Is The Talent Gap in D3 Football Too Much Between Programs?

Started by 02 Warhawk, December 11, 2012, 05:37:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

smedindy

Of course, seeing the Arizona Cardinals this past Sunday would make you think Alabama or Oregon would beat them. Not gonna happen. Mt. Union's Massey is roughly equal of Akron, Southern Miss and New Mexico State (and U Mass) but there are so few data points to compare with limited non-conference and inter-divisional games.

I said on another board I didn't think Mt. Union could beat Akron or Southern Miss regularly - probably 3 times out of 10. Keith thinks it's even less. Sometimes when we see someone at a high level play poorly and another at a lower level play well we don't make the level transition in our minds. This happens to many in baseball - seeing someone who is a 'bum' in the big leagues and compare it to a phenom in A ball - the 'bum' is probably better at that juncture.

wally_wabash

Quote from: desertraider on December 11, 2012, 09:09:51 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on December 11, 2012, 07:32:11 PM
I feel pretty comfortable in saying that Mount Union would get their hats handed to them by Akron or any similarly moribund FBS team.  Mount Union will have some players that could probably play at Akron.  Akron will have 100 players that could play at Mount Union.  Not to disrespect the Raiders in any way, but it's just a different ballgame in Division I.

They would also hand them their coats and bags after getting the crap kicked out of them. I went to Akron for grad school, I have seen Akron play - I feel extremely confident in saying that an Akron v. Mount game would result in more fans jumping on the "Mount should move up" bandwagon. As odd as it may sound - Mount won't play Akron because it would be a step down from the OAC.

This is hyperbole, right?  I mean it has to be.  There wasn't a ton to crow about out of the OAC in 2012. 

Quote from: smedindy on December 11, 2012, 09:23:42 PM
Of course, seeing the Arizona Cardinals this past Sunday would make you think Alabama or Oregon would beat them. Not gonna happen. Mt. Union's Massey is roughly equal of Akron, Southern Miss and New Mexico State (and U Mass) but there are so few data points to compare with limited non-conference and inter-divisional games.

I said on another board I didn't think Mt. Union could beat Akron or Southern Miss regularly - probably 3 times out of 10. Keith thinks it's even less. Sometimes when we see someone at a high level play poorly and another at a lower level play well we don't make the level transition in our minds. This happens to many in baseball - seeing someone who is a 'bum' in the big leagues and compare it to a phenom in A ball - the 'bum' is probably better at that juncture.

I would say less as well. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

jknezek

It's not just football folks. When we had this same discussion last year, couched under the subject "Is the dominance of UWW and UMU bad for D3 football" I put together a list of dynasties across multiple sports in D3 as well as the comparable ones I could find in D1 and D2. As you move down from D1 to D2 to D3, you get more and greater dynasties in the sports.

This is easily explained by the lack of a leveller, allowing different schools to allocate resources and interest in a greater disparity. In my mind, the rules for D3 make it easier for dynasties to appear and to be sustained. That does not mean that creating a dynasty is EASY, just that the rules allow for it to happen more easily at the D3 level. I've stated many times I'm amazed by UMU and what LK has accomplished and listed some of the milestones over on the ODAC board two weeks or so ago just to emphasize the magnitude of UMU's dominance.

Just look at D1 and how we are talking about Alabama this year. They have won 2 of 3 with a possibility of going 3 of 4 and they are a dynasty. That is nothing compared to UMU or UWW recently. All that being said, what UMU has done is perfectly within the D3 rules and it is up to the rest of D3 to improve, not UMU to either weaken or move to a tougher division.

The talent gap is a byproduct of how D3 is set up and it applies to all sports. You will have to find a levelling mechanism if you don't like it. A bit off topic, but this is also the only way a D4 would make sense. D1, D2 and D3 are distinguished primarily by scholarships. Since D3 provides no scholarships, and it would be silly to offer negative scholarships, the only way a D4 would make sense is with the creation of a "new" leveller that only some parts of D3 would want to participate in. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between D3 and a possible D4 other than "we don't like those guys so we're going to make our own group."

02 Warhawk

#18
Quote from: jknezek on December 12, 2012, 09:35:19 AM
The talent gap is a byproduct of how D3 is set up and it applies to all sports. You will have to find a levelling mechanism if you don't like it. A bit off topic, but this is also the only way a D4 would make sense. D1, D2 and D3 are distinguished primarily by scholarships. Since D3 provides no scholarships, and it would be silly to offer negative scholarships, the only way a D4 would make sense is with the creation of a "new" leveller that only some parts of D3 would want to participate in. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between D3 and a possible D4 other than "we don't like those guys so we're going to make our own group."

