FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Dr. Acula]

I actually wouldn't lump Marietta and Cappy with Wilmington either. Marietta is good at a lot of other (non football) sports that gives them value to the conference as a whole, and Capital has a solid athletic program. I've often thought losing Wilmington and Muskingum would help the OAC as a whole. Neither really adds anything, and as far as football is concerned, that would give each team two extra non conference games

I don't know if I'd say Etta is good at a lot of other sports.  I'd say they're great at basketball and baseball though.  Probably the best OAC programs in those respective sports and to me that's worth a ton.  Definitely reason enough to not lump them in with the problem children. 

There's no question Musky and Wilm are the bottom two.  In men's sports Musky is clearly the worst recently with Wilm clearly 2nd worst.  Musky has been either last or 2nd to last in both the men's and women's All-Sports standings for 4 straight years.  Last year their best men's performance was 6th in CC.  And this year looks worse since they finished last in CC and were worse in football.  Wilm at least snuck in a 7th place All-Sports finish albeit in the year that BW self-reported and sat out all the OAC tournaments/championships.

The problem is, and we've been down this road before, how do you fix it?  Someone has to finish last.  To me it's not a matter of not finishing last in the All-Sports.  It's more a matter of being nearly non-competitive in most sports.  Wilm at least shows flashes in hoops.  Musky is just not showing a lot right now unfortunately.

[Desertraider]

I understand that some of these schools are good in other sports - that is great - keep them. And I get that someone has to finish last - it is the unfortunate reality of sports: someone has to lose. However, in the cases of Etta, Wilma, Musky - they don't even really compete in football. Since 1999 (2000 for Wilma since it was the first year in OAC play) Etta and Musky are 47-122 (overall) and Wilma is 33-117. I guess my point is that if these schools are not even going to try (and let's face - they don't) to compete - then what is really the point? Increase enrollment may be part of it but how much is enrollment being increased with a perennial 1-9 or 2-8 football team? The cost of the program (salaries, insurance, equipment, etc.) and facilities I would argue outpaces the $$ brought in from added enrollment. And let's face it - the gate take is nothing since the only people in the stands are local parents of players. Schools, especially small ones, are always looking at ways to trim budgets and stay competitive. Wilma, Etta and Musky might lose 50-60 students (many D3 athletes play more than one sport - so some may play football but went to Etta for baseball or whatever) and maybe even less but would probably gain more financially from not having football. I am not saying I want them to cancel it - but I think at some point you have to look at it and ask 'we are spending X, what are we getting from it?'. If they are happy with where they are then at the very least the alums should start asking why they have some of these programs when they are not trying to be successful at them. It is almost like football exists at these schools because 'other schools have them' - not because they actually want them. My .02 cents. 

[badgerwarhawk]

In the 2014-15 academic year the tuition at Marietta College was $33,490.  There are 57 players listed on their roster.  That equals slightly over $1.9 million.  I don't know what their football budget was but when you consider that 1. they have to have insurance whether they play football or not (football insurance isn't a separate entity) 2. they aren't re-equipping the team annually and 3. most small college coaches are also teaching so their football salary isn't that significant I'd wonder whether it actually is a losing proposition financially. 

This is an interesting discussion.  I hope you don't mind an outsider joining in. 

[Desertraider]

In the 2014-15 academic year the tuition at Marietta College was $33,490.  There are 57 players listed on their roster.  That equals slightly over $1.9 million.  I don't know what their football budget was but when you consider that 1. they have to have insurance whether they play football or not (football insurance isn't a separate entity) 2. they aren't re-equipping the team annually and 3. most small college coaches are also teaching so their football salary isn't that significant I'd wonder whether it actually is a losing proposition financially. 

This is an interesting discussion.  I hope you don't mind an outsider joining in.

I never said insurance was separate. However, given all the injuries associated with football I bet they would have a better rate without it. As I said in my original post they may lose some players without football - but I doubt they would lose them all. If they have 57 on the roster (I didn't check so am using your number) the would lose some - but how many made football the decision to go to Wilma vs. those that decided to play once they got there? In addition not all are paying 33.5K. Financial aid (need based, etc.) offsets some of that. In addition while they are not re-equipping the team annually, the facilities need maintenance and upgrades (equipment and facilities). On the teaching classes - I will get back to you on that one. Need to check some stuff first.

