Around the Nation board

Started by Pat Coleman, September 22, 2005, 03:16:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

frank uible

Peanut butter stats stick to the roof of one's mouth.

Ron Boerger

Quote from: altor on November 02, 2010, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 31, 2010, 08:05:02 PM
And, in addition, these are peanut butter stats.  My specific assertion (as of yet unproven with quantitative fact) is that in certain parts of the country (such as the east), football is declining in popularity at the HS level.

I'm not sure what "peanut butter stats" are.
Here is the NFHS page on participation statistics so you can look for yourself.

In my quick searches from Maine to Maryland, only Vermont had fewer sponsoring schools and fewer participants in 2009-2010 than they did in 2002-2003.  Also, New Jersey had fewer schools, but more participants during that span.  The other nine states all showed increased participation in both categories.

I stand (mostly) corrected. 

That said, participation is down substantially in MN (27K to 25K), 50 fewer schools offer it in IA and overall participation is down from 20K to 19K, IL participation is flat (while 20 more schools offer it now), WI has gone down from 30.5K to 29.4K.  There are some small pockets where participation is down, but it's not as prevalent as I thought, and my theory about the east coast looks all wet.   +1 to altor and thanks.

'Peanut butter' stats refer to using one big number to represent a position rather than examining the underlying data in detail.  I guess it was chunky peanut butter and now we can look at the chunks themselves. 

Mr. Ypsi

More fundamentally, participation does not necessarily equal passion.  Here in SE Michigan, I have no idea about the participation numbers, but I am almost certain that passion for football is not what it was 30 years ago.

At one time, the QB and the homecoming 'king' were guaranteed to be the same guy - not true now! ;)

Ralph Turner

Quote from: Ron Boerger on November 02, 2010, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: altor on November 02, 2010, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 31, 2010, 08:05:02 PM
And, in addition, these are peanut butter stats.  My specific assertion (as of yet unproven with quantitative fact) is that in certain parts of the country (such as the east), football is declining in popularity at the HS level.

I'm not sure what "peanut butter stats" are.
Here is the NFHS page on participation statistics so you can look for yourself.

In my quick searches from Maine to Maryland, only Vermont had fewer sponsoring schools and fewer participants in 2009-2010 than they did in 2002-2003.  Also, New Jersey had fewer schools, but more participants during that span.  The other nine states all showed increased participation in both categories.

I stand (mostly) corrected. 

That said, participation is down substantially in MN (27K to 25K), 50 fewer schools offer it in IA and overall participation is down from 20K to 19K, IL participation is flat (while 20 more schools offer it now), WI has gone down from 30.5K to 29.4K.  There are some small pockets where participation is down, but it's not as prevalent as I thought, and my theory about the east coast looks all wet.   +1 to altor and thanks.

'Peanut butter' stats refer to using one big number to represent a position rather than examining the underlying data in detail.  I guess it was chunky peanut butter and now we can look at the chunks themselves. 
Some of that in the midwest is due to population shifts.  To corroborate that thought, compare the reallocation of members of the House of Representatives from those states that will occur after the 2010 census.

K-Mack

Quote from: frank uible on October 29, 2010, 12:08:53 PM
It is a matter of emphasis. As a general proposition college football is more important to the people of Wisconsin than to the people of Massachusetts, and consequently there is better college football in Wisconsin than in Massachusetts.

Yeah, that's something that I left out that maybe I should not have.

J.B. Wells had a really good way of saying it, that in the East there's passion for football, in the Midwest it's more like a religion.

Plus there's the argument that in Massachusetts, for instance, pro sports siphon more interest. Because they actually care about things like basketball and hockey, which they do in Chicago, but not as much in, say, Ohio.

At some point I worry about my ATN's being too long and reading awkwardly and I actually leave things out :) Occasionally.
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

K-Mack

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 29, 2010, 09:57:41 PM
Quote from: pg04 on October 29, 2010, 09:31:01 PM
I think you'll just have to get used to the fact that some football players will never consider any other sport as tough as football  :P

Yeah, you're right.

