I'm sure this has been posted or asked many times, and I apologize for the inconvience, but can somebody ranked the Top 3-5 Division 3 conferences? I'm sure the WIAC is first but who else?
This site's "Kickoff" went well beyond that - ranking ALL the conferences! But Pat and Keith might pull the plug on me if I let you get away without buying your own copy. ;)
Haha I can respect that dawg
Mike and Ypsi,
We will publish the rankings again outside of kickoff, probably in this week's ATN or sometime soon seperately. I'll even spruce it up with some new commentary, for your reading pleasure!
Thats a bet, I appreciate that my man...
The WIAC is clearly the top conference. I also like the OAC, due to the performance of teams besides Mt. Union in the NCAA playoffs. And due to the favorable score comparisons of OAC teams vs. Mt Union, vs the rest of the nation. Take Capital 2005 and 2006 for instance. They could have beaten Mt Union twice in the playoffs. Nobody else came that close.
Also consider Mt. Union's last loss in 2005 was to Ohio Northern, another OAC team.
If you looked at the conferences alone, it might seem strange that a team could open with NC wins over WIAC and OAC teams and drop in the polls ...
But then neither Marietta not UWRF are world beaters so no complaint here.
I don't really have a problem with UMHB passing SJU. Thought the Johnnies might be a litttle bit high and I have a hunch that this might be the year UMHB gets UWW ... and Wesley. Plus the MIAC might be a bit more balanced than most people think.
Quote from: Mike Winchell on September 03, 2007, 06:20:34 PM
Thats a bet, I appreciate that my man...
Mike,
You catch the most recent ATN? Sorry I couldn't get to it sooner. ;)
Is there a legitimate site(s) that provides D III strength of conference information...either something based on real data or even perspective pieces that may have been authored by "experts"? Thanks for any help you can provide.
Yes, check out Keith McMillan's Around the Nation column on D3football.com.
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation
Thanks, Pat.
Some quick links:
Updated the '07 Kickoff rankings with early-season non-conference action:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2007-09-26/How+we+ranked+the+conferences
2006: Started doing them with Kickoff and sharing afterward:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2006-08-30/ATN%27s+2006+conference+rankings
2004: Most thorough. Also took like 20 hours.
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2004-11-04/Ranking+the+conferences
First time we tried it, in 2002:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2002-11-07/Ranking+the+conferences%2C+top+to+bottom
I have an idea and am curious how you guys feel about it. I believe the NCAA should give power ratings to each conference every year and then only give out automatic playoff bids to the upper 1/2 of the conferences and let the rest be selected at large. that would keep weak conference champions from getting in and let some of th better teams from stronger conferences get a shot. If a conference champ from a weak conference deserves it they can get selected at large
Quote from: TCrawf5825 on November 28, 2010, 01:31:46 AM
I have an idea and am curious how you guys feel about it. I believe the NCAA should give power ratings to each conference every year and then only give out automatic playoff bids to the upper 1/2 of the conferences and let the rest be selected at large. that would keep weak conference champions from getting in and let some of th better teams from stronger conferences get a shot. If a conference champ from a weak conference deserves it they can get selected at large
It never fails to amaze me how people want to complicate a surprisingly effective and simple playoff formula. What we have now works. Six of the top eight teams, as the polls saw them, remain in the playoffs. What more do you want? Lets make it more subjective by trying to quantify depth of conference? How about we don't do that.
Lets let the conference winners in. This way you guarantee you get the best team in the country. Lets face it, if you can't win your conference you aren't the best team. Period. Now, some aberration happens and a very, very good team didn't win their conference? Guess what... Pool C bid and you are in! Lets look at the playoffs right now. How many Pool C bids are still going? As near as I can tell there is 1, Bethel. So, 7 of 8 remaining teams won their conference, whereas 6 of 7 Pool C bids are gone. And you want to add more Pool C bids? Why????
Not so fast on the pool Cs. First off, there were only 6, not 7. In round one, they went 4-2, with both losses to other pool Cs. In round two, one matchup was again C vs C, the other two Cs lost to #1 seeds. Pool C teams acquitted themselves extremely well.
Pool C teams should acquit themselves well in the early round. I don't dispute that they are stronger than the weak conference winners. I just dispute that we need to set up a subjective conference ranking system to allow more at the expense of conference winners.
At this point there is only 1 of six Pool C teams left (my mistake). If the argument is that Pool C teams are more valuable than conference winners, then you should see a much larger percentage of Pool C teams still in the tournament. They made up almost 19% of the original 32 teams and yet they are only 12.5% of the remaining teams. Anyone want to run the math on this for the last few tournaments and see if that holds up into the 3rd round?
In any given year, about 8-10 schools, tops, could win the D3 national title (I actually believe the number is more like 4-6 realistically). With 6 Pool C bids, and the fact that some of those schools will win their conference, we don't miss anyone important by rewarding conference winners. I believe step 1 to a good season should be winning your conference. Reward those teams and keep a small group of second chance schools, which we currently have, to make sure you get those 8-10 possible winners. We don't need a big group of second chance schools since there aren't that many second chance schools with a real chance at winning the title.
Do we really want a system that removes known targets, winning your conference, with susceptible measures like ranking conferences, just to include stronger, but still not strong enough, schools in the tournament? Sure watching W&L get blown out by Thomas More and then watching Thomas More get steamrolled by MHB makes you wonder why W&L was in the tourney, but then you remember W&L comes from the same conference that less than a decade ago produced Bridgewater's Stag Bowl appearance. Most conferences have a similar history of good teams popping up now and then and they shouldn't have to bite nails to see if they get their shot even after winning their conference.
A point of reference and history...
We have 32 bids in football because the most recent March Madness contract dollars allowed the D3 membership to vote to expand the ratio for bids from 1:7.5 to 1:6.5 eligible teams.
That allowed D3 to increase the field from 28 with four byes to a full 5-week 32-bid bracket. If we go with a 28-team field we have 2 Pool C bids.
In men's basketball, we have expanded from a roughly 48-team field to nearly 60, all because of the 1:6.5 bid ratio.
Quote from: jknezek on November 28, 2010, 02:29:25 PM
Pool C teams should acquit themselves well in the early round. I don't dispute that they are stronger than the weak conference winners. I just dispute that we need to set up a subjective conference ranking system to allow more at the expense of conference winners.
At this point there is only 1 of six Pool C teams left (my mistake). If the argument is that Pool C teams are more valuable than conference winners, then you should see a much larger percentage of Pool C teams still in the tournament. They made up almost 19% of the original 32 teams and yet they are only 12.5% of the remaining teams. Anyone want to run the math on this for the last few tournaments and see if that holds up into the 3rd round?
In any given year, about 8-10 schools, tops, could win the D3 national title (I actually believe the number is more like 4-6 realistically). With 6 Pool C bids, and the fact that some of those schools will win their conference, we don't miss anyone important by rewarding conference winners. I believe step 1 to a good season should be winning your conference. Reward those teams and keep a small group of second chance schools, which we currently have, to make sure you get those 8-10 possible winners. We don't need a big group of second chance schools since there aren't that many second chance schools with a real chance at winning the title.
Do we really want a system that removes known targets, winning your conference, with susceptible measures like ranking conferences, just to include stronger, but still not strong enough, schools in the tournament? Sure watching W&L get blown out by Thomas More and then watching Thomas More get steamrolled by MHB makes you wonder why W&L was in the tourney, but then you remember W&L comes from the same conference that less than a decade ago produced Bridgewater's Stag Bowl appearance. Most conferences have a similar history of good teams popping up now and then and they shouldn't have to bite nails to see if they get their shot even after winning their conference.
Yes, and Pool C teams have gone 3-2 against non-Pool A (i.e., Pool A) competition. Both losses have come against #1 seeds. Pool C is 3-3 against itself, 3-2 against Pool A and has one survivor. Their current record is 6-5. Pool B has a record of 2-2; both wins are by Wesley. Pool A has a record of 16 wins and 17 losses.
As for Washington and Lee from the ODAC, we in the ASC believe that the ODAC has been weaker since the Bridgewater teams, early in the last decade. We in the ASC and Texas match very favorably against Pres AC teams such as Thomas More and Washington and Jefferson.
So the PAC's champion eventually gets steamrolled by an ASC team. The NCAC's champ gets steamrolled by an OAC team. The HCAC's champ gets rolled by the WIAC. If we "know" that the champions from certain leagues are eventually going to play champions from other leagues that will inevitably stomp them, then why do we have a tournament that includes anybody that doesn't come from one of those 6-7 leagues?
Hmmm....championship access limited to 6-7 leagues that are arbitrarily determined to the be "strong". A discriminatory system like that already exists and it stinks. Ours is a tournament of champions, with a handful of extras invited to round things out nicely. It works. When week 1 kicks off, the championship is available to everybody. That's a pretty cool situation...why screw with that?
^ well said. I agree 100%.
Exactly right Wally. Every champ deserves a shot. UMHB didn't always get past the first round. In fact Trinity smacked the crew down several times. What UMHB did was progressively improve because they took advantage of the extra work the playoffs give. Finally in 2004 the Cru broke through and made it to the Stagg by winning every game on the road. I guess what makes me scratch my head is why comparitively a W&J team that makes the playoffs and advances a few rounds doesn't improve against the ASC teams they see regularly in the 2nd round.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 30, 2010, 04:42:15 PM
So the PAC's champion eventually gets steamrolled by an ASC team. The NCAC's champ gets steamrolled by an OAC team. The HCAC's champ gets rolled by the WIAC. If we "know" that the champions from certain leagues are eventually going to play champions from other leagues that will inevitably stomp them, then why do we have a tournament that includes anybody that doesn't come from one of those 6-7 leagues?
Hmmm....championship access limited to 6-7 leagues that are arbitrarily determined to the be "strong". A discriminatory system like that already exists and it stinks. Ours is a tournament of champions, with a handful of extras invited to round things out nicely. It works. When week 1 kicks off, the championship is available to everybody. That's a pretty cool situation...why screw with that?
+1! :)
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 30, 2010, 06:35:51 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 30, 2010, 04:42:15 PM
So the PAC's champion eventually gets steamrolled by an ASC team. The NCAC's champ gets steamrolled by an OAC team. The HCAC's champ gets rolled by the WIAC. If we "know" that the champions from certain leagues are eventually going to play champions from other leagues that will inevitably stomp them, then why do we have a tournament that includes anybody that doesn't come from one of those 6-7 leagues?
Hmmm....championship access limited to 6-7 leagues that are arbitrarily determined to the be "strong". A discriminatory system like that already exists and it stinks. Ours is a tournament of champions, with a handful of extras invited to round things out nicely. It works. When week 1 kicks off, the championship is available to everybody. That's a pretty cool situation...why screw with that?
+1! :)
+1 from me too!
Quote from: jknezek on November 28, 2010, 02:29:25 PMDo we really want a system that removes known targets, winning your conference, with susceptible measures like ranking conferences, just to include stronger, but still not strong enough, schools in the tournament?
No.
The problem with trying to go "strongest 32" is you prevent teams from ever being able to prove they belong, because the playoffs are what moves the bar as much as anything in terms of conference strength.
You and others already made all the germane points.
If we have had in D3 and have in I-A a system that locks certain teams from ever getting to prove themselves, and we currently have a system in D-III where every team knows exactly what it must do to win it all, then we have in place a system that is fair, if not perfectly balanced.
Quote from: K-Mack on December 09, 2010, 10:52:48 PM
Quote from: jknezek on November 28, 2010, 02:29:25 PMDo we really want a system that removes known targets, winning your conference, with susceptible measures like ranking conferences, just to include stronger, but still not strong enough, schools in the tournament?
No.
The problem with trying to go "strongest 32" is you prevent teams from ever being able to prove they belong, because the playoffs are what moves the bar as much as anything in terms of conference strength.
You and others already made all the germane points.
If we have had in D3 and have in I-A a system that locks certain teams from ever getting to prove themselves, and we currently have a system in D-III where every team knows exactly what it must do to win it all, then we have in place a system that is fair, if not perfectly balanced.
It also gives teams an opportunity to "experience" what it takes to win and move in that direction. I know it has helped the SCIAC (except they keep "experiencing" Linfield. :'(
Isn't the answer really to make that WIAC play at a level that better reflects its enrollments? Whitewater's undergrad enrollment (and LaCrosse's and Eau Claire's . . . ) is within a stone's throw of 10,000! Compare that to the enrollments of the other D3 schools in the 32. Indeed, there are entire CONFERENCES of schools playing DIVISION 1 football with smaller enrollments (Patriot League, Pioneer League, Ivy League). Meanwhile, ALL of our neighboring states (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan) play their non-flagship state universities at D1 or D2 (so much for the sad songs about scholarship funds). Indeed, name me ANOTHER state where ALL the state extensions play in Division 3. But--all hail, mighty WIAC! Right. IMHO--and as a Wisconsin resident, I might add--pound for pound, the WIAC is a freaking joke.
No.
The WIAC (and NJAC) have 100-man roster limits, so competitively, Whitewater has fewer players in its program than all four of the teams in beat in the playoffs (according to players-in-camp numbers provided in Kickoff '10).
The roster limit somewhat nullifies the effects of the giant enrollment; certainly state schools have more students from which to draw activity fees and a greater funding source for facilities, but at the same time, plenty of Division III privates have large endowments and supportive alumni and don't have to cut through the bureaucratic red tape to spend that money.
Being a state school doesn't automatically mean success in football (ask 0-10 Western Conn. State, for example). Nor does being a small private (Wabash, with an enrollment of 883) mean you can't compete.
So I'm not sure what your point is with the enrollment figures.
It's not possible to create a completely level playing field between 237 Division III schools with differing academic missions. Johns Hopkins and Chicago and RPI and Carnegie Mellon and Washington & Lee are recruiting from a different pool of kids than some of those they play against. So are Norwich and Merchant Marine and the Maritime academies and Coast Guard. Some have the advantages of history (Mount Union, St. John's, Linfield) or location (it's pretty balmy in SCIAC and ASC country). There are conference rules that limit preseason practice or roster limits, travel difficulties, the East thinking its road to the playoffs is blocked by having to play each other so much, etc. etc.
Each school has its unique set of challenges. Harping on enrollment alone does not paint the complete picture.
Certainly Wisconsin has an advantage when it comes to recruiting the athletes who don't get scholarships to Madison. With no in-state I-AA or II presence, you can leave the state and take a partial scholarship (36 to split among entire D2 teams) or stay close to home and pay in-state tuition. The same kids that end up in the WIAC might end up at Richmond or JMU or Virginia Union if they grew up in Va. or Shippensburg or IUP or West Chester if they grew up in Pa. or Grand Valley or Saginaw or EMU/WMU/CMU if they grew up in Michigan.
