The Niche of the Religious-based D3 Institution

Started by deutschfan, November 24, 2019, 10:43:50 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulNewman

Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 06:35:07 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on December 03, 2019, 06:53:16 PM
That said, there is an awkwardness about mentioning or inquiring about certain things.
Paul, I agree with Mr Sager that this forum isn't the right place to talk about "certain things," such as those you mentioned in the post I'm quoting. However, personally I am happy to discuss some of those things in private space. I sent you a message via the board, inviting you to contact me, but I am unsure it will reach you, b/c I also tried sending it to the email address in your profile and it bounced back. So, if you fail to receive it, and you want to make contact, please update the address in your profile and I'll try again--and let me know here that you did so, since I am not currently set up to receive emails from people here. If you prefer to ignore the invitation, of course that's to be respected and I'll fahgettaboutit, as they say in NY.

Done.  Check your email.  And thanks for your note.

I actually don't disagree that this isn't the place.  That said, what a sad state of affairs.  Folks can't discuss things that supposedly they're encouraged to explore and discuss in a college classroom or elsewhere?  Our supposedly more open society isn't that open.  And we're (I mean big we in terms of the whole country) so split that I do worry about us no longer having any shared facts that people can use as starting points.  Just spin and more spin and defending things that are indefensible at all costs.  And I did try to be as honest, forthcoming, truthful, and complimentary as I could be above.

But as I said before, yeah, I get it.  Not the right place which I assume is consistent with the initial trepidation you expressed about the thread topic in general.

Ejay

Personally, I enjoy the thread and think this is a perfectly appropriate arena to discuss the topic.  It's certainly relevant to followers of D3 soccer as there is no denying that many Christian colleges have had a ton of success.  And what makes this thread any more "inappropriate" than say a discussion about why the NESCAC or UAA continue to churn out successful teams, or why the Landmark doesn't?

jknezek

Quote from: EB2319 on December 05, 2019, 09:27:10 AM
Personally, I enjoy the thread and think this is a perfectly appropriate arena to discuss the topic.  It's certainly relevant to followers of D3 soccer as there is no denying that many Christian colleges have had a ton of success.  And what makes this thread any more "inappropriate" than say a discussion about why the NESCAC or UAA continue to churn out successful teams, or why the Landmark doesn't?

The part of the post people are questioning is the thoughts on religion in general, which were tangential at best to soccer. That being said, I don't care. But I do understand that it could have driven the topic sideways and I think people have been good about staying on track in general.

Hopkins92

First, I want to thank the posters who've taken the time to write such thoughtful and thought-provoking commentary.

Turning a bit back to the original intent, and by way of personal accounting (and I'll tie this back to the topic, trust me):

When I arrived at Hopkins, the long-standing tradition of having the head soccer coach position filled by either the head LAX coach, or one of the top coordinators was still very much in place. Despite the fact that we had almost ZERO institutional support and a man coaching the team that literally needed the bench to explain what a red card meant mid-game, my fr. and so. years we posted records that JUST missed out on NCAA bids, and still go down in the record books in offensive and defensive prowess.

By my jr. year, the administration was finally convinced to bring in a "real" soccer coach. Huzzah! ... He was a nightmare. The talent on the team carried us, but he was so toxic that players started telling recruits not to play and by my sr. year, the team had fallen into an unprecedented losing record. That spring, myself and fellow co-captains were brought into the AD and asked for our thoughts on the coach. He was fired 2 weeks later. That was 1992.

Hopkins played in the finals in 1994, losing to Bethany. I was there and watched the kid who was my understudy in goal replicating my warm-up routine and got a little misty-eyed.

While Hopkins didn't turn into a juggernaut overnight, I think folks on this board would stipulate they've fairly routinely been in the mix to either win the CC or earn an NCAA bid over the last 20 years.

=-=-=-=-=

Two things to tie that back to this discussion:

1) Institutional support is vital, regardless of religious or secular affinity. It's all the little things, like quality practice fields, equipment, TRANSPORTATION... But certainly raises to the bigger issues, such as seeking out and PAYING quality coaches. A place like Hopkins could put together decent teams simply because they have a national academic footprint and there was enough athletic talent showing up due to the draw of the degree.

That's not enough to turn a good program into an elite program.

2) The community and alumni aspect is probably more important than some are giving it. Pretty much beginning with the guys that were seniors my freshmen year, there is solid community of guys that keep in touch and are mixing in with the younger guys. They love to hear our war stories about long van rides and staying in ****ty motels. But the point is that prior to that, there was no real soccer alumni. And that's a huge missed opportunity. Alumni don't just turn up a games, they are potential ambassadors, recruiters and scouts.

