Around the Nation board

[hazzben]

@ Smedindy & K-Mack

I think we're all saying very similar things.

I'm not trying to take anything away from a team that's won a conference championship. In that sense, St. Scholastica was definitely a "somebody." And a very cool story when you consider they've only been around for four years. But winning the UMAC just isn't the same as coming in 2nd or even 3rd in some of the other conferences right in the same region (MIAC, IIAC, WIAC, CCIW).

I think we can say this without taking anything away from the CSS's of the world. They are conference champs and playoff participants. Kudos to them, both are great accomplishments. Yet I'd still argue that UWO, Bethel, St. Olaf, Wartburg, Wheaton, etc. would be tougher outs and a victory over them (despite a more deficient record than CSS in each case) is more impressive.

[K-Mack]

Just learned that Paul Hewitt is a St. John Fisher grad. Puts him up there with the Van Gundys of Castleton and the Bo Ryan of UW-P and the other gabillion D-III connections.

Once we had a thread going and it was my goal to start the organized alumni list. Someday.

[K-Mack]

Has anybody seen the 'Should Mount Union move up to Division II or stay put?' thread, or has it been pruned?

It's that time of year when I see lots of references to that thought, and I'd love to point people toward our intelligent discussion of it, but i can't seem to find it. It's probably gone.

Again I revisit this. Again I'd like to refer someone to it and I can't find the thread. Perhaps it was a figment of my imagination. Carry on.

[jknezek]

In 2 years around here I can't recall that thread. I'd be interested to read the thread because I have no idea how you could make that argument. We don't do promotion/relegation in the U.S. at higher levels of sports. Simply being historically good at something, so long as you stay within the rules, isn't what I would consider an unfair advantage over a universe of participants.

[Knightstalker]

It was a thread, K-Mack ain't that crazy yet, i think.   

[Ralph Turner]

I remember the thread.

UMU could not move up because:

1) they sponsor more sports in D-III than they could support in D-II.
2) the entire program does not perform at the football level in other sports.
3) the funding for moving to D-II without cutting sports would be prohibitive.
4) the dynamics of the number of athletes that will be participating in football, with 36 full scholarship equivalents in D-II, changes from the 150 participants in the D-III model.  The financial impact to the school would be incredible, especially as a private school in the GLIAC with its large number of public schools.
5) If they join the GLIAC which covers all of the other UMU sports, where do (M&W) Lacrosse compete?

[smedindy]

And they fit, as a school and as an athletics program as a whole, in the OAC. That is the key. Unlike D-1 (so it seems), conferences are made by schools desiring similar company, geographically and / or in mission.

[jknezek]

And lets not forget the incredibly obvious... having a championship D3 program is a great hook for getting 150 or so men on campus. Given the size of the school, that is a fairly large percentage of the student body. Sure helps to have a really good hook for getting those rears in the seats and paying the bills.

While I don't put a whole lot of credence on ranking, UMU ranks a very respectable but not outstanding #10 out of about 75 ranked schools in the US News Midwest Regional College Rankings. That is behind some of their competition for bodies, but obviously well ahead of most of it. Of course, a growing number of schools refuse to be ranked, including some that fall in the same category of UMU and are truly outstanding, as well as the fact that the Regional College Rankings are different from the Regional University Rankings, Regional Liberal Arts Rankings, National... well, you get the point. In other words, 10 of 75 doesn't even begin to describe the school versus all the possible competition for students, hence my reluctance to use rankings.

However, for our purposes, having an outstanding football team is a good sales pitch when lining up against some of the schools that fall higher up the list for athletes, and a nice scholastic home for an athlete looking to move up a few schools with the help of his h.s. game tape. Moving to D2, and possibly not having the same success, plus competing for athletes against state schools, seems like a really bad trade-off.

Strategically, I think UMU is right where they want to be to leverage the outstanding success of the program for the campus.

[AO]

Maybe it's time to get rid of the ncaa rule that says you can't just move to D-1 or D-2 in just one sport.  Johns Hopkins didn't manage to get out of the first round despite having a d-1 lacrosse program that was grandfathered in.  Mount could play in the Missouri Valley which has a number of football-only members. 

I don't care if Mount moves up or not, but it seems  our system makes it unnecessarily hard for them to do so if they wanted to. 

[smedindy]

Why would they want to? They are D-3 in every way, shape and form.

Why would D-3 encourage them to? They are D-3 in every way, shape and form.

The MVC is in no way a fit for Mt. Union, in ANY aspect. I can't see any congruence between Youngstown State, Western Illinois, and Mt. Union. Not in mission, vision, student bodies or any other aspect.

This isn't D-1...this is D-3. This is OURS! And Mt. Union is like Hiram is like Linfield is like Macalester is.

[AO]

Why would they want to? They are D-3 in every way, shape and form.

Why would D-3 encourage them to? They are D-3 in every way, shape and form.

The MVC is in no way a fit for Mt. Union, in ANY aspect. I can't see any congruence between Youngstown State, Western Illinois, and Mt. Union. Not in mission, vision, student bodies or any other aspect.

This isn't D-1...this is D-3. This is OURS! And Mt. Union is like Hiram is like Linfield is like Macalester is.

