleydad on December 20, 2011, 08:37:53 PM
bleed, i think you are misreading gordon's post.  I don't think he agree with jk at all, but is using his quote as a basis for his post.  i have known gordon for about 7 years now and have never heard him complain recently about the purple powers.  he, like most of us, would like to see one or both of them fall.

I don't have an issue with the purple powers, nor do I think they are bad for D3.  Having been associated with Wesley for the last 7 years I have gotten to see first hand how good both teams are and have watched Wesley build their program to the point where they are getting real close to them.  If it wasnt for the purple powers, where would Wesley have progressed too?  Having traveled all over the east this year to watch football games, I would agree that many of the teams in D3 have no shot or very little shot at winnind even a playoff game.  there is a small group of teams that can win at least one playoff game, an even smaller group that can win 2 and even a smaller group that can win 3.  Only 2 have been able to win the 4th and congrat sot them.  I know that Wesley does not complain about it, they play them, lose the game and then try to get better.  Guess that is the choice in the end, be satisfied with winning some games, maybe a playoff game or 2, or try to get good enough to win it all.  I hope the Wesley takes the last choice.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 20, 2011, 09:46:34 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on December 20, 2011, 07:04:15 PM
Like Jk it appears you are equating results with "massively unfair playing surface". Maybe it's unfair that Mount Union is the only school to have Larry Kehres.  To me, that is a huge reason for Mount's success.  I am very lost as to what that has to do with the playing field being "massively unfair".

We do judge outcomes usually by the results. The fact of the matter is, with approximately 240 teams, and a 7 year string of only 2 teams playing in the finals and a similarly small pool of teams able to reach the semi-finals, D3 has a pathetic level diversity at the top level as a percentage of participants. That is a non-disputable fact. Now you can claim this is a good thing, or a bad thing, which is what the thread is all about. Personally, I believe it is bad. If I was a UMU or UWW fan, I'm sure I'd appreciate it quite a bit more and I notice the UWW people basically get up in arms about this. 

My basis for saying D3 is not a level playing field is in the factual statistics. The more level the playing field, the more likely you are to have a larger base of teams compete for championships. We know this through analysis of D1 football, the NFL, MLS... the least level playing fields, MLB, NBA, european soccer leagues, tend to have long-term dominant teams. We also know that there are levelers applied that assist matters, usually financial, that ameliorate un-level fields. For professional sports it tends to be salary caps and for D1 it tends to be scholarships. These don't work perfectly, but they do help. If you need help with the concept, check out Moneyball or Soccernomics which don't directly touch on D3 issues, but do a great job of explaining the factors that create and ameliorate unlevel playing fields in professional sports.

Now for some fun. FCS football, 12 of the last 15 championships by different teams, most is 6 by Ga Southern since 1978. d2 football, 10 of 15 different, 5 is most since 1973. d3 football, 5 of 15 different, 10 is most since 1973. Now adjust for the number of schools, FCS 126, D2 146, d3, 239. So FCS, 1 champion per 10.5 teams in the last 15 years, 1 repeat by the top dynasty every 5.5 years. D2, 1 championship per 15 schools, 1 repeat by the top dynasty every 7.5 years. D3, 1 championship per 48 schools, 1 repeat by the top dynasty every 3.8 years. UGGH, D3 has no variety in football compared to the other playoff divisions.

Lets look somewhere else. D1 soccer, 11 champions in the last 15 years, most is 10 since 1959. D2 Soccer, 12 champions in the last 15 years, most is 6 since 1972. D3 soccer, 9 in the last 15 years, most is 8 since 1974. I'm not going to run the numbers again because I can't find an easy source for the number of participants, however, there are more D3 teams than D2, but more D1 than D2 (since D1 is not split in Soccer into stupid FBS and FCS). Just looking at the data will tell you that wins per team and repeats will be much higher in D3 than any other division.

Care to go for 3? Someone else can do it. I didn't cherry pick soccer, it's just the first widely played sport that I decided to go with. Someone else can do baseball or basketball, but I bet you find D3 has dynasties and the lowest variability of any division across widely participated sports.

The farther you get from a leveler, the more un-level your playing field. In D3 there is NO leveler at all. That gives some teams advantages that other teams cannot match. Now, I have said this in many, many posts at various times. Having an advantage, and taking advantage of it, are two different things. UWW and UMU have both taken excellent advantage of their attributes to become dominant. It was done within the rules of D3 and shouldn't be punished but celebrated.

However, having them this dominant is a detriment to D3 as a whole in my opinion. The main reason for that is because D3 football has 1 showcase event, the Stagg Bowl. And it barely qualifies the way ESPN treats it. However, it doesn't help D3's image as a whole when every couple minutes in the broadcast we hear about how this is the 7th game between two teams, how they rolled through the playoffs, have 100 game regular-season winning streaks... it makes the rest of D3 seem like a joke. And that's not good for D3.

You want a bigger pool of contenders. And if you can't understand why having only 2 contenders out of 240 teams, or possibly 6 if you want to stretch the definition, is a bad thing, I really can't help you. The fact is, sports are more entertaining to more people, and more attractive to players, when more people have the option to play for, or root for, a winner. That doesn't happen much in D3, and that's bad.

So what do we do about it? Not much. To be honest, D3 is an unlevel surface. Massive state schools compete with small liberal arts schools. Incredible academic standards compete against revolving doors. Huge endowments versus underfunded midgets. Schools with a greater commitment to sports compete against schools with only the commitment required to fill the seats. The variety of schools across D3 is massive and the lack of requirements leads to a massive imbalance. That is part and parcel of being a member of D3.

frank uible is right. Most schools need to content themselves with winning a conference championship because the conference is really there peers. Once you leave your peer group, D3 football becomes a very Wild West and there are 2 truly lethal gunslingers and maybe 4 more that will beat you 90% of the time. That may be fine with you, but for 233 or so other schools, you can only hope to avoid those 6 as long as possible. Or just don't worry about it when you get blown away by a whole different caliber.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 21, 2011, 12:05:54 AM
When the whole nation minus two schools are playing for 3rd place, it's not a good thing. Not blaming the schools for their success, although I do believe that Wisconsin-Whitewater has the budget and overal athletic prestige to move to D-2.I'm not going to argue that now though as it's not the point.  You can't blame someone for being successful.  The other schools need to up their game to get onto the purple powers level to make D-3 football legitimate again

The play-off system in itself could be changed in my opinion to help "stop" the purple powers. Having home field is huge advantage in D-3. When a team has to ride a bus for 8 hours, spend the night in a hotel, then play the next day at noon, compared to the other team that gets to sleep in their own beds to play on their own field, it is a huge advantage. I like the home field for the first few rounds do to traveling costs, but once they get to the final four, I think it should be neutral. Mount Union almost lost this year. I'm not saying if the game was at a neutral site that it's a guaranteed loss for Mount Union, but it is very possible that they would've.  Keep the home field for the first 3 rounds, but make final four be at a neutral site, and I think that we would see different match-ups in the championship game.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: fulbakdad on December 21, 2011, 05:36:40 AM
It might be time to take a look at developing a D4?  There are some rules that some leagues have to follow that will always keep them at arms length from being at the same level as the purple teams.  NESCAC only plays 8 games with no playoffs.  The Mid West Conferance is limited to 10 total games and scrimmages for the year so that keeps them from the pre season scrimmages that other leagues have.  Plus they can't do any inschool recruiting.  If you look at the NEFC, they would probably be a fit for a D4.

I know I'll probably be lambasted for the thought, but.....
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 21, 2011, 08:03:31 AM
Quote from: fulbakdad on December 21, 2011, 05:36:40 AM
It might be time to take a look at developing a D4?  There are some rules that some leagues have to follow that will always keep them at arms length from being at the same level as the purple teams.  NESCAC only plays 8 games with no playoffs.  The Mid West Conferance is limited to 10 total games and scrimmages for the year so that keeps them from the pre season scrimmages that other leagues have.  Plus they can't do any inschool recruiting.  If you look at the NEFC, they would probably be a fit for a D4.

I know I'll probably be lambasted for the thought, but.....
No, not lambasted...
D-III spent many committee hours and lots of money considering that question and decided that it was not what they wanted to do.

There are posts on the Future of D-III Message Board beginning about page 60 and really ramping up about page 62-63. It goes on for almost 40-45 pages of posts into early 2009 (two years worth).
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 21, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
The lack of parity is not the same thing as the lack of fairness.  Whitewater and Mount do not give out scholarships and their players and coaches could have made decisions to go elsewhere.  I dispute the notion that the ESPN broadcast and the promotion of D3 is hurt by Mount and UWW.  Maybe somebody should look up the ratings, but I seriously doubt the average viewer who didn't know much about d3 previously is angry about Mount and Whitewater.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 21, 2011, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: AO on December 21, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
The lack of parity is not the same thing as the lack of fairness.  Whitewater and Mount do not give out scholarships and their players and coaches could have made decisions to go elsewhere.  I dispute the notion that the ESPN broadcast and the promotion of D3 is hurt by Mount and UWW.  Maybe somebody should look up the ratings, but I seriously doubt the average viewer who didn't know much about d3 previously is angry about Mount and Whitewater.

It's not a function of angry, it's a function of legitimacy. D3 doesn't look like a legitimate competitive environment when the same two teams play year after year. I highly doubt the casual viewer watched or cared about the Stagg Bowl, but those that did were treated to a steady diet of how they are the only 2 teams that matter in D3 because ESPN harps on the recent history.

It seems like people are talking about 2 different things in this thread. One group is pointing out that UWW and UMU are good and people should stop complaining, which I don't disagree with, but that's not what the thread asked. It asked are they good for D3? I can't imagine anyone besides fans of UWW and UMU actually believing that having 2 dominant teams and everyone else playing for third place is good for D3 AS A WHOLE. There are good attributes about the level of play that UMU and UWW are demonstrating for D3, but AS A WHOLE, the competitive imbalance that they represent does nothing but reinforce the idea that D3 is the home of mostly low level competition that isn't REAL college sports.

I know we all disagree, but that kind of imbalance breeds that kind of impression. And that is bad for D3.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 21, 2011, 09:28:05 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 21, 2011, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: AO on December 21, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
The lack of parity is not the same thing as the lack of fairness.  Whitewater and Mount do not give out scholarships and their players and coaches could have made decisions to go elsewhere.  I dispute the notion that the ESPN broadcast and the promotion of D3 is hurt by Mount and UWW.  Maybe somebody should look up the ratings, but I seriously doubt the average viewer who didn't know much about d3 previously is angry about Mount and Whitewater.

It's not a function of angry, it's a function of legitimacy. D3 doesn't look like a legitimate competitive environment when the same two teams play year after year. I highly doubt the casual viewer watched or cared about the Stagg Bowl, but those that did were treated to a steady diet of how they are the only 2 teams that matter in D3 because ESPN harps on the recent history.

It seems like people are talking about 2 different things in this thread. One group is pointing out that UWW and UMU are good and people should stop complaining, which I don't disagree with, but that's not what the thread asked. It asked are they good for D3? I can't imagine anyone besides fans of UWW and UMU actually believing that having 2 dominant teams and everyone else playing for third place is good for D3 AS A WHOLE. There are good attributes about the level of play that UMU and UWW are demonstrating for D3, but AS A WHOLE, the competitive imbalance that they represent does nothing but reinforce the idea that D3 is the home of mostly low level competition that isn't REAL college sports.

I know we all disagree, but that kind of imbalance breeds that kind of impression. And that is bad for D3.
I don't know if most viewers come away with that impression, but impressions don't always reflect reality.  The reality of the matter is that without whitewater and mount, d3 wouldn't be at the level it is at today.  They've pushed everyone else to improve. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: retagent on December 21, 2011, 10:43:53 AM
I guess it depends on what you mean by bad. There are a number of different ways to take that.

I'll just go by what comes to mind. In most of the pro leagues, as has been pointed out above, there are salary caps, and preferential drafting by those teams that finish lower in the standings. This is done, I would assume, to try to make sure that there is less of a chance for repeaters. Again, I assume, that is so that interest among the entire fan base is widened. I assume that is because those in power, as well as TV execs (or did I repeat myself?) think that is a good thing for their revenue stream. I think it is a good thing for more people to be interested in the sport, and a bad thing for fewer people to be interested in that same sport. Since those two teams have dominated for 7 years, I believe interest in D III has declined overall.  One of the indicators of interest could be the number of posts on the various league boards here. It is indisputable that the number of posts on the WIAC board has incresed dramatically, primarily by UWW followers, since 2005. I haven't done a statistical analysis, but I would venture to guess that the posts pretty much follow the success of those programs. The more successful a team, or league is, the more posts/interest.

So, if there are more teams that are in the hunt, there will be more fans who follow D III. I think that would be a good thing. Conversely, only two teams suppress overall interest, so I think that is a bad thing.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: NCF on December 21, 2011, 11:11:52 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 21, 2011, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: AO on December 21, 2011, 08:55:50 AM
The lack of parity is not the same thing as the lack of fairness.  Whitewater and Mount do not give out scholarships and their players and coaches could have made decisions to go elsewhere.  I dispute the notion that the ESPN broadcast and the promotion of D3 is hurt by Mount and UWW.  Maybe somebody should look up the ratings, but I seriously doubt the average viewer who didn't know much about d3 previously is angry about Mount and Whitewater.

It's not a function of angry, it's a function of legitimacy. D3 doesn't look like a legitimate competitive environment when the same two teams play year after year. I highly doubt the casual viewer watched or cared about the Stagg Bowl, but those that did were treated to a steady diet of how they are the only 2 teams that matter in D3 because ESPN harps on the recent history.

It seems like people are talking about 2 different things in this thread. One group is pointing out that UWW and UMU are good and people should stop complaining, which I don't disagree with, but that's not what the thread asked. It asked are they good for D3? I can't imagine anyone besides fans of UWW and UMU actually believing that having 2 dominant teams and everyone else playing for third place is good for D3 AS A WHOLE. There are good attributes about the level of play that UMU and UWW are demonstrating for D3, but AS A WHOLE, the competitive imbalance that they represent does nothing but reinforce the idea that D3 is the home of mostly low level competition that isn't REAL college sports.

I know we all disagree, but that kind of imbalance breeds that kind of impression. And that is bad for D3.
Thank-you for taking the time to develop an intelligent thread regarding this topic. I think many people would agree with you, but would not want to say anything because of the repercussions. As starting point I think there needs to be roster limits and tighter academic standards across the board at all levels. These are just my opinions, but I think you are right on target saying that as a whole most people think D3 athletics are weak and that in itself is bad for D3.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 21, 2011, 11:40:29 AM
Quote from: newcardfan on December 21, 2011, 11:11:52 AM
Thank-you for taking the time to develop an intelligent thread regarding this topic. I think many people would agree with you, but would not want to say anything because of the repercussions. As starting point I think there needs to be roster limits and tighter academic standards across the board at all levels. These are just my opinions, but I think you are right on target saying that as a whole most people think D3 athletics are weak and that in itself is bad for D3.

I'll say this for the topic, it has been very civil. We may disagree, but no one has gone on attack despite it being a contentious topic. I used the word UNFAIR in my original post and some people have picked up on it. In my later posts, I used the word (or non-word as the case may be!) UNLEVEL. I regret using UNFAIR because of the connotation and prefer to describe D3 as UNLEVEL and am trying to do so going forward. Minor difference, but I think people picked up on UNFAIR in a manner which I did not intend and it obscured what I was trying to say.

Either way, a nice discussion and I thank everyone for participating!
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: gordonmann on December 21, 2011, 11:50:01 AM
Quotebleed, i think you are misreading gordon's post.  I don't think he agree with jk at all, but is using his quote as a basis for his post.

Wesley dad is right. I wasn't agreeing with Jknezek or complaining about the purple reign. I was asking a question about his premise (D3 = significant advantage for some schools). Notice I'm not even calling that advantage "unfair" here, just significant and important in determing champions over time.  Jnezek's use of "unlevel" seems more appropriate.

Jnezek did a nice job analyzing variety of champions in men's soccer and football. D3 apparently has less variety of champions.

QuoteWhat percentage of the 239 DIII colleges have qualified at least once for the playoffs in the last 15 years? My guess is less than 40%, at least a fifth of which have never advanced beyond the first round. Consequently the vast majority of DIII colleges should concentrate their efforts on putting together a suitable regular season schedule and not concern themselves with whether the playoffs are "fair".

Frank's thinking is similar to mine, I think. Maybe it's a byproduct of our NESCAC affiliation where the schools elect not to participate in the playoffs. Here's my view on this question, if anyone cares.

Each year only a small number of football programs have a legitimate chance to win a national championship in football. Maybe that number is six as Jknezek suggests.  Whatever it is, it's a small number. Certainly less than 1 percent of the membership.

While the coaches and players on the other teams are certainly trying to win every week, and some of them use the national championship as a goal, the majority of Division III members as institutions are not trying to win a football championship.  They view football as an important part of a college that has institutional goals that likely have nothing to do with who plays in the Stagg Bowl.

Maybe the real goal is for the football team to be competitive within their region or conference because it helps recruiting. Maybe they want the football team to just beat the archrivals that alumni care about the most, because it helps fundraising. Maybe they just want the football team to have a big roster, because it drives enrollment and helps with the male-female distribution.

That doesn't mean the college administrators don't care if they don't win.  But they aren't going to put the same level of resources in their football program as other schools who are trying to win a national championship, because that's not really their goal.

And that's okay.

It's okay if Mary Hardin-Baylor spends far more on their program than someone like Bluffton (and they do if you look at the federally reported figures).  It's okay if Wesley has way more players on its roster than Martin Luther.  It's okay that Mount Union has more full time coaches than the NEFC schools, who sometimes have no full time coaches.  It's okay if some schools have beautiful new facilities and others play in stadiums that were built in the 1970s and barely reach compliance with modern code standards. It's okay that some schools have high tuition and can offer large financial aid packages to the students, including football players, while others have low tuition or maybe offer comparatively little financial aid.  It's even okay that some schools choose to end their seasons after 8 games and not participate in the playoffs at all.

These are all decisions that create institutional advantages and they all matter over time. Yes, individual players, coaches and even plays make a difference in a season. But I think Larry Kehres would tell you that he alone is not the reason Mount Union has had this long of success. Mount Union has institutional advantages as a result of the decisions its leaders have made.

It's okay for schools to have different goals and different commitments to pursuing them. Yes, it results in a lack of parity and it doesn't make people feel any better when they get throttled by Mount Union or Whitewater or Wesley or whomever each November.  But that's the nature of the varied Division III membership.  This isn't 32 NFL teams in a league of owners where football is the core function.  This is 240 colleges for which football is a small (even if important) part of their whole operation.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Fannosaurus Rex on December 21, 2011, 12:00:34 PM
I must be one of the few sports fans who liked the old Division I system where, at the end of the season, conferences were locked into bowl games, pollsters decided who was the #1 team in the country and everyone else argued about it and complained about what a shame it was that there wasn't a tournament to settle it on the field.  I figure a good part of the reason there is any controversy over how Div. I ends its season is because of the millions of dollars difference between playing in a lesser bowl vs playing in the BCS championship game.  We don't have that problem.

I love Division III sports as much as the next guy, but I don't need to know who is the best Division III football team in the whole country.  Rather than having a five week tournament to decide a national champion, I think it would be more in keeping with the Division III philosophy to let the conference champs play one bowl game against each other at the end of the season so that no one has more than an eleven game season.  The conference commissioners could get together at some point to try to figure out competitive match-ups that don't involve too much travel.  Wisconsin could play Ohio for as long as that makes sense.  I figure this year, after Wesley and St Thomas each won their bowl games and then got ranked less than #2 in the D3Football.com poll, all of their fans would be complaining about how they were robbed and this is the year they would have beaten Mount/UWW.  I guess I must like conflict more than I realized.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 21, 2011, 01:14:58 PM
So is this just a "it is what it is" type situation? Yes, the purple powers are bad for DIII, but it's not their fault, possibly? Is it a matter of both UMU and UWW doing a great job exploiting the advantages their conference has over other conferences (which I agree with)?? OAC: roster limit (or lack there of). WIAC: limited college football recruiting competition in the state of Wisconsin.

Also, I have to agree that both of those universities (among others) have put a lot of resources into its athletic (football) programs to help them along the way to become successful. Which is something some universities don't do for it's athletic programs.

So how can it be fixed? Not sure that it can. Unless all 240 schools start becoming serious about competing in football, which won't happen. The majority of DIII schools are all about academics (and I'm not saying UMU and UWW aren't), and don't want to bother putting resources into athletics which might compromise its academic integrity (i.e. NESCAC).

Basically, schools have option to make the playing field a little more level, but choose not to. St. Thomas made that choice a few years back, and it's landed them among the elite in DIII football the past couple of years. I'm not saying that can happen to all 240 schools, but it's possible (but unlikely).

Good discussion here...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 21, 2011, 01:38:20 PM
I think you hit it on the head 02 Warhawk. Not every issue has or needs a solution. Personally I think time will take care of some of it. UMU and UWW fans may not want to hear it, but nothing lasts forever, although it seems like UMU is working on it! That being said, I just don't believe, given the current landscape of D3, that we will ever have a truly broad base of schools with a chance to win the title at any given time. There are just too few rules that govern D3 to help foster a semblance of parity.

Call it a structural flaw if you want. I believe it hurts the legitimacy of D3 football competition, but with 240 member institutions and seemingly more announced every year, D3 football as it is presently constructed is doing pretty well regardless of whether the Purple Powers are good or bad...

"The purpose of the NCAA is to assist its members in developing the basis for consistent, equitable competition while minimizing infringement on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs. The above statement articulates principles that represent a commitment to Division III membership and shall serve as a guide for the preparation of legislation by the division and for planning and implementation of programs by institutions and conferences."

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Academics+and+Athletes/SAAC/Division+III/Mission+and+Philosophy.html

Twin goals are always hard to achieve!


Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 21, 2011, 02:01:29 PM
I find it somewhat ironic that this run has started after the NCAA Division III member schools voted to eliminate redshirting, which was supposed to balance the field more.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 21, 2011, 02:03:39 PM
Parity doesn't need to be a goal or achievement.   Jknezek referenced the european soccer leagues that don't have much parity, but failed to mention the fact that those leagues with little parity are also hugely successful.  The big clubs with the money do the majority of the winning, but that doesn't mean the little clubs have no support.  The little teams understand they don't have many of the advantages of the bigger clubs, but they don't demand handicaps such as a salary cap to compete.  It also helps to have promotion/relegation to give each team something to fight for to maintain or gain position amongst all divisions.  You might be 2-6, but your next game against another 2-6 team might determine your division for next year, making for a well attended closely fought game.  We may hate the yankees but they sure do help baseball's popularity and tv money. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: retagent on December 21, 2011, 03:08:07 PM
I understand what gordonmann is saying, and agree, for the most part. I took the question as asking whether it was good for D III football. As far as European soccer, I would think that the broad support of that sport among the Euro masses, is a main reason for it's ability to draw support for the "lesser" teams. They just like soccer. I've attended more UWW games in the past few years, because I live about 1/2 hour from Whitewater, than those of my alma mater (some overlapped). I have an interest in D III football because I attended St John's. If that was not the case, I might not have gone to any games. If SJU did not have a program where they have competed at the higher level, my interest would be minimal.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: gordonmann on December 21, 2011, 03:55:42 PM
QuoteI find it somewhat ironic that this run has started after the NCAA Division III member schools voted to eliminate redshirting, which was supposed to balance the field more.

I don't remember how redshirts worked. But maybe eliminating red shirts had the opposite effect within individual conferences because the red shirts helped some schools more than others. Maybe WIAC school X was able to compete with UW-Whitewater more easily when both could offer redshirts. The elimination of red shirts hurts WIAC school X more than it hurt UW-Whitewater for whatever reason and the gap between the programs grew.

Just a theory.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 21, 2011, 04:49:56 PM
I have heard in the past people with the opinion that MUC and UWW should leave d3 and go 1-aa or d2 , (which I think is silly).

But I have always wondered why these two teams at least try to schedule a 1-aa team.  Or any d3 team for that matter.  It happens in other sports (Hell, Boston College plays the Red Sox in a baseball exibition game).  I always wondered why these games don't happen.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 21, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
I was meaning more in terms of the WIAC (and ASC and NWC) using them while almost nobody else did. The cutting down on 23-year-old seniors doesn't seem to have made UWW less competitive.

JU -- it takes two to schedule. Not much point in taking that game if you're on the other side. You can't prove anything by winning and can look bad by losing.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 21, 2011, 05:28:51 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 21, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
I was meaning more in terms of the WIAC (and ASC and NWC) using them while almost nobody else did. The cutting down on 23-year-old seniors doesn't seem to have made UWW less competitive.

JU -- it takes two to schedule. Not much point in taking that game if you're on the other side. You can't prove anything by winning and can look bad by losing.
If Youngstown State is willing to schedule Valparaiso, why not schedule Franklin or Mount?  They'd look worse if they lost to Valpo than if they lost to Mount and Mount would bring a bigger gate.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 21, 2011, 05:32:59 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 21, 2011, 04:58:01 PM
I was meaning more in terms of the WIAC (and ASC and NWC) using them while almost nobody else did. The cutting down on 23-year-old seniors doesn't seem to have made UWW less competitive.

JU -- it takes two to schedule. Not much point in taking that game if you're on the other side. You can't prove anything by winning and can look bad by losing.

I agree but they do it in basketball and some other sports as well.  I would think you would see at least a few cross divisional football games each year.  I would think a Youngstown/Mt. Union game would generate some good Ohio college interest for both schools.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: bleedpurple on December 21, 2011, 07:28:09 PM
Thanks to everyone who has posted so far. Some of these ideas were exactly what I was looking for when starting the thread. I appreciate the reasoned thoughts of everyone on both sides of the issue. 

It seems to me, more "rules" attempting to level the playing field would reduce the quality of football, but would increase parity (that's if the "rules" were even effective in what they tried to accomplish).

In a sense, the purple powers aren't alone in creating the disparity. The "gap" in D3 football is also widened by schools who are given a wide open opportunity and choose a comparatively minimal level of commitment to the football program.  I'm not saying this is bad, because as someone noted, the university is not an NFL franchise and has far broader goals. However, when schools choose to keep status-quo as opposed to growing/strengthening their program, it may actually be a sign of a healthy "system" (D3 football) for them to fall further behind others with a stronger commitment.

And certainly whatever schools choose a comparatively minimal commitment to football (again, not inherently a "bad thing"), really have no business aspiring to a national championship anyway.  D3 football is still made up of highly competitive athletes and coaches. It is legitimate, competitive college football. I think any effort to "level the playing field" by somehow restricting the commitment levels in some ways would serve to de-legitmize D3 in people's eyes, not increase interest.  (I realize no one has really advocated any rules changes to level the playing field, but rather noted their belief that the field is not level). 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 21, 2011, 08:58:05 PM
We see the disparity in the NCAC.

Teams like Wabash, Witt and others put a big effort into football - making sure they get plenty of freshmen who want to play football and are qualified to succeed at their institutions. Some schools, like Kenyon are not making an effort in football recruiting and it shows.

But conferences and D-3 are more than just football, a fact lost upon many of the D-1 programs and conferences. I pity the Boise State athletes now in the 'Big East' with the travel and the study interruptions.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: wesleydad on December 21, 2011, 10:57:44 PM
great points and discussion.  there are plenty of really smart people on here.  glad i get to read your posts.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 22, 2011, 01:02:02 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 21, 2011, 08:58:05 PM
We see the disparity in the NCAC.

Teams like Wabash, Witt and others put a big effort into football - making sure they get plenty of freshmen who want to play football and are qualified to succeed at their institutions. Some schools, like Kenyon are not making an effort in football recruiting and it shows.

But conferences and D-3 are more than just football, a fact lost upon many of the D-1 programs and conferences. I pity the Boise State athletes now in the 'Big East' with the travel and the study interruptions.
Yes, i'm sure the Boise athletes are just devastated, Imagine that you're 19 years old and you're forced to take time off of class to take trips to San Diego, Houston and Florida.  No one is going to want to play for Boise now.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 22, 2011, 07:38:05 AM
The college education of a Boise State football player will increasingly suffer relative to the college education of a football player from another college which travels significantly less than Boise State..
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 22, 2011, 07:54:21 AM
Quote from: frank uible on December 22, 2011, 07:38:05 AM
The college education of a Boise State football player will increasingly suffer relative to the college education of a football player from another college which travels significantly less than Boise State..

These d1 teams have tutors that go with the teams on all these trips.  If a student is serious enough to go to the library for 10 hours a week instead of going to campus parties or watching TV in their dormrooms for those 10 hours, that same student can spend that time studying on football trips as well. 

There are just as many distractions on campus than there is on the road.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: NCF on December 22, 2011, 08:11:15 AM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on December 22, 2011, 07:54:21 AM
Quote from: frank uible on December 22, 2011, 07:38:05 AM
The college education of a Boise State football player will increasingly suffer relative to the college education of a football player from another college which travels significantly less than Boise State..

These d1 teams have tutors that go with the teams on all these trips.  If a student is serious enough to go to the library for 10 hours a week instead of going to campus parties or watching TV in their dormrooms for those 10 hours, that same student can spend that time studying on football trips as well. 

There are just as many distractions on campus than there is on the road.

And the students who take advantage of the studying on the road are the same ones who would study if they were on campus. The students who don't study much on campus will do even less on the road. I know firsthand from former D1 athletes about  how much "studying" goes on during the season. I'm not saying all schools and all athletes because this issue is different at different schools. It takes a special student-athlete to combine both and we all know that for many in D1 premier sports, school is not the main goal, just a stop before the NFL or NBA. Which brings up a whole new thread as this one is taking a turn from the original premise.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 22, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
Two points: 1) An on-the-road tutor is not nearly a substitute for what is missed in class; 2) The vast majority of DI players never make a career out of playing professional athletics.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 22, 2011, 10:35:39 AM
Yes, we've veered into a sidebar but the original point is this:

It's not the D-3 way to make exceptions or exclusions in any sport because of dominance. D-3 is more than a sport - it's about the entire athletics program fitting into the D-3 ethos. Yes, we like to complain about dominance by some teams, complain about some conferences not electing to go to the football playoffs, wonder why some teams even support a certain sport when they clearly don't have it in their heart to be competitive. But that's not the true point of D-3.

D-3 swimming didn't die because Kenyon won all of those championships. D-3 football won't be hurt by this long run by the purples.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: NCF on December 22, 2011, 10:42:37 AM
Quote from: frank uible on December 22, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
Two points: 1) An on-the-road tutor is not nearly a substitute for what is missed in class; 2) The vast majority of DI players never make a career out of playing professional athletics.

Amen! And 3) so many scholarships are wasted on undeserving students just because they are gifted athletes. It is a slap in the face to those who not only busted their a$#@ on the field, but also took the high road in the classroom. 4) the shame of seeing so many D1 scholarship athletes who had been given a golden opportunity get dismissed from their teams for academic or legal issues. Sorry, will get off the soapbox now.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 22, 2011, 10:56:00 AM
Quote from: newcardfan on December 22, 2011, 10:42:37 AM
Quote from: frank uible on December 22, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
Two points: 1) An on-the-road tutor is not nearly a substitute for what is missed in class; 2) The vast majority of DI players never make a career out of playing professional athletics.

Amen! And 3) so many scholarships are wasted on undeserving students just because they are gifted athletes. It is a slap in the face to those who not only busted their a$#@ on the field, but also took the high road in the classroom. 4) the shame of seeing so many D1 scholarship athletes who had been given a golden opportunity get dismissed from their teams for academic or legal issues. Sorry, will get off the soapbox now.
You don't have to take shots at D1 to be proud of D3.  D3 has plenty of poor students among its ranks.  D1 College football is the NFL's minor league.  I see nothing wrong with paying gifted athletes (though poorly in the form of scholarship, room and board), because I routinely pay to see them play, they earn it, and if they want to squander their opportunity at an education, it's up to them.  They're not taking anybody's spot, joe schmo bad athlete but good student just might not be worth the scholarship you want to give him.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: NCF on December 22, 2011, 11:17:24 AM
Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 10:56:00 AM
Quote from: newcardfan on December 22, 2011, 10:42:37 AM
Quote from: frank uible on December 22, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
Two points: 1) An on-the-road tutor is not nearly a substitute for what is missed in class; 2) The vast majority of DI players never make a career out of playing professional athletics.

Amen! And 3) so many scholarships are wasted on undeserving students just because they are gifted athletes. It is a slap in the face to those who not only busted their a$#@ on the field, but also took the high road in the classroom. 4) the shame of seeing so many D1 scholarship athletes who had been given a golden opportunity get dismissed from their teams for academic or legal issues. Sorry, will get off the soapbox now.
You don't have to take shots at D1 to be proud of D3.  D3 has plenty of poor students among its ranks.  D1 College football is the NFL's minor league.  I see nothing wrong with paying gifted athletes (though poorly in the form of scholarship, room and board), because I routinely pay to see them play, they earn it, and if they want to squander their opportunity at an education, it's up to them.  They're not taking anybody's spot, joe schmo bad athlete but good student just might not be worth the scholarship you want to give him.
I'm not taking shots, just read the papers. And there are plenty of D3 athletes that are not college ready either and don't belong there. There are also plenty of "joe schmo's" who are both and since we call college students "student-athletes" they better d$#m well be students first, otherwise stop giving them money for something they are not qualified to be doing. I would also say stop giving undeserving "student-athletes" in any division money, in any form ,if they are not able to handle college level work. And until you see joe schmo in action, don't take a shot at him either.  I think many people think college sports in general have gotten way out of hand in regard to this issue and don't know how to fix the problem anymore.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 22, 2011, 11:17:57 AM
Quote from: frank uible on December 22, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
Two points: 1) An on-the-road tutor is not nearly a substitute for what is missed in class; 2) The vast majority of DI players never make a career out of playing professional athletics.

Oh I think these tutors are better than what is missed in class in many cases.  These tudors and TAs often will go above and beyond what goes on in the classroom.  Of course it is always up to the student to get the most of these opportunities, but d1 atletes anyway have more academic resources than the average student has in many cases.

I'm also basing a lot of this on what I know goes on at Boston College, which probably does more than your average d1 school does in terms of athletets and academics.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: altor on December 22, 2011, 12:20:03 PM
Quote from: Fannosaurus Rex on December 21, 2011, 12:00:34 PM
I must be one of the few sports fans who liked the old Division I system where, at the end of the season, conferences were locked into bowl games, pollsters decided who was the #1 team in the country and everyone else argued about it and complained about what a shame it was that there wasn't a tournament to settle it on the field.

I'm a fan of going back to JBOB (Just a Bunch of Bowls) in D-I.  It's not going to happen, but one can dream.

People put too much emphasis on National Championships any more.  This is true in most sports, but especially in football.  The focus should be on winning your conference.  Supposedly, the other institutions in your conference are "like-minded."  If you defeat all of them, doesn't that say enough about your ability?  Who cares if you can't defeat schools that have ten times the student population of your school?  Does it really matter that the schools that can beat you have admissions standards that would make the University of Phoenix turn their head in disgust?  You beat the schools whom you can most relate to, and that says something.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 22, 2011, 12:35:30 PM
Quote from: altor on December 22, 2011, 12:20:03 PM
Quote from: Fannosaurus Rex on December 21, 2011, 12:00:34 PM
I must be one of the few sports fans who liked the old Division I system where, at the end of the season, conferences were locked into bowl games, pollsters decided who was the #1 team in the country and everyone else argued about it and complained about what a shame it was that there wasn't a tournament to settle it on the field.

I'm a fan of going back to JBOB (Just a Bunch of Bowls) in D-I.  It's not going to happen, but one can dream.

People put too much emphasis on National Championships any more.  This is true in most sports, but especially in football.  The focus should be on winning your conference.  Supposedly, the other institutions in your conference are "like-minded."  If you defeat all of them, doesn't that say enough about your ability?  Who cares if you can't defeat schools that have ten times the student population of your school?  Does it really matter that the schools that can beat you have admissions standards that would make the University of Phoenix turn their head in disgust?  You beat the schools whom you can most relate to, and that says something.
So if you can't beat 'em, don't play em?  Smarter doesn't have to mean less athletic or skilled.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: NCF on December 22, 2011, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 12:35:30 PM
Quote from: altor on December 22, 2011, 12:20:03 PM
Quote from: Fannosaurus Rex on December 21, 2011, 12:00:34 PM
I must be one of the few sports fans who liked the old Division I system where, at the end of the season, conferences were locked into bowl games, pollsters decided who was the #1 team in the country and everyone else argued about it and complained about what a shame it was that there wasn't a tournament to settle it on the field.

I'm a fan of going back to JBOB (Just a Bunch of Bowls) in D-I.  It's not going to happen, but one can dream.

People put too much emphasis on National Championships any more.  This is true in most sports, but especially in football.  The focus should be on winning your conference.  Supposedly, the other institutions in your conference are "like-minded."  If you defeat all of them, doesn't that say enough about your ability?  Who cares if you can't defeat schools that have ten times the student population of your school?  Does it really matter that the schools that can beat you have admissions standards that would make the University of Phoenix turn their head in disgust?  You beat the schools whom you can most relate to, and that says something.
So if you can't beat 'em, don't play em?  Smarter doesn't have to mean less athletic or skilled.

Don't tell that to those guys from the "other" schools, that have a legitimate shot at beating one of the purples. :)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 12:55:49 PM
Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 12:35:30 PM
So if you can't beat 'em, don't play em?  Smarter doesn't have to mean less athletic or skilled.

No, but the pool of possible candidates is a heck of a lot smaller as you go higher up the admissions ladder. Doesn't mean it can't be done, just gets exponentially harder to find enough good athletes.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 22, 2011, 01:11:52 PM
This has been a very interesting and informative thread to read, thanks much.
As to the original question of whether the Mt vs UWW streak is bad for DIII- I think there are many good opinions as to why it is not- and there are good reasons as to why it has been good.  I recently heard an interview on the Warhawk site (and Bleed aludes to this a bit), when it comes to the press/media exposure, they typically need a "hook" to inspire their engagement.  If it wasn't for the intrigue of "7 straight national title games", it is possible that DIII would receive significantly less national exposure.  The national attention has helped all of the DIII world.  Specific to football, Mt (first) and then UWW have given the DIII programs that want to compete nationally not only a sort of blueprint, but also proof to all involved just how good DIII football can be.  As fans, we benefit from this. 

jknezek, I understand the point you are making and appreciate your use of statistics, however, you assume 100% of 240 DIII schools actually want to win/have a goal to win/are committed to winning the championship.   It would be very interesting to poll DIII adminstrations to determine the level of importance they place on National performance of their football team.  From that sample then, your statistics would seem to be more appropriate. 

-100% of professional teams are trying to win the championship- As such, you should expect a greater variety of champions. 
-As for scholarship schools, although I imagine not every administration has National Championship goals, I would imagine most have higher expectations of performance and/or a return on their investment of resources into athletics- As such, you should expect a greater variety of champions. 
-Are DIII schools looking for a performance/monetary return on their investment?   
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gray Fox on December 22, 2011, 01:27:11 PM
On the SCIAC boards, there are always those who question why Caltech should be part of the league because they are rarely competitive.  But they fit the philosophy of D3 perfectly and actually promote athletic competition, even if it's at the intramural level.  Every school has it's own mission.

BTW, John Wooden's main goal each year was to win his conference. :)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 22, 2011, 01:32:02 PM
uh, so no I don't think the purple powers are bad for D-3.... i thank that was the question.

as far as the ancillary questions and discussions, if the school is big enough, i am unsure how general comitment to athletics apply to academics, that is, schools big enough can have fairly good athletic programs, be very competitive, recruit top end athletes, and where/when needed have pretty easy majors for those folk inorder to devote 6+ hrs/d to a sport along with travel. If you are big enough, athletes are a small portion of the student population. Many big schools can still maintain some high end top knotch academic majors, in certain areas, that are usually devoid of athletes (unfortunatly).

i work at one such school (Auburn >25,000 students, competitive in several sports, perennial nat champs in swimming...known for cow doktors and astronauts, and leads the south quandrant of the USA for LACK of grade inflation, etc etc etc). AU has relatively few student athletes as a percent of it's total student enrollment..... and NO we don't pay players...we are in the SEC and baby that conference is real clean 8-)

The boy (son) graduated from the other side of the coin (Huntingdon <1200 students, vastly fewer majors, true scholar athletes and few things that can just shuttle athletes through to graduation without affecting the perception of entire school's academics). At his school, student - athletes are a sizable % of the total student body. Thus majors enhancing student athletes ability to 'just get by' or 'floating' would substantially affect the numbers seen on admissions, accaeptance to professional / grade schools, etc.

As far as "can't beat em don't play em". Interesting comment and food for thought. Troy University ( D-1 & 1.5 hrs from us) has the attitude and displays the logo "any body, any where, any time". That idea built thier program from D-2 =>D-1AA=> perennial Bowl team in D-1 (not SEC but Sunbelt and not bad). The coaches at Huntingdon are all mostly former Troy folk, and Huntingdon has the same attitude... listed this yr as if not toughest near toughest regular season schedule...and it left them 7-3, unfortunatly.  They will try it again next season, with the same attitude for this program in it's 8-9th season of football.  This point (any body, any time, any where), oddly, is a recruiting point, not only one, but one non the less.

I agree with Wesleydad (i usuallly do) i am impressed with how smart most of the folk are here....way betta than the Bama chat sites

But back to the original, Purple is not bad for D-3...... to me at least ;D
keep the faith
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 01:43:40 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 22, 2011, 01:11:52 PM
jknezek, I understand the point you are making and appreciate your use of statistics, however, you assume 100% of 240 DIII schools actually want to win/have a goal to win/are committed to winning the championship.   It would be very interesting to poll DIII adminstrations to determine the level of importance they place on National performance of their football team.  From that sample then, your statistics would seem to be more appropriate. 

That's pretty funny. Exactly how do you define a team that doesn't want to win a championship? Do you hire a coach with a losing record and bad people skills? Or do you recruit kids that have never played the game? As for your survey, what exactly would you compare it to? A scale of 1-10 would vary by individual, so that is out. Maybe you could ask them if they would trade a national title versus a 1pt, 5pt, 10pt, or 50pt boost in incoming SAT scores? Or maybe you could ask about a national title versus a 50K, 100k, or 500K increase in athletic department funding? You would need a frame of reference, not just "is it important" since that is completely subjective.

Anyway, I've seen the idea that schools don't care about winning come up in a few posts and it just makes me scratch my head. You don't field a team to lose. Granted you may not put as many resources into the sport as someone else, but that doesn't mean you are fielding a team with no intention to compete. That's just a ridiculous assumption.

There are 239 teams playing D3 football and every one of them, outside the NESCAC, WANTS to win the national title. It's just not realistic for 234 of them (approximately) to believe they can do so. Any way you want to try and parse that fact, it indicates a truly pathetic level of competitive balance as a percentage of participation.

Again, go back to the D3 quote I posted about the goals of D3. One part is to foster a "consistent, equitable competition." The results of D3, and an overall analysis of the competitive structure of D3 at THIS TIME, does nothing to indicate that across D3 from top to bottom there is anything approaching a "consistant, equitable competition." The reaon for that is that there is a desire to minimize "infringing on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs." This allows programs to put in more or less resources, recruit different types of students, etc.

I accept that these two goals are only marginally compatible, but its not because schools don't want to win. That is an odd justification.

And, as I pointed out earlier, its not just football, though I think D3 football is probably one of the most egregious examples simply because of the size of the resources required. D3 is an odd level of competition. I can believe that there is competitive imbalance and that the imbalance is a bad thing. I can also back up the fact that there is imbalance with plenty of statistics. I don't have a way of justifying my belief that it is a bad thing.

However, any time you have 239 teams competing in a sport that 234 of them really don't have a chance at winning, I just smile whenever someone tells me this is, somehow, a GOOD thing. I suppose if you subscribe to the fact that everyone who competes gets an equal trophy then winning wouldn't matter? You are certainly entitled to that opinion, I just can't imagine how the simple fact that 98% of the universe of participants has no chance of winning is a GOOD thing.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: firstdown on December 22, 2011, 02:14:25 PM
Not long ago it was just Mount Union that stood at the pinnacle.  Of late, the University of Wisconsin Whitewater has elevated its game to that level.  Teams like St Thomas, Wesley, Wabash, and Mary Hardin Baylor are not far off the pace, and there are likely at least another dozen teams who are working hard to raise themselves to that level as well.  Having Mount Union and the University of Wisconsin Whitewater set a high standard is good for Division III as it challenges others to get there as well.  The world we live is highly competitive and rising to the challenge in football helps prepare all that participate to work hard to be prepared to compete in life.  It teaches many lessons that are complementary to the lessons in the classroom.  Whether one remembers it from watching on TV or from the movie, the Miracle on Ice from the 1980 Winter Olympics hockey competition is an inspiring retelling of David and Golliath.  Similarly, the movie Hoosiers retells the story of tiny Milam's winning the State basketball championship in 1954.  That's why Plump's Last Shot in Broadripple is always a popular place and is featured whenever the NCAA Final Four is in Indianapolis.  Anyone who was in Crawfordsville for the Wabash North Central game, can't come away unchanged by Tyler Burke's courage and by Wabash not giving up despite being on the ropes. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 22, 2011, 02:15:13 PM
There are more important things to college sports than winning national championships.  How was their effort?  How was their preparation?  How did they respond to adversity?  How did they represent themselves and their school?  Whitewater and Mount surely do have some advantages, but losing to them does not negate any particular team's success. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 02:24:01 PM
Quote from: firstdown on December 22, 2011, 02:14:25 PM
Not long ago it was just Mount Union that stood at the pinnacle.  Of late, the University of Wisconsin Whitewater has elevated its game to that level.  Teams like St Thomas, Wesley, Wabash, and Mary Hardin Baylor are not far off the pace, and there are likely at least another dozen teams who working hard to raise themselves as well. 

Time will tell. I hope you are right. To have 15-25 teams, each year, with a good shot at winning the title would be a great thing for D3. That being said, I'm thinking I could find a post like this every year since D3boards.com started mentioning "close" teams. In reality, we've had 7 straight UWW-UMU Staggs.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 22, 2011, 02:28:43 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 01:43:40 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 22, 2011, 01:11:52 PM
jknezek, I understand the point you are making and appreciate your use of statistics, however, you assume 100% of 240 DIII schools actually want to win/have a goal to win/are committed to winning the championship.   It would be very interesting to poll DIII adminstrations to determine the level of importance they place on National performance of their football team.  From that sample then, your statistics would seem to be more appropriate. 

That's pretty funny. Exactly how do you define a team that doesn't want to win a championship? Do you hire a coach with a losing record and bad people skills? Or do you recruit kids that have never played the game? As for your survey, what exactly would you compare it to? A scale of 1-10 would vary by individual, so that is out. Maybe you could ask them if they would trade a national title versus a 1pt, 5pt, 10pt, or 50pt boost in incoming SAT scores? Or maybe you could ask about a national title versus a 50K, 100k, or 500K increase in athletic department funding? You would need a frame of reference, not just "is it important" since that is completely subjective.

Anyway, I've seen the idea that schools don't care about winning come up in a few posts and it just makes me scratch my head. You don't field a team to lose. Granted you may not put as many resources into the sport as someone else, but that doesn't mean you are fielding a team with no intention to compete. That's just a ridiculous assumption.

There are 239 teams playing D3 football and every one of them, outside the NESCAC, WANTS to win the national title. It's just not realistic for 234 of them (approximately) to believe they can do so. Any way you want to try and parse that fact, it indicates a truly pathetic level of competitive balance as a percentage of participation.