Hard to get through to those over-padded sissies! ;D

Geez, my karma is going DOWN! :P

As someone who has played several sports and covered just about every one under the sun, let me say that there are no really easy sports. Swimming is probably as strenous as anything, and it's got no tough guy rep. Rowing is hard. Ballet is hard. Running the 800 meters is hard.

Soccer and lax and basketball have their share of contact, and yes, when it's unexpected or unprotected, the damage can be just as bad if not worse. The thing about football is 95% of the hits you brace for, and you get used to how it feels after a while, and it's no big thing.

The ones that get you are the ones you never see coming.

All that said, I'll continue to believe football is one of the toughest sports for obvious reasons (very few other sports feature full-speed contact, mixed with the need to react intelligently in split seconds), but also for a less obvious one.

EVERY SINGLE sport I covered, when trying to make their case for how tough their sport is, its athletes will say "We're just as tough as football players."

That's who athletes themselves, compare themselves to, when they see toughness. (and toughness is a word that can encompass a lot of things)
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

K-Mack

I actually think Hockey is the toughest sport. All the speed and power of football ... but on skates. Youch.
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

HScoach

Wrestling is right up there too.   I was always amazed at how the first day of wrestling practice proved how out of shape you were at the end of football season.  6 minutes doesn't sound like a big deal, but it was a killer for the first month until you got in good shape.  It probably sounds weird, but the worst was your hands & forearms.  I would get crazy cramps in my forearms for the first few weeks as those muscles were absolutely killed at wrestling practice.  2nd was your quads from all the squatting. 

The first day of football 2-a-days we had to run a timed mile (6 minutes for skill people / 6:30 for the fat guys like me) and I'd be struggling to get the mile in under the 6:30 that was required.  By the middle of wrestling season, I'd routinely run a 5:30 mile without pushing it.  Dropping 30+ pounds didn't hurt either.

Football was my first love, but I especially liked the ability to very personally hurt someone in wrestling.  Football and hockey have high speed collisions that look great from the stands, but the ability to very slowly break someone's ribs on the mat was rather attracting to me.  Does that make me a bad person?  Probably ;)
I find easily offended people rather offensive!

Statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is essential.

K-Mack

Yes. Wrestling makes two minutes seem like an hour.

And anyone who wears a garbage bag while training must be doing something serious.

I remember once training with the distance runners instead of the sprinters a couple times when I was trying to improve in the 800.

Also remember for about 2 weeks my senior year at R-MC the post-practice gassers not actually having me gassed. Like I could run full go, finish, and not need to put my hands on my knees and wheeze.

And it was all downhill from there.

Tried to swim 4 laps -- cold -- about a year ago and almost died.
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

Ryan Tipps

Quote from: K-Mack on November 04, 2010, 09:01:58 PMI remember once training with the distance runners instead of the sprinters a couple times when I was trying to improve in the 800.

A lot of my fellow distance runners in high school and college laughed at how easy sprinters' workouts seemed compared to what we did. But I stopped laughing after the first time coach made me do a bleacher workout with the sprinters and hurdlers.

"Ouch" was an understatement. :) To each their own.
D3football.com Senior Editor and Around the Nation columnist. On Twitter: @NewsTipps

2.7 seconds. An average football player may need more time to score; a great one finds a way. I've seen greatness happen.

Ralph Turner

I enjoyed your ATN.

JMO, but I think that the indexes such as Lazindex and Bornpowerindex and Kickoff have it right.

Bornpowerindex has Del Valley in the Top 10 and Springfield in the Top 25.

Lazindex has Del Valley in the Top 10 and Cortland State in the Top 20.  Montclair is #27.

The East Region has a huge clustering of teams in the 30-60 range.  This makes for close races and  good in-season talk, but very few teams (only 2-3) make the even the second tier.

The East is insulated and rarely plays outside its region.  The ASC, the WIAC and the NWC play each other.  To some degree, the other conferences have some crossover.  The SCAC, the MIAC, the OAC, the IIAC, the SCIAC and CCIW play outside their "area". 

I don't know when the East comes back to the position of 1990's prominence.

K-Mack

Good insight as always, Ralph.

