Future of Division III

Started by Ralph Turner, October 10, 2005, 07:27:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

redswarm81

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 01:10:46 PM
Well, then, I would expect that scads of Wabash players would have big time academic issues because of their playoff run in '02 then. And that Linfield, St. John's, Trinity, and Mt. Union would never graduate any player in four years.

And I guess you never have gotten a hint that just because you go to the playoffs doesn't mean academics come first. Players miss some practice for labs, still, even in the playoff time.

As you mentioned, the Wabash-Depauw game is a bigger deal this year because of playoff possibilities.  Does the bigger deal mean that the student athletes are getting a better education? Of course not--it's a bigger deal because the Depauw game is higher stakes athletics.

Read those last two sentences carefully Smed.  Once the stakes go beyond the regular season, the games become a bigger deal because of the athletics, with no parallel increase in academics.  Playoffs mean that athletics are ahead of academics.


I give up Smed.  You're convinced that as long as the athletes are students,  academics have a higher priority than athletics.  You're incapable of recognizing that playoff participation places a tremendous additional burden on athletes' academic pressures, a burden that wouldn't exist if the athletes weren't participating in the playoffs.  I can't break through your intellectual defenses.

I wish you well.  Don't lose any sleep over your karma antics.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

David Collinge

Redswarm, you keep talking about the academic experience and the "football" experence as if these are mutually exclusive, or at least at odds with one another.  My point is that they are complimentary, to a certain degree.  I would not want my son to spend every waking hour in class, lab, or library.  Such a student would not be well-rounded and ready to function as a valuable member of society upon graduation.  I believe extracurricular activities, including intercollegiate sports, contribute to the overall education and maturation of the student.

So when I talk about the "valuable experience" gained through football, I'm talking about those things that build character, an important function of any college, and one that I consider part of the "academic experience."

The question here is one of balance:  at what point do you say "enough is enough?"  This conversation could have gone in the opposite direction just as easily:  taking as granted that playing intercollegiate football has value, does that value outweigh the costs?  Arguments that football should be abolished from colleges (in favor of less expensive sports like soccer, or less physically taxing sports like baseball) are fairly easy to make.  It depends on where you think the balance point is.

redswarm81

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:32:37 AMIt's an attractive argument David, but if it were extended logically, then you might be forced to argue that the Rowan student-athlete gets a better, more valuable experience than the Williams student-athlete.  I just don't see any way to make that idea work.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but it sure sounds like academic snobbery, a game I refuse to play.  I am only talking about the experience gained through intercollegiate athletics, and yes, I think it is plausible (not necessary, just plausible) that the Rowan footballer gets a better experience than his Williams counterpart in this regard.

It's not academic snobbery, it's simple economics.  Despite the fact that Williams has never won a Division III national football championship, a Williams degree (including athletic experience) is more valuable than a Rowan degree (including athletic experience).
Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 01:16:07 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 11:32:37 AMYou'll not find a better rivalry in college sports than Colby/Bates/Bowdoin for instance, and the Colby football player surely gets an enhancement to his football experience by the higher stakes atmosphere of those rivalry games.

I believe that is my point exactly.  So we agree.  But, as my friend smedindy points out, that does not mean that a playoff game necessarily detracts from the experience.  Looked at in isolation (that is, ignoring any other impacts such as time away from studying, etc.), if it is good for the Colby footballer to play Bates, it is also good for that footballer to play in a playoff game.

But as you're missing and as your Smendindy refuses to acknowledge, the majority of benefits derived from DIII football are realized during the regular season, and playoffs place a much greater additional burden on academics.   Regular season rivalry games are consistent with the "academics before athletics" goal, post-season playoffs are not.

They're exciting as heck, though.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

smedindy

I am not using karma. Why would accuse me of that? I've never given a karma point here?

And I still don't get how you've proven that playoffs put athletics ahead of academics. The stakes are higher, yes, but that does not mean that athletics takes precedence. Otherwise, no football player would be in class right now.

I would acknowledge it if you gave me some hard tangible proof, but I've yet to see it. And I assume the Academic All-Americans that populate playoff teams would like to see it as well.

David Collinge

Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:29:52 PMDespite the fact that Williams has never won a Division III national football championship, a Williams degree (including athletic experience) is more valuable than a Rowan degree (including athletic experience).

I've stated as clearly as I can that I'm not comparing the overall experience, just the value gained from playing football.  To me, it's not a question of comparing a Williams degree to a Rowan degree, it's a question of comparing a Williams degree without a playoff football game to one with a playoff football game.  And I don't come to the conclusion that one is better than the other, just that there are more 'plusses' associated with the latter than the former. 

Since I can't make this point any more clearly, and you either can't or won;t understand it, there's no point in my continuing to restate it.

smedindy

I would also contend that a doofus with a Williams degree is still a doofus, while a smart cookie with a Rowan degree will outperform the doofus in a Williams degree.

redswarm81

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 01:35:47 PM
I've stated as clearly as I can that I'm not comparing the overall experience, just the value gained from playing football.

David, have you scrolled through my earlier posts on this subject?

I've stated as clearly as I can that you and many others are not comparing the value gained from playing football in the regular season with the marginal value added from playing football in post-season playoffs.

The marginal value added is small, but the academic impact is large.

Smed, if you think playoff-bound athletes aren't so distracted by their playoff games that their academic performance isn't affected, you're kidding yourself.  Don't kid yourself, kid me instead.   ;D

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 01:46:07 PM
I would also contend that a doofus with a Williams degree is still a doofus, while a smart cookie with a Rowan degree will outperform the doofus in a Williams degree.

