So Falconer, in five pages or less what do you attribute the dominance of religious affiliated schools in men's d3 soccer with Messiah, Calvin, OWU, and Wheaton being prime examples?
Quote from: deutschfan on November 24, 2019, 10:43:50 AM
So Falconer, in five pages or less what do you attribute the dominance of religious affiliated schools in men's d3 soccer with Messiah, Calvin, OWU, and Wheaton being prime examples?
what were the Crusades, all the Roman wars of conquest, the Moors in Spain if not the original UEFA Champions League?
Quote from: deutschfan on November 24, 2019, 10:43:50 AM
So Falconer, in five pages or less what do you attribute the dominance of religious affiliated schools in men’s d3 soccer with Messiah, Calvin, OWU, and Wheaton being prime examples?
deutschfan, the topic addressed in your fascinating question has been talked about just a little, and perhaps talked around or dodged a bit more, here. I am not at all personally reluctant to discuss it, and I probably know more about most schools of that type than most posters here, but certainly this thread is not well suited to it (even though many Liberty League schools began as strongly religious places), and a separate thread on soccer and religious colleges might seem inappropriate to many people who come here (understandably) looking to talk about D3 soccer, pure and simple, and mostly not other aspects of collegiate life, even academics (except for the occasional reference, where it seems to fit). As you imply, I could give you a lot more than five pages on this, but we might get ourselves thrown out if we took this conversation very far.
At the same time, it's a valid question. I'll do my best to offer a short answer, and if others find my comments stimulating (positively or negatively), then maybe I misjudge this forum as a whole. Here goes...
Two things about your question are immediately evident to me. First, OWU is (in 2019, not 1919 or 1842, when it was founded) absolutely an outlier in your group of 4 schools. Yes, they have a very strong religious heritage, and more than many other schools with similar origins they have sought to keep a strong religious presence on campus. But, OWU today is not at all similar to the other 3 schools. If you replaced OWU with NPU (for example), you'd have a clearer question. Granted, NPU's soccer success is only pretty recent, while OWU's is longstanding, but the roots of the religious differences go way back. To understand more fully what I am getting at, consider this fact: Calvin, Wheaton, and Messiah all have strict hiring guidelines for faculty and administrators: if you're not an active, believing Christian (or even, for Calvin, a member of a very specific small set of churches), then you're not going to be offered a job. That's not true for OWU, and hasn't been true for a long time.
Second, the fact that you've formulated your question in those words, "the dominance of religious affiliated schools in men’s d3 soccer," suggests to me that you have noticed those schools in this context, whereas in some other contexts unrelated to soccer you might not have noticed them--even in areas where they might actually excel, relative to many other colleges whose primary mission is to educate undergraduates. To make my point, suppose the recent tendency for Amherst, Tufts, and other NESCAC schools to win or compete for national titles were to continue for another 20 years (I hope not, if only b/c I enjoy watching the Falcons and other schools from other places win titles). Suppose that happens. Then, your question in 20 years time would be very differently formulated, and perhaps (to take this thought experiment further for a moment) the answer would have something to do with the role of soccer at the pricey private academies that send many of their students to NESCAC colleges--places that for the most part serve an almost wholly different demographic than places like the 3 Christian colleges in your question.
So, I offered an initial response that seeks further to refine your question, rather than giving an actual answer per se. I hope that's OK, at least for now. Again, I don't know how far to try the patience of others here.
I am not a religious person, I'll say upfront. I'm not a table pounding athiest, either. Religious discussion doesn't offend me in any way. (It's kind of like most things where you have a choice... Don't like the show, song, play, etc -- don't watch or partake. Change the channel, walk away.
I, for one, would find a deeper dive on this topic very informative.
Quote from: Hopkins92 on November 25, 2019, 09:48:08 AM
I am not a religious person, I'll say upfront. I'm not a table pounding athiest, either. Religious discussion doesn't offend me in any way. (It's kind of like most things where you have a choice... Don't like the show, song, play, etc -- don't watch or partake. Change the channel, walk away.
I, for one, would find a deeper dive on this topic very informative.
I'd be interested as well. Historically at least in soccer Messiah, Calvin and Wheaton are the big 3. I didn't realize that North Park is a deeply religious school, and then there are Hope, Gordon, and I'm sure many others. I would guess there are some deeply religious colleges that also are really bad at soccer....just as there are some upscale New England-style academic D3s that excel with soccer and some that don't. Some of these different types of colleges also have some fairly circumscribed recruiting pipelines (Messiah/Calvin types from deeply religious high schools, the NESCAC type kids, the NJAC kids, etc, etc).
Another fascinating topic (to me at least) is the psychological hold that our interest has on us, and how strong that hold can be over a number of years....for the Falconer types, ex-parents like myself still following far more closely than our own kids who played, current parents, parents who you can tell are on the site every day long after their own kids' seasons have ended. I know there is at least something to how we identify with our schools and become passionate to a degree that some of our narcissistic equilibrium (or lack thereof) fluctuates with the successes and failures of our teams. And when our teams get bounced we're wounded to some degree. There is something very personal at stake that leads many of us to keep coming back for more.
If there is further discussion maybe we should move out of the Liberty League thread.
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 26, 2019, 01:29:06 PM
Quote from: Hopkins92 on November 25, 2019, 09:48:08 AM
I am not a religious person, I'll say upfront. I'm not a table pounding athiest, either. Religious discussion doesn't offend me in any way. (It's kind of like most things where you have a choice... Don't like the show, song, play, etc -- don't watch or partake. Change the channel, walk away.
I, for one, would find a deeper dive on this topic very informative.
I'd be interested as well. Historically at least in soccer Messiah, Calvin and Wheaton are the big 3. I didn't realize that North Park is a deeply religious school, and then there are Hope, Gordon, and I'm sure many others. I would guess there are some deeply religious colleges that also are really bad at soccer....just as there are some upscale New England-style academic D3s that excel with soccer and some that don't. Some of these different types of colleges also have some fairly circumscribed recruiting pipelines (Messiah/Calvin types from deeply religious high schools, the NESCAC type kids, the NJAC kids, etc, etc).
Another fascinating topic (to me at least) is the psychological hold that our interest has on us, and how strong that hold can be over a number of years....for the Falconer types, ex-parents like myself still following far more closely than our own kids who played, current parents, parents who you can tell are on the site every day long after their own kids' seasons have ended. I know there is at least something to how we identify with our schools and become passionate to a degree that some of our narcissistic equilibrium (or lack thereof) fluctuates with the successes and failures of our teams. And when our teams get bounced we're wounded to some degree. There is something very personal at stake that leads many of us to keep coming back for more.
If there is further discussion maybe we should move out of the Liberty League thread.
Not sure how many folks here were around for the heyday of bigsoccer.com, but this place has the late-90s to early 2000s vibe of that place. Hard for "kids" today and maybe even some older folks to understand what it was like to follow and have a passion for a sport that really was seen as a niche sport with little/no coverage on TV or in the media.
D3 soccer is kind of where soccer was in general back in the 90s... Not like it's complete media blackout, but you have to dig around to find the games and coverage is often provided or augmented a great deal by amateur analysts on these boards.
I agree...very interesting information for a thread of its own. I'm happy to start one.
Quote from: PaulNewman on November 26, 2019, 01:29:06 PM
Quote from: Hopkins92 on November 25, 2019, 09:48:08 AM
I am not a religious person, I'll say upfront. I'm not a table pounding athiest, either. Religious discussion doesn't offend me in any way. (It's kind of like most things where you have a choice... Don't like the show, song, play, etc -- don't watch or partake. Change the channel, walk away.
I, for one, would find a deeper dive on this topic very informative.
I'd be interested as well. Historically at least in soccer Messiah, Calvin and Wheaton are the big 3. I didn't realize that North Park is a deeply religious school, and then there are Hope, Gordon, and I'm sure many others. I would guess there are some deeply religious colleges that also are really bad at soccer....just as there are some upscale New England-style academic D3s that excel with soccer and some that don't. Some of these different types of colleges also have some fairly circumscribed recruiting pipelines (Messiah/Calvin types from deeply religious high schools, the NESCAC type kids, the NJAC kids, etc, etc).
Another fascinating topic (to me at least) is the psychological hold that our interest has on us, and how strong that hold can be over a number of years....for the Falconer types, ex-parents like myself still following far more closely than our own kids who played, current parents, parents who you can tell are on the site every day long after their own kids' seasons have ended. I know there is at least something to how we identify with our schools and become passionate to a degree that some of our narcissistic equilibrium (or lack thereof) fluctuates with the successes and failures of our teams. And when our teams get bounced we're wounded to some degree. There is something very personal at stake that leads many of us to keep coming back for more.
