FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wabco]

aueagle


just joshing about the onio jibe.

Wooscot

Agree with Wally's comments and add these:  MUC is pretty condecending as sports fans (nice words for they were A##es when we visited.)  Plus MUC has won enougth.  Plus I liked the Whitewater people and they have a very fine team.  I would like for us to have another shot at them next year.  Just no snow.

[Mr. Ypsi]

wooscot, I was going to send you a PM, fearing the topic was overdone (it has been discussed for years on other boards, though the d3/d4 discussion does, partially, make it relevant again), but know that posters below a certain level can't send PMs and wasn't sure about your status.  Anyway:

1.  Continuing with your examples, Swarthmore, of course, dropped football a few years ago (to add another, I'm not sure whether Calvin, a frequent basketball power, dropped football or never had it).  On some campuses, alas, the faculty seems allergic to football; I suspect this may also be the case at Oberlin, and perhaps Kenyon (though how many years has it been since anyone even challenged their swim teams?  'Campus culture' may be at least as important as the other factors you've discussed.

2.  The actual cost differential to the student (and/or parents) is not nearly as great between public and private schools as you make it out to be (for one thing, you compared tuition to tuition and room/board).  As a retired prof and father of a college student (with another in a couple of years), I'm well aware that a difference does exist.  But almost no one pays the 'list price'; the 'net price' differential is way less than half the original discrepancy for most families.  [North Park is trying an interesting 'experiment' - to lower the 'sticker shock' they cut tuition by c. $10,000 a year (since they have a minimal endowment, I assume that grants were cut by nearly the same amount).  I have no idea how well this is working out - perhaps Greg Sager or someone can weigh in with the results.]

3.  As w_w already noted, the WIAC postseason edge in football is an artifact of UWW's recent success - they simply have NOT been dominant overall.  The success of MUC (plus St. John's, Linfield, St. John Fisher, Mary Hardin-Baylor, etc.) should make it abundantly clear that small liberal-arts colleges CAN compete successfully with 'big' state schools IF they so desire.  WIAC does annually compete with OAC for top football conference (and competes with CCIW for top basketball conference), but that is the WIAC - where are the NJAC, SUNYAC, or other predominantly 'large' public-school leagues?

[wooscot]

Ypsi,

Point taken regarding the east coast schools examples.  Bad ones, but I was shooting from the hip.  However, as I stated earlier you simply cannot compare football to other sports as examples of when a private school wants to compete it can.  Football, for one, requires many more student athletes, hence the whole borderline admit issue.  Its well documented that some of the more "elite" DIII institutions are very successful in certain team sports, like the Kenyon swimming example, but again, you are talking about fewer student athletes who are competing in a sport that is generally not as available to high school students as football.  Same goes for lacrosse.  Very few high schools except the more affluent ones even offer the sport in Ohio, so again, you are talking about a different type of student athlete that participates.  Generally speaking, those kids come from large affluent suburban high schools and are typically easy admits for a school. 

Campus culture is an interesting factor, and I think I agree with you that some schools - a lot in the NCAC - could care less if they ever have a nationally competitive football team.  However, the question then becomes how do you change the culture?  I think its possible when you have a dynamic coach, as somebody pointed out earlier.  That is clearly the first step. 

Well aware  of the cost-differential of the actual out of pocket expense between publics and private schools.  However, you are fighting the PERCEPTION when recruiting kids to a school like Wooster with a $40,000 tuition (room and board included) as compared to state institution that is a quarter of that cost (room and board included).  Financial aid is very strong amongst most private schools, however, its the sticker shock that is very real.  For schools like UWW and others, don't think they do not use their relatively cheap tuition - regardless of the actual cost differential - on the recruiting trail.  In fact, privates use it against each other all the time, i.e. MUC vs. Woo/Ken, etc.. .  Believe me, its very, very hard perception to change even when you break it down.

