FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[emma17]

All good points above. I agree Franklin is the best example of a team w the least to lose in scheduling up.
I'd be surprised Wally (not saying you're wrong) if there are many head coaches (with playoff success aspirations) that won't schedule UWW because they don't view UWW as peers from a missions/philosophies standpoint.

I wouldn't be surprised at all and I think Wally makes a valid point.  There are privates that do not view us as peers simply because we participate at the DIII level.  I might even venture a guess that there are significantly more who don't than there are those who do.  To what extent that influences their willingness to schedule us varies.  Cathage's previous restriction (I think the current adminstration is ok with it) on scheduling public schools in any sports unless it was a multiple team event (i.e. track meet) is an illustration of that point.

Exactly. This attitude is definitely out there.

I don't doubt the attitude is out there. But is the attitude out there among head coaches/admins at playoff competitive D3 schools? 
It's easy for an Admin of a consistently below 500 football team to say "we won't schedule UWW because they aren't a peer". I'd be surprised if there are many football "successful" schools/coaches that would take that approach.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining the difference well enough?
Carthage can say "UWW isn't our peer so we won't play them."  Would NCC and Wheaton say the same?

[bleedpurple]

All good points above. I agree Franklin is the best example of a team w the least to lose in scheduling up.
I'd be surprised Wally (not saying you're wrong) if there are many head coaches (with playoff success aspirations) that won't schedule UWW because they don't view UWW as peers from a missions/philosophies standpoint.

I wouldn't be surprised at all and I think Wally makes a valid point.  There are privates that do not view us as peers simply because we participate at the DIII level.  I might even venture a guess that there are significantly more who don't than there are those who do.  To what extent that influences their willingness to schedule us varies.  Cathage's previous restriction (I think the current adminstration is ok with it) on scheduling public schools in any sports unless it was a multiple team event (i.e. track meet) is an illustration of that point.

Exactly. This attitude is definitely out there.

I don't doubt the attitude is out there. But is the attitude out there among head coaches/admins at playoff competitive D3 schools? 
It's easy for an Admin of a consistently below 500 football team to say "we won't schedule UWW because they aren't a peer". I'd be surprised if there are many football "successful" schools/coaches that would take that approach.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining the difference well enough?
Carthage can say "UWW isn't our peer so we won't play them."  Would NCC and Wheaton say the same?

I find this all pretty interesting. Emma, I should probably let Pat or Wally answer you, but I get the feeling "not a peer"  has little to do with record or a belief they can't compete.  But rather, state schools are schools with completely different admission philosophies, completely different funding bases, and completely different values than the privates.  Therefore, while the NCAA may recognize the schools as peers because of adhering to the D-III philosophy, many individual private schools do not because of these other factors.

[dachampishere]

When I was at UWW we played NAIA school St. Xavier right out of Chicago area. I saw their HC a while back and he told me that after they won the national title they were looking for a game and called coach Leipold. He said it would be great D3 National Champion vs NAIA National champion and even offered to come to UWW first and Coach Leipold said No to playing them. This was 2010-2011 after both teams had won the national title. I am not sure why Leipold said no but playing a school right out of Chicago makes more sense then driving all the way down to Mississippi.

[DBQ1965]

It won't happen ... but what if D3 went to two divisions ... one for public universities and one for private.  Disproportionate representation?

[02 Warhawk]

When I was at UWW we played NAIA school St. Xavier right out of Chicago area. I saw their HC a while back and he told me that after they won the national title they were looking for a game and called coach Leipold. He said it would be great D3 National Champion vs NAIA National champion and even offered to come to UWW first and Coach Leipold said No to playing them. This was 2010-2011 after both teams had won the national title. I am not sure why Leipold said no but playing a school right out of Chicago makes more sense then driving all the way down to Mississippi.

I would guess he was holding out for a d3 school that would help his regional ranks. The NAIA (whether they are a national champion or a winless team) does nothing for a d3 program's SOS.