[Desertraider]

Just did a quick check and though he is listed in the directory as HC and Sports Science, Stacy Hairston at Wilma is not listed with the faculty in Athletic Training or Exercise Science. In addition his bio on the athletic site says nothing about an academic position. Not to say he doesn't teach classes - but the site also does not give any academic credentials for him either. Point being - it doesn't appear he is faculty w/ coaching duties. How hard would it be to find replacement for him in the classroom? I took a couple exercise science classes at Hiram and the faculty all had at least a M.A./M.S. in a related field - which most require. If he is in a full-time faculty position and also serves as HC then an M.A./M.S. would be the minimum requirement but a PhD would be the preferred.

[formerd3db]

badgerwarhawk: 
No one is an outsider here (if you mean not being a regular OAC poster, understandable), however, really, no one is an outsider on any of these boards.  Opinion and comments always welcomed (I've always promoted that, although not sure everyone on this board does :)l

desertraider:
A few follow-up points, if I may.  Your make some good reasonable points.  Since we are talking about football programs here, I should probably keep the comments confined to that.  However, I will say that the "model" talked about re: enrollment has worked well for some schools with regard to bringing in new and other sports.  Adrian College, IMO, is the recent success story in that regard (bringing in men's and women's NCAA hockey along with DII and DIII club-collegiate hockey, men's and women's NCAA lacrosse, skating, etc.), and as I and others have discussed that on another board in the recent past, I will not reiterate (or bore anyone with) all that here.  Only to say that it not only stablized and actually increased enrollment but those programs have not lost $, actually bring it in (of course, it helped that alumni donated substantially for an on-campus college owned really nice ice arena with permanent seating even).

Regarding the salaried positions of head coaches, what badgerwarhawk mention is correct for many schools.  Many of them, the head coach (and most of the full time coaches on the football staff) have a teaching appointed position, which is required and as a result, their actual coaching salary is not that much as compared to their teaching contract income.  In addition, while a college football financial budget is not insignificant, it is not as much as some people believe (many are around $350,000 and some less.  Some schools have more $ than you might think, some endowments have monies reserved for general budget expense, of which football is usually under for most of the DIII schools.  Yes you are right that much of the attendance at most small schools at a football game, aside from the students are the parents of players and their relatives.  However, there are plenty of alumni who are willing to and do donate to support the football programs making those possible. And while indeed as you say, a great majority of the players have financial aid so their families are not paying the full amount, where do you think that financial aid $ comes from?  Also, there are indeed a fair number of players who attend these schools who do not qualify for any financial aid at all.

There are many ways to help support the football programs and many schools indeed to that, with support/booster groups which donate and raise (both legally) money.  I'll share one personal opinion of an example that I see could be improved at my alma mater Hope.  I noticed that this season, they only charged $1 for the football program.  I admit I was kind of shocked at that for several reasons a) the program is substantial, much more so than many other DIII schools, very nicely done, upscale publication and it also has information that supports all the other fall sports, b) IMO, they should sell if for at least $3 (and maybe even $5) as that would raise some additional monies to support football.  One might argue that it is not much, however, I can tell you that they sell out those programs at everygame, and I believe (and do know of people) that people would still buy those even at an increased price.  Perhaps Hope gets a great deal on the printing of these (obviously the more printed, the less the price per program), but regardless, they could make some additional $ on those.  Even $ for that can go a long way to contributing to buying the meals on away games for the players, which comes out of the general budget allotted for football.

I agree with you that no one wants to lose all the time, but please, you are not insinuating that the schools you mentioned (such as Wilmington, or Muskingum or, for that matter, any others) really try on purpose to not be successful and not win i.e. statement about schools not even willing to try.  I don't believe that for a moment (and I know it isn't true for even for some of the less successful schools in our own conference).  But, there are somethings that are worth keeping and more important that $.  The bottom line is, as I think we all have essentially said and agree, is that it comes down to each individual college making their own decision as to keeping their football programs or not.  At the same time, in the eyes of some, those schools that do drop football lose a little something.  I'll leave it at that-my $0.02 worth!    Again, this is a great discussion and many good points of consideration have been shared by you all.

[Bishopleftiesdad]

Yes denison is one of a small group of schools in the NCAC, that compete for the all sports trophy every year. In football they are a solid tier 2 team.

[Spurrier]

Ho-Hum...players play...haters hate...more pictures of cheerleaders please

[formerd3db]

Ho-Hum...players play...haters hate...more pictures of cheerleaders please

Come on now, spurrier, be nice, please!   I don't think anyone is being a "hater" here, just some good off season discussion.  And that certainly includes having more pictures of cheerleaders as you request, for sure.