So I was going to make these into their own blog post, but we seem full over there lately with regional rankings, podcast, etc., and the timeliness isn't what it was. But for those still interested in the East Region issue, here's an e-mail I sent Frank Rossi with 9 questions that he doesn't mind sharing. It's definitely hard to squeeze this all into an ATN, and I don't always agree with Frank, but he does explain himself, and if you're interested in the issue, it's worth a read. Will do the same with something I sent Gordon Mann too:

Quote1. Why do you think an East Region team hasn't been to Salem since 1999?

Put simply, Mount Union.  In the years that the East has had some quality teams in the running, the NCAA has either placed the "East Bracket" winner against the "North Bracket" winner or placed Mount Union in the bracket outright.  Thus, even in the years Mount Union wasn't placed in the East, the team was still there to knock out the East's representative in the Semifinals.

2. Explain the gripe East Region fans have with building a bracket around No. 1-seeded Mount Union.

East Region fans have a relevant gripe concerning the Mount Union rotation into the East, since it is an indication that somehow, win-loss records are the only indication of teams' relative strengths.  It seems as though the Selection Committee doesn't notice that there are some relatively strong teams in the East that actually play each other and force each other to losses.  Thus, the actual depth of teams in the mix in the East is, I'd say, larger than those in the other regions.  If you remove Mount Union from the North and Wisconsin-Whitewater from the West, I don't see the same level of depth in the North and West, respectively.  The East has Fisher, Ithaca, Alfred, Union, RPI, Hobart, Cortland St., Rowan, Montclair St., Delaware Valley, Lycoming and others that all seem to be in the mix and that all intermix in out-of-conference games.  So, by placing Mount Union in the East because of the idea that no team went through undefeated in the East disrespects the teams in the East Region simply through that gesture.

3. If you have to go through Mount Union to win it all anyway, what difference does it make when you do it?


There are two reasons. First, the disrespect issue -- it penalizes the East teams that schedule strong out-of-conference opponents (like Delaware Valley when the team schedules Wesley).  Because of the severe risk DelVal took, the team now likely gets penalized with the potential of just two home playoff games if it makes it that far.  That's a complete sign of disrespect to a team that tried to give the country an exciting cross-regional game.

Second, it's a self-defeating prophecy for the East.  The way to create an East team that can actually regularly compete with the powers of the South, West and North is by allowing a team to get the practice and actual game experience deeper in the playoffs.  By placing Mount Union in the East, it shorts the potential East winner one full game since no East team will go to the Semifinals if Mount Union isn't eliminated by them or another team earlier in the process.  The extra week of practice and extra game against a quality team would provide experience and lessons that can't be matched in normal regular season play.  So, if a team tries to go out schedule a playoff-caliber team out of conference, they likely get penalized by being knocked down the bracket if they make it into the playoffs at all.  The Committee is not providing the East with a sufficient ability to breed a powerhouse by repeatedly placing Mount Union in the East and by penalizing teams taking risks earlier in the season.

4. Do you feel there's no incentive for teams to play tough schedules because they aren't being rewarded with at-large playoff bids if they lose?

Put simply, absolutely.  There are enough teams in Division III now that we'll have at least six teams go 9-1 by losing a conference game and otherwise running the table.  So, if there are six or more 9-1 teams looking at Pool C, we have been told on two occasions (once by the Committee Chairwoman and once, more recently, by a former member of the Committee) that 8-2 teams would not be considered unless direct links could be used for comparison's sake between specific 9-1 and 8-2 teams in the mix.  How often can that happen when the regions RARELY cross over to play each other?

To go 9-1 and be staring at Pool C means you have to beat all out-of-conference opponents.  So, let's say Delaware Valley loses a close game to a remaining MAC opponent this year.  The team's stunningly close game at then-#3 Wesley actually would do more harm than good in retrospect.  Yet, Delaware Valley would finish 8-2 under that scenario with a quality loss better than most in the tournament field.  The same could be said for St. John Fisher last year if the team had won one more game, since it ventured to Alliance, Ohio to play Mount Union to open the teams' seasons.  At 8-2, it looks like St. John Fisher was not going to be in the mix.  Why should those teams play powerhouse teams?  Even if the "you gotta play the best to be the best" philosophy holds, your loss to a powerhouse Wesley team will come at the price of placing you at a disadvantage during selection and/or seeding in the playoffs -- meaning you might not play as many quality games later by playing your quality opponent(s) earlier in the season.

