MBB: Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[OxyBob]

Thanks for your interest in Chapman University. It is most appreciated, although this is the SCIAC board.

I'm not interested in Chapman at all. You and Zack Mayo, Jr. keep wandering in here, because you got nowhere else to go. You got nothin' else.

OxyBob

[dahlby]

OxyBob,

If you are  not interested , why do you keep bringing it up?

Who is Zack Mayo Jr? Never heard of him.

I thought this was a board open to all. I have an interest in D3 sports and academics and do read several different boards. If this is not the case, maybe Pat can let me know.

Cheers, Dahlby

[Gray Fox]

Dahlby,
Google works.

[CrashDavisD3]

OxyBob,

If you are  not interested , why do you keep bringing it up?

Who is Zack Mayo Jr? Never heard of him.

I thought this was a board open to all. I have an interest in D3 sports and academics and do read several different boards. If this is not the case, maybe Pat can let me know.

Cheers, Dahlby

OB is in denial....about Chapman

Thanks for your interest in Chapman University. It is most appreciated, although this is the SCIAC board.

I'm not interested in Chapman at all. You and Zack Mayo, Jr. keep wandering in here, because you got nowhere else to go. You got nothin' else.

OxyBob

Whats wrong with Chapman being discussed on this board. Chapman plays SCIAC teams. Chapman has been playing SCIAC teams since the mid 1920's. Chapman was in the SCIAC at one time. Chapman will maybe be back in the SCIAC again.In 2009-2010 Chapman went 10-1 vs SCIAC basketball teams.  Chapman again is scheduled to play SCIAC teams in 2010-2011 in basketball. So why again do you want us to leave this message board  to discuss Chapman...

Dont forget Zack Mayo did get the girl...so maybe your just jealous....He did not quit, graduated from Navy flight school to become a Naval Aviator, gain the respect of his trainer Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant Emil Foley. So Zack Mayo is pretty decent guy in my eyes..Thanks...

[Sabretooth Tiger]

Your  quote from the LA Times was from 1989, have things changed since then, as it has been 11 years ago the statement was made.?

Nope, things have not really changed.

[dahlby]

Sabretooth Tiger:

Either you haven't seen the physical changes at Chapmen recently, or you did not know what Chapman looked like in 1989. There has been a multitude of remodeliing, new buiding and land aquisitions in the past 20 years.

[Gray Fox]

Sabretooth Tiger:

Either you haven't seen the physical changes at Chapmen recently, or you did not know what Chapman looked like in 1989. There has been a multitude of remodeliing, new buiding and land aquisitions in the past 20 years.

This may prove Oxy Bob's point.

[dahlby]

Gray Fox,

As I indicated before, I am not debating OxyBob's statements or even distributing an opinion on the  merits (or lack thereof) of the SCIAC/Chapman membership application. All I am doing is correcting some misunderstandings or lack of factual statements that appear to be written periodically regarding the topic being discussed.  It might behoove you to read my postings a little closer. It is a fact that many changes have taken place at Chapman University since a local representing a group of around 25 people made statements in 1989 regarding Chapman's growth. The changes have included much growth. Good, bad or indifferent, I am not commenting.

[DIIIghetto]

Long-time SCIAC fan here who desperately wants to see our conference rise out of the bottom tier.  We are not relevant outside of the southland, certainly not in a conversation about DIII basketball.  I know all the reasons why, I just don't accept the institutional athletic ceiling that we have placed upon ourselves. 

Chapman University probably is not a great fit for the SCIAC as an institution of higher learning, but as sports fans we should all want them.   I make that statement knowing that Chapman has tasted national success in the past.   I am hoping those people who influenced that success can be found again. 

My guess is that the biggest obstacles to SCIAC enrollment are folks at a couple of schools in Claremont.  Maybe even Oxy.  Chapman is a threat to them.  They get to disguise it under the cloak of Chapman not fitting the member profile of a SCIAC institution.  Don't fall for it.  Sure that is the case.  But what does that really mean?  Does it mean that their athletes will be bigger, faster, stronger?  Does it mean that their coaches are held to different standards?  Bigger athletic budgets?  Different approach to recruiting?

Bring them in folks.  Another decade of Claremont, Pomona and occasionally Oxy/Cal Lu earning our bid and getting sent home after a first round shellacking is not they way it has to be.   Chapman will help us.

[Sabretooth Tiger]

Sabretooth Tiger:

Either you haven't seen the physical changes at Chapmen recently, or you did not know what Chapman looked like in 1989. There has been a multitude of remodeliing, new buiding and land aquisitions in the past 20 years.

The original post re "change" referred to the tension between the community and the institution . . . I'm well aware of the physical changes, additions and acquisitions that have been made over the years . . . Chapman has grown by leaps and bounds, and has an enormous appetite to become a nationally recognized and respected institution of higher learning. The tension with the community, however, remains firmly in place.