[Desertraider]

Here is another way to look at it:
Since 1999 (2000 for Wilmington) Marietta and The Muskies have an identical 27.8% winning percentage. Wilmington has a 22%. Since 1999 the Browns have a record of 81-185 with a winning percentage of 30.5%. So I guess if you use the Browns as a benchmark - Etta, Muskies and Wilma are doing ok  . But who uses the Browns as an example of something to shoot for?

BTW - I am not saying that the above schools are trying not to get better - but can we make an argument that they are in fact trying? Not saying they should beat Mount/JCU every now and again - but how about pulling a season (using Etta) where they can win a non-con game, beat wilma, musky, cap (recently), The Bein and compete against say BW or Berg? I mean a 4-6 or 5-5 season every 10 years or so isn't to much to shoot for is it? My point is that they seem to go into every season with the view that they will compete with each other and get routed by the rest. I feel bad for the players (in some cases) because some of the staffs seem "ok" with that arrangement. In other cases it seems the players accept it to - maybe because the coaches let them. I taked with an Otter DB after the Mount game - about 3 weeks after - and asked him if he felt like the coaches gave up. He said that they did and recounted how they stopped talking to the players after a series on O or D mid-way through the first quarter. And that at halftime they made no adjustments and were hanging out by the doors talking to each other. I feel like the coaches at Wilma, etc..are doing the same thing - going through the motions.

[formerd3db]

Here is another way to look at it:
Since 1999 (2000 for Wilmington) Marietta and The Muskies have an identical 27.8% winning percentage. Wilmington has a 22%. Since 1999 the Browns have a record of 81-185 with a winning percentage of 30.5%. So I guess if you use the Browns as a benchmark - Etta, Muskies and Wilma are doing ok  . But who uses the Browns as an example of something to shoot for?

BTW - I am not saying that the above schools are trying not to get better - but can we make an argument that they are in fact trying? Not saying they should beat Mount/JCU every now and again - but how about pulling a season (using Etta) where they can win a non-con game, beat wilma, musky, cap (recently), The Bein and compete against say BW or Berg? I mean a 4-6 or 5-5 season every 10 years or so isn't to much to shoot for is it? My point is that they seem to go into every season with the view that they will compete with each other and get routed by the rest. I feel bad for the players (in some cases) because some of the staffs seem "ok" with that arrangement. In other cases it seems the players accept it to - maybe because the coaches let them. I taked with an Otter DB after the Mount game - about 3 weeks after - and asked him if he felt like the coaches gave up. He said that they did and recounted how they stopped talking to the players after a series on O or D mid-way through the first quarter. And that at halftime they made no adjustments and were hanging out by the doors talking to each other. I feel like the coaches at Wilma, etc..are doing the same thing - going through the motions.

Please be careful what you assert, desertraider, regarding some situations you might not/if you do not specifically know about.  I understand if you personally have a general feeling that some schools' staffs are content with simply competing with some of their rivals and accepting that they will just get routed by the upper tier teams and that is fine to have your opinion on that.  But do you know that specifically for sure about the other schools, other than what was shared with you by the Otterbein player for that particular situation?  Perhaps you do have other inside info regarding some of the other staffs, and if so, that is fine.  However, I'm just sharing with you that I have a difficult time believing that a coaching staff would simply go into any game with the attitude that there is no chance of winning and project that feeling to their players as well as to not even try.  Also, just for the sake of conversation, I know of examples regarding just the opposite of the Otterbein anecdote you shared, (and particularly this past season in our league) where actually it was the players who gave up and not the coaching staff.  That, too, doesn't help in trying to improve the attitude for a program.

BTW, as I have in the past penned this sentiment before on the boards, the "semantics game" is always fun.   But you did post previously that "...if these schools are not even going to try (and let's face [it]-they don't) to compete, then what is the point?"  IMO, saying whether they are trying not to get better or or in your additional words.. are they in fact trying, is really the same thing.  But, I get your point.  Still, at the same time, I again find it difficult that the coaching staffs are content for not trying, the status quo, concede a game to being lost from the beginning or whatever way that could be phrased or said.  Additionally, as we all have discussed, there are a variety of factors beyond the control of coaches at any school that can play into that situation and perhaps give that impression.  All that said, I do respect your passion for wanting the less successful schools to get better, at least once in a while.  I want the same for our league.  

[hsbsballcoach7]

The Raiders look like they got another commit in Austin Vansickle out of Loudonville. I've been waiting for Mount to get a player like this for this class. He looks like a pretty darn good ball carrier. Hits holes well, makes guys miss, breaks tackles and has pretty good speed. I don't remember seeing film of another non-qb offensive playmaker in this class that I'm this excited about.