The fact that Mount can bring in athletes that are head and shoulders above their competition is just mind boggling to me. They get some amazing athletes (on a regular basis) come through that football program

jknezek

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 12, 2012, 09:41:12 AM
The fact that Mount can bring in athletes that are head and shoulders above their competition is just mind boggling to me. They get some amazing athletes (on a regular basis) come through that football program

I loved dreaming up this posting. Coincidentally, I posted it exactly one year ago today:

""""
Winning breeds recruiting which breeds winning. UMU has been the best at that for a very long time. Lets say you could be a marginal D1 or decent D1A or D2 player. Then Coach Kehres comes to your house and sits you down and says,

"Listen Tom. I know there are some good schools out there looking for you. I know they can offer you a place to play and a chance to compete at a high level. I know some of them will even offer you an athletic scholarship. And that's great. But here is what I can offer you."

"We play for a national title every year. 15 of the last 17 national title games have featured UMU. Come here and play for a title. Heck, we haven't had a senior class not play for a National title since that Freshman class that hit campus in what, 1989? Heck, that was before you were born."

"So, top level, national championship tries when you hit campus. That's one. Two, how about money? They're offering you a partial athletic scholarship, and that's great. But we do in-depth needs analysis on all our incoming students. If you qualify, UMU can be just as affordable as any other school that is talking to you. And we're a great school. Number 10 in the U.S. News Regional Rankings. We're an affordable and very strong college."

"Three, lets talk about facilities. Some of the stadiums might be bigger, but our weight room, locker rooms, and practice fields are top notch. You may not play in front of 10K every week, but you'll play in front of your family who will have great seats and a supportive student section. And you'll be on TV. Our TV coverage is as good, or better counting the national title, than most 1A and 2 programs because we are a national name."

"Four, let's talk about the next step. UMU is a great school and you'll get a great education. But you won't be the first UMU player invited to the combine or drafted if you are good enough. It doesn't happen all the time, but we've got that kind of exposure. If you are good enough, you'll get a shot coming from UMU just as much as you would at D2 State. In fact, with our name recognition, it might just be better."

"So, we've got the program, we've got the history, we've got the academics, we've got the financials, we've got the facilities and we've got your future. 15 out of the last 17 national title games have featured us, and we want you to be a part of 19 of 21. You won't get better coaching, better exposure, better playing time, or a better shot at winning national titles anywhere but UMU."

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how a dynasty gets the players to stay on top. There is nothing underhanded going on. UMU has a sales pitch that can't be topped. They are first rate for a lot of reasons and the only way to break that up is to keep them out of the Stagg Bowl for more than a year or two at a time.
"""

02 Warhawk

Yea, yea, yea...I've heard all about this "winning breeds success" stuff.

However, there's been teams thats been successful longer than Mount. Like St. John's and Linfield to name a few, but they haven't been close to experiencing the same kind of success as Mount. Nor have they been able to bring in the kind of athletes that Mount has.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 11, 2012, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 11, 2012, 08:04:42 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 11, 2012, 07:45:20 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 11, 2012, 05:37:21 PM
I wanted to avoid creating a new thread for this, but I couldn't find an appropriate place to post this....so here it is.

After watching a few Mount Union games this season it got me thinking of the level of talent Mount brings in, compared to other football programs. The difference is staggering. So staggering that I don't think it's matched in any other level of football...which is bad news for many D3 football teams.

D3 Talent Gap
No, not really. You have roughly 240 schools whose quality of talent reflects a Gaussian distribution, just like D1 FBS, D1 FCS and D-2.

Yea, but isn't D3 at least twice the size of any other division? Making the disparity that much greater. Realistically 200+ schools might never be Stagg Bowl contender.
Over the last decade 230 schools have not been Stagg contenders!   ;)

However, we D3 fans remember that the focus on D3 athletics is regional/conference in nature. The playoffs are "gravy".

Bolded for emphasis.

The playoffs and Stagg Bowl are fantastic, but the really great thing about Division III football, IMO, is the fact that thousands of young men from 230+ universities and colleges across the nation get to suit up and play ball against young men from their peer institutions on Saturdays throughout the fall.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

jknezek

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 12, 2012, 11:18:10 AM
Yea, yea, yea...I've heard all about this "winning breeds success" stuff.

However, there's been teams thats been successful longer than Mount. Like St. John's and Linfield to name a few, but they haven't been close to experiencing the same kind of success as Mount. Nor have they been able to bring in the kind of athletes that Mount has.

Success at a conference level is not the same as success at a national level. No one has been as successful as Mount in the last 20 years. Linfield and St. Johns are great programs. Both have had national and conference success. Both have had outstanding coaches. I highly doubt there is just one small factor that leads to 20 years of national success as compared to 40 years of regional success and occassional national breakthroughs. There is probably a bit of extra everything and a bit of luck as well.

