FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[USee]

Lastly--I'm personally bummed about the Wash U ouster.  Loved having them in the conference.  I think they greatly elevated the level of play.  Go beat Stout!

I second this notion. WashU is an elite academic institution and an all-around class organization. Though only an associate member I feel its association served, at least in some small way, to help elevate the stature of the CCIW. During the course of WU's membership, they were without question the #3 team on the gridiron, lining up only behind NCC and Wheaton. They thoroughly deserve their upcoming trip to the Isthmus Bowl. Hopefully they end their conference affiliation with another W.
I understand the CCIW wanting a full member. I don't know if the possibility existed or not, but I wish there was a way to add that full member while still retaining WU.
The NCAC's gain is the CCIW's loss. 

As previously stated multiple times, WashU's CCIW ouster had nothing to do with them being a full member or not.

You missed my point, USee. I wasn't advocating for WashU to become a full CCIW member. Merely stating that I thought they were a credit to the conference, and that I wish they could somehow still be an associate member for football despite the addition of another full member. 

Yes GusD, sorry about that I misread you original post. I certainly wish WashU was staying. Much more competitive conference with them involved.

[USee]

For the Thunder this weekend they face Crown who is 7-3. Crown runs the ball 75% of the time and have averaged 5.5 yds per rush for 230 yds per game for the 16th best rush offense in the D3 land. Their pass offense accounts for 835 yds on the season (74-154-5 int, 48%) and 83 yds per game. The Thunder will have to stop the run this weekend.

Defensively they have found their footing in turnovers. 9 fumbles and 14 interceptions and they are top 25 in the nation in Turnover Margin. They are top 15 in getting off the field on 3rd down and 9th in red zone defense.

They lost to a 1-9 team and a 4-6 team and their best wins are over 5-5 Martin Luther (2x). They don't have any wins over a team with a winning record (Simpson is the only team they played that has a winning record).

 

[Cardinal773]

As previously stated multiple times, WashU's CCIW ouster had nothing to do with them being a full member or not.

This topic is getting to be rather annoying.  Now that WashU's days can be counted on one hand, people are lamenting their departure and asking why.  That's their prerogative and it's reasonably fine for a CCIW discussion board, right?  But then we have a couple of guys on here who apparently know something. They're so quick to shush people and say stuff like "That's not why they moved." and "If you know you know."  No need for a discussion here, folks!  They know something about this thing and what you thought was the thing had nothing to do with the thing at all. Yeah. Annoying.

Go Bears. Show those little WIAC pansies what CCIW football is all about.

[Cardinal773]

For the Thunder this weekend....

As a fan, I have the luxury of looking ahead.  The 10-day forecast does not look good for Wartburg.  This ain't your mamma's round of 40 team.

[Gregory Sager]

As previously stated multiple times, WashU's CCIW ouster had nothing to do with them being a full member or not.

This topic is getting to be rather annoying.  Now that WashU's days can be counted on one hand, people are lamenting their departure and asking why.  That's their prerogative and it's reasonably fine for a CCIW discussion board, right?  But then we have a couple of guys on here who apparently know something. They're so quick to shush people and say stuff like "That's not why they moved." and "If you know you know."  No need for a discussion here, folks!  They know something about this thing and what you thought was the thing had nothing to do with the thing at all. Yeah. Annoying.

OK, so some of us are annoying you. What's the best way to handle something or someone that's annoying you? Ignore it.

For the record, nobody's been shushed here. I've simply stated my desire that we should move on. But if you want to keep talking about it, then you're going to keep talking about it, with or without my or anybody else's approval. As you said, that's the prerogative of everybody who posts here. The only person who can stop you is Pat, and since there's nothing in the Terms of Service that applies to this I doubt that Pat cares one bit.

[Cardinal773]

I guess I'm just one of those very rare individuals who says he's annoyed when he's. I'll try not to do that in front of you again, boss. 

[Gregory Sager]

[Crusader92]

Whether due to one of the numerous plausible reasons noted in discussions here, or the super secret reason know only to the CCIW illuminati, it's a shame to see Wash U go. It was clearly a feather in the leagues cap to have such an outstanding academic institution on board - even if just for one sport. If there were schools that saw this differently it doesn't speak well of them. And it was a blast to have a league game on the schedule that could always be counted on to be hard fought and competitive. I realize that's all relative depending where one stands in the current (but sure to change some over time) league football hierarchy. But it seems obvious that CCIW football is the loser in this transition.

[Kovo]

As previously stated multiple times, WashU's CCIW ouster had nothing to do with them being a full member or not.

So what you are saying is that if WashU had been a full member, they still would have been kicked to the curb?!

Not sure I'm buying that one.

There's nothing to buy, Kovo, because Wash U would never, ever, ever be a full member of the CCIW ... not in this universe, at least. Wash U would never want to be a full member -- why should it, when it's already a member of a league (the UAA) that consists of its D3 peer institutions, such as the U of Chicago, Emory, NYU, Carnegie-Mellon, etc.? -- and I really don't think that the CCIW would ever want Wash U to be a full member, either, for the following reasons:

The CCIW consists of small liberal arts colleges that have enrollments between 1,500 and 3,000 undergraduates, relatively small graduate programs and enrollments (if any; at least one CCIW school is strictly undergrad-only), and endowments that range from about $80m to $610m. Wash U is a mid-sized research university, with over 8,000 undergrads and over 7,000 grad students. It's not only a research university, it's a very high-powered and nationally respected research university. It's a member of the AAU, which is the crème de la crème of research universities in the U.S., and it has a medical school and its own hospital system in St. Louis. And it has an endowment of $12b -- that's billion, not million -- which means that Wash U has somewhere between six to seven times as much money (not including property and facilities) as the entire CCIW membership combined.