If there is further discussion maybe we should move out of the Liberty League thread.
Somebody may have already mentioned this but the Messiah coach wrote a book about why they're so successful and, so to speak, faith plays no small part.
Quote from: Michel Bernstini on November 26, 2019, 02:23:40 PM
Somebody may have already mentioned this but the Messiah coach wrote a book about why they're so successful and, so to speak, faith plays no small part.
The book is entitled
The Messiah Method: The Seven Disciplines of the Winningest College Soccer Program in America and it wasn't written by the current or former coach but by a Messiah College professor, Michael A. Zigarelli. He later penned a related book titled
Soccer Field, Mission Field: 100 Coaches Reveal How They Play for Something More.
So, it looks like some folks want to talk about this topic. I appreciate the initiative taken to start a separate thread. Full story: I wasn't going to write anything else unless someone did that, and I wasn't going to start the tread myself.
In my other post, I suggested that we might get some interesting data by comparing the high schools attend by players from NESCAC schools vs players from the 3 Christian colleges named in deutschfan's original post. Certainly we could expand the pool of data, but I leave that for others if they are so inclined. Probably most people here would agree that the top 4 programs in recent years are (alphabetically) Amherst, Calvin, Messiah, and Tufts. Two NESCACs, two Christian colleges. I'l throw in Wheaton (IL), b/c undeniably their winning tradition goes back much further than any other similar school, and the have been in the Final Four as recently as 2014, when they lost to Tufts: https://www.ncaa.com/game/soccer-men/d3/2014/12/06/tufts-wheaton-il/. And, they can boast of having arguably the greatest D3 soccer teams ever, when they ran off a zillion games without a loss. I didn't take time to look up that number, but someone else will easily find it. They are also usually considered the flagship Christian college.
Here are links to each roster this season:
Messiah https://gomessiah.com/sports/mens-soccer/roster
Tufts https://gotuftsjumbos.com/sports/msoc/2019-20/roster
Amherst http://athletics.amherst.edu/sports/msoc/2019-20/roster
Wheaton https://athletics.wheaton.edu/sports/mens-soccer/roster
Calvin https://calvinknights.com/sports/msoc/2019-20/roster
You will see the occasional player from a top private school on each roster, but most of those guys are NESCAC players--tons of them, relatively. Since this isn't about any of them as individuals, I won't name the player, but it's illustrative to note that one of the better NESCAC players hails from central NJ, but his parents sent him to the oldest school in PA, Penn Charter in Philly. I know Penn Charter very well. My father and his brother went there, as day students I think since they lived in the city. I'd be very surprised if Messiah has ever had one single student from Penn Charter, though of course I don't have the raw data to prove it; certainly I can't recall any soccer players from there or a school as elite as that one.
For the moment, my point is that NESCAC and the 3 Christian colleges have very little in common, when it comes to the schools that feed their soccer programs. Not quite nothing in common--after all, Messiah SR Shay Quintin went to Milton Academy (MA), where an Amherst player also graduated. For now, that's all I have time to mention.
Quote from: Flying Weasel on November 26, 2019, 03:41:11 PM
The book is entitled The Messiah Method: The Seven Disciplines of the Winningest College Soccer Program in America and it wasn't written by the current or former coach but by a Messiah College professor, Michael A. Zigarelli. He later penned a related book titled Soccer Field, Mission Field: 100 Coaches Reveal How They Play for Something More.
Was not aware of either book, but I bought the former on Kindle last night and I'm already halfway through (200 pages total). Really compelling read. I'm not particularly religious myself (UU) but I think there are a number of keys that are mentioned — getting the small details right, focusing on relationships, the idea of working for your teammates — that are "secular" in nature but have to be done deliberately, and Messiah has clearly figured out how to integrate all of those things into their greater mission. Additionally, the "Both-And" aspiration is something I found particularly interesting. I would highly recommend.
I must add that there are also the "Saints" of St. Lawrence as well.
One of my memories of playing against Messiah was them playing "When the Saints Go Marching In" during our NCAA game in PA.
My other memory is the reason why Messiah has had the success it has.
It is the fact that a Messiah crowd are absolute crazy twisted fanatics in love with the game and their team.
I played @ Messiah before they won for the first time, and you wouldn't know it.
The fans were wayyyyy into it... not in a nasty way or obnoxious, but in TOTAL support and really played the role of a 12th man.
Great crowd support comes first and foremost from playing good soccer.
At the end of the day this thing we do is ENTERTAINMENT.
People want to enjoy a performance.
I think that religious affiliation and discipline it takes to live well can spill over to the game, but I think crowd passion is a very underrated part of it all as well.
Quote from: Saint of Old on November 27, 2019, 11:35:36 AM
Great crowd support comes first and foremost from playing good soccer.
At the end of the day this thing we do is ENTERTAINMENT.
People want to enjoy a performance.
I think that religious affiliation and discipline it takes to live well can spill over to the game, but I think crowd passion is a very underrated part of it all as well.
This is a very appropriate place for me to say "Amen!"
http://www.christianity9to5.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/How-Excellence-Happens.pdf (http://www.christianity9to5.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/How-Excellence-Happens.pdf)
I am not sure if this was mentioned as I had to speed read so I could get back to a mountain of prep work I have for the next 10 days ... but the dominance isn't necessarily across the board. I would say some of these schools have it in particular sports, but (a) it isn't guaranteed to continue especially if coaches are changed and (b) the number of sports is dwindling.
In women's volleyball, Hope and Calvin have certainly been strong, but in the last few years other programs have caught up to them and I would argue they don't have the stranglehold they once had.
In basketball, Hope and Calvin used to always be Top 25 teams on the men's side and on the women's Top 10-15. Now on the men's side, Hope and Calvin have been occasional Top 25 squads with programs that have started to struggle to keep up with the talent across DIII. The parity in that sport is a significant factor, likely, but there have been other factors as well. On the women's side, both programs have slipped a bit thanks in part to coaching changes - though to be fair, Hope is still a darn good program who is always in consideration for a title. It is just that the power in WBB has been elsewhere primarily.
Messiah WBB have been a pretty good Top 25 team, but they haven't been a national powerhouse. Messiah MBB has it's moments, but it has been a number of years since they were in the national conversation - let along in the regional conversation (the MAC Commonwealth, though, is one of the most difficult top-to-bottom conferences in the country, the top just doesn't tend to produce a national contender in the last ten or more years).
Wheaton MBB and WBB have been strong (MBB making a miraculous run to the final four last year on the back of one unique player primarily), but neither team has really been a power either.
Off the top of my head, the "religious schools" haven't been a major factor in field hockey, either lacrosses (which are growing, of course), football, and other sports.
Per OWU - do you mean Ohio Wesleyan? I don't really consider them a "religious" school. The ones I consider are the ones we have to think whether they will play a game on Sunday (most have started to play in the post-season only). And nothing against OWU which I nearly went to myself, but I'm not sure I would put them at the top of the conversation in most sports.
In fact, when you look at departments on the whole, the NESCAC is one of the biggest powerhouses and they aren't considered "religious schools." UAA, ODAC (in a number of sports), even CCIW are not full of a lot of religious institutions that dominate.
I think because of soccer many think this is true across the board. In reality, I think there are, as the title hints at, niche situations where coaches have been able to recruit very well both taking advantage of their own (team) success and what the school offers to a young person. I think if coaches change at some of these places (Messiah being the one I am most carefully watching), they may lose that "niche" ... though one would argue Messiah has already lost that niche since they aren't necessarily dominating soccer like they used to not that long ago.
BTW - Mount Union, Mary Hardin-Baylor, and UW-Whitewater aren't exactly known as religiously strong schools in football (though, certainly UMHB has that deep-south religious aspect within the program).
Messiah has four teams other than MW soccer that almost always make the tournament: softball, W basketball (Final Four at least twice), wrestling (a few individual champions and now always in the top group as a team), and field hockey (just one title a couple years ago, but more than a dozen Final Fours).
Track has had just a few individual champions, including the decathlon nearly 20 years ago (an AA keeper in the first soccer championship team, who later qualified for the Olympic trials), the steeplechase champ in 2019, and the W800 champ also in 2019 (soccer player Esther Seeland, a current SO whose time is only 2 seconds from the Olympic trial standard).
Soccer is king of the hill, but I suspect wrestling is almost there too.
