Is The Talent Gap in D3 Football Too Much Between Programs?

[ExTartanPlayer]

One pertinent side comment here:

My high school just won a playoff game in the state semifinals.  My high school is a long-time "local power" (ten double-digit wins in the last twenty-odd seasons under the same head coach; I played for two of those, but we never advanced beyond the state quarterfinals) that has never quite risen to the "state championship" level until this year.  But the program has a long tradition of winning, a stable coaching staff, and is in their third straight season with a deep playoff run: the 2010 and 2011 teams both won several playoff games with many underclassmen starting, all of whom are currently seniors, so it is a very experienced group.  They might not be the most talented squad of pure "athletes" but they're certainly a well-coached and deep squad with lots of playoff experience.

In the semifinals, they played a relative up-and-comer from Philadelphia that supposedly was going to eat our lunch because they blew out every opponent so far this season, they had so much more speed, they have more Division I recruits, their OL averaged 280 pounds, and they have no two-way players.  But they also were relative "noobs" (lost in the first round of the playoffs last year) with much less experience on the sideline in the playoff atmosphere.

We won going away, 35-13.  They absolutely had more talent in terms of pure speed and size, but our side was more disciplined, better coached, and just played better football.  They made some mistakes, and our guys capitalized.

So I can kinda see it happening.  The program with a tradition of winning and excellent coaching on the sideline (Mount) might be able to take the team with far more talent (Akron) with one great game of team play and better fundamentals.  I still think Akron would win more often than not in this hypothetical series, though.

[hazzben]

I'll say this about the talent gap.

After watching the NAIA National Championship game last night, Morningside v. Marian I had a couple thoughts.

First, exciting game. Both teams scored TD's in the final 2 minutes and it went to OT.

Second, ugliest championship trophy in all of sports. Looks like something made in an 8th grade art project. Seriuosly, that's the best they could do 

Third, I think any team in the final Top 10 for D3 this year would have been favored to beat both teams. This was a drastic downgrade from the dominant Carroll and USF teams of the previous editions. NAIA has lost several prominent teams to DII the past few years, and the loss has affected the product. I was surprised by the lack of discipline, speed and relative lack of size on the O/D-Lines. We might have a talent gap. Although I don't think non-UWW or Mount All-America players aren't deserving, as some have argued. I definitely thing I'd rather had exceptional teams at the top that raise the level of play than see two very good but not great teams face off in the Stagg.

[02 Warhawk]

Third, I think any team in the final Top 10 for D3 this year would have been favored to beat both teams. This was a drastic downgrade from the dominant Carroll and USF teams of the previous editions. NAIA has lost several prominent teams to DII the past few years, and the loss has affected the product. I was surprised by the lack of discipline, speed and relative lack of size on the O/D-Lines. We might have a talent gap. Although I don't think non-UWW or Mount All-America players aren't deserving, as some have argued. I definitely thing I'd rather had exceptional teams at the top that raise the level of play than see two very good but not great teams face off in the Stagg.

It just seems to me that the All-Americans on Mount (and sometimes Whitewater) seem to be playing at a different level then some of their peers on the All American team. I guess that explains why their best players from the past few seasons have gone on to play on Sundays (Garcon and Shorts).

I wonder who's next for them?? Collins has been great, but I don't think he's Garcon and Shorts great.

[K-Mack]

Here's an angle on the talent gap that's frequently discussed, but hasn't been brought up in this thread yet.

Mount Union is in a football hotbed (Ohio), is taking advantage of the championships and exposure by recruiting Florida (Pierre, Dieuseul, Denton), California and Texas, and has a stable coaching staff and reputation so that HS coaches are comfortable sending their kids there.

But a major difference is that Mount Union is bringing in 200 players per year, or nearly 10 starting lineups, and is playing a JV program.

That's something that Wesley, St. John's, Linfield et. al. have in common, the competition within the program and the chance to let players play before they actually suit up in a varsity game.

Also 2-5 weeks of playoffs is significant extra practice for your top 58+

[mattvsmith]

If Hobart brought in200 players a year, the football team alone would be 20-25% of the school would be football players.

