FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[longtimefan]

The biggest advantage UWW has is that players from any of the Wisconsin schools may transfer from one University of Wisconsin school to any other University of Wisconsin school without penalty. That player does not have to sit out a year as they must in Ohio and other D3 schools. Therefore any good player who wants to play on the best team in the state may go there giving UWW a collection of the best D3 players in the state..

[badgerwarhawk]

I can only think of one player on this year's National Championship roster that started their career at another WIAC school.  We lose  more players than we gain by a long shot.  Good players who realize they won't be getting the playing time they expect here and move on to other schools.  Right off the top of my head I can think of five players who transferred out in the past few years including two who ended up at private schools.  None of these players had to sit out a year including the ones who transferred to the private schools.

We do have some restrictions on transfers depending on how long they've been at the first school however they can be waived if the athlete's coach consents.  In most cases they are.   But your implication that the best are flocking to Whitewater isn't the reality.   

[TailGate]

The arguments can just go round and round.  Their tuition is cheaper.  But Mount can bring in 100 kids every year.  But UWW has a huge enrollment.  But Mount has twice as much talent in the HS programs of their home state.  But UWW doesn't have a slew of D2 schools to compete with in WI.  It could go on forever.  Suffice to say both programs have advantages the other would enjoy.

Agreed.  Dr. Acula gets it, and the argument should probably end here, the only reason it's even going on is that we have a relative newbie to the boards who hasn't slogged through this before.

The only thing I wish to throw into this argument is another vote for the "enrollment doesn't matter in college sports" argument. It doesn't matter because, as stated, you're not recruiting from the general student population, and the relative "size" of a sports program is defined far more by the program's success and the school's emphasis on the sport than total campus enrollment.  The University of Central Florida is the second-largest college in the nation by enrollment; Florida International University is the seventh-largest.  Why, then, are Florida State, Florida, and Miami the biggest football powers in that state?  Arizona State is the biggest college in the nation; the Sun Devils haven't won a conference title in recent memory, much less a national title. 

Another one of the points Dr. Acula made here, the lack of D2 competition for recruits in Wisconsin, is much more germane to this discussion than total enrollment of the respective schools.  However, as Dr. Acula said, both programs have advantages.  Discussing them can provide interesting fodder, but that's all it is. 

I read a neat little item in a book about Yale-Harvard football once comparing some of the Ivies' football recruiting practices to one another.  One of the Ivy schools - I think it's Penn - has somewhat lower admission standards ("lower" being a relative term, we're talking about the Ivy League here) than Yale and Harvard, but when offered that as a potential excuse, the Yale/Harvard coaches declined to bite, saying that the academic draw of Yale and Harvard meant that while Penn might be able to admit some kids that they couldn't, they would get some kids over Penn because of their academic reputation, so in the end it was kind of a wash.

Arguing about Mount and UWW's tuition and academics would be more relevant if they were recruiting from the same pool and in direct competition for a lot of recruits, but my guess is that, for the most part, they aren't in direct competition for most of their recruits.  There probably aren't many kids weighing Mount vs. UWW and deciding to go to one for the cheaper tuition, or the other for Reason X.

Nope - but there are D2/D3 level kids weighing Mounts high tuition against much less expensive tuition at publics in Ohio (similar to UWW costs) or limited educational programs at Ohio's private D2's,  or having to opt out of playing football in order to afford to go to a college that has a major they desire..... and that's a reality.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The biggest advantage UWW has is that players from any of the Wisconsin schools may transfer from one University of Wisconsin school to any other University of Wisconsin school without penalty. That player does not have to sit out a year as they must in Ohio and other D3 schools. Therefore any good player who wants to play on the best team in the state may go there giving UWW a collection of the best D3 players in the state..

D3 has no rule about sitting out a year for transferring within the division.  Some conferences have such a rule for transfers within the conference (but I don't know which ones).

[ExTartanPlayer]

The biggest advantage UWW has is that players from any of the Wisconsin schools may transfer from one University of Wisconsin school to any other University of Wisconsin school without penalty. That player does not have to sit out a year as they must in Ohio and other D3 schools. Therefore any good player who wants to play on the best team in the state may go there giving UWW a collection of the best D3 players in the state..

