WBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

Started by wheatonc, March 03, 2005, 06:18:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Enginerd

#6705
Quote from: RogK on August 22, 2018, 11:33:52 PM
From what I've seen, local D1 teams are usually nice to the visiting D3 team and do not continuously exploit individual size and talent mismatches. When the D1 team wins by 35 or 45, you can be assured that they chose not to win by 60.

Rose-Hulman defeated Eastern Illinois by 10 two years ago - RHIT was up 3 at halftime this past season before the disparity in conditioning and time spent together as a team took it's toll. I think the final back in November was 73-58. RHIT had about 2 1/2 weeks as a team and EIU had been going much longer if you count the allowed # of practice hours in the Fall. WashU has defeated SIU-Edwardsville in scrimmage/exhibition games in the past as well. Trine (IWU fans surely remember them) smoked IP-Ft. Wayne by 20 two years ago.

Very little difference from the standpoint of talent and competitiveness when you start talking about the bottom 50-75 Division I programs and the elite-level D-III programs (which I would not QUITE put Trine, IWU, or even RHIT in at this moment - thinking more WashU, Amherst, and Hope-who have several Division I-caliber players on their roster and WILL win a national title in the next three years). The Tufts and Amherst teams of the last 5 years or so - are teams that no Low-Mid-Major Division I coach who likes their job should ever consider scheduling.

It's no coincidence that the year-in-and-year-out elite-level D-III women's teams are populated by Division II and Division I level talent. Many Low-D-I programs are at schools with poor job placement rates and iffy academics (at least compared to the WashU's, Chicago's, Amhert's, and even RHIT's of the world). For a high-academic kid from an educated family that understands the value in one of these degrees AND can afford it-it's really not that difficult a decision-combined with the fact that basketball won't have to be your job as it will be at a big school.

Since I've been watching D-III basketball, to me there are basically four types of schools that can recruit the kind of talent necessary to win - great coaching is assumed at all:
#1 - Schools that get lucky and have a core group of local kids that want to stay close to home and the school, while well coached and always a threat, really only have National Championship-caliber teams every so often - if not only once or twice ever (Wilmington as an example).
#2 - Schools that have elite-level academics with unparalleled cache and elite job and graduate school placement (WashU, Amherst et al). Having a hook like Wheaton with it's combination of faith and religion would probably fit in this category as well.
#3 - Schools that are above-average academically, and certainly among the best liberal arts colleges in their state - and offer outstanding facilities and/or financial aid that allows them to get the athletes they want.
#4 - State schools - enough said.

Gregory Sager

That really varies from sport to sport. Not every sport operates under the constraints of the formula for success you outlined.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

Enginerd

#6707
Agreed - I specifically mentioned basketball. Men's basketball to a slightly lesser degree...
I believe that there have been many more Men's Division III teams whom have defeated Division I teams in regular season games.

I watch less D-III football, but it would appear to me that the primary hook is:
1-A tradition of winning combined with a state/regional culture of high-school football importance-and lot's of relatively talented athletes who want to play college football. Ohio, Wisconsin, Texas. This doesn't explain Linfield LoL.
2-Financial aid - Football is a numbers game and you need 20-30 QUALITY (I know most have many more) Freshman each year to stay ahead of the curve. The school has to be committed to (relatively) outstanding financial aid.
3-Elite academics - same reasons as basketball. As an example RHIT has elevated it's program without the benefit of either of the above two - but they CAN recruit heavily out of state due to academic reputation. Same with WashU, Chicago, MIT...etc...Mt. Union is able to do the same with their winning tradition.
4-State schools

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

I can't say I agree with all of your findings. You may feel where you are located that those work, but I don't think they work in all places. Students have a lot of reasons to pick a program and you mention a lot of them... but I also don't think state schools affect things nearly as much as you think. I think it is a bit over blown as I can name you a lot more state programs (departments) that are not that successful than the ones who are successful.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.



Enginerd

#6711
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 28, 2018, 04:34:55 PM
I can't say I agree with all of your findings. You may feel where you are located that those work, but I don't think they work in all places. Students have a lot of reasons to pick a program and you mention a lot of them... but I also don't think state schools affect things nearly as much as you think. I think it is a bit over blown as I can name you a lot more state programs (departments) that are not that successful than the ones who are successful.

I was specifically discussing SUCCESSFUL programs and the keys to such. Most SUCCESSFUL state schools (athletically-speaking) are starting from a point cost-wise that a private college cannot touch even AFTER financial aid. An in-state school where you can go for a fraction of the cost - that still feels somewhat like a regional state university - is going to be an attractive option for most. State schools have a huge built-in advantage in Division III - but I absolutely agree with you that that advantage alone does not guarantee success. You still have to coach and recruit. Location and academics play their part as well.


Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: Enginerd on September 04, 2018, 09:39:43 AM
Quote from: Dave 'd-mac' McHugh on August 28, 2018, 04:34:55 PM
I can't say I agree with all of your findings. You may feel where you are located that those work, but I don't think they work in all places. Students have a lot of reasons to pick a program and you mention a lot of them... but I also don't think state schools affect things nearly as much as you think. I think it is a bit over blown as I can name you a lot more state programs (departments) that are not that successful than the ones who are successful.

I was specifically discussing SUCCESSFUL programs and the keys to such. Most SUCCESSFUL state schools (athletically-speaking) are starting from a point cost-wise that a private college cannot touch even AFTER financial aid. An in-state school where you can go for a fraction of the cost - that still feels somewhat like a regional state university - is going to be an attractive option for most. State schools have a huge built-in advantage in Division III - but I absolutely agree with you that that advantage alone does not guarantee success. You still have to coach and recruit. Location and academics play their part as well.

I am not one who agrees with the premise that state schools have a built in advantage. The numbers don't show that what so ever. People get blinded by maybe championships in certain sports, but even that doesn't tell people the truth.

In any general academic year, state schools win 20% or less of the Division III team championships (I haven't done an audit of the last season). There are 20% or less state schools in Division III. Furthermore, of those they tend to win and get the most headlines for ... private schools tend to win at a more impressive clip. Football, men's basketball, and men's lacrosse are great examples. People complain about state schools dominating those sports while ignoring the success of the Mount Unions, NESCACs, St Thomas type schools that win these championships just as (if not more) often as the state schools.

The argument is that state schools start at a lower tuition ... sure. That actually isn't an argument. However, I don't know a single administrator I've talked to at either state or private schools that doesn't admit (in private) that by the time the privates are done discounting, adding in grants and academic scholarships and aid, and other incentives, the numbers are far closer than one would like to believe. What people tend to forget is that state schools CANNOT adjust their tuition. Their number is their number. One of the things I have heard Frostburg plans to do as it transitions to DII is offer out-of-state tuition the in-state tuition rate and basically write off the difference as a scholarship (remember, if you are not in the state the state school is located, your tuition is FAR higher - closer to privates than many realize).

I will never say that privates and publics don't have differences in tuition, but they are FAR closer than people want to realize. A great example is York College of Pennsylvania. Many confuse this as being a state school because of it's low tuition rates. The reason for the low rates is because they are designed to give the actual tuition instead of the inflated version that is going to get knocked down eventually anyway. While a private school may say they are $50,000, in reality a vast majority if not close to 90% (or more from what I have read and am told) NEVER play even close to that amount. YCP basically just knocks a vast majority of the difference off right away and starts from basically where students would be anyway. They are a private school with a different concept. People just confuse the sticker price as being the reality when in actuality it isn't true.

In other words, the "fraction of the costs" thing isn't as close a number as many realize.

If state schools had as much advantage and success as so many believe in DIII, they would be not only dominating nearly all the championships, but they would also be dominating across their departments. However, I don't know many state schools who have programs across the board who are competing for national championships. In fact, the only conference I can think of that is like that is the ... NESCAC. There may be others, but the NESCAC is the only conference I am always dealing with when talking about and prepping for other championships. Yes, Whitewater was the first to win football, men's basketball, and baseball in the same academic year ... but it has only happened once and many a private has had their chance at that opportunity as well.

I know many a student-athlete that ended up at a private school over a state school. I know many a student who also ended up at a state over a private. I can understand some circumstances where it feels like privates lose out, but I have seen it where publics have lost out as well. I just do not see it in the results, the numbers, or in reality that state schools have some unreal advantage .. including the fact that many state schools have their athletic department budgets far tighter than privates. That isn't across the board ... I know a few state schools whose budgets are through the roof ... but I also know some privates that are low and high. Each institution, and state, is different and not all public school is equal, either. In the state of Maryland alone, Univ. of Maryland is completely different than Towson which is completely different than Salisbury which is completely different than St. Mary's. The state schools in Maryland that are DIII (Salisbury, St. Mary's, Frostburg) are all different in their own way(s).

I just am not a firm believer that the "state schools have an unfair or major advantage over private schools in DIII" is actually true in the grand scheme of things. I don't see it and when you dive into things, it isn't a big a difference as many would like to argue. Remember, I went to a private school ... one that competed against a few publics in the conference ... and left because of the perceived "disadvantages."
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


It's about money.  A state school might beat out private schools that can't compete in financial aid, but it's not the public nature of the school that makes the difference, it's the cost of attendance.  State schools get supplemented with tax dollars, but private schools are supplemented with endowments.  If you've got the money to make school cheaper for kids, you can recruit more and get more.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

RogK

Governments (tax $) provide roads (and some public transit) that lead to public and private universities. Just throwing that in, not contradicting anyone.

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on September 05, 2018, 07:08:19 AM

It's about money.  A state school might beat out private schools that can't compete in financial aid, but it's not the public nature of the school that makes the difference, it's the cost of attendance.  State schools get supplemented with tax dollars, but private schools are supplemented with endowments.  If you've got the money to make school cheaper for kids, you can recruit more and get more.

