nescac1:  Beyond commenting on a prior observation, my point was to note only that the cushion that used to separate Williams from everyone else in the 'CAC (as well as D3 generally) has all but evaporated over the years notwithstanding the heroic efforts of Williams' women athletes and teams. To be sure, the Ephs overall remain easily in the top-tier athletically (you note "Top 5"), and I don't see anything that will change that anytime soon. But the erosion of the cushion remains a "decline," even if only in relative terms. Rest assured, this goes beyond--far beyond--a few "off" football seasons and the past year or so. Trust me, I wish it wasn't so.

Quote from: gridiron on October 24, 2012, 08:47:36 PM
Was going through some numbers and became aware of something about which I am sure amh63 is well aware but was news to me.

Williams has been slowly slipping for a period of time now while both Trinity and Amherst have been rising, at least in terms of wins.  The trend indicates that while Williams had a large lead for the first many years of true NESCAC only competition (since 1992), Trinity has overtaken Williams in the "Championship" era (2000 and beyond) and continues in the past five year period as Amherst also has performed better.

Just wanted to get that out there.

I realize that I'm late to this thread, but wanted to add another wrinkle to Williams' athletic "woes." If you parse the data carefully, what you'll find is that the Ephs' (now-ended) string of Directors' Cup wins was largely (and increasingly) a function of Williams' women teams and athletes. To the extent that Williams athletics has been on a long, slow decline (and, it pains me to note that it has), the decline for male athletes (and teams) at Williams has been comparatively sharper and more pronounced.

Quote from: frank uible on August 23, 2012, 07:42:13 PM
Are Amherst's and Williams' applicant pools broadened more by those colleges' reputations than those pools are shrunk by the greater strictures of those colleges' Admissions Offices? Only a very few NESCAC football wonks might care about this question or its possible answers!

While I can only aspire to NESCAC football "wonk-dom," insofar as Frank frames an interesting question I guess I'll bite. My take (read: guess) is that in football (along with basketball, hockey, and maybe lacrosse), notwithstanding the broader recruit/applicant pool owing to school reputation, admissions standards at Amherst and Williams impose, on net, a smaller functional recruit pool. In pretty much all other sports, however, notably soccer, field hockey, swimming, track (x-c), tennis, baseball, etc., I think it's manifestly clear that the academic reputations of Amherst/Williams dramatically increases the functional recruit pools, despite the higher admissions bar (or, actually, because of the stringent admissions standards). The pool of competitive athletes in these sports that don't require any admissions accommodations and drawn to schools like Amherst and Williams continues to astonish me. Williams' run (though now broken) of Directors Cups is Exhibit A.

Quote from: frank uible on August 23, 2012, 01:46:53 PM
On the other hand, it is likewise a structural disadvantage to Amherst and Williams that they are fishing at a self-imposed smaller potential applicant pool than the rest of NESCAC.

Yes, fair point, Frank.

Quote from: lumbercat on August 22, 2012, 11:26:20 PM
... At Amherst and Williams many top recruits choose them... .

Candidly, this is the key. Until the other NESCAC schools can get themselves to the point where top recruits are recruiting the schools -- and not the other way around -- they'll likely remain trying to catch up with Amherst and Williams. As it stands, it's a structural advantage that is awfully difficult to overcome.

Quote from: frank uible on June 01, 2012, 11:34:43 AM
Your correspondent will be very much surprised should NESCAC change to 9 game football schedules in the foreseeable future.

I will share Frank's surprise. Swapping the 1 scrimmage for a game strikes me as the only remotely conceivable quid pro quo, but even that assumes a world not increasingly pre-occupied with concussions in football. I just don't see the NESCAC presidents going for this, at least anytime soon.

Quote from: frank uible on May 30, 2012, 05:40:36 PM
Williams doesn't need football, regular season or post-season, since in the Williams context football or the quality of its performance does not aggrandize institutional Williams, but wouldn't a more than 8 game schedule and the possibility of post-season play offer a superior experience for Williams football players? And shouldn't the students' experiences be what it is all about at Williams?

Frank: Fair points, all. Whether it would be a "superior" experience I'll leave to others. And even if the student experience is central, yours is a normative position. I assumed we were discussing as an empirical matter why NESCAC prohibits post-season play for football. And the "why" pivots, I argue, on the incentives for NESCAC presidents (or at least my guess about them).

I agree with the "volume" thesis--that's precisely what distinguishes football from other "helmet" NESCAC sports within the context of the NCAA post-season play debate. Moreover, as Williams demonstrates annually, NESCAC schools don't need football to compete for--and win--the Directors' Cup. Candidly, Williams has hit on the formula--dominate "Buffy-like" sports (particularly on the women's' side) that typically attract (or self-select for) student athletes that don't impose any costs on the admission front. If you look at all the academic all-america lists, it's probably the case that NESCAC schools attract top (student-athlete) applicants that otherwise would go to Ivy (or Ivy-like) schools for an overall net admission gain (from a student admissions credentials standpoint). From a PR perspective, it's difficult to top the Directors' Cup and, paradoxically, by repeatedly winning it (with many other NESCAC schools also competing well), NESCAC schools' own performance likely undercuts an argument that they need post-season play in football. Seriously, this isn't rocket-science.

Quote from: jumpshot on May 24, 2012, 10:31:24 AM
There has been lots of clear evidence of the intensely increased emphasis on athletics at Amherst in recent years, requiring the explicit endorsement (and compromise) by many people. One specific fact is the greater amount of time devoted by various teams to schedules of games. For example, Amherst's men's tennis team played 34 matches in 2011-2012 (Williams played 22 while finishing ahead of Amherst in the NCAA); Amherst softball had 42 games; etc. A combination of factors --recruiting, the "General Manager" in admissions, avid influential alumni, changes in administraive positions and coaches -- whatever-- have resulted for the moment in 50 consecutive women's basketball wins, several NCAA participations, etc. What the sustained results are over many future years remains to be seen; right now the pendulum has moved into space that likely will bring some temperance by academic faculty.

Yet Amherst's admissions selectivity has continued to increase. Anyway, I'm quickly coming to the belief that Amherst/Williams compete more with the Ivy League than other NESCAC schools for athletic recruits, including hoops.

While I do so with a heavy heart (but grudging respect), I want to second nescac1's endorsement of Coffey's tenure at Amherst. While I had no idea she came from Bates and have no idea what kind of job she did there, for whatever reason (and likely a complex interaction of many factors) the Amherst athletic dept. thrives under Coffey's watch. Candidly, whoever is responsible for hiring--and retaining--the string of first-rate coaches deserves a statue. Obviously, from a recruit-perspective, Amherst's academic draw is tough to beat. At the same time, the admissions criteria limits Amherst's pool of potential recruits. While basketball and football have improved, its Amherst's non-marquee (more individual) sports that have truly thrived of late (e.g., track, x-c, tennis, swimming, etc.).