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: Hoops Fan on November 03, 2005, 05:51:55 PM
If we are really in the business of training people to be responsible members of society who can think and reason and run their own live, then we must allow them more choice in the matters that affect them.

We do allow them the choice.  They can choose to play or not.

The argument that you and others are making regarding the choices that students should be allowed to make and the lessons that they learn outside the classroom all apply perfectly well to regular season competition.  They fail, however, when you try and apply them to national playoffs in addition to regular season competition.

Regular season athletic competition is by definition a distraction from academics.  However, we both agree that it offers benefits in excess of the costs of that distraction.

However, I am not as willing as you are to permit students to choose to accept such an overwhelming additional distraction from academics as national playoffs cause, especially if I'm a school administrator who has publicly stated that my school values academics above athletics.

As Smed and I agreed, those Hiram kids are getting as much out of intercollegiate athletics as the Linfield kids are.  You agree with that too, don't you Hoops?
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

smedindy

Again, how is allowing competing for a championship violating the tenet that academics come first? I fail, again, to see any logic or reasoning behind it since fine academic schools who do not put up with any shennanigans also compete in the playoffs. Indeed, even vaunted institutions as Washington U. or the U. of Chicago would allow its student athletes a chance to compete for a title if they were chosen to be in the playoffs.

Mr. Ypsi

Something that is implicit in this discussion but that I think should be made explicit: why is football UNIQUELY bad for post-season competition?

I know the discussion is not specifically about Williams, but they have been a recurring example.  Since they have won the d3 all-sports trophy (I'm blanking on the official name!) seemingly every year for approximately forever, they obviously have a LOT of athletes spending a LOT of extra time in the post-season.  While football may involve more student-athletes (ONLY in d3 can I type that phrase without gagging!) than any other specific sport, ALL the sports Williams (or anyone else) participates in collectively dwarf football.  So, WHY is postseason in football different?

As a college instructor, I'll grant PARTIAL credence to time of the semester when the disruption occurs, but ONLY partial.  Likewise, injury and length of season holds SOME credence, but compared to, say, lacrosse?!  Sum total, I just don't understand why football is being singled out (in the NESCAC and in this discussion).  MOST of the arguments apply to no one or apply to all sports.


redswarm81

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 03, 2005, 06:56:46 PM
why is football UNIQUELY bad for post-season competition?

Williams . . . obviously have a LOT of athletes spending a LOT of extra time in the post-season.  While football may involve more student-athletes (ONLY in d3 can I type that phrase without gagging!) than any other specific sport, ALL the sports Williams (or anyone else) participates in collectively dwarf football.  So, WHY is postseason in football different?

I just don't understand why football is being singled out (in the NESCAC and in this discussion).  MOST of the arguments apply to no one or apply to all sports.
Let's face it Doc, the biggest reason for the focus of the discussion is that this is d3football.com.

I'm not confident that your use of the word "dwarf" is appropriate, though.  Even if as many athletes compete nationally in other sports as the number that plays football (I doubt it's more), no sport requires nearly as big an investment in equipment, facilities and material as football.

You're right that the arguments apply to most other sports, but the costs are surely higher in football.

My concern remains the fact that the motivation to compete in playoffs is only to improve the athletic experience, not to enhance the education.  Division III--academics over athletics, but during playoff season we look the other way. :-X
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

redswarm81

#79
Quote from: smedindy on November 03, 2005, 06:46:42 PM
Again, how is allowing competing for a championship violating the tenet that academics come first?

I'll give up after this, Smed.  You and I agree that the Hiram kids get a great augmentation to their education by playing .500 seasons.

I think that you and I also agree that the increase in that augmentation would be minimal if the Hiram kids were to play several rounds in the playoffs.  Good for them for making the playoffs, but it's not making their well rounded education more well rounded.

However, 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.

This means that for a school to endorse participation in playoffs, it must do so with the knowledge that for the playoffs, it is willing to use a different definition of "academics over athletics."  In fact, the definition that they must use sure looks to me (and logically also to those who get excited about playoff implications in the Depauw game) like "athletics over academics." 
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

smedindy

It would be athletics over academics if the student athletes were not students. Otherwise, I don't see your point at all in all of this. The fact that these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes, makes it unique and special.

redswarm81

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 08:34:10 AM
It would be athletics over academics if the student athletes were not students. Otherwise, I don't see your point at all in all of this. The fact that these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes, makes it unique and special.

By that logic, it would still be academics over athletics if they were awarded athletic scholarships,  because "these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes."