Certainly schools have advantages and disadvantages. If the WIAC schools don't want to offer athletic scholarships and want to play by Division III rules and impose their own 100-man limits to negate the potential effect of hoarding players ... why do they HAVE to move?
I can't say if "the answer" is to make the WIAC move up though because I'm not entirely sure what the question is. What are you proposing it would accomplish?
K-Mack, a VERY good well-rounded response.
It always astounds me that so many people are hung up on enrollment. Folks, this isn't high school! Teams are NOT assembled by posting notices in the dorms for open try-outs. :P These are recruited athletes (well, 95% of them) and a 500 student body school can recruit just like a 10,000 student body school.
If enrollment mattered that much, we'd be talking about NYU (well, we would if they had a football team! ;)), not UMU or UWW! ;D
Well, actually, no--a school of 500 cannot recruit like a school of 10,000. For several reasons.
First: Admissions criteria. A good many non-WIAC conferences simply could not accept a good many WIAC commits. Look at http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4EGLC_enUS405US405&q=uw%2dwhitewater+retention+rate. Whitewater accepts more than 4500 applicants from a pool of just over 6000--a yield rate that annually ranges between 75-80%. Compare that to the yield rate of less than 20% in the NESCAC. But you don't have to go to the top of the line to see the difference. A good many D3 conferences (MIAC, SCIAC, SCAC, certainly the better schools in the IIAC) have yield rates below 50%. So, before the game even starts, Whitewater has an immediate advantage in defining its population. Which leads to the . . .
Second reason: Greyshirting. Call it what you want: Greyshirting, oversigning, etc., etc. It's well known in these parts (by which I mean Southern Wisconsin, where I live, and where Whitewater finds its most fertile recruiting among my sons' teammates and peers), that UWW WAY oversubscribes its incoming class. Yes, WIAC has a roster limit of 100. But that's ACTIVE roster. By oversubscribing, Whitewater again enjoys the advantage of a larger population.
Third reason: Retention rate. Whitewater's is just under 75%--a rate unheard of among D3 schools that are at ALL selective, and indeed one that would be frankly be fatal to a school with an enrollment of 2000. You simply cannot give up 25% of your freshman class in those schools and expect to stay in business. In the WIAC, however, a large and highly fluid student body in the state university system--fueled principally by transfer enrollments from UW-Madison--allows those schools to replenish enrollments at an exceptionally robust rate.
Fourth reason: common sense. If it doesn't make a difference, then why do NEARLY all schools with the profile of WIAC institutions play in D2? According to the NCAA's website, the average endergraduate enrollment in D3 schools is 2250; in D2 schools it's 4600. In other words, most of the WIAC schools would be bullies on the block in Division II!
Sorry to burst the bubble of those who insist it's all about roster size. It's not. It's about the size of your active talent population, the probability of mainitaining top-level talent within the population, and the risk of erosion in that population--and Whitewater and the WIAC enjoy insuperable advantages in all of these areas.
DD. It appears that you have elicited some negative karma as a result of your well reasoned, non-emotional and rational arguments. Unless, with one of your other 3 posts, you were dinged. It seems as though if you even broach this subject, some get upset. I, for one, have mo problem with stating what seems to be obvious to the most casual observer. Those who have a problem with such argumentation, and would rather engage in name calling and invective. Look in the mirror.
With the exception of calling the WIAC "a freaking joke" I think DD's comments are well thought out and reasoned, but not particularly applicable. With the breadth of D3 you just can't come up with a level playing field in terms of "fair recruiting" for all schools. D3 is wonderful because it allows for so many different kinds of schools. State schools, regional schools, military schools, large private schools, small liberal arts schools, academically challenging schools and schools that are a revolving door... D3 includes everything from the best to the worst of academic institutions. Literally in D3 there is a school for anyone, UNLESS you want to get a free ride for playing a sport... However, this breadth will always be an issue if you are concerned about all teams having a fair shake at winning a national title.
Playing in D3 means setting realistic expectations. W&L winning the ODAC? Possible. W&L winning 2 or 3 games in the D3 playoffs? Extremely unlikely. Therefore I'm really proud when we win the ODAC, love that we get a shot at the playoffs, and not real upset when we lose in the first round.
A few years ago we went to the playoffs for the first time and played Wilkes University for the only time. Wilkes is my parents' alma mater and I flew up from FL and drove with my Dad to the game. Even though W&L got blown out by a school with a huge admissions advantage it didn't matter to me. My Dad and I thought it was a great moment that those young men working hard both athletically and academically gave us a chance to see such an unlikely, and yet for us, magical matchup. Outside of the playoffs, I don't think those 2 teams will ever meet again. And it was only possibly because D3 has such a disparate makeup. I really hope some other lucky family got that experience this year. It really is part of the magic of D3.
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 13, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Isn't the answer really to make that WIAC play at a level that better reflects its enrollments? Whitewater's undergrad enrollment (and LaCrosse's and Eau Claire's . . . ) is within a stone's throw of 10,000! Compare that to the enrollments of the other D3 schools in the 32. Indeed, there are entire CONFERENCES of schools playing DIVISION 1 football with smaller enrollments (Patriot League, Pioneer League, Ivy League). Meanwhile, ALL of our neighboring states (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan) play their non-flagship state universities at D1 or D2 (so much for the sad songs about scholarship funds). Indeed, name me ANOTHER state where ALL the state extensions play in Division 3. But--all hail, mighty WIAC! Right. IMHO--and as a Wisconsin resident, I might add--pound for pound, the WIAC is a freaking joke.
Seriously pall ::)
this high enrollment = success "myth" has been shot down time and after time...you're a freaking joke.
Where were you 7+ years ago, when Whitewater's student population and roster size was the same. yet they weren't even considered a threat on the national level for DIII football....far from it actually.
What has changed between then and now? maybe give the coaching staff a little credit.
you of all people (Notre Dame fan) should know that size of the institution doesn't matter when judging college football success. How small is ND's student population...yet they are one of the most storied programs in college football history. Same for Duke University and basketball. Looking at their enrollment Duke and ND should never win a game??. ::)
...this isn't high school athletics, Teddy.
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 30, 2010, 04:42:15 PM
So the PAC's champion eventually gets steamrolled by an ASC team. The NCAC's champ gets steamrolled by an OAC team. The HCAC's champ gets rolled by the WIAC. If we "know" that the champions from certain leagues are eventually going to play champions from other leagues that will inevitably stomp them, then why do we have a tournament that includes anybody that doesn't come from one of those 6-7 leagues?
Hmmm....championship access limited to 6-7 leagues that are arbitrarily determined to the be "strong". A discriminatory system like that already exists and it stinks. Ours is a tournament of champions, with a handful of extras invited to round things out nicely. It works. When week 1 kicks off, the championship is available to everybody. That's a pretty cool situation...why screw with that?
A solid post ;)
Jknezek: Well, it seems to me that we're talking about the difference between legislating to create fairness and legislating to eliminate unfairness. The former is folly; the latter is, by comparison, the point of legislating at all. As for Warhawk02's argument, I tend to be unimpressed by the argument that a position has been shot down "time after time." Unless we're talking about pre-Copernican cosmology or zombies, I tend to think there's little in the world--certainly in the world of college football--that's self evident. And as for UWW's coaches: Congratulations on finding some who could make full use of their inherent advantages. Perhaps you should be introduced to Tom Taraska and Dave Keel. Same difference, my friend. As for your comments on Notre Dame and Duke, they might make sense if Amherst or Pomona had made 6 straight D3 appearances, but under the actual circumstances, I have no idea what point you think you're making.
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 13, 2010, 11:32:11 AM
Isn't the answer really to make that WIAC play at a level that better reflects its enrollments? Whitewater's undergrad enrollment (and LaCrosse's and Eau Claire's . . . ) is within a stone's throw of 10,000! Compare that to the enrollments of the other D3 schools in the 32. Indeed, there are entire CONFERENCES of schools playing DIVISION 1 football with smaller enrollments (Patriot League, Pioneer League, Ivy League). Meanwhile, ALL of our neighboring states (Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan) play their non-flagship state universities at D1 or D2 (so much for the sad songs about scholarship funds). Indeed, name me ANOTHER state where ALL the state extensions play in Division 3. But--all hail, mighty WIAC! Right. IMHO--and as a Wisconsin resident, I might add--pound for pound, the WIAC is a freaking joke.
All the NJ state schools except for two are D-III. Rutgers and NJIT are D-I and NJIT only did it for soccer. Out of 12 state schools 10 are D-III comparable to WI.
Phewww......thank goodness for the voodoo magic Larry Kehresthat allows Mount to compete with these state school brutes. ;) ;D
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 14, 2010, 03:12:25 PM
Jknezek: Well, it seems to me that we're talking about the difference between legislating to create fairness and legislating to eliminate unfairness. The former is folly; the latter is, by comparison, the point of legislating at all. As for Warhawk02's argument, I tend to be unimpressed by the argument that a position has been shot down "time after time." Unless we're talking about pre-Copernican cosmology or zombies, I tend to think there's little in the world--certainly in the world of college football--that's self evident. And as for UWW's coaches: Congratulations on finding some who could make full use of their inherent advantages. Perhaps you should be introduced to Tom Taraska and Dave Keel. Same difference, my friend. As for your comments on Notre Dame and Duke, they might make sense if Amherst or Pomona had made 6 straight D3 appearances, but under the actual circumstances, I have no idea what point you think you're making.
You're right...Amherst does indeed have no chance at a DIII championship, but it has nothing to do with it's enrollment, academics or roster size. The NESCAC doesn't choose to participate in post-season football....so no school in the NESCAC will ever get that chance. Bad example.
How about Mount Union? small, private school (enrollment smaller than Pomona's, actually) that accumulated more NCAA success then any large, public/state school in DIII history. What "inherent advantages" does Kehres take advantage of?
I'll give you that fact that public/state schools don't have the admission standards of most private institutions. Also, that tuition is typically less than most private schools. But for people to say that a football program has an advantage over another b/c of its size of its student body....I don't think so.
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 14, 2010, 03:30:19 PM
All the NJ state schools except for two are D-III. Rutgers and NJIT are D-I and NJIT only did it for soccer. Out of 12 state schools 10 are D-III comparable to WI.
As a long-time Rutgers fan growing up in the late 80s and 90s, there was a period of time when we thought that "except" should have been removed! Just kidding. Although it was never much fun going to an empty stadium and seeing them lose by 40.
Right, Amherst was a poor example. My apologies. Luckily, good examples abound.
As for Mount Union, I don't know a lot about them, but the circumstantial evidence is that their "inherent advantages" include great coaching, good recruiting, strong player commitment, excellent conditioning--pretty much the same things that Bob Reade and Ron Schipper, etc., used to lead Augie, Central, and others like them to impressive success in D3 against PEER INSTITUTIONS. No matter how many titles it wins in D3, Whitewater will never be in that class.
I'm sorry you don't believe the statistical facts of the advantages that attach to having a student body nearly FIVE TIMES larger than your competitive set. It seems pretty plain to me.
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 14, 2010, 10:16:25 PM
Right, Amherst was a poor example. My apologies. Luckily, good examples abound.
As for Mount Union, I don't know a lot about them, but the circumstantial evidence is that their "inherent advantages" include great coaching, good recruiting, strong player commitment, excellent conditioning--pretty much the same things that Bob Reade and Ron Schipper, etc., used to lead Augie, Central, and others like them to impressive success in D3 against PEER INSTITUTIONS. No matter how many titles it wins in D3, Whitewater will never be in that class.
I'm sorry you don't believe the statistical facts of the advantages that attach to having a student body nearly FIVE TIMES larger than your competitive set. It seems pretty plain to me.
Just one problem. UWW is not even the largest enrollment school in the WIAC, much less d3. Explain that, 'enrollment is destiny' man! ::)
BTW, Montclair St. (larger than ANY WIAC school) was blown out 44-7 by Wesley (1350 students) in the playoffs. Should MSU be forced to move to d2? :P
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 14, 2010, 10:16:25 PM
Right, Amherst was a poor example. My apologies. Luckily, good examples abound.
As for Mount Union, I don't know a lot about them, but the circumstantial evidence is that their "inherent advantages" include great coaching, good recruiting, strong player commitment, excellent conditioning--pretty much the same things that Bob Reade and Ron Schipper, etc., used to lead Augie, Central, and others like them to impressive success in D3 against PEER INSTITUTIONS. No matter how many titles it wins in D3, Whitewater will never be in that class.
I'm sorry you don't believe the statistical facts of the advantages that attach to having a student body nearly FIVE TIMES larger than your competitive set. It seems pretty plain to me.
Then how does Mount Union manage? :)
Quote from: Pat Coleman on December 15, 2010, 12:47:06 AM
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 14, 2010, 10:16:25 PM
Right, Amherst was a poor example. My apologies. Luckily, good examples abound.
As for Mount Union, I don't know a lot about them, but the circumstantial evidence is that their "inherent advantages" include great coaching, good recruiting, strong player commitment, excellent conditioning--pretty much the same things that Bob Reade and Ron Schipper, etc., used to lead Augie, Central, and others like them to impressive success in D3 against PEER INSTITUTIONS. No matter how many titles it wins in D3, Whitewater will never be in that class.
I'm sorry you don't believe the statistical facts of the advantages that attach to having a student body nearly FIVE TIMES larger than your competitive set. It seems pretty plain to me.
Then how does Mount Union manage? :)
Not that I'm buying what DD is selling, but I think the first part of the middle quoted paragraph answers you Pat.
An advantage (in the abstract, not referring to any particular advantage) is not necessarily insurmountable.
Mont Union's previous success is now a huge advantage. What would be interesting to look at would be what was done to go from three or four years at the top to now nearly twenty years.
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 14, 2010, 10:16:25 PM
Right, Amherst was a poor example. My apologies. Luckily, good examples abound.
As for Mount Union, I don't know a lot about them, but the circumstantial evidence is that their "inherent advantages" include great coaching, good recruiting, strong player commitment, excellent conditioning--pretty much the same things that Bob Reade and Ron Schipper, etc., used to lead Augie, Central, and others like them to impressive success in D3 against PEER INSTITUTIONS. No matter how many titles it wins in D3, Whitewater will never be in that class.
I'm sorry you don't believe the statistical facts of the advantages that attach to having a student body nearly FIVE TIMES larger than your competitive set. It seems pretty plain to me.
sounds similar to what goes on at UWW.
sorry, i don't see the advantage at a large student body...looks like I'm not the only one either. It's almost like saying, the Chicago Bears should never lose to the Green Bay Packers b/c Chicago is a larger city/market than Green Bay. Doesn't make sense at all does it....