Mount's success started just 2 or 3 years after LK arrived. It's not real hard to draw a simple conclusion that LK is just that good as a recruiter, as a coach, as a talent evaluator both on the field and with his coaches. His success also started at the right time, coinciding with an age of increased information dissemination (cable and the internet), making success even more of a weapon.

There are a lot of factors that went into Mount building a dynasty that probably started with the right coach at the right time. While success by itself does not guarantee continued success, it is a big leg up. I would say as long as LK is firmly in charge of that program, and is devoting a similar energy level to the job now as he devoted to it 10 years or so ago, Mount will be a very difficult program to dislodge.

Mount is in a football strong part of the country, it has a great coach, a great pedigree, and appears to have the institutional will to build facilities and send coaches on recruiting trips (FL) that will continue to help them get a shot at the best possible athletes. Put it all together with the sales pitch only they can provide and they probably will continue to get the pick of the litter.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: smedindy on December 11, 2012, 09:23:42 PM
Of course, seeing the Arizona Cardinals this past Sunday would make you think Alabama or Oregon would beat them. Not gonna happen. Mt. Union's Massey is roughly equal of Akron, Southern Miss and New Mexico State (and U Mass) but there are so few data points to compare with limited non-conference and inter-divisional games.

I said on another board I didn't think Mt. Union could beat Akron or Southern Miss regularly - probably 3 times out of 10. Keith thinks it's even less. Sometimes when we see someone at a high level play poorly and another at a lower level play well we don't make the level transition in our minds.

Agreed completely.

Re: Akron vs. Mount Union, it is very easy for desertraider to armchair this and point out that Akron is awful, going 1-11 (with the lone win coming against an FCS team)...but I think you're vastly underestimating the difference in levels as smedindy mentions here.  Every opponent on Akron's schedule is not only better than anyone on Mount Union's schedule, but significantly better. 

I do think Mount Union and the rest of Division III's short list of "elites" could play some competitive games against the absolute dregs of FBS, but I'd stop well short of suggesting that they would be favored.  Some of the very best FCS teams have managed to knock off some of the dregs of FBS in the last few seasons, but they still lose just as often as they win...and those are teams with 63 more scholarship athletes than Mount Union.

A fascinating semi-related question: if you're a Big Ten team looking to fill out your nonconference schedule with a creampuff that's a guaranteed victory: would you rather schedule a struggling team from the lower echelon of FBS (i.e. the MAC or Conference USA), or a powerful FCS team like Appalachian State (University of Michigan jokes aside, please) or North Dakota State?  While the talent level is probably similar between the lower-echelon FBS teams compared to the quality FCS opponents, as the Big Ten coach, I'd be much more "scared" of the quality FCS opponent because they may be better coached and their players may be more "used to" winning than the doormats from the lower-echelon FBS conferences.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

hickory_cornhusker

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on December 12, 2012, 11:49:14 AM
Quote from: smedindy on December 11, 2012, 09:23:42 PM
Of course, seeing the Arizona Cardinals this past Sunday would make you think Alabama or Oregon would beat them. Not gonna happen. Mt. Union's Massey is roughly equal of Akron, Southern Miss and New Mexico State (and U Mass) but there are so few data points to compare with limited non-conference and inter-divisional games.

I said on another board I didn't think Mt. Union could beat Akron or Southern Miss regularly - probably 3 times out of 10. Keith thinks it's even less. Sometimes when we see someone at a high level play poorly and another at a lower level play well we don't make the level transition in our minds.

Agreed completely.

Re: Akron vs. Mount Union, it is very easy for desertraider to armchair this and point out that Akron is awful, going 1-11 (with the lone win coming against an FCS team)...but I think you're vastly underestimating the difference in levels as smedindy mentions here.  Every opponent on Akron's schedule is not only better than anyone on Mount Union's schedule, but significantly better. 

I do think Mount Union and the rest of Division III's short list of "elites" could play some competitive games against the absolute dregs of FBS, but I'd stop well short of suggesting that they would be favored.  Some of the very best FCS teams have managed to knock off some of the dregs of FBS in the last few seasons, but they still lose just as often as they win...and those are teams with 63 more scholarship athletes than Mount Union.

A fascinating semi-related question: if you're a Big Ten team looking to fill out your nonconference schedule with a creampuff that's a guaranteed victory: would you rather schedule a struggling team from the lower echelon of FBS (i.e. the MAC or Conference USA), or a powerful FCS team like Appalachian State (University of Michigan jokes aside, please) or North Dakota State?  While the talent level is probably similar between the lower-echelon FBS teams compared to the quality FCS opponents, as the Big Ten coach, I'd be much more "scared" of the quality FCS opponent because they may be better coached and their players may be more "used to" winning than the doormats from the lower-echelon FBS conferences.