What about football?     Why wouldn't they want to seek better competition in football?  Whitewater changed nothing about their mission or philosophy when they scheduled d2 St. Cloud State in 2007.  They lost, got better and went on to win the d3 title.  I don't think you get very much value from a blowout.

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

Why would they want to? They are D-3 in every way, shape and form.

Why would D-3 encourage them to? They are D-3 in every way, shape and form.

The MVC is in no way a fit for Mt. Union, in ANY aspect. I can't see any congruence between Youngstown State, Western Illinois, and Mt. Union. Not in mission, vision, student bodies or any other aspect.

This isn't D-1...this is D-3. This is OURS! And Mt. Union is like Hiram is like Linfield is like Macalester is.

What about football?     Why wouldn't they want to seek better competition in football?  Whitewater changed nothing about their mission or philosophy when they scheduled d2 St. Cloud State in 2007.  They lost, got better and went on to win the d3 title.  I don't think you get very much value from a blowout.

Mount Union only has one non-conference game a year (play in a 10 team conference).  Why would a higher division school want to play MU?  If they win, they were supposed to, but if they lose, there is a lot of explaining to do.

MU's JV used to play Ashland's JV team and beat them.  Until Ashland's HC decided that it wasn't good for their recruiting efforts and made sure to dress some varsity players the last time they played to ensure a victory.

MU has a hard enough time finding a D3 opponent for that non-conf. game, I doubt they would find any higher division teams wanting to play them.  Walsh and Malone are close enough, are former NAIA schools moving to NCAA D2, and they want nothing to do with a game vs. the Raiders.

[Ralph Turner]

Why would they want to? They are D-3 in every way, shape and form.

Why would D-3 encourage them to? They are D-3 in every way, shape and form.

The MVC is in no way a fit for Mt. Union, in ANY aspect. I can't see any congruence between Youngstown State, Western Illinois, and Mt. Union. Not in mission, vision, student bodies or any other aspect.

This isn't D-1...this is D-3. This is OURS! And Mt. Union is like Hiram is like Linfield is like Macalester is.

What about football?     Why wouldn't they want to seek better competition in football?  Whitewater changed nothing about their mission or philosophy when they scheduled d2 St. Cloud State in 2007.  They lost, got better and went on to win the d3 title.  I don't think you get very much value from a blowout.

The goal for UMU is to win the D3 championship.

The goal of the non-conference game is to find an opponent who will give you help in the criteria that are used to determine home field advantaege thru the playoffs:

• D3
  In the North Region or Administrative Region #3
  Possibly regionally ranked some time in the season
  Has a favorable result over a common opponent

We see efforts to have quality non-conference games out in the "orphan" conferences in the west, the ASC, the SCIAC and the NWC.

Linfield, Willamette, Redlands, Cal Lutheran, ETBU, UMHB, HSU... even Wesley...

Those teams are stepping up to the plate to fill the schedule with quality non-conference games by traveling everywhere they can find game.

We also see it in some of the WIAC schools, the IIAC, the MIAC,  and the CCIW to a degree.

MY "beef" with the CCIW is that they get the props (and OWP/OOWP) for beating up on the "weaker" sisters in the NATHC, just because it is a cost-effective, closer, in-region opponent, that also needs in-region non-conference games.

MUC/UMU has played anyone who wanted to play them.
I wish the ASC had opponents like that that would boost our OWP/OOWP

[smedindy]

"Better Competiton?"

1. The OAC is amongst the top-3 D-3 conferences in the nation.
2. Having just one non-conference game, at the beginning of the season (weeks 1 and 2) constrains the scheduling process.
3. They gain nothing from beating a mediocre D-2 or even a non-scholarship D-1AA.

In the universe of all college football, Mt. Union is currently ranked #233 in Massey. Akron is ranked #232. You think Akron's gonna schedule Mt. Union? What would that prove, to either Mt. Union or Akron? I'd say maybe schedule Dayton (#290) but Dayton had no bye weeks in their 11-game schedule. And again, what does that really prove? Dayton is ranked around where Kean and Cortland State are.

Plus, some schools have travel restrictions based on budgets.

[AO]

"Better Competiton?"

1. The OAC is amongst the top-3 D-3 conferences in the nation.
2. Having just one non-conference game, at the beginning of the season (weeks 1 and 2) constrains the scheduling process.
3. They gain nothing from beating a mediocre D-2 or even a non-scholarship D-1AA.

In the universe of all college football, Mt. Union is currently ranked #233 in Massey. Akron is ranked #232. You think Akron's gonna schedule Mt. Union? What would that prove, to either Mt. Union or Akron? I'd say maybe schedule Dayton (#290) but Dayton had no bye weeks in their 11-game schedule. And again, what does that really prove? Dayton is ranked around where Kean and Cortland State are.

Plus, some schools have travel restrictions based on budgets.

Yes, better competition.  I'm not just talking about picking a different non-conference opponent, I'm talking about switching divisions.  If the NCAA didn't make it so hard to do, Mount might have done it a while ago.  Better games, more money, more prestige for the school. 

Maybe if Mount could just some better playoff competition in the first couple rounds?   Maybe throw some d2 and fcs teams in a different playoff system?  Football is a sport with very few contests and using so many of those contests to play vastly inferior competition isn't really what's best for the players from Mount.