Happy Thanksgiving to all the players, parents, coaches and fans of the beautiful game being played at its purest level. In honor of this thread, God bless.
I was and still am a non-believer but I chose to go to a religious-affiliated school (Luther) in part because there was just something about the atmosphere that I liked and didn't feel at all at the other schools that interested me (Macalester, Carleton, Oberlin) as a high school junior and senior. I was a little taken aback when I moved to Dubuque and began going to Loras games and they started out every game with a prayer before the national anthem. That's not something I was used to and it made me a little uncomfortable but I very much respect it and I think that the unquantifiable "feel" of the college is in many respects similar to Luther and I attribute that in part to the faith that is shared by a high percentage of the student body.
So far, I've argued that NESCAC and D3 Christian colleges mostly draw soccer players (and probably other students as well) from demographic groups that overlap only minimally. I don't mean to imply the absence of other demographic groups, from which other schools get players. For example, NJAC schools probably get most of their players from NJ, since those students get tuition breaks, and I assume that most of those students don't qualify academically for NESCAC, just as I assume most of the players at Messiah or Calvin don't qualify academically for NESCAC, either--however, quite a few Wheaton players probably do qualify for NESCAC, since Wheaton is pretty competitive. Other demographic groups surely exist across D3, which is a hugely diverse group of schools, ranging from UAA to NESCAC to Centennial schools (and similar places) to smaller state schools to small, non-elite private schools to Christian colleges. Each set of schools will have a particular target demographic, and each will recruit partly based on their past experience with similarly profiled students.
So--why are NESCAC schools as a group so very good at soccer? I suggest we consider at least 3 factors. (1) They tend to draw students from elite private academies with very pricey tuition. Such places might or might not have football teams, but almost certainly have soccer teams. The families served by those academies are on the whole far wealthier than the families served by most other colleges and perhaps all other conferences, though I don't have data to show this so it must remain a conjecture. Those families can afford the very best soccer camps, and they tend to be very well connected socially--and with other families interested in NESCAC schools, perhaps adding another dimension to recruiting when two young men who competed against one another in HS want to be teammates. (2) They are mostly very wealthy schools, in terms of endowment/student. Some can afford to be need-blind in admissions, such that a full or nearly full scholarship can be given to any student whose family income justifies that. So, if a low- or mid-D1 level player (let us say) is given a full or nearly full ride to Amherst or Williams or Midd or Tufts, he might well decide to forego D1 to play at the highest level in D3 for less money overall--while attending (probably) a much better school. (3) The highly competitive admissions for NESCAC means that coaches can give "tips" to marginal admits who might not otherwise be admitted. Such players might thereby be more attracted to play at those excellent colleges, than at some other college that isn't as prestigious.
Now, let's ask why a different group of players chooses a place like Calvin, Messiah, or Wheaton over a low- or mid-D1 level school, or over a NESCAC. (1) Most students at Christian colleges do not come from elite private academies, though a small number do. Mainly they come from (a) rural or suburban public HS (rarely urban public schools), (b) Christian HS, or (c) homeschooling, where they have played soccer for a local public HS or a local Christian HS. Students in categories (b) and (c) either buy into Christian education themselves (ignoring their families for the moment), or they don't. If they do, Christian colleges are on their radar screens and might be their first options. Students in category (a) tend to pick Christian colleges b/c they feel shortchanged in their public education (which mainly ignores religious beliefs and values) and they want a strong Christian dimension when they get to college; or, they might feel subject to considerable anti-religious taunting or even discrimination from their secular HS peers. (I know surprisingly many HS students who say this happens. A collegiate woman told me over the holiday that this was the case at her HS.) In other words, a lot of the students who play soccer at Christian colleges strongly want that type of education, and since they can compete at the highest levels at some of those schools, they jump at the chance to do so. (2) Many Christian HSS don't have football, but they do have soccer. This has been true for many decades, and some of those well-established programs produce high D1 level players. An example of such a school that often feeds Messiah is Cuyahoga Valley Christian School (OH), where Kai Kasiguran and the four Thompson boys all played; they have sent players of similar caliber to other colleges, too, including some high D1s and D2s. Pipelines get started this way.
Again, more can be said, but I wanted to get this out there for now.
The next piece in my argument is to consider what this information means, for the individual, college-prep HS soccer player good enough to play anywhere in D3 and probably somewhere in D1. Those are the types of players we're talking about in this thread: if they aren't good enough to play for Amherst or Calvin or Messiah or Tufts, we are ignoring them.
Those young men want to play collegiate soccer, and they may want to compete for national titles--who can blame them? Many of them will get interest from D1 and D2 programs; a few of them will be offered full or very large academic scholarships by D3 schools. So, ignoring all the other colleges, if a player in this category gets interest from NESCACs and/or any of these Christian colleges, he knows he can go deep in the tournament and be surrounded by similarly gifted players only at a small number of schools, the very best of which (in terms of soccer traditions) in recent years are NESCACs or Christian colleges, with of course a number of others (UAAs, Oneonta, Loras, or Trinity come to mind) just a little behind. For this type of student, the overall quality of a college's soccer program is probably the deciding factor in making the collegiate decision--it's why (e.g.) they didn't apply to that really good liberal arts college a couple hours away, or that smaller state school that's a lot less expensive. If that student is a serious Christian, and he doesn't believe he's quite good enough to play in the ACC or the Big Ten, he's probably applying to Messiah, Calvin, and/or Wheaton--or, perhaps NPU, but (let's be honest) NPU seems to be much more interested in European players, and maybe he doesn't want to live in Chicago (not everyone does, despite the obvious attractions). Why those schools? Basically, he's attracted by (a) the great soccer tradition, making it a virtual certainty that his team will go deep into the tournament during his 4 years there; (b) the very strong emphasis at the college--and on the soccer team team--on opportunities for spiritual growth as a religious person; and (c) the strong academic programs at those schools.
In other words, those Christian colleges are getting some of the best D3 soccer players in the nation, precisely b/c there's a close match between the personal aims of the student(s) and the track records of those schools. Even at a time of declining religiosity in the US, there are still millions of Christian young people who take their faith seriously enough to prioritize it over many other things, including the opportunity to play soccer at a high level somewhere else. I know that Calvin and Messiah get multiple players from the same families, many times, and I imagine it's true also at Wheaton. One brother gets the total experience he wants, and his younger brothers want it too. (I don't mean to imply that this happens only at Christian colleges; of course it also happens at other schools. It's just extremely important to many Christian families to help their children have that experience, so success absolutely breeds success. And, feeder schools keep sending students to those places when they get such good feedback from an earlier group of students.)
So--to wrap this up--if you want the combination of factors identified here, and you're good enough to play for Calvin, Messiah, or Wheaton, you're going there. If you aren't interested in that type of Christian education, you're looking to play somewhere else. "Somewhere else" is a much bigger bucket than the few Christian colleges with high level D3 programs, so it isn't hard to see why that small group of Christian colleges can stockpile talent--in Messiah's case (at least), in some years the second team would actually be the second best team in their conference. That started happening a few years into Brandt's time as head coach, and IMO it's what made them a regular Final Four team.
Now that I've had my say, what other opinions are out there?
Quote from: Falconer on December 02, 2019, 03:44:30 PMIf that student is a serious Christian, and he doesn't believe he's quite good enough to play in the ACC or the Big Ten, he's probably applying to Messiah, Calvin, and/or Wheaton--or, perhaps NPU, but (let's be honest) NPU seems to be much more interested in European players,
Not true. As hard as NPU has worked to get European players, the coaching staff has worked harder to get American players. For one thing, American players are there for four years, whereas most of the Europeans tend to graduate in three. And the attrition rate is better with American players, because homesickness is much less of an issue. Although North Park has had Swedes on the team since the program began in the early '80s, the European presence on the pitch for the Vikings has been more pronounced in recent seasons because the ability of the Swedes and Norwegians that John Born and Kris Grahn have brought in over the past five years has been so high. The Norwegians in particular have made a big difference in recent seasons; NPU didn't start recruiting in Norway until five or six years ago, and that new pipeline has turned out to be absolutely amazing.
The North Park men's soccer program doesn't tend to pursue the same American-based players that Wheaton, Messiah, and Calvin pursue. Calvin looks mostly at Michigan-based kids (with a few from Illinois and Ohio), and it uses the feeder system of Christian Reformed Church high schools in western Michigan to a great extent -- although the CRC feeder schools don't play as pronounced a role in supplying various Calvin sports teams with student-athletes as they used to. Messiah seems mostly focused on evangelical kids from the eastern seaboard, whereas Wheaton, as in all sports, seeks out evangelical kids from all over the country. NPU is certainly not averse to pursuing evangelical kids, of course, but the school has always followed a different enrollment philosophy than has Wheaton, f'rinstance; Wheaton requires all of its students to be evangelicals, whereas North Park doesn't. NPU is an evangelical Christian school that makes no bones about its nature and mission, but it does not require its students to share those beliefs.