Again, go back to the D3 quote I posted about the goals of D3. One part is to foster a "consistent, equitable competition." The results of D3, and an overall analysis of the competitive structure of D3 at THIS TIME, does nothing to indicate that across D3 from top to bottom there is anything approaching a "consistant, equitable competition." The reaon for that is that there is a desire to minimize "infringing on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs." This allows programs to put in more or less resources, recruit different types of students, etc.

I accept that these two goals are only marginally compatible, but its not because schools don't want to win. That is an odd justification.

And, as I pointed out earlier, its not just football, though I think D3 football is probably one of the most egregious examples simply because of the size of the resources required. D3 is an odd level of competition. I can believe that there is competitive imbalance and that the imbalance is a bad thing. I can also back up the fact that there is imbalance with plenty of statistics. I don't have a way of justifying my belief that it is a bad thing.

However, any time you have 239 teams competing in a sport that 234 of them really don't have a chance at winning, I just smile whenever someone tells me this is, somehow, a GOOD thing. I suppose if you subscribe to the fact that everyone who competes gets an equal trophy then winning wouldn't matter? You are certainly entitled to that opinion, I just can't imagine how the simple fact that 98% of the universe of participants has no chance of winning is a GOOD thing.

Huh- did I or someone else claim that schools are "fielding a team with no intention to compete"?
The point is simple w analogy.
I can set a goal to participate in a marathon.
I can further define that goal and aspire to finish a marathon.
I can further define w things like: running the entire race wout stopping or finishing in a certain time frame or in a certain place amongst people in my age group or amongst my gender or overall.  At the end of the day, the goal I choose will determine what I must dedicate in terms of time, resources and effort.
The fact that 239 schools choose to participate in DIII football doesn't, in any shape, way or form, mean that 238 are disappointed they didn't win the Stagg Bowl. Only a relative handful are disappointed, and it's those that set the goal of winning.  As such, Mt v UWW is not a bad thing for the majority of D III- it is an inspiration for those that have narrowed their goal to challenging nationally.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 02:32:20 PM
QuoteAnyway, I've seen the idea that schools don't care about winning come up in a few posts and it just makes me scratch my head. You don't field a team to lose. Granted you may not put as many resources into the sport as someone else, but that doesn't mean you are fielding a team with no intention to compete.

Emma hit the point before I could. There's a lot of room for variety of goals between the two positions you are offering - "I field a team but don't care if I win" and "I only field a team to win a national championship."  It's certainly possible to compete (in your conference, region, with your closest rivals) without having any serious intention of competing for a national championship.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 02:35:51 PM
QuoteBTW, John Wooden's main goal each year was to win his conference

Earlier this year I interviewed Bill Manlove, the former Widener head coach and current Del Val assistant who was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame this summer. He said his goal was always to win the conference, not the national title, though he won two with Widener in the late 1970s. He also thought one of the biggest differences between Division III schools now and Division III schools in the late 1970s is that more schools appear to be targeting the national championship as their goal. He didn't say that was good or bad, just that it was different.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Fannosaurus Rex on December 22, 2011, 02:40:10 PM
Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 12:35:30 PM
Quote from: altor on December 22, 2011, 12:20:03 PM
Quote from: Fannosaurus Rex on December 21, 2011, 12:00:34 PM
I must be one of the few sports fans who liked the old Division I system where, at the end of the season, conferences were locked into bowl games, pollsters decided who was the #1 team in the country and everyone else argued about it and complained about what a shame it was that there wasn't a tournament to settle it on the field.

I'm a fan of going back to JBOB (Just a Bunch of Bowls) in D-I.  It's not going to happen, but one can dream.

People put too much emphasis on National Championships any more.  This is true in most sports, but especially in football.  The focus should be on winning your conference.  Supposedly, the other institutions in your conference are "like-minded."  If you defeat all of them, doesn't that say enough about your ability?  Who cares if you can't defeat schools that have ten times the student population of your school?  Does it really matter that the schools that can beat you have admissions standards that would make the University of Phoenix turn their head in disgust?  You beat the schools whom you can most relate to, and that says something.
So if you can't beat 'em, don't play em?  Smarter doesn't have to mean less athletic or skilled.

Some school might be more willing to play games they might lose if they weren't worried about non-conferences loses keeping them out of the play-offs.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 02:32:20 PM
QuoteAnyway, I've seen the idea that schools don't care about winning come up in a few posts and it just makes me scratch my head. You don't field a team to lose. Granted you may not put as many resources into the sport as someone else, but that doesn't mean you are fielding a team with no intention to compete.

Emma hit the point before I could. There's a lot of room for variety of goals between the two positions you are offering - "I field a team but don't care if I win" and "I only field a team to win a national championship."  It's certainly possible to compete (in your conference, region, with your closest rivals) without having any serious intention of competing for a national championship.

Yeah. I don't completely disagree. He pointed out one side and I hit the other, but there is space in the middle. However, I will make one argument that should lay this to rest. As far as I know, no team has ever declined an invitation to the D3 NCAA tournament after receiving a bid, except for the NESCAC. If there is this whole host of schools that have no intention of playing, why do they go to the tournament? Why aren't there more NESCAC situations?

Especially some team that is staring down a pairing in the first round at UWW or at UMU? If they really had no desire, you'd think someone would step up and say, "this is not for me. thanks, but i'll pass." The argument just doesn't hold much water. Every one of those teams, whether they started out the season thinking they could win the national title or not, gets the bid and starts dreaming of going on the magic run. That tells me that the argument holds very little water.

All that being said, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt if someone can quantify it. For example, you would think the same disparity would exist to some degree at D2 and FCS levels as well. They STILL have a lot more variability at the top than D3 does. Do we think it is half the teams in D3? 25%? 10%? You have to draw the line somewhere and you can't say that the only teams that want to win are the teams that are winning. I'd argue that the only teams that DON'T want to win are the ones that have done somthing about it, the NESCAC schools.

The fact is, we have 5 or 6 top tier competitive teams out of 239 participants. And not one of those participants (besides the NESCAC) has ever said "no thanks, I'm not going to play in the playoffs because its not important." The limited set of top tier teams is not GOOD. Cut out 50% of the universe and you are still talking about 5% or less of teams that want to win who have a chance to win the national title. Its still really, really bad. We can keep cutting until it looks good, but that is beside the point.

I see no way of saying that having 1% or 2% or even 5% (of teams with desire? how do you label this?) of teams with a legitimate chance to win is a good ratio. If anyone can present an argument that makes a case why having less than 2% of participants with a chance to WIN is good, I have yet to see it.

I've seen lots of ancillary arguments, but no one on the other side has been able to work around the fact that having only 2% of teams with a chance to win can't be described as GOOD unless your team is part of that 2%...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 22, 2011, 03:11:52 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 02:35:51 PM
QuoteBTW, John Wooden's main goal each year was to win his conference

Earlier this year I interviewed Bill Manlove, the former Widener head coach and current Del Val assistant who was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame this summer. He said his goal was always to win the conference, not the national title, though he won two with Widener in the late 1970s. He also thought one of the biggest differences between Division III schools now and Division III schools in the late 1970s is that more schools appear to be targeting the national championship as their goal. He didn't say that was good or bad, just that it was different.

You'll never get coach Leipold (UWW) to utter the words "Stagg Bowl" or "National Championship" before or during the regular season.

Their sites are squarely set on the WIAC crown.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 22, 2011, 03:19:20 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 02:32:20 PM
QuoteAnyway, I've seen the idea that schools don't care about winning come up in a few posts and it just makes me scratch my head. You don't field a team to lose. Granted you may not put as many resources into the sport as someone else, but that doesn't mean you are fielding a team with no intention to compete.

Emma hit the point before I could. There's a lot of room for variety of goals between the two positions you are offering - "I field a team but don't care if I win" and "I only field a team to win a national championship."  It's certainly possible to compete (in your conference, region, with your closest rivals) without having any serious intention of competing for a national championship.

Yeah. I don't completely disagree. He pointed out one side and I hit the other, but there is space in the middle. However, I will make one argument that should lay this to rest. As far as I know, no team has ever declined an invitation to the D3 NCAA tournament after receiving a bid, except for the NESCAC. If there is this whole host of schools that have no intention of playing, why do they go to the tournament? Why aren't there more NESCAC situations?

Especially some team that is staring down a pairing in the first round at UWW or at UMU? If they really had no desire, you'd think someone would step up and say, "this is not for me. thanks, but i'll pass." The argument just doesn't hold much water. Every one of those teams, whether they started out the season thinking they could win the national title or not, gets the bid and starts dreaming of going on the magic run. That tells me that the argument holds very little water.

All that being said, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt if someone can quantify it. For example, you would think the same disparity would exist to some degree at D2 and FCS levels as well. They STILL have a lot more variability at the top than D3 does. Do we think it is half the teams in D3? 25%? 10%? You have to draw the line somewhere and you can't say that the only teams that want to win are the teams that are winning. I'd argue that the only teams that DON'T want to win are the ones that have done somthing about it, the NESCAC schools.

The fact is, we have 5 or 6 top tier competitive teams out of 239 participants. And not one of those participants (besides the NESCAC) has ever said "no thanks, I'm not going to play in the playoffs because its not important." The limited set of top tier teams is not GOOD. Cut out 50% of the universe and you are still talking about 5% or less of teams that want to win who have a chance to win the national title. Its still really, really bad. We can keep cutting until it looks good, but that is beside the point.

I see no way of saying that having 1% or 2% or even 5% (of teams with desire? how do you label this?) of teams with a legitimate chance to win is a good ratio. If anyone can present an argument that makes a case why having less than 2% of participants with a chance to WIN is good, I have yet to see it.

I've seen lots of ancillary arguments, but no one on the other side has been able to work around the fact that having only 2% of teams with a chance to win can't be described as GOOD unless your team is part of that 2%...

Before 2005, UWW was a part of that 98% that didn't have a chance at winning a national championship.

Things change. It won't always be like this. UWW will come back down to earth sooner or later. I'm interested to see how Mount is with life after LK. Rowan and Augustana (among others) had their time. Now those teams rarely make the playoffs.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: firstdown on December 22, 2011, 03:44:36 PM
St Scholastica and Illinois College were new teams to the play-offs this year.  St Scholastic, which has only been playing football a couple of years, had and undefeated regular season and won their conference.  Illinois College had a very successful season and finished a strong second in their conference.  If you were to ask the players, coaches, and fans of those teams if this was a successful year, you would get a resounding yes from both.  They both lost to tough opponents in the opening round, but neither walked on the field for the first round saying we are going to lose.  They knew they faced tough opponents, but hope springs eternal.  Those teams didn't find victory that day, but neither did they walk off the field feeling like losers.

They will both remember 2011 as a great season, and making the play-offs for the first time.  They are no doubt feeling a special surge of energy from the experience that will spur both  recruiting and working hard in the off season in the weight room with a new vigor as the success in 2011 feels like a prelude to better things to come.  They are as proud of their accomplishments as UWW feels with its Stagg Bowl victory. This the essence of D3.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 22, 2011, 04:08:44 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 01:43:40 PM
And, as I pointed out earlier, its not just football, though I think D3 football is probably one of the most egregious examples simply because of the size of the resources required. D3 is an odd level of competition. I can believe that there is competitive imbalance and that the imbalance is a bad thing. I can also back up the fact that there is imbalance with plenty of statistics. I don't have a way of justifying my belief that it is a bad thing.
However, any time you have 239 teams competing in a sport that 234 of them really don't have a chance at winning, I just smile whenever someone tells me this is, somehow, a GOOD thing. I suppose if you subscribe to the fact that everyone who competes gets an equal trophy then winning wouldn't matter? You are certainly entitled to that opinion, I just can't imagine how the simple fact that 98% of the universe of participants has no chance of winning is a GOOD thing.
Maybe you should reconsider your beliefs if you can't justify them?  Maybe if we took a vote among d3 fans, they might want to see some different teams in the Stagg simply to get a little variety and see new faces, but I'm also guessing the vast majority wouldn't think that Mount or UWW were somehow harming the sport.  Besides, how much harm could Mount/UWW do when they only play in 2% of all d3 football games?   The teams that do play Mount and UWW don't seem to be having any negative effects.  Teams like Oshkosh, St. Thomas and Wesley are chomping at the bit ready for another shot.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 04:51:21 PM
QuoteEvery one of those teams, whether they started out the season thinking they could win the national title or not, gets the bid and starts dreaming of going on the magic run. That tells me that the argument holds very little water.

There's a couple key distinctions here that explain how your point and mine aren't mutually exclusive.

I think you're saying that every team (except the NESCAC) has a desire to win the national championship.  Every team at least has that goal when they make the playoffs. I agree with you here. Football players -- and athletes in general -- are competitive. They want to win every game. And maybe they even believe they can (though, for some, it's probably more a hope than a belief).

My point is that some institutions -- those who govern the college and decide where to allocate limited resources -- aren't putting a priority on winning a national championship. They view the threshold for the football team's success or failure in different terms.  They want the football team to "succeed" but the Stagg Bowl isn't the sole measure of that success. So they don't put as much money in coaches, the travel budget, the facilities, etc. They decide to put money elsewhere. Not because they want the football team to lose, but because they would rather invest the resources elsewhere.  They have limited resources and building a Stagg Bowl caliber football program isn't a priority.

I have no doubt that the players and coaches feel as you suggest. They want to win every game. But if they haven't been given the resources to do it, they have limited ability to make that happen.

And that leads to a lack of parity, just as you suggest.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on December 22, 2011, 05:32:47 PM
When teams play at UWW or UMU for the first time, they walk away with two differences between their school and UWW/UMU.

One is the facilities. During the UWW semifinal game, the ESPN3 repeatedly discussed how the athletic complex at UWW was as good or better than some D-1 schools. Now, a lot of D-3 schools have significantly upgraded their facilities in the last 5 years or so, but they'll never catch up with UWW or UMU. BP has detailed how UWW was able to improve their athletic complex, augmenting public funding with private donations. That's easier to do when you only have 3 coaches in ~55 years. Within the last year, there was a thread on the WIAC forum on why the facilities are so disparate across the WIAC schools when they all receive their funding from the State of Wisconsin, more or less on an equal basis. The biggest threat to UWW may be the Wisconsin State legislature which wants to drastically reduce how they fund education. This would lead to increase tuition costs and cost cutting by the WIAC schools and test their commitment to athletic excellence.

The second area is the depth of UWW and UMU. Each has done it differently - UMU with a huge roster and UWW in a conference with a roster limit but free use of greyshirting. I've heard one coach say he needs 10 players for each win. That doesn't mean bodies, it means quality players. You have to have confidence in your third team players or even four team players to step up in big games when called upon. I don't think anyone besides UWW and UMU has the depth to withstand injuries to key players. Heck, Lee Brekke did an outstanding job in the 2010 playoffs for UWW.

Pat mentioned that the rise of UWW and UMU coincided with redshirting being illegal. Two years ago, I talked to a parent of a UWRF player. He told me his son was being redshirted. I told him there is no redshirting, it's called greyshirting. His response, Whatever, there's no difference. A player is recruited by a MWC school who tells a kid he will most likely only play in JV games as a freshman. But he'll be expected to contribute in his last three years. A WIAC school tells him he's a greyshirt candidate - he'll have a year to bulk him and mature, and still have four years of eligibility. Fair? But, the NCAA appears to look away.

The horse is out of the barn. I don't see a short term or long term fix to level D-3. Over the last two years, St. Thomas and Wesley have shown themselves to be excellent programs. Mary Hardin Baylor is always very good, as is Linfield. But none are at the level of UWW/UMU. I don't think Larry Kehres has any magic beans. When he does retire, he'll have a replacement ready to go. In my view, their program is on cruise control. UWW will continue to attract great players, many who are borderline D-2 or D-1 candidates.


Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Alliance72 on December 22, 2011, 05:34:01 PM
Having the same two teams (from a pool of 240) play for the championship seven years in a row is beyond unfair- a new term would have to be invented to describe it.  It must not be bad for D3 or they'd solve at least half the problem by putting Mt and UWW on the same side of the brackets so only one could go to the Stagg Bowl. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on December 22, 2011, 05:43:08 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 04:51:21 PM

My point is that some institutions -- those who govern the college and decide where to allocate limited resources -- aren't putting a priority on winning a national championship. They view the threshold for the football team's success or failure in different terms.  They want the football team to "succeed" but the Stagg Bowl isn't the sole measure of that success. So they don't put as much money in coaches, the travel budget, the facilities, etc. They decide to put money elsewhere. Not because they want the football team to lose, but because they would rather invest the resources elsewhere.  They have limited resources and building a Stagg Bowl caliber football program isn't a priority.


Fair enough. But when you look at the teams in the 3rd round and even the 2nd round, many of those teams are allocating resources to winning the Stagg Bowl. Yet, UWW wasn't tested until the Stagg Bowl. Franklin took two beatings to UWW this season. I think most people would acknowledge Franklin as taking the steps to be a national power. St. Thomas seems to taking the right path, yet they were easily beaten by UWW. Wesley has had cracks at both Purple Powers. How much more can those programs do? At what cost? And what is the return value to the school?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gray Fox on December 22, 2011, 05:56:18 PM
If Alabama and USC ::) played in the BCS Championship game for seven years in a row, would it be good for college football? :-X
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 06:08:04 PM
QuoteBut when you look at the teams in the 3rd round and even the 2nd round, many of those teams are allocating resources to winning the Stagg Bowl. Yet, UWW wasn't tested until the Stagg Bowl. Franklin took two beatings to UWW this season. I think most people would acknowledge Franklin as taking the steps to be a national power. St. Thomas seems to taking the right path, yet they were easily beaten by UWW. Wesley has had cracks at both Purple Powers. How much more can those programs do? At what cost? And what is the return value to the school?

Fair points. For schools that are making the investment, it may take a while to catch up. Franklin may be investing a lot in their program now, but just a couple years ago they had to play Wheaton at a local high school during the NCAA tournament because the campus stadium was in bad shape.

It's also possible that even the schools that make the investments won't catch Mount Union or UWW. They still need to have the coaches and players to get it done, along with a little bit of luck when it comes to injuries.  And it's conceivable that Mount Union and Whitewater have the perfect mix of resources, coaches, players and now unparalleled success that it will be very difficult for anyone to catch them for a while.  I haven't argued with the premise.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 04:08:44 PM

Maybe you should reconsider your beliefs if you can't justify them?  Maybe if we took a vote among d3 fans, they might want to see some different teams in the Stagg simply to get a little variety and see new faces, but I'm also guessing the vast majority wouldn't think that Mount or UWW were somehow harming the sport.  Besides, how much harm could Mount/UWW do when they only play in 2% of all d3 football games?   The teams that do play Mount and UWW don't seem to be having any negative effects.  Teams like Oshkosh, St. Thomas and Wesley are chomping at the bit ready for another shot.

If you can statistically quantify your belief I'll give your thoughts more credence than my belief. You asked how much harm? I don't think a whole lot. But when your showcase game only showcases the same two teams for seven years running and the big broadcast of the game harps on how much better those teams are than any other team in D3, I'm thinking it could do some harm to players considering D3 versus other schools. If you get the impression that if you don't play for UMU or UWW D3 is basically intramurals, then despite the fact that it is only 1 game, it does a lot of harm! It also does some harm in that it continually turns off fan bases relatively early in the year. Anyone want to bet which two teams have the largest set of regular posters on these boards? Was that the case before UWW took their huge leap?

I know the ODAC boards tend to die off throughout the season as teams get eliminated. The board itself more or less dies when the last ODAC team is eliminated in the playoffs (unfortunately the first round lately). I do believe we would have more fans following D3 for more teams more consistently if there was a rotation of more than 2 teams in the final each year. The more fans that believe their teams have a shot, the more fans follow the teams. The more fans follow the teams, the more fans and alumni are involved with their schools. The more involvement of fans and alumni, the stronger the schools get. Therefore the more teams that have a shot at the final, occasionally make the final, or rotate through the later rounds of the playoffs, the stronger D3 schools will become. Will it be a major effect? Probably not. I know donations and applications to D1 schools go through the roof when they play in the NCAA basketball tournament or the big bowl games, I would expect a similar, though much smaller, effect to occur if and when those teams get exposure late in the playoffs or in the Stagg Bowl.

The thread is "Are they bad for D3" and I continually go back to the fact that the inequality they represent is bad. Since no one can disagree that there is a vast amount of inequality, and I have a reasonable belief that this inequality is not good from a discouraging interest and participation, then why should my belief change? I have yet to see an argument that has said that the inequality they represent is GOOD in any way shape or form...

Chomping at the bit you say? We shall see. If St. Thomas shows up on UWW or UMU's NC schedule regularly, I'll agree with that. Same with Wesley. I know UWW and UMU posters say their schools have trouble scheduling NCO, and I know Wesley posters say the same. Seems like a match made in heaven? I'll give UWO credit, they certainly seemed to be chomping at that bit this year, though I notice they didn't double up on UWW as an NC game as is sometimes done in the WIAC.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Alliance72 on December 22, 2011, 06:25:23 PM
Quote from: Gray Fox on December 22, 2011, 05:56:18 PM
If Alabama and USC ::) played in the BCS Championship game for seven years in a row, would it be good for college football? :-X
No, it wouldn't and the human (AP and Coaches' polls) part oif the BCS would make sure it didn't happen.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 22, 2011, 06:25:48 PM
I think inequality is the wrong word. Inequality would be winning each playoff game by 40 or 50 points. That didn't happen.

It would be worse for D-3 if they were kicked out for being too 'good'.

They are D-3! They are in D-3 conferences. The important thing is their student athletes competing in their ENTIRE athletics program and their conferences.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 22, 2011, 06:49:21 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 04:08:44 PM

Maybe you should reconsider your beliefs if you can't justify them?  Maybe if we took a vote among d3 fans, they might want to see some different teams in the Stagg simply to get a little variety and see new faces, but I'm also guessing the vast majority wouldn't think that Mount or UWW were somehow harming the sport.  Besides, how much harm could Mount/UWW do when they only play in 2% of all d3 football games?   The teams that do play Mount and UWW don't seem to be having any negative effects.  Teams like Oshkosh, St. Thomas and Wesley are chomping at the bit ready for another shot.

If you can statistically quantify your belief I'll give your thoughts more credence than my belief. You asked how much harm? I don't think a whole lot. But when your showcase game only showcases the same two teams for seven years running and the big broadcast of the game harps on how much better those teams are than any other team in D3, I'm thinking it could do some harm to players considering D3 versus other schools. If you get the impression that if you don't play for UMU or UWW D3 is basically intramurals, then despite the fact that it is only 1 game, it does a lot of harm! It also does some harm in that it continually turns off fan bases relatively early in the year. Anyone want to bet which two teams have the largest set of regular posters on these boards? Was that the case before UWW took their huge leap?
You want me to quantify how many people have the impression that the rest of d3 is intramurals based upon their viewing of the uww/umu stagg bowl?  It's pretty safe to say it's darn near Zero.  If you're that dumb, why are you watching the d3 championship in the first place?  The far more likely reaction if this was your first exposure to d3 is to judge d3 based upon what you see rather than what you don't see. 

The bump in the number of fans that you get from making it to the championship versus the semifinals is pretty small and by the nature of bandwagon fans, it is temporary and contingent upon future success.  People are logical, if they know about Mount/UWW they won't wait until the stagg to jump on the bandwagon.  Furthermore, any gain in fans/popularity from getting to the stagg bowl does come at the cost of another team getting there.  UWW and Mount would be no different.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 22, 2011, 07:11:59 PM
I figure most of yall are way more savy at all this than i, i have only followed D-3 for ~6 yrs, I have however followed small college since I played D-2 (now D1-aa) in pre playoff days.
 
And as i am sure yall know there have been a pile of dynasties/ repeats to championship status in all those years, perhaps not to the extent of U-dub-dub & Mount, but impressive none the less (D-2 schools ND State-champs or runner up 6x from '83-90; Grand Valley champs or runner up 6x from '01-'07; NW Mo State played for champ and won 1 from '01-07;  in D-1aa: Ga southern played in the champ game 8 times from 85-2000, or dominence of conferences- SoCon having 13 participants in the D-1aa championship game from '85-07; the Gulf South's  dominance in the D-2 championship game 7x from 84-95, or dare i say the SEC in the last 5 (6) BCS champs)

My point, which i fear i lost in having fun remembering/reminiscing & looking up this stuff, is there have and continue to be school, conference dominance , yet other teams/conferences broke into the top tier, dynasties were replaced, etc.

To quote the great southern intellectual and philosopher, Tupac Amaru Shakur "It's all good"

keep the faith
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 22, 2011, 07:54:55 PM
Quote from: ILGator on December 22, 2011, 05:32:47 PM
Two years ago, I talked to a parent of a UWRF player. He told me his son was being redshirted. I told him there is no redshirting, it's called greyshirting. His response, Whatever, there's no difference. A player is recruited by a MWC school who tells a kid he will most likely only play in JV games as a freshman. But he'll be expected to contribute in his last three years. A WIAC school tells him he's a greyshirt candidate - he'll have a year to bulk him and mature, and still have four years of eligibility. Fair? But, the NCAA appears to look away.

Greyshirting is not the same as redshirting. Redshirts practiced. Greyshirts don't -- they're just students who hit the weight room. There's a significant difference.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 08:08:49 PM
Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 06:49:21 PM

You want me to quantify how many people have the impression that the rest of d3 is intramurals based upon their viewing of the uww/umu stagg bowl?  It's pretty safe to say it's darn near Zero. If you're that dumb, why are you watching the d3 championship in the first place?  The far more likely reaction if this was your first exposure to d3 is to judge d3 based upon what you see rather than what you don't see. 


And there you have it folks! The first person to take a civil discussion and head for insults when they can't come up with answer. That is not what I asked to have quantified. The discussion is about "Are the Purple Powers bad for D3". I can't quantify that they are bad, but I believe they are. You told me since I couldn't quantify it I should give it up. I asked you to quantify the reverse, that they are good for D3 and you reverted to an insult.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 04:51:21 PM
QuoteEvery one of those teams, whether they started out the season thinking they could win the national title or not, gets the bid and starts dreaming of going on the magic run. That tells me that the argument holds very little water.

I think you're saying that every team (except the NESCAC) has a desire to win the national championship.  Every team at least has that goal when they make the playoffs. I agree with you here. Football players -- and athletes in general -- are competitive. They want to win every game. And maybe they even believe they can (though, for some, it's probably more a hope than a belief).

My point is that some institutions -- those who govern the college and decide where to allocate limited resources -- aren't putting a priority on winning a national championship. They view the threshold for the football team's success or failure in different terms.  They want the football team to "succeed" but the Stagg Bowl isn't the sole measure of that success. So they don't put as much money in coaches, the travel budget, the facilities, etc. They decide to put money elsewhere. Not because they want the football team to lose, but because they would rather invest the resources elsewhere.  They have limited resources and building a Stagg Bowl caliber football program isn't a priority.

I have no doubt that the players and coaches feel as you suggest. They want to win every game. But if they haven't been given the resources to do it, they have limited ability to make that happen.

And that leads to a lack of parity, just as you suggest.

Here's my problem with your response. The assumption was that D3 isn't as un-level as I believe because not all teams are trying to win the Championship. But you can't turn on and off who is trying to win by teams that ARE winning.

I see what you are saying about administrators, but that's besides the point because administrators don't go out on the field and lose in the first round by 40 pts. The players do. If the players care, and the coaches care about going for it all, isn't that what matters for trying to make the best possible playing experience a division where more than 2% can actually have a shot at winning?

I kind of see your point but I just can't put it together with the facts. At the beginning of the season every team dreams of winning. At the end of the season, every team dreams of making the playoffs through an A, B, or C. Once in the playoffs, every team dreams of winning every game.

At game one there were 239 teams (minus the NESCAC) dreaming of winning the National Title. At playoff week one there were 32. Unfortunately, at week 1 there were only 5 capable. No matter how you slice it, the numbers are the same. The sport is about the players. The way the sport in D3 is currently constructed, of those approximately 23,000 players at the start of the season, only about 500 had a real shot at realizing the dream. Its just a bad situation.

I'm not saying you don't get a successful season by winning your conference. Heck, I think W&L had a great season going 8-2 and finishing second in the ODAC and missing the playoffs this year. I'm sure the administration and the players consider it a successful season as well. I loved it. But that doesn't mean I can't spot the flaw in having only 2% of teams with a real shot to win any given year.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: bleedpurple on December 22, 2011, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 08:21:33 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 04:51:21 PM
QuoteEvery one of those teams, whether they started out the season thinking they could win the national title or not, gets the bid and starts dreaming of going on the magic run. That tells me that the argument holds very little water.

I think you're saying that every team (except the NESCAC) has a desire to win the national championship.  Every team at least has that goal when they make the playoffs. I agree with you here. Football players -- and athletes in general -- are competitive. They want to win every game. And maybe they even believe they can (though, for some, it's probably more a hope than a belief).

My point is that some institutions -- those who govern the college and decide where to allocate limited resources -- aren't putting a priority on winning a national championship. They view the threshold for the football team's success or failure in different terms.  They want the football team to "succeed" but the Stagg Bowl isn't the sole measure of that success. So they don't put as much money in coaches, the travel budget, the facilities, etc. They decide to put money elsewhere. Not because they want the football team to lose, but because they would rather invest the resources elsewhere.  They have limited resources and building a Stagg Bowl caliber football program isn't a priority.

I have no doubt that the players and coaches feel as you suggest. They want to win every game. But if they haven't been given the resources to do it, they have limited ability to make that happen.

And that leads to a lack of parity, just as you suggest.

Here's my problem with your response. The assumption was that D3 isn't as un-level as I believe because not all teams are trying to win the Championship. But you can't turn on and off who is trying to win by teams that ARE winning.

I see what you are saying about administrators, but that's besides the point because administrators don't go out on the field and lose in the first round by 40 pts. The players do. If the players care, and the coaches care about going for it all, isn't that what matters for trying to make the best possible playing experience a division where more than 2% can actually have a shot at winning?

I kind of see your point but I just can't put it together with the facts. At the beginning of the season every team dreams of winning. At the end of the season, every team dreams of making the playoffs through an A, B, or C. Once in the playoffs, every team dreams of winning every game.

At game one there were 239 teams (minus the NESCAC) dreaming of winning the National Title. At playoff week one there were 32. Unfortunately, at week 1 there were only 5 capable. No matter how you slice it, the numbers are the same. The sport is about the players. The way the sport in D3 is currently constructed, of those approximately 23,000 players at the start of the season, only about 500 had a real shot at realizing the dream. Its just a bad situation.

I'm not saying you don't get a successful season by winning your conference. Heck, I think W&L had a great season going 8-2 and finishing second in the ODAC and missing the playoffs this year. I'm sure the administration and the players consider it a successful season as well. I loved it. But that doesn't mean I can't spot the flaw in having only 2% of teams with a real shot to win any given year.

I think you are doing a great job of presenting your points.  However, I'm having a hard time following your logic on two of your arguments.  First, it seems to me that administrations that choose not to adequately resource their football program are part of the point and not "besides the point".  The team's ability to compete nationally is greatly affected by this lack of resourcing.  If administrators chose to allow only 3 practices per week, certainly their decision-making would have far greater impact on that particular team's ability to compete for a national championship than the Purple Powers do. I understand low priority of football by an administration is far more subtle than limiting practices, but I use that to illustrate my point.  Is it not fair to say that part of the reason for the gap between the bottom, say,  200 schools and the Top 10 schools is the differing levels of administration commitment?

My second question is regards to your citing that 2% of schools have a "chance" for a national championship as evidence the Purple Powers are bad for D3.  Let's grant that is accurate for this discussion (I'm not sure it is).  Do you really believe that the Purple Powers are responsible for that?  What % of these 239 schools do you figure has a chance to win the National Championship in a playoffs system that includes Wesley, Linfield, St. Thomas, Wabash, and Mary-Hardin Baylor?

I understand your belief that relatively few teams have a legitimate shot at a national championship is bad for D3.  you haven't yet sold me on the idea that the Purple Powers have all that much to do with that.

Maybe you've stated this earlier, but what % do you think would be a healthy % of schools with a legitimate shot at the national championship?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 22, 2011, 09:34:55 PM
There are 345 teams that Sagarin rates as playing D-1 hoops. How many have a legit chance of cutting down the nets? It's less than 10%, probably closer to 5%.

Of the 412 (or so) D-3 hoops playing schools, I would say less than 5% have an actual legitimate chance of winning the championship.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 09:44:20 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on December 22, 2011, 08:52:17 PM

I think you are doing a great job of presenting your points.  However, I'm having a hard time following your logic on two of your arguments.  First, it seems to me that administrations that choose not to adequately resource their football program are part of the point and not "besides the point".  The team's ability to compete nationally is greatly affected by this lack of resourcing.  If administrators chose to allow only 3 practices per week, certainly their decision-making would have far greater impact on that particular team's ability to compete for a national championship than the Purple Powers do. I understand low priority of football by an administration is far more subtle than limiting practices, but I use that to illustrate my point.  Is it not fair to say that part of the reason for the gap between the bottom, say,  200 schools and the Top 10 schools is the differing levels of administration commitment?

My second question is regards to your citing that 2% of schools have a "chance" for a national championship as evidence the Purple Powers are bad for D3.  Let's grant that is accurate for this discussion (I'm not sure it is).  Do you really believe that the Purple Powers are responsible for that?  What % of these 239 schools do you figure has a chance to win the National Championship in a playoffs system that includes Wesley, Linfield, St. Thomas, Wabash, and Mary-Hardin Baylor?

I understand your belief that relatively few teams have a legitimate shot at a national championship is bad for D3.  you haven't yet sold me on the idea that the Purple Powers have all that much to do with that.

Maybe you've stated this earlier, but what % do you think would be a healthy % of schools with a legitimate shot at the national championship?

Thanks! This is a great post! One problem I have is who defines what "choose not to adequately resource their football program are part of the point and not "besides the point"." means? I sure don't. In D3 I'm not sure you can define it. Remember the two pronged mandate that I referred to twice already, "consistent, equitable competition" as well as "infringing on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs." Given these two mandates there is no such thing as adequate or inadequate. Simply preference.

I've said a few times that as long as that two pronged mandate exists, there isn't anything that can really be done. But that doesn't change my viewpoint that what is happening NOW isn't GOOD for D3.

As for what percentage I think would be good, that is certainly going to be preference. My belief is D3 would be better off if you had 10-15% of schools, roughly 25 or so, that were within 1 player on both sides of the ball of being able to win the championship. No idea how to define that other than gut feeling, but I'm pretty sure we aren't there right now. Right now I see two schools that are there, UWW and UMU, and maybe 3 or 4 more that are 2 or 3 impact players from being able to challenge. Wesley, St. Thomas, UMHB are my picks for this year, but in other years that lineup obviously shifts around.

I think one interesting way of thinking about this is when we look at how people poll for D3 there is very little disagreement at the top, but a lot of interchangeability from 6-15 and from 16-RV. With 240 programs, there should be a lot more programs being bantered about at the top through the middle of that list. But that is just my guess.

Hypothetically, if you removed UMU and UWW from D3, which IS NOT something I believe should happen, I do think you open up. Wesley lost to a D3 team during the regular season this year. Wabash lost to 2 D3 teams last year. Linfield lost last year to Cal Lutheran. UMHB lost a regular season game in '09. None of these teams go 4 or 5 years without losing to a D3 team outside the playoffs. While they would still be the best of the best, the situation would have more depth.

As for the last point, I don't blame the Purple Powers for the situation in D3 and I've been on record as saying that repeatedly. I think the Purple Powers are bad for D3 because of the situation they are in, not because their is anything wrong in what they are doing. UWW and UMU are just better. It is up to the rest of D3 to haul them back. You will never hear me say they should move out of D3 or should be put on the same side of the bracket or anything else designed to punish them.

The Purple Powers are simply the end result of the extremely unlevel playing surface in D3. I don't think it is good for D3 to be two teams deep at the championship level, but that isn't UMU or UWW's fault. They just happen to take advantage of the surface significantly better than anyone else.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 09:53:54 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 22, 2011, 09:34:55 PM
There are 345 teams that Sagarin rates as playing D-1 hoops. How many have a legit chance of cutting down the nets? It's less than 10%, probably closer to 5%.

Of the 412 (or so) D-3 hoops playing schools, I would say less than 5% have an actual legitimate chance of winning the championship.

I don't argue about D3 hoops as my argument was not just that football in D3 is top heavy, but that D3 itself allows for dynasties. I already went down that road with soccer a few posts back.

As for D-1, with the success of the mid-majors over the last couple years I think you could have chosen a better example. Butler, GM, VCU and Gonzago have all had outsiders chances and come within a few buckets of playing for or winning the national title. It is also fairly rare in D1 hoops for the 4 Number 1 seeds to make the Final 4. It has only happened once.

I think I might have tried for a different example. Are there 30 teams that can win the D1 NCAA basketball title? Not much of one, but Villanova won as an 8 seed and I believe Syracuse won as a 7. Then again, Linfield won the D3 football title as a low seed, so it can happen. But D3 football doesn't really get the Butler, George Mason, VCU types let alone Richmond winning games in various years as a 15,14,13 and 12 seed.

Credit to Wikipedia for most of the stats on here...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: bleedpurple on December 22, 2011, 10:16:00 PM
JK,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate your willingness and ability to parse the issue and recognize that UW-W and Mount are not culpable by simply embracing the opportunity as two of the schools doing an excellent job of pursuing their "special objectives and programs". 

Another couple of questions for you:

Is it possible that you could be attaching too much significance to the most recent era (last 7 years of UW-W/Mount and 16 years of Mount) in terms of negative impact on D3?

Do you believe that John's Wooden's UCLA teams (10 national championships in 12 years and 88 game winning streak) were bad for D1 basketball?

If so, college hoops has made a nice recovery. It seems to be pretty popular these days.  I think many people look back and cherish those memories. I would guess that many former players of schools that played against them have cherished memories and great stories of the time they took on "Wooden's UCLA team".  I have never had huge discussions regarding D1 basketball, but i have never heard the argument that Wooden or those UCLA teams were bad for college basketball.  I'm thinking in the middle of that run, not a very high % of teams had a chance to win the national championship. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 22, 2011, 10:37:47 PM
Of course, it could be argued that because of the way power rankings are constructed, the mid-majors are at a disadvantage in the seeding process. No major conference program will schedule a home-and-home with many of those excellent mid-major programs, so they're kind of stuck at times. But that's another argument.

And yes, I was counting the successful mid-majors. Because some teams who get a 4 seed probably don't have a legit chance by my eyes.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 23, 2011, 12:58:19 AM
For those arguing that this is not bad for D-3, how is it good for D-3? I understand the David vs Goliath concept, but when there's 2 davids it really doesn't help. I am not in favor of punishing Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater for their achievements. They worked hard to get to the top, they should not be punished for that. I have a simple solution that I think would help level the field though. Homefield advantage is huge. What if the final four was played at a neutral location instead of just championship game? I know that Wisconsin-whitewater won a few years ago after having to play on the road, but for the most part both teams have been able to play at home for the whole tournament run. In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's. Putting the game at a neutral site could break up the championship run these two teams have had. It would not punish them and make it impossible for them to advance. Simply it would make it a more level field.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: roocru on December 23, 2011, 02:36:21 AM
Quote from: zach on December 23, 2011, 12:58:19 AM
In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's.

Not entirely true. UMHB beat Mount Union in Alliance in 2004 on their way to the Stagg Bowl.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 23, 2011, 06:45:41 AM
I'm in favor of football Darwinism.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 23, 2011, 08:42:15 AM
Quote from: zach on December 23, 2011, 12:58:19 AM
For those arguing that this is not bad for D-3, how is it good for D-3? I understand the David vs Goliath concept, but when there's 2 davids it really doesn't help. I am not in favor of punishing Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater for their achievements. They worked hard to get to the top, they should not be punished for that. I have a simple solution that I think would help level the field though. Homefield advantage is huge. What if the final four was played at a neutral location instead of just championship game? I know that Wisconsin-whitewater won a few years ago after having to play on the road, but for the most part both teams have been able to play at home for the whole tournament run. In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's. Putting the game at a neutral site could break up the championship run these two teams have had. It would not punish them and make it impossible for them to advance. Simply it would make it a more level field.

D3 has enough attendance problems without going to neutral site games for the semi-finals. One neutral site game involves enough trouble for the fan bases and since I'm all for engaging the fan bases, the best way to do that is to have the games on campus.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Raider 68 on December 23, 2011, 09:28:49 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 23, 2011, 08:42:15 AM
Quote from: zach on December 23, 2011, 12:58:19 AM
For those arguing that this is not bad for D-3, how is it good for D-3? I understand the David vs Goliath concept, but when there's 2 davids it really doesn't help. I am not in favor of punishing Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater for their achievements. They worked hard to get to the top, they should not be punished for that. I have a simple solution that I think would help level the field though. Homefield advantage is huge. What if the final four was played at a neutral location instead of just championship game? I know that Wisconsin-whitewater won a few years ago after having to play on the road, but for the most part both teams have been able to play at home for the whole tournament run. In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's. Putting the game at a neutral site could break up the championship run these two teams have had. It would not punish them and make it impossible for them to advance. Simply it would make it a more level field.

D3 has enough attendance problems without going to neutral site games for the semi-finals. One neutral site game involves enough trouble for the fan bases and since I'm all for engaging the fan bases, the best way to do that is to have the games on campus.

jknezek,

Well said! :)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Fannosaurus Rex on December 23, 2011, 09:56:46 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 23, 2011, 08:42:15 AM
Quote from: zach on December 23, 2011, 12:58:19 AM
For those arguing that this is not bad for D-3, how is it good for D-3? I understand the David vs Goliath concept, but when there's 2 davids it really doesn't help. I am not in favor of punishing Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater for their achievements. They worked hard to get to the top, they should not be punished for that. I have a simple solution that I think would help level the field though. Homefield advantage is huge. What if the final four was played at a neutral location instead of just championship game? I know that Wisconsin-whitewater won a few years ago after having to play on the road, but for the most part both teams have been able to play at home for the whole tournament run. In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's. Putting the game at a neutral site could break up the championship run these two teams have had. It would not punish them and make it impossible for them to advance. Simply it would make it a more level field.

D3 has enough attendance problems without going to neutral site games for the semi-finals. One neutral site game involves enough trouble for the fan bases and since I'm all for engaging the fan bases, the best way to do that is to have the games on campus.
More than home field, I think the bigger advantage the Purples have over everyone else is that for the last two years, their seniors have practiced and played a season and a half (15) more than the seniors on most of the teams they compete against.  Again, my problem isn't with them but with the need to determine a national champ via a five week tournament.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 23, 2011, 09:59:45 AM
D3 has the best way to determine a champion. And yes, I think there needs to be a tournament. I loathe the bowl structure before and hate it even more now.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 23, 2011, 10:16:15 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on December 22, 2011, 10:16:00 PM
Another couple of questions for you:

Is it possible that you could be attaching too much significance to the most recent era (last 7 years of UW-W/Mount and 16 years of Mount) in terms of negative impact on D3?

Do you believe that John's Wooden's UCLA teams (10 national championships in 12 years and 88 game winning streak) were bad for D1 basketball?

If so, college hoops has made a nice recovery. It seems to be pretty popular these days.  I think many people look back and cherish those memories. I would guess that many former players of schools that played against them have cherished memories and great stories of the time they took on "Wooden's UCLA team".  I have never had huge discussions regarding D1 basketball, but i have never heard the argument that Wooden or those UCLA teams were bad for college basketball.  I'm thinking in the middle of that run, not a very high % of teams had a chance to win the national championship.

This is a good example and I wondered when it would come up. There are a couple of things that I think weaken the issue. Mainly the time frame and the strength of basketball in this country. We can easily say that winning 10 or 12 and 88 straight didn't hurt ncaa basketball, but I can as easily point to St. Louis from 59 to 73 and say they buried NCAA soccer by winning or sharing 10 of 14 national titles. The problem is, it ignores the difference in popularity of the sports.

College basketball was already very popular and it is hard to stop that train once it starts, witness the popularity of D1 football despite a myriad of rules violations and poor behavior by schools, players and fans. College soccer and D3 football, on the other hand, are very popular among players, but not so strong in the fan base department. Being so top heavy, I don't believe, helps development of those fan bases.

I'd also point out that Wooden's 88 game winning streak only took 2 complete seasons and two partials. In other words, they were beatable, just not very often. Of the 10 championships they won, they never played the same team twice in the finals. Pretty remarkable. So while there was 1 team at the top, a lot of other teams felt like they would get a chance to knock them off. Right now in D3, there is a different situation. When it was just UMU rolling along and playing different opponents consistently in the Stagg, you had a better analogy. Knocking off one great team is a lot easier than knocking off two in a row.

Still, it is a pretty good argument, except I think it ignores the starting popularity of the sports. Again, it just goes back to what you think is good for D3 overall. From my point of view, it's trying to get more involvement.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 23, 2011, 10:53:15 AM
Quote from: ILGator on December 22, 2011, 05:32:47 PM
Now, a lot of D-3 schools have significantly upgraded their facilities in the last 5 years or so, but they'll never catch up with UWW or UMU.


Form what I hear, UST has some of the better facilities in the country right now. So saying "never" might be a bit on an exaggeration.

Quote from: ILGator on December 22, 2011, 05:32:47 PM
I don't think anyone besides UWW and UMU has the depth to withstand injuries to key players. Heck, Lee Brekke did an outstanding job in the 2010 playoffs for UWW.

I think Brekke did a serviceable job, at best. Coppage and its defense won them the Stagg Bowl that season....not Brekke. If you don't believe me take a look at his playoff numbers last year  :-\
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on December 23, 2011, 11:24:29 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
Seems like a match made in heaven? I'll give UWO credit, they certainly seemed to be chomping at that bit this year, though I notice they didn't double up on UWW as an NC game as is sometimes done in the WIAC.

Just to clarify that the conference opponents for the nonconference meeting between WIAC schools were determined by the commissioner's office and not the individual opponents.  Neither WW nor UWO had any say in the matter.

Prior to this year you did see some WIAC programs scheduling others because they were unable to find nonconference opponents.  Oshkosh scheduled River Falls for two years (I think it was two)  WW did this and scheduled EauClaire who at the time were a much stronger opponent than Oshkosh.   
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: BearcatChatter on December 23, 2011, 11:33:45 AM
As a West Coast fan, I want to reiterate the common argument that West Coast teams get screwed out of the playoffs every year. Because the selection committe will almost automatically pass up at large bids anywhere west of Minnesota, teams rarely even having a chance to compete in the playoffs unless they're Linfield (who routinely wins conference on an incredibly easy 10-game schedule). But that isn't really the point, more just highlighting the "unlevel playing field" for teams to even have a shot at the playoffs, where I'd venture to say many West coast teams are more deserving than the east coast counterparts they get shafted for.

I've always wondered if UW-W and Mount Union had ever considered a move to either NAIA or Division II. I know size of school is the ultimate deciding factor, but if they really have no competition other than each other at this level, why not go seek bigger fish? They'd have a chance for scholarships, more exposure, etc. Look at European soccer, where the whole idea is to keep moving up divisions. I would hate to think two programs with the traditions like UW-W and Mount Union are complacent crushing teams at the D3 level. Look at University of Sioux Falls, who was destroying any and all competition at the NAIA level. They moved up to DII. Why can't the purple powers do the same, or why don't they want to?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 23, 2011, 11:47:16 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 23, 2011, 11:24:29 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
Seems like a match made in heaven? I'll give UWO credit, they certainly seemed to be chomping at that bit this year, though I notice they didn't double up on UWW as an NC game as is sometimes done in the WIAC.