I would say, at least with Hopkins, much more could be done to tap into this resource. There is now an annual alumni tournament, but there's not a lot of formal outreach from the administration or coaching staff. I don't know how other schools operate, but I assume there's just more of a connection with some the elite schools on both the religious and secular programs.

Just a few thoughts. Again, fascinating reading up to this point. I share Paul's lamentation that we can't dive into some of the other societal and political topics, but also understand that perhaps folks don't come to this board to confront those topics.

Cheers

Hopkins92

One other observation: If we're talking about what makes teams elite, which isn't necessarily what the OP posited, I think there's more in common between the NESCAC and top religious programs:

1) Institutional support (facilities, recruiting & admissions/$$)
2) Quality/Elite Coaching
3) Tradition of Excellence
4) Community/Alumni network and support

Having read all of the posts here, I'm just not sure I'd buy into the notion that simply having a strong religious undercurrent would drive athletic success. Seems like some schools have specific pipeline due to their religious affiliation, but beyond that I haven't really read anything that stands out as particularly unique.

I actually think Hope is a pretty good example. What's the one factor that changed to turn that program around?

Not trying to rankle, but I think each school that has been featured in this thread is elite for factors that are more in common than not. Some religious schools are on the radars of certain types of kids, some elite schools are on the radar of a separate group of kids. In both cases, it's what those schools do with those recruiting advantages that make the difference in long term success.

That was kind of the point of my Hopkins insight. They could be elite, but they are not quite there in terms of a few factors that I'll keep to myself so as not to offend. :-)

Another Mom

My theory is that the strongest teams are playing for more than just winning. Clearly religion could be one purpose.  I also think that coaches that truly care for their players and really go out of their way for them can also foster a culture of playing for more than wins. In this example I've seen that players give 110% to please their coach. I suspect these types of coaches also foster a "team first" supportive culture too.

Honestly I don't understand how toxic coaches ever get anywhere-- it just seems so obvious to me that team culture and morale carry you much farther than talent alone.

PaulNewman

One final (I hope) clarification....

The objections to and/or anxiety about what I wrote (and where all that might lead) are entirely reasonable.

Let me also say why I think it was reasonable that I did "go there."

There was anxiety about even starting a thread like this precisely because of concern about what might be opened up, and then there was some feeling out about whether to keep going or not, waiting to see if anyone responded, etc.  As soon as the question about "what's the deal with the soccer and the religious schools" was raised there was going to be an elephant in the room.  Then there was Falconer's excellent description of Messiah, Calvin, etc and the NESCACs and the almost totally different demographics and recruiting pools.  So I think there is a legit tie to soccer that is not just tangential when one asks why a kid who has Messiah at the top of his list probably doesn't have Amherst or Middlebury on his radar....and vice-versa...and which is not very far from a question about what is the divide between those two demographics that seems so clear all about.  There's a point (often at least) where the two demographics just don't quite get each other, and that's even presuming a more than fair measure of respect in terms of what might seem foreign.  I certainly tried to be sensitive and as respectful and complimentary as I could be (which is not to say I wouldn't change a few words or maybe leave a couple of things out if I had done more edit/review).  If that did not come across, I apologize.

At any rate, Falconer and I are now having a good, interesting and very mutually respectful dialogue off-line, and I think that's a good residual effect.

BTW, in case anyone else has wondered about the name Paul Newman.....he was a Kenyon grad and it was at Kenyon that his drama/acting career began.  (I wouldn't be surprised if there are current players who have no clue who Paul Newman was.)  He also was there for the famous (famous to Kenyon folks) fire of 1947 when the iconic Old Kenyon dormitory burned to the ground.  it was rebuilt of course and often is the building you see anytime Kenyon is featured somewhere.

PaulNewman

In response to Hopkins92, IMO success is the single biggest variable, as success just breeds success, as long as there is sufficient institutional/administrative support (with the latter being the second most critical factor).  And then in terms of what is usually the biggest key to getting success started....coaching.  But a taste of success is addictive (and attractive in terms of potential recruits).

Hopkins92

Quote from: Another Mom on December 05, 2019, 11:56:26 AM
My theory is that the strongest teams are playing for more than just winning. Clearly religion could be one purpose.  I also think that coaches that truly care for their players and really go out of their way for them can also foster a culture of playing for more than wins. In this example I've seen that players give 110% to please their coach. I suspect these types of coaches also foster a "team first" supportive culture too.

Honestly I don't understand how toxic coaches ever get anywhere-- it just seems so obvious to me that team culture and morale carry you much farther than talent alone.