I would look back a little further for examples of the UW schools in postseason play.  Look through the early 90s and through the present and for examples of some of the other schools playing tough.  Anyway, my point with all this I think you hit on - in football, the institution must make an investment both financially and via its admissions office to build a successful football program.  Its a choice.  However, my point in singling out UWW as an example was to simply point out its easier for certain institutions to create a successful program than others.  Obviously, there is no guarantee that a DIII public school will do well just b/c it has an inherent advantage, the school still needs to cultivate that advantage into success.  Your examples of the NJAC and SUNYAC conferences indicate just that - lack of cultivation on the whole within the football programs. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ypsi,

Point taken regarding the east coast schools examples.  Bad ones, but I was shooting from the hip.  However, as I stated earlier you simply cannot compare football to other sports as examples of when a private school wants to compete it can.  Football, for one, requires many more student athletes, hence the whole borderline admit issue.  Its well documented that some of the more "elite" DIII institutions are very successful in certain team sports, like the Kenyon swimming example, but again, you are talking about fewer student athletes who are competing in a sport that is generally not as available to high school students as football.  Same goes for lacrosse.  Very few high schools except the more affluent ones even offer the sport in Ohio, so again, you are talking about a different type of student athlete that participates.  Generally speaking, those kids come from large affluent suburban high schools and are typically easy admits for a school. 
Granted that some sports are definitely 'niche' sports, whether by wealth (hs has to afford a swimming pool) or region (lacrosse and hockey being obvious examples, though lacrosse is now the fastest growing hs sport in America [full disclosure: my older son was a founding member and best player on a really bad lacrosse team at a very unwealthy hs in Michigan].  But to be fully competitive, rather than winning several specific contests, many sports require at least nearly as broad a base of players as football - e.g., track, swimming, lacrosse, etc.
Campus culture is an interesting factor, and I think I agree with you that some schools - a lot in the NCAC - could care less if they ever have a nationally competitive football team.  However, the question then becomes how do you change the culture?  I think its possible when you have a dynamic coach, as somebody pointed out earlier.  That is clearly the first step. 
As a football fan, I tend to agree.  But where is it written that football is inherently 'better' than swimming, cross country, or for that matter hacky-sack.  With well over 1,000 colleges, maybe diversity in 'campus culture' should be applauded, not 'changed'
Well aware  of the cost-differential of the actual out of pocket expense between publics and private schools.  However, you are fighting the PERCEPTION when recruiting kids to a school like Wooster with a $40,000 tuition (room and board included) as compared to state institution that is a quarter of that cost (room and board included).  Financial aid is very strong amongst most private schools, however, its the sticker shock that is very real.  For schools like UWW and others, don't think they do not use their relatively cheap tuition - regardless of the actual cost differential - on the recruiting trail.  In fact, privates use it against each other all the time, i.e. MUC vs. Woo/Ken, etc.. .  Believe me, its very, very hard perception to change even when you break it down.
Agreed.  That's why I would be really interested in feedback from North Park.  If almost no one pays 'retail' anyway, might a change in the 'sticker shock' be a boon to private schools?
I would look back a little further for examples of the UW schools in postseason play.  Look through the early 90s and through the present and for examples of some of the other schools playing tough.  Anyway, my point with all this I think you hit on - in football, the institution must make an investment both financially and via its admissions office to build a successful football program.  Its a choice.  However, my point in singling out UWW as an example was to simply point out its easier for certain institutions to create a successful program than others.  Obviously, there is no guarantee that a DIII public school will do well just b/c it has an inherent advantage, the school still needs to cultivate that advantage into success.  Your examples of the NJAC and SUNYAC conferences indicate just that - lack of cultivation on the whole within the football programs. 
While public schools have some obvious advantages, don't overlook that they have some inherent disadvantages as well.  Answering to a board of regents (or whatever they are called) can be a pain; try answering to a state legislature!  Private schools may well have a clear advantage in flexibility (e.g., quick response to changing conditions).  Public schools may well be held hostage to regional feuds, p***ing off a key legislator who graduated from a rival, tax revolts or other budget conflicts vs. police, prisons, etc.

Overall, I'm not sure we really disagree on much; just a difference in emphasis!

[short]

Wooscot,

Wooster let [xxxxxxxx] in after he was denied form [xxxxxxxx] because he only had a 2.8 and a 16.  Why are they not letting football players in?  Plus I truly think it is funny how you continue to talk about Kenyon and Wooster in the same light when they are CLEARLY nothing alike when it come to Admission and/or Student Aid.  Kenyon is much more like Washington University or Chicago and Wooster outside of OWU and Hiram has maybe the lowest standards in the NCAC.     

[smedindy]

Wooster has 'lower standards'? But why then are they the school of choice in the GLCA tuition exchange program, and are also in the mix for national rankings by US News?

[nike]

Better be careful putting personal specifics about folks on here.  The bb player mentioned at Wooster has been a great example of why some schools are willing to admit borderline students that they feel will enhance the student body and school in general.  Wooster graduates it's athletes, regardless of incoming GPA coming in. And that includes minority students too.  That is a big deal.  They evidently do a good job of choosing who they admit that some NCAC schools would not.