It would still be academics over athletics if they played a 14 game regular season and had a 64 team tournament lasting 6 additional weeks, because "these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes."

It would still be academics over athletics if they practiced during all of July (like some crazed ONU on steroids), because "these young men will battle through classes and tests and papers and readings for five days, then play on Saturday, then study on Sunday for Monday's classes."

I see your point, Smed.  The fact that they are students means that academics always come first.  It makes perfect sense.  How unique.  How special.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

David Collinge

I'm not sure I want to wade into this, especially since I'm not entirely certain where I stand on the concept of post-season tournaments.

But I would like to say that I think there is a difference between a playoff football game (or a Monon Bell game, for that matter) and the ordinary week 6 (or whatever) game.  The benefit that the student-athletes get from participating in intercollegiate athletics is in intangible character quantities such as leadership, ability to overcome obstacles, teamwork, and crisis management.  These lessons are learned much more effectively in a high-pressure playoff game or rivalry game than they are in the average Hiram blowout.  To that extent, I believe that the Wabash football player gets a better, more valuable experience than does a Hiram player, and the possibility of playoff games (not a practical possibility for a Terrier) enhances that experience. 

I'm not saying that this justifies an extension of the season merely to crown a national champion.  (I'm not saying it doesn't, either.)  I just think that there are positives associated with playoff football that have to be weighed against the many negatives, such as disruption with classroom activities, higher costs, and increased likelihood of injury.

redswarm81

Quote from: David Collinge on November 04, 2005, 11:06:28 AM
I believe that the Wabash football player gets a better, more valuable experience than does a Hiram player, and the possibility of playoff games (not a practical possibility for a Terrier) enhances that experience. 

It'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.

Although this is not a NESCAC-only issue, I do think that the NESCAC does it right.  You'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.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

smedindy

Really? Funny, I never heard that those were hot-bed rivalries and I've been following this stuff for years.  Though I guess when the attendance jumps from 400 to 2,434 it is a rivalry.

That being said, how would a trip to the playoffs DETRACT from a Trinity or Williams players experience?


frank uible

Now you morons listen closely - I'm only going to say these things once. In DIII  athletics is or ought to be about benefiting the participating kids first and foremost. The athletic experience can be and, if implemented effectively, is a significant part of the educational experience for those kids. Certain young people are very much excited by athletically testing themselves against other young people. This positive excitement can be heightened by competing against others whom one does not know well (or at all)  and whom one perceives as excelling in the athletics in question. It is even more enriching for the participating kids when they perceive that they are being  tested more greatly than they have been previously - for instance, in playoff competition against opposition of an extremely high quality on a " winner- take- all" basis. As for Trinity, Williams, NESCAC and their posture toward football playoffs - they either don't have the brains they were born with or have a hidden, anti-student political agenda.

redswarm81

Quote from: smedindy on November 04, 2005, 11:49:00 AM
how would a trip to the playoffs DETRACT from a Trinity or Williams players experience?

Is "enhancing players' experience" a stated goal of Division III?

I'm not arguing that it wouldn't enhance the Trinity or Williams players' experiences.  It would obviously be a great athletic experience, maybe even greater than Trinity stopping Williams' nations-best winning streak, or Williams doing the same to Trinity.

What I am arguing is that it requires Kelo v. New London-like intellectual contortions to claim that playoff participation is consistent with the stated "academics before athletics" goal of Division III.

As far as that goes, college instructors have posted on Post Patterns that the playoffs occur during high academic stakes crunch time.  I think a "D" on a final exam detracts from a student's overall educational experience,  even if it's balanced by an enhanced athletic experience.

I enjoy the Division III playoffs, even though I recognize that they are inconsistent with the Division III goal of keeping academics before athletics.  I also like the occasional half pound bar of Hershey's chocolate, despite my personal goal of maintaining a healthy diet.

It's human to have internal contradictions, I just don't think it's healthy to deny that such contradictions exist.
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

smedindy

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.

redswarm81

Quote from: frank uible on November 04, 2005, 12:30:46 PM
Now you morons listen closely - I'm only going to say these things once.

That's good.  Please don't say such things twice.  ::)

Don't engage in dialogue--in fact you can't, because it's less than 60 days before an election, and Messrs. McCain and Feingold are watching.  :o
Irritating SAT-lagging Union undergrads and alums since 1977

David Collinge

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.

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.

Quote from: frank uible on November 04, 2005, 12:30:46 PMNow you morons listen closely [...]
This is entirely uncalled for.  I smite thee.