Just to clarify that the conference opponents for the nonconference meeting between WIAC schools were determined by the commissioner's office and not the individual opponents.  Neither WW nor UWO had any say in the matter.

Prior to this year you did see some WIAC programs scheduling others because they were unable to find nonconference opponents.  Oshkosh scheduled River Falls for two years (I think it was two)  WW did this and scheduled EauClaire who at the time were a much stronger opponent than Oshkosh.   

Didn't know that was how it worked. Thanks.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on December 23, 2011, 11:48:18 AM
WIAC schools simply do not have the money to go to D2.  As state funded schools they aren't likely to get it anytime soon.  Not many Wisconsin residents want the legislature to appropriate more tax dollars to WIAC schools so they can offer scholarships and participate athletically at a higher level.  Very few, if any, including WW would be able to fund those scholarships through private funding or with the funds they receive from their football programs. 

A  example happened recently at UW-Stevens Point where the chancellor announced that they would explore a Pointers move to D2.  She's no longer the chancellor.  Though her dismissal wasn't directly related to her desire to see the Pointers go D2 the proposal was nearly immediately dismissed.  Beyond her there was absolutely no support for the move either statewide or on their campus.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 23, 2011, 11:48:33 AM
Quote from: BearcatChatter on December 23, 2011, 11:33:45 AM
I've always wondered if UW-W and Mount Union had ever considered a move to either NAIA or Division II. I know size of school is the ultimate deciding factor, but if they really have no competition other than each other at this level, why not go seek bigger fish? They'd have a chance for scholarships, more exposure, etc. Look at European soccer, where the whole idea is to keep moving up divisions. I would hate to think two programs with the traditions like UW-W and Mount Union are complacent crushing teams at the D3 level. Look at University of Sioux Falls, who was destroying any and all competition at the NAIA level. They moved up to DII. Why can't the purple powers do the same, or why don't they want to?

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi395.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp31%2FYanglow%2FGif%2Ffacepalm.gif%3Ft%3D1318346166&hash=162a644e394a1cd8154af3ab3f55994fae4f472e)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 23, 2011, 11:52:06 AM
Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 08:08:49 PM
Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 06:49:21 PM

You want me to quantify how many people have the impression that the rest of d3 is intramurals based upon their viewing of the uww/umu stagg bowl?  It's pretty safe to say it's darn near Zero. If you're that dumb, why are you watching the d3 championship in the first place?  The far more likely reaction if this was your first exposure to d3 is to judge d3 based upon what you see rather than what you don't see. 


And there you have it folks! The first person to take a civil discussion and head for insults when they can't come up with answer. That is not what I asked to have quantified. The discussion is about "Are the Purple Powers bad for D3". I can't quantify that they are bad, but I believe they are. You told me since I couldn't quantify it I should give it up. I asked you to quantify the reverse, that they are good for D3 and you reverted to an insult.
I was referring to the guy who thinks d3 football is equivalent to intramurals, not you.  Back to the topic, I just don't think you're thinking logically.  If other teams were winning the stagg bowl, their fans might increase and mount/uww would decrease, but if you were only willing to follow your team if they got to the stagg bowl, are you really a fan of any consequence that's going to stick around next season when they don't make it?  The national media does a lot better job promoting mount and whitewater because they actually know a little bit about these two after this many years, whereas if two others came along they'd have no idea and just the name of the school alone would be enough to make fun of.  The ultimate goal will always be to win the national championship, but in such a big division, I highly doubt most programs have expectations of making it there every 5 or 10 years, and thus they are not disappointed or discouraged from the dominance of UWW/Mount.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 23, 2011, 12:35:47 PM
Quote from: BearcatChatter on December 23, 2011, 11:33:45 AM
As a West Coast fan, I want to reiterate the common argument that West Coast teams get screwed out of the playoffs every year. Because the selection committe will almost automatically pass up at large bids anywhere west of Minnesota, teams rarely even having a chance to compete in the playoffs unless they're Linfield (who routinely wins conference on an incredibly easy 10-game schedule). But that isn't really the point, more just highlighting the "unlevel playing field" for teams to even have a shot at the playoffs, where I'd venture to say many West coast teams are more deserving than the east coast counterparts they get shafted for.

I've always wondered if UW-W and Mount Union had ever considered a move to either NAIA or Division II. I know size of school is the ultimate deciding factor, but if they really have no competition other than each other at this level, why not go seek bigger fish? They'd have a chance for scholarships, more exposure, etc. Look at European soccer, where the whole idea is to keep moving up divisions. I would hate to think two programs with the traditions like UW-W and Mount Union are complacent crushing teams at the D3 level. Look at University of Sioux Falls, who was destroying any and all competition at the NAIA level. They moved up to DII. Why can't the purple powers do the same, or why don't they want to?

Their entire athletics program would need to move - and their entire athletics program at UW-W and Mt. Union fit into their conferences and D-3.

Again, this is not D-1. You make decisions based on ALL sports, not just football.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Luv D3 on December 23, 2011, 12:39:28 PM
I gues looking back over the history of the championships, when diff teams where competing in Stagg Bowl, its important to look at HOW many schools were playing D3 football, lets say in 1989. I don't have the answer but I would think it is far less than it is now. So when it comes to recruiting, talent will now ber as watered down. That may be one answer to the many questions. You also can look at some of the schools that won championships or played in the Stagg Bowl, are no longer in D3( Wagner, Dayton) Also Does anyone know how many full time coaches( or grad asst) are on the MU and UWW staff? If you got more guys dedicating there daily lifes to making ABC football team better you will alos have a huuge advantage over the competition. I know most of the NY schools have at most 4 FT guys which includes the head coach, alot of the assistants are teachers that work all day then go to football practice in the afternoon, just as a HS coach would. Just a thought!
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on December 23, 2011, 01:14:01 PM
Quote from: Luv D3 on December 23, 2011, 12:39:28 PM
Also Does anyone know how many full time coaches( or grad asst) are on the MU and UWW staff? coach

None of the UW-W football coaching staff are full time coaches.  All of them have other duties at the university.  In fact I'm not aware of a coaching staff member of any sport at UW-W that doesn't have other duties at the university with the exception of those who are employed outside of the university. 

For kicks a couple of years ago I went to the state employees website to look at the salaries of the WIAC coaches in three higher profile sports (football, basketball, baseball ).  I was shocked at how little they actually earn from their coaching duties.  I can only recall a couple of coaches, none at UW-W, who would be considered full time coaches and I can tell you that without the salary they earn for other duties very few of them would be coaching at this level. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: HScoach on December 23, 2011, 01:14:27 PM
Quote from: BearcatChatter on December 23, 2011, 11:33:45 AM
As a West Coast fan, I want to reiterate the common argument that West Coast teams get screwed out of the playoffs every year. Because the selection committe will almost automatically pass up at large bids anywhere west of Minnesota, teams rarely even having a chance to compete in the playoffs unless they're Linfield (who routinely wins conference on an incredibly easy 10-game schedule). But that isn't really the point, more just highlighting the "unlevel playing field" for teams to even have a shot at the playoffs, where I'd venture to say many West coast teams are more deserving than the east coast counterparts they get shafted for.

I've always wondered if UW-W and Mount Union had ever considered a move to either NAIA or Division II. I know size of school is the ultimate deciding factor, but if they really have no competition other than each other at this level, why not go seek bigger fish? They'd have a chance for scholarships, more exposure, etc. Look at European soccer, where the whole idea is to keep moving up divisions. I would hate to think two programs with the traditions like UW-W and Mount Union are complacent crushing teams at the D3 level. Look at University of Sioux Falls, who was destroying any and all competition at the NAIA level. They moved up to DII. Why can't the purple powers do the same, or why don't they want to?

A move to NAIA would be a step down.   In regards to moving up to D2, who is paying for the scholarships?  Instead of a bunch of kids paying big $ to attend Mount to play football the school is going to fund them?  Doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 23, 2011, 05:11:51 PM
Quote from: BearcatChatter on December 23, 2011, 11:33:45 AM
As a West Coast fan, I want to reiterate the common argument that West Coast teams get screwed out of the playoffs every year. Because the selection committe will almost automatically pass up at large bids anywhere west of Minnesota ...

Just because it's a common argument doesn't mean it's valid. Fact of the matter is, there are only two conferences west of Minnesota to begin with, and neither of them had automatic bids for the entire 13-year run of the 28/32-team playoff system.

In fact, *every* playoff bid the NWC got before 2008  was an *at-large* bid because the conference did not have an automatic bid.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 23, 2011, 07:49:47 PM
The ghost of Christmas future has showed up and we fast forward to Semi-final weekend 2012.  UWW is playing Linfield and Mt is playing NCC. The Mt game ends an hour earlier and NCC wins (it's just a dream).
The view moves to the NCC locker room as players are watching the UWW finish. We zoom in to hear the conversations as players discuss who they'd rather play.
Dollars to donuts NCC players are pulling for UWW to win. What can be sweeter than beating the dynasty?
I don't pretend this scenario proves either side of the debate, but if we spend a little time thinking from the player's perspective rather than ours, I don't believe they view Mt v UWW as bad for DIII. The playing field itself is entirely level as are the hours in a day available to all.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 23, 2011, 09:04:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 23, 2011, 12:35:47 PM
Quote from: BearcatChatter on December 23, 2011, 11:33:45 AM
As a West Coast fan, I want to reiterate the common argument that West Coast teams get screwed out of the playoffs every year. Because the selection committe will almost automatically pass up at large bids anywhere west of Minnesota, teams rarely even having a chance to compete in the playoffs unless they're Linfield (who routinely wins conference on an incredibly easy 10-game schedule). But that isn't really the point, more just highlighting the "unlevel playing field" for teams to even have a shot at the playoffs, where I'd venture to say many West coast teams are more deserving than the east coast counterparts they get shafted for.

I've always wondered if UW-W and Mount Union had ever considered a move to either NAIA or Division II. I know size of school is the ultimate deciding factor, but if they really have no competition other than each other at this level, why not go seek bigger fish? They'd have a chance for scholarships, more exposure, etc. Look at European soccer, where the whole idea is to keep moving up divisions. I would hate to think two programs with the traditions like UW-W and Mount Union are complacent crushing teams at the D3 level. Look at University of Sioux Falls, who was destroying any and all competition at the NAIA level. They moved up to DII. Why can't the purple powers do the same, or why don't they want to?

Their entire athletics program would need to move - and their entire athletics program at UW-W and Mt. Union fit into their conferences and D-3.

Again, this is not D-1. You make decisions based on ALL sports, not just football.
Wisconsin-Whitewater's athletic program
Football- 7 straight Stagg Bowls
Basketball- #16 in the nation
Baseball- lost in world series,ended ranked 3rd
Men's Soccer- Lost in first round of NCAA's
Wrestling- 18th in nation
Women's soccer- Lost in 3rd round of NCAA's
Softball-Lost in NCAA regionals
Women's Volleyball- Lost in NCAA regionals.

I think they have a good enough program overal to be D-2.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 23, 2011, 09:16:20 PM
Quote from: zach on December 23, 2011, 09:04:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 23, 2011, 12:35:47 PM
Quote from: BearcatChatter on December 23, 2011, 11:33:45 AM
As a West Coast fan, I want to reiterate the common argument that West Coast teams get screwed out of the playoffs every year. Because the selection committe will almost automatically pass up at large bids anywhere west of Minnesota, teams rarely even having a chance to compete in the playoffs unless they're Linfield (who routinely wins conference on an incredibly easy 10-game schedule). But that isn't really the point, more just highlighting the "unlevel playing field" for teams to even have a shot at the playoffs, where I'd venture to say many West coast teams are more deserving than the east coast counterparts they get shafted for.

I've always wondered if UW-W and Mount Union had ever considered a move to either NAIA or Division II. I know size of school is the ultimate deciding factor, but if they really have no competition other than each other at this level, why not go seek bigger fish? They'd have a chance for scholarships, more exposure, etc. Look at European soccer, where the whole idea is to keep moving up divisions. I would hate to think two programs with the traditions like UW-W and Mount Union are complacent crushing teams at the D3 level. Look at University of Sioux Falls, who was destroying any and all competition at the NAIA level. They moved up to DII. Why can't the purple powers do the same, or why don't they want to?

Their entire athletics program would need to move - and their entire athletics program at UW-W and Mt. Union fit into their conferences and D-3.

Again, this is not D-1. You make decisions based on ALL sports, not just football.
Wisconsin-Whitewater's athletic program
Football- 7 straight Stagg Bowls
Basketball- #16 in the nation
Baseball- lost in world series,ended ranked 3rd
Men's Soccer- Lost in first round of NCAA's
Wrestling- 18th in nation
Women's soccer- Lost in 3rd round of NCAA's
Softball-Lost in NCAA regionals
Women's Volleyball- Lost in NCAA regionals.

I think they have a good enough program overal to be D-2.

Who's forking over the $$$ for these scholarships? The state of Wisconsin? Who happens to be in the process of cutting back funding to its public schools to balance the 2012 budget? I don't think so....

Look back to what HScoach just posted on this thread....I couldn't of said it better.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: bleedpurple on December 23, 2011, 09:32:17 PM
Quote from: zach on December 23, 2011, 09:04:38 PM
Wisconsin-Whitewater's athletic program
Football- 7 straight Stagg Bowls
Basketball- #16 in the nation
Baseball- lost in world series,ended ranked 3rd
Men's Soccer- Lost in first round of NCAA's
Wrestling- 18th in nation
Women's soccer- Lost in 3rd round of NCAA's
Softball-Lost in NCAA regionals
Women's Volleyball- Lost in NCAA regionals.

I think they have a good enough program overal to be D-2.

I don't think it's a matter of quality, I think it is a matter of philosophy.  UW-W is a D3 school and has a vision and values that embraces the D3 philosophy. Philosophical alignment of an institution with a particular division is (and should be) the ultimate determiner as to which division it belongs to. UW-W has no interest in changing divisions.  They are providing excellent experiences for their student athletes within the philosophy of D3. And when I say that, I am talking about FAR more than national championships.  Athletes at both UW-W and other fine D3 institutions know exactly what I'm talking about. As much as players love to win (what athlete wouldn't?), at the end of the day it's the relationships and the character forming experiences that the athlete wouldn't give up for the world (or even for a BCS title!). 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 23, 2011, 09:51:39 PM
Quote from: bleedpurple on December 23, 2011, 09:32:17 PM

I don't think it's a matter of quality, I think it is a matter of philosophy.  UW-W is a D3 school and has a vision and values that embraces the D3 philosophy. Philosophical alignment of an institution with a particular division is (and should be) the ultimate determiner as to which division it belongs to. UW-W has no interest in changing divisions.  They are providing excellent experiences for their student athletes within the philosophy of D3. And when I say that, I am talking about FAR more than national championships.  Athletes at both UW-W and other fine D3 institutions know exactly what I'm talking about. As much as players love to win (what athlete wouldn't?), at the end of the day it's the relationships and the character forming experiences that the athlete wouldn't give up for the world (or even for a BCS title!).

In this we are complete agreement. I think the WIAC and parts of the NJAC look and smell suspiciously like D2 schools, but they compete by D3 rules. While I chuckled at the poster who took this route:

"The playing field itself is entirely level as are the hours in a day available to all."

D3 is a choice to compete by a set of rules that have nothing to do with success, school size, public or private or any number of other variables. The fact that the WIAC as a whole would face similar conferences, non-flagship public institutions, much more commonly in D2 or even FCS, that doesn't mean they should move there. It just means they are a bit of an outlier among other D3 schools. But nothing in the rules suggests there is anything wrong with being an outlier and there plenty of smaller, liberal arts/regional college type schools that compete in levels other than D3.

Divisional affiliation in the NCAA is by choice, and the WIAC chooses D3, plays by D3 rules, and should be welcome there until a) the rules are changed (unlikely given the outcome of the D4 study) or b) they do something to break them, just like any other D3 institution.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 23, 2011, 09:55:23 PM
D-2 ??? we are gonna have to agree to disagree, about 'Moving up (or i think down), yall are talking about D-2 or NAIA as if that is a step up.... i think it is down. I know little of other states, but in the one where i live we have 2- NAIA football programs, 5 D-2 football programs. We looked at em, after visits the boy decided on a D-3 ( and we were proud, but it took us off guard). the D-2 / NAIA in this state are a step down from an academic standpoint.

the whole point of this should be education.... don't laugh..please

udubdub and mount are gonna both get replaced... just like others before them. in 2004 neither was in the stagg (ROOCRU was there and his son was on the field). the worm will turn, it always does, but probably by other purple people

next year Wesley vs ?...  ;)
keep the faith
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 23, 2011, 11:54:59 PM
Moving to d1 or d2 doesn't mean your academic programs are suddenly terrible or that you're stealing money from orphans to pay for the scholarships.  Maybe Mount or UWW would switch divisions in certain sports if allowed to.  Either could probably fare pretty well in the fcs non-scholarship pioneer league if they didn't want to do the scholarships but still wanted to move up and find more consistent competition.  Might be nice for the whole program if the football team could get a payday in camp randall or the horseshoe.-----There are teams out there who would give our d3 purple powers a better test, why not play them?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 24, 2011, 12:08:44 AM
AO -

Who will pay for that? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who?

It won't be the Walker regime for sure!
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 24, 2011, 12:22:26 AM
Re: UWW and d2

My strong impression is that the WIAC is now a very settled conference, and no one is likely to move unless they all do.  (Am I correct that UW-Milwaukee was once a WSUC [the forerunner of the WIAC] member, but is the last one to leave?  Was UW-Parkside ever a member?)  If so, in assessing the possibilities of UWW competing (in ALL sports) in d2, you'd better also consider all the other WIAC schools.

Between their dedication to the d3 philosophy and the penuriousness of the Wisconsin legislature (their budgets are going DOWN, not up to scholarship standards), I'd judge it EXTREMELY unlikely that the WIAC (or any member thereof) is going anywhere in the foreseeable future.

Since I'm an interested outsider, corrections from any WIAC posters are welcomed.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 24, 2011, 12:24:54 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 23, 2011, 09:16:20 PM
Quote from: zach on December 23, 2011, 09:04:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 23, 2011, 12:35:47 PM
Quote from: BearcatChatter on December 23, 2011, 11:33:45 AM
As a West Coast fan, I want to reiterate the common argument that West Coast teams get screwed out of the playoffs every year. Because the selection committe will almost automatically pass up at large bids anywhere west of Minnesota, teams rarely even having a chance to compete in the playoffs unless they're Linfield (who routinely wins conference on an incredibly easy 10-game schedule). But that isn't really the point, more just highlighting the "unlevel playing field" for teams to even have a shot at the playoffs, where I'd venture to say many West coast teams are more deserving than the east coast counterparts they get shafted for.

I've always wondered if UW-W and Mount Union had ever considered a move to either NAIA or Division II. I know size of school is the ultimate deciding factor, but if they really have no competition other than each other at this level, why not go seek bigger fish? They'd have a chance for scholarships, more exposure, etc. Look at European soccer, where the whole idea is to keep moving up divisions. I would hate to think two programs with the traditions like UW-W and Mount Union are complacent crushing teams at the D3 level. Look at University of Sioux Falls, who was destroying any and all competition at the NAIA level. They moved up to DII. Why can't the purple powers do the same, or why don't they want to?

Their entire athletics program would need to move - and their entire athletics program at UW-W and Mt. Union fit into their conferences and D-3.

Again, this is not D-1. You make decisions based on ALL sports, not just football.
Wisconsin-Whitewater's athletic program
Football- 7 straight Stagg Bowls
Basketball- #16 in the nation
Baseball- lost in world series,ended ranked 3rd
Men's Soccer- Lost in first round of NCAA's
Wrestling- 18th in nation
Women's soccer- Lost in 3rd round of NCAA's
Softball-Lost in NCAA regionals
Women's Volleyball- Lost in NCAA regionals.

I think they have a good enough program overal to be D-2.

Who's forking over the $$$ for these scholarships? The state of Wisconsin? Who happens to be in the process of cutting back funding to its public schools to balance the 2012 budget? I don't think so....

Look back to what HScoach just posted on this thread....I couldn't of said it better.

I don't have the exact numbers on me, but I'm going to assume that to be D-2, the school would have to offer 250 scholarships to be D-2, and that number is probably high. Assuming all students are out of staters that would recieve no need or merit based aid, that would cost the school $4,750,000. That number will probably be much less since this is a maximum based number.  Divide that by the 10,000 students there and that is a $475 tution increase per student.  The chance to move up a division and be one division away from D-1 would be worth the $475 increase in tution to most students. Not to mention the fact that there is more money to be made in D-2 than there is in D-3. Raising up a division is not as much as some of you are making it sound.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 24, 2011, 12:38:46 AM
May I suggest that your third from the last sentence is absolutely risible - the 'majority' of students couldn't care less what division they play in (apparently WAY less than half of them ever even attend games), but sure would care about almost $500! 8-)  The thought of student riots in 'beautiful downtown Whitewater' makes my skin crawl! :o

I also have serious doubts about the vast riches to be won in d2. :P
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 24, 2011, 02:26:20 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 24, 2011, 12:38:46 AM
May I suggest that your third from the last sentence is absolutely risible - the 'majority' of students couldn't care less what division they play in (apparently WAY less than half of them ever even attend games), but sure would care about almost $500! 8-)  The thought of student riots in 'beautiful downtown Whitewater' makes my skin crawl! :o

I also have serious doubts about the vast riches to be won in d2. :P

$475 is nothing when compared to the cost of college. It would be a 2.5% increase in tution. Small stuff.  I think they can spare an extra $475. Once again, that is a max. number. I took a look at the football and basketball roster for Wisconsin-whitewater. 68.75% of the athletes are from in state. Assuming that they keep with that ratio the actual cost of providing scholarships for 250 athletes would be $3,265,625. Divide that by the 10,000 students attending Wisconsin-Whitewater and the tution raise would only be $326.56. The median of those two numbers is $400. I would estimate that as being the cost per student to go to D-2. Although the number could be lower. Once again going from D-3 to D-2 would not be the extremely costly thing for a school of 10,000 students as some of you are trying to make it sound like. And the school would actuallly be on the same level as their opponents instead of a clear level above like they are now.
The money in D-2 compared to D-3 is slim, but it brings them one closer to D-1 where there is money to be made.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 24, 2011, 02:30:15 AM
Quote from: zach on December 23, 2011, 09:04:38 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 23, 2011, 12:35:47 PM
Quote from: BearcatChatter on December 23, 2011, 11:33:45 AM
As a West Coast fan, I want to reiterate the common argument that West Coast teams get screwed out of the playoffs every year. Because the selection committe will almost automatically pass up at large bids anywhere west of Minnesota, teams rarely even having a chance to compete in the playoffs unless they're Linfield (who routinely wins conference on an incredibly easy 10-game schedule). But that isn't really the point, more just highlighting the "unlevel playing field" for teams to even have a shot at the playoffs, where I'd venture to say many West coast teams are more deserving than the east coast counterparts they get shafted for.

I've always wondered if UW-W and Mount Union had ever considered a move to either NAIA or Division II. I know size of school is the ultimate deciding factor, but if they really have no competition other than each other at this level, why not go seek bigger fish? They'd have a chance for scholarships, more exposure, etc. Look at European soccer, where the whole idea is to keep moving up divisions. I would hate to think two programs with the traditions like UW-W and Mount Union are complacent crushing teams at the D3 level. Look at University of Sioux Falls, who was destroying any and all competition at the NAIA level. They moved up to DII. Why can't the purple powers do the same, or why don't they want to?

Their entire athletics program would need to move - and their entire athletics program at UW-W and Mt. Union fit into their conferences and D-3.

Again, this is not D-1. You make decisions based on ALL sports, not just football.
Wisconsin-Whitewater's athletic program
Football- 7 straight Stagg Bowls
Basketball- #16 in the nation
Baseball- lost in world series,ended ranked 3rd
Men's Soccer- Lost in first round of NCAA's
Wrestling- 18th in nation
Women's soccer- Lost in 3rd round of NCAA's
Softball-Lost in NCAA regionals
Women's Volleyball- Lost in NCAA regionals.

I think they have a good enough program overal to be D-2.

Nice job UWW- success breeds success. Let's get some more championships.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 24, 2011, 03:40:51 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 24, 2011, 12:08:44 AM
AO -

Who will pay for that? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who?

It won't be the Walker regime for sure!
Is there an owl in here?   

Remember, I would like to live in a world without title IX.  Where if UW-Whitewater wanted to play a division 1 schedule in football only and give full rides to 60 football players and no one else, it could do so.   Even if home attendance doesn't increase much, you could pay for the scholarships by playing at a bcs school where guarantees of a million are not uncommon. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 24, 2011, 07:59:01 AM
Football libertarianism.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 24, 2011, 09:54:28 AM
Title IX is necessary and vital. My daughters deserve athletics just as much as I did and there will be some chuckleheads who would deny them that right because their views are stuck way in the past.

Again, people need to keep the entire athletics program in mind. Those D-1 BCS guarantee games are horrid for the sport itself. It does help the coffers but at what cost?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: purpled on December 24, 2011, 10:05:55 AM
To end all the arguments we should do what DI does and have a BSC type championship...wouldn't that end all this? We can use a computer (can't beat modern technology, right?), let some coaches and media type people (no offense) vote and then like magic you'll have two teams play for the title. Who needs the excitement of a playoff system and 32 teams all having a chance to win it all. How fricking boring could that be, eh?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Knightstalker on December 24, 2011, 10:17:20 AM
Quote from: zach on December 24, 2011, 02:26:20 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 24, 2011, 12:38:46 AM
May I suggest that your third from the last sentence is absolutely risible - the 'majority' of students couldn't care less what division they play in (apparently WAY less than half of them ever even attend games), but sure would care about almost $500! 8-)  The thought of student riots in 'beautiful downtown Whitewater' makes my skin crawl! :o

I also have serious doubts about the vast riches to be won in d2. :P

$475 is nothing when compared to the cost of college. It would be a 2.5% increase in tution. Small stuff.  I think they can spare an extra $475. Once again, that is a max. number. I took a look at the football and basketball roster for Wisconsin-whitewater. 68.75% of the athletes are from in state. Assuming that they keep with that ratio the actual cost of providing scholarships for 250 athletes would be $3,265,625. Divide that by the 10,000 students attending Wisconsin-Whitewater and the tution raise would only be $326.56. The median of those two numbers is $400. I would estimate that as being the cost per student to go to D-2. Although the number could be lower. Once again going from D-3 to D-2 would not be the extremely costly thing for a school of 10,000 students as some of you are trying to make it sound like. And the school would actuallly be on the same level as their opponents instead of a clear level above like they are now.
The money in D-2 compared to D-3 is slim, but it brings them one closer to D-1 where there is money to be made.

You are being pretty free with other peoples money are you a congressman?  I kid I kid, but I can tell you from experience if you propose raising tuition at a state institution 350+ dollars per semester or even per year there would be hell to pay from students, parents and faculty just to go to a less competitive division?  Also just because you are a D-1 or D-2 program you do not need to offer scholarships to athletes.

The biggest problem with an individual sport moving up a division has nothing to do with title IX in my opinion, it has to do with giving a football player a scholarship to play football and that kid wanting to play basketball, baseball, wrestle or run track.  The coaches of other teams all of a sudden get a scholarship player, or the track coach makes a deal with the football coach and gets that great sprinter on the track team who is on a football scholarship.  Too many chances for abuse.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on December 24, 2011, 10:39:32 AM
Yipsi, you are correct that UW-Milwaukee was once a member of the Wisconsin State University Conference. The last year they participated in the conference was in the mid-1960's (1963, I think).  UW-Parkside has never been a member.   

Assuming that students are willing to pay an extra $200-$400 in tuition simply to have the "prestige" of having D2 athletic programs is faulty.  Not only that but that cost would only rise in the future requiring additional tuition increases in the future.  Whenever I read a post implying that our schools have an advantage because they are "state subsidized" institutions I can't help but roll my eyes and think how misinformed that poster is.   
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Tuxguy on December 24, 2011, 10:58:14 AM
No.

   I think it's a region problem.  ;)  It's not like UW-W or Mount are out in Oregon dipping into our
Player pool, that will be getting smaller when George Fox plays football in 2013. They are getting the best
players in the area.
   I mean Really? Look at the roster of a D-1 and you will find students from all across the Nation. Look at a St. Thomas and It's full of Minn. WW,  Wisconsin, Limfield, Oregon, PLU, Washington, Mount, Ohio and so on.
   I always heard the saying ... To be the best you have to play/beat the best.
   I'm not sure what to say about bearcatchatters remark about Linfields easy 10 game schedule, they play 9, and play the best that money/availability and lo-cal can get. CLU, Hardin-Simmons both ranked high at the time, are just 2 from the last few years. You wont see the Cats playing a Portland st.or SOU in the near future.
JMHO   
MERRY CHRISTMAS to all!!
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 24, 2011, 11:12:29 AM
Knightstalker, those things aren't allowed. You can't play scholarship lacrosse at Johns Hopkins and also play a Division III sport. Also you must offer scholarship money as a department to be a Division II member. Ivy is an exception but there is none in D-II. They could play non-scholarship in football but the school would still have to give money in other sports.

Surprised none of the WIAC folks have noted that the entire system is D-III because of state law. It would take an act of the legislature to change that.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 24, 2011, 12:03:12 PM
Jknezik- in the context of my post, the sentence  "The playing field itself is entirely level as are the hours in a day available to all" is meant from the player's perspective. IMO D III football players aren't thinking "UWW v Mt is unfair/ bad for DIII". IMO, the players especially that watch the two teams play or play against them are motivated by them. To the competing player, there is nothing "un-level" about the game.

In truth, I think time will prove this entire discussion was an over reaction to a special moment in time. I'm convinced the UWW v Mt battle will raise the level of play to a broad number of schools and result in even greater variety of championship caliber teams in the near future.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on December 24, 2011, 01:46:40 PM
Quote from: zach on December 24, 2011, 02:26:20 AM

$475 is nothing when compared to the cost of college. It would be a 2.5% increase in tution. Small stuff.  I think they can spare an

Small stuff, no. College costs go up 5-8% each year. With the changes proposed to the education budget in Wisconsin (before the recall campaigns against the State Senators and Governors), they were talking about a 20% increase in tuition. Add in another 2.5% and the Wisconsin state universities won't be looking as attractive choices.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 24, 2011, 04:52:19 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 24, 2011, 12:03:12 PM
Jknezik- in the context of my post, the sentence  "The playing field itself is entirely level as are the hours in a day available to all" is meant from the player's perspective. IMO D III football players aren't thinking "UWW v Mt is unfair/ bad for DIII". IMO, the players especially that watch the two teams play or play against them are motivated by them. To the competing player, there is nothing "un-level" about the game.

In truth, I think time will prove this entire discussion was an over reaction to a special moment in time. I'm convinced the UWW v Mt battle will raise the level of play to a broad number of schools and result in even greater variety of championship caliber teams in the near future.

Perhaps. I remember a friend of mine in school who played on the offensive line. We spent a lot of years getting beat by the same team every year. One year he came back from losing the game and told me he had to line up against a kid he played with in h.s. Said the kid could barely stay academically eligible in h.s. and had missed his senior season because he hadn't passed enough classes as a junior. Was kind of amazed that some college found a way to get him on the field and thought it was a complete joke that he lined up against him. Was pretty vocal that he thought there was no way a kid like that could have gotten into college.

While I don't remember him saying it was unfair, I'm pretty sure he thought it was, at a minimum, completely ridiculous that somehow that kid found a way to play college ball. The differing standards between teams in D3 leads to a lot of unlevel playing fields, and the players at a lot of schools know it.

That's just one example. I have no doubt that the kid was within the rules to play. I don't think any team cheated to get him out there and it is just an example of D3's diversity. But there is no way I will ever believe that the D3 landscape is, in any meaningful form, level...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: mizzoukispot on December 24, 2011, 05:06:14 PM
I played for North Central back in the middle and late 80's when Augustana rolled on EVERYONE for 4 years. Now THAT was a dynasty. Maybe if they had a bunch of guys debating whether they were good for football or not things would have changed all of that good coaching and playing. Doubt it. They were good. Keep on rolling purple powers, til someone is good enough to end things......
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 24, 2011, 06:11:26 PM
Put 'em on the schedule and play 'em, or leave 'em off the schedule. In both cases forget about the academic inequities.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 24, 2011, 11:18:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 24, 2011, 11:12:29 AM
Surprised none of the WIAC folks have noted that the entire system is D-III because of state law. It would take an act of the legislature to change that.

Very interesting...I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 25, 2011, 12:39:52 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 24, 2011, 11:18:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 24, 2011, 11:12:29 AM
Surprised none of the WIAC folks have noted that the entire system is D-III because of state law. It would take an act of the legislature to change that.

Very interesting...I didn't know that.

What was the reasoning behind the law? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just wondering why/how it came about.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D3interest on December 25, 2011, 09:53:35 AM
Yes, they are bad for D III football on a number of different levels. I also believe this is a situation that has been manufactured.

So how is this bad for D III. First, for the past 7 years the showcase game has had the attention of the same fan base. I would like to say that the fan base is increasing but the evidence does not indicate that based on the coverage. ESPN does not broadcast the selections, its now on line. The game was moved from Saturday to Friday.  These are not good indicators.

Let me explain why I believe this has been manufactured. Going into the 2011 season why were WW and Mt Union 1 and 2 in the polls. WW was the defending national champion no problem there. However, just because Mt. Union was runner up does that make them an automatic 2.  The polling situation was then carried over to the NCAA selection process. Where both WW and Mt Union were then given home field advantage throughout the 2011 playoffs. Entering into the 2011 playoffs there were 10, 10/9-0 teams. Certainly one of these teams may have warranted a number 2 ranking.  If another team is ranked number 2 the entire dynamics of the backets changes.
Let's move on, in other blogs I have asked "what NCAA championships give the home team an advantage for 51 consecutive non championship games" ? Mt Union has now hosted 51 NCAA games. In D III the home field advantage is huge. I don't remember UCLA playing all their NCAA playoff game at Pauly Pavillion. I don't believe this is fair. I also realize that the NCAA changed the procedure in 2010 where WW was on the road for two games, a move in the right direction.

That being said, look at the tremendous advantage enjoyed by both WW and MU over the vast majority of the 239 D III members. Over the course of the 7 year run both teams have played 35 more games, have had 35 additional weeks of practice. Given the way the backets and home fields are assigned these teams could have as many as 9 home games each season. What a recruiting advantage on both a local and national basis. Imagine how this aids in team development both for the the starters and back ups.

How is this situation remedied ? The NCAA should place them on the same side of the bracket or even in the same quadrant. Both WW and MU were given easy paths to the finals this year. They enjoyed home field advantage and easy draws.  There is a  college football performance ranking based out of Wisconsin. Based on those rankings, the Mary Hardin Baylor quadrant contained 7 teams ranked in the top 11 teams of that performance ranking. Wesley travelled to Texas only to win and then be given the Mt Union assignment. I wonder how MU would have done under these same circumstances.         
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 25, 2011, 10:04:08 AM
Merry Christmas.

One thing most veteran D-III observers know is that the NCAA doesn't care for one second what our poll says. Just look at 2010 for confirmation. Remember when the NCAA thought Wesley was the No. 1 team?

As for jiggering the brackets, why would the NCAA want a blowout in the title game?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Knightstalker on December 25, 2011, 04:30:09 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 24, 2011, 11:12:29 AM
Knightstalker, those things aren't allowed. You can't play scholarship lacrosse at Johns Hopkins and also play a Division III sport. Also you must offer scholarship money as a department to be a Division II member. Ivy is an exception but there is none in D-II. They could play non-scholarship in football but the school would still have to give money in other sports.

Surprised none of the WIAC folks have noted that the entire system is D-III because of state law. It would take an act of the legislature to change that.

Pat I understand that, I was making the point of why they are not allowed.  I assume that most already know that about D-3 so I did not bother stating it was not allowed.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D O.C. on December 26, 2011, 12:14:08 AM
bleedpurple:
QuoteTechnically speaking, I think it is a red herring

By all means, it's time to get red into the Stagg.  ;D

QuoteThis isn't 32 NFL teams in a league of owners where football is the core function.  This is 240 colleges for which football is a small (even if important) part of their whole operation.
- Gordon Mann

What is that other state school league, New Jersey? They don't seem to fare as well.  I believe PC stated 25% of d3 state schools win 25% of the championships (and that means no advantage?)

http://www.wiacsports.com/sports/2010/7/23/GEN_0723103641.aspx?tab=nationalchampionshipteams

By Academic Year

2011-12
Football (UW-Whitewater)

2010-11
Football (UW-Whitewater)
Women's Indoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)

2009-10
Women's Cross Country (UW-Eau Claire)
Football (UW-Whitewater)
Men's Basketball (UW-Stevens Point)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)

2008-09
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Indoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse and UW-Oshkosh)
Men's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)

2007-08
Women's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-River Falls)
Softball (UW-Eau Claire)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Indoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse)
Football (UW-Whitewater)

2006-07
Women's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Men's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-Oshkosh)

2005-06
Women's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Men's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Indoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Men's Indoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Cross Country (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Volleyball (UW-Whitewater)

2004-05
Baseball (UW-Whitewater)
Men's Basketball (UW-Stevens Point)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Indoor Track and Field (UW-Oshkosh)
2003-04
Men's Basketball (UW-Stevens Point)
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Indoor Track and Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-Oshkosh)

2002-03
Men's Cross Country (UW-Oshkosh)
Women's Volleyball (UW-Whitewater)
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)

2001-02
Men's Cross Country (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Basketball (UW-Stevens Point)
Men's Ice Hockey (UW-Superior)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)

2000-01
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Golf (UW-Eau Claire)

1999-2000
None (even BIG 'OL STATE SCHOOLS can have an off year)

1998-99
Men's Basketball (UW-Platteville)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)

Now! back to good or bad. Good, if you can schedule one of them in preseason for two years to see what you need to do t o compete, but, then, that is obvious: more speed, more size, more depth.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 26, 2011, 01:20:00 AM
DOC- I'm not really sure what to make of the list of championships you posted. If your point is that the WIAC wins more than its fair share, I think we would need to see a list of every DIII sport w a national championship in order to compare.

In addition, the list does show a couple schools are obviously strong in track and field. Is that because the WIAC gives them some sort of advantage or is it a testament to a coach and program that would succeed the same way in any conference?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 26, 2011, 09:37:30 AM
Should we do the championship exercise for the NESCAC and the UAA? What's the point? The NCAC has won two championships this year and no doubt will probably win at least one of the swimming titles? Should we bust that league up?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D O.C. on December 26, 2011, 10:49:09 AM
QuoteDOC- I'm not really sure what to make of the list of championships you posted.

PC will tell you I don't either.  8-)  What the list does NOT tell us is how many times a WIAC team got to the finals and LOST. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on December 26, 2011, 10:51:41 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 24, 2011, 11:18:05 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 24, 2011, 11:12:29 AM
Surprised none of the WIAC folks have noted that the entire system is D-III because of state law. It would take an act of the legislature to change that.

Very interesting...I didn't know that.

That's news to me too. 

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 26, 2011, 03:18:52 PM
Surprising -- believe I learned that on the WIAC board once upon a time. Point being, someone has to fund those scholarships and that money has to come from the state, unless a school can raise a self-sustaining fund of a couple million dollars annually.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 26, 2011, 04:21:03 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 24, 2011, 09:54:28 AM
Quote from: AO on December 24, 2011, 03:40:51 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 24, 2011, 12:08:44 AM
AO -

Who will pay for that? Who? Who? Who? Who? Who?

It won't be the Walker regime for sure!
Is there an owl in here?   

Remember, I would like to live in a world without title IX.  Where if UW-Whitewater wanted to play a division 1 schedule in football only and give full rides to 60 football players and no one else, it could do so.   Even if home attendance doesn't increase much, you could pay for the scholarships by playing at a bcs school where guarantees of a million are not uncommon.

Title IX is necessary and vital. My daughters deserve athletics just as much as I did and there will be some chuckleheads who would deny them that right because their views are stuck way in the past.

Again, people need to keep the entire athletics program in mind. Those D-1 BCS guarantee games are horrid for the sport itself. It does help the coffers but at what cost?
Would your daughter would quit the team if not given a scholarship?  As we in D3 know, universities find value in supporting sports that draw tuition-paying students even though they don't generate much tv or ticket revenue.   Women's sports don't need football money to survive.  They survive based upon the interest of the women playing them.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D O.C. on December 26, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
They survive based on Title IX.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 26, 2011, 05:09:34 PM
Quote from: D O.C. on December 26, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
They survive based on Title IX.
How do the aau girls teams, club teams, every other girls team not applicable to title IX survive?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 26, 2011, 05:18:33 PM
Quote from: D O.C. on December 26, 2011, 10:49:09 AM
QuoteDOC- I'm not really sure what to make of the list of championships you posted.

PC will tell you I don't either.  8-)  What the list does NOT tell us is how many times a WIAC team got to the finals and LOST.

You seem reasonable enough to me.   But come come on now, you shouldn't make your case by telling half a story. If your point is the WIAC wins/competes in too many championships, you should give u s information on all D3 championships.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Knightstalker on December 26, 2011, 06:01:33 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 26, 2011, 05:18:33 PM
Quote from: D O.C. on December 26, 2011, 10:49:09 AM
QuoteDOC- I'm not really sure what to make of the list of championships you posted.

PC will tell you I don't either.  8-)  What the list does NOT tell us is how many times a WIAC team got to the finals and LOST.

You seem reasonable enough to me.   But come come on now, you shouldn't make your case by telling half a story. If your point is the WIAC wins/competes in too many championships, you should give u s information on all D3 championships.

I forget if it was just for football and basketball or all of D-3 but someone did a breakdown several years ago and the percentage of championships won by the state colleges and universities and championships won by the private institutions was fairly close to the percentages of each type of institution in D-3.  Holy run-on sentence Batman.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 26, 2011, 06:37:07 PM
It is blatantly unfair and unjust not to offer women's scholarships if they offer men's scholarships. I have concerns about football creating some inequities in Title IX, but it is downright criminal to say 'sorry' to women athletes if their male counterparts get scholarships. Or worse, saying 'sorry' to women's athletics, period. And that's exactly why Title IX was created, because sexists deemed women's sports unworthy. You can't expect women's athletics to compete on a playing field with programs that have 80-100 years of track record when many high schools didn't offer women's athletics at all until Title IX. My sister never got the same chance as her daughter did.

There were no such things (or barely such things) as AAU, club sports, etc. for the vast majority of women.

And that's all I am saying about this because it's detracting from the main concern of the question of the board. There is no conceivable way you can remove the Purples' football program from D-3 without damaging their conferences, their athletics department and the D-3 ethos.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 26, 2011, 06:42:00 PM
Quote from: AO on December 26, 2011, 05:09:34 PM
Quote from: D O.C. on December 26, 2011, 04:35:41 PM
They survive based on Title IX.
How do the aau girls teams, club teams, every other girls team not applicable to title IX survive?

This seems like the wrong thread for this. However, while Title IX has been a disaster, especially at the D1 level, for many fringe men's sports (and not so fringe like wrestling), something like it was absolutely necessary. I don't approve of how Title IX was implemented or later interpreted, but for institutions accepting federal money, the pre-Title IX spending on women's sports and opportunities for female athletes was completely unacceptable.

As for how aau and club teams thrive, they are funded at a large cost to the parents. Just like they are usually funded on the boys sides except for at the very top levels, where I have my suspicions about the financing not being anywhere near wholesome...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 26, 2011, 06:43:41 PM
It was a disaster for short-sighted, short-logic and meek, fraidy-cat athletics directors and not with Title IX itself.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 26, 2011, 06:43:54 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 26, 2011, 06:37:07 PM
And that's all I am saying about this because it's detracting from the main concern of the question of the board. There is no conceivable way you can remove the Purples' football program from D-3 without damaging their conferences, their athletics department and the D-3 ethos.

I never thought that was the main concern of the question on the board? I thought it was if they are bad for D3. Oh well...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 26, 2011, 06:50:46 PM
That means it's bad for D-3. D-3 isn't just football, it's all wrapped up together in the conferences and their entire programs. I think I've stated that as a theme in most of my posts - maybe too many of them.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: middlerelief on December 26, 2011, 06:57:44 PM
No - it is not good for the sport - But it is up to the other programs out there to change it given that D3 offers the championship to be settled on the field via a playoff (unlike the SEC fatigue'd BCS system).

My Scrutiny starts local first then expands. As in the conferences - The other programs in the WIAC, the OAC, and the ASC (MHB) frankly should be embarassed that they cannot produce a different conf. champ over the last 7 to 15 years.  A conference should be competitive, and the teams that play in that conference should be able to figure out how to one up one another season to seaon via recruiting, facilities, etc. because they see them every year. A program goes on a hot run sure, but it should not be penciled in as a given who wins that conference and be challenged for that AQ. Not a single program in those three conferences appears to be able to do that. Examples of "Good" conferences because they compete and seem to rotate champs would  be: the MIAC and the E8.

2nd level of scruitiny goes to the regional level - if UWW can figure out how to get past MUC, then other programs should be able to solve the code as well. Be it investment in facilities or 2nd level recruiting to nab D1 drop downs, or more experienced coaching or whatever the ingredients are - 2 programs have figured it out - now it is time for a third.

Who that third program could potentially be? My guess: Wesley, Linfield, Bethel, St. Thomas, Salisbury, St. John Fisher

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 26, 2011, 07:38:33 PM
AO once complained that we put women's basketball on the front page of D3hoops.com. Let's keep the Title IX discussions somewhere else and stay focused here, since we are linking to this conversation from the D3football.com front page.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D O.C. on December 26, 2011, 11:03:37 PM
Fair enough.
I'll restate that I vote NO.
It is not that I resigned to the 7th CONSECUTIVE MEETING, yet somehow I looked forward to this year's game.
I was a neutral observer.
I was in awe of the speed, size and depth of the two heavyweights.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 26, 2011, 11:22:43 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 26, 2011, 07:38:33 PM
AO once complained that we put women's basketball on the front page of D3hoops.com. Let's keep the Title IX discussions somewhere else and stay focused here, since we are linking to this conversation from the D3football.com front page.
Just my personal opinion that the headlines were rather confusing as it takes some effort to discern whether you're talking about the men's team or the women's team.  More of a design issue, rather than complaining that the women were covered.

---as to the title IX discussion belonging elsewhere, if an apparently large number of d3 fans think the purple powers are bad for D3 I find it highly relevant to discuss the reasons why a move to another division is made difficult.  Would you also move the discussion concerning the rule that prevents just one team from playing in a different division unless your program happened to be grandfathered in?

I consider the purple powers to be good for D3, but if the UWW and Mount administrators could have moved up a division more easily, people of all views would probably be pretty happy.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 27, 2011, 12:07:30 AM
Quote from: AO on December 26, 2011, 11:22:43 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 26, 2011, 07:38:33 PM
AO once complained that we put women's basketball on the front page of D3hoops.com. Let's keep the Title IX discussions somewhere else and stay focused here, since we are linking to this conversation from the D3football.com front page.
Just my personal opinion that the headlines were rather confusing as it takes some effort to discern whether you're talking about the men's team or the women's team.  More of a design issue, rather than complaining that the women were covered.

---as to the title IX discussion belonging elsewhere, if an apparently large number of d3 fans think the purple powers are bad for D3 I find it highly relevant to discuss the reasons why a move to another division is made difficult.  Would you also move the discussion concerning the rule that prevents just one team from playing in a different division unless your program happened to be grandfathered in?

I consider the purple powers to be good for D3, but if the UWW and Mount administrators could have moved up a division more easily, people of all views would probably be pretty happy.

