FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

And I made note of "small, selective, private schools" in lieu of saying "the rest of the D3" to really accentuate the point that Whitewater looks and feels a whole lot more like D1 schools than 99% of D3 schools do.  So much so that Whitewater oftentimes feels closer to a D1 school than it does a D3 school.

About 10% of the D3 football playing schools are public institutions. Some are significantly larger than UWW. Not all are good despite their size. 99% seems like an exaggeration designed to irritate the people on this forum.

[wally_wabash]

And I made note of "small, selective, private schools" in lieu of saying "the rest of the D3" to really accentuate the point that Whitewater looks and feels a whole lot more like D1 schools than 99% of D3 schools do.  So much so that Whitewater oftentimes feels closer to a D1 school than it does a D3 school.

About 10% of the D3 football playing schools are public institutions. Some are significantly larger than UWW. Not all are good despite their size. 99% seems like an exaggeration designed to irritate the people on this forum.

99% is obviously an exaggeration.  The point wasn't to irritate anybody, only to make clear that UW-Whitewater is different than the vast majority of the membership. 

[02 Warhawk]

Still looks weird.....

[Brian R. Carroll]

I see that WW has EIGHT coaches available to recruit players. How many do the other WIAC schools have? No wonder there is so little competitive balance, if this is typical of the resourse allocation at the respective schools.

[sigma one]

I'm not sure eight coaches involved in recruiting is out of line for a quality program.  It depends on what their recruiting responsibilities are:  on campus only; both on and off campus, including high school visits, game viewing in person, etc.  For example,  Wabash had 11 coaches last fall.  At one point or another, in one capacity or another, they all were involved in recruiting.  Not everyone who coached in the fall is employed on a full-year basis, but of those who are, eight or nine, all have some recruiting assignment throughout the year.  Not every school works this hard at recruiting, I'm sure, but coaches at Wabash are expected to be part of the process.  Some coaches have both in state and out of state recruiting territories.  Wabash sends coaches to contiguous states and to Arizona, Texas, and some times to other non-contiguous states.  Not all the Wabash coaches recruit off campus, but they are a part of visit days for prospective student-athletes, make phone calls, etc. 
       This attention to recruiting as part of an over-alI admissions effort is probably unusual in the North Coast Athletic Conference, but I'm guessing Wittenberg does something similar. I don't know how this stacks up v. other schools nationally, and against WIAC schools.  It would be interesting to learn how typical (or not) this is.  Some schools have smaller coaching staffs.  And most schools have full-time/full-pay coaches, part-time coaches, interns, and other titles and categories that will influence recruiting.
     Some conferences do not permit recruiting off campus.  Not all schools have coaching staffs as large as schools with big roster sizes.  But, again, eight coaches involved in recruiting can't be all that unusual for a highly successful program. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'm not sure eight coaches involved in recruiting is out of line for a quality program.  It depends on what their recruiting responsibilities are:  on campus only; both on and off campus, including high school visits, game viewing in person, etc. 
...
But, again, eight coaches involved in recruiting can't be all that unusual for a highly successful program.

+1

"available to recruit players" with no context tells us nothing.

If that means UWW has eight full-time (year-round, their-only-job-is-coaching-football-at-UWW) coaches, I would agree that seems like a lot for Division III.

But I think sigma one's post is generally accurate.

sigma one, chipping in with some information to learn more about the rest of the nation: Carnegie Mellon now has five full-time football coaches (up from just HC, OC, DC when I played a few years ago) plus five or six positional assistants who are part time.  I just attended a luncheon last week where I visited with the coaching staff and met the newest full time assistant (a Pitt grad who's about my age) - he told me that they (the five full timers) all just returned from their respective recruiting weeks on the road (to various parts of the country).  So CMU sent five coaches on the road for at least some length of time this year.  I'm sure that all are also making phone calls, meeting recruits that visit campus, and so on.  I don't know if the other (part time) assistants are involved in recruiting - my guess is that they don't do anything other than occasional on campus stuff.