Quote from: Falconer on December 02, 2019, 03:44:30 PMand maybe he doesn't want to live in Chicago (not everyone does, despite the obvious attractions).
This
is true, especially for suburban players. Many suburban kids are intimidated or put off by the big city, which is ironic when you consider how many suburban-raised recent college graduates choose to live there (illustrative of the difference between the 18-year-old's mindset and the 22-year-old's, I guess). That hampers NPU's recruiting in several sports, but less so in men's soccer. That's because most of the American-based men's soccer players that NPU gets nowadays are from immigrant families. A high percentage of North Park's soccer rosters in recent years has consisted of first- or second-generation Americans. To them, the school's multiethnic and multicultural population, and the extremely diverse communities of Albany Park and North Park in which the campus is located are, as is the case with the European players, a big part of the school's appeal. Immigrant kids grow up living in more than one culture simultaneously, and a place where not everybody looks the same, speaks the same, thinks the same, likes the same foods and music, etc., thus has a big appeal for them -- as it does for the Scandinavian kids who come from highly homogenous cultures and are actively seeking to experience the wider world (and in North Park's immediate community, the wider world is all right there within a five-block radius).
A few thoughts....
I would generally concur with everything that's been shared/written so far, especially with respect to the demographics applicable to the main two types of schools discussed thus far, and the corresponding demographics of their soccer programs. I agree that the overlap is minimal, although there are occasional exceptions like the one Falconer already mentioned.
Let's see if we can differentiate a little more.... I don't agree with setting the parameters at the "big four" (Amherst, Calvin, Messiah, Tufts). Not only is there a recency bias there but even recently there are schools where young men could go with expectations about competitive teams, NCAA bids, NCAA runs, and hopes of Final Fours and titles. There are at least 15-20 schools in that category, and that's just counting the "religious" and NESCAC and NESCAC-like (other elite LACs around the country, UAAs. The number goes even higher if we include the upper tiers year to year of the NJAC, SUNYAC, etc.
Many young men who end up on such teams also consider fit, academic interests, fit with the program and coach, and likelihood of playing. Now of course there are a few who could play D1 who pretty much know they'll be studs and four year starters even at the current "big four" and other top programs. Guys like Payne and Thompson come to mind at Messiah, but that's not always the case. Rojas at Tufts came in with much fanfare and he had to earn his way. West at Messiah his first couple of years was not what he turned out to be his last year, etc, etc. Some guys might want to be part of an up and coming program, or a program hungry to revitalize, or a program on the cusp. Remember that to borrow Mr.Right's famous line that when Shapiro took over at Tufts he started out with a "bag of balls and some cones" and years of losing. How he and coaches at other places with similar turnarounds pulled off what they did would be worthy of study itself.
And why Messiah and Calvin....and not other religious schools? A poster in recent years has touted and tried to boost Grove City and Geneva. Hope may now be back in business. This is where I think we do find overlap in terms of variables between the best soccer programs at religious schools and the best more secular institutions. They either had have or have created an identify that even foes acknowledge. When I hear the words 'Messiah' or 'Calvin' I think of soccer excellence. Same with the leading seculars. An interesting question that was raised is what would happen to different programs if coaches left. I've always thought that there are programs like UK bball, Nebraska and Alabama football that will thrive regardless of coaches. And that is because of the massive identification of the populous with those schools where the very identity of folks in Kentucky is so tied to the bball program. I think of Duke and UNC bball like that, and Ohio State and Michigan football, etc. And I think of Messiah, Calvin and OWU like that (and yeah, I mean OWU because of their tradition and not because they are peers of the other two in terms of religion). But who knows. Nebraska is in an extended dip. UCLA and Indiana have the name and tradition but have not kept pace with other stalwarts like UK, Duke and UNC in bball. So eras can end. But I'd still bet that Messiah will make sure the program stays strong, just like I think OWU and the OWU alums will keep OWU competitive if and when Martin ever retires. I feel like I'm rambling, but it's worth asking what a Messiah and a Tufts or Amherst have in common...and there is something there for both that involves tradition, expectation, success breeding success...
Another variable is to what degree schools identify as and build identity with a high value on athletics. That's not a given, and I've always viewed the NESCAC as very athletics-focused even with all the rules about shortened seasons and other rules unique to NESCAC. How many years in a row did Williams win that Directors Cup or whatever it is? I think the Ivies are similar that way. I don't that is true to the same degree even at similar schools outside the NESCAC like Swat and Haverford (even though they had had some obvious recent success). And then there's a Reed. So one way at least some of the NESCACs are similar to Messiah/Calvin is in the role of athletics in the institutions at large and the degree to which the identities of the places are impacted by valuing athletics. Now, then, what comes first is interesting. Schools might not have an inherent predilection for athletics, but maybe a coach or some other dynamics creates one, and then that carries on.
On a more personal level, I am about as far from an evangelical Christian as one can get. I was raised Protestant and then morphed into an existentialist leaning atheist. When I have gotten to know true Christians well (both in family and out of family) there has been much I have admired. I have found many to be among the most genuine, authentic and giving people I've ever known. I admire their fidelity to their beliefs and their values. That said, there is an awkwardness about mentioning or inquiring about certain things. And there comes a point where, ironically or not given the current political climate, there truly are different realities, and we are seeing more and more that there is less and less of a reality that we can agree on....that basically truth becomes a function of power or overriding sentiment or influences that are so ingrained we can't even see them. We are living in a time when there are people who don't believe the Holocaust happened or that Russia did anything or that people should be able to love who they love. I get confused, because I see a couple of Messiah folks here with superb analytical skills, who can make cogent, fine-grained arguments based solely on reason and logic. I wonder what would happen if we spent days talking about the Holocaust or how you can believe in a God (a Christian God) that allows such things as "part of HIS plan." My best and worst experiences at Davidson happened in the same class....a phenomenal course on the Holocaust more powerful than any class I had and then at the end the professor imo ruined and spoiled it by chalking it up to God's plan and not being able to see God's plan but you just have to trust that he (or she) knows what he's doing. Sure, while reading Weisel and watching videos of thousands of dead, naked, emaciated bodies being pushed by machines into mass graves.
There were brilliant students in that class far smarter than me and yet I could not believe how easily they fell for simple, convenient answers in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And there are other things....100 years from now (assuming the planet is still here) the reality of different sexualities will be a given to the same degree that we now believe African Americans should have equal rights. Some things now seemingly debatable and so controversial years from now will be "facts" in a way that no one even questions, on a par with 2+2 = 4. Religion's uneasy relationship with progress in science is something that interests me. Anyway, I have a profound respect for places like Messiah and its alums, but I know there's a point where I just don't get it.
Quote from: PaulNewman on December 03, 2019, 06:53:16 PMAnd why Messiah and Calvin....and not other religious schools? A poster in recent years has touted and tried to boost Grove City and Geneva. Hope may now be back in business. This is where I think we do find overlap in terms of variables between the best soccer programs at religious schools and the best more secular institutions. They either had have or have created an identify that even foes acknowledge. When I hear the words 'Messiah' or 'Calvin' I think of soccer excellence. Same with the leading seculars. An interesting question that was raised is what would happen to different programs if coaches left. I've always thought that there are programs like UK bball, Nebraska and Alabama football that will thrive regardless of coaches. And that is because of the massive identification of the populous with those schools where the very identity of folks in Kentucky is so tied to the bball program. I think of Duke and UNC bball like that, and Ohio State and Michigan football, etc. And I think of Messiah, Calvin and OWU like that (and yeah, I mean OWU because of their tradition and not because they are peers of the other two in terms of religion). But who knows. Nebraska is in an extended dip. UCLA and Indiana have the name and tradition but have not kept pace with other stalwarts like UK, Duke and UNC in bball. So eras can end. But I'd still bet that Messiah will make sure the program stays strong, just like I think OWU and the OWU alums will keep OWU competitive if and when Martin ever retires. I feel like I'm rambling, but it's worth asking what a Messiah and a Tufts or Amherst have in common...and there is something there for both that involves tradition, expectation, success breeding success...