AO, anyone can start a new topic at any time.  If you would like to start a thread about teams being able to play any level they want (rather than whole programs having to move up or down), feel free.  I am going to start a Title IX thread right after I hit 'post'.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: GoHop on December 27, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Quote from: jknezek on December 24, 2011, 04:52:19 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 24, 2011, 12:03:12 PM
Jknezik- in the context of my post, the sentence  "The playing field itself is entirely level as are the hours in a day available to all" is meant from the player's perspective. IMO D III football players aren't thinking "UWW v Mt is unfair/ bad for DIII". IMO, the players especially that watch the two teams play or play against them are motivated by them. To the competing player, there is nothing "un-level" about the game.

In truth, I think time will prove this entire discussion was an over reaction to a special moment in time. I'm convinced the UWW v Mt battle will raise the level of play to a broad number of schools and result in even greater variety of championship caliber teams in the near future.

Perhaps. I remember a friend of mine in school who played on the offensive line. We spent a lot of years getting beat by the same team every year. One year he came back from losing the game and told me he had to line up against a kid he played with in h.s. Said the kid could barely stay academically eligible in h.s. and had missed his senior season because he hadn't passed enough classes as a junior. Was kind of amazed that some college found a way to get him on the field and thought it was a complete joke that he lined up against him. Was pretty vocal that he thought there was no way a kid like that could have gotten into college.

While I don't remember him saying it was unfair, I'm pretty sure he thought it was, at a minimum, completely ridiculous that somehow that kid found a way to play college ball. The differing standards between teams in D3 leads to a lot of unlevel playing fields, and the players at a lot of schools know it.

That's just one example. I have no doubt that the kid was within the rules to play. I don't think any team cheated to get him out there and it is just an example of D3's diversity. But there is no way I will ever believe that the D3 landscape is, in any meaningful form, level...

I agree that the field isn't level, but I don't think that matters to the players. My son was on the Hopkins team when they made it to the third round of the playoffs in 2009, a first for Hopkins. They played Wesley in that game in a sleet/snow/rain storm and lost a close game. Even though every player on the team knew that Wesley had some former D-1 players on the team as well as some players that were significantly older than the Hopkins players and never could have gotten into Hopkins academically, the Hopkins players were not intimidated and did not believe that they were in over their heads (the coaches might have been another story). From what I've learned from my son, the players don't care about school size or academics, they want to win and show that they can beat the best teams. I don't think it would be any fun if there wasn't a challenge or ultimate test for the conference champs. The purple teams are on the top of their game now, but nothing lasts forever, someone else will come along. Leave them in, D-3 football isn't about getting on television (although it would be nice), its about competing because you want to.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: FB24 on December 27, 2011, 08:40:06 PM
I do not know if it is good or bad for Division III football.  I have heard many rumors from credible sources that although Division III does not offer scholarships, Some schools likes Mount Union have found a loop hole around this.  Many schools do give Leadership Scholarships as part of their financial aid packages.  With Kehres being the Athletic Director at Mount Union as well as the HEad Fotball Coach, I have heard that he meets with every coach and assigns them a certain number of Leadership Scholarships per year.  It is not giving out scholarships, but in a way it is.  I wonder if Whitewater gives oout scholarships like this?  I have also heard of schools out west that give Talent Scholarships.  Talen scholarships can be for students who play a varsity sport.  So until all schools can have leadership scholarships or talent scholarships, there are always going to be an uneven playing field in Division III.  At least at the Division I level, every school gives scholarships.  At the Division III level, NOT all schools have Leadership scholarships or Talent scholarships to give out, which in a way makes it different from DI and makes for an uneven playing field
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 27, 2011, 09:01:38 PM
Many, many schools have scholarships for leadership, talent, scholastic ability, etc. They are not unique to Mt. Union nor Whitewater.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 27, 2011, 11:37:12 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 27, 2011, 09:01:38 PM
Many, many schools have scholarships for leadership, talent, scholastic ability, etc. They are not unique to Mt. Union nor Whitewater.

And I don't imagine they are unique to DIII either. Even at a DI school not all players are in scholarship. Isn't it possible that non scholarship players on a DI and DII team can "qualify" for a special scholarship? 

If so, this just shows that nothing is "level" as some would define it. In effect, it's life.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 28, 2011, 12:02:25 AM
Quote from: FB24 on December 27, 2011, 08:40:06 PM
I do not know if it is good or bad for Division III football.  I have heard many rumors from credible sources that although Division III does not offer scholarships, Some schools likes Mount Union have found a loop hole around this.  Many schools do give Leadership Scholarships as part of their financial aid packages.  With Kehres being the Athletic Director at Mount Union as well as the HEad Fotball Coach, I have heard that he meets with every coach and assigns them a certain number of Leadership Scholarships per year.  It is not giving out scholarships, but in a way it is.  I wonder if Whitewater gives oout scholarships like this?  I have also heard of schools out west that give Talent Scholarships.  Talen scholarships can be for students who play a varsity sport.  So until all schools can have leadership scholarships or talent scholarships, there are always going to be an uneven playing field in Division III.  At least at the Division I level, every school gives scholarships.  At the Division III level, NOT all schools have Leadership scholarships or Talent scholarships to give out, which in a way makes it different from DI and makes for an uneven playing field

The NCAA does do an audit of all d3 schools to make sure that scholarship money does not differ between athletes and non-athletes.  (The last audit I checked, athletes were actually receiving LESS financial aid than non-athletes at more schools than the reverse.)

I am not an expert on the process, and do not know, for example, whether the audit is sport-by-sport (e.g., whether-or-not a 'rogue' school could recruit football players by 'screwing' those in 'minor' sports.  The downside of sport-by-sport is that sometimes sports with low numbers may have an incredible mix of good students: at (d1) E. Michigan, I don't recall EVER giving a grade of less than B to a female soccer player, despite having a reputation in the athletic department as a 'tough grader' (to which I proudly admit 'guilty'!).  Aggregate numbers can be easily massaged, so I don't doubt for a second that a 'rogue' school could give a 'quasi-athletic' scholarship to a talented qb (or whatever) and easily bury it in the aggregate numbers.  Conclusions:

1.  There IS monitoring of d3 schools to make sure athletes are not being awarded more money than non-athletes.

2.  A 'rogue' school could probably easily evade this monitoring.

3.  We just have to hope that any such 'rogue' school would be turned in by it's own outraged fans, faculty, or parents of the 'screwed' students.

4.  I do not personally believe that either UMU or UWW is such a 'rogue' school, and believe that the posters supporting them would call foul if they were.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 28, 2011, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: FB24 on December 27, 2011, 08:40:06 PM
I do not know if it is good or bad for Division III football.  I have heard many rumors...

It's best not to spread them. Read Mr. Ypsi's post.

BTW, Mr. Ypsi, it seems like there is some sport-by-sport reporting of that kind.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 28, 2011, 12:40:03 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 28, 2011, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: FB24 on December 27, 2011, 08:40:06 PM
I do not know if it is good or bad for Division III football.  I have heard many rumors...

It's best not to spread them. Read Mr. Ypsi's post.

BTW, Mr. Ypsi, it seems like there is some sport-by-sport reporting of that kind.

That was my guess, but I've never looked into it.  Do they then ask for clarification if a sport is way out of line (rather than jumping to conclusions)?  I could easily imagine a cross-country team (for example) where every member is quite deservedly on academic scholarship.

What would be trickier would be a single superstar a school wanted.  Just to use a silly example, how could the audit possibly catch UWSP giving Michael Jordan a full athletic scholarship if they shave just a bit off many other student-athletes' financial aid?

Ultimately, I think no system is perfect and it comes down to whistle-blowers.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 28, 2011, 01:57:28 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 28, 2011, 12:02:25 AM


3.  We just have to hope that any such 'rogue' school would be turned in by it's own outraged fans, faculty, or parents of the 'screwed' students.


I doubt that the fans or students would turn on their own school. Is a couple thousand dollars really worth killing your school's program?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 28, 2011, 07:52:46 AM
Quote from: zach on December 28, 2011, 01:57:28 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 28, 2011, 12:02:25 AM


3.  We just have to hope that any such 'rogue' school would be turned in by it's own outraged fans, faculty, or parents of the 'screwed' students.


I doubt that the fans or students would turn on their own school. Is a couple thousand dollars really worth killing your school's program?

At a D3 school? Absolutely someone would try. To be honest, most campuses newspapers would try since it would greatly increase their chances of winning awards and getting better jobs after graduation. Nothing sells like scandal. While I have no doubt there is some fudging going on at some schools, I doubt there is much out and out rule breaking. I also imagine both Mount and UWW have had some scrutiny over this issue during their runs and have come away clean.

As Mr. Yipsi pointed out, there are many ways all schools, if they were so inclined, could fudge and lots of wiggle room without ever breaking the rules.

There can't possibly be too many people on this board that believe UMU or UWW are doing anything underhanded. They have great coaches and facilities. UMU, especially, should be able to walk into any marginal D1 recruit's living room and put out an amazing pitch. UWW should be able to wander into any Wisconsin living room and say if you don't go to Madison, we are where you need to be.

They don't NEED to cheat with what they have going for them.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 28, 2011, 08:43:06 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 28, 2011, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: FB24 on December 27, 2011, 08:40:06 PM
I do not know if it is good or bad for Division III football.  I have heard many rumors...

It's best not to spread them. Read Mr. Ypsi's post.

BTW, Mr. Ypsi, it seems like there is some sport-by-sport reporting of that kind.

Does the NCAA release some sort of spreadsheet or data on this?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: FB24 on December 28, 2011, 08:45:46 AM
I am not saying Leadership Scholarships or talent scholarships are unique to DIII.  The fact that the Athletic Department at some schools can assign a certain number of leadership scholarships to each athletic program, I have never heard of before.  Usually all the financial aid and scholarships comes from the financial aid office and not the athletic office.  I have never heard of a DIII athletic Director being able to tell each head coach of thier program how many Leadership scholarships they have per year to give out.  And NOT ALL DIII SCHOOLS HAVE THESE SCHOLARSHIPS!  A lot of DIII schools are need based only and it never includes leadership or talent scholarships.  So unless all schools have the same types of scholarships, the playing field will always be uneven.  That was my point.  I wasn't saying these scholarships were new to DIII, it is the way they are being given out.  From what I understand of the DIII rule, the same opportunities and number of scholarships have to be given to students who do not partake in athletics, meaning that if Mount Union were to give out 30 leaderships scholarships to football alone, then 30 leadership scholarships have to be available to other students who are not athletes.  With all the varsity sports Mount Union offers and each program being assigned a number of scholarships to give out per year, roughly you are looking at 100 Leadership Scholarships per year just to athletics.  To justify that, Mount would have to give out 100 leadership scholarships to other students who are not athletes.  I guess all of Mount's and other schoosl financial aid offices only give out Leadership Scholarships and no other forms of Financial aid.  Where as a lot of other schools will give out merit financial aid or need based, meaning they only give out financial aid to students who need it.  Some of these leadership scholarships students get, they may not even need, which is why there is an uneven field, between schools who give out need based aid and those who just "buy" kids away from other schools
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
UW-WHITEWATER does not give out "leadership" scholarships.  Most financial aide is need based and the majority of it is work-study. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 28, 2011, 09:44:34 AM
You also have to consider help getting into the schools at the admissions office.  Do football players get help at any d3 schools?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:50:47 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
UW-WHITEWATER does not give out "leadership" scholarships.  Most financial aide is need based and the majority of it is work-study.

It's worth noting that this is offered to all students (whether they play athletics or not).
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 28, 2011, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
UW-WHITEWATER does not give out "leadership" scholarships.  Most financial aide is need based and the majority of it is work-study.
found one, though it's pretty small.
https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81 (https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81)


The major "scholarships" at a public school come from the taxpayer. 

If a d3 school could afford to give out full leadership scholarships to their athletes, why not just move up to d1?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on December 28, 2011, 10:35:51 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:50:47 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
UW-WHITEWATER does not give out "leadership" scholarships.  Most financial aide is need based and the majority of it is work-study.

It's worth noting that this is offered to all students (whether they play athletics or not).

Well, I wouldn't say a majority of financial aid is work study at UWW, and UWW does give Talent Incentive scholarships. That may have been your experience (that a majority of your package was work study), but if it is true, the Financial Aid department is overstaffed.

Every student is required to file a FAFSA which calculates the expect contribution for a student. If a financial aid package exceeds what would be determined by the FAFSA, that would be a red flag. Let's say a player is recruited by UWW and UWSP. If one school offered a package significantly different (since the costs at the two schools are practically identical), I'm sure the coaches/recruiters would raise that as an issue.

The same would be true for UMU and ONU, just an example.

I don't think there is anything unusual going on with grants and scholarships. A coach may "offer" help in finding an on or off campus job. That's about it.

Neither UWW or UMU are leaving D-3. And,  I'm sure we'll be having this same discussion next year.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: FB24 on December 28, 2011, 10:36:42 AM
Why move up to D1 and be an average D1 team when you can be the dominant team in Division III?  Also in response to the post about most of the money at Whitewater is work study?  How can students afford to work that many hours to have most of thier aid package be from work study?  At most schools, work study money is capped so how can most of thier financial aid come from work study?  When do they go to class then?

Also, to the post about getting help from Admissions, that is a huge thing which separates a lot of Division III schools.  If you recall, Larry Kinnnard in the early 2000's was an OT for Mount.  He was declared Ineligible at Ohio State, but some how was eligible at Mount?  I recall or heard the same thing about Pierre Garcon.  He was ineligible at his previous school before coming to Mount Union?  It has happened at a lot of OAC schools.  How can this be?  If DIII is supposed to be about education and putting the true meaning in the value of Student-Athlete, than how is that possible?  Just a thought throwing out there
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 28, 2011, 10:37:42 AM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
UW-WHITEWATER does not give out "leadership" scholarships.  Most financial aide is need based and the majority of it is work-study.
found one, though it's pretty small.
https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81 (https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81)


The major "scholarships" at a public school come from the taxpayer. 

If a d3 school could afford to give out full leadership scholarships to their athletes, why not just move up to d1?

Not sure many (if any) D3 schools can afford that...I know the WIAC can't
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 28, 2011, 10:41:20 AM
Quote from: FB24 on December 28, 2011, 10:36:42 AM
Why move up to D1 and be an average D1 team when you can be the dominant team in Division III?  Also in response to the post about most of the money at Whitewater is work study?  How can students afford to work that many hours to have most of thier aid package be from work study?  At most schools, work study money is capped so how can most of thier financial aid come from work study?  When do they go to class then?

Also, to the post about getting help from Admissions, that is a huge thing which separates a lot of Division III schools.  If you recall, Larry Kinnnard in the early 2000's was an OT for Mount.  He was declared Ineligible at Ohio State, but some how was eligible at Mount?  I recall or heard the same thing about Pierre Garcon.  He was ineligible at his previous school before coming to Mount Union?  It has happened at a lot of OAC schools.  How can this be?  If DIII is supposed to be about education and putting the true meaning in the value of Student-Athlete, than how is that possible?  Just a thought throwing out there

I don't think Pierre Garcon was ineligible, nor was he a bad student.  That is just what I've heard from some Norwich people.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 10:49:04 AM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
UW-WHITEWATER does not give out "leadership" scholarships.  Most financial aide is need based and the majority of it is work-study.
found one, though it's pretty small.
https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81 (https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81)


The major "scholarships" at a public school come from the taxpayer. 

If a d3 school could afford to give out full leadership scholarships to their athletes, why not just move up to d1?

Because they don't all go to athletes. They go to well-rounded students, who happen to be athletes, debaters, actors, scientists, musicians, etc. Mostly all rolled into one!

Wabash has Honors Scholarships, which is based on taking a test; Lilly Scholarship, which is a very rigorous process; and Presidential Scholarships based upon scholarship in high school.

Those scholarships do go to athletes. They also go to non-athletes. Do you understand the subtleties, AO?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 10:52:19 AM
Also, at most public institutions, scholarships are funded through a foundation which is separate from the institution. In my career as a fundraiser, working with university foundations can be tricky because they need to be separate from the institution yet their fundraisers work exclusively for certain departments. I could go on for days about fundraising operations and such...but that's where most of the private scholarship money for public institutions originate.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 28, 2011, 11:03:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 10:49:04 AM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
UW-WHITEWATER does not give out "leadership" scholarships.  Most financial aide is need based and the majority of it is work-study.
found one, though it's pretty small.
https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81 (https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81)


The major "scholarships" at a public school come from the taxpayer. 

If a d3 school could afford to give out full leadership scholarships to their athletes, why not just move up to d1?

Because they don't all go to athletes. They go to well-rounded students, who happen to be athletes, debaters, actors, scientists, musicians, etc. Mostly all rolled into one!

Wabash has Honors Scholarships, which is based on taking a test; Lilly Scholarship, which is a very rigorous process; and Presidential Scholarships based upon scholarship in high school.

Those scholarships do go to athletes. They also go to non-athletes. Do you understand the subtleties, AO?
Merely pointing out the obvious.  If a school was motivated enough to win that they would try to cheat by offering large leadership scholarships only to their athletes, they would likely also have the money/desire to get the recognition from winning on a higher level.  There isn't much financial incentive to win in d3.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 28, 2011, 11:19:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 10:52:19 AM
Also, at most public institutions, scholarships are funded through a foundation which is separate from the institution. In my career as a fundraiser, working with university foundations can be tricky because they need to be separate from the institution yet their fundraisers work exclusively for certain departments. I could go on for days about fundraising operations and such...but that's where most of the private scholarship money for public institutions originate.
I was referring to the taxpayer money given to the public universities, not the private donations.  The hundreds of millions that the state gives to UW-Whitewater and Oshkosh every year and not Mount or St. Thomas.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 28, 2011, 11:25:40 AM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
UW-WHITEWATER does not give out "leadership" scholarships.  Most financial aide is need based and the majority of it is work-study.
found one, though it's pretty small.
https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81 (https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81)


The major "scholarships" at a public school come from the taxpayer. 

If a d3 school could afford to give out full leadership scholarships to their athletes, why not just move up to d1?



There are many schools that can afford to give out full rides to athletes.  But a part of being a d3 school is that you want your athletes to be the same as the general student body (except in a little better shape).  D1 schools accept the fact that their scholorship athletes wouldn't be at those schools if they weren't athletes.  Those athletes make some of the school money, and those athletes are what the alumni want to see at the school.  Different culture basically.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: TheSultan on December 28, 2011, 01:07:11 PM
There.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 28, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 11:19:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 10:52:19 AM
Also, at most public institutions, scholarships are funded through a foundation which is separate from the institution. In my career as a fundraiser, working with university foundations can be tricky because they need to be separate from the institution yet their fundraisers work exclusively for certain departments. I could go on for days about fundraising operations and such...but that's where most of the private scholarship money for public institutions originate.
I was referring to the taxpayer money given to the public universities, not the private donations.  The hundreds of millions that the state gives to UW-Whitewater and Oshkosh every year and not Mount or St. Thomas.

UWW and Oshkosh receive Hundreds of Millions of dollars every year from taxpayers?  No wonder they are #'s 1&2 in the conference. I suspect River Falls only gets tens of millions.

Why do some people focus on what a successful person/school/organization must be doing wrong/unfairly benefitting from rather than finding what they are doing right?
For those that think UWW has some large crop of scholarship athletes I ask you- did you look at the roster/see the team?  Which of the UWW players looks like they don't fit the UWW/DIII mold?  Coppage?  Our receivers?  Our D-Backs?  Our undersized linebackers?  Our towering D linemen?
Come on, there are two players on UWW that have the physical appearance of a higher division player: Blanchard and Allemand (lt). In 2004 UWW was just another WIAC school and people didn't look for the unfair advantage then.
Coming back around to Is This Good or Bad for DIII- if you believe in the pursuit of excellence and you want proof that there will be rewards for the massive commitment it will take, then UWW and Mt are Great for DIII.
Stop looking for excuses and start looking for ways.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: dahlby on December 28, 2011, 02:35:55 PM
emma17:

Plus k to you.

The NCAA, for better or worse, has enough audits to keep the playing fields mostly level. The only weakness that I can think of would be the different levels of academic standards at various schools that make it harder to maintain a "must be considered without any consideration(s) for athletics" scholarship requirements. Schools with lower requirements  or standards
can offer more money if the student athlete with a lower GPA or test score applies for funding.

As has been seen in the past, most schools will either be turned in by another school or will self report. Don't most schools have a compliance manager?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 28, 2011, 02:50:37 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 28, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 11:19:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 10:52:19 AM
Also, at most public institutions, scholarships are funded through a foundation which is separate from the institution. In my career as a fundraiser, working with university foundations can be tricky because they need to be separate from the institution yet their fundraisers work exclusively for certain departments. I could go on for days about fundraising operations and such...but that's where most of the private scholarship money for public institutions originate.
I was referring to the taxpayer money given to the public universities, not the private donations.  The hundreds of millions that the state gives to UW-Whitewater and Oshkosh every year and not Mount or St. Thomas.

UWW and Oshkosh receive Hundreds of Millions of dollars every year from taxpayers?  No wonder they are #'s 1&2 in the conference. I suspect River Falls only gets tens of millions.

Why do some people focus on what a successful person/school/organization must be doing wrong/unfairly benefitting from rather than finding what they are doing right?
For those that think UWW has some large crop of scholarship athletes I ask you- did you look at the roster/see the team?  Which of the UWW players looks like they don't fit the UWW/DIII mold?  Coppage?  Our receivers?  Our D-Backs?  Our undersized linebackers?  Our towering D linemen?
Come on, there are two players on UWW that have the physical appearance of a higher division player: Blanchard and Allemand (lt). In 2004 UWW was just another WIAC school and people didn't look for the unfair advantage then.
Coming back around to Is This Good or Bad for DIII- if you believe in the pursuit of excellence and you want proof that there will be rewards for the massive commitment it will take, then UWW and Mt are Great for DIII.
Stop looking for excuses and start looking for ways.
hundreds of millions refers to the total amount of taxpayer money going to the public universities.  The tens of millions would be more accurate when referring to just a single university such as Oshkosh who received $44 Million in state aid last year, not including any new buildings that the state also typically pays for.  It certainly is a major advantage for the public schools, but many schools like St. Thomas are able to make up the difference and then some with private donations.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: firstdown on December 28, 2011, 04:11:16 PM
Aside from the scholarships, how do the tuition levels and costs of room and board compare at the public versus private members of D3?

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 28, 2011, 05:00:23 PM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 02:50:37 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 28, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 11:19:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 10:52:19 AM
Also, at most public institutions, scholarships are funded through a foundation which is separate from the institution. In my career as a fundraiser, working with university foundations can be tricky because they need to be separate from the institution yet their fundraisers work exclusively for certain departments. I could go on for days about fundraising operations and such...but that's where most of the private scholarship money for public institutions originate.
I was referring to the taxpayer money given to the public universities, not the private donations.  The hundreds of millions that the state gives to UW-Whitewater and Oshkosh every year and not Mount or St. Thomas.

UWW and Oshkosh receive Hundreds of Millions of dollars every year from taxpayers?  No wonder they are #'s 1&2 in the conference. I suspect River Falls only gets tens of millions.

Why do some people focus on what a successful person/school/organization must be doing wrong/unfairly benefitting from rather than finding what they are doing right?
For those that think UWW has some large crop of scholarship athletes I ask you- did you look at the roster/see the team?  Which of the UWW players looks like they don't fit the UWW/DIII mold?  Coppage?  Our receivers?  Our D-Backs?  Our undersized linebackers?  Our towering D linemen?
Come on, there are two players on UWW that have the physical appearance of a higher division player: Blanchard and Allemand (lt). In 2004 UWW was just another WIAC school and people didn't look for the unfair advantage then.
Coming back around to Is This Good or Bad for DIII- if you believe in the pursuit of excellence and you want proof that there will be rewards for the massive commitment it will take, then UWW and Mt are Great for DIII.
Stop looking for excuses and start looking for ways.
hundreds of millions refers to the total amount of taxpayer money going to the public universities.  The tens of millions would be more accurate when referring to just a single university such as Oshkosh who received $44 Million in state aid last year, not including any new buildings that the state also typically pays for.  It certainly is a major advantage for the public schools, but many schools like St. Thomas are able to make up the difference and then some with private donations.

Sorry, I thought you actually said the state gives UWW and Oshkosh hundreds of millions of dollars every year.  A wise man once said, the government gives nothing it doesn't first take.

I'm not sure what "advantage" you are speaking of.  As for facilities/new buildings- I don't know all the details as to how much the tax payers ponied up compared to how much was raised from private donations and revenue from football success.  If you've seen the UWW athletic complex you know it is pretty special.  I can't imagine tax payers would allocate a greater share to UWW than the rest of the state schools.  As such, the beautiful facilities speak again to the Commitment of a university/community/alumni base to make something great.  UWW doesn't have the patent on this approach- It is a model available to every single DIII school in the country. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 28, 2011, 05:16:14 PM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on December 28, 2011, 10:41:20 AM
Quote from: FB24 on December 28, 2011, 10:36:42 AM
Why move up to D1 and be an average D1 team when you can be the dominant team in Division III?  Also in response to the post about most of the money at Whitewater is work study?  How can students afford to work that many hours to have most of thier aid package be from work study?  At most schools, work study money is capped so how can most of thier financial aid come from work study?  When do they go to class then?

Also, to the post about getting help from Admissions, that is a huge thing which separates a lot of Division III schools.  If you recall, Larry Kinnnard in the early 2000's was an OT for Mount.  He was declared Ineligible at Ohio State, but some how was eligible at Mount?  I recall or heard the same thing about Pierre Garcon.  He was ineligible at his previous school before coming to Mount Union?  It has happened at a lot of OAC schools.  How can this be?  If DIII is supposed to be about education and putting the true meaning in the value of Student-Athlete, than how is that possible?  Just a thought throwing out there

I don't think Pierre Garcon was ineligible, nor was he a bad student.  That is just what I've heard from some Norwich people.

He was NOT ineligible at Norwich. If he was ineligible at Norwich he would have had to sit out a year after transferring by NCAA rule.

FB24 -- you should stick to facts, rather than "things you hear."

Kinnard wasn't ineligible at OSU, but he was .005 GPA short of avoiding Prop 48, so he could not get a football scholarship. He did get into the school and was eligible.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 28, 2011, 05:28:28 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 28, 2011, 05:00:23 PM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 02:50:37 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 28, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 11:19:31 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 10:52:19 AM
Also, at most public institutions, scholarships are funded through a foundation which is separate from the institution. In my career as a fundraiser, working with university foundations can be tricky because they need to be separate from the institution yet their fundraisers work exclusively for certain departments. I could go on for days about fundraising operations and such...but that's where most of the private scholarship money for public institutions originate.
I was referring to the taxpayer money given to the public universities, not the private donations.  The hundreds of millions that the state gives to UW-Whitewater and Oshkosh every year and not Mount or St. Thomas.

UWW and Oshkosh receive Hundreds of Millions of dollars every year from taxpayers?  No wonder they are #'s 1&2 in the conference. I suspect River Falls only gets tens of millions.

Why do some people focus on what a successful person/school/organization must be doing wrong/unfairly benefitting from rather than finding what they are doing right?
For those that think UWW has some large crop of scholarship athletes I ask you- did you look at the roster/see the team?  Which of the UWW players looks like they don't fit the UWW/DIII mold?  Coppage?  Our receivers?  Our D-Backs?  Our undersized linebackers?  Our towering D linemen?
Come on, there are two players on UWW that have the physical appearance of a higher division player: Blanchard and Allemand (lt). In 2004 UWW was just another WIAC school and people didn't look for the unfair advantage then.
Coming back around to Is This Good or Bad for DIII- if you believe in the pursuit of excellence and you want proof that there will be rewards for the massive commitment it will take, then UWW and Mt are Great for DIII.
Stop looking for excuses and start looking for ways.
hundreds of millions refers to the total amount of taxpayer money going to the public universities.  The tens of millions would be more accurate when referring to just a single university such as Oshkosh who received $44 Million in state aid last year, not including any new buildings that the state also typically pays for.  It certainly is a major advantage for the public schools, but many schools like St. Thomas are able to make up the difference and then some with private donations.

Sorry, I thought you actually said the state gives UWW and Oshkosh hundreds of millions of dollars every year.  A wise man once said, the government gives nothing it doesn't first take.

I'm not sure what "advantage" you are speaking of.  As for facilities/new buildings- I don't know all the details as to how much the tax payers ponied up compared to how much was raised from private donations and revenue from football success.  If you've seen the UWW athletic complex you know it is pretty special.  I can't imagine tax payers would allocate a greater share to UWW than the rest of the state schools.  As such, the beautiful facilities speak again to the Commitment of a university/community/alumni base to make something great.  UWW doesn't have the patent on this approach- It is a model available to every single DIII school in the country.   
You would have to admit that some state schools are going to get more money for different things when it comes to sports.  I don't know about Wisconsin but it is clear that in new York the state gives Cortland more money than they do brockport or buffalo state.  You see it here in massachusetts too.  Some state schools get more funding than others.  I'm sure politics comes into play, but that isn't always bad if the right people get money for d3 sports in my opinion.  I mean, it happens in d1 too.  Texas and Texas a&m, Michigan and Michigan state, etc, etc
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 05:36:53 PM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 11:03:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 10:49:04 AM
Quote from: AO on December 28, 2011, 09:57:25 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 28, 2011, 09:36:31 AM
UW-WHITEWATER does not give out "leadership" scholarships.  Most financial aide is need based and the majority of it is work-study.
found one, though it's pretty small.
https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81 (https://scholarships.uww.edu/detail.aspx?ID=81)


The major "scholarships" at a public school come from the taxpayer. 

If a d3 school could afford to give out full leadership scholarships to their athletes, why not just move up to d1?

Because they don't all go to athletes. They go to well-rounded students, who happen to be athletes, debaters, actors, scientists, musicians, etc. Mostly all rolled into one!

Wabash has Honors Scholarships, which is based on taking a test; Lilly Scholarship, which is a very rigorous process; and Presidential Scholarships based upon scholarship in high school.

Those scholarships do go to athletes. They also go to non-athletes. Do you understand the subtleties, AO?
Merely pointing out the obvious.  If a school was motivated enough to win that they would try to cheat by offering large leadership scholarships only to their athletes, they would likely also have the money/desire to get the recognition from winning on a higher level.  There isn't much financial incentive to win in d3.

Again, not everything is a dollars-and-cents, zero-sum game. Besides, at most all D3 institutions the howl from the faculty would be enormous.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DanPadavona on December 28, 2011, 05:43:00 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 28, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
Coming back around to Is This Good or Bad for DIII- if you believe in the pursuit of excellence and you want proof that there will be rewards for the massive commitment it will take, then UWW and Mt are Great for DIII.
Stop looking for excuses and start looking for ways.

It's not as easy as that. Name one D3 conference that benefits like the WIAC from a lack of competition in state. If the University of Wisconsin is not an option, you are probably going to the WIAC. The amount of football talent divided between so few schools is something which say New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or New York could ever hope to compete with.

I'm not blaming the WIAC. I'm just pointing out that saying "let's start to look for ways" to become as good as MUC or UWW is over simplifying things. I highly doubt Montclair and Rowan don't take football as seriously as a WIAC team does. If there were only 8 or 9 teams in all of New York, how good do you think the best team would be? I bet they'd play in a lot of national championships.

The only hope for a team to break through is to absolutely dominate one area in recruiting, probably due to geographic advantages (lack of competition). Otherwise until roster limits are imposed, we will continue to see MUC vs UWW (or another WIAC team) for a long time.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 05:55:27 PM
Dan,

There's plenty of competition for Wisconsin kids. The CCIW, the nearby Minnesota privates, MWC schools, and NATHC schools are close enough to nab kids from Wisconsin. It's not that far to either Chicago or Minneapolis for the majority of the population.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DanPadavona on December 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
The vast majority of D2/D3 kids stay in-state Smed. I don't know what the financial incentive is in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But if you aren't going D1 on scholarship, you are probably looking to save money on your college education however possible. Staying in state is usually a big cost saver for most US states.

That doesn't stop Cortland from grabbing 2 or 3 kids from New Jersey. But as a rule, you usually play ball in-state.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on December 28, 2011, 06:29:51 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 28, 2011, 05:16:14 PM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on December 28, 2011, 10:41:20 AM
Quote from: FB24 on December 28, 2011, 10:36:42 AM
Why move up to D1 and be an average D1 team when you can be the dominant team in Division III?  Also in response to the post about most of the money at Whitewater is work study?  How can students afford to work that many hours to have most of thier aid package be from work study?  At most schools, work study money is capped so how can most of thier financial aid come from work study?  When do they go to class then?

Also, to the post about getting help from Admissions, that is a huge thing which separates a lot of Division III schools.  If you recall, Larry Kinnnard in the early 2000's was an OT for Mount.  He was declared Ineligible at Ohio State, but some how was eligible at Mount?  I recall or heard the same thing about Pierre Garcon.  He was ineligible at his previous school before coming to Mount Union?  It has happened at a lot of OAC schools.  How can this be?  If DIII is supposed to be about education and putting the true meaning in the value of Student-Athlete, than how is that possible?  Just a thought throwing out there

I don't think Pierre Garcon was ineligible, nor was he a bad student.  That is just what I've heard from some Norwich people.

He was NOT ineligible at Norwich. If he was ineligible at Norwich he would have had to sit out a year after transferring by NCAA rule.

FB24 -- you should stick to facts, rather than "things you hear."

Kinnard wasn't ineligible at OSU, but he was .005 GPA short of avoiding Prop 48, so he could not get a football scholarship. He did get into the school and was eligible.

His father was also losing his fight with Cancer at he time, and I believe that factored into Kinnard staying home in Alliance.  Especially after the Prop 48 issue that came up.

I agree with you Pat, FB24 should stop throwing "things he has heard" around and stick to what he knows as facts.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 06:57:21 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
The vast majority of D2/D3 kids stay in-state Smed. I don't know what the financial incentive is in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But if you aren't going D1 on scholarship, you are probably looking to save money on your college education however possible. Staying in state is usually a big cost saver for most US states.

That doesn't stop Cortland from grabbing 2 or 3 kids from New Jersey. But as a rule, you usually play ball in-state.

Not necessarily around the Midwest. Look at all of the Wisconsin kids on the St. Thomas roster. Don't paint each region with the same brush as yours, Dan.

College students go for the best fit. More and more students are expanding their horizons.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 28, 2011, 06:59:14 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
The vast majority of D2/D3 kids stay in-state Smed. I don't know what the financial incentive is in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But if you aren't going D1 on scholarship, you are probably looking to save money on your college education however possible. Staying in state is usually a big cost saver for most US states.

That doesn't stop Cortland from grabbing 2 or 3 kids from New Jersey. But as a rule, you usually play ball in-state.

I don't have the exact number on me, but wisconsin-whitewater has an in-state/out of state ratio around 50-50.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 07:02:27 PM
Also, Dan, you're discounting schools such as St. Norbert, Carroll, Ripon, Carthage, etc. who are in Wisconsin. I mentioned their conferences earlier in my discussion.

By my count Wabash had over 20 kids from outside of Indiana playing football. More than a handful. They used to have more of a base in Chicago and Cincy and that's waxed and waned over time.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: dahlby on December 28, 2011, 08:20:46 PM
firstdown:

Historically speaking, private colleges have a much higher tuition cost than public schools. At Chapman University in  Orange County (southern Ca) CA, tuition, books, room and board etc run around $60,000 per year, plus or minus.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 28, 2011, 08:44:15 PM
Quote from: dahlby on December 28, 2011, 08:20:46 PM
firstdown:

Historically speaking, private colleges have a much higher tuition cost than public schools. At Chapman University in  Orange County (southern Ca) CA, tuition, books, room and board etc run around $60,000 per year, plus or minus.

It is important to note, however, that the 'sticker' price differential is generally MUCH greater than the 'net' price differential for students qualifying for financial aid.  Aside from those lucky few qualifying for a total 'free ride', private school students will generally pay more bottom line than at state-supported schools, but there is usually not nearly the gap that 'sticker' prices would suggest.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on December 28, 2011, 09:03:06 PM
Wow, this thread is going all over the place.

First of all, in 2009, there were 784 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students from outside of Wisconsin at UWW. That's 932 students - less than 10%. The split in in state and out of state is not 50-50 as claimed. The demographics by state are available on the UWW web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have a reciprocity agreement allowing Minnesota residents tuition nearly equal to Wisconsin in state residents. However, the number of Freshmen from Minnesota in 2009 was only 19.  They do not have a similar agreement for FISH (derogatory term for Illinois residents). Tuition and room and board for Wisconsin residents is approximately $17,000. For Illinois residents, it is $24,000. I'm the parent of a UWW student so I know the costs. :) For a CCIW school, tuition plus room plus board is $40,000. That's probably representative of most private colleges.

Let's be real. The MWC is not going to compete in recruiting against UWW. The MWC has good schools, nice campuses, pretty good athletic resources. But they can't compare with UWW. If UWW wants a kid, they're going to get him.

The state of Wisconsin funds the University System at $1.1B - about 25% of the budget. As mentioned previously, the state also funds building projects. All the data is available online, this is in the record. For the 25%, private schools have to get that through tuition, fees, and donors. Some schools do well at that, others less so.

UWW also conducts football camps in the summer for high school students that are well regarded. These are great opportunities to introduce young players to the UWW facilities.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gray Fox on December 28, 2011, 09:20:33 PM
The UWW Vital Statistics

  http://www.uww.edu/campus-info/about-uww/vital-statistics
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: WashedUp on December 28, 2011, 09:20:43 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
The vast majority of D2/D3 kids stay in-state Smed. I don't know what the financial incentive is in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But if you aren't going D1 on scholarship, you are probably looking to save money on your college education however possible. Staying in state is usually a big cost saver for most US states.

That doesn't stop Cortland from grabbing 2 or 3 kids from New Jersey. But as a rule, you usually play ball in-state.

That isn't true at every college.  Carleton, for example, had a roster that was split about 50/50 last year in state vs. out of state and had players from 16 states and Kenya.  St. Olaf has had a pretty steady pipeline from Florida for several years and had 22 from Florida (and one from the Bahamas) on the team this last year.  Gustavus, on the other hand, is in the same conference and is almost exclusively MN kids.  It seems to me like teams reflect where the coaches choose to focus their recruiting efforts rather than a rule that you always play in state.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: FB24 on December 28, 2011, 09:35:53 PM
Not only recruiting the right states, but also Admissions department can dictate which areas to recruit.  Some of the HIGHLY ACADEMIC schools such as Carleton and Kenyon and Oberlin and NESCAC schools have to recruit nationally to keep their Ranking what it is.  Te be a top ranked academic school like Carleton is at Number 8 I think, they can't recruit from just in state.  They have to go out of state and be a nationally recognized school.  That is a reason why some small private liberal arts schools can;t compete against teams like UWW and Mount Union because they have a small recruiting area.  Meaning, although they recruit nationally, a lot of the kids they recruit are looking at academics and not solely football and it is tough to get kids nationally to visit a school, but some admissions department make it mandatory to recruit that way.  I think as a whole, admissions, coaches and the school need to be on the same page to be successful.  If you are not on the same page in all three phases, you will struggle. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 09:47:26 PM
FB24 - I think more schools are looking outside their 'comfort' zone for sure, not because of athletics, but to bring a well-rounded student body to the institution. Diversity is key and that even means bringing a kid from Texas to Minnesota or Indiana.

BTW, I think there are about 25 players from outside of Wisconsin on Whitewater's roster, so it is no way exclusively a Wisconsin recruiting base.

St. Norbert has about 45 or so players on its roster from outside of Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, North Central's roster is almost exclusively Illinois kids and there are a boat-load of options for in-state folks.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: dahlby on December 28, 2011, 10:36:58 PM
Mr. Ypsi:

I can only speak for what I know about Chapman and the local state schools and other D3 schools in the area. As CU has grown over the past 10 years, the amount of money available thru the scholarship pipeline to incoming students has reduced as the cost has increased. Many students, including the ones that I hired before I retired, are taking out higher loans to offset the balance. Although the state is in bad shape financially, it is still way less expensive to attend a state school. And, as CU's academic standards have risen, it is harder to qualify for scholarship funds. I know of stuidents that have graduated with well over a hundred thousand dollars iin loans. But, they feel that the extra financial burden will pay off in the long run.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 28, 2011, 11:06:58 PM
Quote from: dahlby on December 28, 2011, 10:36:58 PM
Mr. Ypsi:

I can only speak for what I know about Chapman and the local state schools and other D3 schools in the area. As CU has grown over the past 10 years, the amount of money available thru the scholarship pipeline to incoming students has reduced as the cost has increased. Many students, including the ones that I hired before I retired, are taking out higher loans to offset the balance. Although the state is in bad shape financially, it is still way less expensive to attend a state school. And, as CU's academic standards have risen, it is harder to qualify for scholarship funds. I know of stuidents that have graduated with well over a hundred thousand dollars iin loans. But, they feel that the extra financial burden will pay off in the long run.

Yeah, there are always exceptions.  I was speaking of the general picture, and those privates with decent endowments generally can be more forthcoming on FA than can most publics.  Generally speaking, the net tuition gap is far less than the 'sticker' tuition gap.

Fearing that 'sticker shock' would eliminate applicants before they could even learn about 'net' costs, North Park tried something innovative a few years ago.  They drastically lowered the 'sticker' price (with, of necessity, a commensurate decrease in FA for all but the neediest students).  I'm not associated with NPU in any way, but reports are that it has worked VERY well.  For some schools, high 'sticker' price is a PR plus, but perhaps other schools should investigate the NPU tactic.

But this is starting to stray pretty far afield from the announced topic! :P  I already opened a 'Title IX' thread; if anyone wants to open a 'public vs. private' or a 'size DOES matter' thread, feel free! 8-)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 28, 2011, 11:21:44 PM
Quote from: ILGator on December 28, 2011, 09:03:06 PM
Wow, this thread is going all over the place.

First of all, in 2009, there were 784 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students from outside of Wisconsin at UWW. That's 932 students - less than 10%. The split in in state and out of state is not 50-50 as claimed. The demographics by state are available on the UWW web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have a reciprocity agreement allowing Minnesota residents tuition nearly equal to Wisconsin in state residents. However, the number of Freshmen from Minnesota in 2009 was only 19.  They do not have a similar agreement for FISH (derogatory term for Illinois residents). Tuition and room and board for Wisconsin residents is approximately $17,000. For Illinois residents, it is $24,000. I'm the parent of a UWW student so I know the costs. :) For a CCIW school, tuition plus room plus board is $40,000. That's probably representative of most private colleges.

Let's be real. The MWC is not going to compete in recruiting against UWW. The MWC has good schools, nice campuses, pretty good athletic resources. But they can't compare with UWW. If UWW wants a kid, they're going to get him.

The state of Wisconsin funds the University System at $1.1B - about 25% of the budget. As mentioned previously, the state also funds building projects. All the data is available online, this is in the record. For the 25%, private schools have to get that through tuition, fees, and donors. Some schools do well at that, others less so.

UWW also conducts football camps in the summer for high school students that are well regarded. These are great opportunities to introduce young players to the UWW facilities.

We're talking about the football programs. How would 10% of the overal student body being from out of state be in anyways relevant to this discussion? I just counted up the in-state/out of state players on the wisconsin whitewater roster. There's 26 players from out of state. That's 27% of the roster. It's not the 50-50 split I had reported earlier, I was thinking of someone else. Still 26 players is alot more than "2 or 3" like the original poster that I was responding to had said.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 29, 2011, 12:47:52 AM
Quote from: zach on December 28, 2011, 11:21:44 PM
Quote from: ILGator on December 28, 2011, 09:03:06 PM
Wow, this thread is going all over the place.

First of all, in 2009, there were 784 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students from outside of Wisconsin at UWW. That's 932 students - less than 10%. The split in in state and out of state is not 50-50 as claimed. The demographics by state are available on the UWW web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have a reciprocity agreement allowing Minnesota residents tuition nearly equal to Wisconsin in state residents. However, the number of Freshmen from Minnesota in 2009 was only 19.  They do not have a similar agreement for FISH (derogatory term for Illinois residents). Tuition and room and board for Wisconsin residents is approximately $17,000. For Illinois residents, it is $24,000. I'm the parent of a UWW student so I know the costs. :) For a CCIW school, tuition plus room plus board is $40,000. That's probably representative of most private colleges.

Let's be real. The MWC is not going to compete in recruiting against UWW. The MWC has good schools, nice campuses, pretty good athletic resources. But they can't compare with UWW. If UWW wants a kid, they're going to get him.

The state of Wisconsin funds the University System at $1.1B - about 25% of the budget. As mentioned previously, the state also funds building projects. All the data is available online, this is in the record. For the 25%, private schools have to get that through tuition, fees, and donors. Some schools do well at that, others less so.

UWW also conducts football camps in the summer for high school students that are well regarded. These are great opportunities to introduce young players to the UWW facilities.

We're talking about the football programs. How would 10% of the overal student body being from out of state be in anyways relevant to this discussion? I just counted up the in-state/out of state players on the wisconsin whitewater roster. There's 26 players from out of state. That's 27% of the roster. It's not the 50-50 split I had reported earlier, I was thinking of someone else. Still 26 players is alot more than "2 or 3" like the original poster that I was responding to had said.

I think the 2 or 3 comment was from a school or conference in another state, and not UWW or the WIAC.  In any event, when UWW began its run, there were very few out of state kids on their roster.  The out of state participation increased after the success of the Stagg Bowls in 2005 and 2006.  At that time, UWW had Perkins Stadium, with a grass field and none of the new facilities.  The program experienced success with the same facilities and student source as it had for decades before- when there weren't complaints about state funding or some other advantage.  With the success, they simply continued to build.  It is also important to note the steady staff of assistants, including defensive staff and offensive line and running back staff.   
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 29, 2011, 01:03:43 AM
Quote from: emma17 on December 29, 2011, 12:47:52 AM
Quote from: zach on December 28, 2011, 11:21:44 PM
Quote from: ILGator on December 28, 2011, 09:03:06 PM
Wow, this thread is going all over the place.

First of all, in 2009, there were 784 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students from outside of Wisconsin at UWW. That's 932 students - less than 10%. The split in in state and out of state is not 50-50 as claimed. The demographics by state are available on the UWW web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have a reciprocity agreement allowing Minnesota residents tuition nearly equal to Wisconsin in state residents. However, the number of Freshmen from Minnesota in 2009 was only 19.  They do not have a similar agreement for FISH (derogatory term for Illinois residents). Tuition and room and board for Wisconsin residents is approximately $17,000. For Illinois residents, it is $24,000. I'm the parent of a UWW student so I know the costs. :) For a CCIW school, tuition plus room plus board is $40,000. That's probably representative of most private colleges.

Let's be real. The MWC is not going to compete in recruiting against UWW. The MWC has good schools, nice campuses, pretty good athletic resources. But they can't compare with UWW. If UWW wants a kid, they're going to get him.

The state of Wisconsin funds the University System at $1.1B - about 25% of the budget. As mentioned previously, the state also funds building projects. All the data is available online, this is in the record. For the 25%, private schools have to get that through tuition, fees, and donors. Some schools do well at that, others less so.

UWW also conducts football camps in the summer for high school students that are well regarded. These are great opportunities to introduce young players to the UWW facilities.

We're talking about the football programs. How would 10% of the overal student body being from out of state be in anyways relevant to this discussion? I just counted up the in-state/out of state players on the wisconsin whitewater roster. There's 26 players from out of state. That's 27% of the roster. It's not the 50-50 split I had reported earlier, I was thinking of someone else. Still 26 players is alot more than "2 or 3" like the original poster that I was responding to had said.

I think the 2 or 3 comment was from a school or conference in another state, and not UWW or the WIAC.