[jknezek]

If Hobart brought in200 players a year, the football team alone would be 20-25% of the school would be football players.

That doesn't really stop UMU. A football roster of 200 is approximately 9% of the student body according to US News which shows the enrollment just under 2200. UMU has found it be very beneficial to have a top tier football program. The school's exposure has increased, as has it's reputation (as I can measure it through the admittedly flawed US News rankings and other services). Sometimes devoting resources to an ancillary activity out of proportion to your student body is a very smart decision. I doubt UMU is the only one that has discovered this. Football, with it's large roster size, male involvement, and alumni identification, is a great sport to have an outsize impact on your school. Especially as males increasingly become the minority on college campuses.

Higher education in the U.S. is a very competitive market place. Only the truly elite schools don't worry about where and how strong their next class will be every year. So finding a way to differentiate, just like in any other crowded market, is important. Athletics can be a good way of doing it. That being said, it's certainly not guaranteed to work. For every UMU that seems to have successfully leveraged an athletic program there is probably a corresponding school that devoted the resources and got little to nothing in return.

So to answer the original question Keith asked, having a JV team, more players on campus, and a stronger recruiting network probably would help many teams. That being said, it probably works best when not everyone is doing it. Not to say UMU wouldn't still be the cream of the crop if everyone TRIED to copy their system, just that the relative performance changes among the copycats would be minimal.

But if a couple schools want to devote the resources, and have the correct people in place to make it happen, it could certainly make a difference. The question remains, is it worth it to the school to devote those resources in that direction?

[Pat Coleman]

Here's an angle on the talent gap that's frequently discussed, but hasn't been brought up in this thread yet.

Mount Union is in a football hotbed (Ohio), is taking advantage of the championships and exposure by recruiting Florida (Pierre, Dieuseul, Denton), California and Texas, and has a stable coaching staff and reputation so that HS coaches are comfortable sending their kids there.

But a major difference is that Mount Union is bringing in 200 players per year, or nearly 10 starting lineups, and is playing a JV program.

That's something that Wesley, St. John's, Linfield et. al. have in common, the competition within the program and the chance to let players play before they actually suit up in a varsity game.

Also 2-5 weeks of playoffs is significant extra practice for your top 58+

Actually, everyone can practice, not just the top 58. The only practices that are limited to that number are the ones in Salem.

[frank uible]

Is the talent gap between Mount Union and the top team in a typical d3 conference greater than the talent gap between that top team and the bottom team in that conference? I'd guess that the gap in both cases would typically amount to about 30-40 points per game.

[02 Warhawk]

Is the talent gap between Mount Union and the top team in a typical d3 conference greater than the talent gap between that top team and the bottom team in that conference? I'd guess that the gap in both cases would typically amount to about 30-40 points per game.

This would be a perfect example of what you're talking about (last season):

Mount Union beat Johns Hopkins (CC) 55-13
While JH beat McDaniel 49-7

Mount over Franklin (HCAC) 45-7
Franklin over Anderson 69-0

Mount over Widener (MAC) 72-17
Widener over Misericordia 67-0

Mount over MHB 48-35(ASC)
MHB over Howard Payne 68-6

Mount over St. Thomas (MIAC) 28-10
St. Thomas over Hamline 51-9

ATN Conference Ranks
CC #12
HCAC #25
MAC #11
ASC #6
MIAC #3

Seems like the gap between that top team and the bottom team is slighlty greater than Mount and most top conference teams. However, that gap significantly widens as the conferences get tougher (as seen with the ASC and MIAC).

[Bombers798891]

Is the talent gap between Mount Union and the top team in a typical d3 conference greater than the talent gap between that top team and the bottom team in that conference? I'd guess that the gap in both cases would typically amount to about 30-40 points per game.

Man, I really hope not.