I don't think that your comparison across divisional lines has much validity to it. Tradition? Sure. But there is no such thing as a "massive identification of the populace" affecting Calvin and Messiah and Ohio Wesleyan. Those schools don't even register on the consciousness of the average person who lives five miles away from campus, much less of the populace in general. Like the vast majority of D3 schools, they exist off of the radar of the media and of popular culture.
I think that if you're looking to define long-term success in a specific sports program at those schools (i.e., men's soccer), then you're looking at good coaching hires as the best explanation, coaches that stay for a protracted amount of time, understand the school and its mission and how to present it well to prospects and their parents, and who know how to develop and sustain success. If you're looking at across-the-board athletics success on this level (e.g., Calvin, as well as several of the NESCAC schools), then you're talking about a combination of institutional resources and (more importantly) institutional support as well as a knack for spotting and hiring coaching talent. And I suspect that there are some schools that have built up a specific sports niche so well (e.g., Messiah in soccer, both men and women, but also North Central in men's cross-country, Wartburg in wrestling, Kenyon in both men's and women's swimming, UW-LaCrosse in both indoor and outdoor track & field for both genders, Methodist in men's and women's golf, Mount Union in football, etc.) that that specific sport (or two gender-complementary sports) will enjoy the sort of special institutional support that can sustain the program beyond a coaching change.
Quote from: PaulNewman on December 03, 2019, 06:53:16 PMOn a more personal level, I am about as far from an evangelical Christian as one can get. I was raised Protestant and then morphed into an existentialist leaning atheist. When I have gotten to know true Christians well (both in family and out of family) there has been much I have admired. I have found many to be among the most genuine, authentic and giving people I've ever known. I admire their fidelity to their beliefs and their values. That said, there is an awkwardness about mentioning or inquiring about certain things. And there comes a point where, ironically or not given the current political climate, there truly are different realities, and we are seeing more and more that there is less and less of a reality that we can agree on....that basically truth becomes a function of power or overriding sentiment or influences that are so ingrained we can't even see them. We are living in a time when there are people who don't believe the Holocaust happened or that Russia did anything or that people should be able to love who they love. I get confused, because I see a couple of Messiah folks here with superb analytical skills, who can make cogent, fine-grained arguments based solely on reason and logic. I wonder what would happen if we spent days talking about the Holocaust or how you can believe in a God (a Christian God) that allows such things as "part of HIS plan." My best and worst experiences at Davidson happened in the same class....a phenomenal course on the Holocaust more powerful than any class I had and then at the end the professor imo ruined and spoiled it by chalking it up to God's plan and not being able to see God's plan but you just have to trust that he (or she) knows what he's doing. Sure, while reading Weisel and watching videos of thousands of dead, naked, emaciated bodies being pushed by machines into mass graves.
There were brilliant students in that class far smarter than me and yet I could not believe how easily they fell for simple, convenient answers in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And there are other things....100 years from now (assuming the planet is still here) the reality of different sexualities will be a given to the same degree that we now believe African Americans should have equal rights. Some things now seemingly debatable and so controversial years from now will be "facts" in a way that no one even questions, on a par with 2+2 = 4. Religion's uneasy relationship with progress in science is something that interests me. Anyway, I have a profound respect for places like Messiah and its alums, but I know there's a point where I just don't get it.
I don't think that this is an appropriate venue for this sort of thing. Having said that, I'm well aware that I'm just one person, and that I have no more authority than any other poster. I don't have editorial control over this board; Pat Coleman does, and he's the only person who can unilaterally shut down a discussion. But I don't think that a polemic regarding matters of faith (either pro or con) is in keeping with either the purpose or the spirit of d3boards.com.
Greg, I wish you could be a little more generous. I obviously was comparing only in the sense of having a tradition and building a culture where when people think about a school they also think about the activity....and there are some schools where the tradition would survive a coach change and where the school is invested in keeping a strong program (I think like you feel about Wheaton)....and clearly some do not get past a coach change. I think what the differences are is interesting.
As for the other stuff, I am absolutely fine with it being removed. We knew there was some nervousness about whether to even get near the topic and about how much to say, but yeah, not a big deal to me.
Quote from: PaulNewman on December 03, 2019, 10:11:11 PM
Greg, I wish you could be a little more generous. I obviously was comparing only in the sense of having a tradition and building a culture where when people think about a school they also think about the activity....and there are some schools where the tradition would survive a coach change and where the school is invested in keeping a strong program (I think like you feel about Wheaton)....and clearly some do not get past a coach change. I think what the differences are is interesting.
Well, that part I have no problem with. I think that I made it obvious that tradition is important when maintaining a long-term success story in a particular sport, although I think that ultimately it's quality coaching, a keen sense of who to hire to run a program, and institutional support that keeps that success story going. I just don't think that the whole D1 "massive identification of the populace" aspect has anything to do with D3. The three NCAA divisions really do exist in different worlds.
In the spirit of looking for common ground and not just scouring for where someone can be corrected and mildly chastised, I want to clarify what I was trying to say above a little more.
My point about top soccer D3s (or D3s with a tradition of excellence in one or more other sports) was not that the size of the fan base or amount of media attention is comparable, but rather that for those who are in fact serious fans and have affiliations with programs those fans can be just as fanatical as fans of big-time D1 programs. Even though I was raised in North Carolina I grew up as (and still am) a huge UK bball fan which goes back to the mid-60s listening to UK games with my Dad in his car in our carport (because that's what you had to get WHAS out of Louisville to listen to Cawood Ledford, the voice of the 'Cats. And as a fan I despised UNC and Duke. Anyway, nowadays, I feel a Kenyon loss every bit as much or more as a UK loss, and I have sensed over the years here on this site that many of us feel our team's successes and failures as deeply as an Ohio State or Alabama football fan. I would guess that Falconer feels a Mesiha los as much or more than his favorite D1 or favorite pro sports team (if he has those). And the tradition that some of these D3s have in a sport WITHIN THEIR OWN SPHERES, while much smaller and not blasted on ESPN, can be just as strong. I do think we can ask what programs might be more likely to continue their traditions with a coaching change -- where the culture of the program at a school now to some degree does carry beyond a particular coach and may continue. We could always be wrong because of variables and events we can't anticipate, but on balance I would expect Messiah to have a higher chance of continuing than a Tufts....and in part because those affiliated with the program and the administration want to see it continue. I would say the same about OWU. Now that could happen at Tufts, especially if the alums and administration make that a priority. Hence, my question about how some D1 programs with proud histories basically carry on without a blip (UNC bball for example) while others (UCLA) don't. Maybe it's just random, but which ever way those changes are absorbed or not I do think is a bigger deal at places where there is a proud tradition with people around it invested in continuation. And to some degree there are conferences where athletics are a bigger deal than others, like the NESCAC, and that becomes a tradition that impacts individual schools.
Oh, I can definitely get behind that. I just don't think that a D1 comparison is necessary, because plenty of that type of diehard mentality exists at the D3 level -- always has, always will -- except that it's among a much smaller fanbase and exists outside of media attention.
I can speak from direct experience on that, because both social media and word of mouth informs me of just how passionate NPU's alumni fan base is about the school's men's soccer program. The motto of Foster's Finest, the NPU student section for men's soccer, is "North Park 'til I die", which heavily implies that their passion and loyalty is expected to continue after graduation. A surprising percentage of the home crowd at every Vikings game at Hedstrand Field consists of alumni -- surprising, because NPU has such a geographically diverse alumni base -- and a very large percentage of the audience we have online for webstreaming consists of alumni as well. And they are very vocal in their support on social media. The player alumni base, even more so -- a lot of the former Vikings who live in Chicagoland are present at games, and there's barely enough shirts to go around at the alumni game every August, in which players have been known to fly in from Sweden to participate.
I'm certain that most, if not all, of the top programs in D3 men's soccer have similar tales to tell.
Quote from: Gregory Sager on December 02, 2019, 05:15:16 PM
The North Park men's soccer program doesn't tend to pursue the same American-based players that Wheaton, Messiah, and Calvin pursue. Calvin looks mostly at Michigan-based kids (with a few from Illinois and Ohio), and it uses the feeder system of Christian Reformed Church high schools in western Michigan to a great extent -- although the CRC feeder schools don't play as pronounced a role in supplying various Calvin sports teams with student-athletes as they used to. Messiah seems mostly focused on evangelical kids from the eastern seaboard, whereas Wheaton, as in all sports, seeks out evangelical kids from all over the country. NPU is certainly not averse to pursuing evangelical kids, of course, but the school has always followed a different enrollment philosophy than has Wheaton, f'rinstance; Wheaton requires all of its students to be evangelicals, whereas North Park doesn't. NPU is an evangelical Christian school that makes no bones about its nature and mission, but it does not require its students to share those beliefs.