One thing worth noting is that school profile, not just football profile, will play an enormous role in how much of the country the football coaches must canvas as well.  Some schools are national draws while others are much more regional depending on size, academic offerings, specialties, etc.  An anecdote that I like to tell: my brother and I both went to school in Pittsburgh.  I went to CMU, he went to Duquesne.  Of my six closest friends, only two of us were Pennsylvania residents, and I was from the other side of the state, 250 miles away.  Of his six closest friends, he was from farther away than all; most were from within 45 minutes' driving distance. 

[emma17]

And here you are Wally, going full bore manipulation of what I said:

Better to win no championships at a small, selective, private school than to win something less than 6 out of 8 at a large, public school?  No, I don't see that at all.

As I never limited my point to "small, selective, private schools", it's a bit silly for you to argue against it.  I specifically included D2 and specifically did not qualify D3 to your manipulated criteria. 
However, if you want to talk exclusively about that group of coaches, I'll address your point this way.
I believe it's perfectly reasonable for a coach with D1 aspirations that believes he has the skills and "template" to build a program and elevate it to a level where it is consistently recognized as one of the best in the country, to think he has a better chance to prove himself at a "small, selective, private school" than he does at UWW currently.  I think a Larry Kehres at Mt Union, a John Thorne at NCC, a Joe Smith at Linfield, possibly an Eric Raeburn at Wabash, (and others) could work the coaching circuit and possibly find work at the D1 level.  I'm not sure if our conversation is limited only to HC positions in D1. 

None of those guys went to D1.  Your former coach at Whitewater did though.  So there's precedence from Whitewater.  There's not really the same precedence elsewhere. 

And I made note of "small, selective, private schools" in lieu of saying "the rest of the D3" to really accentuate the point that Whitewater looks and feels a whole lot more like D1 schools than 99% of D3 schools do.  So much so that Whitewater oftentimes feels closer to a D1 school than it does a D3 school.  But that's another topic for another time.  The larger point being that navigating the Whitewater job has a lot more parallels to a D1 job than navigating the job at about 95% of the Division III football membership.  Somebody mentioned KC Keeler going from Rowan to FCS Delaware...similar kind of deal there to what we just witnessed with Coach Leipold.

Right, none of those guys went to D1- thanks for that, but do you really think that was my point Wally?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Larry Kehres had opportunities to leave Mt for bigger division schools didn't he?  And he had those opportunities because he proved he had the skill and template to build a consistent winner.  As for Thorne and Smith, I truly don't know if they've had offers to go, but that really isn't my point either.  The question is, do they want to go?  IMO, if Coach Thorne or Coach Smith had interest in a D1 job, the success they've had at their small and private institutions would at least get them in the door for consideration.   

[wally_wabash]

Don't use examples that counter your point?  If your point is that it's easier for people to get in the D1 door at places other than Whitewater, give examples that support the idea.  You're saying it's easier for people to go D3 to D1 at someplace other Whitewater, and then rattled off names of guys that never went to D1.  Doesn't make any sense.  I'm saying it's easier to get there through a place like Whitewater.  Lance Leipold.  KC Keeler.  Relevant, precedence-confirming examples.  Now it's your turn. 

[badgerwarhawk]

We have no coaches who are "full time year round their only job is coaching football" on our staff.  Even Leipold didn't fit in that category.  Also we don't have the budget to be making recruiting visits to places like Arizona, Texas, Florida etc. etc.  If we get an athlete from some state like that it's because they contacted us and not our having sought them out.  Our focus is primarily Wisconsin and Illinois.  Since our Stagg Bowl run began in 2005 we've never had more than seven athletes on our 100 man roster that weren't from those two states.  Last year's national champions only had two (Michigan & Iowa) that weren't from one of the two states.  Since 2005 we've averaged less than four.

[ExTartanPlayer]

We have no coaches who are "full time year round their only job is coaching football" on our staff.  Even Leipold didn't fit in that category.  Also we don't have the budget to be making recruiting visits to places like Arizona, Texas, Florida etc. etc.  If we get an athlete from some state like that it's because they contacted us and not our having sought them out.  Our focus is primarily Wisconsin and Illinois.  Since our Stagg Bowl run began in 2005 we've never had more than seven athletes on our 100 man roster that weren't from those two states.  Last year's national champions only had two (Michigan & Iowa) that weren't from one of the two states.  Since 2005 we've averaged less than four.

