Bumblin' B's

[Gray Fox]

Crash,
You forgot this piece of history.

1950    Chapman College begins competition as an associate in baseball, basketball and tennis
1952    Chapman's association ends

[Pat Coleman]

Also Pomona-Pitzer dropping out of the conference for football and costing the league an automatic bid for four years.

[OxyBob]

As bad as OxyBob tries to portray Chapman's record, they nevertheless are 16-1 (the one loss suffered against CMS this season by one point) against all SCIAC teams over the last two years and have signature wins against teams which are arguably much better than average D3 teams.

Chapman doesn't have one signature win this season against a D-III team, which is pretty tough to do when you don't play anyone with a winning record. Chapman hasn't had a signature win against a D-III team since it beat Whitworth last season. Oh, wait, check that, Chapman lost that game. I know! The last signature win for Chapman against a D-III team was against Plattsburgh State in 2007. Ooops, darn it, Chapman lost that game, too. Now I remember! Chapman played and beat the excellent Puget Sound team in 2006. No, my bad again. Chapman lost that game, too.

perhaps you could suggest exactly who Chapman is supposed to play in January and February?

Let's turn that question on its head, shall we? Since Chapman knows that once conference season starts it's going to struggle to get games except against La Sierra over and over, perhaps during November and December Chapman should not schedule Caltech and two games against La Verne and instead clamor to get some games against some quality D-III snowbirds. Heck, in the last few years D-III teams like St. Thomas, Mass-Dartmouth, Puget Sound, UW-Stevens Point, and Wooster have been out here. Maybe Chapman could have scheduled one or more of them instead of Swarthmore and Colorado College. Now there's ducking for you.

Their beef is that Chapman has twice as many students as most of the other schools in the SCIAC

Let's see, Chapman has 4,300 underclassmen and growing. No SCIAC school has 3,000 -- UR has 2,800, Claremont and Mudd have 2,000 (which is kind of a joke, since there are practically no Mudders who play), Pomona and Pitzer have 2,500, CLU has 2,000, Whittier has 1,300, Oxy has 1,900, ULV has 1,600, and Caltech has 920 -- and yet Chapman can't fathom why the SCIAC doesn't want them.

Now go and get some rest for those two big games coming up against 2-14 Southwestern College.

OxyBob

[Gregory Sager]

The undergraduate enrollment argument is rather silly. Elmhurst has half again as many undergrads as any other CCIW school. Calvin has over 4,000 students and Hope over 3,200, and no other MIAA school has more than 2,000 (most of them are closer to 1,000 than 2,000, in fact). And in the UAA, New York University has over 21,000 undergrads. Nobody else in the league has more than 7,000; Wash U is next highest with a tad under 7,000, Carnegie Mellon follows with slightly less than 6,000, and everyone else is below that, all the way down to Brandeis at a comparatively tiny 3,196.

Nobody in the CCIW is clamoring to get rid of Elmhurst. Nobody in the MIAA gripes about Calvin being that much larger than everybody else. And no one in UAA circles is advocating that NYU get the heave-ho from the league for being too big.

[Mr. Ypsi]

perhaps you could suggest exactly who Chapman is supposed to play in January and February?

Let's turn that question on its head, shall we? Since Chapman knows that once conference season starts it's going to struggle to get games except against La Sierra over and over, perhaps during November and December Chapman should not schedule Caltech and two games against La Verne and instead clamor to get some games against some quality D-III snowbirds. Heck, in the last few years D-III teams like St. Thomas, Mass-Dartmouth, Puget Sound, UW-Stevens Point, and Wooster have been out here. Maybe Chapman could have scheduled one or more of them instead of Swarthmore and Colorado College. Now there's ducking for you.

Or perhaps a game against Oxy?

They have little choice except for 3 games against La Sierra in January and February.  Did Oxy have no choices other than 2 games against La Sierra before the conference season began?

Their beef is that Chapman has twice as many students as most of the other schools in the SCIAC

Let's see, Chapman has 4,300 underclassmen and growing. No SCIAC school has 3,000 -- UR has 2,800, Claremont and Mudd have 2,000 (which is kind of a joke, since there are practically no Mudders who play), Pomona and Pitzer have 2,500, CLU has 2,000, Whittier has 1,300, Oxy has 1,900, ULV has 1,600, and Caltech has 920 -- and yet Chapman can't fathom why the SCIAC doesn't want them.

Now go and get some rest for those two big games coming up against 2-14 Southwestern College.

OxyBob

Unless the basketball team in constituted by holding open try-outs among kids in the dorms (in which case, I'll predict an 0-25 season), student enrollment has ZERO (direct) effect on team quality.  Athletes are separately recruited.  Duke is generally a heck of a lot better than Minnesota with one-sixth the enrollment.  If student-body size mattered, NYU would take home the walnut-and-bronze more often than not.

[smedindy]

"Chapman is a giant sized McLarge Huge school that will overwhelm us all" is such a bogus argument.

The OAC has a 3,000 student spread from Baldwin Wallace to Heidelberg.

There is a 4,000 student difference between St. Thomas and St. Mary's in the MIAC.

You can always find reasons to shut a team out of a conference (it happened to Wabash, the story was that they were invited to join the CCIW and were blackballed anyway) but the enrollment numbers as an excuse is exceedingly lame.