This was the quote

Quote from: DanPadavona on December 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
The vast majority of D2/D3 kids stay in-state Smed. I don't know what the financial incentive is in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But if you aren't going D1 on scholarship, you are probably looking to save money on your college education however possible. Staying in state is usually a big cost saver for most US states.

That doesn't stop Cortland from grabbing 2 or 3 kids from New Jersey. But as a rule, you usually play ball in-state.

He was replying to

Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 05:55:27 PM
Dan,

There's plenty of competition for Wisconsin kids. The CCIW, the nearby Minnesota privates, MWC schools, and NATHC schools are close enough to nab kids from Wisconsin. It's not that far to either Chicago or Minneapolis for the majority of the population.

So yes, he was referring to UWW. The "2 or 3 kids from NJ" was a point he made to say that Cortland is the exception by having that many guys from out of state. When in reality it is the exception that they have that little.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: K-Mack on December 29, 2011, 02:54:29 AM
Bleed Purple said it well in the original post.

My official position is that it does no good to wonder whether it's good or bad -- it just IS. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it, or reading this entire thread, to be honest.

Two truisms that don't quite answer the question:
1) The 32-team playoff produces an undisputed champion. Along the way, it produces exciting games, as well as its fair share of duds/blowouts, but also something more: A chance for D-III athletes to measure themselves against the best, and compete against their peers.

And to that end, you have to ask yourself, what do you want out of a playoff system? Is the goal just to mix up who gets to win championships? Or to produce a deserving champion? To give as many teams as possible to opportunity to truly earn a championship? How much does just getting to have the experience factor in?

The playoffs aren't perfect, but I've yet to hear a suggestion that will clearly and fairly improve them. I love that it wraps up before Christmas, with the undisputed champ, and gives 32 schools 1-5 extra weeks of team bonding, road trips, tailgates, on-campus fan experiences and memories that last a lifetime.

2) There's been a lack of variety in Salem, but the games have not been boring, and that wasn't always true pre-UWW. I've never walked away from an all-purple Stagg Bowl thinking "well, that was a crappy game."

Most of the other good points have surely been made so I won't attempt to repeat them. Enjoy!
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: mattvsmith on December 29, 2011, 09:16:48 AM
The Rev apologizes if these things have been mentioned in earlier pages. The Rev skipped around and read highlights.

1) Hobart dominated D3 lacrosse since the beginning of championships in 1980. Hobart lost only twice: in 1992 and 1994. Even if Hobart had not left D3 lacrosse, their domination of the sport was ending. The Rev chalks this up to the fact that other schools were putting time, money and effort into lacrosse that they hadn't before.
(As an aside, The Rev wants Hobart to go back to D3 lacrosse--not a popular opinion.)

b) No one has mentioned the deleterious effect that Title IX has had on men's sports as a means of "leveling the playing field" for women's sports. Let's be frank: American colleges and universities are extremely liberal (with a few exceptions like Wheaton; for every Wheaton, there are 100 Oberlins). If a college, such as Hobart, decided to put a big emphasis on football with the idea of  becoming a dominant national force, the harpies and their gelded enablers that control the socio-political tone of the schools would come flying out of the coven on their broomsticks with swords brandished screaming sexism, phallo-centrism, yada yada yada. If The Rev were president of a college I'd rather have a good but non-national-level football team than to put up with the PC bulls!t from the leftists who want to tear down any and every one who strive to excel at anything.

iii) It seems that D3 schools do not consider football a worthwhile investment toward the goals of their schools. Let's say that Hobart wants to rise from being #64 among national liberal arts colleges to being top 10. Will spending an extra few million dollars on the football team get them the kind of students and faculty that will bring them up into the top 10, or would that money be better spent on other programs that really will bring in kids with higher SAT scores and from better high schools?
If Hobart spends the money and takes the time and effort to become D3 national champs, will Hobart be ranked up their with Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore? If not, most people at Hobart won't see the point in spending the money. Hobart is in a comfy spot: good enough academically, good enough athletically. Meh. Why get worked up about it? Why not stay comfy?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 29, 2011, 10:15:42 AM
Rev,

Sorry but you're way off on b. Way way off. See the Title IX thread and I shoot down the effect on men's sports. It's inept and cowardly administrators, not the act.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 29, 2011, 10:31:17 AM
According to the IWW website, they have 10,230 undergrads and 10,161 Wisconsin residents (with 1,385 grad students).

Good for them if they are getting out of state kids to play football.  I would assume the school wants to see more out of state students in general.  Plus it looks like tuition almost doubles for out of state students. 

But 4k for in state tuition to play football at UWW?  Why wouldn't you want to go there
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on December 29, 2011, 10:44:39 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 09:47:26 PM
FB24 - I think more schools are looking outside their 'comfort' zone for sure, not because of athletics, but to bring a well-rounded student body to the institution. Diversity is key and that even means bringing a kid from Texas to Minnesota or Indiana.

BTW, I think there are about 25 players from outside of Wisconsin on Whitewater's roster, so it is no way exclusively a Wisconsin recruiting base.

St. Norbert has about 45 or so players on its roster from outside of Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, North Central's roster is almost exclusively Illinois kids and there are a boat-load of options for in-state folks.

I counted 20 players on the UWW roster from Illinois. Most are from the Chicago area, many from the northwest suburbs. Even from the south suburbs, it's less than 3 hours to Whitewater. Some Illinois players are from hometowns not more than an hour from Whitewater. Not that it matters that much. Especially after 7 Stagg Bowl appearances in a row, UWW is well known through the Midwest as a premiere football program.

Such schools as Wheaton, Bethel, and the Saints (Thomas, Norbert, etc) attract student athletes nationally based on their religious affiliations. Other school attract students nationally based on their stellar academic standards and reputations. That's just how it is.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 11:32:32 AM
smedly "Sorry but you're way off on b. Way way off. See the Title IX thread and I shoot down the effect on men's sports. It's inept and cowardly administrators, not the act."

we can go outside (uh over to the title 9 thread) but i could not disagree with u any mo strongly.
it is about money, and how much can go around.

where i live football pays the bill for all athletics, baseball and mens round ball come close and occasionally make thier tab, but the rest have to subsist off football dollars. where i work (granted D-1 SEC) got 2  3 more sports for girls than boys (enrollment ratio vs opotunity...one of the title 9 formulas), no, the administrators were not cowardly... they just faced the fact that to rack in the football $ you had to be the best ( or near it) and that cost a bunch for that sport. and that sport pays for all the girl sports (where i work 2 are perriniel national champs... and the young ladies participate)

we will have to agree to disagree  ... 30 yrs of academia has taught me u put resources where u get the most return, then u spread the rest to keep the federalis off your back
keep the faith
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on December 29, 2011, 11:38:24 AM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on December 29, 2011, 10:31:17 AM
According to the IWW website, they have 10,230 undergrads and 10,161 Wisconsin residents (with 1,385 grad students).

Good for them if they are getting out of state kids to play football.  I would assume the school wants to see more out of state students in general.  Plus it looks like tuition almost doubles for out of state students. 

But 4k for in state tuition to play football at UWW?  Why wouldn't you want to go there

:o Not quite

A full-time in-state student will pay 5-6k for one semester at UWW. That doesn't inlcude meal plans or parking. Bare minimum.

Those from IL will be coughing up almost 20K per year to attend UWW.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 11:52:06 AM
again, i think that purple is good, i have watched the past 5 purple matches in salem, really enjoyed em (actually 5 of the 6- stuck in wytheville for the snow storm)

these 2 will be replaced by other dominants programs if the world keeps spinning

in 2007, when the boy decided to go D-3 (instead of special teams only at somthing else) my son's in law (married to his sisters) my cuzin's (hay we are in bama so their are a bunch) came out of the wood work at family gatherings, asking all kind of questions. Now all of them know about 4 football programs, thier school (pick- Auburn, UAT-cheaters, UGA) ..Huntingdon, and Uww/ Mount Union.

the Stagg bowl is now part of our families Lexicon, and part of the aura is the athletisim and dominence of those 2 schools. they will be replaced, but the attention has brought us to this discussion

i realize with my extended family this represents a small tight gene pool, but the dominence of Uww & mount has captived these non D-3 thanking folk. sure we'd like to see the teams that beat us in the Stagg (Wesley, Trinity), or better who we beat in there, heck we'd like to see Huntingdon make the playoffs again. But these last 7 Staggs have been pretty good games with a national audience

i think the attention has been good for D-3, but even if many disagree with me, it is the way it is, and everyone that wants to displace them can attempt to immulate thier success
keep the faith and have a most glorious New Year
Go Hawks
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:01:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 05:55:27 PM
Dan,

There's plenty of competition for Wisconsin kids. The CCIW, the nearby Minnesota privates, MWC schools, and NATHC schools are close enough to nab kids from Wisconsin. It's not that far to either Chicago or Minneapolis for the majority of the population.

You're under a misapprehension if you think that the 'W' in "CCIW" is anything other than a literalistic recognition of the fact that one of the league's eight schools is (barely) located north of the Halas-Lombardi Line. That one Wisconsin school, Carthage, draws a very large percentage of its student population (it may even be greater than half) from Illinois, largely because the vast majority of the people who live within 100 miles of the Carthage campus live in Illinois and the school has a policy of matching Illinois state aid for any residents of the Land of Lincoln who enroll there. Carthage's sports teams have usually tended to be Illinois-centric; of the 130 or so players listed on the Carthage football roster, only a dozen are cheeseheads -- and one of them is the son of the school's head basketball coach. Heck, St. Thomas has half again as many Wisconsin residents on its football roster as Carthage has. Carthage is, in a lot of ways, an island of FIBs in a sea of cheese. (I have no idea how ILGator came up with "FISH" instead of "FIB" in terms of how the cheeseheads refer to those of us who live on the more cosmopolitan side of the Halas-Lombardi Line, although it's not hard to figure out the acronym. ;))

None of the other seven CCIW schools recruit in Wisconsin. I don't think that the MIAC regularly recruits in l'etat de fromage, either, with the possible exception of the St. Thomas football team. And it's already been pointed out that the MWC and NAthC schools in Wisconsin really don't compete much with WIAC schools for recruits. They generally get an inferior brand of athlete in terms of size and skill, because their schools are on a lower competitive tier than the WIAC (and, in the case of the MWC, the coaches can't recruit off-campus). Also, the five MWC schools that are located in Curdistan (Beloit, Carroll, Ripon, Lawrence, and St. Norbert) tend to recruit a higher-quality athlete in terms of academic background, given that they're fairly strong academic schools. That's one reason why they're more likely to recruit out-of-state as well, as you've noted yourself in the case of St. Norbert's football team.

The WIAC pretty much has a lock on any in-state athlete who is just shy of being D1 quality.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:04:28 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 28, 2011, 05:43:00 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 28, 2011, 01:37:17 PM
Coming back around to Is This Good or Bad for DIII- if you believe in the pursuit of excellence and you want proof that there will be rewards for the massive commitment it will take, then UWW and Mt are Great for DIII.
Stop looking for excuses and start looking for ways.

It's not as easy as that. Name one D3 conference that benefits like the WIAC from a lack of competition in state. If the University of Wisconsin is not an option, you are probably going to the WIAC. The amount of football talent divided between so few schools is something which say New Jersey, Pennsylvania, or New York could ever hope to compete with.

To be fair to the WIAC, you're only telling half the story in terms of demographics. The states you named -- New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York -- have much larger populations than does Wisconsin, which means a lot more high-school football players in each of those states than they have up there in Curdistan. More schools competing for those high-school football players, sure ... but a bigger pool of high-school football players from which to recruit.

Quote from: WashedUp on December 28, 2011, 09:20:43 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
The vast majority of D2/D3 kids stay in-state Smed. I don't know what the financial incentive is in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But if you aren't going D1 on scholarship, you are probably looking to save money on your college education however possible. Staying in state is usually a big cost saver for most US states.

That doesn't stop Cortland from grabbing 2 or 3 kids from New Jersey. But as a rule, you usually play ball in-state.

That isn't true at every college.  Carleton, for example, had a roster that was split about 50/50 last year in state vs. out of state and had players from 16 states and Kenya.  St. Olaf has had a pretty steady pipeline from Florida for several years and had 22 from Florida (and one from the Bahamas) on the team this last year.  Gustavus, on the other hand, is in the same conference and is almost exclusively MN kids.  It seems to me like teams reflect where the coaches choose to focus their recruiting efforts rather than a rule that you always play in state.

As FB24 pointed out, this is less a case of "where the coaches choose to focus their recruiting efforts" than it is a matter of certain high-academics schools (Carleton included) being nationally-ranked liberal arts institutions that, both by choice and necessity, recruit their student bodies from coast to coast rather than locally, student-athletes included. Likewise, some schools such as Wheaton and North Park draw students nationally for religious reasons.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 28, 2011, 11:06:58 PM
Quote from: dahlby on December 28, 2011, 10:36:58 PM
Mr. Ypsi:

I can only speak for what I know about Chapman and the local state schools and other D3 schools in the area. As CU has grown over the past 10 years, the amount of money available thru the scholarship pipeline to incoming students has reduced as the cost has increased. Many students, including the ones that I hired before I retired, are taking out higher loans to offset the balance. Although the state is in bad shape financially, it is still way less expensive to attend a state school. And, as CU's academic standards have risen, it is harder to qualify for scholarship funds. I know of stuidents that have graduated with well over a hundred thousand dollars iin loans. But, they feel that the extra financial burden will pay off in the long run.

Yeah, there are always exceptions.  I was speaking of the general picture, and those privates with decent endowments generally can be more forthcoming on FA than can most publics.  Generally speaking, the net tuition gap is far less than the 'sticker' tuition gap.

I understand what you're saying, Chuck, but the problem is that it can be misconstrued as meaning that the net tuition gap between public and private is miniscule. It isn't. Most students who attend private schools take out thousands -- indeed, often tens of thousands -- of dollars in bank loans and spend the first ten or fifteen years of their post-collegiate working lives paying off those loans on a month-by-month basis. I certainly remember the dismay I felt when the thick little book of loan-payment coupons showed up in my mailbox six months after I finished my North Park education. I looked at it and thought, "Man, I am going to be in debt forever." It's actually the last little bit of undergraduate learning that one receives, as it's a precursor to the wonderful world of home mortgages. ;)

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 28, 2011, 11:06:58 PM
Fearing that 'sticker shock' would eliminate applicants before they could even learn about 'net' costs, North Park tried something innovative a few years ago.  They drastically lowered the 'sticker' price (with, of necessity, a commensurate decrease in FA for all but the neediest students).  I'm not associated with NPU in any way, but reports are that it has worked VERY well.  For some schools, high 'sticker' price is a PR plus, but perhaps other schools should investigate the NPU tactic.

To give credit where credit is due, Marietta is the school that developed this innovation. It worked so well there that NPU adopted it as well. As you said, it's led to both a quantitative and a qualitative increase in the student body at North Park.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 29, 2011, 01:27:57 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 29, 2011, 11:38:24 AM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on December 29, 2011, 10:31:17 AM
According to the IWW website, they have 10,230 undergrads and 10,161 Wisconsin residents (with 1,385 grad students).

Good for them if they are getting out of state kids to play football.  I would assume the school wants to see more out of state students in general.  Plus it looks like tuition almost doubles for out of state students. 

But 4k for in state tuition to play football at UWW?  Why wouldn't you want to go there



:o Not quite

A full-time in-state student will pay 5-6k for one semester at UWW. That doesn't inlcude meal plans or parking. Bare minimum.

Those from IL will be coughing up almost 20K per year to attend UWW.

Ah the 3,600 was for one semester for tuition only.  Still a pretty good deal for in state students.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 29, 2011, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:01:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 05:55:27 PM
Dan,

There's plenty of competition for Wisconsin kids. The CCIW, the nearby Minnesota privates, MWC schools, and NATHC schools are close enough to nab kids from Wisconsin. It's not that far to either Chicago or Minneapolis for the majority of the population.

You're under a misapprehension if you think that the 'W' in "CCIW" is anything other than a literalistic recognition of the fact that one of the league's eight schools is (barely) located north of the Halas-Lombardi Line. That one Wisconsin school, Carthage, draws a very large percentage of its student population (it may even be greater than half) from Illinois, largely because the vast majority of the people who live within 100 miles of the Carthage campus live in Illinois and the school has a policy of matching Illinois state aid for any residents of the Land of Lincoln who enroll there. Carthage's sports teams have usually tended to be Illinois-centric; of the 130 or so players listed on the Carthage football roster, only a dozen are cheeseheads -- and one of them is the son of the school's head basketball coach. Heck, St. Thomas has half again as many Wisconsin residents on its football roster as Carthage has. Carthage is, in a lot of ways, an island of FIBs in a sea of cheese. (I have no idea how ILGator came up with "FISH" instead of "FIB" in terms of how the cheeseheads refer to those of us who live on the more cosmopolitan side of the Halas-Lombardi Line, although it's not hard to figure out the acronym. ;))

None of the other seven CCIW schools recruit in Wisconsin. I don't think that the MIAC regularly recruits in l'etat de fromage, either, with the possible exception of the St. Thomas football team. And it's already been pointed out that the MWC and NAthC schools in Wisconsin really don't compete much with WIAC schools for recruits. They generally get an inferior brand of athlete in terms of size and skill, because their schools are on a lower competitive tier than the WIAC (and, in the case of the MWC, the coaches can't recruit off-campus). Also, the five MWC schools that are located in Curdistan (Beloit, Carroll, Ripon, Lawrence, and St. Norbert) tend to recruit a higher-quality athlete in terms of academic background, given that they're fairly strong academic schools. That's one reason why they're more likely to recruit out-of-state as well, as you've noted yourself in the case of St. Norbert's football team.

The WIAC pretty much has a lock on any in-state athlete who is just shy of being D1 quality.

Carthage is a private school.  Why would it matter where students come from in terms of aid?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:42:16 PM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on December 29, 2011, 01:31:19 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:01:07 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 28, 2011, 05:55:27 PM
Dan,

There's plenty of competition for Wisconsin kids. The CCIW, the nearby Minnesota privates, MWC schools, and NATHC schools are close enough to nab kids from Wisconsin. It's not that far to either Chicago or Minneapolis for the majority of the population.

You're under a misapprehension if you think that the 'W' in "CCIW" is anything other than a literalistic recognition of the fact that one of the league's eight schools is (barely) located north of the Halas-Lombardi Line. That one Wisconsin school, Carthage, draws a very large percentage of its student population (it may even be greater than half) from Illinois, largely because the vast majority of the people who live within 100 miles of the Carthage campus live in Illinois and the school has a policy of matching Illinois state aid for any residents of the Land of Lincoln who enroll there. Carthage's sports teams have usually tended to be Illinois-centric; of the 130 or so players listed on the Carthage football roster, only a dozen are cheeseheads -- and one of them is the son of the school's head basketball coach. Heck, St. Thomas has half again as many Wisconsin residents on its football roster as Carthage has. Carthage is, in a lot of ways, an island of FIBs in a sea of cheese. (I have no idea how ILGator came up with "FISH" instead of "FIB" in terms of how the cheeseheads refer to those of us who live on the more cosmopolitan side of the Halas-Lombardi Line, although it's not hard to figure out the acronym. ;))

None of the other seven CCIW schools recruit in Wisconsin. I don't think that the MIAC regularly recruits in l'etat de fromage, either, with the possible exception of the St. Thomas football team. And it's already been pointed out that the MWC and NAthC schools in Wisconsin really don't compete much with WIAC schools for recruits. They generally get an inferior brand of athlete in terms of size and skill, because their schools are on a lower competitive tier than the WIAC (and, in the case of the MWC, the coaches can't recruit off-campus). Also, the five MWC schools that are located in Curdistan (Beloit, Carroll, Ripon, Lawrence, and St. Norbert) tend to recruit a higher-quality athlete in terms of academic background, given that they're fairly strong academic schools. That's one reason why they're more likely to recruit out-of-state as well, as you've noted yourself in the case of St. Norbert's football team.

The WIAC pretty much has a lock on any in-state athlete who is just shy of being D1 quality.

Carthage is a private school.  Why would it matter where students come from in terms of aid?

States can and do provide financial aid to students at private colleges, just as does the federal government (e.g., Pell Grants). At Carthage, students who are Illinois residents are given the same amount of aid by the college that they would've received from the IL Dept. of Education in Springfield had they attended a college in Illinois.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:51:52 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on December 29, 2011, 02:54:29 AM
Bleed Purple said it well in the original post.

My official position is that it does no good to wonder whether it's good or bad -- it just IS. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it, or reading this entire thread, to be honest.

Two truisms that don't quite answer the question:
1) The 32-team playoff produces an undisputed champion. Along the way, it produces exciting games, as well as its fair share of duds/blowouts, but also something more: A chance for D-III athletes to measure themselves against the best, and compete against their peers.

And to that end, you have to ask yourself, what do you want out of a playoff system? Is the goal just to mix up who gets to win championships? Or to produce a deserving champion? To give as many teams as possible to opportunity to truly earn a championship? How much does just getting to have the experience factor in?

The playoffs aren't perfect, but I've yet to hear a suggestion that will clearly and fairly improve them. I love that it wraps up before Christmas, with the undisputed champ, and gives 32 schools 1-5 extra weeks of team bonding, road trips, tailgates, on-campus fan experiences and memories that last a lifetime.

2) There's been a lack of variety in Salem, but the games have not been boring, and that wasn't always true pre-UWW. I've never walked away from an all-purple Stagg Bowl thinking "well, that was a crappy game."

Most of the other good points have surely been made so I won't attempt to repeat them. Enjoy!

Well said, K-Mack.

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on December 29, 2011, 10:31:17 AM
According to the IWW website, they have 10,230 undergrads and 10,161 Wisconsin residents (with 1,385 grad students).

That quote seems a little Wobbly to me. ;)

Quote from: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 11:32:32 AM
smedly "Sorry but you're way off on b. Way way off. See the Title IX thread and I shoot down the effect on men's sports. It's inept and cowardly administrators, not the act."

we can go outside (uh over to the title 9 thread) but i could not disagree with u any mo strongly.
it is about money, and how much can go around.

where i live football pays the bill for all athletics, baseball and mens round ball come close and occasionally make thier tab, but the rest have to subsist off football dollars. where i work (granted D-1 SEC) got 2  3 more sports for girls than boys (enrollment ratio vs opotunity...one of the title 9 formulas), no, the administrators were not cowardly... they just faced the fact that to rack in the football $ you had to be the best ( or near it) and that cost a bunch for that sport. and that sport pays for all the girl sports (where i work 2 are perriniel national champs... and the young ladies participate)

we will have to agree to disagree  ... 30 yrs of academia has taught me u put resources where u get the most return, then u spread the rest to keep the federalis off your back
keep the faith

I'm with the Rev. Hobart and DGPugh here, smeds. There's a lot more to this than just "cowardly administrators." I've sat down with (non-NPU) D3 administrators and coaches who've actually broken down the numbers for me. I think that Title IX is generally a good thing, but there's no doubt that there's been unavoidable collateral damage to so-called minor men's sports as a result of it.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on December 29, 2011, 02:01:47 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:51:52 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on December 29, 2011, 02:54:29 AM
Bleed Purple said it well in the original post.

My official position is that it does no good to wonder whether it's good or bad -- it just IS. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it, or reading this entire thread, to be honest.

Two truisms that don't quite answer the question:
1) The 32-team playoff produces an undisputed champion. Along the way, it produces exciting games, as well as its fair share of duds/blowouts, but also something more: A chance for D-III athletes to measure themselves against the best, and compete against their peers.

And to that end, you have to ask yourself, what do you want out of a playoff system? Is the goal just to mix up who gets to win championships? Or to produce a deserving champion? To give as many teams as possible to opportunity to truly earn a championship? How much does just getting to have the experience factor in?

The playoffs aren't perfect, but I've yet to hear a suggestion that will clearly and fairly improve them. I love that it wraps up before Christmas, with the undisputed champ, and gives 32 schools 1-5 extra weeks of team bonding, road trips, tailgates, on-campus fan experiences and memories that last a lifetime.

2) There's been a lack of variety in Salem, but the games have not been boring, and that wasn't always true pre-UWW. I've never walked away from an all-purple Stagg Bowl thinking "well, that was a crappy game."

Most of the other good points have surely been made so I won't attempt to repeat them. Enjoy!

Well said, K-Mack.

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on December 29, 2011, 10:31:17 AM
According to the IWW website, they have 10,230 undergrads and 10,161 Wisconsin residents (with 1,385 grad students).

That quote seems a little Wobbly to me. ;)

Quote from: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 11:32:32 AM
smedly "Sorry but you're way off on b. Way way off. See the Title IX thread and I shoot down the effect on men's sports. It's inept and cowardly administrators, not the act."

we can go outside (uh over to the title 9 thread) but i could not disagree with u any mo strongly.
it is about money, and how much can go around.

where i live football pays the bill for all athletics, baseball and mens round ball come close and occasionally make thier tab, but the rest have to subsist off football dollars. where i work (granted D-1 SEC) got 2  3 more sports for girls than boys (enrollment ratio vs opotunity...one of the title 9 formulas), no, the administrators were not cowardly... they just faced the fact that to rack in the football $ you had to be the best ( or near it) and that cost a bunch for that sport. and that sport pays for all the girl sports (where i work 2 are perriniel national champs... and the young ladies participate)

we will have to agree to disagree  ... 30 yrs of academia has taught me u put resources where u get the most return, then u spread the rest to keep the federalis off your back
keep the faith

I'm with the Rev. Hobart and DGPugh here, smeds. There's a lot more to this than just "cowardly administrators." I've sat down with (non-NPU) D3 administrators and coaches who've actually broken down the numbers for me. I think that Title IX is generally a good thing, but there's no doubt that there's been unavoidable collateral damage to so-called minor men's sports as a result of it.

It was right on the website under facts.  I assume the school wouldn't count students living on campus as Wisconsin residents?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 29, 2011, 02:34:48 PM
Greg,

I'm glad you didn't lace your comments with pejoratives and 'whistle-words'. It's not about being PC, it's about opportunity.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 02:44:28 PM
I appreciate yall apparently humoring me (or possibly not) but i am enjoying this.
I am nusing a cold, and the boy is home, so he is riding the tractor, and i am playing on the computer

Huntingdon ( private, liberal arts, montgomery, al, independent, and 7-3 with a real tough schedule this season) web site reveals (if i can add??) football team: 102 bama kids, 25 flo-rida kids, 7 from Ga, 3 from europe, and 1 each from Ca nad NC. After spring and heading into the summer/fall, it will have probably have ~60-70 bama, with about 20 fl holdovers.  this time next yr  it will appear very similar (if it follows the past 5 yr trends)

Take into account Montgomery is in the lower middle of a small relitively poor state (but we be proud) with football programs in 5 D-1, 4 D-1aa (sorry.. fcs), 5 d-2's (i am unsure of possibly 2 others that are HBCU's), 2 and about to be 3 NAIA's, and 2 D-3's   

i spect i am the only one that bothers readin my posts, but this sure is fun
keep the faith
Go Hawks
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 29, 2011, 02:47:46 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 29, 2011, 02:34:48 PM
Greg,

I'm glad you didn't lace your comments with pejoratives and 'whistle-words'. It's not about being PC, it's about opportunity.
absolutely, it's about restricting opportunities for male student athletes.  Discrimination in the name of ending discrimination.  The ncaa already mandates a certain number of sports be fielded.  If school A has 10 mens and 10 women's sports under title IX, but would have 12 mens and 10 womens sports if title IX was repealed, whose opportunity is being taken away by title IX?  It's hard to say exactly how administrators would proceed without title IX, but it seems highly unlikely that there would be fewer women playing sports without title IX.  I take the optimistic view that women's sports are now valuable enough on their own to keep and that the vast majority of athletic directors are not sexist. 

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: warhawkguard on December 29, 2011, 02:49:24 PM
If I may chime in just a bit on this great and informative discussion:

Title 1X is great for the girls, but they should just exempt the football numbers from it so besides football, all else would be equal. That way non-football men can still participate in sports that were cut. Like was stated, football pays the bills for everyone else.

When I was in HS, I was recruited by the likes of Carthage, Carroll, Ripon, Macalester, and then a few WSUC schools. The Badgers stunk back then. So, after visiting the others, I actually decided upon UWRF because I seemed to fit into their option offense well. The other schools felt like big High Schools. Their stadiums and facilities were, in some cases, actually inferior to my High School. Then, the small schools were almost triple in cost. For what? To graduate with the same degree with triple the debt??? After 1 year at UWRF I was STILL broke and went to the Army to get my college fund. After seeing UWW facilities, there was nothing in the state that could compare except Madison. The choice is easy. It still is. Most kids here don't have 20k per year available to pay for these "better" schools. MONEY is huge. Most of us poor kids could barely afford college as it was. The rich kids can have their little private schools that Daddy pays for. We all know that there a lot more poor kids than rich kids.

Any talented kid in the state today is an IDIOT is they don't pick a WIAC school if they can't get a scholarship somewhere. We lose many of our best to the strong Michigan programs of the MAC. The WIAC gets the leftovers/ no-rides.

Another HUGE factor is the programs themselves. If UMU cuts football tomorrow what will happen? Somebody will instantly hire Larry K as coach. He will bring most of his staff. Even if the previous team stunk, they would instantly field a better team than before. Soon, that new team would be a national power. Even with a sucky stadium. The Coaching staff is enormous when considering why UWW or UMU keeps succeeding. Lose the staff and then UWW would return to just being a good team I bet like when I was there. We were good. Never great. Great stadium didn't make us any better.

As long as the big teams don't steal Larry or Lance for the big bucks, the Purple Powers will remain. How often do highly successful coaches get stolen away from smaller programs?? Enjoy it as long as we can I guess.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: WashedUp on December 29, 2011, 02:51:16 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:04:28 PM
Quote from: WashedUp on December 28, 2011, 09:20:43 PM
Quote from: DanPadavona on December 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM
The vast majority of D2/D3 kids stay in-state Smed. I don't know what the financial incentive is in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But if you aren't going D1 on scholarship, you are probably looking to save money on your college education however possible. Staying in state is usually a big cost saver for most US states.

That doesn't stop Cortland from grabbing 2 or 3 kids from New Jersey. But as a rule, you usually play ball in-state.

That isn't true at every college.  Carleton, for example, had a roster that was split about 50/50 last year in state vs. out of state and had players from 16 states and Kenya.  St. Olaf has had a pretty steady pipeline from Florida for several years and had 22 from Florida (and one from the Bahamas) on the team this last year.  Gustavus, on the other hand, is in the same conference and is almost exclusively MN kids.  It seems to me like teams reflect where the coaches choose to focus their recruiting efforts rather than a rule that you always play in state.

As FB24 pointed out, this is less a case of "where the coaches choose to focus their recruiting efforts" than it is a matter of certain high-academics schools (Carleton included) being nationally-ranked liberal arts institutions that, both by choice and necessity, recruit their student bodies from coast to coast rather than locally, student-athletes included. Likewise, some schools such as Wheaton and North Park draw students nationally for religious reasons.

That may be the case for Carleton, but how do you explain St. Olaf having 22 kids from Florida on their roster?  I doubt it's because Olaf has to go to Florida to find enough players that meet their religious/academic profile to fill a roster.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 29, 2011, 03:40:17 PM
WashedUp,

It is not really unusual for schools to have a 'pipeline' to some area that seems otherwise inexplicable.  My gut hunch would be that an Ole alum is a high school coach in Florida, and most of the recruits are from his area/conference.  (Though there are other scenarios as well.)  Such pipelines are often self-perpetuating at least for a time, as players go to play with their friends/former teammates.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 04:02:53 PM
a quick glance at the flo-rida native St Olaf kids suggest they are mostly (not all) from the greater orlando-central fl region... probably got a former player or alumni who teaches/coaches or is active in that area ?
keep the faith
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Hawks88 on December 29, 2011, 05:26:01 PM
Quote from: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 02:44:28 PM
... 2 and about to be 3 NAIA's, and 2 D-3's   

Who is the 3rd NAIA?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: WashedUp on December 29, 2011, 06:49:34 PM
Quote from: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 04:02:53 PM
a quick glance at the flo-rida native St Olaf kids suggest they are mostly (not all) from the greater orlando-central fl region... probably got a former player or alumni who teaches/coaches or is active in that area ?
keep the faith

I'm not exactly sure what the reasoning is and there haven' been any Olaf posters on these boards recently that can verify, but this still shows that a presence in the area can steer athletes towards a certain school.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 07:27:40 PM
Hawks88- brother, i pray yall are well and had a wonderful CHristmas

Point University, will move to west point Ga (part of it's campus looks to be in AL, while the bulk looks to be about a 1/5 mile from the line. not far from yall.

it was called Atlanta CHristian College, in East Point, Ga, but moving to West Point,/ Lanett, Al

keep the faith
and Go Hawks
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 29, 2011, 07:47:06 PM
IMHO, Huntingdon would dominate the USA South in football, but why travel another 180 miles past Hot-lanta to get there!

And DG, may I be the first to wish you a Happy New Year and Geaux Tigers!  (Beat the Tuscaloosa Institute of Lower Education.) ;)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 07:57:44 PM
Ralph Turner - OBI Wan, I pray you are well and yall also have a most wonderful New Year.

..."Beat the Tuscaloosa Institute of Lower Education", if i recall correctly (and i am wrong more that right) you have a daughter that graduated from the lovliest village on the plains...and if so, that  might expalin your correct and astute discription of the Tuscalooser school for Ursidae worship.
i hope the Honey Badger is hungry and takes what he wants

wish we could get into USA South  :D

Keep th faith
Go Hawks
(and if i remembered correctly, please tell those in the family War Eagle)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: middlerelief on December 29, 2011, 08:27:19 PM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on December 28, 2011, 08:43:06 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 28, 2011, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: FB24 on December 27, 2011, 08:40:06 PM
I do not know if it is good or bad for Division III football.  I have heard many rumors...

It's best not to spread them. Read Mr. Ypsi's post.

BTW, Mr. Ypsi, it seems like there is some sport-by-sport reporting of that kind.

Does the NCAA release some sort of spreadsheet or data on this?

Don't know - recently Hobart got hit with something - both Lax and football programs but it wasn't a sevre thing as they were still post season eligible.

Like anyone I get suspicious when a team that was sub .500 suddenly goes on a 7 year run but if anything was wrong it would have been found by now.

Bottom line - the conferences (WIAC, ASC, and OAC) need to become more competitive - then the regional powers need to have a break through - I'm sure the other coaches and players don't like it either - so do the necesary prep and recruiting to change it.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: middlerelief on December 29, 2011, 08:29:15 PM
One piece of evidence would be the STagg Bowl attendance in my opinion.

Both of these programs seem to draw very large home crowds - but yet avg. 5k in STagg Bowl seats - seems their own fans take it for granted as regular season outdraws the big dance.

My guess - if other programs break into that game, they will draw more because there will be more excitement.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Hawks88 on December 29, 2011, 08:32:29 PM
DGP,
I knew about Point, just didn't think about their new campus technically crossing the state line. :)
Hope you guys have a had great Christmas and have a Happy New Year.

Go Hawks, War Eagle and (week after next) Geaux Tigers!
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 08:54:16 PM
Hawks
i probably shouldn't have brought Point up, but it is on the line.
i wonder how this will affect La Grange as they are just 17 miles apart.
keep the faith
Go Hawks and Geaux Bayou Bengals

uh...and UWW and Mount are a good thing for D-3 (to keep our discussion on point)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on December 29, 2011, 09:54:37 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:01:07 PM
. (I have no idea how ILGator came up with "FISH" instead of "FIB" in terms of how the cheeseheads refer to those of us who live on the more cosmopolitan side of the Halas-Lombardi Line, although it's not hard to figure out the acronym. ;))


FIB is the older term; the more common term in Wisconsin these days is FISH. With in-laws in Milwaukee and a child at a UW school, I may be more exposed to it than you are.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 30, 2011, 12:15:02 AM
Quote from: middlerelief on December 29, 2011, 08:29:15 PM
One piece of evidence would be the STagg Bowl attendance in my opinion.

Both of these programs seem to draw very large home crowds - but yet avg. 5k in STagg Bowl seats - seems their own fans take it for granted as regular season outdraws the big dance.

My guess - if other programs break into that game, they will draw more because there will be more excitement.

Hmm, if a new program breaks into the Stagg that doesn't draw well in the regular season do you really feel they will draw more in the Stagg where they have to travel to VA?  I know that the weather in the previous Staggs (2008 and 2009 for sure) has played a role in a lower turnout, and then the Friday night game impacted many others. 

As for getting suspicious because of UWW's run, the players you see on the UWW roster are excellent DIII players, but I sure don't see obvious examples of kids that should/could be playing higher divisions but "somehow" ended up on UWW's roster.  UWW is getting top DIII players from WI and IL because of the success started from the 2005 and 2006 teams, which were made up a special group of WI kids (and a small number of special IL kids).    From youth football to the pros, you see teams that have a special group of players that come through- and it cycles.  Right now UWW is attracting top high school/non scholarship kids because those kids want a shot at championships.  However, some of these kids will go elsewhere as they may feel they will play sooner at another school.  When that school gets enough of those players and everything else is in place (which is happening now), you will see greater variety of national champions. 
And this is why UWW v Mt is a good thing for DIII because it's raising the bar of quality play.   
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 30, 2011, 12:21:13 AM
Quote from: DGPugh on December 29, 2011, 07:57:44 PM
Ralph Turner - OBI Wan, I pray you are well and yall also have a most wonderful New Year.

..."Beat the Tuscaloosa Institute of Lower Education", if i recall correctly (and i am wrong more that right) you have a daughter that graduated from the lovliest village on the plains...and if so, that  might expalin your correct and astute discription of the Tuscalooser school for Ursidae worship.
i hope the Honey Badger is hungry and takes what he wants

wish we could get into USA South  :D

Keep th faith
Go Hawks
(and if i remembered correctly, please tell those in the family War Eagle)
Two "attended"... 2 "Mrs." and now 3 grandsons to adorn orange and blue paraphernalia.

Thank you very much...  ;)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 30, 2011, 12:22:46 AM
One thing that has barely been mentioned.  So far (at least) neither UMU or UWW has pulled off what Augustana did in the 80s: FOUR straight Stagg titles.  Apparently Augie did not kill off d3 football! ;D
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 30, 2011, 01:56:08 AM
For most 18 year olds choosing to attend a certain college primarily because of its football team is not very good reasoning. But believe it or not, I was once 18 and would be embarassed to disclose my thinking in selecting an alma mater then.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 30, 2011, 10:32:40 AM
QuoteAny talented kid in the state today is an IDIOT is they don't pick a WIAC school if they can't get a scholarship somewhere. We lose many of our best to the strong Michigan programs of the MAC. The WIAC gets the leftovers/ no-rides.

Except the kids where the private school is the best fit for them academically, of course. Because that's what it's all about, right? Right?

Oh, and many private schools offer plenty of scholarships for the 'poor kids'. Take a look at Wabash - lots of 'poor kids' there who decided that IU or Purdue wasn't for them.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on December 30, 2011, 12:02:54 PM
As an 18 year old I chose WHITEWATER because my girlfriend was going there and a close friend said I could room with him.  So the idea that another 18 year old might choose their school with an equally less reasoned purpose doesn't seem that far fetched to me. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 30, 2011, 02:30:44 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 30, 2011, 12:02:54 PM
As an 18 year old I chose WHITEWATER because my girlfriend was going there and a close friend said I could room with him.  So the idea that another 18 year old might choose their school with an equally less reasoned purpose doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

And I have to admit that the 18 year old drinking age was very appealing to an IL kid. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 30, 2011, 04:07:55 PM
Quote from: frank uible on December 30, 2011, 01:56:08 AM
For most 18 year olds choosing to attend a certain college primarily because of its football team is not very good reasoning. But believe it or not, I was once 18 and would be embarassed to disclose my thinking in selecting an alma mater then.
Well, did you eventually find your beautiful young bride among the co-eds at your institution or its "sister" school?   ;)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on December 30, 2011, 04:26:03 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 30, 2011, 02:30:44 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 30, 2011, 12:02:54 PM
As an 18 year old I chose WHITEWATER because my girlfriend was going there and a close friend said I could room with him.  So the idea that another 18 year old might choose their school with an equally less reasoned purpose doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

And I have to admit that the 18 year old drinking age was very appealing to an IL kid. 

There were 18 year old beer bars when I came but otherwise it was 21.  WHITEWATER didn't have any beer bars in those days so we had go into Jefferson County to find those.  In fact I joined a fraternity (briefly) so I could have a place to drink.  That was another of my well reasoned decisions.  LMAO

I'm sorry to sidetrack the discussion and I promise this is the last time.  It's just that reflecting on those two life impacting decisions seems so incredibly stupid to me today that I couldn't help myself. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: r-squared on December 30, 2011, 06:45:00 PM
Well the question is "Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?".
So the first question to answer is what is "Bad".
A couple of metrics might be:
      1.) Has division III attendance declined over the last seven years?
      2.) Has attendance at the Stagg Bowl declined over the last seven years?
      3.) Has the number of DIII school participating in Football over the last seven years declined?
      4.) Has the number of athletes participating in DIII programs declined over the last seven years?
       5.) Has the amount of media coverage of DIII football games declined over the last seven years?

Ok I am sure that there are other metrics -- but these should give a least a snapshop of what is going in the DIII football world over the last seven years.

Of course whatever the results are there is nothing at this writing that proves causation -- but it would interesting to look at the numbers and get an idea of what is happening within the world of DIII.

Perhaps the better question is "Do UWW or UMU have an advantage that other DIII schools do not have (or can not replicate)?


Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 30, 2011, 07:00:46 PM
In football as in life inequities are inherent in the game. If all inequities are eliminated, all games would end in ties - presumably scoreless ones.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ADL70 on December 30, 2011, 07:25:10 PM
Thank you r2.  All but your last sentence hasn't really been discussed here.  It's a lot of what I've been thinking as I perused the discussion.  Another metric might be: "Have views of D3Football.com declined?"

+k
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on December 30, 2011, 08:45:27 PM
Quote from: r-squared on December 30, 2011, 06:45:00 PM
Well the question is "Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?".
So the first question to answer is what is "Bad".
A couple of metrics might be:
      1.) Has division III attendance declined over the last seven years?
      2.) Has attendance at the Stagg Bowl declined over the last seven years?
      3.) Has the number of DIII school participating in Football over the last seven years declined?
      4.) Has the number of athletes participating in DIII programs declined over the last seven years?
       5.) Has the amount of media coverage of DIII football games declined over the last seven years?



Actually, these questions wouldn't provide you with useful information. You would need to rephrase them as below:

      1.) Has the rate of growth of division III attendance increased or decreased and in what direction??
      2.) Has the rate of growth of attendance at the Stagg Bowl declined over the last seven years?
      3.) Has the rate of growth of DIII schools participating in Football over the last seven years declined?
      4.) Has the rate of growth of the number of athletes participating in DIII programs declined over the last seven years?
       5.) Has the rate of growth of the amount of media coverage of DIII football games declined over the last seven years?

Basically an absolute value of today versus 7 years ago is an incorrect measure. If there was momentum in one direction, there could still be growth but at a lower rate. You also run into the economics conundrum that is summed up by "ceteris paribus" or "all other things remaining equal." To state one of the problems with this, we know there is a declining rate of male versus female attendance in higher education. One way to counter that is by adding football. This is independent of what is happening in D3 sports. You would have to account for this and many other variables before drawing any meaningful conclusion from basic questions.

Statistics is a very difficult field in which to achieve relevant answers. Even once you believe you have them, I guarantee someone else (known to you as a b@stard) will present a "complication."
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: middlerelief on December 30, 2011, 08:47:53 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 30, 2011, 12:15:02 AM
Quote from: middlerelief on December 29, 2011, 08:29:15 PM
One piece of evidence would be the STagg Bowl attendance in my opinion.

Both of these programs seem to draw very large home crowds - but yet avg. 5k in STagg Bowl seats - seems their own fans take it for granted as regular season outdraws the big dance.

My guess - if other programs break into that game, they will draw more because there will be more excitement.

Hmm, if a new program breaks into the Stagg that doesn't draw well in the regular season do you really feel they will draw more in the Stagg where they have to travel to VA? 

As for getting suspicious because of UWW's run, the players you see on the UWW roster are excellent DIII players, but I sure don't see obvious examples of kids that should/could be playing higher divisions but "somehow" ended up on UWW's roster.   

Nah - you're speaking with your heart on this one not your head.

UWW was a sub .500 program prior to the last seven years of going 75-5. Like a switch was flipped. It is suspicious to non-fans (albeit envious) of that team - - most non-fans would look at the records on paper of the prior 7 years, then look at the last 7 years and likely say: That's odd.

As for the attendance, when you draw 10k+ for home games and the team you're facing regularly draws 5k or more (I"ve been to MUC before, can't really guess seating capacity, but it was packed) and combined its tough to get above 5k for the game?? 

I will bet (don't know how to collect on it but just saying) the first non "Purple Power"  that makes the game will outdraw the last two Staggs easily.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 30, 2011, 09:01:14 PM
So we should be suspicious because Mt. Union was a fair-to-middling OAC team before 1990 or so?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 30, 2011, 09:07:43 PM
Quote from: ILGator on December 29, 2011, 09:54:37 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 29, 2011, 01:01:07 PM
. (I have no idea how ILGator came up with "FISH" instead of "FIB" in terms of how the cheeseheads refer to those of us who live on the more cosmopolitan side of the Halas-Lombardi Line, although it's not hard to figure out the acronym. ;))


FIB is the older term; the more common term in Wisconsin these days is FISH. With in-laws in Milwaukee and a child at a UW school, I may be more exposed to it than you are.

Leave it to the cheeseheads to think that "s***head" is two words instead of one. ;)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on December 30, 2011, 09:17:49 PM
I don't care whether the residents of Curdistan (thanks, Greg - great term!) have changed to FISH.  I proudly grew up as a FIB and have now been a troll to Yoopers for over 4 decades!
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D O.C. on December 30, 2011, 10:46:18 PM
Quote1.) Has the rate of growth of division III attendance increased or decreased and in what direction?
      2.) Has the rate of growth of attendance at the Stagg Bowl declined over the last seven years?
      3.) Has the rate of growth of DIII schools participating in Football over the last seven years declined?
      4.) Has the rate of growth of the number of athletes participating in DIII programs declined over the last seven years?
       5.) Has the rate of growth of the amount of media coverage of DIII football games declined over the last seven years?
6.) Has d3football.com dropped off in hits during the playoffs the last 4 years?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gray Fox on December 30, 2011, 10:52:50 PM
Quote from: D O.C. on December 30, 2011, 10:46:18 PM

      6.) Has d3football.com dropped off in hits during the playoffs the last 4 years?
The question was not "Are the Purple Powers bad for D3football.com?"
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: dahlby on December 31, 2011, 12:18:15 AM
In defense of D O.C., I believe the topic heading listed reads "Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?"

But, from "the glass is half full perspective, one could ask, "How have the Purple Powers helped D3?"
And, how has the domination of the Purple Powers affected the D3 boards?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: zach on December 31, 2011, 01:48:09 AM
Quote from: D O.C. on December 30, 2011, 10:46:18 PM
Quote1.) Has the rate of growth of division III attendance increased or decreased and in what direction?
      2.) Has the rate of growth of attendance at the Stagg Bowl declined over the last seven years?
      3.) Has the rate of growth of DIII schools participating in Football over the last seven years declined?
      4.) Has the rate of growth of the number of athletes participating in DIII programs declined over the last seven years?
       5.) Has the rate of growth of the amount of media coverage of DIII football games declined over the last seven years?
6.) Has d3football.com dropped off in hits during the playoffs the last 4 years?