[Li'l Giant]

Which says more about a school: when a "borderline" kid succeeds or when an "ideal" one does?

[wooscot]

Ypsi,

I agree. 

Short,

Have anything to back that statement up?  According to my research, clearly Oberlin, Keynon and Denison are a cut above, but not by much when comparing them to Wabash, Earlham and Wooster.  Admissions data for all of these schools are pretty damn similiar, with Oberlin on the whole being more selective.  I have to agree wtih Smed here.  Plus, I believe last time I took a look Woo, Bash, Gheny, Kenyon, Denison, Earlham and Hiram were all witin 30-35 spots of each other in the TOP TIER National LIberal Arts division in US News.  Oberlin was like 17.  Woo was higher than Gheny, Hiram and I think Earlham (or they were close), Bash, kenyon and Denison were ahead of them.  I might be wrong.

I would be very careful putting someone's alleged hs gpa and act on here as well.  I can't commnet on Cooper's scores or grades, but from what I hear, he has been a model student athlete at Wooster.  Even if his scores were that low, the school took a  chance on him and its turned out great. I seriously question the accuracy of Cooper's scores here.  It may or may not be true he was denied at Witt, but I don't think we want to strike up a conversation about which students were denied where and who subsequently accepted them.  That would be a long one that the MUC fans wouldn't care for.

As to why they are not letting football players in, I do not know if they are or aren't if other kids had similiar scores, but from what I've been told over the years, its been tough getting some "key" recruits in the door, which is particularly frustrating when other schools around the state welcome them with open arms.  As to why Woo may or may not have accepted a b-ball player with alleged low scores and yet aren't doing the same for the football team, I think it simply goes back to numbers.  You can take a shot on one or two kids and in b-ball, one or two impact players is enough whereas in football, it isn't enough to make  big difference.

  I think Ypsi's point of it being a cultural thing may be part of it.  I think Schmitz is the dynamic personality you need at the helm of this program.  He's proven he can win, but I think its frustrating in the recruiting department for him b/c the school does not work with him much on admitting key recruits (that's the word on the street) with borderline scores nor has the school invested anything into upgrading facilities.  We always hear rumblings of plans to do so, but none of us have seen anything public. 

  One thing I will say about Woo and I think this goes for most NCAC schools - you get NO free pass in the classroom just b/c you are an athlete.  None.  These kids graduate because they earned it.  So, despite your h.s. gpa or test scores, once you are enrolled, you need to roll up your sleeves at work at Wooster. 

[wooscot]

Also, congrats to all the NCAC student-athletes who made the North Region squads!

[nike]

Which says more about a school: when a "borderline" kid succeeds or when an "ideal" one does?

I think having both types of students makes for a more diverse and well rounded campus.
Obviously, a school has to have standards.  But if admissions sees a kid that is doing his best, has talent in some area and has people speaking highly of him, then why not take a chance if it looks like the person will make the effort to take advantage of the situation.  Wooster has prided themselves on this in the past, but in recent history has dropped the ball big time in minority recruiting and admitting people that may not have the numbers, but have the potential to blossom given the right environment.  And I am not talking just football here.  Early indications are the new pres will address this.  And that will indirectly affect football.   
As to the question, I have an Ivy league graduate and a NCAC graduate among my children. My NCAC child was told that college will be the hardest thing they will ever do and it was quite a struggle, but it was done.  This child was not a great student, but woked hard and is now building a little empire, doing only what they like to do and are best at in the business world. And the school is better for them having gone there. It says the same about a school when each type of kid graduates, because all "ideal" kids do not graduate.  Some will run away from the workload of the schools we are talking about.  Some will not.  The schools we are talking about all prepare their students for success after college very well.  And that is the bottom line.   

[formerd3db]

nike:
Well said.

[wooscot]

Very well said, Nike.  I think Wooster is a place with so much to offer kids from all types of backgrounds, the new pres should do more to reach out to students who can be successful in life with Wooster as their springboard.   Sounds like you raised one heck of kid, good work. 

[ScotLass]

ditto nike and wooscot. In short  ....I'll now go back to winter hibernation.

[Li'l Giant]

I'll now go back to winter hibernation.

For a Wooster fan, isn't "hibernation" from the football board code for "basketball season". Or is it "baseball season"?