Uh, no. Actually--assuming that you're a Wisconsin resident--it's perhaps more like saying that Milwaukee Marquette could reliably be expected to beat Burlington Catholic Central. Indeed, that's a rough analog, but serviceable. Marquette's enrollment is about 5 times BCC's, both are tuition-driven, both recruit (no matter what they claim) and so are not put to the task of building a football team out of whoever shows up, and both are powerhouses in their classes. But MUHS is Division 1 and BCC is Division 7, and I doubt the 'Toppers from Milwaukee would walk around with their chests puffed out over beating the 'Toppers from Burlington year after year. Still a very rough analogy, but you continue to deny the objective evidence of the statistical analysis.
One point is missing, no one is violating any of the terms that we've agreed upon to be division three. Having a small enrollment is part of the price that you pay to have a small, private, exclusive institution. We've taken the approach that education should be affordable and that everyone should have an opportunity to receive a quality education if they pursue it. We admit more people but our graduation standards aren't lower than anyone's so if someone, for whatever reason in life, didn't get into a small exclusive college they have an opportunity to redeem themselves and learn the things needed to lead a successful life.
Greyshirting has no bearing on the quality of the team that may exist in the WIAC. People who are cut from the team after tryouts do not practice or workout with the team. They are welcome to try again during spring ball or next fall just like everyone who was cut but there aren't specific "greyshirts". That's just a term made up for "you weren't good enough now, better luck next time."
All of these points are invalidated by the fact that everyone recruits students to play sports. None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard. The first thing that you need to do to be a successful program is the same thing that you need to do to be a successful person. Appreciate your strengths, improve your weaknesses, and stop worrying about the differences between yourself and another person(program).
Quote from: Warhawk 96 on December 15, 2010, 12:28:34 PM
None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.
Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger
Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?
Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?
Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.
But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.
I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?
Quote from: Bombers798891 on December 15, 2010, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: Warhawk 96 on December 15, 2010, 12:28:34 PM
None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.
Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger
Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?
Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?
Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.
But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.
I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?
yea, i can actually see where you're coming from as far as getting handcuffed when allowing only a certain number of freshman into an institution. but i'm not convinced that's a big enough advantage to grant a team success on the athletic field. There's far too many examples of small colleges having success in DIII, as well as too many large schools experiencing little to no success.
One thing that doesn't get discussed is I think whitewater has an advantage over other WIAC schools is their location. They are the only school in the WIAC in Southeastern WI. We are able to easily tap into the Northern IL (Chicago) market, Madsion market and Milwaukee market...other WIAC schools are able to do the same, but it's more convienant for UWW to do so, IMO.
Seems to me we got off topic here ;D (Best D3 Conferences)
Quote from: Bombers798891 on December 15, 2010, 04:26:52 PM
I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?
Just my personal opinion but of the three factors you mention I'd say academic standards of the athletic program, not the institution, would be first, followed by cost, including any tuition assistance, followed by a distant size factor. Before you got to size I'm inclined to believe you'd have to deal with the number of competing institutions as a function of recruiting populations and a few other factors. Finally, I believe coaching staff / recruiting ability trumps all but academic standards in importance. Put it all together and you get enough of a hodge podge that no one factor, even academic standards, is all that important. Therefore I have no problem with the WIAC or any school participating in D3 as long as they follow the rules.
Quote from: Bombers798891 on December 15, 2010, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: Warhawk 96 on December 15, 2010, 12:28:34 PM
None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.
Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger
Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?
Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?
Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.
But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.
I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?
If the study was done would it change anything? There's nothing that says that in order to be a certain division you have to be a certain size. At the end of the day, the size of your institution is a self-imposed restriction. I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong but if you wanted to you could admit more people or make it more affordable. You don't want to do it so that you protect the small college mystique and exclusivity that you value. With that being said, it's the price you've paid to have the institution you want. There's nothing unfair about it because if you really wanted to you could be as big as a WIAC school. Your institution doesn't value athletics enough to admit more than a certain amount of total students so you suffer accordingly. If there's anyone to complain to it's them.
Quote from: Warhawk 96 on December 15, 2010, 07:36:44 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on December 15, 2010, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: Warhawk 96 on December 15, 2010, 12:28:34 PM
None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.
Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger
Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?
Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?
Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.
But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.
I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?
If the study was done would it change anything? There's nothing that says that in order to be a certain division you have to be a certain size. At the end of the day, the size of your institution is a self-imposed restriction. I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong but if you wanted to you could admit more people or make it more affordable. You don't want to do it so that you protect the small college mystique and exclusivity that you value. With that being said, it's the price you've paid to have the institution you want. There's nothing unfair about it because if you really wanted to you could be as big as a WIAC school. Your institution doesn't value athletics enough to admit more than a certain amount of total students so you suffer accordingly. If there's anyone to complain to it's them.
Easy there killer, no-one's saying it's unfair as though the WIAC schools have something to apologize for. Certainly, I'm not complaining about academics or cost being an issue at IC--although I know numerous coaches and ex-athletes who do and its a lot of hot air.
Likewise, nowhere in my post was I advocating for a change of any kind. It's just something interesting to think about and discuss.
I've got no problem if my institution "doesn't value" athletics because, well, aside from it not being true"
1) I'd rather they value academics (not that schools who value athletics don't, just in general). I've gone on record as saying Ithaca's massive athletic and events center is a waste of money for the institution. While I want to see the teams do well, if a football person complains to me that they couldn't get a kid in due to academics, that actually makes me happy, not sad because it means the school didn't compromise their standards to admit a great cornerback (again, I'm not saying other schools do that). Now the money thing is different, but that's more about my feeling that college in general is too expensive for everyone. But again, if a lacrosse player decides to go to Cortland because it's 1/10th of the cost, I'm not losing any sleep over it.
As I said, it would just be something interesting to know.
2) We hardly "suffer" athletically at Ithaca. Yeah, we're not all-world in football like you are right now, but we've got a pretty well stocked trophy case of our own, finished 22nd in the Directors Cup last season, and has been in the top 30 all 15 years, top 20 11 times and top 10 four times.
Imagine what we could do if we actually did value athletics? ;)
Quote from: Bombers798891 on December 16, 2010, 10:34:56 AM
Quote from: Warhawk 96 on December 15, 2010, 07:36:44 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on December 15, 2010, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: Warhawk 96 on December 15, 2010, 12:28:34 PM
None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.
Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger
Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?
Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?
Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.
But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.
I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?
If the study was done would it change anything? There's nothing that says that in order to be a certain division you have to be a certain size. At the end of the day, the size of your institution is a self-imposed restriction. I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong but if you wanted to you could admit more people or make it more affordable. You don't want to do it so that you protect the small college mystique and exclusivity that you value. With that being said, it's the price you've paid to have the institution you want. There's nothing unfair about it because if you really wanted to you could be as big as a WIAC school. Your institution doesn't value athletics enough to admit more than a certain amount of total students so you suffer accordingly. If there's anyone to complain to it's them.
Easy there killer, no-one's saying it's unfair as though the WIAC schools have something to apologize for. Certainly, I'm not complaining about academics or cost being an issue at IC--although I know numerous coaches and ex-athletes who do and its a lot of hot air.
Likewise, nowhere in my post was I advocating for a change of any kind. It's just something interesting to think about and discuss.
I've got no problem if my institution "doesn't value" athletics because, well, aside from it not being true"
1) I'd rather they value academics (not that schools who value athletics don't, just in general). I've gone on record as saying Ithaca's massive athletic and events center is a waste of money for the institution. While I want to see the teams do well, if a football person complains to me that they couldn't get a kid in due to academics, that actually makes me happy, not sad because it means the school didn't compromise their standards to admit a great cornerback (again, I'm not saying other schools do that). Now the money thing is different, but that's more about my feeling that college in general is too expensive for everyone. But again, if a lacrosse player decides to go to Cortland because it's 1/10th of the cost, I'm not losing any sleep over it.
As I said, it would just be something interesting to know.
2) We hardly "suffer" athletically at Ithaca. Yeah, we're not all-world in football like you are right now, but we've got a pretty well stocked trophy case of our own, finished 22nd in the Directors Cup last season, and has been in the top 30 all 15 years, top 20 11 times and top 10 four times.
Imagine what we could do if we actually did value athletics? ;)
Hold on a minute man, you're taking what I'm saying in the wrong way. What I meant is that they don't value it enough to jeopardize the small feel of your campus. It's not saying that they don't value it. We all value academics, we just differ in our philosophy and that was my point. We invite virtually everyone who is qualified to try their hand at receiving an education. If there's an increasing number of students applying we will expand. You have your own beliefs and that's fine but it's your personal beliefs and identity that have created that obstacle. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just having a healthy debate and making a point that I think has been omitted.
02 - You hint that we're getting off topic, yet isn't the mantra of the WIAC that they're the toughest conference in D III? You've just argued yourself into a conudrum if you're also saying that the size of the institution does not have some inherenct advantages, since the WIAC has the highest average enrollment of any conference.
Quote from: retagent on December 16, 2010, 01:23:57 PM
02 - You hint that we're getting off topic, yet isn't the mantra of the WIAC that they're the toughest conference in D III? You've just argued yourself into a conudrum if you're also saying that the size of the institution does not have some inherenct advantages, since the WIAC has the highest average enrollment of any conference.
I admit, that UWW bringing in thousands of freshmen each year, compared to hundreds at other smaller schools, in theory provides a recruiting advantage for WIAC teams. this might give the larger school a better opportunity to bring in more recruits than other smaller institutions. However, I'm not convinced that a superior advantage is noticed the athletic field b/c of this.
Like I already stated, there's too many examples in DIII where that's not the case. There's pleanty of large schools that hardly experience success in athletics, and there's pleanty of smaller schools that compete at a high level year-in and year-out.
UWW's enrollment hasn't adjusted much over the years, yet they've only been relevant on the national scene in football since 2005. I guess if this was a substantial advantage.....WIAC teams will win a large majority of DIII championships, which is not the case.
There's too many other factors to take into account on why a program experiences success...A school having a large enrollment is hardly one of them.
Quote from: Warhawk 96 on December 16, 2010, 11:08:17 AM
Hold on a minute man, you're taking what I'm saying in the wrong way. What I meant is that they don't value it enough to jeopardize the small feel of your campus. It's not saying that they don't value it. We all value academics, we just differ in our philosophy and that was my point. We invite virtually everyone who is qualified to try their hand at receiving an education. If there's an increasing number of students applying we will expand. You have your own beliefs and that's fine but it's your personal beliefs and identity that have created that obstacle. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just having a healthy debate and making a point that I think has been omitted.
No disrespect intended, or perceived...healthy debate is indeed what this is.
But there's no "your" here. Trust me, I have no hand in Ithaca's institutional or athletic approach. ;)
I'm 50/50 on the creating obstacles, because I think the obstacles we've been discussing a present well before an athletic program comes into place. Alfred, for example, was founded in 1836. The football team was started 60 years or so later (and really, that wasn't the kind of football we're discussing) So the administration at Alfred didn't really chose between the small, d-III feel and a powerhouse football team. They WERE a small campus, that eventually got a football team.
Likewise, Ithaca's football program started in 1930, 38 years after the college was founded. Cortland State became a four year college in 1868 and started football 25 years later (again, not in the form we know it today). So I don't think many of these policies were instituted with any shred of inclination of how they would impact athletics.
Now, you could argue that the continued presence of these obstacles is a detriment to football, but I don't think it's a conscious choice between "our institution or our athletics". Yes, schools will commit to building a program through various means, and IC is no exception--as our A&E center proves. And I guess you could argue things like academic standards can be raised or lowered over time
But, I think a lot of these things we're discussing are set in stone to a large degree and can't be changed. Ithaca didn't chose to be a private school, with tough academic standards
at the expense of a competitive athletic program. They ARE a private school with tough academic standards and maybe, for them, that's hurting the athletic program right now. (Ok, not so much Ithaca, but, IDK, think like, Vanderbilt)
Likewise, I think the same is true for bigger schools, with lower standards, etc. They're not choosing to be that
for their athletic program as much as that's the environment the program was brought into, and, if in the modern day, that environment is conducive to bringing in better athletes, that's the reality. It's not so much a conscious choice at times as what your program "inherited". If you're an athletic department at a school with more leinient academics, lower tuition and a bigger student body, you're going to benefit from that.
Now obviously, you have to work within those parameters, as there are plenty of cheap, big, "easier" schools with bad programs and vice versa. No-one's saying Whitewater hasn't earned their success and built their program, because they have, and they did, and they deserve credit for it. But I do believe any school with certain inherited advantages has an easier time than others to work within those parameters. Mostly because they're not faced with a tradeoff. They don't have to debate whether they should lower their academic standards to admit better athletes, or raise however many millions to expand a campus (again, not a slight at any school, just a general observation).
I guess this is a long-winded (sorry, it's my nature) of saying that I do believe, through elements out of their control, and even the current incarnation of their institutions' control, some school have an easier time, and, while there's nothing wrong with that, there's nothing wrong with
admitting that either.
how about instead of trying to make excuses other conferences teams start working harder, game planning better and putting in their time?
I guess if my team sucked I'd look for an excuse as to why too... ::)
I just realized my alma mater was being used as an example and so I thought I'd add some anecdotal evidence to the discussion.
I'm a big fan of minor league baseball, especially the shortseason, single A NY-Penn League which dots this part of the country. Their season starts a week after the draft, so the league is mostly filled with recent draftees and undrafted free agents. My observation is that the most successful teams each year are the ones who have the most contributing undrafted free agents on their roster.
Now, onto D3 football. I have no idea how many "greyshirted" players eventually become contributing members of any D3 team, but in my mind those players provide unexpected benefits to their team just as much as random transfers (not recruited transfers, if we can make that distinction). Taking this another step with Alfred as an example, Nick Clark was a local wrestling talent that went to North Carolina to wrestle at the DI level, but after a year came home and joined the Saxon football team. He is likely our best player whose addition could arguably be the difference between consistently finishing a game short of the playoffs and this year playing into December.
The larger the size of an instituion, the greater the likelihood that an athletically gifted student may decide to try out for the team and the more of those instances the more likely that one will contribute at the margins for the team and elevate that program to the next level. Not a guarantee of success nor a reason that a program should have to change division, but certainly one of those factors which helps across the spectrum of D3 sports.
Quote from: AUKaz00 on December 20, 2010, 10:48:47 AM
The larger the size of an instituion, the greater the likelihood that an athletically gifted student may decide to try out for the team and the more of those instances the more likely that one will contribute at the margins for the team and elevate that program to the next level. Not a guarantee of success nor a reason that a program should have to change division, but certainly one of those factors which helps across the spectrum of D3 sports.
100% agree
Well, if you agree 02Warhawk, doesn't that seem pretty significant toyou? Indeed, just today, a Wisconsin HS coach posted at the wissports.net board a statement that Whitewater, LaCrosse, and one or two others in the WIAC "bring in 180 players and let nature weed them" down to 105. The margin for error in this situation increases dramatically--and meaningfully. I mean, how many D3 schools with enrollments of 1500 carry a 27-year-old, all-state, Big 10 castoff on their rosters as a RESERVE?
To bring the debate into more constructive focus, then, the two key questions really are the ones that Bombers798891 has framed:
1. Do the data suggest some correlation between the various objective data mentioned variously here (greyshirt scale, enrollment level, tuition level, academic selectivity, and do forth) and what one of the posters rightly called "inherited advantage."
2. If so, at what point, if any, does the level of "inherited advantage" rise to the level of material inequity--and, more perplexingly, what happens then?
Yeah...let's bang on a guy who made mistakes, has since paid his debt and taken steps to get an education and put his life on a proper path. Come on.
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 21, 2010, 02:14:42 PM
Well, if you agree 02Warhawk, doesn't that seem pretty significant toyou? Indeed, just today, a Wisconsin HS coach posted at the wissports.net board a statement that Whitewater, LaCrosse, and one or two others in the WIAC "bring in 180 players and let nature weed them" down to 105. The margin for error in this situation increases dramatically--and meaningfully. I mean, how many D3 schools with enrollments of 1500 carry a 27-year-old, all-state, Big 10 castoff on their rosters as a RESERVE?
To bring the debate into more constructive focus, then, the two key questions really are the ones that Bombers798891 has framed:
1. Do the data suggest some correlation between the various objective data mentioned variously here (greyshirt scale, enrollment level, tuition level, academic selectivity, and do forth) and what one of the posters rightly called "inherited advantage."
2. If so, at what point, if any, does the level of "inherited advantage" rise to the level of material inequity--and, more perplexingly, what happens then?
a SIGNIFICANT advantage?? no, I do not think that. As long as Mount Union (enrollment 2000) remains a power house, and schools like Buffalo State (enrollment 8000+) keep ending the year with a sub .500 record, then no I won't be convinced that size matters ;D.
It still comes down to
quality over quantity when it comes to recruiting. That is determained by how good your coaching staff is....which is what seperates UWW, UMU, Wesley, NCC, Linfield from the rest of the schools.
Wally_wabash: I don't believe I was "banging" on anybody. No comment about the circumstances of the player's dismissal from UW or that he somehow isn't deserving. (I'd be happy to discuss both points elsewhere.) In this case, I was just offering an illustration of the point that this is a numbers game--which, in fact, it is.
Warhawk02: It seems to me that you're continuing to obscure the issue--in the same way, it seems, that folks often confuse necessary conditions with sufficient conditions. Nobody is saying that the advantage is conclusive. It it were--say, for example, in the way that scholarship dollars are presumably conclusive--it presumably would have been settled long ago by the governing body. The point, again, is the relative gravity of the advantage. As an economist would frame it, other things equal--and, no, I'm not talking about perfect equality, but about substantial equity--is there an advantage? In other words, the discussion seeks to plumb correlation, not causation. I continue to believe that the answer to the pertinent question is certainly "yes."
Anybody know a graduate student in, say, actuarial science who needs a dissertation topic? (Hey, I thought you Whitewater guys were supposed to be world-class quants. ;) )
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 21, 2010, 04:18:07 PM
Wally_wabash: I don't believe I was "banging" on anybody. No comment about the circumstances of the player's dismissal from UW or that he somehow isn't deserving.
I wouldn't exactly call labeling him a "castoff" as a term of endearment.
You had some reason for even bringing it up in the first place...presumably to bolster this absurd idea that Whitewater is playing by a different set of rules than the rest of us because they'll accept just about anybody, even that guy. That was the point, wasn't it? If that wasn't the point, then I don't understand why you'd bring that player specificially into this conversation.
First of all, "castoff" is exactly what he is--endearing or not; he was, as a matter of fact, categorically dismissed from the team at UW in December 2005, and hadn't played college football for any team since. By the way, "convicted triple felon" is also a statement of fact, though likewise not one that's very complimentary. As it happens, I'm familar first-hand with both the young man involved as well as the HS coach who tried to help get him squared away. I don't intend any slander by the labels, but facts are stubborn things.
Second, I think y'all need to go back and follow the argument. The point in Stanley's case isn't admissions standards. (It could be, but I haven't seen his admissions file.) The point, rather, is once again the advantage of having 10,000 undergraduate seats available, and with a turnover rate of something like 20% each year, a well-worn transfer path from Madison, and a tolerance for something on the order of 175 young men vying for program spots. Together, these circumstances allow a school like Whitewater to cycle through football players at an astonishing rate. Again, it's all about the numbers. With a sample size that big, you're more likely to get an outlier, or two, or three, which is a windfall that your competition just doesn't get. In this case, the outlier is a surpassing talent at running back (all-state/DI proven, 1200 Big 10 yards averaging 3.8 YPC, and with up to EIGHT years of physical maturity over some of the players he's lined up against) sitting in the larder.
In this case, the outlier is a surpassing talent at running back (all-state/DI proven, 1200 Big 10 yards averaging 3.8 YPC, and with up to EIGHT years of physical maturity over some of the players he's lined up against) sitting in the larder.
yeah...and a guy who was out of football and playing shape for how many years and then you add in the fact that his body took the punishment of 1200 Big 10 yards and you start to wonder if that "physical maturity" is helpful or a drawback...
by the way...just a side note from knowing Booker a bit in his playing days in HS...you would probably confuse him with Levell Coppage with his size and cutting ability...then he goes to the Big 10 and becomes a "power" back...
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 21, 2010, 09:19:34 PM
First of all, "castoff" is exactly what he is--endearing or not; he was, as a matter of fact, categorically dismissed from the team at UW in December 2005, and hadn't played college football for any team since. By the way, "convicted triple felon" is also a statement of fact, though likewise not one that's very complimentary. As it happens, I'm familar first-hand with both the young man involved as well as the HS coach who tried to help get him squared away. I don't intend any slander by the labels, but facts are stubborn things.
Second, I think y'all need to go back and follow the argument. The point in Stanley's case isn't admissions standards. (It could be, but I haven't seen his admissions file.) The point, rather, is once again the advantage of having 10,000 undergraduate seats available, and with a turnover rate of something like 20% each year, a well-worn transfer path from Madison, and a tolerance for something on the order of 175 young men vying for program spots. Together, these circumstances allow a school like Whitewater to cycle through football players at an astonishing rate. Again, it's all about the numbers. With a sample size that big, you're more likely to get an outlier, or two, or three, which is a windfall that your competition just doesn't get. In this case, the outlier is a surpassing talent at running back (all-state/DI proven, 1200 Big 10 yards averaging 3.8 YPC, and with up to EIGHT years of physical maturity over some of the players he's lined up against) sitting in the larder.
I know that Wheaton IL can recruit from the finest Christian/private schools in the country. They basically have a lock on those kids. They get the 3-4 top football players out of Dallas Fort Worth every year. Their reach is national, and I bet that the recruiting base is roughly the same as the WIAC in-state kids that are split among 8/9 D-III schools.
In Texas, we get plenty of kids who go out of state to D-1 schools, do not get the playing time that they want, and just want to come home and play in front of friends and family. It's a "Texas football thing". The number of stars in the ASC who have done that is numerous.
The thing that I like about D-III is that it is
pure amateur athletics. Every school has its advantages and weaknesses. UWW has assembled a strong program that has become a "talent magnet". The same can be said for Wesley, Mount Union, UMHB, Linfield, St Johns... the list goes on. (Hmm, I just named 5 private schools with strong programs.) Winners like to be surrounded by winners and to be in strong program. I think that we can see those attributes especially in D-III where the intangibles can make so much difference.
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 21, 2010, 09:19:34 PM
First of all, "castoff" is exactly what he is--endearing or not; he was, as a matter of fact, categorically dismissed from the team at UW in December 2005, and hadn't played college football for any team since. By the way, "convicted triple felon" is also a statement of fact, though likewise not one that's very complimentary. As it happens, I'm familar first-hand with both the young man involved as well as the HS coach who tried to help get him squared away. I don't intend any slander by the labels, but facts are stubborn things.
Second, I think y'all need to go back and follow the argument. The point in Stanley's case isn't admissions standards. (It could be, but I haven't seen his admissions file.) The point, rather, is once again the advantage of having 10,000 undergraduate seats available, and with a turnover rate of something like 20% each year, a well-worn transfer path from Madison, and a tolerance for something on the order of 175 young men vying for program spots. Together, these circumstances allow a school like Whitewater to cycle through football players at an astonishing rate. Again, it's all about the numbers. With a sample size that big, you're more likely to get an outlier, or two, or three, which is a windfall that your competition just doesn't get. In this case, the outlier is a surpassing talent at running back (all-state/DI proven, 1200 Big 10 yards averaging 3.8 YPC, and with up to EIGHT years of physical maturity over some of the players he's lined up against) sitting in the larder.
When you finally stop posting, does it mean that you've managed to literally drown in your tears? I wish that football was as simple as getting as many people to sign up as possible. I thought it was more about hard working people, good coaches, supportive administration etc. Cry all you want but the only thing that's going to change your situation is improving your team, not complaining about what you don't have.
Doubledomer- I went to UWW for a communications degree, so I don't know anything about quants. Question-what is the difference between a school that brings in 200 athletes to the football program and keeps them on the roster vs one that brings in 175 and can only keep 105 on the roster?
Warhawk, you just keep telling yourself that. What strikes the rest of the land as parochial is well know to us Wisconsinites as exceptionalism--and, moreover, our birthright. And as long as you never go west of the Mississippi, or east of Green Bay, or south of Beloit, you'll never have to think otherwise, or gladly suffer anybody who does.
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 22, 2010, 12:17:37 AM
Warhawk, you just keep telling yourself that. What strikes the rest of the land as parochial is well know to us Wisconsinites as exceptionalism--and, moreover, our birthright. And as long as you never go west of the Mississippi, or east of Green Bay, or south of Beloit, you'll never have to think otherwise, or gladly suffer anybody who does.
:'(
Stop crying about what the WIAC schools are doing...If your son does end up playing in the NESCAC, this will all be irrelevant to you. They chose the path to exclude themselves from the rest of the DIII....so they are tucked away in the cozy confines of their own realm
Best of luck to your son where ever he choses to play.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 21, 2010, 03:07:39 PM
Quote from: DoubleDomer on December 21, 2010, 02:14:42 PM
Well, if you agree 02Warhawk, doesn't that seem pretty significant toyou? Indeed, just today, a Wisconsin HS coach posted at the wissports.net board a statement that Whitewater, LaCrosse, and one or two others in the WIAC "bring in 180 players and let nature weed them" down to 105. The margin for error in this situation increases dramatically--and meaningfully. I mean, how many D3 schools with enrollments of 1500 carry a 27-year-old, all-state, Big 10 castoff on their rosters as a RESERVE?
To bring the debate into more constructive focus, then, the two key questions really are the ones that Bombers798891 has framed:
1. Do the data suggest some correlation between the various objective data mentioned variously here (greyshirt scale, enrollment level, tuition level, academic selectivity, and do forth) and what one of the posters rightly called "inherited advantage."
2. If so, at what point, if any, does the level of "inherited advantage" rise to the level of material inequity--and, more perplexingly, what happens then?
a SIGNIFICANT advantage?? no, I do not think that. As long as Mount Union (enrollment 2000) remains a power house, and schools like Buffalo State (enrollment 8000+) keep ending the year with a sub .500 record, then no I won't be convinced that size matters ;D.
It still comes down to quality over quantity when it comes to recruiting. That is determained by how good your coaching staff is....which is what seperates UWW, UMU, Wesley, NCC, Linfield from the rest of the schools.
I think this is probably the best post in this entire argument. +K
For what it matters, Warhawk, it's frankly been irrelevant all along. My argument is based on probability and statistical inference, and it's entirely solid whether the Whitewater faithful want to hear it or not. Second, there's no way on earth that I'd pay tuition to a UW school. It's already nearly criminal that we pay outlandish state tax rates to help fund the kudzu-like growth of the extension system, which has managed now to choke off the kinds of top-shelf liberal arts institutions that thrive in all of our neighborhing states, though not here.
All that having been said, my son will most certainly be playing next year (service academy, Ivy League, or Patriot League), and I appreciate the gracious good wishes you offered.
To get back on topic I'm going to say that the OAC is the best conference for no other reason than to be a homer ;D
In all seriousness I think the OAC had 3 or 4 teams that could have competed or won in many conferences. Mount obviously, Ohio Northern, and even Baldwin Wallace would likely win or compete at the top of many conferences. BW was probably the biggest surprise to me in the OAC this year. I went to the game BW/Mount game this year and BW played very solidly for the the first half and kind of broke down in the 2nd. I have to wonder even about Otterbein this year. I think they were actually a better team than the record shows. They might not have won any conference but I think they could compete.
While WIAC has the top team in the country (as a Mount fan I will say that UWW is definitely the top team in the country this year) I don't think that puts WIAC as the top conference. The only reason I don't put WIAC on the top is because WIAC 3/8 teams with winning conference records and 4/8 teams with a .500 or better overall record while OAC had 6/10 teams with winning conference records and 7/10 teams with a .500 or better overall record. To me this shows WIAC had a very strong top tier with a smaller middle tier and OAC also had a strong top tier with a bigger middle tier.
To me this all shows OAC is stronger overall IMHO.
Keep in mind I'm an OAC and a Mount Union homer ;D
Uof Muc- You won't get an arguement from me supporting the WIAC as the top conference this year, it was a down year for them for sure. One thing to give the WIAC credit for though is the large number of top teams they played this year. Take a look some day at the number of ranked teams. WIAC schools this year played Mt, NCC, Wheaton, St. John's, St. Thomas, Ohio Northern and some other good teams. WIAC schools schedule tough competition to their credit.
Quote from: emma17 on December 22, 2010, 11:11:55 PM
Uof Muc- You won't get an arguement from me supporting the WIAC as the top conference this year, it was a down year for them for sure. One thing to give the WIAC credit for though is the large number of top teams they played this year. Take a look some day at the number of ranked teams. WIAC schools this year played Mt, NCC, Wheaton, St. John's, St. Thomas, Ohio Northern and some other good teams. WIAC schools schedule tough competition to their credit.
Plus i think the bottom three teams in the WIAC would wipe the floor with the bottom three teams in the OAC. Even though UWRF only won one game this year....take a look at their non-conference schedule, they lost to three playoff teams, including only losing to ONU by 14.