I figured that.  Which is why I was defending you vs. Brian Carroll's post somehow insinuating that having "eight coaches available to recruit players" was out of line.  I'm on your side here, dude.

I should have been a bit more clear on the "full time year round" descriptor.  The "full time" coaches to which I was alluding on CMU's staff do have other responsibilities on campus, be they in supervising facilities, aiding with intramural sports, teaching PE classes like racquetball, weightlifting, golf.  Perhaps I should have clarified that they work on campus 10+ months out of the year, 40+ hours a week, and that the majority of their duties on campus are coaching football in addition to the couple hours/week they spend on the other duties.

I was just trying to delineate between full-time coaches that spend the vast majority of their time on-campus vs. part-time position coaches that are basically there for practices, film study, etc during the season and have little off-season involvement with the team.

[emma17]

ExTarten:

I'm not asking whether you actually wanted those guys or not, just asking what current D3 coach y'all think is sitting out there with realistic ambitions of someday getting a D1 phone call as HC who looked at the UWW position and said "Nah, I think I'll get to D1 faster if I stay here."

Some good coaches may have passed because they're just happy where they are.  Some good coaches may have passed because they think perhaps LL's departure will give them a chance to get past UWW and make the Stagg with their current team.  But I want to know an example of a good up-and-coming D3 coach that someone thinks has D1 ambitions who did not put their name in the UWW pool because of the above "I don't think the UWW job will get me to D1" logic. 

For the record, I realize some were underwhelmed by the final 5 candidates, and that's fine, I wasn't.  The reason I wasn't underwhelmed has a lot to do with this thread - again, who did we "expect" to see on the list? 

As for your quote, I assume you're not asking me for specific names.  I won't pretend to know the aspirations of every coach in D3 and every other division. 

Perhaps we can categorize prospective (those that would consider applying) UWW head coaches into 2 categories.
1. Those coaches that don't have D1 aspirations (recognizing things sometimes change down the road) but really want to coach in an environment that is much like Wally describes.  These guys likely have great confidence in their skill set and template, but feel their ability to win is restricted by any number of obstacles at their current school.  They want a chance to win and win big.  I can envision a long list of potential candidates that would fit this category.  If Eric Raeburn doesn't have D1 ambitions, he'd be a good example, same is true for the coach from Macalester, Mike Leonard and lots and lots of D3, NAIA and maybe even D2 coaches.  The list of coaches that fit this category is much larger than the list of coaches that applied at UWW.  The reasons you mentioned in your paragraph above are likely common amongst the non-appliers.     
   
2. Those coaches that have D1 aspirations.
It isn't limited to D3 coaches.  No matter where this coach comes from, he must first believe a D1 AD will ultimately see his work at UWW and take the chance to hire him based upon it.  IMO this coach should recognize he has to differentiate himself, and likely the program, from its time under LL.  This may be the point that you or Wally dispute. 
I see the task of differentiating from LL's staff as very, very difficult, which is why I can easily understand why high quality coaches with D1 aspirations wouldn't pursue the UWW job.  The "good up and coming" D3 coach you mentioned may see the situation the exact way.  He may ask himself, what is the fingerprint I can put on UWW that will differentiate me from the prior staff and convince a D1 AD I'm worth taking a chance on?  What would his answer be?  No matter what his ego or confidence level is, his evaluation of the situation may lead him to feel he would rather succeed at a different challenge to prove his value. 

The more I think about it, the more I believe UWW is a great job for the category 1 guys- and for assistant coaches that want to experience how a big D3 program operates and the template to its success.

Lastly, simply because I suggest it's likely many coaches didn't apply at UWW doesn't mean I feel there weren't a lot of good coaches that did apply. 
         

[emma17]

Don't use examples that counter your point?  If your point is that it's easier for people to get in the D1 door at places other than Whitewater, give examples that support the idea.  You're saying it's easier for people to go D3 to D1 at someplace other Whitewater, and then rattled off names of guys that never went to D1.  Doesn't make any sense.  I'm saying it's easier to get there through a place like Whitewater.  Lance Leipold.  KC Keeler.  Relevant, precedence-confirming examples.  Now it's your turn.