Very interesting information, Mr Sager, thank you for sharing it. Here's my comments:
(1) Calvin is unlike Wheaton, Messiah, NPU, and most other Christian colleges, in that it has an unusually close relationship with its founding denomination, the Christian Reformed Church in North America (basically the American sister of a Dutch denomination). To the best of my knowledge, the college and adjacent seminary are both actually owned (present tense) either by the CRC itself, or else by one of its synodical bodies, known as a "classis." If this is no longer true, or was never true, I hope someone will correct me. In practice, this means that a faculty member cannot receive tenure unless/until he/she becomes an active member of a local CRC church, or one of the very few other denominations that the CRC views as very similar. Junior faculty do not (yet) have to comply with this expectation, but at some point they must in order to keep their positions. I know a very gifted scientist from an Anabaptist background who was hired by Calvin maybe 15 years ago, but she left a few years later for this reason, and now teaches at a public university in another state. There is no similar expectation on the students, who do not even need to believe in God: I know a recent Calvin alum who has identified as an atheist since before starting HS. He has no regrets about his Calvin education (he thinks it was of high quality), but he never bought into the faith-affirming nature of the school.
At Wheaton, by comparison, faculty must be Protestants of one or another denomination. No Roman Catholics or Orthodox believers are hired, and anyone who converts is asked to leave. A fairly recent instance is well known: a faculty member who became a Catholic resigned from Wheaton and took a similar position at Mount St. Mary's University in MD. I don't know whether a similar expectation exists for students at Wheaton, but many other Christian colleges also hire only Protestants. The standard label "Christian" college usually defaults to "evangelical" or "charismatic Protestant" in its actual practice, despite the fact that some seriously Catholic colleges (such as the U of Steubenville) are part of the umbrella organization that includes Calvin, Wheaton, Messiah, NPU, and about 100 institutions in all.
Messiah, on the other hand, hires faculty from across the Christian world, including Catholic and Orthodox believers. They aren't unique in this respect, but they are much less common. Consequently, the student body also includes Catholic and Orthodox believers--in fact, the pastor of the local Catholic parish is a Messiah alum, several Messiah employees belong to his church, and when he was (formerly) the education officer for the Harrisburg diocese, he recommended Messiah for Catholic families who wanted Christian (including Catholic) higher education in this region. At least a few current or recent soccer players are Catholics. So, presumably, the talent pool is larger for Messiah than for Calvin or Wheaton.
(2) The Christian schools feeding Calvin are mostly the ones Mr Sager identified--the CRC schools in Michigan. The "Christian" in their names specifically means "Christian" Reformed Church. As a group of institutions, those schools go back to the 19th century, greatly pre-dating the far more numerous "Christian" schools that have sprung up all over the nation since the 1960s. Their educational attitudes and specific religious teachings are often dissimilar to the more recent movement. They began more for positive, than negative, reasons, if I may put it that way. They were formed to pass on a particular religious vision, while vigorously engaging the broader world of ideas and beliefs outside the CRC communities. Many of the younger generation of Christian high schools, on the other hand, were formed in order to be "safe" places from the encroachment of the "evils" of the outside world, in the context of the great social unrest and increasingly secular mindset of America since the early 1960s. Many of those schools teach creationism (for example), though many others do not. Mostly, it's the younger group of Christian schools that feeds Messiah, though Messiah itself long predates their movement and educational attitudes at Messiah are pretty similar to those at Calvin--I've never heard anyone say (for example) that they were taught creationism at Messiah, whereas creationism is taught at places like Liberty or Cedarville. But, the very strong Christian atmosphere at Messiah still attracts lots of students from those high schools, even though Messiah certainly isn't Liberty.
(3) Yes, Wheaton draws a national student body, unlike Calvin or Messiah. In its academic profile, Wheaton is basically a NESCAC school: very competitive, very liberal arts (engineering and nursing majors can't be completed entirely at Wheaton in four years), and very much into athletics. Plenty of students from the non-CRC Christian high schools attend Wheaton, but they also draw quite a few from the same elite private academies that send students to NESCAC, and many public school students as well, not to mention foreign students. Messiah gets something like 60% of its students from one state (PA), and most of the rest from adjacent states. Calvin might have a similar geographical focus.
However, Falcon soccer players come from a much wider geographical area than the typical student. I've never mentioned this particular fact here, but I've long felt that one crude measure of the overall quality of a given Falcon team is the integer value of the number of states represented on the roster. In a "down" recruiting year, the players tend to be mostly from PA; in an "up" year (for example, the current FR and SO classes), they tend to be from a lot more states. I will leave it to others to take this much further and evaluate its reliability.
Good comments, Falconer. A few of my own in return:
Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 04:03:20 PM
(1) Calvin is unlike Wheaton, Messiah, NPU, and most other Christian colleges, in that it has an unusually close relationship with its founding denomination, the Christian Reformed Church in North America (basically the American sister of a Dutch denomination). To the best of my knowledge, the college and adjacent seminary are both actually owned (present tense) either by the CRC itself, or else by one of its synodical bodies, known as a "classis."
Actually, NPU is very much like Calvin in that sense. It has a close (albeit ambiguous) relationship to its founding denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church, and until the reign of the last president (with whom you are familiar) as much as a third of the NPU undergraduate student body consisted of "Covies". Both North Park University and North Park Theological Seminary, which is on the NPU campus and functions as a semi-autonomous institution within the larger university, are owned by the Evangelical Covenant Church, which is now based out by O'Hare Airport but which used to be headquartered on the other side of River Park from NPU's Holmgren Athletic Complex (which includes the soccer pitch, Hedstrand Field).
Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 04:03:20 PMIf this is no longer true, or was never true, I hope someone will correct me. In practice, this means that a faculty member cannot receive tenure unless/until he/she becomes an active member of a local CRC church, or one of the very few other denominations that the CRC views as very similar. Junior faculty do not (yet) have to comply with this expectation, but at some point they must in order to keep their positions. I know a very gifted scientist from an Anabaptist background who was hired by Calvin maybe 15 years ago, but she left a few years later for this reason, and now teaches at a public university in another state.
That's an interesting point. I have two nephews and a niece who are recent Calvin grads, and I'll have to ask one of them if this rule is still in effect.
Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 04:03:20 PMThere is no similar expectation on the students, who do not even need to believe in God: I know a recent Calvin alum who has identified as an atheist since before starting HS. He has no regrets about his Calvin education (he thinks it was of high quality), but he never bought into the faith-affirming nature of the school.
At Wheaton, by comparison, faculty must be Protestants of one or another denomination. No Roman Catholics or Orthodox believers are hired, and anyone who converts is asked to leave. A fairly recent instance is well known: a faculty member who became a Catholic resigned from Wheaton and took a similar position at Mount St. Mary's University in MD. I don't know whether a similar expectation exists for students at Wheaton, but many other Christian colleges also hire only Protestants. The standard label "Christian" college usually defaults to "evangelical" or "charismatic Protestant" in its actual practice, despite the fact that some seriously Catholic colleges (such as the U of Steubenville) are part of the umbrella organization that includes Calvin, Wheaton, Messiah, NPU, and about 100 institutions in all.
Messiah, on the other hand, hires faculty from across the Christian world, including Catholic and Orthodox believers. They aren't unique in this respect, but they are much less common. Consequently, the student body also includes Catholic and Orthodox believers--in fact, the pastor of the local Catholic parish is a Messiah alum, several Messiah employees belong to his church, and when he was (formerly) the education officer for the Harrisburg diocese, he recommended Messiah for Catholic families who wanted Christian (including Catholic) higher education in this region. At least a few current or recent soccer players are Catholics. So, presumably, the talent pool is larger for Messiah than for Calvin or Wheaton.
NPU has a similar hiring policy for faculty and staff. And, as I said earlier, NPU likewise has an open admissions policy with regard to creedal affiliation (or non-affiliation, as the case may be).
Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 04:03:20 PM(2) The Christian schools feeding Calvin are mostly the ones Mr Sager identified--the CRC schools in Michigan. The "Christian" in their names specifically means "Christian" Reformed Church. As a group of institutions, those schools go back to the 19th century, greatly pre-dating the far more numerous "Christian" schools that have sprung up all over the nation since the 1960s. Their educational attitudes and specific religious teachings are often dissimilar to the more recent movement. They began more for positive, than negative, reasons, if I may put it that way. They were formed to pass on a particular religious vision, while vigorously engaging the broader world of ideas and beliefs outside the CRC communities. Many of the younger generation of Christian high schools, on the other hand, were formed in order to be "safe" places from the encroachment of the "evils" of the outside world, in the context of the great social unrest and increasingly secular mindset of America since the early 1960s. Many of those schools teach creationism (for example), though many others do not. Mostly, it's the younger group of Christian schools that feeds Messiah, though Messiah itself long predates their movement and educational attitudes at Messiah are pretty similar to those at Calvin--I've never heard anyone say (for example) that they were taught creationism at Messiah, whereas creationism is taught at places like Liberty or Cedarville. But, the very strong Christian atmosphere at Messiah still attracts lots of students from those high schools, even though Messiah certainly isn't Liberty.
(3) Yes, Wheaton draws a national student body, unlike Calvin or Messiah. In its academic profile, Wheaton is basically a NESCAC school: very competitive, very liberal arts (engineering and nursing majors can't be completed entirely at Wheaton in four years), and very much into athletics. Plenty of students from the non-CRC Christian high schools attend Wheaton, but they also draw quite a few from the same elite private academies that send students to NESCAC, and many public school students as well, not to mention foreign students. Messiah gets something like 60% of its students from one state (PA), and most of the rest from adjacent states. Calvin might have a similar geographical focus.
However, Falcon soccer players come from a much wider geographical area than the typical student. I've never mentioned this particular fact here, but I've long felt that one crude measure of the overall quality of a given Falcon team is the integer value of the number of states represented on the roster. In a "down" recruiting year, the players tend to be mostly from PA; in an "up" year (for example, the current FR and SO classes), they tend to be from a lot more states. I will leave it to others to take this much further and evaluate its reliability.
At North Park, fans have often drawn a similar crude measure based upon the number of Swedes on the roster of any given Vikings team. (It would now be Scandinavians in general, of course.) I've always felt that that's an often-inaccurate barometer, but there's certainly no denying that the program's recently-elevated success coincides with an all-time high in terms of both the number of Swedes and Norwegians on the roster in general and the number of Swedes and Norwegians in the starting lineup in particular. Even that, however, is a crude measure because it assumes qualitiative distinctions that aren't necessarily accurate. Just as there are Messiah players from outside Pennsylvania that are better than their fellow out-of-state teammates, and Falcons who hail from the Keystone State who are better than their out-of-state teammates, so are there North Park imports from Scandinavia that are better than their fellow Scandinavian teammates, and there are Vikings from the U.S. who are better than most of the Scandinavians.
Quote from: PaulNewman on December 03, 2019, 06:53:16 PM
That said, there is an awkwardness about mentioning or inquiring about certain things.
Paul, I agree with Mr Sager that this forum isn't the right place to talk about "certain things," such as those you mentioned in the post I'm quoting. However, personally I am happy to discuss some of those things in private space. I sent you a message via the board, inviting you to contact me, but I am unsure it will reach you, b/c I also tried sending it to the email address in your profile and it bounced back. So, if you fail to receive it, and you want to make contact, please update the address in your profile and I'll try again--and let me know here that you did so, since I am not currently set up to receive emails from people here. If you prefer to ignore the invitation, of course that's to be respected and I'll fahgettaboutit, as they say in NY.
Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 06:35:07 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on December 03, 2019, 06:53:16 PM
That said, there is an awkwardness about mentioning or inquiring about certain things.
Paul, I agree with Mr Sager that this forum isn't the right place to talk about "certain things," such as those you mentioned in the post I'm quoting. However, personally I am happy to discuss some of those things in private space. I sent you a message via the board, inviting you to contact me, but I am unsure it will reach you, b/c I also tried sending it to the email address in your profile and it bounced back. So, if you fail to receive it, and you want to make contact, please update the address in your profile and I'll try again--and let me know here that you did so, since I am not currently set up to receive emails from people here. If you prefer to ignore the invitation, of course that's to be respected and I'll fahgettaboutit, as they say in NY.
Done. Check your email. And thanks for your note.
I actually don't disagree that this isn't the place. That said, what a sad state of affairs. Folks can't discuss things that supposedly they're encouraged to explore and discuss in a college classroom or elsewhere? Our supposedly more open society isn't that open. And we're (I mean big we in terms of the whole country) so split that I do worry about us no longer having any shared facts that people can use as starting points. Just spin and more spin and defending things that are indefensible at all costs. And I did try to be as honest, forthcoming, truthful, and complimentary as I could be above.
But as I said before, yeah, I get it. Not the right place which I assume is consistent with the initial trepidation you expressed about the thread topic in general.
Personally, I enjoy the thread and think this is a perfectly appropriate arena to discuss the topic. It's certainly relevant to followers of D3 soccer as there is no denying that many Christian colleges have had a ton of success. And what makes this thread any more "inappropriate" than say a discussion about why the NESCAC or UAA continue to churn out successful teams, or why the Landmark doesn't?
Quote from: EB2319 on December 05, 2019, 09:27:10 AM
Personally, I enjoy the thread and think this is a perfectly appropriate arena to discuss the topic. It's certainly relevant to followers of D3 soccer as there is no denying that many Christian colleges have had a ton of success. And what makes this thread any more "inappropriate" than say a discussion about why the NESCAC or UAA continue to churn out successful teams, or why the Landmark doesn't?
The part of the post people are questioning is the thoughts on religion in general, which were tangential at best to soccer. That being said, I don't care. But I do understand that it could have driven the topic sideways and I think people have been good about staying on track in general.
First, I want to thank the posters who've taken the time to write such thoughtful and thought-provoking commentary.
Turning a bit back to the original intent, and by way of personal accounting (and I'll tie this back to the topic, trust me):
When I arrived at Hopkins, the long-standing tradition of having the head soccer coach position filled by either the head LAX coach, or one of the top coordinators was still very much in place. Despite the fact that we had almost ZERO institutional support and a man coaching the team that literally needed the bench to explain what a red card meant mid-game, my fr. and so. years we posted records that JUST missed out on NCAA bids, and still go down in the record books in offensive and defensive prowess.
By my jr. year, the administration was finally convinced to bring in a "real" soccer coach. Huzzah! ... He was a nightmare. The talent on the team carried us, but he was so toxic that players started telling recruits not to play and by my sr. year, the team had fallen into an unprecedented losing record. That spring, myself and fellow co-captains were brought into the AD and asked for our thoughts on the coach. He was fired 2 weeks later. That was 1992.
Hopkins played in the finals in 1994, losing to Bethany. I was there and watched the kid who was my understudy in goal replicating my warm-up routine and got a little misty-eyed.
While Hopkins didn't turn into a juggernaut overnight, I think folks on this board would stipulate they've fairly routinely been in the mix to either win the CC or earn an NCAA bid over the last 20 years.
=-=-=-=-=
Two things to tie that back to this discussion:
1) Institutional support is vital, regardless of religious or secular affinity. It's all the little things, like quality practice fields, equipment, TRANSPORTATION... But certainly raises to the bigger issues, such as seeking out and PAYING quality coaches. A place like Hopkins could put together decent teams simply because they have a national academic footprint and there was enough athletic talent showing up due to the draw of the degree.
That's not enough to turn a good program into an elite program.
2) The community and alumni aspect is probably more important than some are giving it. Pretty much beginning with the guys that were seniors my freshmen year, there is solid community of guys that keep in touch and are mixing in with the younger guys. They love to hear our war stories about long van rides and staying in ****ty motels. But the point is that prior to that, there was no real soccer alumni. And that's a huge missed opportunity. Alumni don't just turn up a games, they are potential ambassadors, recruiters and scouts.
I would say, at least with Hopkins, much more could be done to tap into this resource. There is now an annual alumni tournament, but there's not a lot of formal outreach from the administration or coaching staff. I don't know how other schools operate, but I assume there's just more of a connection with some the elite schools on both the religious and secular programs.
Just a few thoughts. Again, fascinating reading up to this point. I share Paul's lamentation that we can't dive into some of the other societal and political topics, but also understand that perhaps folks don't come to this board to confront those topics.
Cheers
One other observation: If we're talking about what makes teams elite, which isn't necessarily what the OP posited, I think there's more in common between the NESCAC and top religious programs:
1) Institutional support (facilities, recruiting & admissions/$$)
2) Quality/Elite Coaching
3) Tradition of Excellence
4) Community/Alumni network and support
Having read all of the posts here, I'm just not sure I'd buy into the notion that simply having a strong religious undercurrent would drive athletic success. Seems like some schools have specific pipeline due to their religious affiliation, but beyond that I haven't really read anything that stands out as particularly unique.
