At mid-season last year, I posted some stats that seemed to show a direct correlation between simply the number of seniors on a team (not senior starters, just total seniors) and SCAC win-loss records. I had noticed this to be a fairly useful stat for predicting the success of high school teams, and had wondered how effective it might be at this level. I'm a little late with an update for the SCAC, since the season has already begun, but I thought I'd provide this stat here and thereby predict the outcome of the conference. Several teams in the middle of the pack have the same or almost the same number of seniors, so that gums up things a bit, but overall the results are quite different than pre-season polls I've seen. We shall see ...

1. Centre (19 seniors)
2. Trinity (17 seniors)
3. Sewanee (13 seniors)
4. Austin -- tie (12 seniors)
4. Birmingham-Southern -- tie (12 seniors)
6. Rhodes -- (9 seniors)
7. Millsaps -- (8 seniors)

Before the season started, some of us briefly discussed predictions for how the season would turn out -- and the accuracy of such predictions. At the time, I wondered if simply the number of seniors on each roster -- without to regard to how many might be starters or not -- might be just as good an indicator as anything else.

Based on a very quick look at online rosters a few minutes ago, here are the number of seniors on each roster in the SCAC:
DePauw: 30
Centre: 20
Birmingham Southern: 19
Austin: 15
Millsaps: 14
Trinity: 10
Rhodes: 9
Sewanee: 7

And here are the win-loss records for each team through this past weekend:
DePauw: 6-0
Centre: 4-2
Birmingham Southern: 4-2
Millsaps: 4-3
Austin: 3-3
Trinity: 3-3
Rhodes: 2-4
Sewanee: 1-6

Seems to be a pretty strong correlation, at least based on the first part of this one season.

Interesting stat -- in Trinity's one win so far this year, it was penalized 5 times for 70 yards. In Trinity's two losses so far this year, it was penalized 11 times for 100 yards and 11 times for 84 yards. 

Also, in last week's 27-23 Millsaps win over Trinity, there were a total of 23 penalties (both teams) for 195 yards. Wonder how close that comes to a record.

There seem to be quite a few more people at Trinity games so far this season, so I took a look at the attendance stats in the box scores. Sure enough (unless I've misread or miscalculated something), attendance averaged 2,124 through the first three home games this year. Last year, there were only four home games, and attendance data isn't provided in the box score for one of those ... but at the three home games for which there are figures, attendance averaged 1,202. That's quite an increase in only one year.

I don't know much about the "blood" (good or bad) among the folks who post here, but I pretty much agree with this. I'm not much for sitting on a crowded, too-small, metal bench seat with my knees bumping up against the stadium chair in front of me. I've thought about sitting on the other side too.

Quote from: Bill McCabe on September 09, 2010, 10:52:23 AM
What difference does it make what side of the field he sits on. There are usually better seats on the visitors side.

Kudos to the SCAC staff for continuously providing a quality product. You guys probably have relatively limited resources, but you don't seem to let that get in the way of what you present to the public. Appreciate it!

Geez ... I hope no one ever confuses a scrimmage with a game. 

Ron, a July 1 FAQ sent as an attachment to a letter to parents from Coach Mohr says there's supposed to be a scrimmage with Texas Lutheran at Trinity beginning at 10 a.m. on Saturday, August 28. But that's the last I've heard of it, and I can't find any mention of it on the Texas Lutheran website.

Quote from: Ron Boerger on August 23, 2010, 11:40:16 AM
Anyone know if Trinity will have a scrimmage this weekend?  Last year TU scrimmaged Howard Payne, don't see anything on either the school or PAWS website about one this year. 

Good info. Looks like the type of degrees awarded (liberal arts vs. others) at Trinity must the difference, but I can't find good stats on the Trinity website or on the websites of the Independent Colleges and Universities of Texas or the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to be sure about that.

On another front, the new Trinity president's apparently strong support of athletics should be a shot in the arm for the football program in coming years.

Quote from: Ron Boerger on August 17, 2010, 04:19:33 PM
From the US News site:

National Liberal Arts Colleges. The 266 national liberal arts colleges emphasize undergraduate education and award at least 50 percent of their degrees in the liberal arts.

Regional Universities. Like the national universities, regional universities (as defined by the Carnegie Foundation as universities-master's) provide a full range of undergraduate programs and some master's level programs. They offer few, if any, doctoral programs. The 572 regional universities are ranked within four geographic areas: North, South, Midwest, and West.