Irrelevant and speculative.  A doofus with a Williams degree will still get job offers worth twice those that the Rowan smart cookie can land, and the Rowan cookie will have a difficult time ever reaching a playing field where he can outperform the Williams doofus.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

smedindy

If you don't believe me, come over here and talk to the players yourself. I think you'll find that they have everything in balance.

redswarm81

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 02:09:31 PM
If you don't believe me, come over here and talk to the players yourself. I think you'll find that they have everything in balance.

I wish I understood what makes you think I believe otherwise.

I repeat the question, your honor:  Isn't the academic impact of post-season playoff participation much greater than the academic impact of the regular season?

I have never doubted the fact that many student athletes can survive the additional pressure, I've only questioned how a school can permit its athletes to endure such additional pressure while maintaining that the school promotes "academics over athletics" throughout.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

smedindy

No, it isn't. So the season is extended a week or two. The routine is set and comfortable - class, practice, study, with the occasional other outside activity or meeting thrown in for good measure.

The second round of the playoffs is during Thanksgiving break, so that's no big deal.

As it pushes toward December, finals do loom, but they loom for all athletes, all performers, all those in other clubs and activities.

In fact, there could be more pressure on the students that produce the weekly newspaper, since that comes out on a Thursday, which means that all of the work needs to get done during the week, which cuts into study time.

redswarm81

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 02:39:43 PM
No, it isn't. So the season is extended a week or two. The routine is set and comfortable - class, practice, study, with the occasional other outside activity or meeting thrown in for good measure.

Wow,  I'm impressed, if skeptical.  If the Wabash men can maintain the same comfortable routine despite geometrically increasing tension over Depauw games and subsequent playoff games, they must be very um, . . . impressive . . . men.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

David Collinge

Quote from: redswarm81 on November 04, 2005, 01:58:05 PMDavid, have you scrolled through my earlier posts on this subject?

I've stated as clearly as I can that you and many others are not comparing the value gained from playing football in the regular season with the marginal value added from playing football in post-season playoffs.

Right-o.  No question about it.  You have nailed it.  I am not attempting to quantify marginal value; I am saying ONLY that post-season football has a benefit over and above regular season value.  It also has a higher cost, which may destroy the net positive impact.  For that matter, there may not be a net positive impact even for the first game of the regular season.  Quantification of the costs and benefits must be left to the programs and athletes.  The very first thing I said when I made the mistake of joining this discussion is that I am unsure of where I stand on the question of the existence of national playoffs; but to the extent that you seem to be saying that there is NO benefit to be gained from having playoffs, I felt I had to disagree, since I think that's where the maximum benefit tends to lie.

By way of example, I think the football-playing students at Mt. Union derive more benefit from playing St. John's in the playoffs than by playing Marietta in the regular season.  The playoff game presents a greater challenge, more complex problems to solve, teaches respect, and generally builds character more efficiently (because of the quality of the opposition, not the fact that it is a post-season game.)  I also believe that the costs of conducting that game are higher, both in terms of finances (extending the season) and of tradeoffs (athletes have less time available to study, although that time may well be spent lifting weights or playing Nintendo.)  Whether these costs outweigh the benefits is not a question I can answer.  But it is every bit as valid a question for game 1 or game 6 as for game 11. 

redswarm81

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 03:43:37 PM
I am saying ONLY that post-season football has a benefit over and above regular season value.  It also has a higher cost, which may destroy the net positive impact.

I didn't understand that from your earlier post.  On this point we seem to agree, I just think it's an easy call that the cost in terms of increased academic difficulty outweighs the marginal benefit provided by the playoffs, which means academics aren't ahead of athletics for playoffs.

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 03:43:37 PM
For that matter, there may not be a net positive impact even for the first game of the regular season.

We might disagree on that point.  I think the benefits of regular season Division III football exceed the costs.

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 03:43:37 PM
to the extent that you seem to be saying that there is NO benefit to be gained from having playoffs, I felt I had to disagree, since I think that's where the maximum benefit tends to lie.

If that's the impression I've left, then I've not stated my position clearly.  I think that the biggest benefit from Division III football accrues in the regular season.

The post season adds value, but at much higher cost.  So much higher cost that I think it's impossible to claim that academics retain higher priority for athletes during post-season playoffs.

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 03:43:37 PMI think the football-playing students at Mt. Union derive more benefit from playing St. John's in the playoffs than by playing Marietta in the regular season.  The playoff game presents a greater challenge, more complex problems to solve, teaches respect, and generally builds character more efficiently (because of the quality of the opposition, not the fact that it is a post-season game.)

Do you agree with this comparison?

It is a slightly greater challenge to face St. Johns in the playoffs than to face Ohio Northern during the season; and
It is a MUCH greater challenge to face late semester academics while competing in the playoffs.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

smedindy

I don't think it's any more difficult than the person in theater, or giving musical performances, or putting out the school newspaper, or involved in any other activity or sport.

Define the higher costs, please, again? I still don't get it without data. Give me data. Tell me that football players grades suffer in November if they are in the playoffs - and that the kids in the activities above do not.

Again, data please.

redswarm81

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 08:36:26 PM
Define the higher costs, please, again? I still don't get it without data. Give me data. Tell me that football players grades suffer in November if they are in the playoffs - and that the kids in the activities above do not.

Again, data please.

You're kidding me, right Smed?

I never said (here we go with you and ktroutvon again) that football players' grades necessarily suffer during playoffs.

I said:

1. Football players have enormous extra burdens placed on them during the playoffs, which take place late in the fall semester.

2. Those extra burdens make it much more difficult for football players to meet their increasingly high stakes late semester academic requirements.

3. Those extra burdens would not exist if those football players weren't competing in the playoffs.

With which do you disagree?
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977