Yeah...no. That's not the "biggest advantage" at all. Mr. Ypsi just addressed this; the OAC does have a transfer rule, but this is not a D3-wide rule, and as badgerwarhawk just said, UWW isn't exactly chock full of guys that transferred in.

[Pat Coleman]

There's about three or four conferences out of the 28 that sponsor football that have a conference transfer rule.

[emma17]

The arguments can just go round and round.  Their tuition is cheaper.  But Mount can bring in 100 kids every year.  But UWW has a huge enrollment.  But Mount has twice as much talent in the HS programs of their home state.  But UWW doesn't have a slew of D2 schools to compete with in WI.  It could go on forever.  Suffice to say both programs have advantages the other would enjoy.

Agreed.  Dr. Acula gets it, and the argument should probably end here, the only reason it's even going on is that we have a relative newbie to the boards who hasn't slogged through this before.

The only thing I wish to throw into this argument is another vote for the "enrollment doesn't matter in college sports" argument. It doesn't matter because, as stated, you're not recruiting from the general student population, and the relative "size" of a sports program is defined far more by the program's success and the school's emphasis on the sport than total campus enrollment.  The University of Central Florida is the second-largest college in the nation by enrollment; Florida International University is the seventh-largest.  Why, then, are Florida State, Florida, and Miami the biggest football powers in that state?  Arizona State is the biggest college in the nation; the Sun Devils haven't won a conference title in recent memory, much less a national title. 

Another one of the points Dr. Acula made here, the lack of D2 competition for recruits in Wisconsin, is much more germane to this discussion than total enrollment of the respective schools.  However, as Dr. Acula said, both programs have advantages.  Discussing them can provide interesting fodder, but that's all it is. 

I read a neat little item in a book about Yale-Harvard football once comparing some of the Ivies' football recruiting practices to one another.  One of the Ivy schools - I think it's Penn - has somewhat lower admission standards ("lower" being a relative term, we're talking about the Ivy League here) than Yale and Harvard, but when offered that as a potential excuse, the Yale/Harvard coaches declined to bite, saying that the academic draw of Yale and Harvard meant that while Penn might be able to admit some kids that they couldn't, they would get some kids over Penn because of their academic reputation, so in the end it was kind of a wash.

Arguing about Mount and UWW's tuition and academics would be more relevant if they were recruiting from the same pool and in direct competition for a lot of recruits, but my guess is that, for the most part, they aren't in direct competition for most of their recruits.  There probably aren't many kids weighing Mount vs. UWW and deciding to go to one for the cheaper tuition, or the other for Reason X.

Nope - but there are D2/D3 level kids weighing Mounts high tuition against much less expensive tuition at publics in Ohio (similar to UWW costs) or limited educational programs at Ohio's private D2's,  or having to opt out of playing football in order to afford to go to a college that has a major they desire..... and that's a reality.

And that reality has existed for a long time-probably the entire length of Mt's incredible run of championship appearances. So what's your ultimate point?  Mt has historically and in dramatic fashion overcome whatever recruiting challenges they faced and still prevailed.
What gives?
IMO it's simple.
1.  Mt, just like UWW, has an Administration committed to athletic success.
2.  Mt was fortunate to have a great coach and staff combined w a supportive Admin that ultimately came together w talented kids at the beginning of their run- just as with UWW most recently.
3.  Success breeds success. Great high school players are attracted to success and the challenge of being the best. Those D2 schools in Ohio may offer scholarships, but they don't offer the same potential of the title National Champion.
4.  When top athletes show interest in attending a Mt or UWW (despite offers or opportunities at other schools) both schools have the means to provide financial and/or academic assistance to some degree to make it happen.

IMO it's about as simple as that.
 

[TailGate]

Agree that 1,2, & 3 gave Mount the distinct edge in the past.  But, those advantages have been minimized (neutralized) with other schools stepping up.  Will never believe that tuition costs are a non-factor in the equation.  Why do kids go to "weak" D1 schools.... because they are FREE.  Why do they go to shoddy D2 schools?  Because, for most families.... Money matters.  ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL (talking current times), Mount is at a disadvantage like never before.....