I think that's why the WIAC is considered the toughest conference each year....The gap between UWW and UWRF is a lot closer than say UMU and Willmington.
1. WIAC
2. OAC
3. CCIW
IMHO what sets the WIAC above the OAC isn't the top half of the conference, it's the bottom half. The bottom of the OAC (especially Wilmington, Muskingum and Marietta) are consistently horrendous. I can't see any scenario where any of them could beat the last place team in the WIAC. I believe the top of the OAC could very easily compete with the top of the WIAC. Just not the bottom.
I think the CCIW is very similar to the OAC in that it has a few crap teams at the bottom and some great ones at the top. The CCIW pads their records by playing a bunch of scrubs in their 3 preseason games, but historically the CCIW competed very well in the playoffs. Only thing keeping the CCIW behind the OAC in my mind is our #1 has been better than their #1 for 15 years+. Outside of Mount versus their champ, I think the two conferences are equal.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on December 22, 2010, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: emma17 on December 22, 2010, 11:11:55 PM
Uof Muc- You won't get an arguement from me supporting the WIAC as the top conference this year, it was a down year for them for sure. One thing to give the WIAC credit for though is the large number of top teams they played this year. Take a look some day at the number of ranked teams. WIAC schools this year played Mt, NCC, Wheaton, St. John's, St. Thomas, Ohio Northern and some other good teams. WIAC schools schedule tough competition to their credit.
Plus i think the bottom three teams in the WIAC would wipe the floor with the bottom three teams in the OAC. Even though UWRF only one won game this year....take a look at their non-conference schedule, they lost to three playoff teams, including only losing to ONU by 14.
I think that's why the WIAC is considered the toughest conference each year....The gap between UWW and UWRF is a lot closer than say UMU and Willmington.
Very good points there. WIAC teams did play a very good non-conference schedule. And you do make a good point about the gap between UWW and UWRF vs UMU and Wilmington. I'm sure UWRF would stomp Wilmington. They are pretty awful.
As fun as arguing conferences can be unless every single team in a conference plays every team in another conference there is no possible way to answer other than giving somewhat informed guesses.
I'm just thankful that this isn't like SEC arguments. I can't stand those SEC jackwagons. It's good to read actual arguments instead of "you can't hang with the speed of the SEC!!!"
Quote from: UofMUC2006 on December 23, 2010, 10:40:18 AM
As fun as arguing conferences can be unless every single team in a conference plays every team in another conference there is no possible way to answer other than giving somewhat informed guesses.
Nah, we just need to take a page out of basketball's book...have a conference challenge series each year. Think of how interesting it would be for the OAC and WIAC to play each other next year for opening non-conference games (I'm dreaming, here, I'm not forgetting about the scheduled games):
UWW vs. UMU
ONU vs. Stevens Point
Stout vs. Baldwin Wallace
Otterbein vs. Platteville
Oshkosh vs. Capital
John Carroll vs. La Crosse
Eau Claire vs. Heidelberg
Muskingum vs. River Falls
Marietta vs. Wilmington in a non-conference game (if the WIAC can do it, why not the OAC?)
It would sure solve the problem of how much difficulty some of the top teams have in scheduling a non-conference opponent. While these wouldn't be regional games for the selection committee to look at, it would sure be fun to watch and dissect afterwards!
Great idea JayPeter. To bring your dream a little closer to a reality I'd like to see- how about a 1 vs 4 match rather than 1 v 1 in the Conf Challenge. I am not a big proponent of nationally ranked top 5 teams squaring off in non- con games, too much to lose and not enough to gain given pool c uncertainty.
jaypeter I love the idea I think it would be a great way to start the season. The only problem is it still doesn't solve the question "which conference is better." I truly believe that question cannot be answered definitively unless every team plays each other from the other conference and compare the records. That would be really fun.
Quote from: jaypeter on December 23, 2010, 01:17:50 PM
Marietta vs. Wilmington in a non-conference game (if the WIAC can do it, why not the OAC?)
This about made me lose my coke. You almost owed me a laptop!
Quote from: jaypeter on December 23, 2010, 01:17:50 PM
Marietta vs. Wilmington in a non-conference game (if the WIAC can do it, why not the OAC?)
Because on the list of worst ideas ever, conference teams playing non-conference games against one another lands somewhere between Disco Demolition Night and crystal pepsi. We should never, ever encourage such things, even in the hypothetical. :)
Relax, Wally, relax! It's Wilmington and Marietta!
"If Marietta and Wilmington played a game and nobody paid attention, would it make a sound?"
OK, maybe I should go easy on these guys. Without a full conference, Mount Union would probably have to schedule DII and NAIA schools to fill their schedule.
The WIAC has been attempting to create a "conference challenge" type event for years to help with their scheduling issues. No takers.
Technically, to create an even matchup of teams like that between the two conferences, you'd need to drop out the two middle teams from the OAC, not the two bottom ones.
First I hope you all had a very Merry Christmas.
PLAYOFF SELECTION - Part 1
I expressed earlier my concern about the current NCAA Division III playoff selection format. There are some interesting facts behind the debate of the NCAA playoff selection, strength of conferences and strength of regions. I will present these findings over a few postings this week. Since 1999, some definite patterns have emerged.
National Champions, by Regions:
North: 6 all by Mount Union
West: 6. 3 by Wisconsin- Whitewater, 1 by Pacific Lutheran, St. John's, and Linfield each.
South: 0
East: 0
----------------------------------------------
Reached the Stagg Bowl:
North: 10 all by Mount Union
West: 10. 6 by Wisconsin- Whitewater, 2 by St. John's, 1 by Pacific Lutheran and Linfield each.
South: 3. 1 each by Bridgewater, Trinity and Mary-Hardin Baylor
East: 1, by Rowan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, it is obvious that only a handful of teams reach the Stagg Bowl. Of course, for six years, it has been the same two teams.
Second, the North (Mount Union) and the West regions dominate
Next up: Region playoff records.
I think this thread is the best location for this.
I started a WIAC blog a month or so ago, and for the past few weeks i've been working on a post explaining the why I believe the WIAC is considered one of the better conferences in DIII. It's not a "thump my chest" article on why other conferences suck, and WIAC is king. It's not like that. I talk about some of the advantages the state of wisconsin offers that other states don't. I also touch on some common misconceptions about the WIAC.
I hope you like
"The Powers That Be"
www.wiacfootball.blogspot.com
Just a couple of points on your blog "report." First, many people make this mistake, but it's MOOT point, not Mute point. Look it up.
Second, you dismiss the arguement regarding the high cost of tuition at private colleges, compared with the state college system of which the WIAC is a part. You quote a WIAC coach when "informing" about relative costs. Do you have any other evidence? I say he's wrong. Now it's a tie. Which one of us is right? You also call those who make this arguement "haters." I know that's a popular charge that the left side of the political spectrum uses when they don't want to engage in valid arguementation. What is the response to such a charge? "No, I'm not." If you've got the facts, convince me, don't insult me. I would be more likely to listen to your reasoned arguement if you would treat me with respect.
02 Warhawk:
I think that you have done a very commendable job of stating your opinion and backing it up with the information you have gathered, not to say that there are not opposing views, which those that have should take the time to back up their beliefs with a brief similiar to what you have done.
Plus K for your efforts!
Quote from: retagent on October 13, 2011, 11:52:11 PM
Just a couple of points on your blog "report." First, many people make this mistake, but it's MOOT point, not Mute point. Look it up.
Second, you dismiss the arguement regarding the high cost of tuition at private colleges, compared with the state college system of which the WIAC is a part. You quote a WIAC coach when "informing" about relative costs. Do you have any other evidence? I say he's wrong. Now it's a tie. Which one of us is right? You also call those who make this arguement "haters." I know that's a popular charge that the left side of the political spectrum uses when they don't want to engage in valid arguementation. What is the response to such a charge? "No, I'm not." If you've got the facts, convince me, don't insult me. I would be more likely to listen to your reasoned arguement if you would treat me with respect.
First, many people make this mistake, but it's Argument, not Arguement. Look it up.
Second, I wish I would have gotten more evidence. I sent 26 emails to coaches, athletic directors, SIDs, and the WIAC office asking their "opinions" on this topic. Unfortunately, Coach Miech was the only person who got back to me. Considering he provided me with some facts, and all you can offer up is "I say he's wrong"....I think my choice is clear on who's side I'm leaning towards. If you think he's wrong...take it up with him. I'm not totally dismissing the notion of high costs in private schools. I'm just saying, the gab in costs (when factoring in aid) between public and private schools may not be a big as people think. Besides there's bigger factors on what makes a football program succeed, like coaching....not tuition costs and admission standards.
Hater ;)
Quote from: dahlby on October 14, 2011, 12:21:10 AM
02 Warhawk:
I think that you have done a very commendable job of stating your opinion and backing it up with the information you have gathered, not to say that there are not opposing views, which those that have should take the time to back up their beliefs with a brief similiar to what you have done.
Plus K for your efforts!
Thanks dahlby, I appreciate it.
I hope I didn't come off too harsh 02. I didn't mean to be, and you seem not to have taken it that way. I still think that Meich gave figures, but I'm not sure they're factual. Where did he get those? You did give the attribution and the explanation, and didn't try to pass them off as more than they were. I do think you tried to be objective, and give you credit for your efforts.
Thanks for the correction. I could be flippant and say I did it on purpose, but, I always look at it after I type it, and wonder which spelling is correct, and lazy dufus that I am, don't bother to "look it up." ;)
Quote from: retagent on October 14, 2011, 10:43:39 AM
I hope I didn't come off too harsh 02. I didn't mean to be, and you seem not to have taken it that way. I still think that Meich gave figures, but I'm not sure they're factual. Where did he get those? You did give the attribution and the explanation, and didn't try to pass them off as more than they were. I do think you tried to be objective, and give you credit for your efforts.
Thanks for the correction. I could be flippant and say I did it on purpose, but, I always look at it after I type it, and wonder which spelling is correct, and lazy dufus that I am, don't bother to "look it up." ;)
No problem....thanks for supporting WIAC football and taking the time to read my blog post. :)
Quote from: retagent on October 14, 2011, 10:43:39 AM
I hope I didn't come off too harsh 02. I didn't mean to be, and you seem not to have taken it that way. I still think that Meich gave figures, but I'm not sure they're factual. Where did he get those? You did give the attribution and the explanation, and didn't try to pass them off as more than they were. I do think you tried to be objective, and give you credit for your efforts.
Thanks for the correction. I could be flippant and say I did it on purpose, but, I always look at it after I type it, and wonder which spelling is correct, and lazy dufus that I am, don't bother to "look it up." ;)
Yeah, the citing of Meich was far from legitimate statistical information. It sounded more like a hypothetical and even if it was a real scenario it was 1 example and only compared what a MN player would pay at a WIAC school. It says nothing about what a Wisconsin player would incur as the price difference if he chose a MN or WI private versus an in state Wisconsin school.
Not to mention, UST is an outlier in aid offered. They aren't just offering more aid than WIAC schools, they're offering more than almost all the other
privates in the area. Even if a school like Bethel offered a Wisconsin kid 20,000 in AID (which is
way more than most students get) he'd still be paying 2 to 3 times what he would at several WIAC schools.
I do think your arguments about a vacuum of scholarship programs and the irrelevance of size are totally legitimate.
Quote from: hazzben on October 14, 2011, 11:10:50 AM
Quote from: retagent on October 14, 2011, 10:43:39 AM
I hope I didn't come off too harsh 02. I didn't mean to be, and you seem not to have taken it that way. I still think that Meich gave figures, but I'm not sure they're factual. Where did he get those? You did give the attribution and the explanation, and didn't try to pass them off as more than they were. I do think you tried to be objective, and give you credit for your efforts.
Thanks for the correction. I could be flippant and say I did it on purpose, but, I always look at it after I type it, and wonder which spelling is correct, and lazy dufus that I am, don't bother to "look it up." ;)
Yeah, the citing of Meich was far from legitimate statistical information. It sounded more like a hypothetical and even if it was a real scenario it was 1 example and only compared what a MN player would pay at a WIAC school. It says nothing about what a Wisconsin player would incur as the price difference if he chose a MN or WI private versus an in state Wisconsin school.
Not to mention, UST is an outlier in aid offered. They aren't just offering more aid than WIAC schools, they're offering more than almost all the other privates in the area. Even if a school like Bethel offered a Wisconsin kid 20,000 in AID (which is way more than most students get) he'd still be paying 2 to 3 times what he would at several WIAC schools.
I do think your arguments about a vacuum of scholarship programs and the irrelevance of size are totally legitimate.
Thanks for taking to the time to read it...I appreciate it!
I'm going to start off with what was originally my last paragraph in case people get tired of what I wrote and don't read all the way through. I don't think the WIAC or the NJAC should move from D3. They follow the D3 rules, compete well, play hard, and win. Nobody said there has to be a level playing field for D3 teams or that you could even define what a "level playing field" would be. Every other school and conference should attempt to find their own advantage and exploit it half as well as the WIAC does. Now that seems like a bad way to start the post, but remember, it is supposed to be at the end...
Your blog does a nice job of talking about certain factors. You do a nice job bringing up the dearth of scholarship options in the Wisconsin public system. Personally, I believe this is the major advantage the WIAC possesses and the conference's truly excellent coaches and facilities exploit it to the maximum advantage. Interestingly, the lack of competing scholarship options is the best differentiating point between the WIAC and every other D3 conference.
For example, almost every other grouping of large state schools is found in conferences playing at the D2 or FCS level. ExTartan, another member of this board, pointed out that the PSAC is the Pennsylvania equivalent to the WIAC and plays in D2, the WVIAC is somewhat analgous for WV and also plays in D2, the RMAC covers the mountain state schools, also D2. In fact, if you look at many of the D2 conferences, they are made up of large state schools offering scholarships. In fact, the vast majority share the profile of the WIAC. See here for yourself: http://www.d2football.com/teams/
Does that mean the WIAC is misplaced? Not the way D3 is defined, but it could mean the WIAC has a significant advantage. There is no rule in D3 about state/private/large/small schools. In fact, there is one other conference in D3 that truly looks like it. You very fairly mention the NJAC and point out that except for Rowan's run, they haven't been a year in and out Stagg Bowl level conference. So why has the WIAC had success and the NJAC has been more tepid?
One very simple explanation is the NJAC fights a slew of local FCS schools for kids. Competition the WIAC doesn't face. The NEC, the Ivy League, The Patriot League, and the CAA all have schools within the same driving distance footprint (although not necessarily within the State of NJ as NJAC is a bit of a misnomer for football) of the NJAC that the WIAC encompasses. Many of the kids playing or sitting second string on these teams could propel the NJAC teams to be competitive with the WIAC. While the two FCS NJ schools aren't public (Monmouth and Princeton), other NJAC schools not located in NJ compete with public schools within their own state (Cortland State and SUNY Albany for example).