[Desertraider]

Here is another way to look at it:
Since 1999 (2000 for Wilmington) Marietta and The Muskies have an identical 27.8% winning percentage. Wilmington has a 22%. Since 1999 the Browns have a record of 81-185 with a winning percentage of 30.5%. So I guess if you use the Browns as a benchmark - Etta, Muskies and Wilma are doing ok  . But who uses the Browns as an example of something to shoot for?

BTW - I am not saying that the above schools are trying not to get better - but can we make an argument that they are in fact trying? Not saying they should beat Mount/JCU every now and again - but how about pulling a season (using Etta) where they can win a non-con game, beat wilma, musky, cap (recently), The Bein and compete against say BW or Berg? I mean a 4-6 or 5-5 season every 10 years or so isn't to much to shoot for is it? My point is that they seem to go into every season with the view that they will compete with each other and get routed by the rest. I feel bad for the players (in some cases) because some of the staffs seem "ok" with that arrangement. In other cases it seems the players accept it to - maybe because the coaches let them. I taked with an Otter DB after the Mount game - about 3 weeks after - and asked him if he felt like the coaches gave up. He said that they did and recounted how they stopped talking to the players after a series on O or D mid-way through the first quarter. And that at halftime they made no adjustments and were hanging out by the doors talking to each other. I feel like the coaches at Wilma, etc..are doing the same thing - going through the motions.

Please be careful what you assert, desertraider, regarding some situations you might not/if you do not specifically know about.  I understand if you personally have a general feeling that some schools' staffs are content with simply competing with some of their rivals and accepting that they will just get routed by the upper tier teams and that is fine to have your opinion on that.  But do you know that specifically for sure about the other schools, other than what was shared with you by the Otterbein player for that particular situation?  Perhaps you do have other inside info regarding some of the other staffs, and if so, that is fine.  However, I'm just sharing with you that I have a difficult time believing that a coaching staff would simply go into any game with the attitude that there is no chance of winning and project that feeling to their players as well as to not even try.  Also, just for the sake of conversation, I know of examples regarding just the opposite of the Otterbein anecdote you shared, (and particularly this past season in our league) where actually it was the players who gave up and not the coaching staff.  That, too, doesn't help in trying to improve the attitude for a program.

BTW, as I have in the past penned this sentiment before on the boards, the "semantics game" is always fun.   But you did post previously that "...if these schools are not even going to try (and let's face [it]-they don't) to compete, then what is the point?"  IMO, saying whether they are trying not to get better or or in your additional words.. are they in fact trying, is really the same thing.  But, I get your point.  Still, at the same time, I again find it difficult that the coaching staffs are content for not trying, the status quo, concede a game to being lost from the beginning or whatever way that could be phrased or said.  Additionally, as we all have discussed, there are a variety of factors beyond the control of coaches at any school that can play into that situation and perhaps give that impression.  All that said, I do respect your passion for wanting the less successful schools to get better, at least once in a while.  I want the same for our league.

If I had inside info - I would have said it. The post clearly says that "I feel like the coaches at Wilma, etc...". It is not anything more that that. Just watch them during the games - you don't get the vibe that they are trying to do anything more than make it to the end of game.

[HScoach]

"just making to the end of the game" is actually a very wise approach for the bottom feeders (and even the middling teams sometimes too) against Mount.  It doesn't take a genius to know Wilmington has less than a zero % chance of beating Mount, so why get someone hurt?  How many times do you need to see Wilmington get their QB hurt against Mount before you realize their season is more than playing against Mount?   

There have been many instances of OAC teams sitting they're key players against Mount to save them from further injury.   Can't remember the name of the stud WR at Otterbein a few years ago that was nursing some minor injury and sat out the Mount game but came back the next week.  Which is exactly what I would do if I was in their shoes.  From the Otterbein perspective, what is more important?   Scoring a TD or 2 against Mount and losing by 40 or being at full strength against Capital, Muskingum, Etta, etc?   

[Blutarsky]

An unfortunate memory of our son playing at Mount was driving to Wilmington on a beautiful Saturday afternoon.  There had been some injuries for the Quakers, including a couple of their QB's.  As we parked the car and walked to the stadium, we noticed signs that were posted around campus.....they were advertising "open tryouts" for anyone who played QB in high school, and were maybe interested in playing against the "#1 team in Division III". 

Not sure there were any takers.......