5. What alternatives to the current selection process would you suggest?

I think three things need to be done.  First, I think that the regional nature of Division III football needs to be honored in the meantime of things remaining as they are.  Specifically, the top teams in each region should be honored by not displacing them or moving them around.  They've earned the right to play at the top of their region by playing the best football in their region all season.  The only teams that should be rotated between brackets should be #7 and #8 seeds (or teams that might be worse than #8 in that region but are still selected) in order to assist the Committee in placing teams when a specific region might have more than eight teams in the field (due to Pool B/C reasons) or NCAA travel rules dictate.  Generally, #7 and #8 seeds are teams that won their conferences with weaker win-loss records -- thus, the teams should have the expectation of a certain level of travel in the tournament.  If those teams can win their First Round games, then they'll be back in their region the next weekend.

Second, the NCAA needs to look at what the BCS attempts to do in FBS football and realize that, while it may not be perfect, there's something to be learned.  Specifically, the NCAA realizes that the sample size for using bare strength-of-schedule statistics is too small and can ignore conference and individual team strength.  To avoid such problems, the BCS uses both statistics (computer rankings) and human opinions (i.e., the human polls) to determine the eventual placement of the teams.  I don't agree with using a facsimile of this process for Division III.  However, I do believe that it is time to use national polls, like D3football.com's and the AFCA's Top 25 polls, to help weight wins and losses like the BCS does to assist the Committee in the ultimate selection of the Pool B and C teams.  Using bare win-loss and strength-of-schedule numbers isn't enough because the sample size in Division III is even smaller.  Human polls tend to understand that a loss against a quality team should not severely penalize that team.  However, the Committee appears to be ignoring those distinctions, perhaps due to a lack of information or an overreaction to strength-of-schedule numbers that might not tell the real story (for instance, Mount Union at #3 in the North this week in the Regional Rankings).  Whatever is the cause, national human polls (not regional subcommittee polls) can help tell a better story when cross-regional decisions need to be made and when teams decide whether or not taking on a tough opponent is a wise idea.

Third, I think the NCAA needs to create a fund to subsidize regular season travel for teams that opt to take on out-of-region opponents during out-of-conference games.  If the eventual hope is to take the regional nature out of Division III football and if the Division can create incentives to make teams want to face traditionally powerful teams, the NCAA needs to put its money where its mouth is in this respect.  Long trips in these economic times are becoming less and less appealing.  Yet, if the NCAA can find a way to even create 50 more cross-regional games per season, we could measure the relative strengths of teams in each region much more easily while providing some entertaining games for the fans -- and experiences like no other for the student-athletes taking the long trips.

6. What specifically are fans and teams missing out on by doing it the way it's done?

They're missing out on unique, appealing matchups between teams that otherwise might never play.  Imagine if DelVal decided to end its series against Wesley.  Look at how entertaining that game was this year and how much attention it drew.  Why shouldn't we see an occasional battle between Union and Mary Hardin-Baylor every so often?  Yet, DelVal and Union have no incentive to play such games -- and under the current Mount Union-at-the-top-of-the-East scenario, they never will get to play those games if they aren't scheduled in the regular season.

The fans are also missing out on some variety in the Stagg Bowl because if the current selection process continues to disincentivize taking risks during the season, no team will be able to gain the experience and strength to reasonably take on Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater for the next decade.  Those teams get five extra games each year -- their seniors will have had 15 extra weeks of practice and 15 extra games compared to teams that might have missed the playoffs the prior three years for whatever reason.  Sure, the "Any Given Saturday" idea is always at play, but there comes a point when fans are going to want to truly believe coming into a game that the game should be competitive.  Year to year, their hopes of this are fading more and more because there is no clear incentive being created to get other teams in a position to consistently compete.

7. How important is variety of playoff opponent in keeping the game interesting? What about scheduling tough opponents? Whose job is it to ensure that happens?

