Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 12, 2025, 01:33:57 PMQuote from: GoIrish7 on November 12, 2025, 10:52:04 AMBudgets, scheduling issues with the rest of the country for NonCon games, Inability to add in other sports.... and a little bit of competition is the story I have gotten on their removal.
Budgets - Added overnight trip for majority of the conference with lengthy travel to get there. Busses, hotels, team meals add up.
Scheduling issues - Seems to be a non issue with the league deciding to allow CUW to join. I just know it was easier to have 3 open weekends to find 2 games than 2 open weekends to find 1. By having 9 CCIW games, the CCIW "Bye week" has become an absolute waste. Many members having a week 1 bye and playing 10 straight, and others having a bye week following non con game 1. Again - this doesn't seem to have as much say into showing WashU the door but it was something referenced in the convo's to show the door.
Football only - Pretty simple here. They only joined for football and it made scheduling for other sports a little more difficult. But again other sports did not want them to join because of the travel. And WashU other sports not wanting to leave UAA.
Competition - The big dogs didn't mind it. But without coming out and saying it, it can be implied that the bottom of the conference would rather go play 2 winnable games early in the season vs a noncon + WashU.... Coaches lives and job depends on many things, but winning is definitely a main factor.
These were the issues I heard discussed on why decision was made. I am sure there were others as well.
Nope. Your source speculated incorrectly.Quote from: Jbothe on November 12, 2025, 11:06:22 AMMy wife and I are parents of a WashU athlete, not a football player.
My perception is that the CCIW wanted a full member added to the conference that offered all major sports and fits the overall academic profile of the CCIW.
Nope. That's not the reason behind Wash U's dismissal, either. CCIW commish Mo Harty's press release comment sort of hints in that direction with the bit about the league keeping an interest in adding a possible tenth full member somewhere down the road, but that was strictly a non sequitur included in the press release in order to deflect from matters that the league would like to avoid disclosing.Quote from: robertgoulet on November 12, 2025, 11:18:39 AMQuote from: Jbothe on November 12, 2025, 11:06:22 AMMy perception is that the CCIW wanted a full member added to the conference that offered all major sports and fits the overall academic profile of the CCIW.
Which is funny because when this was initially announced, some of us (not going to point fingers at myself because that would be gloating) said "they obviously want a full member and WU wasn't willing to do it, I bet we see a full member announced pretty quickly" and the old heads were adamant there were no plans for CCIW to add another full member in their place.
So maybe the ITK don't really know and my previous post can get trashed...or maybe for whatever reason they thought the jeopardy was too high to risk a D3 message board finding out that there were talks ongoing for some reason?
Look, this isn't a matter of me playing "I've Got a Secret". Let Mark A. and Bob Q. be the scoopmeisters. I don't care. I'm simply saying that I know the real reason, and I got it straight from someone who actually participated in the league's discussion of the matter. The fact is that, no, this has nothing to do with Wash U not wanting to be a full member, or the CCIW already being aware of Wash U's firm commitment to the UAA and not even bothering to ask, or Wash U's being (pretty obviously) an anomalous fit for the CCIW in terms of institutional profile, or anything like that.
Furthermore, there were no fixed plans to add a tenth full member. As the press release more or less said, the league was simply open to discussing the matter with any school that was interested in exploring CCIW full membership. That's simply prudent policy, given what's going on right now in D3 and in the larger world of American higher education. Being open to discussion with interested parties, and having an actual plan in place to put out the welcome mat and solicit a tenth full member, are totally different things.
Again, the timeline is all wrong as far as Wash U's departure being tied to CUW joining as the tenth full member is concerned. The announcement of Wash U's dismissal from the league as an associate member for football came in September 2024, and from everything I've been able to gather, the discussions with CUW began no earlier than last spring and possibly even as late as early summer.
All I'll say is this: There was no major scandal involved as far as Wash U and the CCIW are concerned, and there's nothing there that warrants further investigation at all. So let's move on.
From my seat.... This is the coaching standpoint. I have no source other than myself lol. "What are the coaches within the league saying about WashU and their long term standing playing football in the CCIW?"
Enter above.
Go Bluejays! Go get Millikin this weekend!
Other notes from last 3 weeks in the world of Elmhurst games(NCC, Wheaton, Carroll).
Thomas Skokna is as fun of in the league as I have seen in some time. Reminds me of Mark Hiben from Wheaton with his ball skills. Seems like he comes down with the ball on an 80% clip on 50/50 balls. Mix in some Devin Hester on special teams. Dude is a stud.
Congrats on a great Career to Reed Breckheimer from Carroll. Love watching him play and he has had a hell of a career vs Elmhurst. Just shy of 400 all purpose yards and 6 TD's from a listed TE.
I think Wheaton can make some noise in the playoffs. Their DL is stout and the defense seems like they have matured from last year. In their two losses, they struggled to get the QB off rhythm as both Mount and NCC QB's were able to get in grooves and be very efficient.