Not entirely true... private schools get federal and state money supplemented as well. It is an interesting twist that actually allows FOIA requests to sometimes go through ... because it is still tax money at stake. My alma mater has also urged alumni in the past to talk to political types about making sure state and federal money continued to be available for schools because of how that would impact the schools if taken away.

And again, I contend that the actual cost of attending schools is closer than people think. Privates like to inflate their numbers for a lot of reasons (good and bad) especially for the prestige and name recognition (you are going to pay more to attend Harvard because ... it's Harvard). Yes, the professors may be more expensive at a private school, but that isn't always the case. However, that can make a private slightly more expensive. York is slightly more expensive than it's state school comparatives, but not a ton of money more. Once privates finish discounting and slashing the ticket price ... the costs are closer than one realizes.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

gordonmann

#6716
QuoteYork is slightly more expensive than it's state school comparatives, but not a ton of money more. Once privates finish discounting and slashing the ticket price ... the costs are closer than one realizes.

York College (Pa.) lists a total cost of attendance at $34,500 for the year. Tuition and fees are $20,100.

https://www.ycp.edu/about-us/offices-and-departments/business-office/tuition-and-fees/

The two closest state schools are Millersville and Shippensburg.

Millersville lists a total cost of attendance at $24,118 for in-state students. Tuition and fees are $10,312. If you want to take a heavier course load, you pay more. Shippensburg lists a total cost of attendance at $24,506 for in-state students. Tuition and fees are $12,718. If you want to take a heavier course load, you pay more.

https://www.millersville.edu/osa/tuition-fees/
https://www.ship.edu/Student_Accounts/Tuition_and_Fees/

The closest state school in Division III is Penn State-Harrisburg if you're in PA and Frostburg State if you're in Maryland.

PSU-Harrisburg charges around $15,000 a year for tuition, though it's more if you major in science. They don't have a lot of on campus housing so we only get tuition for comparison. Frostburg State lists a total cost of attendance at $18,750. Tuition and fees are $9,172.

So for total costs you get: York ($34,500)....Shippensburg ($24,506)...Millersville ($24,118)...Frostburg ($18,750).

And for tuition/fees only you get: York ($20,100)...PSU-Harrisburg ($15,000)...Shippensburg ($12,718)...Millersville ($10,312)...Frostburg ($9,172).

All of those cost differences are substantial, especially if you multiply them by four for a full undergraduate education. I would consider that to be a significant recruiting advantage if you're targeting a student who wants to play in D3 (Frostburg/PSU-Harrisburg) or one who is on the fence about playing or has Division II potential (Shippensburg/Millersville).

I think Ryan's point is generally right.

QuoteA state school might beat out private schools that can't compete in financial aid, but it's not the public nature of the school that makes the difference, it's the cost of attendance.

Private schools with large endowments or generous financial aid programs can choose to use them to reduce the cost of their attendance, like the NESCAC schools do. But private schools without those resources don't have that option. So they are at a cost disadvantage to state schools.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)


You do have to add in average aid packages, Gordon - those aren't usually figured into cost of attendance numbers.  Some private schools can make things very competitive in that way; others can't.  Some states have more aid available for students than others.  There are lots of variables, but, at least to me, it very much comes down to money more than the type of school.  At some point, choosing a small private school over a larger public might be a deciding factor - that is a real and important difference - I'm just not sure it's common enough to be a major indicator across the division.  Academics can certainly factor in, but that's not always a public/private dichotomy either.
Lead Columnist for D3hoops.com
@ryanalanscott just about anywhere

Dave 'd-mac' McHugh

I was also reminded today of something I said earlier ... if the students are out of state, they aren't getting these in-state tuition numbers. Look at the Salisbury women's lacrosse roster ... it is shockingly filled with out of state students. They are paying probably close to $30k a year (depending on any academic aid allowed; I can't speak to that) to go to Salisbury. That is as much if not more than they could probably pay at a private school. That's where the program (or maybe academics) is why they are there versus the state school having some financial advantage no one can touch.
Host of Hoopsville. USBWA Executive Board member. Broadcast Director for D3sports.com. Broadcaster for NCAA.com & several colleges. PA Announcer for Gophers & Brigade. Follow me on Twitter: @davemchugh or @d3hoopsville.

gordonmann

QuoteYou do have to add in average aid packages, Gordon - those aren't usually figured into cost of attendance numbers.

I wasn't ignoring the aid, but rather using the example Dave cited. He notes York as being a place where there's lower tuition to offset lower aid packages. By that line of reasoning, this is a place where average aid is less relevant.

QuoteA great example is York College of Pennsylvania. Many confuse this as being a state school because of it's low tuition rates. The reason for the low rates is because they are designed to give the actual tuition instead of the inflated version that is going to get knocked down eventually anyway.

You can add financial aid packages to the state schools I cited in my example if you want. That just makes the difference already cited below even larger.