I've been reporting from the sidelines of the Stagg Bowl for the past three years.  While I love the atmosphere and the personalities I've grown accustomed to seeing every year in Salem, part of me really would love to see another team and their fans get a taste of the excitement in Salem.  We can only explain it so much in words -- you have to be there for a few days to understand it.  And this trickles down to the other playoff games.  When I announced the St. John Fisher/Mount Union playoff game in Alliance a few years ago, the excitement surrounding the Fisher program was electric, regardless of the result of the game.  It's just an intangible that keeps the game fresh and the teams striving to improve and play better teams.

It's partially the NCAA's job to ensure scheduling of quality opponents -- by that, I mean that the NCAA and/or Selection Committee cannot sit there and create disincentives like I have begun to witness over the last couple seasons.  To avoid Mount Union being placed in the East, a quality 10-0 team must exist in the East -- so why should Rowan or Montclair schedule a qualty out-of-conference opponent and risk the East being ambushed again by the Purple Raiders?  If 8-2 teams are not going to be truly considered in Pool C, then the same question gets asked again.  There are too many DISincentives being created right now -- and the source of them is either the NCAA or the Selection Committee, or perhaps both since the Selection Committee is following some level of the NCAA's protocol in the selection process.  Thus, it's incumbent on the NCAA to begin to consider what is happening and how to create better incentives in football since strength-of-schedule numbers are not really aiding in the creation of better regular season matchups.

8. You've seen the top teams from different regions play. Is there really a major difference in talent level?

I don't think it's a pure talent level issue. I think it's a depth issue.  Sure, there were players that were on Mary Hardin-Baylor and Hardin-Simmons a couple years ago when I called their First Round game and on Wesley, Mount Union and Whitewater that have major size advantages compared to Liberty League teams, for instance.  However, that's not the real story.  These teams seem to just be deeper at all positions than the lower teams in each region.  We know the Mount Union story with the unlimited depth they truly have -- but we don't seem to fully recognize that for a program to continuously win, it takes depth to dodge injury problems and fatigue throughout a game.  How does a team become deep?  Usually, it takes two things:  1) a commitment by a school to work with coaches in getting more players through the admissions process at a specific school; and 2) success on the field in the first place.  The national spotlight only falls on a few teams regularly -- and those teams seem to field deep teams -- it's not just a coincidence.  Whether it's the chicken or the egg is another question -- but I think commitment from these schools comes first, followed by success, which leads to more and more depth.

9. Is there any reason to believe an East Region team couldn't win a Stagg Bowl in the future?

It depends on how far in the future you mean and what happens in the meantime.  If things continue happening in the direction they have been, then I don't see it happening in the next decade -- it would take a truly magical run right now.  If the Committee begins respecting the top end of the East, then I think we could -- it would take one major cross-regional victory in the Semifinals to have it happen instead of two when Mount Union is placed at the top of the East Bracket.  So, it's tough to answer this question since we don't know what the next Selection Committee will decide to do and whether or not the NCAA will step in to shake things up a bit.  It's not looking good right now, though.

- Frank



Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

Ralph Turner

Great place to archive the post.   :)

hazzben

Some interesting insights by Rossi. Not sure I agree with them all, but they are good food for thought.

I definitely prefer the committee building regions around the top 4 teams, if possible, rather than being overly tied to regions. There is a necessary regional emphasis in DIII, but it is a national playoff.

I'd also argue the West is, in general over the past decade plus, as deep or deeper than the East. And you could argue a similar gripe for the entire North region in regards to Mount as the East has. Bottom line, the East, North and all of DIII need to reach and equal Mount. It isn't just the East's dilemma, the West faces a similar one in UWW.

K-Mack

Those are some of my thoughts, that I prefer (and even advocated in ATN for) top seeds to go to the strongest teams possible. I was happy when the Dick Kaiser-led committee did this and it would be foolish for me to complain about it now.

The other thing I agree with is about the West. Frank actually challenged me very specifically to try to get someone to match the East's depth -- it was something like take away UWW, then name 11 teams that have a chance at the No. 1 seed each year. That's a very specific, sort of unfair request, but it can be done:

Linfield
Central
Wartburg
Coe
Redlands
Oxy
Cal Lutheran
St. John's
Bethel
NWC No. 2 (Willamette)
WIAC No. 2 (UW-EC or SP)

I'd put that 11 up against the East's best 11. I guess I should find the post where Frank mentions this and link to it from here, and to here from there. And respond. :)
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.