[bleedpurple]

When I was at UWW we played NAIA school St. Xavier right out of Chicago area. I saw their HC a while back and he told me that after they won the national title they were looking for a game and called coach Leipold. He said it would be great D3 National Champion vs NAIA National champion and even offered to come to UWW first and Coach Leipold said No to playing them. This was 2010-2011 after both teams had won the national title. I am not sure why Leipold said no but playing a school right out of Chicago makes more sense then driving all the way down to Mississippi.

I would guess he was holding out for a d3 school that would help his regional ranks. The NAIA (whether they are a national champion or a winless team) does nothing for a d3 program's SOS.

St. Xavier won the NAIA Championship in 2011. In 2012, UW-W had three D-III Non-conference opponents.

[emma17]

All good points above. I agree Franklin is the best example of a team w the least to lose in scheduling up.
I'd be surprised Wally (not saying you're wrong) if there are many head coaches (with playoff success aspirations) that won't schedule UWW because they don't view UWW as peers from a missions/philosophies standpoint.

I wouldn't be surprised at all and I think Wally makes a valid point.  There are privates that do not view us as peers simply because we participate at the DIII level.  I might even venture a guess that there are significantly more who don't than there are those who do.  To what extent that influences their willingness to schedule us varies.  Cathage's previous restriction (I think the current adminstration is ok with it) on scheduling public schools in any sports unless it was a multiple team event (i.e. track meet) is an illustration of that point.

Exactly. This attitude is definitely out there.

I don't doubt the attitude is out there. But is the attitude out there among head coaches/admins at playoff competitive D3 schools? 
It's easy for an Admin of a consistently below 500 football team to say "we won't schedule UWW because they aren't a peer". I'd be surprised if there are many football "successful" schools/coaches that would take that approach.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining the difference well enough?
Carthage can say "UWW isn't our peer so we won't play them."  Would NCC and Wheaton say the same?

I find this all pretty interesting. Emma, I should probably let Pat or Wally answer you, but I get the feeling "not a peer"  has little to do with record or a belief they can't compete.  But rather, state schools are schools with completely different admission philosophies, completely different funding bases, and completely different values than the privates.  Therefore, while the NCAA may recognize the schools as peers because of adhering to the D-III philosophy, many individual private schools do not because of these other factors.

I understand what Wally and Pat are saying in terms of their definition of peer and how administrations may prefer to restrict scheduling within that defined peer group. 
I'm taking this a step further.  I think it's altogether possible that the desire/directive to schedule within their peer group may be influenced by the results of their sports programs (let's focus on football). 

I'll use Wheaton, Linfield and Mt. Union as examples.  All are private and I think all share that "non state school" mentality.  I'd wager a guess that as their football teams achieved greater and greater successes, their administrations cared less and less about scheduling "within their peer group."

[badgerwarhawk]

We played St Xavier and won 24-8 to open the 2008 season.

[Just Bill]

It won't happen ... but what if D3 went to two divisions ... one for public universities and one for private.  Disproportionate representation?

A group of schools (the Midwest Conference was among them) attempted something like that a few years ago. It wasn't a private/public split, it was the creation of two sub-divisions. One sub-division would be similar to what D-III is now, the other would be more restrictive in terms of recruiting, length of season and focusing on regional postseason rather than national postseason. Schools could choose which sub-division fit them the best. Well before it ever got to an actual NCAA Convention vote it was soundly defeated in a survey of D-III schools. Something like 85-15 opposed splitting the division. The proponents of it abandoned the attempt.

[bleedpurple]

All good points above. I agree Franklin is the best example of a team w the least to lose in scheduling up.
I'd be surprised Wally (not saying you're wrong) if there are many head coaches (with playoff success aspirations) that won't schedule UWW because they don't view UWW as peers from a missions/philosophies standpoint.

I wouldn't be surprised at all and I think Wally makes a valid point.  There are privates that do not view us as peers simply because we participate at the DIII level.  I might even venture a guess that there are significantly more who don't than there are those who do.  To what extent that influences their willingness to schedule us varies.  Cathage's previous restriction (I think the current adminstration is ok with it) on scheduling public schools in any sports unless it was a multiple team event (i.e. track meet) is an illustration of that point.

Exactly. This attitude is definitely out there.