Now, all that being said, my personal opinion is that the WIAC has a significant advantage over the rest of the D3 universe. Having an advantage is not the same as becoming a champion however. You still have to take advantage of your advantage. This is where I think the WIAC excels. As you pointed out, they have excellent coaches, facilities, and kids. This is not simply due to a lack of recruiting competition. At its very core, though, the building block of the WIAC's strength is definitely found in their unique state atmosphere.
Every other school and conference should attempt to find their own advantage and exploit it half as well as the WIAC does.
Quote from: jknezek on October 14, 2011, 12:10:52 PM
So why has the WIAC had success and the NJAC has been more tepid?.....One very simple explanation is the NJAC fights a slew of local FCS schools for kids. Competition the WIAC doesn't face.
I totally agree. I think I even mention that in my blog about the abundance of programs that the NJAC has to compete with for recruits (at any level of play).
Quote from: jknezek on October 14, 2011, 12:10:52 PM
Now, all that being said, my personal opinion is that the WIAC has a significant advantage over the rest of the D3 universe. Having an advantage is not the same as becoming a champion however. You still have to take advantage of your advantage. This is where I think the WIAC excels. As you pointed out, they have excellent coaches, facilities, and kids. This is not simply due to a lack of recruiting competition. At its very core, though, the building block of the WIAC's strength is definitely found in their unique state atmosphere.
Every other school and conference should attempt to find their own advantage and exploit it half as well as the WIAC does.
jknezek gets it
Your insight is much appreciated. Thanks!
I agree w/jknezek above. I wholeheartedly believe that WIAC schools should be "allowed" to play Division III football, because they play by all the rules, et cet. However, I think that the following rings very true:
"...the dearth of scholarship options in the Wisconsin public system. Personally, I believe this is the major advantage the WIAC possesses and the conference's truly excellent coaches and facilities exploit it to the maximum advantage. Interestingly, the lack of competing scholarship options is the best differentiating point between the WIAC and every other D3 conference.
For example, almost every other grouping of large state schools is found in conferences playing at the D2 or FCS level. ExTartan, another member of this board, pointed out that the PSAC is the Pennsylvania equivalent to the WIAC..."
I suspect that many of the same kids that end up at WIAC schools in Wisconsin would probably end up at the Division II PSAC schools if they grew up in Pennsylvania. With that said:
"Having an advantage is not the same as becoming a champion however. You still have to take advantage of your advantage. This is where I think the WIAC excels. As you pointed out, they have excellent coaches, facilities, and kids. This is not simply due to a lack of recruiting competition. At its very core, though, the building block of the WIAC's strength is definitely found in their unique state atmosphere."
Taking 02 Warhawk's analysis a step further:
If in fact coach's have "recruited" their team before school starts and they do not put a team together from the total student population (which I believe to be true), then one should address
the recruiting process and the awarding of student aide.
According to my understanding, an applicant (recruit) applies for admission, the fact that they are an athlete should have no bearing (according to D3 guidelines) on the amount and/or type of aide they are to achieve. Basically, only academic standing and need basis is to be applied. In other words, the athlete is compared (as a student only) to the average standards of the entire student body.
Here is where it can get muddied.
Point 1-
Let's take two schools: A and B. If school A has a higher GPA and test score averages than school B, then the applicant to school A will need a higher GPA and test scores to be eligible for academic aide than they would need to receive financial aide to school B, which has lower averages than school A.
Point 2-
Qualifying for need basis financial aide is also a situation that could vary by school, and have an impact on the financial aide an athlete could receive.
Point 3-
The total amount of endowment(s) that a school has impacts the number and amounts of grants that a school can award.
Point 4-
Facilities play an important part of the recruiting process.
Poiint 5-
The coaching staff, especially head coach and recruiter, also play an important part of the process, in conjuction with the recruiting/admissions staff of the school. In addition, various conferences, even schools, have certain limitations to the recruiting process that can significantly impact the process.
I have probably missed a few points, but if in fact one is to look for some deficiencies in the
process, then IMHO, one should start with these areas, and forget about the size of the school.
But, putting all of this aside, I would hope that ALL student athletes would evaluate which school would best prepare them for a successful career in whatever field they are going to choose.
Quote from: dahlby on October 14, 2011, 12:39:24 PM
Taking 02 Warhawk's analysis a step further:
If in fact coach's have "recruited" their team before school starts and they do not put a team together from the total student population (which I believe to be true), then one should address
the recruiting process and the awarding of student aide.
According to my understanding, an applicant (recruit) applies for admission, the fact that they are an athlete should have no bearing (according to D3 guidelines) on the amount and/or type of aide they are to achieve. Basically, only academic standing and need basis is to be applied. In other words, the athlete is compared (as a student only) to the average standards of the entire student body.
100% correct
Quote from: dahlby on October 14, 2011, 12:39:24 PM
But, putting all of this aside, I would hope that ALL student athletes would evaluate which school would best prepare them for a successful career in whatever field they are going to choose.
Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Especially when it comes to transfer students. Student/athletes are transferring to - and out of - Whitewater to take advantage of the opportunity as an athlete first. Then the education is an after thought. UWW has also had their fair share of players who transfer out, just because they feel they won't get the playing time they deserve. Then they go somwhere that fits their football needs first....then academics
Like when Whitewater won the Stagg Bowl in 07, that year we had a QB (Danny Jones) transfer from Cal Lutheran. I guaranteed he transferred thinking about his collegiate football career, and not because of what UWW can offer academically.
The transfer situation could be taken care of real quick, just make everyone who desires to transfer sit out a year, the same as transfering from one D1 school to another.
Quote from: dahlby on October 14, 2011, 01:01:03 PM
The transfer situation could be taken care of real quick, just make everyone who desires to transfer sit out a year, the same as transfering from one D1 school to another.
If that was the rule...UWW would not have won (or possibly made it to) the Stagg Bowl in 2007. They probably would have lost to MHB in the playoffs.
That would be an option, but I think it really isn't appropriate for a Non-scholarship Division. I would think most, though not all, transfers are academics related - or maybe that's my hope.
One question I have about the WIAC, however, is why does it seem that there usually seems to be one dominant program for a period of time, then another, then another. I would expect to see more parity at most times. I'm not sure there is an answer, just curious. The best I can come up with is changes in coaching staffs. I don't know if there is any correlation, for example, with UW Lacrosse tailing off, and a changs in staff. I'll let those with more inside info respond.
Quote from: retagent on October 14, 2011, 01:51:21 PM
That would be an option, but I think it really isn't appropriate for a Non-scholarship Division. I would think most, though not all, transfers are academics related - or maybe that's my hope.
One question I have about the WIAC, however, is why does it seem that there usually seems to be one dominant program for a period of time, then another, then another. I would expect to see more parity at most times. I'm not sure there is an answer, just curious. The best I can come up with is changes in coaching staffs. I don't know if there is any correlation, for example, with UW Lacrosse tailing off, and a changs in staff. I'll let those with more inside info respond.
Fair question...I thought UWSP would join UWW at the top of the WIAC of late, but they have been very disappointing this season. I think it has something to do (and I'm being honest here - not at all cocky) the fact that Whitewater is the "sexy" school to go to right now. Especially if you get overlooked for a scholarship. There might be that mentality for high school students, "If you can't beat them...join em." I'm just guessing here, of course....I really don't know.
Also, UWW seems to have developed a strong pipeline with northern IL. That's another reason I think UWW has been so good...compared to other WIAC schools. Their proximity to the Southeast WI (Milwaukee market) and northern IL (Chicago market) I think has been related to their success.
Quote from: retagent on October 14, 2011, 01:51:21 PM
That would be an option, but I think it really isn't appropriate for a Non-scholarship Division. I would think most, though not all, transfers are academics related - or maybe that's my hope.
One question I have about the WIAC, however, is why does it seem that there usually seems to be one dominant program for a period of time, then another, then another. I would expect to see more parity at most times. I'm not sure there is an answer, just curious. The best I can come up with is changes in coaching staffs. I don't know if there is any correlation, for example, with UW Lacrosse tailing off, and a changs in staff. I'll let those with more inside info respond.
Good question- the baton does seem to get handed off. I'm interested in other's input on this too.
With UWW, it wasn't a coaching change behind the rise to the Stagg- as the first two occurred under Brez after he was there 20 something years. I guess that was a case of finally getting that special group of athletes together. There were very few IL kids on the 2005, 06 and 07 rosters (but there was a certain LB that is the son of a certain frequent poster).
It is interesting to see the roster change between 2007 and 2008. There is a significant increase in IL kids after the 2007 Stagg - which was the first victory. From this limited data, it seems the order was: 1. Established and talented coaching staff. 2. Excellent facilities. 3. Special group of athletes. 4. Success breeding success. 5. Championship. 6. Influx of even more talented players from IL (and some other states). 7. Additional championships and success continues to breed success.
The other program with national championships is La Crosse. One similarity they have to UWW is proximity to another state. I don't know the makeup of the teams in their champioship days- but they always seemed to get the big kids and a lot of talent. Did MN kids play a big role in their success? I think their drop off is in direct correlation to UWW's rise.
Back in the day, River Falls was very good while running the triple option, making them unique and hard to beat for quite a while.
You want handicap, the sciac wont let the coaches have face to face contact with recruits only phone and mail. My son sort of blew off the calls thinking they werent that interested.We finally visited the campus after getting a financial package ,the coach got wind he was coming and called my son wanting to meet him personally.The rest is history loves Clu and the coach and dad couldnt be happier.I do think the sciac could really improve itself if this rule was no more.(we didnt find out about this rule till a year later).
Quote from: cludad on October 14, 2011, 04:51:03 PM
You want handicap, the sciac wont let the coaches have face to face contact with recruits only phone and mail. My son sort of blew off the calls thinking they werent that interested.We finally visited the campus after getting a financial package ,the coach got wind he was coming and called my son wanting to meet him personally.The rest is history loves Clu and the coach and dad couldnt be happier.I do think the sciac could really improve itself if this rule was no more.(we didnt find out about this rule till a year later).
Why is that?
your guess is as good as mine,but hell, linfield is down in socal recruiting and our coaches cant.I will say this,our coach has got alot more agressive recruiting j.c. players , this has helped.Once these kids figure out they are not all d-1 (cali only has 1 d-2 school) playing somewhere looks good after jc.
SCIAC rule.
but the question is why?its to no team advantage if coaches contact players. with all the talent in cali. it could really upgrade the play in the league in all sports. I really think most kids dont know this league exists, i know my kid didnt.
Quote from: cludad on October 14, 2011, 08:12:42 PM
but the question is why?its to no team advantage if coaches contact players. with all the talent in cali. it could really upgrade the play in the league in all sports. I really think most kids dont know this league exists, i know my kid didnt.
That is the fault of his high school coaches, academic advisors, and parents and private coaches who are blinded by D1 sports.
The SCIAC emphasizes academics and not athletics. That is why Cal Tech is a prominent member regardless of wins and losses. The league is all equal, but at a recruiting disadvantage to other schools. Until Chapman joined, they had an advantage, too.
There was a discussion a couple of years ago (I think on the basketball board) about comparing people in other parts of the country (midwest and east) where small colleges are part of the culture. I've been at a baseball game in Cleveland and saw many college shirts in the stands. SCIAC shirts are rare in Southern California.
Quote from: retagent on October 13, 2011, 11:52:11 PM
You also call those who make this arguement "haters." I know that's a popular charge that the left side of the political spectrum uses when they don't want to engage in valid arguementation.
How is haters a lefty term? Was the below-average rap talent Rappin 4-Tay, who created the phrase player-hater from which it emerged, also a political scientist?
Haters are people who don't like to see other people having success. This might apply in the political spectrum because a certain faction of people have no ideas of their own, but just dislike the ideas their opponents have.
It surprises me that "haters" is given a political connotation here.
Perhaps of all the things on this thread this is the last I should have kicked up.
Here's a tier-based ranking of the conferences:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2011/opening-october-with-a-bang
We do one every year in Kickoff, and I have done numbered, far-more-in-depth ones in the last ATN column in September for a handful of years now. If we want to stay relevant to the topic :)
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on October 14, 2011, 04:54:28 PM
Quote from: cludad on October 14, 2011, 04:51:03 PM
You want handicap, the sciac wont let the coaches have face to face contact with recruits only phone and mail. My son sort of blew off the calls thinking they werent that interested.We finally visited the campus after getting a financial package ,the coach got wind he was coming and called my son wanting to meet him personally.The rest is history loves Clu and the coach and dad couldnt be happier.I do think the sciac could really improve itself if this rule was no more.(we didnt find out about this rule till a year later).
Why is that?
My *guess* would be to limit the amount of money schools spend recruiting -- although given that all schools and most of the recruits are probably within driving distance, this matters less than in other D3 conferences -- and to keep sports from growing past their perceived place in the hierarchy. A student, in theory, should be interested in the school for academics first.
Thoughts?
Strangely, I got recruited to Central Virginia from S. New Jersey off of letters mostly. This is pre-social media, pre-texting ... what caught my eye was that the team was winning, there were personal touches on the letters (i.e. Congrats on Triton's win last Friday. Did you see we beat W&L and are in first place?).
Nobody came to my games to watch me play. Some schools that I didn't end up going to called me on the phone (Muhlenberg, Ursinus). I eventually chose to go down for a visit ... I was the last guy to get a sitdown with the coach, and I had to drive back to N.J. not Richmond! I didn't hold it against them.
What really worked in my experience was synergy between football, the admissions office and financial aid. I got offers to be in the honors program, and I was contacted by folks in admissions, and then offered a competitive financial aid package so that when other private schools were in the mix (Albright was my No. 2 choice) I didn't have to make my choice based on money.
I definitely eliminated some schools based on their lack of interest after they initially made contact (Widener, Catholic, Northeastern).
The point I'm trying to make is that having a school be interested was a very big factor for me, but in my case it was all done without face-to-face contact with the coaches, except at an event R-MC held for prospective recruits. Getting me on campus finished the deal though, as the feel I got from the students there -- guys who are my friends to this day -- gave Randolph-Macon the edge over Albright in my Final 2.
I wonder how much recruiting has changed in 15-20 years.
I think I have ideas for 2 ATNs now; that and a more detailed examination of conference limitations (SCIAC and MWC special rules, 100-man limits, etc.) as well as individual schools' limitations. Add them to the list.