Well, the flip side is sometimes the motivating factor, in that players will galvanize to "prove the coach wrong" or otherwise pit themselves against an... let's say "aggressive" coaching style. Think of the movie Varsity Blues as an overly-dramatic example of this.

If you read through my little snippet on the origin story of the current version of Hopkins soccer, in the mid 80s to early 90s, the team won in spite of the coach.. And believe me, we built a brotherhood out of that difficult time dealing with that bizarre coaching set-up.

But, in general I whole-heartedly agree with you. That aloof, aggressive style is difficult to sustain at the collegiate level. Kids have options and don't need to put up with that. (high school is a much different story. The coach I refer to in my snippet came out of the club, high school ranks, for example.)

2xfaux

Meanwhile, in Greensboro, the southern fried okra is perfect and the weather for Friday and Saturday looks to be the same.  "Can I get an Amen ?" :D

PaulNewman

Quote from: 2xfaux on December 05, 2019, 01:05:44 PM
Meanwhile, in Greensboro, the southern fried okra is perfect and the weather for Friday and Saturday looks to be the same.  "Can I get an Amen ?" :D

Oh, there's still a tournament going on?  Who could possibly want to watch Tufts, Calvin and Amherst play again?  Should we just pencil them in for next year?

Just kidding.  I'll watch every minute.

Ejay

Quote from: PaulNewman on December 05, 2019, 12:07:36 PM
IMO success is the single biggest variable, as success just breeds success, as long as there is sufficient institutional/administrative support (with the latter being the second most critical factor).

This statement is a great topic for another thread.  I'm always curious about the teams that used to be nationally strong, but then fall by the wayside.  And I'm not talking about teams lucky enough to capture magic in a bottle because they happen to get a super-stud - I'm looking at you Kean and Freddy Gurian. But rather, the teams that seemed to be Top 20 every year but now you don't hear from them.  Is it a coaching change? Lack of institutional support? Something else?  I know I'm going back some years, but TCNJ (Trenton State) was a powerhouse in the early 90's having reached the final 3x and winning once.  That winning coach from '96 is still there - has the game simply past him by? I'm sure there are other more recent examples - Dominican was very good for a time, no?

jknezek

I think it can be a lot of things. The facilities wars take their toll, and not just athletic facilities. General academic facilities at the D3 level matter. Losing assistants take their toll. Sometimes coaches just get tired. It's a grind recruiting every year. Sometimes administrations change and the desire to win diminishes, so that player you could have slipped through before you can't anymore. There are so many factors.

Gregory Sager

Quote from: EB2319 on December 05, 2019, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on December 05, 2019, 12:07:36 PM
IMO success is the single biggest variable, as success just breeds success, as long as there is sufficient institutional/administrative support (with the latter being the second most critical factor).

This statement is a great topic for another thread.  I'm always curious about the teams that used to be nationally strong, but then fall by the wayside.  And I'm not talking about teams lucky enough to capture magic in a bottle because they happen to get a super-stud - I'm looking at you Kean and Freddy Gurian. But rather, the teams that seemed to be Top 20 every year but now you don't hear from them.  Is it a coaching change? Lack of institutional support? Something else?  I know I'm going back some years, but TCNJ (Trenton State) was a powerhouse in the early 90's having reached the final 3x and winning once.  That winning coach from '96 is still there - has the game simply past him by? I'm sure there are other more recent examples - Dominican was very good for a time, no?

Dominican is still very solid. I think that the problem with the Stars is that Chicagoland recruiting for men's soccer is getting more and more competitive. The CCIW is getting to the point now where everybody cares, and when everybody cares and everybody wants to build a winning program within the CCIW in a particular sport, it starts squeezing out the programs from lesser leagues like the NACC. Also, the ARC works Chicagoland pretty heavily, as do other leagues and programs. In other words, I suspect that Erick Baumann is trying just as hard as he ever has on the recruiting trail; it's just that the increased competition on the recruiting trail is causing diminishing results.
"To see what is in front of one's nose is a constant struggle." -- George Orwell

calvin_grad

Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 04:03:20 PM
To the best of my knowledge, the college and adjacent seminary are both actually owned (present tense) either by the CRC itself
Correct.
Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 04:03:20 PM
The Christian schools feeding Calvin are mostly the ones Mr Sager identified--the CRC schools in Michigan.
That is probably true as far as the Christian schools feeding Calvin.  However, only approximately 30% of the student body is now made up of students who went to CRC churches, a much smaller percentage than in the past.

FYI, Calvin's roster has 9 of the 28 players from what I would call Christian "feeder" schools in West MI.  Success breeds success, and I think Calvin has been able to recruit a number of soccer players from non-West Michigan Christian schools that want to play soccer at a high D3 level.