[CrashDavisD3]

Whittier, Redlands, La Verne, and Cal Lutheran in the SCIAC. No one can say honestly that Chapman is not equals or exceeds them academically and the same can be said athletically. We all know that Cal Tech, Oxy, Clarement and Pomona exceed Chapman academically. Why are them some SCIAC members and fans against Chapman joining.

What do they fear ? Chapman will not dominate the SCIAC or will they past most of the schools academically either. Jealously issues ?

What tensions specifically ?

Lots of new buildings since 1992
http://www.chapman.edu/about/chapfacts/history/default.asp

More building planned in the future
http://www.chapman.edu/about/community/construction/default.asp

[oldchap]

I for one would be in complete agreement with bringing Chapman into the SCIAC. Independent schools often feel like second class citizens. They don't have something to look forward to, like winning a title or playing against a big rival (like CMS vs. PP for instance). The only thing they can hope for is that they will win as many games as possible with the highest strength of schedule possible, given the challenges of building a decent season, so they can be considered for a Pool B bid. If they are unfortunate to have one bad night, there is no second chance. Best proof, Chapman made the playoff only once. That was last year as you know, and with a near "perfect" season. I bet had they been in the SCIAC, they would have made it a few more times. If you're not convinced, just look at the record of some teams in the SCIAC who actually made it to the post-season. As long as you finish in the conference top 4 at the end of the season, you've got a shot at it, regardless of your record.

In addition, Independents have to fill their schedule with meaningless games during the actual conference play, because no team will want to risk an injury or just plain fatigue for no good reason.

As far as academics, the argument against Chapman is laughable. Chapman has one of the best film schools in the US, probably close to those of USC or UCLA. And as far as more mainstream degrees, you just have to look at the incoming classes' average GPA or SAT. It is well in the middle of the pack as far as the SCIAC is concerned and considered a "more selective" school by some well known College Report.

The only reason the other schools in the SCIAC wouldn't want Chapman, besides the obvious which is the added competition the school will bring (meaning one less chance at a post-season berth), is the size of the school. It is about double in number of students as compared to the average SCIAC school. Why would it matter? I don't know but that's the only objective criterion I can come up with.

[CrashDavisD3]

I for one would be in complete agreement with bringing Chapman into the SCIAC. Independent schools often feel like second class citizens. They don't have something to look forward to, like winning a title or playing against a big rival (like CMS vs. PP for instance). The only thing they can hope for is that they will win as many games as possible with the highest strength of schedule possible, given the challenges of building a decent season, so they can be considered for a Pool B bid. If they are unfortunate to have one bad night, there is no second chance. Best proof, Chapman made the playoff only once. That was last year as you know, and with a near "perfect" season. I bet had they been in the SCIAC, they would have made it a few more times. If you're not convinced, just look at the record of some teams in the SCIAC who actually made it to the post-season. As long as you finish in the conference top 4 at the end of the season, you've got a shot at it, regardless of your record.

In addition, Independents have to fill their schedule with meaningless games during the actual conference play, because no team will want to risk an injury or just plain fatigue for no good reason.

As far as academics, the argument against Chapman is laughable. Chapman has one of the best film schools in the US, probably close to those of USC or UCLA. And as far as more mainstream degrees, you just have to look at the incoming classes' average GPA or SAT. It is well in the middle of the pack as far as the SCIAC is concerned and considered a "more selective" school by some well known College Report.

The only reason the other schools in the SCIAC wouldn't want Chapman, besides the obvious which is the added competition the school will bring (meaning one less chance at a post-season berth), is the size of the school. It is about double in number of students as compared to the average SCIAC school. Why would it matter? I don't know but that's the only objective criterion I can come up with.

THANKS...Well stated 

[DIIIghetto]

Good points but as a long-time SCIAC fan let me point out that keeping Chapman out based on its enrollment size admits our institutional athletic priority of preserving our little local athletic club.  Success athletically for every SCIAC school is defined by their performance within the conference and against their historic rivals.  This creates a very low ceiling for our coaches and teams.  Our athletic directors should every year engage in a debate about how much money each school can save by jumping out of the NCAA and moving all sports to club status.  Nobody will seriously accept that but it should force the question: if we care about being in the NCAA we should collectively care about where we rank within it.  In basketball and football we are bottom tier.  Self-imposed reality. 

We have to be prepared to compete against larger schools with different academic standards.  Williams, Amherst and a slew of other elite liberal arts schools have embraced this.  They have consistent success on the national scene.  Would Claremont or Pomona accept it if their government/politics/econ departments were ranked in the bottom tier of liberal arts colleges?  How about the arts?  So why should our institutions accept less with respect to sports? 

Chapman helps, let them in.

[Gray Fox]

When UCLA, UCSB, and San Diego State got too big, they left.
Let's just save everyone a step and keep Chapman out.