[David Collinge]

Whatever the reasons may be that Chapman is not a member of the SCIAC, the fact remains that they aren't a member.  I don't understand the logic that dictates that, because Occidental or Pomona-Pitzer or whomever happens to be located in Southern California, they have an obligation to have Chapman, not a member of their conference, on their schedule.  If Oxy or P-P don't want to play Chapman in a given year, there's no reason why they should.  And yet I again feel compelled to point out that every member of the SCIAC schedules Chapman almost every year. 

The endless argument over scheduling (and "ducking") has no merit, and the endless argument over why Chapman is not in the SCIAC is never going to be resolved in Posting Up.

[Mr. Ypsi]

David, you are right, of course, on all points.  But jabbing the stick into the beehive known as OxyBob is just too much fun to resist.  Especially when he takes such cheap shots at Chapman, while Oxy's scheduling is less defensible.

He continually harps on La Sierra.  Chapman plays them thrice this year (of necessity).  Why did Oxy play them twice, with plenty of other choices?

And why such a lame argument against Chapman in the SCIAC?   If there is a better argument, OB should provide it.

[Ralph Turner]

Whatever the reasons may be that Chapman is not a member of the SCIAC, the fact remains that they aren't a member.  I don't understand the logic that dictates that, because Occidental or Pomona-Pitzer or whomever happens to be located in Southern California, they have an obligation to have Chapman, not a member of their conference, on their schedule.  If Oxy or P-P don't want to play Chapman in a given year, there's no reason why they should.  And yet I again feel compelled to point out that every member of the SCIAC schedules Chapman almost every year.  

The endless argument over scheduling (and "ducking") has no merit, and the endless argument over why Chapman is not in the SCIAC is never going to be resolved in Posting Up.

In fact, Pool B has been very beneficial to Chapman in several sports, e.g., baseball and women's hoops that we have seen covered on these sites.  If Chapman men had not lost to UDallas in January 2009, they would have made a great run at the Pool B last year.  That West Region independents tourney (Chapman, UDallas and UC Banana Slug) knocked Chapman out of the "Conference Tourney".  They would have had an in-region record of 18-2.

Pool B discussion in 2009 starting about page 94 for the next 15-20 pages...

The 2009 loss to UDallas still must hurt!  

[David Collinge]

But jabbing the stick into the beehive known as OxyBob is just too much fun to resist.

Jabbing sticks into beehives, has that generally worked out well for you?

[dahlby]

OxyBob is entitled to his opinion based on the facts that he knows. So let's all keep our arguments to the facts that we know. (I can't believe I am defending OxyBob's first amendment rights, this will cost me what little karma I have!)

The rationale I have heard from SCIAC people regarding not inviting Chapman to join the conference is regarding:

>Chapman academics not up to snuff with the SCIAC... (not anymore).

>The SCIAC is willing to  schedule football with CU because it gives them an eight team rotation during the season when normally other schools are in conference play. This also saves travel costs.

> CU is too big of a school (strange, but depending on the sport, we all field the same number of players at a time on the field, diamond and/or court).

>The most logical I can think of is regarding the automatic conference bid. The fact that CU could win the conference in any of a number of sports is very realistic, so why not leave CU to play for a pool B bid and leave the other SCIAC schools to fight for the automatic qualifer. Also, it would limit the SCIAC's ability to get a pool C bid, which in most sports would be doubtful anyway.

But, the bottom line is that Chapman is not in the SCIAC and probably won't be for a while,  if ever, so we all need to move on.  Although it is fun tossing the "in jest" jabs around.

[Mr. Ypsi]

But jabbing the stick into the beehive known as OxyBob is just too much fun to resist.

Jabbing sticks into beehives, has that generally worked out well for you?

In real life, probably not (I get anaphylactic shock from bee stings), but fear not: I am now immune to stings from OB.  There will be no recurrence of previous 'unpleasantries'.

[elfinley]

I assume everyone knows that you cannot just "join" a conference. You cant just show up one day and say "Here we are! Who do we play?" A team has to apply to get in a conference.

I know Chapman has applied many times to join, only to be declined. As for why, CU is as good academically or better than most SCIAC's. As for the student body, kinda ridiculous, but Chapman does plan on almost doubling the the current student body in the next 8 to 10 years, so that could be a problem. Who knows?

There was one year when I think it was PP that dropped football and the SCIAC offered Chapman to join the conference, but only football! Maybe to keep their AQ, but the school president said no, it's all or none.

As for men's basketball, my cousin used to play for Chapman, I went to CU, and I am good friends with some of the coaches and I have been told coach Bokosky every year attempts to schedule SCIAC opponents twice a year. The only team to willing to do it has been LaVerne. Bokosky has even been willing to play on weeks teams play CIT, but they decline.

Why has CU and Oxy not play this year? Probably a matter of not finding a date that fits for both teams. It happens, no one is ducking anybody, everyone just relax.

Perhaps instead of ragging Chapman all the time, maybe we should ask some of the SCIAC's why they do not play Chapman more. They have no obligation to do so, but if West Coast Baptist, La Sierra, or that Sports University is so bad, why not give those spots to Chapman?

Lets all be nice to one another.

[Gray Fox]

elf,

Nice post.  +k

Maybe Chapman will be more on a par (except the location) with Pepperdine in ten years.  That would be a good fit for them. 

[OxyBob]

The undergraduate enrollment argument is rather silly.

You are correct that argument is silly in itself. In Chapman's case, however, not only has its student population grown substantially, but they have athletics aspirations beyond D-III, which is inconsistent with the SCIAC. I should have been clearer.

I can't believe I am defending OxyBob's first amendment rights

I disapprove of who you play, but I will defend to the death your right to play them.

OxyBob