K-Mack you are corrcect about the academics.But here in Cal. most people do not no anything about d-3.I was one of these.G fox makes a very valid point about advisors,coaches etc.My opinon is the ncaa needs to do a better job at promoting this division.(this Is what college sports is all about)Iguess no money no promo.They need to but some games on t.v. to show that these kids can play.when coach mac explained the financial things to us it made
clu a very viable option.(had sticker shock before).I try to promo d3 now to kids but most are geared towards d1 or jc .(every kid is going to be a pro!).I do know that for my son he/we couldnt be happier,even if i will be paying school awhile.(INVESTMENT).
Pardon me for not having the broad knowledge that some have regarding the term "haters." It's one of those inadequacies I will try to remedy. My life will be fuller for it.
My only point was that labelling people as haters, relieves the name caller from actually engaging in an argument on the merits of that argument. Again, mea culpa.
Quote from: retagent on October 18, 2011, 09:24:19 AM
Pardon me for not having the broad knowledge that some have regarding the term "haters." It's one of those inadequacies I will try to remedy. My life will be fuller for it.
My only point was that labelling people as haters, relieves the name caller from actually engaging in an argument on the merits of that argument. Again, mea culpa.
I guess I didn't provide enough points in my blog article. :o
The NCAA will never do more to "promote" Division III football because it's not a sound investment. While I would love to see more emphasis on the "student" and less on the "athlete" portion, even I will concede that the NCAA is not going to pony up THEIR OWN MONEY to show Division III games on TV (and there's no reason that they should other than "charity").
cludad, your point is well taken that (in some regions of the country) there is very much of a "D-I or bust" attitude, and unfortunately I'm not surprised that your son had scarcely heard of the SCIAC beforehand. I second Gray Fox's point that small colleges seem to be a bigger part of the culture in the Northeast and the Midwest. As anecdotal evidence, I grew up in southeastern Pennsylvania, and our local paper ran stories about the local Division II and Division III team every week; I grew up knowing that small college football was a very viable option because I'd seen them in the newspaper every week.
My recruitment experience is a "modernized" version of K-Mack's (sorry, Keith, but you're old!) in the sense that most of it occurred via e-mail. During my junior season, I fired up the Internet and started looking for schools that had i) a sterling academic reputationd and ii) a respectable-to-good Division II/III football program. I narrowed my list to about 10 realistic possibilities and started e-mailing coaches. The guys that e-mailed and/or me back all requested a highlight tape and transcripts, and the interested parties kept in touch primarily through e-mail. I eventually met three coaches face-to-face, but by that time I was already pretty well sold on each of their schools as a realistic possibility. The lack of "face-to-face" recruiting (at least EARLY in the process) certainly matters little in this day and age of e-mails, texting, and Twitter.
Dont you think the ncaa could throw in a d3 game when they sell the rights to espn,(espn has a million channels) heck, espn puts hs on national tv.Your right about todays tech., but a face to face makes a kid feel wanted. I also think it helps promote the college to other kids when a coach shows up to a school.(i can only speak on cal.)D3 sounds great in the middle and eastern parts of the country,seems like ther is alot a support.
Quote from: cludad on October 18, 2011, 09:49:48 AM
Dont you think the ncaa could throw in a d3 game when they sell the rights to espn,(espn has a million channels) heck, espn puts hs on national tv.Your right about todays tech., but a face to face makes a kid feel wanted. I also think it helps promote the college to other kids when a coach shows up to a school.(i can only speak on cal.)D3 sounds great in the middle and eastern parts of the country,seems like ther is alot a support.
With all of the channels, you would think that ESPN could fit D3 in somewhere. I believe the Stagg Bowl got pushed off of mainstream ESPN and is now on ESPNU. I could be wrong on that. Anyway, I think it would be great to get some D3 games on tv. A few views here and there could do wonders for it. Imagine what people would see if they were able to see good rivalries or top tier teams playing each other. I only saw Wabash-Depauw on film before we played Wabash in the playoffs a couple years ago and I was thoroughly impressed with the crowd and the game. D3 is sort of a hidden treasure to football fans everywhere.
ESPN will never put DIII games on the air (apart from the Stagg Bowl). There's not enough national interest out there for it. If you don't believe me, look at the stands for the majority of these DIII games. There's more empty seats than occupied seats for most DIII football events.
I agree with ExTartanPlayer...it's not a good investment for the NCAA.
What could ESPN or the NCAA possibly gain by putting D3 sports on tv? There isn't much of a following outside of a small clique of former coaches, players, and alumni for each school. Most of the schools are small, and very few people outside former players have any real affinity for the teams after graduation. I'm proud of W&L when it gets recognized as a national liberal arts school, and I'm happy when the teams play well, but if you ask which I prefer, it's the education accolades.
If there is a choice on TV between an SEC game between 2 teams I don't care about, or a D3 game involving 2 teams I don't care about (pretty much any game but a W&L game), guess which one I'm going to watch? Like it or not, the SEC game is going to be better athlete-student football. The D3 game is probably full of better student-athletes, but that doesn't make it comparably entertaining. I think the schools that are working hard at putting games on the internet so interested parties can watch are doing the best things possible. I know every W&L home game this year can be watched live, and I've caught most of them. If I was a coach, I'd sure mention that to mom and dad. Want to watch your kid but can't make the drive to Lexington? No problem. But is the next door neighbor, with no connection to W&L, going to flip to ESPN5 to watch W&L play Randolph-Macon? Can't see that happening.
TV brings money and pressure. Two things I didn't want to see infiltrate h.s. sports, too late thanks to ESPN and the 1000s of cable channels that now need programming, and two things I definitely don't want contaminating the D3 game. I also don't see the point of trying to "promote" D3. If you are convincing kids to come get the best education possible, and maybe start versus being a practice player at a big school, I don't see how being on TV helps with that argument.
Of course, I come from the mid-atlantic and D3 doesn't have an unknown quality about it. Most kids in the mid-atlantic know they aren't going to play D1 by the time they are sophomores in h.s. and D3 becomes a way to keep playing the game they love at the best school they can go to. I think the "For the Love of the Game" t-shirts say it all. That's the point of D3, not trying to make teams into TV commodities.
If Division III wants its games on ESPN or some national outlet like CBS College Sports (I know, that's not the name anymore) then it will need to pay for the privilege, the way Division II did. D-III leadership hasn't seen this as a priority.
I agree there's more the NCAA could do to promote D-III. They already are doing more, but they are 14 years behind us (starting with D3hoops.com) and just coming to the party.
Excellent post, jknezek.
Pat regarding TV coverage of D-III, here's a story from the past that I suspect has long been forgotten by most people. I think it's interesting to note the teams involved, the announcing crews, and the reason for the coverage. I watched the Wittenberg v Baldwin-Wallace game back then and I was reminded of it by the recent comments about D-III on TV.
(Taken from Wikipedia . . .)
"With no NFL games to show on Sunday October 3, 1982 due to the strike, CBS decided to show all of its NCAA Division III games on a single Sunday afternoon in front of a mass audience. CBS also used their regular NFL crews (Pat Summerall and John Madden at Wittenberg–Baldwin-Wallace, Tom Brookshier and Wayne Walker at West Georgia–Millsaps, Tim Ryan and Johnny Morris at Wisconsin–Oshkosh – Wisconsin–Stout, and Dick Stockton and Roger Staubach at San Diego–Occidental) and showed The NFL Today instead of using their regular college football broadcasters."
The ncaa could show what true college sports is all about, not the product the put out there now.If you look at the graduation rates of the pac 12 most of these schools dont graduate half their players.(this is sort of a sore spot for me).I know money rules all and nobody is saying put all the games on but pick a handful of games a year. The ncaa imo has a big blck eye right now from all the junk going on now in d1 .I will say ,thank god for the internet games,and a big thank you to d3 boards.I think given a chance some new fans can be found,heck i used to think d3 was glorified hs,now i love it.As for promoting it, you have to probably live in ca. to understand what i mean.Jk i couldnt agree with you more about the money and contamination.As far as watching d1 school v d3 you should see the crap games we get on the west coast,give me a good ol d3 rivalry game any day.
On my ATT-UVerse here in Dallas, I can pick up STO for Ohio sports I've seen some delayed games for Mt. Union and a couple of other teams (BW and ONU). But these teams need little publicity in Ohio.
Let's look at the niche that D-III fills in higher education...
Let's look at the "average" 500-student high schools graduating class.
Twenty percent are athletes in the class...with arbitrary breakdown trying to allocate for multiple sport athletes.
20 football,
10 basketball men
10 baseball,
10 XC and T&F men
10 XC and T&F women
20 softball + Volleyball + basketball women (some multiple sport athletes here.)
10 tennis men and women
10 golf men and women/ swimming.
Half of these athletes are good enough to go to D-III as student-athletes.
These 50 students are the prime candidates for D-III
Another 100 students in the class are interested in a D-III education.
You almost have the standard breakdown of athletes in the matriculating classes in D-III institutions.
Of the 500 in the graduating, the other 350 will go to a local community college, to technical school, the military, getting a job, or to D-I state school. In those 350, almost no athletes. The scholarship athletes will go D-1, D-II or NAIA.
These athletes need to be "recruited". Their financial aid profile will mirror the non-athletes who are also "recruited".
Respectfully, the recruiting issue depends on how much the university sees the student athlete as a good candidate to attend their institution.
Quote from: retagent on October 18, 2011, 09:24:19 AM
Pardon me for not having the broad knowledge that some have regarding the term "haters." It's one of those inadequacies I will try to remedy. My life will be fuller for it.
My only point was that labelling people as haters, relieves the name caller from actually engaging in an argument on the merits of that argument. Again, mea culpa.
True.
And now you know what a hater is. Someone who doesn't have their own vision, but instead expends all their energy hating on yours :)
Well yes and no.
There is certainly more that can be done to promote the game without having TV money ruin it. As that's currently where we fit in, I'm happy there's a void there, but at the same time, if there were more support, or if we could finance our grand dreams, then I could do this full time.
It's true that D-III as currently constructed is not a moneymaker. It doesn't make sense for ESPN to throw weight behind it, but then again it doesn't make much sense to cover North Texas or San Jose State or Eastern Michigan from a big-time ratings standpoint either.
The one truism I've picked up in 12 or 14 years covering D-III is that people who are exposed to it tend to like it. I actually wouldn't watch a random SEC game over a random D-III game, but I'm probably in the minority. But I do know that as parents, players, fans and athletes get exposed to it, they seem to be willing to trade a little bit of the athletic aesthetic (i.e. watching bigger-faster-stronger athletes in giant stadiums) for a chance to enjoy the game and be a part of the smaller community. Make it too big, and you no longer have the things that endear it to people ... the access to the athletes, the athletes without a sense of entitlement, the student-athlete, etc.
Same time, there are some ways the game could be promoted with a minimal resource commitment. We have discussed this with the NCAA and gotten good feedback, so I'm not complaining.
There are certainly cost-effective ways we could open up D-III to more people, or even just better serve the people who are already D-III fans. Broadcast more than 1 or 3 playoff games a year. Keep a national, easily accessible "On Demand" archive of streamed online games. (I think I just came up with my next D3.com idea) ...
TV exposure most certainly would help, for all the reasons it helps big schools, but also just to open people's eyes to the idea that there's good football (and bad) being played in small, academically-focused atmospheres, and the options for a HS athlete are not D1 or bust. If it were done in moderation -- and with 239 schools, it would be hard to overdo it -- you could still throw someone the occasional bone without making them a slave to TV money, or making them look at football as a business and not an extension of the classroom.
Well thought out post on your part. Enjoyed it.
Quote from: jknezek on October 18, 2011, 11:46:37 AM
What could ESPN or the NCAA possibly gain by putting D3 sports on tv? There isn't much of a following outside of a small clique of former coaches, players, and alumni for each school. Most of the schools are small, and very few people outside former players have any real affinity for the teams after graduation. I'm proud of W&L when it gets recognized as a national liberal arts school, and I'm happy when the teams play well, but if you ask which I prefer, it's the education accolades.
If there is a choice on TV between an SEC game between 2 teams I don't care about, or a D3 game involving 2 teams I don't care about (pretty much any game but a W&L game), guess which one I'm going to watch? Like it or not, the SEC game is going to be better athlete-student football. The D3 game is probably full of better student-athletes, but that doesn't make it comparably entertaining. I think the schools that are working hard at putting games on the internet so interested parties can watch are doing the best things possible. I know every W&L home game this year can be watched live, and I've caught most of them. If I was a coach, I'd sure mention that to mom and dad. Want to watch your kid but can't make the drive to Lexington? No problem. But is the next door neighbor, with no connection to W&L, going to flip to ESPN5 to watch W&L play Randolph-Macon? Can't see that happening.
TV brings money and pressure. Two things I didn't want to see infiltrate h.s. sports, too late thanks to ESPN and the 1000s of cable channels that now need programming, and two things I definitely don't want contaminating the D3 game. I also don't see the point of trying to "promote" D3. If you are convincing kids to come get the best education possible, and maybe start versus being a practice player at a big school, I don't see how being on TV helps with that argument.
Of course, I come from the mid-atlantic and D3 doesn't have an unknown quality about it. Most kids in the mid-atlantic know they aren't going to play D1 by the time they are sophomores in h.s. and D3 becomes a way to keep playing the game they love at the best school they can go to. I think the "For the Love of the Game" t-shirts say it all. That's the point of D3, not trying to make teams into TV commodities.
K-mack well put and keep the ideas flowing, i like them ;D
Quote from: cludad on October 18, 2011, 03:27:47 PM
The ncaa could show what true college sports is all about, not the product the put out there now.If you look at the graduation rates of the pac 12 most of these schools dont graduate half their players.
Interesting point that I completely agree with. D3 is the original idea behind college athletics, but that concept went out the window long before now. If you look at a team like Sewanee, they gave up on playing in the SEC in the very first facilities boom back in the 40s when it became impractical for a small school to play with the big boys. Other schools, like W&L, held on until the 50s playing the big boys for tradition's sake and getting pounded. Then W&L dropped big time football because of a massive cheating scandal at a school founded on the principals of honor (might be a nice story for an ATN or ATR Mid Atlantic column to revisit that history, I believe W&L scrapped the team for 2 years in punishment).
But the NCAA has nothing to gain, and everything to lose by pointing out that the game currently played at D1 consists of essentially an inexpensive and exploitative farm system for the pros. I just don't see them using that as a hook for pushing more D3 sports on TV. A little counterproductive for an organization devoted to amateur "student-athletes".