[ExTartanPlayer]

Agree that 1,2, & 3 gave Mount the distinct edge in the past.  But, those advantages have been minimized (neutralized) with other schools stepping up.  Will never believe that tuition costs are a non-factor in the equation.  Why do kids go to "weak" D1 schools.... because they are FREE.  Why do they go to shoddy D2 schools?  Because, for most families.... Money matters.  ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL (talking current times), Mount is at a disadvantage like never before.....

You've gotten more and more dramatic as this discussion continues; it's getting kind of entertaining by now.  With some of these your "drop the mic" finishes to your posts like "...and that's a reality...." to "Mount is at a disadvantage like never before....." you'd think we were talking about something really serious here. 

Division III has a wide variety of schools: private, public, cheap, expensive, academically selective, not-so-selective, etc.  OK, we get it, public schools are cheaper than private schools; but they don't always come with the academic draw of some private schools (I'm not putting down public schools here, just stating a fact).  Thus, some kids may lean one way because of the affordability factor of a public school, while some kids will lean the other way for the academic prestige of a private school.  If Mount loses a few kids to "shoddy D2 schools" because of the cheaper tuition that public schools offer, presumably Mount also beats those shoddy D2 schools for some recruits that have the money and decide they prefer Mount to a "shoddy D2" for an academic program that Mount offers (if this weren't the case, why would anyone ever go to a private school?) or for the football program itself.  This stuff works both ways, as I tried to illustrate with my Ivy League example.  For another out-of-division parallel, consider Stanford and Alabama.  Stanford has more rigid academic standards (even for football players), so one can argue that they're at a disadvantage because they can't even recruit some kids who Alabama is free to bring in.  However, Stanford's academics work as a draw for them with D1 prospects who also seek an academically demanding school, so they will land a few kids thanks to that.

Back to Division III: my alma mater, Carnegie Mellon, is not winning a national title any time soon, but it's a middle-of-the-pack D3 team.  Let's go back to 2004 and pretend I was a much better football player than I actually was, and pretend that Mount Union had recruited me hard.  Would I have gone there?  Probably not; I was looking at schools with a different profile.  Tuition matters, yes, but that is hardly the only piece of the puzzle here.

[WarhawkDad]

The arguments can just go round and round.  Their tuition is cheaper.  But Mount can bring in 100 kids every year.  But UWW has a huge enrollment.  But Mount has twice as much talent in the HS programs of their home state.  But UWW doesn't have a slew of D2 schools to compete with in WI.  It could go on forever.  Suffice to say both programs have advantages the other would enjoy.

Agreed.  Dr. Acula gets it, and the argument should probably end here, the only reason it's even going on is that we have a relative newbie to the boards who hasn't slogged through this before.

The only thing I wish to throw into this argument is another vote for the "enrollment doesn't matter in college sports" argument. It doesn't matter because, as stated, you're not recruiting from the general student population, and the relative "size" of a sports program is defined far more by the program's success and the school's emphasis on the sport than total campus enrollment.  The University of Central Florida is the second-largest college in the nation by enrollment; Florida International University is the seventh-largest.  Why, then, are Florida State, Florida, and Miami the biggest football powers in that state?  Arizona State is the biggest college in the nation; the Sun Devils haven't won a conference title in recent memory, much less a national title. 

Another one of the points Dr. Acula made here, the lack of D2 competition for recruits in Wisconsin, is much more germane to this discussion than total enrollment of the respective schools.  However, as Dr. Acula said, both programs have advantages.  Discussing them can provide interesting fodder, but that's all it is. 

I read a neat little item in a book about Yale-Harvard football once comparing some of the Ivies' football recruiting practices to one another.  One of the Ivy schools - I think it's Penn - has somewhat lower admission standards ("lower" being a relative term, we're talking about the Ivy League here) than Yale and Harvard, but when offered that as a potential excuse, the Yale/Harvard coaches declined to bite, saying that the academic draw of Yale and Harvard meant that while Penn might be able to admit some kids that they couldn't, they would get some kids over Penn because of their academic reputation, so in the end it was kind of a wash.