If we ranked the teams in order from 1-239 (Is this the number?) Mount's 1, then I bet most of the teams that are the tops in a typical conference fall in the 10-35 range. But the bottom teams probably fall in the high 100s/200's. Even though there's not a standard amount of distance between the quality of all the teams (there may be no real difference between the litany of 6-4, 5-5, 4-6 teams for example) those top teams still fall a LOT closer to Mount on a scale than they do the bad ones. I'd hope the gap was closer at the top.

But is there a way to measure that, really? We've got way more data for one hypothetical gap than the other, and score differentials are always subject to odd quirkiness (garbage time TD's, for example)

I was thinking the "How many guys from ____ would start for _____," but that may be too subjective.

[frank uible]

Someone who is terminally bored could provisionally define "typical" for each of the two purposes and then run the numbers, but your correspondent is not sufficiently bored - yet.

[Bombers798891]

I'll run it, but I'm not defining "typical" conference. If Mount played a conference-winning team, it goes in the data, to be compared against that team's game that season against the last place team in the conference. If you want to argue the first/last place teams weren't the best/worst, that's your call. I'm not trying to make this subjective. Thus, Randolph-Macon may not have been the "top" team in the ODAC in 2008, but since they won the conference, made the NCAAs and played Mount and Catholic didn't...them's the breaks.

Independents and teams stripped of wins later (Ahem...Cortland) are excluded.

I'm going back 5 years. Nineteen games fit the criteria

Average margin of victory (Rounded)
Mount: 28 points
Conference Winners: 32

Median margin of victory
Mount: 30 points
Conference winners: 32 points

Games won by 30 or more
Mount: 10
Conference Winners: 10

Games won by 40 points or more
Mount: 7
Conference winners: 9

Games won by 50 points or more
Mount: 3
Conference winners: 4

[Bombers798891]

I've always thought the nature of football is what makes the Mount dominance seem more dominant. It's not just the titles, it's the winning streaks—currently over 100 against non-Whitewater teams—, or the margins of victory, or going half a dozen games without allowing a single point. I mean, what's the swimming equivalent to scoring 356 straight points in football? Or the field hockey equivalent going an entire regular season without allowing a single point by your first-string defense?

But, maybe Mount's no more dominant than Kenyon swimming, and we just think they are because we follow football more closely than swimming, or wrestling, or field hockey. Maybe we care more because it is, if we're being honest, a more high-profile sport. I don't know.

[Bishopleftiesdad]

Here's an angle on the talent gap that's frequently discussed, but hasn't been brought up in this thread yet.

Mount Union is in a football hotbed (Ohio), is taking advantage of the championships and exposure by recruiting Florida (Pierre, Dieuseul, Denton), California and Texas, and has a stable coaching staff and reputation so that HS coaches are comfortable sending their kids there.

But a major difference is that Mount Union is bringing in 200 players per year, or nearly 10 starting lineups, and is playing a JV program.

That's something that Wesley, St. John's, Linfield et. al. have in common, the competition within the program and the chance to let players play before they actually suit up in a varsity game.

Also 2-5 weeks of playoffs is significant extra practice for your top 58+

Does this mean that Mount brings in 200 freshmen every year, or their are 200 players on the team? Sorry but I am too lazy to look it up today.

[Las Vegas Wildcards]

I've always thought the nature of football is what makes the Mount dominance seem more dominant. It's not just the titles, it's the winning streaks—currently over 100 against non-Whitewater teams—, or the margins of victory, or going half a dozen games without allowing a single point. I mean, what's the swimming equivalent to scoring 356 straight points in football? Or the field hockey equivalent going an entire regular season without allowing a single point by your first-string defense?

But, maybe Mount's no more dominant than Kenyon swimming, and we just think they are because we follow football more closely than swimming, or wrestling, or field hockey. Maybe we care more because it is, if we're being honest, a more high-profile sport. I don't know.

No, I think streaks in sports like football are more impressive than sports like swimming and wrestling for one clear reason. Scoring. In football, you either score offensively or defensively, or you don't. No staggered scoring system for second place and other places in swimming, or types of decisions in wrestling which factors in team results. The absolute nature of scoring for me is the more difficult aspect of football. You'll never see points awarded on the scoreboard for more offensive yards, for example.