I don't doubt the attitude is out there. But is the attitude out there among head coaches/admins at playoff competitive D3 schools? 
It's easy for an Admin of a consistently below 500 football team to say "we won't schedule UWW because they aren't a peer". I'd be surprised if there are many football "successful" schools/coaches that would take that approach.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining the difference well enough?
Carthage can say "UWW isn't our peer so we won't play them."  Would NCC and Wheaton say the same?

I find this all pretty interesting. Emma, I should probably let Pat or Wally answer you, but I get the feeling "not a peer"  has little to do with record or a belief they can't compete.  But rather, state schools are schools with completely different admission philosophies, completely different funding bases, and completely different values than the privates.  Therefore, while the NCAA may recognize the schools as peers because of adhering to the D-III philosophy, many individual private schools do not because of these other factors.

I understand what Wally and Pat are saying in terms of their definition of peer and how administrations may prefer to restrict scheduling within that defined peer group. 
I'm taking this a step further.  I think it's altogether possible that the desire/directive to schedule within their peer group may be influenced by the results of their sports programs (let's focus on football). 

I'll use Wheaton, Linfield and Mt. Union as examples.  All are private and I think all share that "non state school" mentality.  I'd wager a guess that as their football teams achieved greater and greater successes, their administrations cared less and less about scheduling "within their peer group."

You may be right about that, I'm not sure. I think the three examples you cite have their own unique circumstances that make it really hard to evaluate:

Wheaton- I wonder if the strong Christian culture of the university keeps it from identifying with many of the privates in a strong enough way to differentiate them from state schools.

Linfield- Out on that "Island". They probably have a limited pool of teams they can choose from in scheduling as it is.

Mount Union- One non-conference game. Plus, they are probably happy when a D-III school is willing to schedule them.

I know your point goes beyond these three examples. It would be interesting to know what schools have the "private" attitude to the degree that it causes them to say "no" to a game they otherwise may schedule.

And what exactly does the attitude consist of? We don't want our schools represented in an athletic contest against these schools? We don't want our athletes competing against the athletes in these schools?  We don't want to lose to these schools? 

It would be interesting to know what comprises "that attitude".

[d-train]

I played at Pacific Lutheran at an interesting time and had a front row seat to watch some of these exact same differences play out. 

When I entered, we were in a huge non-scholarship NAIA league with the current NWC schools plus several small/medium state schools (Western and Central Washington; Eastern, Southern, and Western Oregon; plus Simon Fraser out of BC). It was like a PAC-12 with north and south divisions and we often got about 3 playoff bids. PLU and Linfield ruled the league in the 80's and early 90's; WWU, CWU, and Willamette came on strong in the mid-90's. In many other sports, the NWC schools didn't play very often against the state schools. For example, I think we were in different NAIA divisions for basketball.

Eventually the thing fell apart. WWU and CWU wanted to ratchet up the football thing (spring ball and scholarships), several NWC schools were really struggling to compete as it was. So the privates voted to move to D3 (more than just a football decision). Linfield and PLU voted against the move; they were still willing to compete. But the 'mission' differences were just too great for the other schools.  After the NWC move, four of the state schools went D2 (with WWU eventually dropping football) and two continue on in the NAIA (SOU won this year's football title).  I personally played in both NAIA and D3 playoff games while at PLU.   

[Mr. Ypsi]

It won't happen ... but what if D3 went to two divisions ... one for public universities and one for private.  Disproportionate representation?

Public schools are probably nearly as much a mixed bag as privates - not all publics are comparable to WIAC schools.  The D3 Vermont publics, for example, include Johnson St. (enrollment: 1010), Lyndon St. (1257), and the 'huge' Castleton St. (1687).

[emma17]

I know your point goes beyond these three examples. It would be interesting to know what schools have the "private" attitude to the degree that it causes them to say "no" to a game they otherwise may schedule.

And what exactly does the attitude consist of? We don't want our schools represented in an athletic contest against these schools? We don't want our athletes competing against the athletes in these schools?  We don't want to lose to these schools? 

Bleed,
I'm too am very interested in the answers/opinions to your above.

[OzJohnnie]

[D O.C.]

On Wisconsin!