To give you an idea of where Wash U stands in the universe of American higher education, that school has hosted four presidential debates (1992, 2000, 2004, and 2016) and a vice-presidential debate (2008). Can you imagine a CCIW school hosting a presidential debate? I can't; none of our schools has a national profile anywhere close to making it a suitable location for a presidential debate, and that includes Wheaton. I doubt that any CCIW school even has the infrastructure to host one.

In short, we are nine hobbits. Wash U is Smaug.

I agree with your analysis.  And true, WashU would not want to be a full member of the CCIW, but my point is---that is why they were shown the door.  They weren't a full member and never would be a full member.  The CCIW wanted a full member.

As for Presidential debates--a local university to me, Lynn University, held a Romney-Obama debate some years back.  The students were seen around town wearing t-shirts that had "Lynn University" on the front and "Don't worry I've never heard of you either" on the back.

[Gregory Sager]

I agree with your analysis.  And true, WashU would not want to be a full member of the CCIW, but my point is---that is why they were shown the door.

Sigh. Again, your point is wrong. That is not why Wash U was shown the door. Despite what Crusader92 said, it was not "one of the numerous plausible reasons" behind the CCIW's decision. For one thing, as I said several days ago, the league was not actively seeking a full member -- it simply opened itself up to the possibility of discussing membership if a school expressed interest in joining, which is a completely different thing altogether. This is what the league's commissioner said over a year ago in a d3football.com story on the decision:

"The CCIW Council of Presidents have been closely watching the conference membership shifts throughout D-III," CCIW Executive Director Maureen Harty told D3sports.com. "It is in the best interest of our core members to be in a position to act quickly if the opportunity presents itself to add a core member that sponsors football.

"If the opportunity presents itself" makes it plain that the CCIW was not actively courting a tenth full member. Mo was simply passing along the consensus of the CCIW presidents that they would be willing to hear out a school if it came knocking at their door, that's all.

And, second, it doesn't fit the timeline as far as the admission of CUW into the league is concerned. Again, Wash U was ousted in September 2024 (the decision, and the notification of Wash U of that decision, may have actually taken place earlier, in August sometime), and the discussion between CUW and the league commenced at the end of the 2024-25 school year, or shortly thereafter. In the same d3football.com article, Mo states the reason why Wash U was let go when it was: "We made the decision to give Wash U notice now, so they can begin to pursue other options."

They weren't a full member and never would be a full member.  The CCIW wanted a full member.

No, it didn't. It welcomed the possibility of a new member, but it didn't want one in the sense of being proactive about it by pursuing potential members.

As for Presidential debates--a local university to me, Lynn University, held a Romney-Obama debate some years back.  The students were seen around town wearing t-shirts that had "Lynn University" on the front and "Don't worry I've never heard of you either" on the back.

Didn't realize that. That's a pretty funny t-shirt, too!

[Pat Coleman]

This all assumes you take that quote at face value.

I was glad to get the quote, because mostly conferences just ignore requests for comment, and sometimes when we contact a conference for comment, they flat-out lie to us and tell us our news story is wrong. The CCIW did not do that.

However, I think that it might require a grain of salt. Conferences that aren't the WIAC are probably always looking for new full members, especially if you have an odd number of them. That isn't ideal.

In addition, I would love for this back-and-forth to end. Can we put this topic to bed?

[Gregory Sager]

This all assumes you take that quote at face value.

I was glad to get the quote, because mostly conferences just ignore requests for comment, and sometimes when we contact a conference for comment, they flat-out lie to us and tell us our news story is wrong. The CCIW did not do that.

However, I think that it might require a grain of salt. Conferences that aren't the WIAC are probably always looking for new full members, especially if you have an odd number of them. That isn't ideal.

Oh, I absolutely agree about the "grain of salt" aspect of conference statements. League offices generally do enough spin-doctoring to open up their own clinic. But the evidence, plus what I was told by someone who was a party to all of these discussions, is that the CCIW was not looking for a new full member, if by "looking" you mean an active search in which the league initiates contact with a potential new member. I know, I know ... semantics.

In addition, I would love for this back-and-forth to end. Can we put this topic to bed?

That, folks, is a shush.

[79jaybird]

Meanwhile I hope to see both Wheaton and NC advance to the next round.   

[CarollFan]

https://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2025/playoff-surprises-disappointments

Surprises, disappointments and last team standing in a bracket.
Last teams standing predicted, MU, NCC, UWRF (a couple Wartburg) and Johns Hopkins.

Appreciate the capsule reviews too. Really helps when you really know nothing about a team.

[bleedpurple]

For the Thunder this weekend they face Crown who is 7-3. Crown runs the ball 75% of the time and have averaged 5.5 yds per rush for 230 yds per game for the 16th best rush offense in the D3 land. Their pass offense accounts for 835 yds on the season (74-154-5 int, 48%) and 83 yds per game. The Thunder will have to stop the run this weekend.

Defensively they have found their footing in turnovers. 9 fumbles and 14 interceptions and they are top 25 in the nation in Turnover Margin. They are top 15 in getting off the field on 3rd down and 9th in red zone defense.

They lost to a 1-9 team and a 4-6 team and their best wins are over 5-5 Martin Luther (2x). They don't have any wins over a team with a winning record (Simpson is the only team they played that has a winning record).

 

I think this game is a candidate for biggest mismatch of all D-III games this year. Have we ever had a playoff team that lost to a 1-9 team? Congrats to Crown for making the playoffs. I'm sure this is a huge deal to them and I respect the heck out of what they've accomplished. But this draw...yikes!