Questions 1,2,3,4 are unfair to use someone to judge on due to economy. Schools are cutting programs left and right. Athletics being cut is not only caused by purple powers if they are caused at all. And attendance will be lowered because people have less money to travel to go to the games. 5 and 6 are both not fair to use either. Think about 2004,  Youtube wasn't even around yet. To find out the score of a FCS  football game you had to wait 3 days for someone to update the website. The growth of the internet and blogs as drastically increased media coverage in the past 7 years. An increase in media coverage does not mean it was caused by the purple powers.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on December 31, 2011, 02:18:31 AM
Quote from: ADL70 on December 30, 2011, 07:25:10 PM
Thank you r2.  All but your last sentence hasn't really been discussed here.  It's a lot of what I've been thinking as I perused the discussion.  Another metric might be: "Have views of D3Football.com declined?"

+k

They were even this year compared to last year. Because of the new design, comparisons to previous years are not exactly apples-to-apples.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: mattvsmith on December 31, 2011, 02:23:18 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 29, 2011, 02:34:48 PM
Greg,

I'm glad you didn't lace your comments with pejoratives and 'whistle-words'. It's not about being PC, it's about opportunity.

Had you attended Hobart, you would know that I am fully justified in using "pejoratives and whistle-words". If anything, I was being more than gracious and charitable to those who control the political climate at my alma mater. Indeed, my comments were certainly more gracious than anything they ever said to me or about members of my gender.

In short, take your presumed moral high ground, and stick it in your lowest orifice.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 31, 2011, 10:01:02 AM
My point is that I want my daughters to have the opportunity my sister didn't have, and that's not PC BS, that's fairness.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 31, 2011, 10:40:28 AM
The cold fact is that most or all of the money to pay for the women's programs has to come from current or future taxpayers, the endowments, gifts to the colleges, tuitions or other student fees, the men's programs or the colleges' other revenues since the women's programs themselves are not producing any or nearly enough of it. There ain't no free lunch - whether one calls the process fair or unfair. Someone's ox has to be gored.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: wabash4ever on December 31, 2011, 11:34:35 AM
Back on the topic of The Purple Powers, while they may be frustrating for the majority of DIII programs, they are not bad for DIII. Those teams create an obstacle against which all other potential contenders must measure themselves and eventually overcome to be champions, including my beloved Wabash College, while providing a marquee rivalry that has boosted DIII's prestige in the mind's of other sports fans.  I attended Wabash's 2002 and 2011 quarterfinal games at Mt. Union and can attest that the ability to measure yourself against that team and, at least this year, entertain a hope of beating them make DIII much more interesting.

The Purple Powers knocked Wabash out of the playoffs 3 times in the past decade, but the continued excellence of those programs has given Wabash something to aspire towards. When Wabash first started making the playoffs regularly, we treated the playoffs similar to the NFL's Pro Bowl; something to enjoy after we played the Monon Bell, our Super Bowl in this analogy, against Depauw. After a decade of measuring ourselves against Mt. Union, Whitewater and our conference rival Wittenberg, Wabash's football program has advanced to the point that, while the Monon Bell Game is still extraordinarly important, the playoffs are as well. I'm not sure those advancements would have been as fully possible without the prestige and example established by the Purple Powers.

I am willing to listen to an argument that UWW has an unfair advantage due to its enrollment, but Mt. Union has a relatively small student body by DIII standards. Remember, however, that without UWW we would have had an undisputed Mt. Union dynasty these past 15 years.

As far as other advantages, I will never hold active recruiting against any program, be it in DI or DIII. A successful football tradition can be an important part of any school's prestige. Recruiting the best student-athletes is part of that process no matter from where they come. Likewise, a student athlete who values the ability to play football at the highest levels but is unable to obtain an athletic scholarship is well within his rights to choose Mt. Union or UWW based on their football prestige.

I know there is a lot of frustration about the continued dominance of Mt. Union and UWW, but that rivalry raised the level of competition and prestige for DIII over the past decade. Just imagine how exciting it will be if your school, be it North Central, Trinity, Wittenberg, Wesley or (please) Wabash, is the one to knock them off and seize a national championship. Just as long as it's not Depauw, I'll be happy for you.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Knightstalker on December 31, 2011, 11:41:36 AM
The supposed advantage that state schools like the WIAC and NJAC have with larger enrollments and lower tuition is offset by these conferences imposing roster limits on the football teams.  Imagine what Rowan would have been like or what UWW would be if they had 150-200 or more on their rosters.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on December 31, 2011, 11:47:38 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 31, 2011, 10:01:02 AM
My point is that I want my daughters to have the opportunity my sister didn't have, and that's not PC BS, that's fairness.
Let's say title IX was repealed.  What do you think the effects would be?  Would they cut womens teams or reduce their expenses to match the value of the team to the school?  If title IX is not repealed should schools like Wabash or NFL teams be required to support an equal number of female athletes to even up the "opportunity" numbers?
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 31, 2011, 11:41:36 AM
The supposed advantage that state schools like the WIAC and NJAC have with larger enrollments and lower tuition is offset by these conferences imposing roster limits on the football teams.  Imagine what Rowan would have been like or what UWW would be if they had 150-200 or more on their rosters.
Maybe St. John's could have stayed within 50 of St. Thomas this year if only they could have had 300 on the roster instead of their usual 180.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 31, 2011, 12:09:09 PM
An eleven man roster can produce a dominating team if the eleven are the right eleven.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on December 31, 2011, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on December 30, 2011, 08:47:53 PM

Nah - you're speaking with your heart on this one not your head.

UWW was a sub .500 program prior to the last seven years of going 75-5. Like a switch was flipped. It is suspicious to non-fans (albeit envious) of that team - - most non-fans would look at the records on paper of the prior 7 years, then look at the last 7 years and likely say: That's odd.


No offense intended but whatever you are using it isn't math.  Admittedly I didn't research season records back to 1913 when the first one I know of is available because I don't think going back that far is really relevant to the discussion.  However I did research UW-WHITEWATER'S season records for the twenty five year period preceding the 2005 season (1980-2004).  During that stretch the WARHAWKS overall record is 167 wins 88 losses (.655).  We've had exactly three losing seasons in that stretch, 1985, 1989 and 1999.

In the seven seasons preceding 2005 our overall record was 39-30 (.565)

Again, admittedly, that's a pace considerably less than the past seven seasons but it is also a pace considerably better than "sub-500."   

This information was readily available had you taken the time to look for it rather than jumping to an assumption which had no basis in reality.  Also if you take the time to look you will find that there have only been two seven year stretches since 1913 in which the WARHAWK program has performed at a sub .500 pace, 1942-49 (no games were played 1943-45) and 1950-56. 

Actually in the end I did research the program's history back to 1913.  :D
 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on December 31, 2011, 12:57:46 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on December 31, 2011, 12:12:39 PM
Quote from: middlerelief on December 30, 2011, 08:47:53 PM

Nah - you're speaking with your heart on this one not your head.

UWW was a sub .500 program prior to the last seven years of going 75-5. Like a switch was flipped. It is suspicious to non-fans (albeit envious) of that team - - most non-fans would look at the records on paper of the prior 7 years, then look at the last 7 years and likely say: That's odd.


No offense intended but whatever you are using it isn't math.  Admittedly I didn't research season records back to 1913 when the first one I know of is available because I don't think going back that far is really relevant to the discussion.  However I did research UW-WHITEWATER'S season records for the twenty five year period preceding the 2005 season (1980-2004).  During that stretch the WARHAWKS overall record is 167 wins 88 losses (.655).  We've had exactly three losing seasons in that stretch, 1985, 1989 and 1999.

In the seven seasons preceding 2005 our overall record was 39-30 (.565)

Again, admittedly, that's a pace considerably less than the past seven seasons but it is also a pace considerably better than "sub-500."   

This information was readily available had you taken the time to look for it rather than jumping to an assumption which had no basis in reality.  Also if you take the time to look you will find that there have only been two seven year stretches since 1913 in which the WARHAWK program has performed at a sub .500 pace, 1942-49 (no games were played 1943-45) and 1950-56. 

Actually in the end I did research the program's history back to 1913.  :D


Thanks for doing the research BW. The other bogus claim is "Mt Union regularly draws more than 5,000 fans.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 31, 2011, 01:17:28 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 30, 2011, 09:17:49 PM
I don't care whether the residents of Curdistan (thanks, Greg - great term!) have changed to FISH.  I proudly grew up as a FIB and have now been a troll to Yoopers for over 4 decades!

At least "troll" is clever (the residents of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, aka "the mitten", live south of the Mackinac Bridge; in other words, they're "under the bridge"). FIB and FISH are lukewarm-IQ pejoratives, at best.

Quote from: wabash4ever on December 31, 2011, 11:34:35 AMI am willing to listen to an argument that UWW has an unfair advantage due to its enrollment, but Mt. Union has a relatively small student body by DIII standards. Remember, however, that without UWW we would have had an undisputed Mt. Union dynasty these past 15 years.

"Enrollment"? Sigh. Why do people even bring this up? The size of the undergraduate population at any given school is completely irrelevant to D3 football discussions. Nobody recruits their football team from among the present student body. D3 coaches selectively recruit specific high-school football players to come to their schools and play football for them. In other words, "enrollment" doesn't have squat-all to do with anything. You can, and frequently do, see games on this level in which a school of 10,000 takes the field with a football team of 100 recruited football players against a school of 2,000 with a football team of 150 recruited football players.

Please, let's not use the word "enrollment" again in any discussion involving D3 football, D3 men's basketball, D3 baseball ... any sport whose athletes are all selectively recruited.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: dahlby on December 31, 2011, 01:27:57 PM
Gregory, would it not be true that the larger the enrollment, the more funding that would occur for an athletic department, as some funding comes from student fees? And the more funding that is available would affect an athletic department budget that would impact several budget line items?

I do agree that most teams are set from recruiting and not from an existing student body.

Just wondering.

May all have a healthy, prosperous and winning New Year!!!
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: wabash4ever on December 31, 2011, 01:48:12 PM
AO, You raise some interesting questions about the implications of Title IX, to which I know the answer, so here you go:

1. Title IX only applies to athletic programs at educational institutions, so the law does not apply to any professional sports leagues.  The NBA owns, funds and operates the WNBA as a for-profit venture, though it has yet to turn a profit.  Some of the NBA's stated reasons for operating the WNBA are based on gender-equality, but the NBA is a collection of private companies and can do with their money what they want, including losing a small percentage of it on the WNBA.  That should not obscure the fact, however, that Title IX in no way applies to the NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL because they are not educational institutions.

2. As for schools like Wabash, and other single-sex colleges and universities, they not only discriminate against the opposite sex (be it men or women) on an athletic level, they discriminate by not even letting the other sex attend the institution.  I believe this particular "discrimination," is a good thing because it allows for the existence of a select few single-sex colleges and universities as a limited but viable option in current American culture.  The reason, however, that institutions like Wabash can discriminate in both admissions AND athletic policies is because they do not take any  money whatsoever from state or federal governments, including state or federally subsidized student loans.  All money for the school's operations, including student aid, must come from private sources. State schools are obviously subject to Title IX as written. Additionally, since private schools like Duke, USC, Northwestern, etc., allow their students to accept state and federal financial aid, they are subject to Title IX. 

I hope this helps clarify your questions.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on December 31, 2011, 02:28:26 PM
Quote from: dahlby on December 31, 2011, 01:27:57 PM
Gregory, would it not be true that the larger the enrollment, the more funding that would occur for an athletic department, as some funding comes from student fees? And the more funding that is available would affect an athletic department budget that would impact several budget line items?

Not necessarily. Student fees may be one source of athletic department revenue, if the school's financial structure is set up that way, but the athletic department is typically funded from the school budget as a whole. And budgets can, and do, vary widely from school to school, for reasons that frequently have nothing to do with the size of the student population. Some smaller D3 liberal-arts schools have endowments so large that they can put together budgets that dwarf those of D3's large state schools. In fact, endowment size has a lot more to do with this discussion in terms of resources than does student body size. Even in that case, some schools with large endowments choose to put a relatively small amount of money into athletics every year, while schools with small endowments sometimes put a lot of money into athletics every year, because their student bodies have such a high percentage of student-athletes in them. It really varies from school to school, and has to do with the school's stated mission, administrative policies and/or preferences, etc.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: r-squared on December 31, 2011, 04:01:57 PM
Folks I don't really give a rip what the metrics are for measuring the growth or lack thereof of DIII football, but rather than just gnashing your teeth, let's look and see what has happened to the sport over the last seven year and perhaps compare to other growth over earlier periods. I pushed out give or six possible metrics -- I'll leave the specifics to someone who is a stats freak to figure out the specifics.

But really it does not seem that this has been bad for DIII football. At least to me it seems that there is growth in the number of teams in the DIII pool.

If everyone has their nickers in wad over the fact that UWW and MU have done all of the winning over the last seven years, then that is another topic. Do either UWW or MU have an advantage that other schools do not have?

I will say that the DIII is central US/east coast dominated (by that I mean that is where the majority of schyools are located) and therefore those teams do seem to get more of a benefit of doubt than the rest of the pool;

Two cases this past season were Linfield going all the way to Wesley and Wesley going to MU. If you reverse the home field advantage you might have seen different results in each of those games.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 31, 2011, 04:17:33 PM
Quote from: r-squared on December 31, 2011, 04:01:57 PM
Folks I don't really give a rip what the metrics are for measuring the growth or lack thereof of DIII football, but rather than just gnashing your teeth, let's look and see what has happened to the sport over the last seven year and perhaps compare to other growth over earlier periods. I pushed out give or six possible metrics -- I'll leave the specifics to someone who is a stats freak to figure out the specifics.

But really it does not seem that this has been bad for DIII football. At least to me it seems that there is growth in the number of teams in the DIII pool.

If everyone has their nickers in wad over the fact that UWW and MU have done all of the winning over the last seven years, then that is another topic. Do either UWW or MU have an advantage that other schools do not have?

I will say that the DIII is central US/east coast dominated (by that I mean that is where the majority of schyools are located) and therefore those teams do seem to get more of a benefit of doubt than the rest of the pool;

Two cases this past season were Linfield going all the way to Wesley and Wesley going to MU. If you reverse the home field advantage you might have seen different results in each of those games.
I agree. Travel beyond the usual 3-4 hr bus trip is a tremendous factor.  Most teams in D-III never travel farther than in their entire season.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gray Fox on December 31, 2011, 04:27:34 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 31, 2011, 04:17:33 PM
I agree. Travel beyond the usual 3-4 hr bus trip is a tremendous factor.  Most teams in D-III never travel farther than in their entire season.
I overheard a visiting playoff coach in California say most of his kids had never even been out of their state. :o
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on December 31, 2011, 05:10:56 PM
Not infrequently smaller is better.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on December 31, 2011, 05:58:39 PM
If enrollment was a factor then schools like CCNY, Brooklyn and Hunter would be athletics powerhouses.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D O.C. on December 31, 2011, 10:36:58 PM
A rapier amidst a deck of cutlasses, Frank?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: kestrel on January 01, 2012, 02:59:52 AM
I believe UWW's AD Paul Plinske is on record as saying, "We want to provide our football players, student body, and fans with a Division I experience."  And, with that statement we know that the old DIII justification for football as an educational experience that promotes the values of fair competition and good sportsmanship are no longer of primary importance at UWW.  Winning is the name of their game, and to maintain a winning edge money becomes the difference-maker, money that builds and maintains state-of-the-art weight rooms, locker rooms, FieldTurf, Jumbotrons, and stadia.   At UWO, for example, every sport had its budget cut while football received a slight increase in these tough budgetary times.  Is Oshkosh's goal a better educational experience for their players?  Or, a more competitive team for their students, fans, and alumni to rally around? I believe the two goals are mutually exclusive.  Does anyone doubt that there is an almost perfect correlation between a team's rank in conference and its rank in terms of financial and physical resources?  Perhaps the idea of a Division IV should start to become more than just talk.   
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 01, 2012, 09:50:01 AM
Many D-3 schools have invested in weight rooms and locker rooms, and improved their physical stadium plant. The main reason is to attract male students - who if not football players will want to support the team - and for the weight rooms and locker rooms to enhance wellness on campus by providing an excellent place for workout.

These aren't trends at just the football powers.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DanPadavona on January 01, 2012, 10:21:15 AM
I guess what it comes down to for me is that I watch sports for the drama of not knowing what is going to happen next. If I was a Yankees fan (and boy that is a big IF), and NYY started spending $500 million per year on player contracts and had the AL and NL all-stars making up their roster, it would probably interest me for a year or two and then become dreadfully boring.

The only drama of the D3 championship is whether UWW or MUC will win it. That doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of drama on a lower level for other teams. Clearly there is. If there wasn't, I wouldn't be battling with 10,000+ fans to get a ticket to Cortaca every season.

But the playoffs are devoid of drama for me. The season ends the second week in November. I don't think it is healthy for interest in the D3 Playoffs, but I don't know that there is anything inherently unfair about it. It is what it is. They are just much better than the field and I don't see a real threat to either of them.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on January 01, 2012, 10:28:21 AM
Quote from: wabash4ever on December 31, 2011, 01:48:12 PM
AO, You raise some interesting questions about the implications of Title IX, to which I know the answer, so here you go:

1. Title IX only applies to athletic programs at educational institutions, so the law does not apply to any professional sports leagues.  The NBA owns, funds and operates the WNBA as a for-profit venture, though it has yet to turn a profit.  Some of the NBA's stated reasons for operating the WNBA are based on gender-equality, but the NBA is a collection of private companies and can do with their money what they want, including losing a small percentage of it on the WNBA.  That should not obscure the fact, however, that Title IX in no way applies to the NBA, NFL, MLB or NHL because they are not educational institutions.

2. As for schools like Wabash, and other single-sex colleges and universities, they not only discriminate against the opposite sex (be it men or women) on an athletic level, they discriminate by not even letting the other sex attend the institution.  I believe this particular "discrimination," is a good thing because it allows for the existence of a select few single-sex colleges and universities as a limited but viable option in current American culture.  The reason, however, that institutions like Wabash can discriminate in both admissions AND athletic policies is because they do not take any  money whatsoever from state or federal governments, including state or federally subsidized student loans.  All money for the school's operations, including student aid, must come from private sources. State schools are obviously subject to Title IX as written. Additionally, since private schools like Duke, USC, Northwestern, etc., allow their students to accept state and federal financial aid, they are subject to Title IX. 

I hope this helps clarify your questions.

Wellesley college accepts Federal and state grants, I was wondering how they do it or what the difference is between the two schools
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 01, 2012, 11:15:10 AM
Wabash accepts Pell Grants.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on January 01, 2012, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: kestrel on January 01, 2012, 02:59:52 AM
I believe UWW's AD Paul Plinske is on record as saying, "We want to provide our football players, student body, and fans with a Division I experience."  And, with that statement we know that the old DIII justification for football as an educational experience that promotes the values of fair competition and good sportsmanship are no longer of primary importance at UWW.   Winning is the name of their game, and to maintain a winning edge money becomes the difference-maker, money that builds and maintains state-of-the-art weight rooms, locker rooms, FieldTurf, Jumbotrons, and stadia.   At UWO, for example, every sport had its budget cut while football received a slight increase in these tough budgetary times.  Is Oshkosh's goal a better educational experience for their players?  Or, a more competitive team for their students, fans, and alumni to rally around? I believe the two goals are mutually exclusive.  Does anyone doubt that there is an almost perfect correlation between a team's rank in conference and its rank in terms of financial and physical resources?  Perhaps the idea of a Division IV should start to become more than just talk.   


Bulls**t

You don't have a clue what he meant.     
 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: bushman on January 01, 2012, 11:51:15 AM
Good or bad people, it is what it is, deal with it.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Fannosaurus Rex on January 01, 2012, 12:40:28 PM
This discussion reminds me of when Dayton and Wagner used to be Division III.   I don't know whose idea it was for them to leave, but should they have gone off and formed their own division or were they just setting a high standard that the rest of D3 should have aimed for?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 01, 2012, 01:37:39 PM
The NCAA mandated, except for few exceptions (and not football or hoops) that if you're D-1 in something you're D-1 in everything. That's why Dayton and Wagner left.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: HScoach on January 01, 2012, 04:31:18 PM
Dayton was fielding a D3 football team with a bunch of scholarship track guys.  Not technically football scholarships, but quite interesting that all if their key playoffs just happened to be track recruits.  Hence the "Dayton Rule".
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: middlerelief on January 01, 2012, 04:35:02 PM
Quote from: smedindy on December 30, 2011, 09:01:14 PM
So we should be suspicious because Mt. Union was a fair-to-middling OAC team before 1990 or so?

There's a difference - with MUC there was a build up of success prior to the championship run. They had made the NCAAs prior but couldn't get past Aug. - once they did, then the run happened.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Knightstalker on January 01, 2012, 04:58:47 PM
Was UWW helped with the funding for their facilities by the Packers?  I know Cortland, SJF and FDU Florham Park all benefited from having NFL teams using their facilities for training camps.  Just curious.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 01, 2012, 05:22:01 PM
Quote from: HScoach on January 01, 2012, 04:31:18 PM
Dayton was fielding a D3 football team with a bunch of scholarship track guys.  Not technically football scholarships, but quite interesting that all if their key playoffs just happened to be track recruits.  Hence the "Dayton Rule".

Was that proven? I used to work with a Dayton alum that denied that happened. Plus it doesn't explain Wagner, or San Diego, or Georgetown, etc. etc.

You can only have 12.6 men's track and cross country scholarships so that's not many to go around at all.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on January 01, 2012, 05:22:56 PM
No

I know the Chiefs built something in River Falls when they held their camp there.  Platteville hosted the Bears though I don't know if the Bears ever built anything there.  Concordia (I think) has hosted the Rams though I don't know that the Rams built anything there.  I'm thinking that at one time, the Packers aside, there was one more NFL franchise in Wisconsin.  Maybe LaCrosse??

WHITEWATER has never hosted an NFL team. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 01, 2012, 06:35:19 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 01, 2012, 05:22:56 PMI'm thinking that at one time, the Packers aside, there was one more NFL franchise in Wisconsin.  Maybe LaCrosse??

Kenosha Maroons (1924)
Milwaukee Badgers (1922-26)
Racine Legion (1922-24)
Racine Tornadoes (1926)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on January 01, 2012, 08:16:02 PM
I was thinking of another NFL franchise that held their preseason camp in Wisconsin.  Didn't make that very clear.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on January 01, 2012, 08:24:35 PM
I have always wondered how, given the transportation of the times, in 1925 Johnny Blood managed to get timely from the St. John's game sites on Saturdays to the Milwaukee Badgers game sites on Sundays. Maybe mostly overnight travel by train.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Knightstalker on January 02, 2012, 08:05:23 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 01, 2012, 05:22:56 PM
No

I know the Chiefs built something in River Falls when they held their camp there.  Platteville hosted the Bears though I don't know if the Bears ever built anything there.  Concordia (I think) has hosted the Rams though I don't know that the Rams built anything there.  I'm thinking that at one time, the Packers aside, there was one more NFL franchise in Wisconsin.  Maybe LaCrosse??

WHITEWATER has never hosted an NFL team.

Thank you, for some reason I thought the Packers trained at Whitewater.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 02, 2012, 08:50:20 AM
Quote from: kestrel on January 01, 2012, 02:59:52 AM
I believe UWW's AD Paul Plinske is on record as saying, "We want to provide our football players, student body, and fans with a Division I experience." 

Can anyone find this quote in an article or somewhere? I'd be interested in the greater context.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on January 02, 2012, 09:38:19 AM
I think the Chiefs, Saints and Bears all used to host pre-season camps in WI.

Bears at Platteville but I don't remember where the others went.

The Browns used to host theirs at Baldwin-Wallace, and I remember playing JV football at Mount vs. BW and being in the old Browns Locker-room, with the huge lockers.  I don't know what else the Browns did for BW though.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 02, 2012, 09:53:18 AM
The Chiefs were at River Falls.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on January 02, 2012, 10:02:52 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 01, 2012, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: kestrel on January 01, 2012, 02:59:52 AM
I believe UWW's AD Paul Plinske is on record as saying, "We want to provide our football players, student body, and fans with a Division I experience."  And, with that statement we know that the old DIII justification for football as an educational experience that promotes the values of fair competition and good sportsmanship are no longer of primary importance at UWW.   Winning is the name of their game, and to maintain a winning edge money becomes the difference-maker, money that builds and maintains state-of-the-art weight rooms, locker rooms, FieldTurf, Jumbotrons, and stadia.   At UWO, for example, every sport had its budget cut while football received a slight increase in these tough budgetary times.  Is Oshkosh's goal a better educational experience for their players?  Or, a more competitive team for their students, fans, and alumni to rally around? I believe the two goals are mutually exclusive.  Does anyone doubt that there is an almost perfect correlation between a team's rank in conference and its rank in terms of financial and physical resources?  Perhaps the idea of a Division IV should start to become more than just talk.   


Bulls**t

You don't have a clue what he meant.     


That's a strong reaction. Can you expand on what you think Paul Plinske meant. In his public interview for the UWM AD position in December of 2010, Plinske said that UWW is a D-1 school in a D-3 conference. It's interesting that Plinske came from LaCrosse, who was the big dog in WIAC football before UWW seized control in 2005. Plinske also said in that interview that the three keys to recruiting are facilities, a good coaching staff, and success in the programs.

In another interview Plinske talked about the facilities:

In 2004, we developed an outdoor facilities master plan, which allowed us to renovate our baseball, softball, track, soccer, and football facilities. We brought all constituents, including recreation and intramurals, together to identify their needs. Once we had a plan developed, we presented it to our student government, the state, and some influential donors. We showed them how we could increase our enrollment and improve our athletic success if we improved these facilities.

Each of those groups stepped up to the plate. Our students gave us $4.4 million, the state gave us half a million, and donors gave us close to $2 million.


Maybe everyone else knows this but the $4.4M from students jumps out - that's about $400 per student. I'm assuming there was some kind of special assessment in 2004 or 2005?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Just Bill on January 02, 2012, 10:05:34 AM
The Saints trained at La Crosse for multiple years, but no longer do.

The Packers house their younger players at St. Norbert College during training camp, but all practices and workouts are done at the Packers' facilities.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on January 02, 2012, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: ILGator on January 02, 2012, 10:02:52 AM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 01, 2012, 11:30:40 AM
Quote from: kestrel on January 01, 2012, 02:59:52 AM
I believe UWW's AD Paul Plinske is on record as saying, "We want to provide our football players, student body, and fans with a Division I experience."  And, with that statement we know that the old DIII justification for football as an educational experience that promotes the values of fair competition and good sportsmanship are no longer of primary importance at UWW.   Winning is the name of their game, and to maintain a winning edge money becomes the difference-maker, money that builds and maintains state-of-the-art weight rooms, locker rooms, FieldTurf, Jumbotrons, and stadia.   At UWO, for example, every sport had its budget cut while football received a slight increase in these tough budgetary times.  Is Oshkosh's goal a better educational experience for their players?  Or, a more competitive team for their students, fans, and alumni to rally around? I believe the two goals are mutually exclusive.  Does anyone doubt that there is an almost perfect correlation between a team's rank in conference and its rank in terms of financial and physical resources?  Perhaps the idea of a Division IV should start to become more than just talk.   


Bulls**t

You don't have a clue what he meant.     


That's a strong reaction. Can you expand on what you think Paul Plinske meant. In his public interview for the UWM AD position in December of 2010, Plinske said that UWW is a D-1 school in a D-3 conference. It's interesting that Plinske came from LaCrosse, who was the big dog in WIAC football before UWW seized control in 2005. Plinske also said in that interview that the three keys to recruiting are facilities, a good coaching staff, and success in the programs.

In another interview Plinske talked about the facilities:

In 2004, we developed an outdoor facilities master plan, which allowed us to renovate our baseball, softball, track, soccer, and football facilities. We brought all constituents, including recreation and intramurals, together to identify their needs. Once we had a plan developed, we presented it to our student government, the state, and some influential donors. We showed them how we could increase our enrollment and improve our athletic success if we improved these facilities.

Each of those groups stepped up to the plate. Our students gave us $4.4 million, the state gave us half a million, and donors gave us close to $2 million.


Maybe everyone else knows this but the $4.4M from students jumps out - that's about $400 per student. I'm assuming there was some kind of special assessment in 2004 or 2005?

He was talking about the game day experience.  How someone can make the absurd leap from that comment to it's meaning we no longer placed a priority on "the educational experience that promotes the values of fair play and good sportsmanship" is beyond me and frankly it's insulting.  If that were the case how do you explain the GPA of our student athletes exceeding that of the general student body.  How do you explain athletes like Jared Kiesow, an academic all american and Elite 88 and 89 winner, Chris Rosholt an academic all american or Aaron Rusch another academic all american?    With a little research I can name more these are just the ones that come to mind.

UW-WHITEWATER places a high priority on an educational experience that promotes fair play and good sportsmanship.  There is nothing but a single poster's opinion that suggests providing an educational experience that promotes fair play and good sportsmanship and athletic success are mutually exclusive. 

And we don't have a "Jumbotron."   ;)   
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 02, 2012, 01:40:43 PM
The Bills have had five different training camp sites since their inaugural season in 1960, and the latter two have been D3 campuses. Their first two preseason practice sites were at suburban Buffalo hotels. Throughout the '70s they held camp at Niagara University in Niagara Falls, NY, a D1 school. But throughout the '80s and '90s they were at Fredonia State, and since 2000 the Bills have held training camp at St. John Fisher in suburban Rochester.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on January 02, 2012, 02:33:08 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 02, 2012, 11:15:07 AM

He was talking about the game day experience.  How someone can make the absurd leap from that comment to it's meaning we no longer placed a priority on "the educational experience that promotes the values of fair play and good sportsmanship" is beyond me and frankly it's insulting.  If that were the case how do you explain the GPA of our student athletes exceeding that of the general student body.  How do you explain athletes like Jared Kiesow, an academic all american and Elite 88 and 89 winner, Chris Rosholt an academic all american or Aaron Rusch another academic all american?    With a little research I can name more these are just the ones that come to mind.

UW-WHITEWATER places a high priority on an educational experience that promotes fair play and good sportsmanship.  There is nothing but a single poster's opinion that suggests providing an educational experience that promotes fair play and good sportsmanship and athletic success are mutually exclusive. 

And we don't have a "Jumbotron."   ;)

I didn't think that the original comment was saying that UWW had devalued the educational experience, but I can understand if that's how you read it. We don't need to see a full of Academic All American or Academic All Conference players. Most schools have their Academic All Americans, such as UMU's Greg Micheli.

Many schools have programs to ensure that their athletes don't fall behind in their classes. Plinske talks about some of those programs in his UWM interview. It's almost an hour long, but it's an interesting look at Plinske's accomplishments at UWW.

Agreed, UWW doesn't have a Jumbotron. But I believe it still is the biggest scoreboard in a D-3 stadium.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on January 02, 2012, 11:17:30 PM
Quote from: ILGator on January 02, 2012, 02:33:08 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 02, 2012, 11:15:07 AM

He was talking about the game day experience.  How someone can make the absurd leap from that comment to it's meaning we no longer placed a priority on "the educational experience that promotes the values of fair play and good sportsmanship" is beyond me and frankly it's insulting.  If that were the case how do you explain the GPA of our student athletes exceeding that of the general student body.  How do you explain athletes like Jared Kiesow, an academic all american and Elite 88 and 89 winner, Chris Rosholt an academic all american or Aaron Rusch another academic all american?    With a little research I can name more these are just the ones that come to mind.

UW-WHITEWATER places a high priority on an educational experience that promotes fair play and good sportsmanship.  There is nothing but a single poster's opinion that suggests providing an educational experience that promotes fair play and good sportsmanship and athletic success are mutually exclusive. 

And we don't have a "Jumbotron."   ;)

I didn't think that the original comment was saying that UWW had devalued the educational experience, but I can understand if that's how you read it. We don't need to see a full of Academic All American or Academic All Conference players. Most schools have their Academic All Americans, such as UMU's Greg Micheli.

Many schools have programs to ensure that their athletes don't fall behind in their classes. Plinske talks about some of those programs in his UWM interview. It's almost an hour long, but it's an interesting look at Plinske's accomplishments at UWW.

Agreed, UWW doesn't have a Jumbotron. But I believe it still is the biggest scoreboard in a D-3 stadium.

IL Gator- I think the line "And, with that statement we know that the old DIII justification for football as an educational experience that promotes the values of fair competition and good sportsmanship are no longer of primary importance at UWW" makes it pretty clear what he was intimating. 
IMO, I think it's great that Dr. Plinske wants to create a DI experience at UWW.  The more students and fans in general that attend the games- the better.  I think a full stadium is a great recruiting tool for top DIII talent- and it goes a long way in fund raising to improve all programs.  As an alum, I gladly spread the word of the school and football program with confidence that a player will have a great experience. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on January 03, 2012, 12:24:42 AM
For the discussion of "Are the Purple Powers bad for D3", we've covered a lot of ground.   To summarize-
Reasons they are bad:
1.  Lack of interest come playoff time as it's assumed UWW and Mt will make it. 
2.  Suspicion that one or both are where they are due to... several reasons raised. 
3.  Lack of hope or opportunity for others to knock them off.
Other Reasons?

Reasons they are good:
1.  Their play has raised the level of play in D3.
2.  Competitive championship games are positive for the general public.
3.  National media does pick up on the streak.
4.  Programs that commit to competing on a national level are improving facilities and allocating more funds to football programs, making a better overall experience for D3 football players.
5.  They provide great incentive, hope and excitement for players and programs to be the team to knock them off.
6.  Success with the football program benefits the entire university/college.   
Other Reasons?

IMO, this season in particular has shown that the gap is closing on the two.  Talk of the teams being "untouchable" based on blowouts is a bit overemphasized.  I don't believe that teams like Wesley, NCC, MHB, St. Thomas, Linfield and many others believe the two are untouchable.  The teams I listed in particular know that it's more of an issue of the "little things" than it is of big things to overcome.  For UWW in particular, the Stagg Bowl showed pretty clearly that UWW isn't a team loaded with scholarship type players that somehow ended up in D3.       
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D O.C. on January 03, 2012, 01:05:38 AM
Applaud summation.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on January 03, 2012, 09:47:12 AM
Quote from: emma17 on January 02, 2012, 11:17:30 PM
IL Gator- I think the line "And, with that statement we know that the old DIII justification for football as an educational experience that promotes the values of fair competition and good sportsmanship are no longer of primary importance at UWW" makes it pretty clear what he was intimating.   

I don't see how you can draw any other conclusion. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 11:15:00 AM
There are about 6-10 programs who can legitimately say they can compete with one of the Purples. Not win 50% of the time, but compete. Now, of course, it'll be a while before a Wilmington or Marietta will be able to compete with Mt. Union in football, but you know, Northwestern now makes bowls nearly every year and look where they were in the 80's.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 11:25:33 AM
Quote from: kestrel on January 01, 2012, 02:59:52 AM
I believe UWW's AD Paul Plinske is on record as saying, "We want to provide our football players, student body, and fans with a Division I experience."  And, with that statement we know that the old DIII justification for football as an educational experience that promotes the values of fair competition and good sportsmanship are no longer of primary importance at UWW.  

Bleh. I don't know how you jump to that conclusion. I will say though, and it was why I was interested in the context of the quote, that it looks like Plinske wants to do something that much of D3 would not be interested in. If you want a D1 experience, be D1. If you want a D3 experience, be D3. There is no reason to spend the time, money and other resources to provide a D1 experience in D3. That's why D3 exists separate from D1.

I think the original post jumped too far off a ledge, as I don't see anything in the quote that goes against fair competition, sportsmanship and academics, but I do think this indicates something about what UWW wants or is willing to provide that sets them well apart from most of D3. Personally, I don't think that's a good thing...

However, D3 allows for anyone to provide a D1 like experience in almost every manner except scholarships. So again, UWW is doing nothing wrong. But if the AD really means what I think the quote implies, I think eventually you will see a D4. It may be 20 or 30 years away, but eventually you will have a set of schools that want something that a critical mass of other schools are unwilling to follow. There is no shame in that, and it is the reason why we have D1, D1 FCS, D2 and D3...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 03, 2012, 11:41:29 AM
It may take a while. A very vocal minority managed to get the concept of a fourth division/split in Division III to the floor of the NCAA convention a few years ago and couldn't even muster 30% of the vote.

Over the past decade, Division III has actually spent a lot of time contemplating its differences and trying to find common ground. Some legislation has been passed to that end. I think that effort will continue.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 12:02:34 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 03, 2012, 11:41:29 AM
It may take a while. A very vocal minority managed to get the concept of a fourth division/split in Division III to the floor of the NCAA convention a few years ago and couldn't even muster 30% of the vote.

Over the past decade, Division III has actually spent a lot of time contemplating its differences and trying to find common ground. Some legislation has been passed to that end. I think that effort will continue.

Well, I did say 20 or 30 years. A lot can happen over that kind of timespan. Like most things, it will come down to money. If a large group of schools start investing (yes... investing, not cheating!) a lot of money in athletics in D3, and by a lot I mean a consistently disproportionate amount to most of the D3 universe, friction will develop. If championships continue to get more important, and I do believe athletic championships are gaining importance as recruiting, donation, and brand differentiators, you will eventually get a group that is fed up of running on a treadmill that is either unrealistically or, in their eyes, unnecessarily fast.

Once that happens, momentum will shift quickly. There are already way more D3 schools than any other division. Of the 1066 Active NCAA members, 436 are D3, that is 41%. 30% of 436 gives you a number of schools roughly equal to the amount of teams in D1 FBS OR D1 FCS (130 versus 120 FBS and 122 FCS). You could easily make a D4 just out of those teams, depending on how they were arranged geographically.

Just my belief, but I think either the D3 rules will tighten significantly on what you can spend on facilities, recruiting, roster limits, etc., or I think you will eventually see a D4. Of course, if you ask my wife, I'm usually wrong...

Stats provided come from the Composition & Sport Sponsorship page of the NCAA website...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 12:12:11 PM
I think there's a different mindset for most of the D-3 schools. Compete? Yes. Playoffs and tournaments? Yes. But that's not their A-1 goal. Yes, most schools and teams want to compete and win, but it's not like D-1 where it's bowls and the NCAA tournament or bust. Even low-to-mid majors (like Florida Atlantic where I live) don't think they're successful unless they make the NCAA tourney in hoops. In D-3, I think for the majority of schools, their goals are more modest where an invitation to the playoffs isn't a stinging disappointment.

Again, that's not to say that these D-3 schools and programs don't want to win, and don't want to make the playoffs. They do. But they're not going around firing coaches and booting kids off of the team because of it.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 12:19:10 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 12:12:11 PM
I think there's a different mindset for most of the D-3 schools. Compete? Yes. Playoffs and tournaments? Yes. But that's not their A-1 goal. Yes, most schools and teams want to compete and win, but it's not like D-1 where it's bowls and the NCAA tournament or bust. Even low-to-mid majors (like Florida Atlantic where I live) don't think they're successful unless they make the NCAA tourney in hoops. In D-3, I think for the majority of schools, their goals are more modest where an invitation to the playoffs isn't a stinging disappointment.

Again, that's not to say that these D-3 schools and programs don't want to win, and don't want to make the playoffs. They do. But they're not going around firing coaches and booting kids off of the team because of it.

No, but you have seen some conference re-alignments lately (cough SAA) that indicate winning might be more important than in the past. If there are teams willing to realign to create a more homogenous conference, eventually you might get enough together to consider a more homogenous division.

As a side note, I'm 3 credits shy of my MBA from FAU and have been for several years. My company moved me out of state right before I could graduate and I haven't had time to take the online course to finish. Part of my New Year's Resolution for 2012...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 03, 2012, 12:19:45 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 12:02:34 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on January 03, 2012, 11:41:29 AM
It may take a while. A very vocal minority managed to get the concept of a fourth division/split in Division III to the floor of the NCAA convention a few years ago and couldn't even muster 30% of the vote.

Over the past decade, Division III has actually spent a lot of time contemplating its differences and trying to find common ground. Some legislation has been passed to that end. I think that effort will continue.

Well, I did say 20 or 30 years. A lot can happen over that kind of timespan. Like most things, it will come down to money. If a large group of schools start investing (yes... investing, not cheating!) a lot of money in athletics in D3, and by a lot I mean a consistently disproportionate amount to most of the D3 universe, friction will develop. If championships continue to get more important, and I do believe athletic championships are gaining importance as recruiting, donation, and brand differentiators, you will eventually get a group that is fed up of running on a treadmill that is either unrealistically or, in their eyes, unnecessarily fast.

Once that happens, momentum will shift quickly. There are already way more D3 schools than any other division. Of the 1066 Active NCAA members, 436 are D3, that is 41%. 30% of 436 gives you a number of schools roughly equal to the amount of teams in D1 FBS OR D1 FCS (130 versus 120 FBS and 122 FCS). You could easily make a D4 just out of those teams, depending on how they were arranged geographically.

Just my belief, but I think either the D3 rules will tighten significantly on what you can spend on facilities, recruiting, roster limits, etc., or I think you will eventually see a D4. Of course, if you ask my wife, I'm usually wrong...

Stats provided come from the Composition & Sport Sponsorship page of the NCAA website...
They couldn't possibly pass that sort of rule, could they?  Especially when the schools pushing for D4 are also typically the schools with large endowments?  I can't understand this reasoning.  Since I'm being outrecruited by School A with their nice facilities, I'm just not going to play them anymore?  How would that improve my recruiting or donations?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Knightstalker on January 03, 2012, 12:22:53 PM
I don't know about the WIAC schools but some of the NJAC schools have upgraded their facilities so they are better than a lot of D-1AA schools.  These facilities are also used for the NJ state high school playoffs.  Kean and TCNJ both host the state playoffs and the finals are at the Meadowlands.  I would think a stadium like UWW has would be an attractive venue for other events that create revenue for the school.  There is nothing wrong with any school doing that in any division.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 12:26:05 PM
Quote from: AO on January 03, 2012, 12:19:45 PM
They couldn't possibly pass that sort of rule, could they?  Especially when the schools pushing for D4 are also typically the schools with large endowments?  I can't understand this reasoning.  Since I'm being outrecruited by School A with their nice facilities, I'm just not going to play them anymore?  How would that improve my recruiting or donations?

Umm... college athletics history has shown this is generally the driver behind teams changing competition. Some of the teams in D3 started off competing in football in what would have been big time divisions, Sewanee, W&L, U of Chicago, I'm sure there are many more. In the 40s and 50s most of these schools dropped out of the running, unable to keep up with the money and facilities being spent. Others, like Vanderbilt, Duke, even Davidson stayed either completely or partially in upper divisions and grew along with the land grant institutions or found other ways to compete. Eventually the "small colleges" divisions were codified in the 70s under the D1, D2 and D3 framework.

There would be nothing all that radical about the establishment of a D4. Just a continuation of a very long trend.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 03, 2012, 12:33:16 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 12:26:05 PM
Quote from: AO on January 03, 2012, 12:19:45 PM
They couldn't possibly pass that sort of rule, could they?  Especially when the schools pushing for D4 are also typically the schools with large endowments?  I can't understand this reasoning.  Since I'm being outrecruited by School A with their nice facilities, I'm just not going to play them anymore?  How would that improve my recruiting or donations?

Umm... college athletics history has shown this is generally the driver behind teams changing competition. Some of the teams in D3 started off competing in football in what would have been big time divisions, Sewanee, W&L, U of Chicago, I'm sure there are many more. In the 40s and 50s most of these schools dropped out of the running, unable to keep up with the money and facilities being spent. Others, like Vanderbilt, Duke, even Davidson stayed either completely or partially in upper divisions and grew along with the land grant institutions or found other ways to compete. Eventually the "small colleges" divisions were codified in the 70s under the D1, D2 and D3 framework.

There would be nothing all that radical about the establishment of a D4. Just a continuation of a very long trend.
Did donations and enrollment figures increase for those teams that dropped down a division or got rid of the football team like Chicago?   You can stop the bleeding by dropping down, but it won't make you stronger.

How can you not laugh at the idea of the ncaa trying to limit the amount that could be spent on facilities?   ---"i'm sorry mr. Anderson but we're going to have to reject your $100Million donation as Macalester wouldn't want to play us anymore if our gym was nicer than theirs".
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 12:45:36 PM
Wouldn't be the first time. I'm sorry Big State University, I know your donors want to endow 200 scholarships for football players, but you are limited to only 85.

Its really not that hard to imagine. Life is full of rules and the U.S. is full of lawyers to write them.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on January 03, 2012, 01:25:13 PM
This question is not meant sarcastically. Is part of the D3 Philosophy properly stated as "We will compete academically but not athletically"?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 01:40:34 PM
Quote from: emma17 on January 03, 2012, 01:25:13 PM
This question is not meant sarcastically. Is part of the D3 Philosophy properly stated as "We will compete academically but not athletically"?
Yep. Right under the line that states "We will compete athletically but not academically". Just kidding. Quite a few pages back I posted the guiding tenets of D3.

"The purpose of the NCAA is to assist its members in developing the basis for consistent, equitable competition while minimizing infringement on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs. The above statement articulates principles that represent a commitment to Division III membership and shall serve as a guide for the preparation of legislation by the division and for planning and implementation of programs by institutions and conferences."

The bolded part pretty much allows for anything you want provided it is not out and out proscribed some where else (scholarships).
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ncc58 on January 03, 2012, 01:48:22 PM
I'd encourage you to read http://www.athleticmanagement.com/2010/10/15/qa_with_paul_plinske/index.php . It says a lot about the UWW philosophy, donors, and Title IX.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 02:07:26 PM
You couldn't get anything passed on facilities, because they would be grouped into the fitness / wellness plan of the entire institution. You can't not allow a school to upgrade its physical plant that could potentially benefit the entire community.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 02:16:41 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 02:07:26 PM
You couldn't get anything passed on facilities, because they would be grouped into the fitness / wellness plan of the entire institution. You can't not allow a school to upgrade its physical plant that could potentially benefit the entire community.

To some degree agreed. However, you could easily pass a rule that involved some formula for spending on a student athlete. Have some base amount you are allowed to spend per student athlete plus a mileage allowance for travel. Apply it to any sport specific spending, for example, team budgets including coaches and recruiting trips, locker rooms, video rooms, etc that aren't used by the general population. That exempts things like weight rooms, unless they are only open to athletes, fields that are used for intramurals, etc. Larger teams, like football, would have more money because there are more athletes involved.

Easy enough to pro-rate any mixed use facilities (weight rooms that are open 12 hours to all students, 2 hour blocks to athletes only, fields that are used primarily for varsity sports, but 20% of the time are used for intramurals, etc.)

Finally, top it off by allowing exceptions for overall building expenses over a set period of time (stadium improvements every 10 years, laying in a new turf field, etc.) and index everything to inflation.

It wouldn't be overly hard to do although it would complicate the budgeting process. That being said, all the accounting mentioned above has something analagous to it somewhere else on campus. So nothing would be a foreign concept.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 02:17:06 PM
Quote from: ILGator on January 03, 2012, 01:48:22 PM
I'd encourage you to read http://www.athleticmanagement.com/2010/10/15/qa_with_paul_plinske/index.php . It says a lot about the UWW philosophy, donors, and Title IX.

I'm quite surprised they got such a response from their students. Of course, a greater percentage of their students may not be 'traditional', but students are typically the hardest group to crack for fundraising. However, by tying it into the recreation and intramural areas, they must have hit a nerve.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 02:21:33 PM
Video rooms can double as classrooms or meeting rooms. Schools should provide a locker for each student (or has space for each student) for their wellness so that's covered.

