Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?

Started by bleedpurple, December 19, 2011, 07:42:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Are the purple powers bad for D3?

Yes
36 (35.3%)
No
66 (64.7%)

Total Members Voted: 96

NCF

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. :)
CCIW FOOTBALL CHAMPIONS '06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13
CCIW  MEN"S INDOOR TRACK CHAMPIONS: TOTAL DOMINATION SINCE 2001.
CCIW MEN'S OUTDOOR TRACK CHAMPIONS: 35
NATIONAL CHAMPIONS: INDOOR TRACK-'89,'10,'11,'12/OUTDOOR TRACK: '89,'94,'98,'00,'10,'11
2013 OAC post season pick-em tri-champion
2015 CCIW Pick-em co-champion

jknezek

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.

emma17

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?   

Gray Fox

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. :)
Fierce When Roused

DGPugh

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
"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes." 
Ephesians 6:11

jknezek

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.

firstdown

#51
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. 

AO

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. 

jknezek

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.

emma17

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.

gordonmann

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.

gordonmann

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.

Fannosaurus Rex

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.
"It ain't what ya do, it's the way how ya do it.  It ain't what ya eat, it's the way how ya chew it."  Little Richard

jknezek

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%...

02 Warhawk

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.