As for K-Mack... man I love your stuff and you do a great job. I really love that you have a similar story to mine. But while you may watch a good D3 game over a bad D1 game, well... you aren't exactly a representative sample given your vested interest in D3. The fact remains that North Texas, as cruddy as they may be year in and year out, is going to have a bigger alumni base and fan pool than almost any D3 school (WIAC and NJAC schools and other minor exceptions ignored here). UNT does have 36,000 current students and I believe they average around 20K at a home game. I don't think anyone in the D3 universe gets anywhere near that.
There are hundreds of D3 schools dotted across the country playing in front of a couple hundred fans every Saturday while thousands within walking distance of the stadiums sit at home watching big games on TV. Americans like to watch the top levels. It's why AAA baseball is never on national tv, the WNBA loses money, and the English Premier League is followed way better than MLS in the U.S. Three very different examples, but all prove the same point.
I guess I'm just in the camp that D3 is darn good the way it is. While a lot of people go to State U and want to convince their kids to go to State U, there are always going to be a lot of kids that decide they enjoy playing sports and want a few more years, and it isn't going to happen at State U. Those kids are going to find D3 and those are the kids we want to find D3.
I know this will put me way into the minority, but I wouldn't have a problem if D3 completely banned active recruiting altogether. Let the kids find the best schools for them and get in contact with the coaches and athletic departments. Then you'll really know they are playing solely for "The Love of the Game".
Great discussion, guys. Man, so much I want to comment on here.
Quote from: jknezek on October 19, 2011, 09:12:49 AM
D3 is the original idea behind college athletics, but that concept went out the window long before now. If you look at a team like Sewanee, they gave up on playing in the SEC in the very first facilities boom back in the 40s when it became impractical for a small school to play with the big boys. Other schools, like W&L, held on until the 50s playing the big boys for tradition's sake...
Carnegie Mellon is another Division III school that "used to" play bigtime football in the 1920's and 1930's until they experienced the same things that you reference here. The administration chose to deemphasize athletics (and given my current worldview, it was absolutely the right choice - it's remarkable how well the old administrators read the future, considering the current state of Division I athletics).
Quote from: jknezek on October 19, 2011, 09:12:49 AM
There are hundreds of D3 schools dotted across the country playing in front of a couple hundred fans every Saturday while thousands within walking distance of the stadiums sit at home watching big games on TV. Americans like to watch the top levels. It's why AAA baseball is never on national tv, the WNBA loses money, and the English Premier League is followed way better than MLS in the U.S. Three very different examples, but all prove the same point.
Love these examples, and it proves your point very well. Another one that I can think of is the fact that the UFL is on the verge of folding (despite filling the rosters with former NFL coaches and guys that at least got a sniff from the NFL - if you put UFL guys into NFL team uniforms and had them play a game, the average fan could scarcely tell the difference).
Quote from: jknezek on October 19, 2011, 09:12:49 AM
I guess I'm just in the camp that D3 is darn good the way it is. While a lot of people go to State U and want to convince their kids to go to State U, there are always going to be a lot of kids that decide they enjoy playing sports and want a few more years, and it isn't going to happen at State U. Those kids are going to find D3 and those are the kids we want to find D3.
I know this will put me way into the minority, but I wouldn't have a problem if D3 completely banned active recruiting altogether. Let the kids find the best schools for them and get in contact with the coaches and athletic departments. Then you'll really know they are playing solely for "The Love of the Game".
I've argued a similar before with a few disgruntled Ivy League alumni that are pushing to get the Ivies to participate in the playoffs. What was so bad about the really old-fashioned days when teams were just made up of kids that happened to attend the school? Why does everyone have to be in the playoffs and/or on TV?
However, jknezek, I think it's hard to go to the extreme of banning recruiting altogether in Division III (before we even get to the nightmare of how to enforce such a rule), and I think that doing so would have some negative consequences as well. For example, some kids (like cludad's son) might miss out on the opportunity to play small-college ball simply because they never heard of the school, and they might ALSO miss out on academic opportunities at such institutions.
When I was in school, I had a work-study job calling prospective recruits, and I know that several of them either hadn't heard of CMU or were unaware that we had a football program. Without Division III recruiting, few (if any) of them would end up at CMU, perhaps attending their local Big State U instead.
One other point in defense of D-3 recruiting is that (from my experience) it's often more about the academic opportunities and available job network than it is about X's and O's. I know that I certainly cared about the quality of the football program, but it wasn't a top priority. In fact, I turned down the football program that I
thought was trending upward at the time (Rochester) to attend one that seemed stuck in neutral (CMU) because I genuinely thought CMU was a better academic fit. Ironically, it turned out that CMU fared much better than Rochy during my four years...I like to think it was my decision that sparked the change!
Quote from: jknezek on October 19, 2011, 09:12:49 AM
But the NCAA has nothing to gain, and everything to lose by pointing out that the game currently played at D1 consists of essentially an inexpensive and exploitative farm system for the pros. I just don't see them using that as a hook for pushing more D3 sports on TV. A little counterproductive for an organization devoted to amateur "student-athletes".
Ding-ding! This is so true. They are not going to promote D3 by running down other divisions.
+1
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 19, 2011, 10:28:30 AM
However, jknezek, I think it's hard to go to the extreme of banning recruiting altogether in Division III (before we even get to the nightmare of how to enforce such a rule), and I think that doing so would have some negative consequences as well. For example, some kids (like cludad's son) might miss out on the opportunity to play small-college ball simply because they never heard of the school, and they might ALSO miss out on academic opportunities at such institutions.
I don't mind the recruiting, I just wouldn't be upset if they banned it. There are thousands of books on how to choose a college listing and ranking every school in the country by every idiotic metric you can imagine. Just head to a Barnes and Nobles, your local municpal or h.s. library, or log on to the internet. Before junior year of h.s. I had never heard of W&L and, at the time, I was the only person from my high school to ever apply. So how did I find it? I opened up a book and looked for very good small liberal arts colleges within 400 miles heading south of my home.
We visited the school and I fell in love. Met the soccer coach on the first visit and he showed some interest in me but he point blank told me I had to get in to the school first, which had nothing to do with him, and then he'd worry about if I could play. I've always thought that is how D3 should work. I found a great school that fit my requirements, got into the school on my own merits, and then had a coach tell me I was probably good enough to play if I kept working at it on the bench for a couple years.
I'm not saying W&L doesn't work harder for kids that are in traditional strongholds (private school lacrosse or tennis players for example), but I do believe the way I went to school should be the model for D3. If you don't care enough to crack the books and find the best fit school for you... well, I have limited sympathy. There are way too many resources available to help h.s. kids figure this out these days. Having coaches out trying to convince kids that have never heard of your school to show because they'd like to see you play D3 sports... that seems a little backward to me.
This chat has been wonderful,thank you all ;D
Quote from: jknezek on October 19, 2011, 09:12:49 AM
But while you may watch a good D3 game over a bad D1 game, well... you aren't exactly a representative sample given your vested interest in D3. The fact remains that North Texas, as cruddy as they may be year in and year out, is going to have a bigger alumni base and fan pool than almost any D3 school (WIAC and NJAC schools and other minor exceptions ignored here). UNT does have 36,000 current students and I believe they average around 20K at a home game. I don't think anyone in the D3 universe gets anywhere near that.
All true.
There are only a smattering of 10,000+ games ever in Division III. Like less than 40.
The way I explain it is that people fall into D3 by living in the town, being somehow affliated with the school or a person who plays for or coaches the team. People can grow up 175 miles from Tuscaloosa and not have had a person in their family go to college, and still be die-hard Alabama fans. Because it's the thing to do. It's the local pro team. Not sure it's because of exposure alone, or size of alumni base alone, but working in tandem, that really helps. As the pipeline to pros does as well.
The thing I think you rarely see is someone getting into D-III and then hating it. People almost always seem to be willing to trade a few inches and tenths of a second on the 40 time for the genuineness of effort and accessibility etc.
Completely agree. Living down here in Birmingham I can tell you that the world revolves around Tuscaloosa and, to a slightly lesser degree, Auburn. Even the people that go to UAB, Troy, Samford and the other AL schools are all partial to the Crimson Tide or the War Eagles, let alone B-SC. And the hicks in the sticks around here are the most passionate (crazy?) of them all even though many have never had a family member go to either. See the poisoning of Toomer's corner!
As for D3, I agree that the people that go enjoy it. However, even the alumni don't always stick around. We had a W&L event down here this weekend that had a bunch of alumni at it. They were all talking about the Alabama game Saturday night. I brought up W&L's being in the midst of a great two season run and do you know how many of the 20 alumni knew we won the ODAC, went to the playoffs, and were riding our longest ever conference win streak? None...
D3 is something only a comparative few people get deeply into and stay with. I don't think that's really going to change and I'm not sure it needs to. Sure I'd love to see "new" Wilson Stadium packed to the gills on a regular basis and screaming hordes in blue and white face paint cheering on the Generals in shirt and tie and khaki shorts, but I just don't really see it happening. Schools like UMU that sell season tickets at the D3 level just amaze me. I'm pretty sure W&L is still walk in and thank you for coming for every game unless it is a D3 playoff where they are required to charge.
Well I agree with you in that it doesn't necessarily need to change -- the get-to-know-you and thanks-for-being-here aspects are part of the charm, as are the humbleness of the players and the fact you can usually get a good vantage point at a game -- I still think there is more that programs could do to maximize their interest within what will likely always be a niche.
Mount Union doesn't draw ridiculous numbers. I could be wrong, but I always saw the season ticket sales there as more of a way to have assigned seating on the coveted covered side of the field there.
Trine is a good example of maximizing. Sometimes we teams think since there's a game people should just come. Well we're interested in pro sports because we know the teams' histories and their players -- although through television and media coverage. We care about them. The reason I watch boxing but not MMA isn't because one is better, it's because I'm familiar with the players in boxing. They promote well.
Trine did some community outreach when Land first got there. I think shaking hands, visiting retirement homes or community events would probably help attendance. Show people you care about them, and give them an opportunity to know who you are, and they might do the same.
Still, we're probably talking about miniscule attendance numbers by comparison to any big school with a big alumni base and a TV deal.
But there are some D3 schools (Wabash is another) whose alumni manage to stay engaged and who have been able to grow attendance. Trine is now 13th overall behind a pretty dern good school, if I do say so myself. Wabash is top 10.
Here are the 17 D-III schools who average 3,500+ per game (and I think we'd agree that's not a great number, that high schools can draw that ... but again, they're not selective and have a wider alumni base):
7,000+
St. John's (MN)
Wis.-Whitewater
Hampden-Sydney
5,300-4,100:
St. Thomas (MN)
Chris. Newport
Emory & Henry
Concordia-M'head
Wartburg
Wabash
Mount Union
Wis.-Eau Claire
Randolph-Macon
3,500-3,999:
Trine
Baldwin-Wallace
Bethel (MN)
Mississippi Col.
Adrian
Grove City
Castleton St.
McDaniel
I wonder if there's any possible way to get this thread back on topic ;D
Quote from: K-Mack on October 25, 2011, 01:16:45 AM
...
I wonder if there's any possible way to get this thread back on topic ;D
Back on topic?
There was no activity on this thread from Dec 2007 to Nov 2010! :)
Finally, 02 Warhawk revived it, two weeks ago, back on Page 6 to announce his blog.
I think that we are doing okay!
Thanks for the attendance stats, Keith! I will bet that most of the loyal Mississippi College attendance base goes back to the D2 days (and their vacated national championship in the early 1990's).
I know for the sake of the ASC, I wish that we had 2-3 other nearby conferences against whom our "bottom half" could gobble some wins.
K-Mack: In most (if not all) years Williams and Trinity (CT) and in some years Amherst would be included in those average attendance numbers. It is presumed that they have been omitted because of their conference.
Quote from: K-Mack on October 18, 2011, 09:19:56 PM
TV exposure most certainly would help, for all the reasons it helps big schools, but also just to open people's eyes to the idea that there's good football (and bad) being played in small, academically-focused atmospheres, and the options for a HS athlete are not D1 or bust. If it were done in moderation -- and with 239 schools, it would be hard to overdo it -- you could still throw someone the occasional bone without making them a slave to TV money, or making them look at football as a business and not an extension of the classroom.
Pep has been pleased with the increased attendance at Merrill Field this season, no doubt aided by Alfred's 2010 success. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, the Alfred SID doubled as the Hornell paper's sports editor. He always had insightful, interesting columns and Alfred had a good following from Hornell and Wellsville, plus local players. We still get local players and it seems we're getting more of a following from area towns again.
In five games this season, AU has drawn an average of 3000. With one more game Nov. 12, with anticipated crummy weather, that stat will likely drop. But still good enough for 34th in the nation...out of 239 schools.
Of course, Pep believes the fine performances of the AU Pep Band has also been a reason for the increased interest! ;)
Quote from: frank uible on October 26, 2011, 09:58:08 AM
K-Mack: In most (if not all) years Williams and Trinity (CT) and in some years Amherst would be included in those average attendance numbers. It is presumed that they have been omitted because of their conference.
Pep found them listed in the NCAA stats but suggests maybe an error in reporting? Trinity looks right but Pep questions the totals for Williams and Amherst.
Williams....1591 for two games for avg. of 796
Trinity (CT)...8800 for three games for avg. of 2933
Amherst...1900 for three games for avg. of 633
As for getting back to topic....best attendance may have something to do with the best D3 Conferences. AU always draws larger crowds for games with Fisher or Ithaca (E8 contests) or maybe long-time opponents such as St. Lawrence, Hobart, Rochester...but when AU plays an unknown, there's less interest.
On Saxon Warriors!
Amherst and Williams pile up high attendance numbers at the end of each seaon (which figures presumably are not included in the above). The Amherst-Williams game (the last game of the season for each of them) annually attracts in excess of 10,000 fans - sometimes around 12,000.. For years in which that game is played away and consequently the attendance numbers of which are not included in the away team's home numbers for that year, the away team plays Wesleyan late in the season at the away team's home - a game which also records high attendance but not quite as high as the Amherst-Williams game. Amherst and Williams each play four home games annually - 10,000 in attendance for the Amherst-Williams game (or in alternate years for the game against Wesleyan) plus 1000 for each of the other three home games makes an average home attendance number per game in excess of 4000.
Quote from: frank uible on October 26, 2011, 09:58:08 AM
K-Mack: In most (if not all) years Williams and Trinity (CT) and in some years Amherst would be included in those average attendance numbers. It is presumed that they have been omitted because of their conference.
Never presume, you make a pre out of u and ... wait, forget it.
Those numbers were from the NCAA stats package and sorted by average attendance. Trinity and Wesleyan were in the top 50, just below 3,000 a game, so I think it wasn't so much that the NESCAC is omitted, it is (as you mention in a later post) their big numbers come later in the season. With only four home dates a piece, Amherst or Williams's average will shoot up when the 10,000 is factored in.