I actually think Hope is a pretty good example. What's the one factor that changed to turn that program around?
Not trying to rankle, but I think each school that has been featured in this thread is elite for factors that are more in common than not. Some religious schools are on the radars of certain types of kids, some elite schools are on the radar of a separate group of kids. In both cases, it's what those schools do with those recruiting advantages that make the difference in long term success.
That was kind of the point of my Hopkins insight. They could be elite, but they are not quite there in terms of a few factors that I'll keep to myself so as not to offend. :-)
My theory is that the strongest teams are playing for more than just winning. Clearly religion could be one purpose. I also think that coaches that truly care for their players and really go out of their way for them can also foster a culture of playing for more than wins. In this example I've seen that players give 110% to please their coach. I suspect these types of coaches also foster a "team first" supportive culture too.
Honestly I don't understand how toxic coaches ever get anywhere-- it just seems so obvious to me that team culture and morale carry you much farther than talent alone.
One final (I hope) clarification....
The objections to and/or anxiety about what I wrote (and where all that might lead) are entirely reasonable.
Let me also say why I think it was reasonable that I did "go there."
There was anxiety about even starting a thread like this precisely because of concern about what might be opened up, and then there was some feeling out about whether to keep going or not, waiting to see if anyone responded, etc. As soon as the question about "what's the deal with the soccer and the religious schools" was raised there was going to be an elephant in the room. Then there was Falconer's excellent description of Messiah, Calvin, etc and the NESCACs and the almost totally different demographics and recruiting pools. So I think there is a legit tie to soccer that is not just tangential when one asks why a kid who has Messiah at the top of his list probably doesn't have Amherst or Middlebury on his radar....and vice-versa...and which is not very far from a question about what is the divide between those two demographics that seems so clear all about. There's a point (often at least) where the two demographics just don't quite get each other, and that's even presuming a more than fair measure of respect in terms of what might seem foreign. I certainly tried to be sensitive and as respectful and complimentary as I could be (which is not to say I wouldn't change a few words or maybe leave a couple of things out if I had done more edit/review). If that did not come across, I apologize.
At any rate, Falconer and I are now having a good, interesting and very mutually respectful dialogue off-line, and I think that's a good residual effect.
BTW, in case anyone else has wondered about the name Paul Newman.....he was a Kenyon grad and it was at Kenyon that his drama/acting career began. (I wouldn't be surprised if there are current players who have no clue who Paul Newman was.) He also was there for the famous (famous to Kenyon folks) fire of 1947 when the iconic Old Kenyon dormitory burned to the ground. it was rebuilt of course and often is the building you see anytime Kenyon is featured somewhere.
In response to Hopkins92, IMO success is the single biggest variable, as success just breeds success, as long as there is sufficient institutional/administrative support (with the latter being the second most critical factor). And then in terms of what is usually the biggest key to getting success started....coaching. But a taste of success is addictive (and attractive in terms of potential recruits).
Quote from: Another Mom on December 05, 2019, 11:56:26 AM
My theory is that the strongest teams are playing for more than just winning. Clearly religion could be one purpose. I also think that coaches that truly care for their players and really go out of their way for them can also foster a culture of playing for more than wins. In this example I've seen that players give 110% to please their coach. I suspect these types of coaches also foster a "team first" supportive culture too.
Honestly I don't understand how toxic coaches ever get anywhere-- it just seems so obvious to me that team culture and morale carry you much farther than talent alone.
Well, the flip side is
sometimes the motivating factor, in that players will galvanize to "prove the coach wrong" or otherwise pit themselves against an... let's say "aggressive" coaching style. Think of the movie Varsity Blues as an overly-dramatic example of this.
If you read through my little snippet on the origin story of the current version of Hopkins soccer, in the mid 80s to early 90s, the team won in spite of the coach.. And believe me, we built a brotherhood out of that difficult time dealing with that bizarre coaching set-up.
But, in general I whole-heartedly agree with you. That aloof, aggressive style is difficult to sustain at the collegiate level. Kids have options and don't need to put up with that. (high school is a much different story. The coach I refer to in my snippet came out of the club, high school ranks, for example.)
Meanwhile, in Greensboro, the southern fried okra is perfect and the weather for Friday and Saturday looks to be the same. "Can I get an Amen ?" :D
Quote from: 2xfaux on December 05, 2019, 01:05:44 PM
Meanwhile, in Greensboro, the southern fried okra is perfect and the weather for Friday and Saturday looks to be the same. "Can I get an Amen ?" :D
Oh, there's still a tournament going on? Who could possibly want to watch Tufts, Calvin and Amherst play again? Should we just pencil them in for next year?
Just kidding. I'll watch every minute.
Quote from: PaulNewman on December 05, 2019, 12:07:36 PM
IMO success is the single biggest variable, as success just breeds success, as long as there is sufficient institutional/administrative support (with the latter being the second most critical factor).
This statement is a great topic for another thread. I'm always curious about the teams that used to be nationally strong, but then fall by the wayside. And I'm not talking about teams lucky enough to capture magic in a bottle because they happen to get a super-stud - I'm looking at you Kean and Freddy Gurian. But rather, the teams that seemed to be Top 20 every year but now you don't hear from them. Is it a coaching change? Lack of institutional support? Something else? I know I'm going back some years, but TCNJ (Trenton State) was a powerhouse in the early 90's having reached the final 3x and winning once. That winning coach from '96 is still there - has the game simply past him by? I'm sure there are other more recent examples - Dominican was very good for a time, no?
I think it can be a lot of things. The facilities wars take their toll, and not just athletic facilities. General academic facilities at the D3 level matter. Losing assistants take their toll. Sometimes coaches just get tired. It's a grind recruiting every year. Sometimes administrations change and the desire to win diminishes, so that player you could have slipped through before you can't anymore. There are so many factors.
Quote from: EB2319 on December 05, 2019, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: PaulNewman on December 05, 2019, 12:07:36 PM
IMO success is the single biggest variable, as success just breeds success, as long as there is sufficient institutional/administrative support (with the latter being the second most critical factor).
This statement is a great topic for another thread. I'm always curious about the teams that used to be nationally strong, but then fall by the wayside. And I'm not talking about teams lucky enough to capture magic in a bottle because they happen to get a super-stud - I'm looking at you Kean and Freddy Gurian. But rather, the teams that seemed to be Top 20 every year but now you don't hear from them. Is it a coaching change? Lack of institutional support? Something else? I know I'm going back some years, but TCNJ (Trenton State) was a powerhouse in the early 90's having reached the final 3x and winning once. That winning coach from '96 is still there - has the game simply past him by? I'm sure there are other more recent examples - Dominican was very good for a time, no?
Dominican is still very solid. I think that the problem with the Stars is that Chicagoland recruiting for men's soccer is getting more and more competitive. The CCIW is getting to the point now where everybody cares, and when everybody cares and everybody wants to build a winning program within the CCIW in a particular sport, it starts squeezing out the programs from lesser leagues like the NACC. Also, the ARC works Chicagoland pretty heavily, as do other leagues and programs. In other words, I suspect that Erick Baumann is trying just as hard as he ever has on the recruiting trail; it's just that the increased competition on the recruiting trail is causing diminishing results.
Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 04:03:20 PM
To the best of my knowledge, the college and adjacent seminary are both actually owned (present tense) either by the CRC itself
Correct.
Quote from: Falconer on December 04, 2019, 04:03:20 PM
The Christian schools feeding Calvin are mostly the ones Mr Sager identified--the CRC schools in Michigan.
That is probably true as far as the
Christian schools feeding Calvin. However, only approximately 30% of the student body is now made up of students who went to CRC churches, a much smaller percentage than in the past.
FYI, Calvin's roster has 9 of the 28 players from what I would call Christian "feeder" schools in West MI. Success breeds success, and I think Calvin has been able to recruit a number of soccer players from non-West Michigan Christian schools that want to play soccer at a high D3 level.
This is an older thread, but it seems the most appropriate place to post this new information.
The Messiah alumni magazine has a meaty article about alums who are coaching various collegiate sports around the nation. Some of the people are former Falcon soccer players, including recent graduate Samuel Ruiz Plaza.
https://www.messiah.edu/homepage/4156/collegiate_coaches
During my son's recruiting process, I'm always excited to come across team that has a coach with ties to Messiah. Good people. And I make it a point to tell them as much.