I think travel dollars would hurt conferences like the ASC, SAA, SCAC, UAA, SCIAC and the NWC and not the WIAC or OAC. The OAC is pretty compact, as is the WIAC.

The money spent by Mt. Union and Whitewater doesn't seem to be an issue.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 03, 2012, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 03, 2012, 02:21:33 PM
Video rooms can double as classrooms or meeting rooms. Schools should provide a locker for each student (or has space for each student) for their wellness so that's covered.

I think travel dollars would hurt conferences like the ASC, SAA, SCAC, UAA, SCIAC and the NWC and not the WIAC or OAC. The OAC is pretty compact, as is the WIAC.

The money spent by Mt. Union and Whitewater doesn't seem to be an issue.

All of which is easy enough to pro-rate. No institution the size of a small college doesn't use fractional accounting by department somewhere in their financial structure these days. As for what travel dollars would hurt, the goal would be to come up neutral. In other words, you only get travel dollars IF you travel. So the ASC folks would get more than the ODAC folks. Do it per student mile travelled according to the NCAA travel calculator.

As for UMU and Whitewater, I can't repeat enough that I don't blame them for anything. They are doing nothing wrong and, quite obviously, are doing an awful lot right. That being said, I could easily see ways in which you could try and make D3 more competitive IF YOU WANTED, or you could set up a D4 with more stringent rules. Currently there doesn't seem to be much initiative toward this outcome.

I think it is a possibility down the line, although certainly not a foregone or even a likely outcome. If, however, you continue to have a situation where a group of schools pursue a policy of spending and winning at a rate that a large group of schools find unacceptable, D4 becomes more and more likely. Especially as you consider the current size of D3 and its continued growth. Cutting off a slice of the D3 universe as low as 100 teams, or less than 30% of the current teams, would make for a viable athletic division.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: warhawkguard on January 03, 2012, 05:31:18 PM
If you ever establish a new D4 set of teams, somebody will emerge as a top tier program in it. That program will have a better set of coaches. They will find a way to recruit the better kids that want to play in the lowest of the low in college sports. Chances are some of the new D4 programs will try to differentiate themselves by having better facilities than the other small college down the road to get the better kids to play there. It will just repeat what has already happened in D3. Somebody will emerge as a dominant power and the teams that still can't play well will still be the losers on the field. New mini-superpowers will replace the current powers.  You guys are dreaming if you think it won't happen.

Mount Union made a decision to become great on the field. They were already great in the classroom. Did they really spend more than other similar schools to get there? No. They are dedicated to succcess at many levels. School management took an active role. (supurb coaches really help) UWW wanted that, so they made the decision to imitate that program. Not just on the field. Not just better facilities. Now you see Franklin, and Oshkosh looking at the system very hard. It takes a lot of people working together to get there for years. Many schools in D3 are not dedicated to this.

D3 is played by kids that get no scholarships to play their sports. That is the only equal thing it has.

Getting scholarships to play at a small private school will still usually cost the kid more money than paying full price at a bigger state school like UWW. If the kids get their school paid for because they are athletes, isn't that athletic scholarships? Isn't that cheating? Calling it one thing that it isn't to stay within the rules is cheating. In D3, the only ones that should get scholarships are students based upon need or achievement in the classroom. That is the great thing I like about D3 - the stupid athletes that are mainly stupid athletes, don't get paid to play their sport. They get financial aid, based upon uniform criteria. If you are a big stupid athlete that gets paid, you go D-1.   
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on January 03, 2012, 11:33:15 PM
Quote from: warhawkguard on January 03, 2012, 05:31:18 PM
If you ever establish a new D4 set of teams, somebody will emerge as a top tier program in it. That program will have a better set of coaches. They will find a way to recruit the better kids that want to play in the lowest of the low in college sports. Chances are some of the new D4 programs will try to differentiate themselves by having better facilities than the other small college down the road to get the better kids to play there. It will just repeat what has already happened in D3. Somebody will emerge as a dominant power and the teams that still can't play well will still be the losers on the field. New mini-superpowers will replace the current powers.  You guys are dreaming if you think it won't happen.

Mount Union made a decision to become great on the field. They were already great in the classroom. Did they really spend more than other similar schools to get there? No. They are dedicated to succcess at many levels. School management took an active role. (supurb coaches really help) UWW wanted that, so they made the decision to imitate that program. Not just on the field. Not just better facilities. Now you see Franklin, and Oshkosh looking at the system very hard. It takes a lot of people working together to get there for years. Many schools in D3 are not dedicated to this.

D3 is played by kids that get no scholarships to play their sports. That is the only equal thing it has.

Getting scholarships to play at a small private school will still usually cost the kid more money than paying full price at a bigger state school like UWW. If the kids get their school paid for because they are athletes, isn't that athletic scholarships? Isn't that cheating? Calling it one thing that it isn't to stay within the rules is cheating. In D3, the only ones that should get scholarships are students based upon need or achievement in the classroom. That is the great thing I like about D3 - the stupid athletes that are mainly stupid athletes, don't get paid to play their sport. They get financial aid, based upon uniform criteria. If you are a big stupid athlete that gets paid, you go D-1.

Warhawkguard, I agree completely.  Some number of teams will rise to dominance in D4 and somewhere down the line you'll have the same discussion- should there be a D5. 

There is a free market aspect to this that can't be regulated out.  Schools decide what they want to be really strong in and it seems to me there are those that feel everything needs to be equalized.  Choice is the equalizer.  Student athletes can choose where they want to go based on the choices that administrations make within their schools. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 04, 2012, 09:44:36 AM
No doubt some teams would rise to prominence. However, in a division that was devised to be a little more balanced, as opposed to pretty much allowing whatever you want, presumably you wouldn't have a 20 year dominance by 1 team and seven years of repeat performances in the title game. I repeat this, because it is astonishing. There are 240 (approximately) D3 football teams. The same 2 have played for the national title for seven straight years and one of those two has played in the vast majority of Stagg Bowls for 20 years.

Why do I think a few restrictions would provide more diversity at the top level? Because divisions that have balancing factors, such as scholarships, do not show the same kind of dynasties. Certainly in football and soccer... Remember this?

Now for some fun. FCS football, 12 of the last 15 championships by different teams, most is 6 by Ga Southern since 1978. d2 football, 10 of 15 different, 5 is most since 1973. d3 football, 5 of 15 different, 10 is most since 1973. Now adjust for the number of schools, FCS 126, D2 146, d3, 239. So FCS, 1 champion per 10.5 teams in the last 15 years, 1 repeat by the top dynasty every 5.5 years. D2, 1 championship per 15 schools, 1 repeat by the top dynasty every 7.5 years. D3, 1 championship per 48 schools, 1 repeat by the top dynasty every 3.8 years. UGGH, D3 has no variety in football compared to the other playoff divisions.

So in a D4 that has some rules regarding important factors such as roster size, money spent per player, etc., there is good evidence to suggest you would not have the same dominance. Would you have good teams and bad? Absolutely. Even the most controlled league in the world, the NFL (or maybe MLS, although the DP rule in MLS certainly causes odd ripples), has dominant teams rise and fall. But they don't last anywhere near as long as they seem to in D3.

As for the argument about D4 eventually breeding D5, that is most likely true so long as the number of colleges and universities keep expanding. As I said, it's a continuation of a very long trend in college athletics.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 09:53:42 AM
Or maybe this era is just anomalous.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 04, 2012, 10:09:41 AM
Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 09:53:42 AM
Or maybe this era is just anomalous.
Entirely possible. But you have to loosely define "era" considering UMU's dominance from '93-'11 is 19 out of 39 championships, basically half of the history of D3! That's less of an "era" and more of a long-term type thing! As for the last 7 years, you could define that as an "era", but I'd be interested in how many other analagous (5+ years of the same 2 teams in the championship) eras you could find in modern college athletics with playoff formats.

I'm thinking there won't be too many with either a 15+ year run like UMU's or a 5+ year run like UMU-UWW. I'd imagine there will be very, very few outside of D3, and if any do occur, I'd expect it to be in lower-participation sports like Water Polo or Rowing, not high participation sports like football, m/w basketball, m/w soccer, etc...

If I get some time one of these days I'll try and look it up...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 04, 2012, 11:12:04 AM
Just for kicks, UNC won the D1 Women's Soccer championship 15 out of the first 20 times, so that is certainly analagous to UMU's run. However, there is no significant second party at any stretch of that run to play UWW's role.

In D1 field hockey, the ACC has been dominant, however no two teams play at the top every year, just generally two teams from the ACC.

Iowa and Ok St have both had amazing runs in wrestling, but I don't think that is a team playoff format for the championship. Similarly, there have been great runs in D2 most recently by Nebraska-Omaha. D3 looks an awful lot like football, with Wartburg and Augsburg duking it out even longer than UMU and UWW, as one of those two teams has won the title every year since 1995. I will say there are only 95 teams left in D1, 44 in D2, and 106 in D3.

I'm sure there are more. I'm thinking there is a rifle team in Alaska, Kenyon's run in swimming, the PAC 10 has dominated Water Polo, although I think there are only around 80 teams nationwide.

Basically, dominance happens, though not too often in the sports with higher member counts. Even UNC's soccer run has hit road bumps as they have won much less frequently since '99 as more teams entered the sport.

Overall, I still think the UMU-UWU run, and UMU's run overall, is an outlier among team championships. That doesn't mean there aren't other outliers, just not many...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: warhawkguard on January 04, 2012, 11:57:09 AM
Those runs by the various teams are almost always the result of the school, its commitment, and most importantly, a great coaching staff that is stable and sticks around. Kids are drawn to successful programs. Nobody likes to lose. If school A is coached by a Kehres and school B isn't, chances are school A has a higher chance of landing the top recruit because school A is going to beat school B almost every time. Put a quality staff in at a tiny school and he will get results. It isn't the money in D3 as much as the coaches. UWW was a decent team for many years and had the coolest stadium, like when I played there. It wasn't the money that made them champions. It doesn't hurt though.

As was also discussed, an 18 year old kid isn't usually caring about how cool his Professors are going to be at either school when picking where he wants to play ball. A Psychology 101 prof is pretty much the same at every school. Same content. Perhaps the final degree specialty makes a difference at the end of the day, but if a kid is going to a bigger school there are more options. UWW is bigger and thus has numerous degrees one can work for. I got a Social Studies teaching degree, but they have a pretty big Arts program and their Business program is very prominent. The little private schools cannot offer as much and limit themselves in regards to recuiting potential players. Its just reality.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on January 04, 2012, 12:06:38 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 04, 2012, 10:09:41 AM
Quote from: smedindy on January 04, 2012, 09:53:42 AM
Or maybe this era is just anomalous.
Entirely possible. But you have to loosely define "era" considering UMU's dominance from '93-'11 is 19 out of 39 championships, basically half of the history of D3! That's less of an "era" and more of a long-term type thing! As for the last 7 years, you could define that as an "era", but I'd be interested in how many other analagous (5+ years of the same 2 teams in the championship) eras you could find in modern college athletics with playoff formats.

I'm thinking there won't be too many with either a 15+ year run like UMU's or a 5+ year run like UMU-UWW. I'd imagine there will be very, very few outside of D3, and if any do occur, I'd expect it to be in lower-participation sports like Water Polo or Rowing, not high participation sports like football, m/w basketball, m/w soccer, etc...

Might not be as rare as you think, although I want to note up front that the reasons for many of these dynasties can somehow be "rationalized" (i.e. sports with lower participation, bygone era with less competition, et cet).

NCAA Division I basketball (men's) - UCLA, 10 titles in 12 years (1964-75)*

*Yes, you can argue that this occurred in an era before the popularity of men's basketball expanded into the hypercompetitive state that currently permeates Division I college basketball.  I don't dispute that.  This will never happen again in men's basketball at the Division I level.  However, it certainly still exists in women's basketball at Division I.

NCAA Division I basketball (women's) - Tennessee, 6 titles in 12 years (1987-98)
NCAA Division I basketball (women's) - Connecticut, 6 titles in 11 years (2000-10)

Moving to lower divisions....

NCAA Division II basketball (men's) - from 1999-2003, four out of five times the final game was Kentucky Wesleyan vs. Metropolitan State

NCAA Division II basketball (women's) - from an 11-year stretch (1989-1999), every championship was won by Delta State, North Dakota, or North Dakota State

NCAA Division III basketball (women's) - WashU won four straight titles from 1998-2001 and has made a total of 8 finals appearances in 13 years

So basketball certainly has seen similar stretches like this before, in multiple divisions, both men's and women's basketball.  None has been quite so pronounced, but one in particular was very close (D-II basketball from 1999-2003).  Now let's move past basketball to another "high-participation" sport (soccer).

NCAA Division II soccer (men's) - Southern Conn State, 7 finals in 12 years (1987-1999)
NCAA Division III soccer (men's) - Messiah, 6 titles in 7 years (2004-2010)

NCAA Division I soccer (women's) - North Carolina, 15 titles in 20 years (1979-1999)
NCAA Division II soccer (women's) - Franklin Pierce, 5 titles in 6 years (1994-1999)
NCAA Division III soccer (women's) - Messiah and Wheaton won every title from 2004-2009, and played one another in the 2011 title game this year.

Moving into more obscure sports, dynasties are quite common, as you suspected.

NCAA Division I wrestling - Iowa, 11 titles in 12 years (1975-86),
NCAA Division I wrestling - Iowa again, 9 titles in 10 years (1991-2000)

NCAA women's lacrosse - Maryland, 9 titles in 10 years (1992-2001)

Basically...dynasties have occurred at one time or another in many collegiate sports, men's and women's alike, at multiple levels.  There are certainly a number of analagous eras (an extended stretch of dominance by the same 1-3 teams), even if none meet the EXACT criteria of 5+ consecutive years with the same teams in the championship game.  The best parallels are probably Division II men's basketball from 1999-2003 (two teams won every title and played each other 4/5 years), Division II women's basketball from 1989-1999 (three teams combined to win all 11 titles), and Division I women's basketball in the 2000's (although a few teams have crashed the party, UConn and Tennessee have generally ruled the sport for 20 years now)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on January 04, 2012, 12:08:11 PM
Quote from: jknezek on January 04, 2012, 11:12:04 AM
Basically, dominance happens, though not too often in the sports with higher member counts. Even UNC's soccer run has hit road bumps as they have won much less frequently since '99 as more teams entered the sport.

You posted while I was composing the previous post, but look at my stuff re: basketball and soccer.  There actually ARE several stretches in those "high member count" sports with an extended stretch of dominance by anyhwere from 1-3 teams.

The most analagous stretches, IMHO, are Division II men's basketball from 1999-2003 (two schools combining for 5 straight titles and meeting in the finals in four of those games), Division II women's basketball from 1989-1999 (eleven consecutive titles won by three schools), and Division III women's soccer from 2004-2011 (two schools combining for 7 of 8 titles and often playing one another in the title game).
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on January 04, 2012, 01:02:10 PM
There is no doubt the UWW - Mt run is out of the ordinary. But it will end.
I still don't think the statistical comparisons to other divisions in terms of percentage of total teams competing for the title are all that telling. Again, IMO there are fewer programs at the D3 level that have national title aspirations. At scholarship schools I believe a great percentage want national results to justify the expense.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 04, 2012, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 04, 2012, 12:08:11 PM
The most analagous stretches, IMHO, are Division II men's basketball from 1999-2003 (two schools combining for 5 straight titles and meeting in the finals in four of those games), Division II women's basketball from 1989-1999 (eleven consecutive titles won by three schools), and Division III women's soccer from 2004-2011 (two schools combining for 7 of 8 titles and often playing one another in the title game).

A couple things, I don't see the D2 men's bball run you see. I see Kentucky Wesleyan making 5 straight finals, but winning only 2. In that frame, Metro State won 2, Northeastern State won 1. Certainly a good run by Kentucky Wesleyan, but not the same level of dominance we see in D3 football. The length by 1 team, KW, is nothing near what UMU has accomplished, while the dominance by two teams, only ran for 4 years. Four versus seven is very significant.

I see North Dakota ran roughshod over D2 women's basketball from 93-99, but they played a different team in the finals every year. Again, nowhere near approaching UMU for length or UMU vs UWW for total dominance over a period.

As for the D3 sports, that actually would play into my argument. I've said D3 lends itself to dynasties, and not just in football. Messiah has certainly had an amazing run.

To be honest, I think UCLA is too far back in history for men's bball. It was a totally different time in regards to competition and recruiting. What they accomplished is amazing, but I wouldn't hold it out for this argument. I also think they played a different foil in every championship year. So again, a good streak, but only 1/2 as good as UMU (although more consistent with every appearance!), but no UWW equivalent.

I also agree UNC looks like UMU in the early years of women's soccer. But that, to me, looks like the best example of such long-term dominance. Not much of a UWW type challenger every year, either.

As for D1 women's basketball, you could combine UConn and TN and come up with the equivalent of UMU. Unfortunately, over the span of '95 through '10, about the same length as UMU, they both rose and fell and only met in the finals 4 times over a 9 year span. Less than half the time is a far cry from 7 in a row!

I also admit D1 wrestling is a very good analogy, as is D2 wrestling. But these are not playoff tournaments.

Lacrosse is always interesting, but with relatively low participation. In fact, before 2001 it wasn't a D1 classification, it was a national collegiate championship. In 2011 there were only 80 or so teams total, there were fewer at the time of Maryland's run.

Basically I'd go with the wrestlings and D1 soccer. There is a UMU type dynasty in each, less of a two team domination for the better part of a decade. Very unusual. Especially since these are clearly very rare events.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 05, 2012, 05:19:15 AM
Quote from: warhawkguard on January 03, 2012, 05:31:18 PM
If you ever establish a new D4 set of teams, somebody will emerge as a top tier program in it. That program will have a better set of coaches. They will find a way to recruit the better kids that want to play in the lowest of the low in college sports. Chances are some of the new D4 programs will try to differentiate themselves by having better facilities than the other small college down the road to get the better kids to play there. It will just repeat what has already happened in D3. Somebody will emerge as a dominant power and the teams that still can't play well will still be the losers on the field. New mini-superpowers will replace the current powers.  You guys are dreaming if you think it won't happen.

Quote from: emma17 on January 03, 2012, 11:33:15 PMWarhawkguard, I agree completely.  Some number of teams will rise to dominance in D4 and somewhere down the line you'll have the same discussion- should there be a D5.

Quote from: jknezek on January 04, 2012, 09:44:36 AM
No doubt some teams would rise to prominence. However, in a division that was devised to be a little more balanced, as opposed to pretty much allowing whatever you want, presumably you wouldn't have a 20 year dominance by 1 team and seven years of repeat performances in the title game.

No offense, but I think that the three of you have missed the point of what the D4 movement of which Pat spoke was all about. The D4 movement of a few years ago was an attempt by some administrators from a few academically elite schools to set up a division within the NCAA that would be much more restrictive in terms of how its member schools were allowed to operate their athletics programs: Specific time blocks in which coaches were allowed to recruit off-campus, or the banning of off-campus recruiting altogether (a la the MWC); no out-of-season practices; and there was quite a bit of talk among D4 advocates that it might be best to not have any postseason tournaments or national championships whatsoever, and that all competition should be strictly regional in character.

In other words, D4 would not only be tightly straitjacketed by its rules so as to prevent UMU/UWW-type dominance, there was a solid possibility that it wouldn't even have postseason tournaments with which to establish that sort of national dominance in the first place.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 05, 2012, 11:33:18 AM
Yes, I read through the discussion. There was a lot to flesh out and it did fail in that form. I don't think, should a D4 movement reappear in the future, it will be oriented quite the same, nor do I think it would have to be to attract the same schools plus the necessary additions to make it a reality.

However, the general concept of having a much more tightly controlled competition will be at the root of it. How you define that control will be the devil in the details. At the moment, however, with no discussion on the table for the foreseable future, all those details can be bandied about.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on January 05, 2012, 11:34:40 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 05, 2012, 05:19:15 AM
No offense, but I think that the three of you have missed the point of what the D4 movement of which Pat spoke was all about. The D4 movement of a few years ago was an attempt by some administrators from a few academically elite schools to set up a division within the NCAA that would be much more restrictive in terms of how its member schools were allowed to operate their athletics programs: Specific time blocks in which coaches were allowed to recruit off-campus, or the banning of off-campus recruiting altogether (a la the MWC); no out-of-season practices; and there was quite a bit of talk among D4 advocates that it might be best to not have any postseason tournaments or national championships whatsoever, and that all competition should be strictly regional in character.

Thanks for that summary, Greg.

In some ways, I really appreciate what the D4 "mission" would represent.  Much has been said on here about the "commitment" to winning that UMU, UWW, and other schools have made, and many have alluded to the financial portion of that.*  In that respect, shouldn't there be a place for schools that want to follow an old-time philosophy?  When Harvard, Yale, and the other ancient football squads started playing in the 1800's, they were just a team full of guys drawn from the student population playing against one another for sport.

*Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I am NOT complaining about how good the Purple Powers are or suggesting that the move up a level.  I love the Powers' dominance and rooting for someone to topple them.

I suppose one could argue that, if fielding a highly competitive squad is not enough of a priority for the school to put some money into the football program, the school(s) in question should just sponsor a club sport and/or intramurals.  There's certainly some truth to that. 

One solution that (presumably) has been discussed before is that any schools who felt REALLY strongly about such a move could form their own NESCAC-like conference and institute the same rules described above (i.e. limitations on recruiting, coaching salaries, overall budget, and no postseason play).  IMHO, this is why D4 isn't really necessary.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on January 05, 2012, 01:11:19 PM
No offense taken Gregory and thanks for the clarification on D4.  Given your summary, IMO the way to prevent possible national dominance would be elimination of post season games.

Which leads me into agreement with Extartan- just set up NESCAC type conferences.

Although I still believe certain schools within this quasi D4 set up will rise to power.
Football is competition and as long as scores are kept, the humans will look for ways to be the best.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 05, 2012, 01:57:25 PM
But the NESCAC has lots of scorn heaped upon it for isolating itself. Not caring about the playoffs is fine, but many think that not playing outside of its own league isn't the right way to go. Just one non-conference game would help determine where the NESCAC fits in the D-3 world.

As it is, NESCAC football is more of a varsity club sport.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on January 05, 2012, 02:55:39 PM
 Why should anyone (except for members of NESCAC themselves) care about what NESCAC does about football? In the vein of what some coaches like to say, NESCAC football is what it is.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on January 05, 2012, 02:57:18 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 05, 2012, 01:57:25 PM
But the NESCAC has lots of scorn heaped upon it for isolating itself. Not caring about the playoffs is fine, but many think that not playing outside of its own league isn't the right way to go. Just one non-conference game would help determine where the NESCAC fits in the D-3 world.

I agree, smed, but the NEFC gets just as much scorn for taking a playoff spot and getting killed every year.* 

*Yes, I'm often an NEFC defender - I always have to remind people that an NEFC team defeated an Empire 8 team two straight times in the playoffs, and in one of those years it wasn't even the NEFC champion - but no one can seriously argue that the NEFC is consistently competitive with other top teams.

IMHO, if a school is REALLY committed to the so-called "D4" philosophy, do they really care if they are "scorned" by the rest of D3 for playing in isolation?  The NESCAC apparently doesn't (nor should they).  Why does it matter where they stand compared to the rest of D3?  If they were officially kicked out of NCAA Division III tomorrow and they were just playing each other as the NESCAC Football Club League, would it make any difference?

I understand what you're saying when you call NESCAC football a "varsity club" sport, but isn't that basically what we're talking about with "D4" anyway?  Why is that so bad?  And, in that vein, if other schools choose to do the same, why does it really matter to the rest of Division III?  I suspect that a lot of East Region fans would be very happy if the NEFC declared that they would no longer play nonconference games or participate in the playoffs.  They'd have another playoff spot freed up, and 16 schools that are GENERALLY not competitive with much of Division III would now be playing against their peer institutions for their own conference championship.  Doesn't everyone win in that scenario?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 05, 2012, 06:08:53 PM
You know, you can say that about other conferences as well as the NEFC, but that's what happens when you have an honest-to-goodness playoff that includes all conference titlists, as it should!

The scorn of the NESCAC is when people say 'why don't you rank them' or 'they could be just as good as anyone else' but there are no external points of reference.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on January 05, 2012, 07:53:37 PM
Under current circumstances NESCAC collrges should not be entitled to be ranked for football, nor do I hear them asking to be except on these boards, and then only infrequently.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on January 05, 2012, 09:27:22 PM
2 southern fried NCAA dominance in sports (Natioanl Championship)
Auburn: Womens Swimming/Diving - 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007
           Mens Swimming?Diving - 1997, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
                                            2007, 2009

on a side note: D-2 UNA (Florence Al) just re hired thier former hall of fame coach Bobby Wallace (who won national championships 1993,1994, 1995). Coach Wallace has since resurrected the UWA program, retired a year ago, and is being hired from retirement just this past week.

and

i think the Purple powers are good for D-3...to stay on point  ;D
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: sigma one on January 05, 2012, 10:03:35 PM
I am going to try this from a different perspective, and probably getting myself in trouble as a result.  Different schools have different definitions of success--we know that.  Sure, winning the National Championship appears to be the ultimate goal, but we know that's not the case for every school.  I've done a quick count, so don't hold me completely to it, but over the past five years (2007-2011) six schools have won 50 or more games (Whitewater, Mt. Union, MHB, Wesley, North Central, Wabash) and 10 have won at least 45 games (add Case Western Reserve, Franklin, Montclair St., W&J).  Theses school appear to want to be among the elite, and there are some others who approach this number of wins: 40+.  Over this same period 68 schools (again, don't hold me to the exact number) have won at least 9 games in one season; 43 have won at least 10 games in a single season. Those numbers indicate that about a quarter of the teams in DIII have had  really good success (if we define success by the won/lost records) with their programs. And 32 teams have had winning seasons every year 2007-2011 (defined as .500 or better each year). On the other side, 35 teams have not had a winning season (defined by leaving out .500 seasons), and 20 more have had a best record of not more that .500--a total of 55 without a "winning" season in the past five years. A number of them probably count 50/50 as being successful. (As a sad aside, I think I want to phrase it this way, 16 schools that have played all five years have won 10 or fewer games total). During these five years it looks like 21 teams have made it to the final 8 of the D III playoffs.  Of these, Mt. Union and UW Whitewater have appeared all five times; two teams have been there four times, one team, three times; three teams, twice; 13 teams, once.    We could also look to see how many total have made the tournament field.  My point is that while the championship game in these years has been between the same teams, other schools have had their moments.  And some that have established a football tradition have, year in and year out, been near the top of the rankings, # of victories, and conference championships.  Many of them, I'm supposing, have reached what their school, coaches, and players deem a good level of success--however frustrated that are in the end by not achieving even more.  After all, only one team emerges each year as the champion; the rest of the playoff teams go home with a loss.  If, as DIII philosophy indicates, sport is about participation and competition, quite a few teams and their schools should ultimately feel good, and at the same time be disappointed sometimes, about their football team. I'm sure, too, that some schools measure success by winning their conference title.  My point is that different schools measure success in different ways, as we all know.  When the same teams meet in the Title Game for more years to come--which might happen--or continue their success as long a Kenyon swimming (I know the men lost this year) then I, for one, will be concerned.  Until then, I marvel at WhiteH20's and Mount's success and wait for the moment when someone unseats one or both.  Am I off base here?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D O.C. on January 06, 2012, 01:07:48 AM
Excellence way out west....

http://www.linfield.edu/sports/data_assets/pdfs/coachandadmagazine.pdf (http://www.linfield.edu/sports/data_assets/pdfs/coachandadmagazine.pdf)

Never trust the NCAA. No dunking to level the playing field (court); the Lew Alcindor rule. http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/rules_named_after_players/alcindor_rule.html (http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/rules_named_after_players/alcindor_rule.html)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on January 06, 2012, 08:55:29 AM
sigma one, that is a very nice post.  That's cool that 68 schools have won 9+ games at least once in the last five years, which certainly suggests that many schools have experienced at least one season of decent "success" in recent times (that number is higher than I thought it would be).  It's also impressive that only 35 schools have NOT had a .500 season, indicating that nearly 200 of the D3 schools HAVE at least touched .500 once in the past five years - again, a sign that "most" of D3 is at least moderately competitive with their conference peers.

Incidentally, if there were no Division III playoffs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because no one would "know" that UMU and UWW were the dominant teams nationally.  Everyone would compete against their conference peers for their conference title and that would be it.

So now let's consider the playoffs.  Suppose that Wesley had beaten Mount Union and UWW this year.  Would that really have changed things for the rest of Division III?  I really doubt it.  Do you think that Carnegie Mellon, or Allegheny, or Rowan, or Hampden-Sydney, or any other program (outside the OAC and WIAC) would REALLY feel the reverberations of that?  As a player at Carnegie Mellon, I certainly followed Mount's success (and UWW's subsequent rise) with interest, but it's not like it affected our team in any way.  We didn't have a lot of recruits coming to campus that were also interested in Mount or UWW.  We never were going to play them head-to-head.  If someone had upset them in the playoffs one year...I would have loved it as a "fan" of the game, but it wouldn't have changed anything for our team in the ensuing season.

That's why I'm now leaning towards answer C) the Purple Powers are neither good nor bad for most of Division III.  Even if you removed the Purples, there would still be less than 25 realistic contenders for the "national" title in any given year.  The rest of the Division would march on essentially unchanged.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 06, 2012, 09:55:08 AM
Keith wrote a very good article in a similar vein earlier this season or late last season. He made the same point, that there is a lot of variety in D3 once you get outside the annual Final Four. Always a good point and if you can find the article it is a good read.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: SUADC on January 06, 2012, 11:52:16 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 06, 2012, 08:55:29 AM
That's why I'm now leaning towards answer C) the Purple Powers are neither good nor bad for most of Division III.  Even if you removed the Purples, there would still be less than 25 realistic contenders for the "national" title in any given year.  The rest of the Division would march on essentially unchanged.


As a former Division III athlete, I agree that the purple powers are neither good nor bad for Division III. However, as a fan of the sport now, I believe 25 championship contenders are better than 2 contenders.  ;)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on January 06, 2012, 01:24:05 PM
Nice posts Sigma and Ex.
UWW and Mt aren't doing anything that prevents other schools from success and realistic hopes of their own national championship.

I lean more toward UWW and Mt are Good for D3 football simply because their play has elevated the overall play. Whether a D3 school has national championship aspirations or not, all teams most likely strive to get better.  UWW/Mt provides all D3 programs and players with an example of what is possible at this level.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: warhawkguard on January 06, 2012, 01:58:01 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 05, 2012, 05:19:15 AM
Quote from: warhawkguard on January 03, 2012, 05:31:18 PM
If you ever establish a new D4 set of teams, somebody will emerge as a top tier program in it. That program will have a better set of coaches. They will find a way to recruit the better kids that want to play in the lowest of the low in college sports. Chances are some of the new D4 programs will try to differentiate themselves by having better facilities than the other small college down the road to get the better kids to play there. It will just repeat what has already happened in D3. Somebody will emerge as a dominant power and the teams that still can't play well will still be the losers on the field. New mini-superpowers will replace the current powers.  You guys are dreaming if you think it won't happen.

Quote from: emma17 on January 03, 2012, 11:33:15 PMWarhawkguard, I agree completely.  Some number of teams will rise to dominance in D4 and somewhere down the line you'll have the same discussion- should there be a D5.

Quote from: jknezek on January 04, 2012, 09:44:36 AM
No doubt some teams would rise to prominence. However, in a division that was devised to be a little more balanced, as opposed to pretty much allowing whatever you want, presumably you wouldn't have a 20 year dominance by 1 team and seven years of repeat performances in the title game.

No offense, but I think that the three of you have missed the point of what the D4 movement of which Pat spoke was all about. The D4 movement of a few years ago was an attempt by some administrators from a few academically elite schools to set up a division within the NCAA that would be much more restrictive in terms of how its member schools were allowed to operate their athletics programs: Specific time blocks in which coaches were allowed to recruit off-campus, or the banning of off-campus recruiting altogether (a la the MWC); no out-of-season practices; and there was quite a bit of talk among D4 advocates that it might be best to not have any postseason tournaments or national championships whatsoever, and that all competition should be strictly regional in character.

In other words, D4 would not only be tightly straitjacketed by its rules so as to prevent UMU/UWW-type dominance, there was a solid possibility that it wouldn't even have postseason tournaments with which to establish that sort of national dominance in the first place.

Oh, I'm not offended at all. I just feel that football is a sport of warriors. As long as you keep score you might as well try to win. The idea that you point to in making a D4 a totally different type of game altogether makes that whole idea of even bothering to play seem futile. If you don't want to be good, or care if anybody is better than you at the sport, don't do it. Stick to club sports like flag football, rugby, field hockey, and soccer. Its just an intramural pastime in the end.

Lets all be honest here - D3 is practically a joke when you look at the sports and their little teams and compare them to D1 athletics. Head to head D3 would generally get annihilated,even worse than FCS teams when they play somebody like the Badgers. The general population really doesn't care about small time sports, just the students, alumni, and parents. If I ask 1000 Wisconsin people what team plays for UW-Whitewater, I bet 80% couldn't tell me. 99.9% have no idea what the Stagg Bowl is. Thats pretty sad when you have a 4 time National Champ just an hour away. If you want to dumb down D3 athletics even more, make it truly just an amateur undertaking, make it completely uninteresting to even watch, make it non-competitive and even more irrelevant than it already is, then you might as well drop your programs and make them all club sports. D3 teams are already the smallest player on the field, but making them even smaller? The heck with that I say! Why waste your time? High school teams get their kids to practice in some form year-round to get better. What kid that expects to win by puttting in the hard work would go to the school that limits everything they do and is clearly trying to be a step DOWN from HS? Not this kid. That would really cut down a lot of kids enthusiasm to play in college. If you don't get a scholarship offer to play for a real team, the last chance D3 would SUCK. Ya, no thanks. I'll drink beer and chase girls, even more than I did as an athlete.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 06, 2012, 02:19:53 PM
Quote from: warhawkguard on January 06, 2012, 01:58:01 PM
Oh, I'm not offended at all. I just feel that football is a sport of warriors. As long as you keep score you might as well try to win. The idea that you point to in making a D4 a totally different type of game altogether makes that whole idea of even bothering to play seem futile. If you don't want to be good, or care if anybody is better than you at the sport, don't do it. Stick to club sports like flag football, rugby, field hockey, and soccer. Its just an intramural pastime in the end.

Lets all be honest here - D3 is practically a joke when you look at the sports and their little teams and compare them to D1 athletics. Head to head D3 would generally get annihilated,even worse than FCS teams when they play somebody like the Badgers. The general population really doesn't care about small time sports, just the students, alumni, and parents. If I ask 1000 Wisconsin people what team plays for UW-Whitewater, I bet 80% couldn't tell me. 99.9% have no idea what the Stagg Bowl is. Thats pretty sad when you have a 4 time National Champ just an hour away. If you want to dumb down D3 athletics even more, make it truly just an amateur undertaking, make it completely uninteresting to even watch, make it non-competitive and even more irrelevant than it already is, then you might as well drop your programs and make them all club sports. D3 teams are already the smallest player on the field, but making them even smaller? The heck with that I say! Why waste your time? High school teams get their kids to practice in some form year-round to get better. What kid that expects to win by puttting in the hard work would go to the school that limits everything they do and is clearly trying to be a step DOWN from HS? Not this kid. That would really cut down a lot of kids enthusiasm to play in college. If you don't get a scholarship offer to play for a real team, the last chance D3 would SUCK. Ya, no thanks. I'll drink beer and chase girls, even more than I did as an athlete.

D3 exists because schools couldn't and didn't want to play with D1. It offered a different type of athlete a chance to compete and win even if they weren't scholarship type athletes. From the players point of view, there is nothing "pretty much a joke" about the time and effort they put in. It's just a very balanced effort in regards to the time and effort they are expected to put into other things, like schoolwork.

I had a bunch of friends that played D3 athletics in college and still had time to work on the student paper, be in the investment society, or belong to social clubs. Their college experience wasn't defined by being an athlete, but the opportunity to be a collegiate athlete helped enhance their college experience.

D3 sports isn't for the spectators, though I happen to think that engaging spectators would be good for the sport and the colleges, it is for the athletes. And if there are schools/athletes that can't/won't compete the way D3 is currently set up, there is a viable reason to find a place where they do feel like they can compete.

D3 may be the smallest kids in the playground, but there are way more of those kids than there are the biggest kids around. D3 is 40+% of the NCAA membership by school count, and I believe it is even higher by percentage of total athletes. D3 is a massive universe, and there is room in the NCAA, if the schools desire, to create another division that would allow those D3 schools that want to focus more highly on athletics to do so, while other schools would be more interested in fitting athletics more tightly into budgeting and the overall college experience.

I don't see the big deal, but I wouldn't go walking around telling D3 athletes they are practically a joke in regards to anyone. Someone is liable to get very rightly offended especially when they elect to work very hard to play "last chance D3".
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: warhawkguard on January 06, 2012, 04:22:51 PM
Don't forget that I too was a D3 athlete and was proud to have been able to play a sport while attending college. My point is that the average Joe doesn't know they even exist. D3 sports get virtually no media coverage, little to no spectators, and no real respect compared to the big boys. Most comments are in the realm of oh, you didn't play REAL football. D3 is perceived as a joke by the common person that likes sports. Having the Purple Powers get some national media attention has been VERY good for the D3 scene as when I mention anything about Whitewater strangers seem to now know SOMETHING where there was nothing before. Perhaps some like the idea of playing for an obscure little team at some little school and have a little hobby like football.Thats nice for them. Not for me.

As an athlete, I was certainly much more enthusiastic when we played for a full house. People paid attention and it felt good. I hated the games we had when the place was empty. I applaud the schools that give a hoot about the show. A nice stadium, doesn't need to be 50,000 seats, but it better not be an old rickety pile of crap either. A good team and good atmosphere makes one a bit more proud of their chosen school. How can anyone say that is a bad thing? If one school chooses not to do that and gets some super duper scholar professor, well, thats very nice. Faculty are important. How does that help the alumni once they have graduated and moved on? This discussion is about D3 athletics, and the effect the Purple Powers have had on the sport. I say they have been great for the sport. Each school out there can toot its own horn about the great academic programs they offer, certainly none of them would say, yeah, our programs suck, but come here anyways. These are businesses above all. Make a profit or close down.

If many lament the fact that some schools in D3 try to make themselves appear to be a more rounded place to go with lots to do besides sit in the library and watch the debate team, well, thats their choice.

If anything, I think it is obvious that some schools would be better off if they focused on a few sports and didn't try to offer one of each. How many dropped football over the years? It isn't necessary to have that program to be a great school, look at Marquette here by me. Good roundball program at least. The 1000 kid schools will always struggle against the bigger, better financed schools. However, if they had some great Cross Country and Soccer programs, those are cheap and easy to be competitive in with some good coaches in the house.

The NCAA isn't like High School where you are grouped by enrollment. Even there you have the Have's verses the Have Not's.

I'm not trying to slam D3 sports, but some schools put on teams in a variety of sports that certainly seem to be a step down from what many kids had in HS.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 06, 2012, 05:31:28 PM
I disagree with that last statement. Almost all HS programs are many steps below the typical D3 program. Plenty of times HS athletes come into a middling D-3 program and realize that you have to work hard at this stuff.

Now sure, someone coming from a powerhouse HS program that goes to school at Kenyon may find it a bit less strenuous. But what about the typical kid at a typical school? Not so much.

And I think that schools NEED football to attract male students. That's why very few are dropping and more are adding. And that's great for D-3 as a whole. Let's ENCOURAGE football, not shun it by saying schools should drop it.

The average Joe doesn't enter into this. Don't worry about them - brush them off as ignorant or point to guys like Fred Jackson or Pete Metzelaars.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 06, 2012, 06:35:22 PM
Quote from: warhawkguard on January 06, 2012, 04:22:51 PM
Don't forget that I too was a D3 athlete and was proud to have been able to play a sport while attending college. My point is that the average Joe doesn't know they even exist. D3 sports get virtually no media coverage, little to no spectators, and no real respect compared to the big boys. Most comments are in the realm of oh, you didn't play REAL football. D3 is perceived as a joke by the common person that likes sports. Having the Purple Powers get some national media attention has been VERY good for the D3 scene as when I mention anything about Whitewater strangers seem to now know SOMETHING where there was nothing before. Perhaps some like the idea of playing for an obscure little team at some little school and have a little hobby like football.Thats nice for them. Not for me.

As an athlete, I was certainly much more enthusiastic when we played for a full house. People paid attention and it felt good. I hated the games we had when the place was empty. I applaud the schools that give a hoot about the show. A nice stadium, doesn't need to be 50,000 seats, but it better not be an old rickety pile of crap either. A good team and good atmosphere makes one a bit more proud of their chosen school. How can anyone say that is a bad thing? If one school chooses not to do that and gets some super duper scholar professor, well, thats very nice. Faculty are important. How does that help the alumni once they have graduated and moved on? This discussion is about D3 athletics, and the effect the Purple Powers have had on the sport. I say they have been great for the sport. Each school out there can toot its own horn about the great academic programs they offer, certainly none of them would say, yeah, our programs suck, but come here anyways. These are businesses above all. Make a profit or close down.

If many lament the fact that some schools in D3 try to make themselves appear to be a more rounded place to go with lots to do besides sit in the library and watch the debate team, well, thats their choice.

If anything, I think it is obvious that some schools would be better off if they focused on a few sports and didn't try to offer one of each. How many dropped football over the years? It isn't necessary to have that program to be a great school, look at Marquette here by me. Good roundball program at least. The 1000 kid schools will always struggle against the bigger, better financed schools. However, if they had some great Cross Country and Soccer programs, those are cheap and easy to be competitive in with some good coaches in the house.

The NCAA isn't like High School where you are grouped by enrollment. Even there you have the Have's verses the Have Not's.

I'm not trying to slam D3 sports, but some schools put on teams in a variety of sports that certainly seem to be a step down from what many kids had in HS.

This is a tough one for me. The Purple Powers have what little national media attention they get because they play in the Stagg. If more variety played in the Stagg, more teams would have that exposure, it would be better for D3. To be honest, I think Coe is getting the most bang for its buck right now nationally with Fred Jackson.

As for having better faculty, the better your school is, the more your diploma is worth. Most alumni get a lot more out of a school improving academically and gaining a national reputation for learning than they ever will for a D3 football team.

Finally, the schools aren't businesses. They are non-profits. They aren't allowed to make a profit. For profit schools are a different animal altogether, but I don't think there are many in D3 and I can't think of one of the top of my head.

The NCAA is like high school, except its more flexible. Instead of being forced to compete with your "size", you get to compete with the level you feel comfortable. Want to be big time? Play D1. Want to offer athletics to complement your students growth and potential? Well, D3 is a good option. Want to offer scholarships to entice athletes but not spend the big bucks? Try D2.

If the NCAA were really like high school, UWW WOULD be playing D1 or D2, along with the rest of the WIAC and parts of the NJAC and others. D1 and D2 are the traditional homes of the non-flagship state institutions, they represent a very small percentage of D3 schools.

I've said multiple times I don't advocate moving UWW or UMU or anyone else who plays by D3 rules, but you have to make arguments that work with the actual facts. D3 is a universe of teams with, essentially, small-time athletic programs that complement the schools and help draw in students. That is the purpose of D3. If you have a different purpose in mind, you are in the wrong division.

My argument for D4 is simply that there are diverging views on how athletics should be handled in D3 these days. There are plenty of teams in D3 for a split, and should the option of D4 emerge there are probably good reasons for it depending on how it is structured.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: HScoach on January 06, 2012, 07:33:33 PM
^ unfortunately I have to agree with the statement about SOME colleges.  Back in the late 90's or early 00's (I can't remember exactly which year) I had a kid that didn't start at OT until his senior year at our medium sized high school (Div 3 out of 6 in Ohio) that finished 4-6.  However he went to Hiram and was a 4 year starter on their O-line. 

I realize Hiram isn't a juggernaut, but seriously.  How can a kid that barely cracked the starting lineup at an average HS be an instant starter in college.  There are a few college programs in Ohio such as Wilmington, Hiram and Oberlin that I firmly believe would lose to some of the better Ohio HS teams.    Don't know about in other states as I only see playoff teams from outside the OAC, but I'd have to imagine they exist elsewhere too.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 06, 2012, 09:14:15 PM
Quote from: warhawkguard on January 06, 2012, 04:22:51 PMIf anything, I think it is obvious that some schools would be better off if they focused on a few sports and didn't try to offer one of each.

That's not how D3 works. In fact, it's the opposite of how D3 works. This is the division that has the highest requirement in terms of the mandatory minimum of sports offered within all of small-college sports -- some combination that adds up to 12 sports will now be required of D3 coed schools. If you want to tailor your athletic department around a few select sports in which you think you can compete, you don't join D3. You join the NAIA or the USCAA or the NCCAA, none of which has a mandatory minimum. Or you go to D2, which has a mandatory minimum of 10 sports.

D3 is also the level that has the highest student participation rate. The percentage of students on campus that are varsity athletes is far, far higher on the D3 level than it is at D2 or D1. In part that's because most D3 schools are much smaller than the schools at the scholarship levels, but it's also in part because sports are considered to be enrollment drivers by D3 administrators. As smeds said, D3 schools are adding football, not dropping the sport, in large part because it brings male students on campus in an era in which colleges and universities are growing ever more feminized in terms of their male:female ratios.

It's not at all obvious that "some schools would be better off if they focused on a few sports and didn't try to offer one of each." That's not the D3 ethos at all.

Quote from: warhawkguard on January 06, 2012, 04:22:51 PMHow many dropped football over the years?

Again, as smeds said, on balance D3 schools are adding football right now rather than dropping football, primarily for male-enrollment purposes but also because there is frequently sufficient demand within various collegiate constituencies (faculty excepted ;)) to add football as a quality-of-campus-life issue.

Quote from: warhawkguard on January 06, 2012, 04:22:51 PMIt isn't necessary to have that program to be a great school, look at Marquette here by me. Good roundball program at least. The 1000 kid schools will always struggle against the bigger, better financed schools. However, if they had some great Cross Country and Soccer programs, those are cheap and easy to be competitive in with some good coaches in the house.

I heartily disagree with the implication that it's easier to build a national powerhouse in cross-country or soccer than it is in football. As has been demonstrated in this thread, those sports have serious logjams at the top within D3 as well, just like football. It's almost always the same cast of characters; in D3 men's cross-country, you can see here how North Central has completely dominated the sport (http://www.ncaa.com/history/cross-country-men/d3), with major long-term national success by the likes of Calvin, UW-Oshkosh, UW-LaCrosse, and Williams (and now good short-term success by Haverford, as well). In men's soccer, Messiah is the 400-pound gorilla (http://www.ncaa.com/history/soccer-men/d3), but you know that every year the topmost tier will include some combination of Ohio Wesleyan, Trinity (TX), Calvin, St. Lawrence, and Stevens.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 06, 2012, 09:58:50 PM
Quote from: HScoach on January 06, 2012, 07:33:33 PM
^ unfortunately I have to agree with the statement about SOME colleges.  Back in the late 90's or early 00's (I can't remember exactly which year) I had a kid that didn't start at OT until his senior year at our medium sized high school (Div 3 out of 6 in Ohio) that finished 4-6.  However he went to Hiram and was a 4 year starter on their O-line. 

I realize Hiram isn't a juggernaut, but seriously.  How can a kid that barely cracked the starting lineup at an average HS be an instant starter in college.  There are a few college programs in Ohio such as Wilmington, Hiram and Oberlin that I firmly believe would lose to some of the better Ohio HS teams.    Don't know about in other states as I only see playoff teams from outside the OAC, but I'd have to imagine they exist elsewhere too.

A. Not Oberlin, not now. You haven't been paying attention to the recent bunch of Yeomen.

B. Sometimes kids get better as they mature. You should know that. Wabash has players that weren't three-year starters in HS that make it four-year starters in college. That kids' experience at Hiram may be solely attributable to his particular circumstance at that particular time. Without lots of data, you can't draw ANY conclusions.

C. I am sure that loaded HS programs where many of the kids get D-1 scholarships may compete well with the lower level D-3. But again, the TYPICAL HS program is miles below the TYPICAL D-3 program.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: D O.C. on January 07, 2012, 12:50:10 AM
Quote
As an athlete, I was certainly much more enthusiastic when we played for a full house. People paid attention and it felt good. I hated the games we had when the place was empty.

How about focus on the guy in front of you or make sure every thing is executed as practiced? How about focusing on the teammates? Enthusiasm comes from within by doing the very best you can. IMHO
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on January 07, 2012, 08:55:05 AM
Quote from: HScoach on January 06, 2012, 07:33:33 PM
^ unfortunately I have to agree with the statement about SOME colleges.  Back in the late 90's or early 00's (I can't remember exactly which year) I had a kid that didn't start at OT until his senior year at our medium sized high school (Div 3 out of 6 in Ohio) that finished 4-6.  However he went to Hiram and was a 4 year starter on their O-line. 

I realize Hiram isn't a juggernaut, but seriously.  How can a kid that barely cracked the starting lineup at an average HS be an instant starter in college.  There are a few college programs in Ohio such as Wilmington, Hiram and Oberlin that I firmly believe would lose to some of the better Ohio HS teams.    Don't know about in other states as I only see playoff teams from outside the OAC, but I'd have to imagine they exist elsewhere too.

Funny you bring something like this up.  At the high school I coach at we had a kid who ended up being a 2nd string linebacker when he was a senior and got some average playing time.  I coach a top 20-50 program in Massachusetts (top 10 this year!) which would probably be a 200-500 program in Ohio I would assume.  Anyway, after he graduates he comes back to one of our HS games with some warmups of an ECFC team and tells us (the coaching staff) that he is starting there.  We kind of had the feeling that he was trying to tell us that we didn't know what we were doing not starting him in HS when he can start in college.  Anyway we didn't really want to get into it with him there and did some research and found out that although he didn't start (it looked like he was 3rd string) he was getting some playing time.

And another interesting thing smed brings up and I'm interested to hear if you have had a similar experience.  I can think of 2 instances in my 10 years of coaching where a linemen as a sophmore can be one of the worst athletes a human being can see, but then transforms himself into a decent lineman as a senior.  Maybe not d3 football good, but decent.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: HScoach on January 07, 2012, 01:34:42 PM
Over time, yes, the kids can definitely change.  But to start the opener his freshman year at college speaks volumes.

And I retract Oberlin.  Wilma and Hiram still apply now.  Oberlin did then.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: HScoach on January 07, 2012, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 06, 2012, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: warhawkguard on January 06, 2012, 04:22:51 PMHow many dropped football over the years?

Again, as smeds said, on balance D3 schools are adding football right now rather than dropping football, primarily for male-enrollment purposes but also because there is frequently sufficient demand within various collegiate constituencies (faculty excepted ;)) to add football as a quality-of-campus-life issue.



On the subject of adding or cutting football programs, I offer the recent article from AFCA:



Mind That Your Football Program Matters
Mike Podoll, Associate Publisher/Editor-In-Chief – This is AFCA


When Larry Kehres led the University of Mount Union to the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl victory in 1993, which gave the Raiders their first NCAA Division III National Championship in front of a nationally televised audience, the game's color commentator made a rousing statement as the final seconds ticked off the clock, emphatically stating, "And the tiny school in Alliance, Ohio, with an enrollment of 1,000 students ... has just won the national championship!"
Eighteen years later, with more than 300 gridiron victories and 10 national championships under Kehres' belt, the school in Alliance, Ohio, isn't exactly tiny these days. Today, enrollment hovers around 2,200 students, which is a 220% rise in school numbers since Kehres' football program first put its stamp on the national college football landscape.

Looking at college tuition and expenses data for Mount Union as published by the CollegeData.com (the site is run by 1st Financial Bank USA), the difference between 2011 school enrollment numbers of 2,200 as compared to the 1,000-student enrollment in 1993, represents a difference of approximately $42 million more in total gross revenue. Furthermore, those numbers are strictly enrollment related and tied to student tuition and expenses. They do not factor in revenue generated by the football program or financial help the school receives from alumni and boosters. In other words, Mount Union's success is a big deal in every sense of the word.

It's impossible to quantify just what sort of impact that Mount Union's success on the football field – and the national exposure it derives from being an annual college football powerhouse – has had on school enrollment. Or whether there is a tangible correlation between winning football championships and the growth in student numbers. In fact, it would be completely unscientific and inaccurate to attach a "cause-and-effect label" on Mount Union's football success as tied to growth in school enrollment.

But that being said, winning championships, running a clean program, playing games on ESPN, building a rabid Raider fan-base in football hungry Ohio, having former Mount Union players become big-names in the NFL (think Pierre Garcon in 2010 Super Bowl) and earning national notoriety in college football year-in and year out, can't hurt school enrollment numbers, right?

DIDN'T HURT
Kehres, who's also Mount Union's athletic director and a 9-time AFCA Coach of the Year award winner, as being a former AFCA President (who completed his term in 2010), deflects personal credit for the growth in school enrollment and dismisses any insinuated correlation as doing the school administration and school's marketing efforts to recruit new students a severe disservice.
"Mount Union has worked hard to grow the school on its own. We've added new academic programs, built new facilities and raised lots of money," says Kehres. "Just because we won some football championships is not the reason we've done that ... but it certainly didn't hurt."
Rather than a recruiting tool, PR machine or a revenue generator, the true role of a football program, according to Kehres, is to serve as a reflection of the school's big-picture mission statement for educating and preparing students for future success in life, and to cultivate positive, productive members of society.

"If your football program is helping student-athletes to become effective professionals and effective family members, then you are helping your institution achieve its mission," says Kehres. "The degrees to which an institution can demonstrate that it is achieving its mission, offers proof to potential students that the school is a good place to receive an education and that's when the school's enrollment numbers truly begin to rise. As a football program, we're simply a component part of the big picture of the academic institution and we need to remember that."

BE IN LOCK STEP
Kehres adds that football coaches must get in line with the mission and values of their institution. "My job as the athletic director and football coach is to contribute positively to my school's mission statement," he says. "Winning games is one way to do it. But if you're winning games, yet not producing successful graduates, then you're not really contributing to the mission statement of your institution. Whenever you hear of a big-time football program that gets into some sort of trouble, you invariably hear someone say that the program needs to get back into line with the guidelines of the institution."

So then what happens if a football program perfectly mirrors the mission statement of the school and continuously displays a high standard of excellence on the gridiron? Things like Mount Union happen. And that, my friends, is called a win-win scenario.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on January 09, 2012, 01:32:45 PM
By the way, I'm not so sure this discussion doesn't mirror the political divide we have in this country. "You're making too much money- something must be changed". 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gomer Pyle on January 09, 2012, 03:03:40 PM
Not all are created equally. Never will be.   The strength of the program pulls in the better players.  That being said, either the schools program improves or their motto is ," wait till next year" and for some, that never happens.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 09, 2012, 03:44:48 PM
just got back from Dallas and the FCS championship game.  There were a lot of positive things happening for NDSU, before during and after the game.  Back in their d2 days they would get 1500 to go to Alabama to watch the title game.  Now, they're selling out 20,000 seat stadiums 1000 miles from Fargo.  How could you not a want a piece of that success if you're UWW?  What if they take it one step further like Boise did? 

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 09, 2012, 04:15:02 PM
The cost of becoming D-1AA in all sports way outweighs the benefit.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 09, 2012, 04:18:40 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 09, 2012, 04:15:02 PM
The cost of becoming D-1AA in all sports way outweighs the benefit.
"i couldn't disagree more", says the Dakota schools.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 09, 2012, 05:05:53 PM
The Dakota schools are not congruent to the Wisconsin - Whitewater situation. The Dakota schools didn't move from non-scholarship to scholarship. The Dakota schools also did this for basketball, it seems, since they all wanted a piece of the NCAA D-1 hoops tournament at some point.

UW- W would have to totally blow up the mindset now at UWW, raise scholarship monies for all programs, break their current schedule contracts, ruin bonds and rivalries with other UW - branch schools and probably a bunch of bridges in state government.

It's not feasible, nor practical, nor ever ever going to happen.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 09, 2012, 05:15:34 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 09, 2012, 05:05:53 PM
The Dakota schools are not congruent to the Wisconsin - Whitewater situation. The Dakota schools didn't move from non-scholarship to scholarship. The Dakota schools also did this for basketball, it seems, since they all wanted a piece of the NCAA D-1 hoops tournament at some point.

UW- W would have to totally blow up the mindset now at UWW, raise scholarship monies for all programs, break their current schedule contracts, ruin bonds and rivalries with other UW - branch schools and probably a bunch of bridges in state government.

It's not feasible, nor practical, nor ever ever going to happen.
NDSU blew up their rivalry with UND and fought off the state legislature in their move.  As for the money required, It is a shame you can't move up in football without having to pay for a bunch of other non-revenue scholarships, but we'd much rather be politically correct.  It is a pretty significant jump from DII to D-1, I would be curious as to what Whitewater might have to raise to make the jump from D3-d-1.  I'd imagine their budget is one of the bigger ones in D3 to begin with.  They might be forced to do what Nebraska-Omaha did, and jettison some male sports along the way so that they can pay for the transition and still comply with title IX.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 09, 2012, 07:45:20 PM
You'd be taking opportunities from almost every sport to do what you want to do, male and female. The athletics world should not, and does not (for sane programs) revolve around football.

Aside from football, what was the cost to the other sports?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on January 09, 2012, 10:17:55 PM
"The athletics world should not, and does not (for sane programs) revolve around football."

Smedindy i agree with you, i never thought those folk in tuscaloosa were sane. That whole side of the state seems to have a pretty tight gene pool. And what i am watching on tv right now sure don't seem sane.

keep the faith
Go Hawks
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on January 10, 2012, 09:33:33 AM
Quote from: smedindy on January 09, 2012, 05:05:53 PM
The Dakota schools are not congruent to the Wisconsin - Whitewater situation. The Dakota schools didn't move from non-scholarship to scholarship. The Dakota schools also did this for basketball, it seems, since they all wanted a piece of the NCAA D-1 hoops tournament at some point.

UW- W would have to totally blow up the mindset now at UWW, raise scholarship monies for all programs, break their current schedule contracts, ruin bonds and rivalries with other UW - branch schools and probably a bunch of bridges in state government.

It's not feasible, nor practical, nor ever ever going to happen.


But yet people keeping purposing it   ::)   ::)    ::)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on January 10, 2012, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on January 10, 2012, 09:33:33 AM
Quote from: smedindy on January 09, 2012, 05:05:53 PM
The Dakota schools are not congruent to the Wisconsin - Whitewater situation. The Dakota schools didn't move from non-scholarship to scholarship. The Dakota schools also did this for basketball, it seems, since they all wanted a piece of the NCAA D-1 hoops tournament at some point.

UW- W would have to totally blow up the mindset now at UWW, raise scholarship monies for all programs, break their current schedule contracts, ruin bonds and rivalries with other UW - branch schools and probably a bunch of bridges in state government.

It's not feasible, nor practical, nor ever ever going to happen.


But yet people keeping purposing it   ::)   ::)    ::)

They could do it.  Albany and Buffalo did it in New York.  You can't say it is impossible.

But when you do something like that you change the whole ethos of the school.  If I went to UWW, I'd probably want it to stay like it is. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: frank uible on January 10, 2012, 11:36:26 AM
It depends whether the institution believes that its athletics should be primarily for the recreation of its students or for propagation of its wealth and/or renown.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 11:55:26 AM
The last chancellor at Stevens Point proposed it and it went absolutely nowhere.  Even if we could independently raise the money it would take an act of the legislature for it to happen and it would have to be a league wide change.  As a public school UW-WHITEWATER isn't going anywhere by itself. 

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft3.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSWw6l4Lujuc7fjjPF5kb_7up8TVFQRCHHAX5-ROZRjF-MntrETeA&hash=8b4e69b599dac6ed11faa0119e66839b73a4522c)
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 11:55:26 AM
The last chancellor at Stevens Point proposed it and it went absolutely nowhere.  Even if we could independently raise the money it would take an act of the legislature for it to happen and it would have to be a league wide change.  As a public school UW-WHITEWATER isn't going anywhere by itself. 

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft3.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSWw6l4Lujuc7fjjPF5kb_7up8TVFQRCHHAX5-ROZRjF-MntrETeA&hash=8b4e69b599dac6ed11faa0119e66839b73a4522c)
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Knightstalker on January 10, 2012, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 11:55:26 AM
The last chancellor at Stevens Point proposed it and it went absolutely nowhere.  Even if we could independently raise the money it would take an act of the legislature for it to happen and it would have to be a league wide change.  As a public school UW-WHITEWATER isn't going anywhere by itself. 

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft3.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSWw6l4Lujuc7fjjPF5kb_7up8TVFQRCHHAX5-ROZRjF-MntrETeA&hash=8b4e69b599dac6ed11faa0119e66839b73a4522c)
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers.

You can't confuse some people with facts when their mind is made up.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 10, 2012, 12:29:48 PM
UW-GB and UW-Milwaukee don't play football, and I believe they've been D-1 for a long time.

And I don't think you get to dictate what the best interest for UW-W, the WIAC or the student athletes involved are.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on January 10, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers.

What makes you so certain that it is in Whitewater's best interest to do so?

Even if we assume that there are enough scholarship-quality players for UW-Whitewater to compete at the Division I level, there's a lot more at stake here than just the competitive success of the football team.

As badgerwarhawk just said, UWW is a public university.  You make it sound so simple - just convince the legislators to let one of the state-run universities to go off and do its own thing.  To make it sound that simple suggests that you really don't grasp exactly how public universities work, but let's play along for a moment.

Even if it were that simple, and UWW had official approval to do what it wanted, there would be the complicated matter of funding a Division I sports program.  Remember, the vast majority of Division I athletics programs LOSE money (in some cases, quite a bit of it).  Most of them lose millions a year on the football program.  Where are these millions going to come from to support a full-scholarship program at Whitewater?  Do you really think that thousands of alums are going to come streaming out of the woodwork and donate thousands of their hard-earned dollars?  Some might, to be sure, but how many realistically can afford a significant donation?  How many millionaire alums of UWW are there?  How many of those millionaries will decide to pony up a big donation to support a guaranteed money-loser just for the sake of school pride?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on January 10, 2012, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 10, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers.

What makes you so certain that it is in Whitewater's best interest to do so?

Even if we assume that there are enough scholarship-quality players for UW-Whitewater to compete at the Division I level, there's a lot more at stake here than just the competitive success of the football team.

As badgerwarhawk just said, UWW is a public university.  You make it sound so simple - just convince the legislators to let one of the state-run universities to go off and do its own thing.  To make it sound that simple suggests that you really don't grasp exactly how public universities work, but let's play along for a moment.

Even if it were that simple, and UWW had official approval to do what it wanted, there would be the complicated matter of funding a Division I sports program.  Remember, the vast majority of Division I athletics programs LOSE money (in some cases, quite a bit of it).  Most of them lose millions a year on the football program.  Where are these millions going to come from to support a full-scholarship program at Whitewater?  Do you really think that thousands of alums are going to come streaming out of the woodwork and donate thousands of their hard-earned dollars?  Some might, to be sure, but how many realistically can afford a significant donation?  How many millionaire alums of UWW are there?  How many of those millionaries will decide to pony up a big donation to support a guaranteed money-loser just for the sake of school pride?

This reminds me of the whole Nescac issue.  So many people complain about the nescac schools and what they can or should do.  Sure, the nescac could join the rest of d3, but they don't, and they don't want to.

The UWW situation is the same.  If they wanted to go 1-AA, they could.  They don't, so they don't.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.   

The funny thing about that is that the administration and athletic department have already determined that it is not in our best interests to participate at a scholarship level.   Our best interests are served by participating in D3.  What you and some others in this topic seem to feel is that it is in the rest of D3's best interests if we move to a scholarship level. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 10, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 10, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers.

What makes you so certain that it is in Whitewater's best interest to do so?

Even if we assume that there are enough scholarship-quality players for UW-Whitewater to compete at the Division I level, there's a lot more at stake here than just the competitive success of the football team.

As badgerwarhawk just said, UWW is a public university.  You make it sound so simple - just convince the legislators to let one of the state-run universities to go off and do its own thing.  To make it sound that simple suggests that you really don't grasp exactly how public universities work, but let's play along for a moment.

Even if it were that simple, and UWW had official approval to do what it wanted, there would be the complicated matter of funding a Division I sports program.  Remember, the vast majority of Division I athletics programs LOSE money (in some cases, quite a bit of it).  Most of them lose millions a year on the football program.  Where are these millions going to come from to support a full-scholarship program at Whitewater?  Do you really think that thousands of alums are going to come streaming out of the woodwork and donate thousands of their hard-earned dollars?  Some might, to be sure, but how many realistically can afford a significant donation?  How many millionaire alums of UWW are there?  How many of those millionaries will decide to pony up a big donation to support a guaranteed money-loser just for the sake of school pride?
I'm not certain that they would want to move to D-1.  I'm just advocating that they should be able to.  As long as we're convincing legislators to make some changes, maybe we could convince the feds to get rid of title IX and the NCAA to allow Whitewater to move only it's football team to D-1 (obviously scholarship football players wouldn't also be able to play in the d3 sports).  You also seem to conveniently ignore the guaranteed money-loser position that whitewater athletics is currently in.  Even if they had to fund a bunch of scholarships for non-revenue programs, they might find ways to lose less money than they are currently.  D3 is not the only financially responsible division for public universities.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:14:08 PM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 10, 2012, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 10, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers.

What makes you so certain that it is in Whitewater's best interest to do so?

Even if we assume that there are enough scholarship-quality players for UW-Whitewater to compete at the Division I level, there's a lot more at stake here than just the competitive success of the football team.

As badgerwarhawk just said, UWW is a public university.  You make it sound so simple - just convince the legislators to let one of the state-run universities to go off and do its own thing.  To make it sound that simple suggests that you really don't grasp exactly how public universities work, but let's play along for a moment.

Even if it were that simple, and UWW had official approval to do what it wanted, there would be the complicated matter of funding a Division I sports program.  Remember, the vast majority of Division I athletics programs LOSE money (in some cases, quite a bit of it).  Most of them lose millions a year on the football program.  Where are these millions going to come from to support a full-scholarship program at Whitewater?  Do you really think that thousands of alums are going to come streaming out of the woodwork and donate thousands of their hard-earned dollars?  Some might, to be sure, but how many realistically can afford a significant donation?  How many millionaire alums of UWW are there?  How many of those millionaries will decide to pony up a big donation to support a guaranteed money-loser just for the sake of school pride?

This reminds me of the whole Nescac issue.  So many people complain about the nescac schools and what they can or should do.  Sure, the nescac could join the rest of d3, but they don't, and they don't want to.

The UWW situation is the same.  If they wanted to go 1-AA, they could.  They don't, so they don't.

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi395.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp31%2FYanglow%2FGif%2Ffacepalm.gif%3Ft%3D1318346166&hash=162a644e394a1cd8154af3ab3f55994fae4f472e)

Did you even read what badgerwarhawk just posted before you posted this?

Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 11:55:26 AM
The last chancellor at Stevens Point proposed it and it went absolutely nowhere.  Even if we could independently raise the money it would take an act of the legislature for it to happen and it would have to be a league wide change.  As a public school UW-WHITEWATER [and the rest of the WIAC] isn't going anywhere by itself. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 10, 2012, 01:16:42 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.   

The funny thing about that is that the administration and athletic department have already determined that it is not in our best interests to participate at a scholarship level.   Our best interests are served by participating in D3.  What you and some others in this topic seem to feel is that it is in the rest of D3's best interests if we move to a scholarship level.
they might feel differently if the rules were different.  It is certainly in D3's best interest to keep a strong program like Whitewater around, but I feel the school and student-athletes would benefit more from playing better competition for more money and exposure. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:24:31 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 01:16:42 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.   

The funny thing about that is that the administration and athletic department have already determined that it is not in our best interests to participate at a scholarship level.   Our best interests are served by participating in D3.  What you and some others in this topic seem to feel is that it is in the rest of D3's best interests if we move to a scholarship level.
they might feel differently if the rules were different.  It is certainly in D3's best interest to keep a strong program like Whitewater around, but I feel the school and student-athletes would benefit more from playing better competition for more money and exposure.

Whitewater gets plenty of good competition in D3. Just ask Oshkosh, Stevens Point, NCC, Linfield, Mount Union...just to name a few.

Not every game Whitewater plays is a blow out. They still have to work very hard to succeed.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Jonny Utah on January 10, 2012, 01:43:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:14:08 PM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on January 10, 2012, 12:55:24 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 10, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers.

What makes you so certain that it is in Whitewater's best interest to do so?

Even if we assume that there are enough scholarship-quality players for UW-Whitewater to compete at the Division I level, there's a lot more at stake here than just the competitive success of the football team.

As badgerwarhawk just said, UWW is a public university.  You make it sound so simple - just convince the legislators to let one of the state-run universities to go off and do its own thing.  To make it sound that simple suggests that you really don't grasp exactly how public universities work, but let's play along for a moment.

Even if it were that simple, and UWW had official approval to do what it wanted, there would be the complicated matter of funding a Division I sports program.  Remember, the vast majority of Division I athletics programs LOSE money (in some cases, quite a bit of it).  Most of them lose millions a year on the football program.  Where are these millions going to come from to support a full-scholarship program at Whitewater?  Do you really think that thousands of alums are going to come streaming out of the woodwork and donate thousands of their hard-earned dollars?  Some might, to be sure, but how many realistically can afford a significant donation?  How many millionaire alums of UWW are there?  How many of those millionaries will decide to pony up a big donation to support a guaranteed money-loser just for the sake of school pride?

This reminds me of the whole Nescac issue.  So many people complain about the nescac schools and what they can or should do.  Sure, the nescac could join the rest of d3, but they don't, and they don't want to.

The UWW situation is the same.  If they wanted to go 1-AA, they could.  They don't, so they don't.

(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi395.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp31%2FYanglow%2FGif%2Ffacepalm.gif%3Ft%3D1318346166&hash=162a644e394a1cd8154af3ab3f55994fae4f472e)

Did you even read what badgerwarhawk just posted before you posted this?

Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 11:55:26 AM
The last chancellor at Stevens Point proposed it and it went absolutely nowhere.  Even if we could independently raise the money it would take an act of the legislature for it to happen and it would have to be a league wide change.  As a public school UW-WHITEWATER [and the rest of the WIAC] isn't going anywhere by itself. 

Right, obviously it isn't up to an individual state school to make such a large change.  It wouldn't have to be a league wide change though.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 10, 2012, 02:46:19 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 01:16:42 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.   

The funny thing about that is that the administration and athletic department have already determined that it is not in our best interests to participate at a scholarship level.   Our best interests are served by participating in D3.  What you and some others in this topic seem to feel is that it is in the rest of D3's best interests if we move to a scholarship level.
they might feel differently if the rules were different.  It is certainly in D3's best interest to keep a strong program like Whitewater around, but I feel the school and student-athletes would benefit more from playing better competition for more money and exposure.

More exposure? I don't see 1-AA games on ESPN until the playoffs, same as D-3.

The rules are in place so scholarship shenanigans don't happen. I feel what you're advocating could impact UW-W and the WIAC in a negative way.

Also, moving up classes could just as easily have adverse affects. Look at Florida A&M. They tried to go D-1A and ran back to D-1AA.

Morris Brown went bankrupt when they moved to D-1.

And when I spoke to folks at Birmingham Southern (when they were at Ave Maria) and they love being D-3 because it fits their entire athletics program. They had no idea why they even tried to compete in D-1.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 10, 2012, 03:02:25 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 10, 2012, 02:46:19 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 01:16:42 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.   

The funny thing about that is that the administration and athletic department have already determined that it is not in our best interests to participate at a scholarship level.   Our best interests are served by participating in D3.  What you and some others in this topic seem to feel is that it is in the rest of D3's best interests if we move to a scholarship level.
they might feel differently if the rules were different.  It is certainly in D3's best interest to keep a strong program like Whitewater around, but I feel the school and student-athletes would benefit more from playing better competition for more money and exposure.

More exposure? I don't see 1-AA games on ESPN until the playoffs, same as D-3.

The rules are in place so scholarship shenanigans don't happen. I feel what you're advocating could impact UW-W and the WIAC in a negative way.

Also, moving up classes could just as easily have adverse affects. Look at Florida A&M. They tried to go D-1A and ran back to D-1AA.

Morris Brown went bankrupt when they moved to D-1.

And when I spoke to folks at Birmingham Southern (when they were at Ave Maria) and they love being D-3 because it fits their entire athletics program. They had no idea why they even tried to compete in D-1.
Yes, more exposure.  FCS has multiple rounds on ESPN, and all playoff games are at least ESPN3.  Regular season games are also frequently televised and the games against BCS schools also obviously generate much more exposure than any d3 game.

Birmingham-Southern and Whitewater don't seem to me to be similarly situated.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 10, 2012, 04:02:32 PM
Except that the nascent BSU program is already of high-caliber and is sitting in as rich of a football area as Wisconsin, with a lot less competition for the athletes who may not be up to SEC play but want a top notch education along with an excellent football experience.

Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 10, 2012, 04:24:22 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 10, 2012, 04:02:32 PM
Except that the nascent BSU program is already of high-caliber and is sitting in as rich of a football area as Wisconsin, with a lot less competition for the athletes who may not be up to SEC play but want a top notch education along with an excellent football experience.
Maybe BSU would want to move their football program up in the future.  There certainly are a lot of small D-1 football teams in the area that seem to be pretty happy with their division.  If we're going to compare them to Whitewater now let's list the fcs-sized enrollment, stadium and attendance.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: HScoach on January 10, 2012, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.   

The funny thing about that is that the administration and athletic department have already determined that it is not in our best interests to participate at a scholarship level.   Our best interests are served by participating in D3.  What you and some others in this topic seem to feel is that it is in the rest of D3's best interests if we move to a scholarship level.

Warhawks fans:  Congrats! UWW has officially joined Mount Union at the pinnacle of D3.  As evidenced by effort people spend trying to move them out of D3 instead of trying to beat them.  We've been listening to these arguments since the late 1990's.  Glad someone else has joined the party.

What I find interesting on the whole D4 debate is that the last time it came up, Mount would have fallen in the lower category.  Not the higher.     Which probably isn't the case now with enrollment above 2,000 and the facilities that have been built in the last 10-15 years, but when it originally was discussed Mount would have moved down. 
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 10, 2012, 06:32:20 PM
I've seen very few people advocating that either UMU or UWW move to a different division. I have, however, seen a lot of posts by the same posters repeating it again and again. Such is the price of success I suppose!
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: emma17 on January 10, 2012, 06:34:46 PM
Quote from: HScoach on January 10, 2012, 05:23:31 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.   

The funny thing about that is that the administration and athletic department have already determined that it is not in our best interests to participate at a scholarship level.   Our best interests are served by participating in D3.  What you and some others in this topic seem to feel is that it is in the rest of D3's best interests if we move to a scholarship level.

Warhawks fans:  Congrats! UWW has officially joined Mount Union at the pinnacle of D3.  As evidenced by effort people spend trying to move them out of D3 instead of trying to beat them.  We've been listening to these arguments since the late 1990's.  Glad someone else has joined the party.

What I find interesting on the whole D4 debate is that the last time it came up, Mount would have fallen in the lower category.  Not the higher.     Which probably isn't the case now with enrollment above 2,000 and the facilities that have been built in the last 10-15 years, but when it originally was discussed Mount would have moved down.

HS you can have this part of the success back- please take it!!
I'm flabbergasted at the amount of posting dedicated to an idea that has 0 interest. 
UWW does not win the Stagg because they are a DI school in DIII clothing.  They don't win because their stadium is bigger or because they have a large enrollment or because their average grade point is lower or because they are a state school.  All of these perceived advantages existed long, long ago before the letters UWW were ever mentioned on the national football scene.

This whole notion that somehow what UWW is doing is bad for others in DIII is just preposterous because it assumes UWW is somehow guaranteed its current lofty football status.           
   
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: NCF on January 10, 2012, 07:44:42 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:24:31 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 01:16:42 PM
Quote from: badgerwarhawk on January 10, 2012, 01:08:00 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.   

The funny thing about that is that the administration and athletic department have already determined that it is not in our best interests to participate at a scholarship level.   Our best interests are served by participating in D3.  What you and some others in this topic seem to feel is that it is in the rest of D3's best interests if we move to a scholarship level.
they might feel differently if the rules were different.  It is certainly in D3's best interest to keep a strong program like Whitewater around, but I feel the school and student-athletes would benefit more from playing better competition for more money and exposure.

Whitewater gets plenty of good competition in D3. Just ask Oshkosh, Stevens Point, NCC, Linfield, Mount Union...just to name a few.

Not every game Whitewater plays is a blow out. They still have to work very hard to succeed.

Agreed. All of those teams have had their chances and one of these days one(or more) of them will succeed. I'm hoping next year is the one!  :D
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 10, 2012, 08:04:37 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 04:24:22 PM
Quote from: smedindy on January 10, 2012, 04:02:32 PM
Except that the nascent BSU program is already of high-caliber and is sitting in as rich of a football area as Wisconsin, with a lot less competition for the athletes who may not be up to SEC play but want a top notch education along with an excellent football experience.
Maybe BSU would want to move their football program up in the future.  There certainly are a lot of small D-1 football teams in the area that seem to be pretty happy with their division.  If we're going to compare them to Whitewater now let's list the fcs-sized enrollment, stadium and attendance.

You didn't read what I posted. BSU's athletics department and fans want nothing to do with D-1. They've been there, done that and they like where they are now.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on January 10, 2012, 08:49:42 PM
Smed- perhaps now, but the revolt at BSC when they went from D-1 to D-3 echoed through the entire state of alabama. They found by dropping D-1 and going to D-3 they added more sports and improved facilities, so the change has now softened, but we heard it for a year.
keep the faith
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 10, 2012, 09:14:52 PM
I spoke to the fans and parents of the football program when I saw them this year over in Ft. Myers. They were quite happy with their D-3 experience. And by adding opportunities, they did it for the right reasons.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Gregory Sager on January 11, 2012, 12:00:54 AM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 10, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers.

What makes you so certain that it is in Whitewater's best interest to do so?

Even if we assume that there are enough scholarship-quality players for UW-Whitewater to compete at the Division I level, there's a lot more at stake here than just the competitive success of the football team.

As badgerwarhawk just said, UWW is a public university.  You make it sound so simple - just convince the legislators to let one of the state-run universities to go off and do its own thing.  To make it sound that simple suggests that you really don't grasp exactly how public universities work, but let's play along for a moment.

Even if it were that simple, and UWW had official approval to do what it wanted, there would be the complicated matter of funding a Division I sports program.  Remember, the vast majority of Division I athletics programs LOSE money (in some cases, quite a bit of it).  Most of them lose millions a year on the football program.  Where are these millions going to come from to support a full-scholarship program at Whitewater?  Do you really think that thousands of alums are going to come streaming out of the woodwork and donate thousands of their hard-earned dollars?  Some might, to be sure, but how many realistically can afford a significant donation?  How many millionaire alums of UWW are there?  How many of those millionaries will decide to pony up a big donation to support a guaranteed money-loser just for the sake of school pride?
I'm not certain that they would want to move to D-1.  I'm just advocating that they should be able to.  As long as we're convincing legislators to make some changes, maybe we could convince the feds to get rid of title IX and the NCAA to allow Whitewater to move only it's football team to D-1 (obviously scholarship football players wouldn't also be able to play in the d3 sports).

OK, let's see if we can sort out all of the sweeping changes that you're proposing that various legislative bodies make. You're not only advocating that the Wisconsin state legislature change state law regarding the athletics status of its various UW branch campuses, you're also advocating that, in a completely separate maneuver, the NCAA rescind its unitary-athletics rule regarding divisional membership. And, finally, you're advocating that the U.S. Congress dispense with Title IX so that UW-Whitewater doesn't have to jettison its wrestling, men's tennis, and men's swimming teams in order to plow cash into what would then be a D1 football program. All of this just to feed your notion of how things should operate at a school that you don't attend, didn't attend, and don't root for. Anything else you want? A pony, perhaps? ::)

I agree with jknezek's rejoinder to HScoach:

Quote from: jknezek on January 10, 2012, 06:32:20 PM
I've seen very few people advocating that either UMU or UWW move to a different division. I have, however, seen a lot of posts by the same posters repeating it again and again.

Exactly right. It's the same one or two people saying the same thing over and over again, as if we didn't read it properly the first four times they said it.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 11, 2012, 12:47:45 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 11, 2012, 12:00:54 AM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 10, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers.

What makes you so certain that it is in Whitewater's best interest to do so?

Even if we assume that there are enough scholarship-quality players for UW-Whitewater to compete at the Division I level, there's a lot more at stake here than just the competitive success of the football team.

As badgerwarhawk just said, UWW is a public university.  You make it sound so simple - just convince the legislators to let one of the state-run universities to go off and do its own thing.  To make it sound that simple suggests that you really don't grasp exactly how public universities work, but let's play along for a moment.

Even if it were that simple, and UWW had official approval to do what it wanted, there would be the complicated matter of funding a Division I sports program.  Remember, the vast majority of Division I athletics programs LOSE money (in some cases, quite a bit of it).  Most of them lose millions a year on the football program.  Where are these millions going to come from to support a full-scholarship program at Whitewater?  Do you really think that thousands of alums are going to come streaming out of the woodwork and donate thousands of their hard-earned dollars?  Some might, to be sure, but how many realistically can afford a significant donation?  How many millionaire alums of UWW are there?  How many of those millionaries will decide to pony up a big donation to support a guaranteed money-loser just for the sake of school pride?
I'm not certain that they would want to move to D-1.  I'm just advocating that they should be able to.  As long as we're convincing legislators to make some changes, maybe we could convince the feds to get rid of title IX and the NCAA to allow Whitewater to move only it's football team to D-1 (obviously scholarship football players wouldn't also be able to play in the d3 sports).

OK, let's see if we can sort out all of the sweeping changes that you're proposing that various legislative bodies make. You're not only advocating that the Wisconsin state legislature change state law regarding the athletics status of its various UW branch campuses, you're also advocating that, in a completely separate maneuver, the NCAA rescind its unitary-athletics rule regarding divisional membership. And, finally, you're advocating that the U.S. Congress dispense with Title IX so that UW-Whitewater doesn't have to jettison its wrestling, men's tennis, and men's swimming teams in order to plow cash into what would then be a D1 football program. All of this just to feed your notion of how things should operate at a school that you don't attend, didn't attend, and don't root for. Anything else you want? A pony, perhaps? ::)
Yes.

If administrators would not be tempted to move football to d-1 if the hurdles were removed, why do we have the hurdles?   If my reforms were put into place, would the other WIAC football squads be terribly hurt, women's sports be cut and whitewater's other d3 teams be given an insurmountable advantage?  Is it possible that the other WIAC schools might even get stronger with more d3 recruits left to pick from?  Why would Whitewater cut the women's teams if they don't cost more than they do currently and you'd have additional football generated money to spend on better facilities?  The other d3 teams remaining in the department would surely benefit from the football money, but many d3's already gain a big advantage through their wildly differing endowments or donation levels.  Here in Minnesota, St. Cloud State's D1 hockey team generates a million a year in profit that the rest of the department can spend on their d2 athletics, but they were still recently considering cutting the football program and none of their other sports seems to be very dominant compared to the other d2 schools that don't have that money to spend.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Knightstalker on January 11, 2012, 08:05:28 AM
Quote from: AO on January 11, 2012, 12:47:45 AM
Quote from: Gregory Sager on January 11, 2012, 12:00:54 AM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 01:13:22 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 10, 2012, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: AO on January 10, 2012, 12:04:58 PM
So, elect or convince some legislators who will let Whitewater do things they feel is in their own best interest.  Does Green Bay and Milwaukee having D-1 schools hurt Oshkosh?  It seems to me there's a fairly significant amount of scholarship quality football players in the state of wisconsin that are forced to go elsewhere if they can't get an offer from the badgers.

What makes you so certain that it is in Whitewater's best interest to do so?

Even if we assume that there are enough scholarship-quality players for UW-Whitewater to compete at the Division I level, there's a lot more at stake here than just the competitive success of the football team.

As badgerwarhawk just said, UWW is a public university.  You make it sound so simple - just convince the legislators to let one of the state-run universities to go off and do its own thing.  To make it sound that simple suggests that you really don't grasp exactly how public universities work, but let's play along for a moment.

Even if it were that simple, and UWW had official approval to do what it wanted, there would be the complicated matter of funding a Division I sports program.  Remember, the vast majority of Division I athletics programs LOSE money (in some cases, quite a bit of it).  Most of them lose millions a year on the football program.  Where are these millions going to come from to support a full-scholarship program at Whitewater?  Do you really think that thousands of alums are going to come streaming out of the woodwork and donate thousands of their hard-earned dollars?  Some might, to be sure, but how many realistically can afford a significant donation?  How many millionaire alums of UWW are there?  How many of those millionaries will decide to pony up a big donation to support a guaranteed money-loser just for the sake of school pride?
I'm not certain that they would want to move to D-1.  I'm just advocating that they should be able to.  As long as we're convincing legislators to make some changes, maybe we could convince the feds to get rid of title IX and the NCAA to allow Whitewater to move only it's football team to D-1 (obviously scholarship football players wouldn't also be able to play in the d3 sports).

OK, let's see if we can sort out all of the sweeping changes that you're proposing that various legislative bodies make. You're not only advocating that the Wisconsin state legislature change state law regarding the athletics status of its various UW branch campuses, you're also advocating that, in a completely separate maneuver, the NCAA rescind its unitary-athletics rule regarding divisional membership. And, finally, you're advocating that the U.S. Congress dispense with Title IX so that UW-Whitewater doesn't have to jettison its wrestling, men's tennis, and men's swimming teams in order to plow cash into what would then be a D1 football program. All of this just to feed your notion of how things should operate at a school that you don't attend, didn't attend, and don't root for. Anything else you want? A pony, perhaps? ::)
Yes.

If administrators would not be tempted to move football to d-1 if the hurdles were removed, why do we have the hurdles?   If my reforms were put into place, would the other WIAC football squads be terribly hurt, women's sports be cut and whitewater's other d3 teams be given an insurmountable advantage?  Is it possible that the other WIAC schools might even get stronger with more d3 recruits left to pick from?  Why would Whitewater cut the women's teams if they don't cost more than they do currently and you'd have additional football generated money to spend on better facilities?  The other d3 teams remaining in the department would surely benefit from the football money, but many d3's already gain a big advantage through their wildly differing endowments or donation levels.  Here in Minnesota, St. Cloud State's D1 hockey team generates a million a year in profit that the rest of the department can spend on their d2 athletics, but they were still recently considering cutting the football program and none of their other sports seems to be very dominant compared to the other d2 schools that don't have that money to spend.

I think he really wants a pony.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on January 11, 2012, 08:32:08 AM
Quote from: AO on January 11, 2012, 12:47:45 AM
Why would Whitewater cut the women's teams if they don't cost more than they do currently and you'd have additional football generated money to spend on better facilities?...Here in Minnesota, St. Cloud State's D1 hockey team generates a million a year in profit that the rest of the department can spend on their d2 athletics...

Ahhhh.  What we have here is a basic misunderstanding of the difference between "profit" and "revenue."  I've figured this out because you reference that St. Cloud State's D1 hockey team brings in a million dollars a year in profit.

http://www.sctimes.com/assets/pdf/DR163235828.PDF

According to this document, which contains the St. Cloud State athletic budget for 2008-09, the St. Cloud State men's hockey team generated about $1.3 million dollars in revenue.  However, they required an operating budget of just over $1.2 million dollars to do so, for a net profit of $103,000.  That is very, very different from generating "a million dollars in profit" on the hockey program.

You're making a rather faulty assumption that UWW moving to a higher classification in football would start generating scads of profit.  This is not true at all.  It would start generating more REVENUE but would require a significantly higher operating budget to do so; most likely, they would be lucky to break even on an FCS or FBS football program.

Since you mention that you're from Minnesota, let's take a look at the University of Minnesota itself.  According to this article from January 2010 (http://www.mndaily.com/2010/01/24/athletics-finances-balancing-act), the Gophers' athletic department has run at a loss for the last several years.  That same article references an NCAA-commissioned study that showed an average LOSS of $9.9 million per year for FBS football programs.  Let me repeat that: the average athletic department with an FBS football program LOST nearly $10 million per year.  That number is actually BOOSTED by schools like the University of Minnesota, who run their football program at a profit despite generating little revenue themselves (almost solely owing to the Big Ten's massive TV contract - if you remove the windfall from the TV contract, UM football lost a few million in the year that article was written).  If you're not in the Big Ten or the SEC, you don't get that life preserver of a huge TV contract, and there is almost no way possible to run your program at a profit.  Basically, unless Whitewater were able to finagle an invitation to the Big Ten, they would be almost guaranteed to lose money on a Division I football program.

You still think that there's a magical windfall of football money that's going to generate scads of profit?
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: SUADC on January 11, 2012, 08:51:40 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on January 11, 2012, 08:32:08 AM
Quote from: AO on January 11, 2012, 12:47:45 AM
Why would Whitewater cut the women's teams if they don't cost more than they do currently and you'd have additional football generated money to spend on better facilities?...Here in Minnesota, St. Cloud State's D1 hockey team generates a million a year in profit that the rest of the department can spend on their d2 athletics...

Ahhhh.  What we have here is a basic misunderstanding of the difference between "profit" and "revenue."  I've figured this out because you reference that St. Cloud State's D1 hockey team brings in a million dollars a year in profit.

http://www.sctimes.com/assets/pdf/DR163235828.PDF

According to this document, which contains the St. Cloud State athletic budget for 2008-09, the St. Cloud State men's hockey team generated about $1.3 million dollars in revenue.  However, they required an operating budget of just over $1.2 million dollars to do so, for a net profit of $103,000.  That is very, very different from generating "a million dollars in profit" on the hockey program.

You're making a rather faulty assumption that UWW moving to a higher classification in football would start generating scads of profit.  This is not true at all.  It would start generating more REVENUE but would require a significantly higher operating budget to do so; most likely, they would be lucky to break even on an FCS or FBS football program.

Since you mention that you're from Minnesota, let's take a look at the University of Minnesota itself.  According to this article from January 2010 (http://www.mndaily.com/2010/01/24/athletics-finances-balancing-act), the Gophers' athletic department has run at a loss for the last several years.  That same article references an NCAA-commissioned study that showed an average LOSS of $9.9 million per year for FBS football programs.  Let me repeat that: the average athletic department with an FBS football program LOST nearly $10 million per year.  That number is actually BOOSTED by schools like the University of Minnesota, who run their football program at a profit despite generating little revenue themselves (almost solely owing to the Big Ten's massive TV contract - if you remove the windfall from the TV contract, UM football lost a few million in the year that article was written).  If you're not in the Big Ten or the SEC, you don't get that life preserver of a huge TV contract, and there is almost no way possible to run your program at a profit.  Basically, unless Whitewater were able to finagle an invitation to the Big Ten, they would be almost guaranteed to lose money on a Division I football program.

You still think that there's a magical windfall of football money that's going to generate scads of profit?


Majority of the so called "top tier" FBS programs are running at a deficit, because of the many contracts these schools get into. They believe that the whole world is going to tune into their games or come from the many parts of the world to sit a stadium to watch a team that has no chance of winning the national champioship. Other than the occasional rivalry games, many schools (not all) lose out at the end of the day, with the big expectations that their school is the next in line. The way the FBS is run, you will never see a school come into the spotlight unless they have someone backing them with cash & sponsorship (i.e. Nike & Oregon). Nevertheless, back to UWW, I believe that it takes money to get money and that it takes a whole lot of money to get a whole lot of money, just to make a measingly 1-5 percent profit.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: 02 Warhawk on January 11, 2012, 09:42:50 AM
This thread went from an intellengent well-thought-out debate to just flat out ridiculousness
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: smedindy on January 11, 2012, 09:46:24 AM
Agreed. I'm taking Twilight Sparkle and Fluttershy and going home...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: ExTartanPlayer on January 11, 2012, 10:19:26 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on January 11, 2012, 09:42:50 AM
This thread went from an intellengent well-thought-out debate to just flat out ridiculousness

I think that AO may, in fact, be a unicorn, rather than a person.  I'm looking forward to his explanation of how he confused a million dollars in profit for the St. Cloud State hockey program with a million dollars in revenue.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: DGPugh on January 11, 2012, 10:33:20 AM
smedindy said
"I spoke to the fans and parents of the football program when I saw them this year over in Ft. Myers. They were quite happy with their D-3 experience. And by adding opportunities, they did it for the right reasons."

i fundamentally agree with all you have said, and hate to nit pick (please forgive my ignorance) but the football folk would be happy...that is the plus they got by going D-3 . They created a football program along with ~ 5 other sports.
They gave up D-1 baseball and Basketball.That was a major problem for the BSC alumni, and initially lost some ernrollment. But the long term ( ~ 5yrs now ?) has been a plus.
The president and board (at the time) took some serious alumni flak but showed a decrease in cost of athletics by going D-3 even with adding sports (which included football). Acording to the Birmingham News they needed to decrease costs at the time.
I do not know what the BSC folk say now, but at the time the switch was made, it was due to financial constraints on maintaining D-1 for Bball, Ball, soft ball, and Lady Bball....for real.

The biggest screams were from baseball supporters, as thier Base ball team had been the NAIA Nat champs  (~2001) just a few yrs before they went D-1 NCAA Big South Conf. Many voiced concerns in the papers and on the B'Ham sports forums that the drop from scholarship to D-3 would be looked at as a step backwards. The BSC folk always seem to compare themselves to Samford (also in B'Ham), and many times view how they behave in light of how Samford will see them (at least that has been my observation for the past 22 yrs of teaching anf working with graduates of both institutions.
But as you said it has worked out very well....and they even added 5 - or 6 sports to thier program.
keep the faith
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: AO on January 11, 2012, 10:47:56 AM
Whether St. Cloud State is generating 100k or 1M from hockey, it still doesn't win them volleyball games. 

If Football was such a money loser, there should be even less of a reason to prevent teams from moving up just their football team.

It's important to distinguish athletic department's deficits from the profit or lack thereof of the football team.  While the Minnesota athletic department operated at a net loss, the football team generated $15 Million in profit, not including the money from the big ten network which is obviously mostly derived from people watching football and basketball.  We could also give some value to the free advertising that schools receive by being on television more often than they are in D3.  Athletic departments generally aren't concerned with generating profit to give back to the university general fund, they'll find ways to spend all their football/basketball profits and still ask for as much as they can from the university.
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: jknezek on January 11, 2012, 10:51:52 AM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on January 11, 2012, 09:42:50 AM
This thread went from an intellengent well-thought-out debate to just flat out ridiculousness

Yep. I gave up on it quite a while ago. Now I read it for the same reason I still look at the comics in the paper...
Title: Re: Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?
Post by: Pat Coleman on January 11, 2012, 11:27:29 AM
Yep. I'm declaring it over. Too bad -- it was a good conversation.