What?  Your smugness makes me laugh.  First of all, I never used your phraseology of "it's easier for people to go from D3 to D1 at someplace other than Whitewater."

This is a discussion of the present case UWW.  You want me to show precedence- of something that's never happened before!  The UWW success of the last decade is unprecedented.  As such, this is an all new question specific to the present time UWW.   

I stand exactly by the following (and not what your misrepresentations are):
I clearly understand why there may be many highly talented coaches with D1 aspirations, in any number of divisions, that decided UWW doesn't provide them with the best chance to step off and achieve their goal.     

Your misrepresentations of my point about Larry Kehres, Smith and Thorne are typical you.

[wally_wabash]

This is a discussion of the present case UWW.  You want me to show precedence- of something that's never happened before! 

This is exactly the point.  I'm using reasoning based in historical fact.  You're using logic based on...well, I'm not sure really.  You're applying a psychology to people that doesn't make much sense.  Whitewater is too good of a place to launch careers...despite it having done exactly that six weeks ago?  Doesn't make sense. 

The UWW success of the last decade is unprecedented. 

This is false. 

I stand exactly by the following (and not what your misrepresentations are):
I clearly understand why there may be many highly talented coaches with D1 aspirations, in any number of divisions, that decided UWW doesn't provide them with the best chance to step off and achieve their goal.     

Again, I don't get this point when the exact thing that you're saying people think wouldn't happen if they went to UWW just happened at UWW.  You're either way overthinking this or you're way overvaluing UWW in the football coaching landscape. 

[emma17]

This is a discussion of the present case UWW.  You want me to show precedence- of something that's never happened before! 

This is exactly the point.  I'm using reasoning based in historical fact.  You're using logic based on...well, I'm not sure really.  You're applying a psychology to people that doesn't make much sense.  Whitewater is too good of a place to launch careers...despite it having done exactly that six weeks ago?  Doesn't make sense. 

The UWW success of the last decade is unprecedented. 

This is false. 

I stand exactly by the following (and not what your misrepresentations are):
I clearly understand why there may be many highly talented coaches with D1 aspirations, in any number of divisions, that decided UWW doesn't provide them with the best chance to step off and achieve their goal.     

Again, I don't get this point when the exact thing that you're saying people think wouldn't happen if they went to UWW just happened at UWW.  You're either way overthinking this or you're way overvaluing UWW in the football coaching landscape.

To be sure I understand your point, are you suggesting that because UWW just launched the career of LL into D1, this is proof that it will happen again?  If this is accurately stated, than it's easy for me to state my case. 
My point is the antithesis of yours.  I'm saying because LL was launched into D1 based upon his success at UWW, I can envision many good, D1 aspiring coaches deciding not to apply there.  The success has been had, the story has been told, the program has been built at UWW.  That's not to say the next head coach won't have great success of his own, but it will never be in the form of what just happened.     

In the fall of 2014 ESPN College Game Day did a story on UWW and LL.  Toward the end of the story the commentators hinted that LL would not last long at UWW as he'd get snatched up by another school.  Before the season was over, the Game Day crew was proven right.

What are the odds Game Day does another story on UWW or its new head coach saying the same thing?  Quite slim I'd have to guess. 

The Game Day show wasn't the reason LL got hired in D1.  But the show sure as heck helped the Buffalo AD support his decision.  And that is the psychological piece to all of this.  The D1 AD has to go out on a limb when hiring a D3 guy.  All the pieces were in place with LL for the AD to go out on a limb.   

[sigma one]

To add to my earlier post--and thanks ExTartanPlayer for your extension of my comments--the full-time coaches at Wabash also have other responsibilities.  Several of them are assistants in track and field.  All have some assignment in either (or both) facilities management or intramural athletics, or in some other aspect of running the athletics department.  These in addition to recruiting. 
        The full-time coaches all go on the road somewhere either in Indiana or in Indiana and other recruiting territories.  Wabash has a, robust on-campus recruiting effort for potential football players and parents/guardians, on home games days and during the fall and spring semesters.  Like many other places, the College believes that getting prospective students to campus is key to having them understand what academics and athletics are all about, and the more visits the better, whether as part of athletics recruiting or part of general searching for qualified candidates for the next entering class.