Since only one FCS game can be counted toward an FBS team's pursuit of bowl eligibility the FBS teams command a higher fee to leave in a body bag. I think it's something like around $450,000 for an FCS team to play and $900,000 for an FBS team to play. So sometimes the BCS teams don't want to pay the extra half a million. Since only about 20 athletic departments in the country are currently operating in the black some can't afford it.

Ralph Turner

I also like to study successful programs for what they can teach one about management, leadership and organization of systems. Coach Kehres has a successful system that can be taught to his players for when they have positions of leadership.

I learned so much about organizational success from my high school coach Bob McQueen, who later won a state 5AAAAA championship at Temple High School, back when there was one champion for 200 schools in the classification.  The insights that I gained from how he ran practice, the way that all his ancillary personnel did their jobs, the delegation of power and authority... all of that stuff.

I am sure that we see much at that in D-III, Kehres, Coach Fred at UMHB, Gagliardi at St Johns, Mohr at Trinity, and that is just football.

My favorite is Barbara Crousen, the track coach at McMurry, and the only woman in the history of the NCAA to win one, and now 2, Men's National Championships.

ITH radio

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 11, 2012, 06:34:53 PM
Those all the D3 schools there? I'm surprised no teams from the south step up shop there.

No.  Hobart and other schools from the east and southern regions are there as well.  The Statesmen have more players on their roster from FL than the states of NJ and MA to name a few.
Follow us on twitter @D3FBHuddle

smedindy

Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 12, 2012, 11:18:10 AM
Yea, yea, yea...I've heard all about this "winning breeds success" stuff.

However, there's been teams thats been successful longer than Mount. Like St. John's and Linfield to name a few, but they haven't been close to experiencing the same kind of success as Mount. Nor have they been able to bring in the kind of athletes that Mount has.

Again, come talk when the Kenyon level of success in swimming is reached. They continually bring in the depth needed to compete for championships. Now, Denison has joined them. This is D-3 and when you have a choice academically and athletically to go to "A" or "B", if "A" is the one winning championships many times you pick "A".

Kenyon's (and Denison's) swimming programs basically sell themselves - if you are recruited for them, and can hack it academically you know you're going to be part of a title-contending team. While Mt. Union isn't as academically rigorous as either Kenyon or Denison, it's not a diploma mill either - you have to do work to get your degree. So if you can do the work and LK says, come here, we want you, then it may not be that tough of a choice for a typical HS senior with decent grades and board scores (depending on the academic program he wants to follow, of course).

How many Mt. Union football players just GO there without being recruited?

Desertraider

Smedindy- Most of the guys who go to Mount and are not recruited are locals that grew up watching and decided to give it a shot. I don't know of any non-locals that just show up on campus and head to the field.

Extartan - I get what you are saying. But I disagree in the case of Akron. I have seen Mount and Akron play ove the years (Mount more often). I get the speed and talent and all that - but I still say that not only would Mount win this year, they would win most of the previous 15. Akron has a few really good players, but no concept of team football. Watch a game and you see 11 guys looking for stats. With LK on the sidelines - I would take Mount and their tradition against Akron any day. Would it be a blow out - no way, no more than a 2 score victory.

As far as 'armchairing' - due it's a discussion board. We are ALL armchairing in here 8-).
RIP MUC57 - Go Everybody!
National Champions: 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2015, 2017
The Autumn Wind is a Raider!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzEYK_XjyLg
Immaculate Prevention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZLq_acsVN0

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: desertraider on December 12, 2012, 09:22:31 PM
Extartan - I get what you are saying. But I disagree in the case of Akron. I have seen Mount and Akron play ove the years (Mount more often). I get the speed and talent and all that - but I still say that not only would Mount win this year, they would win most of the previous 15. Akron has a few really good players, but no concept of team football. Watch a game and you see 11 guys looking for stats. With LK on the sidelines - I would take Mount and their tradition against Akron any day. Would it be a blow out - no way, no more than a 2 score victory.

As far as 'armchairing' - due it's a discussion board. We are ALL armchairing in here 8-).

Oh, I know it's all armchairing, don't take any offense. 

I do get your side of the coin, which is kinda why I posed the question above re: whether you'd be more scored of getting upset a bottom-dwelling FBS team like Akron or by a winning FCS program.  I think there's some element of team play, better coaching, and tradition in top programs from lower levels that might offset the talent gap between them and an Akron.  I think we both have similar views of the "issues" in play here, just differing opinions on what the actualy "outcome" of the hypothetical game would be.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa