Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?

Started by bleedpurple, December 19, 2011, 07:42:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Are the purple powers bad for D3?

Yes
36 (35.3%)
No
66 (64.7%)

Total Members Voted: 96

02 Warhawk

Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 02:32:20 PM
QuoteAnyway, I've seen the idea that schools don't care about winning come up in a few posts and it just makes me scratch my head. You don't field a team to lose. Granted you may not put as many resources into the sport as someone else, but that doesn't mean you are fielding a team with no intention to compete.

Emma hit the point before I could. There's a lot of room for variety of goals between the two positions you are offering - "I field a team but don't care if I win" and "I only field a team to win a national championship."  It's certainly possible to compete (in your conference, region, with your closest rivals) without having any serious intention of competing for a national championship.

Yeah. I don't completely disagree. He pointed out one side and I hit the other, but there is space in the middle. However, I will make one argument that should lay this to rest. As far as I know, no team has ever declined an invitation to the D3 NCAA tournament after receiving a bid, except for the NESCAC. If there is this whole host of schools that have no intention of playing, why do they go to the tournament? Why aren't there more NESCAC situations?

Especially some team that is staring down a pairing in the first round at UWW or at UMU? If they really had no desire, you'd think someone would step up and say, "this is not for me. thanks, but i'll pass." The argument just doesn't hold much water. Every one of those teams, whether they started out the season thinking they could win the national title or not, gets the bid and starts dreaming of going on the magic run. That tells me that the argument holds very little water.

All that being said, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt if someone can quantify it. For example, you would think the same disparity would exist to some degree at D2 and FCS levels as well. They STILL have a lot more variability at the top than D3 does. Do we think it is half the teams in D3? 25%? 10%? You have to draw the line somewhere and you can't say that the only teams that want to win are the teams that are winning. I'd argue that the only teams that DON'T want to win are the ones that have done somthing about it, the NESCAC schools.

The fact is, we have 5 or 6 top tier competitive teams out of 239 participants. And not one of those participants (besides the NESCAC) has ever said "no thanks, I'm not going to play in the playoffs because its not important." The limited set of top tier teams is not GOOD. Cut out 50% of the universe and you are still talking about 5% or less of teams that want to win who have a chance to win the national title. Its still really, really bad. We can keep cutting until it looks good, but that is beside the point.

I see no way of saying that having 1% or 2% or even 5% (of teams with desire? how do you label this?) of teams with a legitimate chance to win is a good ratio. If anyone can present an argument that makes a case why having less than 2% of participants with a chance to WIN is good, I have yet to see it.

I've seen lots of ancillary arguments, but no one on the other side has been able to work around the fact that having only 2% of teams with a chance to win can't be described as GOOD unless your team is part of that 2%...

Before 2005, UWW was a part of that 98% that didn't have a chance at winning a national championship.

Things change. It won't always be like this. UWW will come back down to earth sooner or later. I'm interested to see how Mount is with life after LK. Rowan and Augustana (among others) had their time. Now those teams rarely make the playoffs.

firstdown

St Scholastica and Illinois College were new teams to the play-offs this year.  St Scholastic, which has only been playing football a couple of years, had and undefeated regular season and won their conference.  Illinois College had a very successful season and finished a strong second in their conference.  If you were to ask the players, coaches, and fans of those teams if this was a successful year, you would get a resounding yes from both.  They both lost to tough opponents in the opening round, but neither walked on the field for the first round saying we are going to lose.  They knew they faced tough opponents, but hope springs eternal.  Those teams didn't find victory that day, but neither did they walk off the field feeling like losers.

They will both remember 2011 as a great season, and making the play-offs for the first time.  They are no doubt feeling a special surge of energy from the experience that will spur both  recruiting and working hard in the off season in the weight room with a new vigor as the success in 2011 feels like a prelude to better things to come.  They are as proud of their accomplishments as UWW feels with its Stagg Bowl victory. This the essence of D3.

AO

Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 01:43:40 PM
And, as I pointed out earlier, its not just football, though I think D3 football is probably one of the most egregious examples simply because of the size of the resources required. D3 is an odd level of competition. I can believe that there is competitive imbalance and that the imbalance is a bad thing. I can also back up the fact that there is imbalance with plenty of statistics. I don't have a way of justifying my belief that it is a bad thing.
However, any time you have 239 teams competing in a sport that 234 of them really don't have a chance at winning, I just smile whenever someone tells me this is, somehow, a GOOD thing. I suppose if you subscribe to the fact that everyone who competes gets an equal trophy then winning wouldn't matter? You are certainly entitled to that opinion, I just can't imagine how the simple fact that 98% of the universe of participants has no chance of winning is a GOOD thing.
Maybe you should reconsider your beliefs if you can't justify them?  Maybe if we took a vote among d3 fans, they might want to see some different teams in the Stagg simply to get a little variety and see new faces, but I'm also guessing the vast majority wouldn't think that Mount or UWW were somehow harming the sport.  Besides, how much harm could Mount/UWW do when they only play in 2% of all d3 football games?   The teams that do play Mount and UWW don't seem to be having any negative effects.  Teams like Oshkosh, St. Thomas and Wesley are chomping at the bit ready for another shot.

gordonmann

QuoteEvery one of those teams, whether they started out the season thinking they could win the national title or not, gets the bid and starts dreaming of going on the magic run. That tells me that the argument holds very little water.

There's a couple key distinctions here that explain how your point and mine aren't mutually exclusive.

I think you're saying that every team (except the NESCAC) has a desire to win the national championship.  Every team at least has that goal when they make the playoffs. I agree with you here. Football players -- and athletes in general -- are competitive. They want to win every game. And maybe they even believe they can (though, for some, it's probably more a hope than a belief).

My point is that some institutions -- those who govern the college and decide where to allocate limited resources -- aren't putting a priority on winning a national championship. They view the threshold for the football team's success or failure in different terms.  They want the football team to "succeed" but the Stagg Bowl isn't the sole measure of that success. So they don't put as much money in coaches, the travel budget, the facilities, etc. They decide to put money elsewhere. Not because they want the football team to lose, but because they would rather invest the resources elsewhere.  They have limited resources and building a Stagg Bowl caliber football program isn't a priority.

I have no doubt that the players and coaches feel as you suggest. They want to win every game. But if they haven't been given the resources to do it, they have limited ability to make that happen.

And that leads to a lack of parity, just as you suggest.

ncc58

When teams play at UWW or UMU for the first time, they walk away with two differences between their school and UWW/UMU.

One is the facilities. During the UWW semifinal game, the ESPN3 repeatedly discussed how the athletic complex at UWW was as good or better than some D-1 schools. Now, a lot of D-3 schools have significantly upgraded their facilities in the last 5 years or so, but they'll never catch up with UWW or UMU. BP has detailed how UWW was able to improve their athletic complex, augmenting public funding with private donations. That's easier to do when you only have 3 coaches in ~55 years. Within the last year, there was a thread on the WIAC forum on why the facilities are so disparate across the WIAC schools when they all receive their funding from the State of Wisconsin, more or less on an equal basis. The biggest threat to UWW may be the Wisconsin State legislature which wants to drastically reduce how they fund education. This would lead to increase tuition costs and cost cutting by the WIAC schools and test their commitment to athletic excellence.

The second area is the depth of UWW and UMU. Each has done it differently - UMU with a huge roster and UWW in a conference with a roster limit but free use of greyshirting. I've heard one coach say he needs 10 players for each win. That doesn't mean bodies, it means quality players. You have to have confidence in your third team players or even four team players to step up in big games when called upon. I don't think anyone besides UWW and UMU has the depth to withstand injuries to key players. Heck, Lee Brekke did an outstanding job in the 2010 playoffs for UWW.

Pat mentioned that the rise of UWW and UMU coincided with redshirting being illegal. Two years ago, I talked to a parent of a UWRF player. He told me his son was being redshirted. I told him there is no redshirting, it's called greyshirting. His response, Whatever, there's no difference. A player is recruited by a MWC school who tells a kid he will most likely only play in JV games as a freshman. But he'll be expected to contribute in his last three years. A WIAC school tells him he's a greyshirt candidate - he'll have a year to bulk him and mature, and still have four years of eligibility. Fair? But, the NCAA appears to look away.

The horse is out of the barn. I don't see a short term or long term fix to level D-3. Over the last two years, St. Thomas and Wesley have shown themselves to be excellent programs. Mary Hardin Baylor is always very good, as is Linfield. But none are at the level of UWW/UMU. I don't think Larry Kehres has any magic beans. When he does retire, he'll have a replacement ready to go. In my view, their program is on cruise control. UWW will continue to attract great players, many who are borderline D-2 or D-1 candidates.



Alliance72

Having the same two teams (from a pool of 240) play for the championship seven years in a row is beyond unfair- a new term would have to be invented to describe it.  It must not be bad for D3 or they'd solve at least half the problem by putting Mt and UWW on the same side of the brackets so only one could go to the Stagg Bowl. 

ncc58

Quote from: gordonmann on December 22, 2011, 04:51:21 PM

My point is that some institutions -- those who govern the college and decide where to allocate limited resources -- aren't putting a priority on winning a national championship. They view the threshold for the football team's success or failure in different terms.  They want the football team to "succeed" but the Stagg Bowl isn't the sole measure of that success. So they don't put as much money in coaches, the travel budget, the facilities, etc. They decide to put money elsewhere. Not because they want the football team to lose, but because they would rather invest the resources elsewhere.  They have limited resources and building a Stagg Bowl caliber football program isn't a priority.


Fair enough. But when you look at the teams in the 3rd round and even the 2nd round, many of those teams are allocating resources to winning the Stagg Bowl. Yet, UWW wasn't tested until the Stagg Bowl. Franklin took two beatings to UWW this season. I think most people would acknowledge Franklin as taking the steps to be a national power. St. Thomas seems to taking the right path, yet they were easily beaten by UWW. Wesley has had cracks at both Purple Powers. How much more can those programs do? At what cost? And what is the return value to the school?

Gray Fox

If Alabama and USC ::) played in the BCS Championship game for seven years in a row, would it be good for college football? :-X
Fierce When Roused

gordonmann

QuoteBut when you look at the teams in the 3rd round and even the 2nd round, many of those teams are allocating resources to winning the Stagg Bowl. Yet, UWW wasn't tested until the Stagg Bowl. Franklin took two beatings to UWW this season. I think most people would acknowledge Franklin as taking the steps to be a national power. St. Thomas seems to taking the right path, yet they were easily beaten by UWW. Wesley has had cracks at both Purple Powers. How much more can those programs do? At what cost? And what is the return value to the school?

Fair points. For schools that are making the investment, it may take a while to catch up. Franklin may be investing a lot in their program now, but just a couple years ago they had to play Wheaton at a local high school during the NCAA tournament because the campus stadium was in bad shape.

It's also possible that even the schools that make the investments won't catch Mount Union or UWW. They still need to have the coaches and players to get it done, along with a little bit of luck when it comes to injuries.  And it's conceivable that Mount Union and Whitewater have the perfect mix of resources, coaches, players and now unparalleled success that it will be very difficult for anyone to catch them for a while.  I haven't argued with the premise.

jknezek

Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 04:08:44 PM

Maybe you should reconsider your beliefs if you can't justify them?  Maybe if we took a vote among d3 fans, they might want to see some different teams in the Stagg simply to get a little variety and see new faces, but I'm also guessing the vast majority wouldn't think that Mount or UWW were somehow harming the sport.  Besides, how much harm could Mount/UWW do when they only play in 2% of all d3 football games?   The teams that do play Mount and UWW don't seem to be having any negative effects.  Teams like Oshkosh, St. Thomas and Wesley are chomping at the bit ready for another shot.

If you can statistically quantify your belief I'll give your thoughts more credence than my belief. You asked how much harm? I don't think a whole lot. But when your showcase game only showcases the same two teams for seven years running and the big broadcast of the game harps on how much better those teams are than any other team in D3, I'm thinking it could do some harm to players considering D3 versus other schools. If you get the impression that if you don't play for UMU or UWW D3 is basically intramurals, then despite the fact that it is only 1 game, it does a lot of harm! It also does some harm in that it continually turns off fan bases relatively early in the year. Anyone want to bet which two teams have the largest set of regular posters on these boards? Was that the case before UWW took their huge leap?

I know the ODAC boards tend to die off throughout the season as teams get eliminated. The board itself more or less dies when the last ODAC team is eliminated in the playoffs (unfortunately the first round lately). I do believe we would have more fans following D3 for more teams more consistently if there was a rotation of more than 2 teams in the final each year. The more fans that believe their teams have a shot, the more fans follow the teams. The more fans follow the teams, the more fans and alumni are involved with their schools. The more involvement of fans and alumni, the stronger the schools get. Therefore the more teams that have a shot at the final, occasionally make the final, or rotate through the later rounds of the playoffs, the stronger D3 schools will become. Will it be a major effect? Probably not. I know donations and applications to D1 schools go through the roof when they play in the NCAA basketball tournament or the big bowl games, I would expect a similar, though much smaller, effect to occur if and when those teams get exposure late in the playoffs or in the Stagg Bowl.

The thread is "Are they bad for D3" and I continually go back to the fact that the inequality they represent is bad. Since no one can disagree that there is a vast amount of inequality, and I have a reasonable belief that this inequality is not good from a discouraging interest and participation, then why should my belief change? I have yet to see an argument that has said that the inequality they represent is GOOD in any way shape or form...

Chomping at the bit you say? We shall see. If St. Thomas shows up on UWW or UMU's NC schedule regularly, I'll agree with that. Same with Wesley. I know UWW and UMU posters say their schools have trouble scheduling NCO, and I know Wesley posters say the same. Seems like a match made in heaven? I'll give UWO credit, they certainly seemed to be chomping at that bit this year, though I notice they didn't double up on UWW as an NC game as is sometimes done in the WIAC.

Alliance72

Quote from: Gray Fox on December 22, 2011, 05:56:18 PM
If Alabama and USC ::) played in the BCS Championship game for seven years in a row, would it be good for college football? :-X
No, it wouldn't and the human (AP and Coaches' polls) part oif the BCS would make sure it didn't happen.

smedindy

I think inequality is the wrong word. Inequality would be winning each playoff game by 40 or 50 points. That didn't happen.

It would be worse for D-3 if they were kicked out for being too 'good'.

They are D-3! They are in D-3 conferences. The important thing is their student athletes competing in their ENTIRE athletics program and their conferences.

AO

Quote from: jknezek on December 22, 2011, 06:20:56 PM
Quote from: AO on December 22, 2011, 04:08:44 PM

Maybe you should reconsider your beliefs if you can't justify them?  Maybe if we took a vote among d3 fans, they might want to see some different teams in the Stagg simply to get a little variety and see new faces, but I'm also guessing the vast majority wouldn't think that Mount or UWW were somehow harming the sport.  Besides, how much harm could Mount/UWW do when they only play in 2% of all d3 football games?   The teams that do play Mount and UWW don't seem to be having any negative effects.  Teams like Oshkosh, St. Thomas and Wesley are chomping at the bit ready for another shot.

If you can statistically quantify your belief I'll give your thoughts more credence than my belief. You asked how much harm? I don't think a whole lot. But when your showcase game only showcases the same two teams for seven years running and the big broadcast of the game harps on how much better those teams are than any other team in D3, I'm thinking it could do some harm to players considering D3 versus other schools. If you get the impression that if you don't play for UMU or UWW D3 is basically intramurals, then despite the fact that it is only 1 game, it does a lot of harm! It also does some harm in that it continually turns off fan bases relatively early in the year. Anyone want to bet which two teams have the largest set of regular posters on these boards? Was that the case before UWW took their huge leap?
You want me to quantify how many people have the impression that the rest of d3 is intramurals based upon their viewing of the uww/umu stagg bowl?  It's pretty safe to say it's darn near Zero.  If you're that dumb, why are you watching the d3 championship in the first place?  The far more likely reaction if this was your first exposure to d3 is to judge d3 based upon what you see rather than what you don't see. 

The bump in the number of fans that you get from making it to the championship versus the semifinals is pretty small and by the nature of bandwagon fans, it is temporary and contingent upon future success.  People are logical, if they know about Mount/UWW they won't wait until the stagg to jump on the bandwagon.  Furthermore, any gain in fans/popularity from getting to the stagg bowl does come at the cost of another team getting there.  UWW and Mount would be no different.


DGPugh

I figure most of yall are way more savy at all this than i, i have only followed D-3 for ~6 yrs, I have however followed small college since I played D-2 (now D1-aa) in pre playoff days.
 
And as i am sure yall know there have been a pile of dynasties/ repeats to championship status in all those years, perhaps not to the extent of U-dub-dub & Mount, but impressive none the less (D-2 schools ND State-champs or runner up 6x from '83-90; Grand Valley champs or runner up 6x from '01-'07; NW Mo State played for champ and won 1 from '01-07;  in D-1aa: Ga southern played in the champ game 8 times from 85-2000, or dominence of conferences- SoCon having 13 participants in the D-1aa championship game from '85-07; the Gulf South's  dominance in the D-2 championship game 7x from 84-95, or dare i say the SEC in the last 5 (6) BCS champs)

My point, which i fear i lost in having fun remembering/reminiscing & looking up this stuff, is there have and continue to be school, conference dominance , yet other teams/conferences broke into the top tier, dynasties were replaced, etc.

To quote the great southern intellectual and philosopher, Tupac Amaru Shakur "It's all good"

keep the faith
"Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes." 
Ephesians 6:11

Pat Coleman

Quote from: ILGator on December 22, 2011, 05:32:47 PM
Two years ago, I talked to a parent of a UWRF player. He told me his son was being redshirted. I told him there is no redshirting, it's called greyshirting. His response, Whatever, there's no difference. A player is recruited by a MWC school who tells a kid he will most likely only play in JV games as a freshman. But he'll be expected to contribute in his last three years. A WIAC school tells him he's a greyshirt candidate - he'll have a year to bulk him and mature, and still have four years of eligibility. Fair? But, the NCAA appears to look away.

Greyshirting is not the same as redshirting. Redshirts practiced. Greyshirts don't -- they're just students who hit the weight room. There's a significant difference.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.