You could make a case that if all the other SCAC schools can be classed as NLACs, so could Trinity, because it certainly emphasizes undergraduate education.  Sewanee has a doctoral program; Hendrix, a graduate business program; Austin and Colorado College, a graduate program in Education; BSC, several graduate programs.  There may be others.  What I don't know is if 50+% of the degrees at TU are granted in the liberal arts.  

Isn't Trinity on the U.S. News & World Report "Regional" list because it offers master's degree programs in addition to baccalaureate degree programs? That's what I had thought, but could be wrong ... don't know if other SCAC schools or Southwestern offer master's degrees.

Quote from: Ron Boerger on August 17, 2010, 10:22:34 AM

One has to imagine that the only reason Trinity is the only "regional" SCAC school is that they want to be there so they can keep saying they've been #1 for the last 15+ years.  Southwestern was considered regional until 5-6 years ago.  Will be interesting to see if this changes under the new president who has said he wants Trinity to play nationally.  

Although I have the administrator's okay for doing this, I'm still a little hesistant, but will go ahead anyway ... and offer information to anyone interested about my new book, titled Beyond Friday Nights: College Football Recruiting for Players and Parents. No, it's not specifically about DIII football, but certainly includes the advantages of playing at that level. For more info, go to www.raygrasshoff.com/college-football-recruiting.html. And please spread the word if so inclined. Thanks!

These are all good insights, but in starting the discussion, I pretty much meant the persistence or retention (whichever you want to call it) of all players, whether they are contributing at the time or not. You never know when someone is going to get the knowledge/expertise/confidence to start contributing in the future, so if we limit this discussion only to players who are already contributing in a big way and then leave, we may be missing some of the ingredients.

Yes, the best players probably do go to the historically successful teams, but success is often cyclical over the years. Teams on top don't often stay there forever, and it's not unheard of for a team not near the top to rise up and become more successful. In these cases, I would bet that player retention -- through their entire eligibility -- is a major factor over time. Of course, I have no data to back that up. We need to get some enterprising students working on determining whether such a correlation (or better yet, a cause and effect) exists!

Of course, I would guess that coaching staffs might have something to do with team success too. Right?

Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 08, 2010, 03:38:19 PM

Quote from: Wes Anderson on August 07, 2010, 02:32:58 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 06, 2010, 09:14:49 PM
Interesting thought -- the other question that comes to my mind is how you would separate the two parts of this chicken-egg scenario.

Do people continue to play football because the team is good, or is the team good because people continue to play football?

I think I can recall exactly one case at DePauw over the last 10 or so years in which a player who contributed regularly decided he wanted to take his ball and go home.

Except I believe this discussion is about the exact opposite situation, someone who doesn't contribute sticking around.

Thinking of the upcoming season and about predictions of teams' success, I'm wondering if some programs perhaps are better able to retain more of their players over the entire period of their eligibility, and if that might be a key element in predicting team success on the field. I mean, since there are no football scholarships at DIII schools, but many DIII schools are know for their academic rigor, I would guess that a significant number of players give up on football at some point at many schools ... but maybe not so many in those schools that are most successful on the field. Probably no one keeps tracks of this, but I'd bet that the data would be interesting. Anyone have any thoughts or insights? 

Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 29, 2010, 01:42:35 AM

Quote from: Navidad on July 28, 2010, 06:51:16 PM
Good points again, Ron, and excellent insights based on the Hendrix experience, arktraveler. You've probably summed up the issue as well as can be done here.

On to something else ... at the DIII level, does the less-intensive focus on football (i.e., fewer time demands on players, as compared to the DI or DII levels) allow for many -- or any -- dual-sports athletes? Or does the academic rigor of coursework keep many athletes from even attempting that?

I would say two-sport athletes are fairly common at the Division III level.

When my son was in high school, two factors seemed to be excellent indicators for predicting the success of the football team in district competition: 1) the success of the track team (which included many skill football players) the previous spring and 2) the number of seniors on the football team. So similarly, if dual-sport athletes are common in DIII, I wonder how many DIII football teams' skill players also run track, and if the success of the track team in DIII might also be a precursor to the success of the football team. And I'm wondering if the number of seniors (i.e., not any other level) on a DIII football team is really as good an indicator as it is in high school. Any thoughts and insights?

Good points again, Ron, and excellent insights based on the Hendrix experience, arktraveler. You've probably summed up the issue as well as can be done here.

On to something else ... at the DIII level, does the less-intensive focus on football (i.e., fewer time demands on players, as compared to the DI or DII levels) allow for many -- or any -- dual-sports athletes? Or does the academic rigor of coursework keep many athletes from even attempting that?