Arguing about Mount and UWW's tuition and academics would be more relevant if they were recruiting from the same pool and in direct competition for a lot of recruits, but my guess is that, for the most part, they aren't in direct competition for most of their recruits.  There probably aren't many kids weighing Mount vs. UWW and deciding to go to one for the cheaper tuition, or the other for Reason X.

Nope - but there are D2/D3 level kids weighing Mounts high tuition against much less expensive tuition at publics in Ohio (similar to UWW costs) or limited educational programs at Ohio's private D2's,  or having to opt out of playing football in order to afford to go to a college that has a major they desire..... and that's a reality.

And if Mount wanted to use some of that $129,000,000 endowment they can provide a merit scholarship and make the financial issue less important.   Really, get over it.   

People want to play for a winner and both Mount Union and UWW have benefitted from that.    The biggest advantages that UWW has had in recruiting is coaching, facilities and being situated between Madison, Milwaukee and Suburban Chicago.  Until a couple years ago, the UWW facilities were/are significantly better that other D3 schools in Wisconsin and Illinois.   North Central has made a tremendous push in the last 3-5 years and now has great facilities and a couple WIAC schools have stepped up as well.

WarhawkDad

[bleedpurple]

The arguments can just go round and round.  Their tuition is cheaper.  But Mount can bring in 100 kids every year.  But UWW has a huge enrollment.  But Mount has twice as much talent in the HS programs of their home state.  But UWW doesn't have a slew of D2 schools to compete with in WI.  It could go on forever.  Suffice to say both programs have advantages the other would enjoy.

+K
Round and round and round we go.  And the bottom line is none of it matters. Life isn't fair.  Neither Mount Union nor Whitewater ever won a championship because of some "advantage". Champions could care less about advantages.  If some programs feel like they can't compete because of another school's "advantages", they most certainly won't!

[02 Warhawk]

Agree that 1,2, & 3 gave Mount the distinct edge in the past.  But, those advantages have been minimized (neutralized) with other schools stepping up.  Will never believe that tuition costs are a non-factor in the equation.  Why do kids go to "weak" D1 schools.... because they are FREE.  Why do they go to shoddy D2 schools?  Because, for most families.... Money matters.  ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL (talking current times), Mount is at a disadvantage like never before.....

Going to the Stagg Bowl 13 of the past 14 years...yea, the D3 world really feels Mount's pain 

Please......

[footballfan413]

Round and Round indeed.  So often that I am now cutting and pasting my previous responses.   

My post from another board in January when AGAIN, public school advantages of cost and academic standards were given as the reason why UWW blew up Mount in the Stagg.   

"I have actually had the experience of having a son, who was recruited by both private and public schools, mostly in IL., so I will speak to these points.  I don't deny either point but, in my experience, both had very little effect on my son's choice because those differences were very minimal.  For example, as to standards, he was recruited, applied and accepted to a good number of CCIW schools and there was only one, that he was not accepted to. So, while it can happen that a private school is unable to get a player they may want because of academic standards, our experience is just a snap shot, but it does indicate that this happens less than many, who push the public school advantage argument, would like to acknowledge.

  As to the cost point, again based on our experiences,  he was given so much, "academic,"  money (nothing to do with, "need," or "academics"  ) that in most cases, the cost of choosing one of those private schools over the cost of paying in-state tuition to an Illinois school, would have only been a few thousand more a year and in one school's offer, the cost would have actually been less.  So again, while it can happen that a private school is unable to get a player they may want because of tuition costs, our experience is just a snap shot, but it does indicate to me that this happens less than many, who push the public school advantage argument, would like to acknowledge.

   There are legitimate arguments, on both sides, no doubt, in this never ending debate regarding which type of school has more advantages but, in my experience, the advantages attributed to public schools is fairly minimal and neither played into my son's final choice as to where he decided to go.  I became a part of the program in 03 and have had a front row seat to watch Whitewater's rise to the top and so I have a huge problem with those that use this argument to minimize what UWW has accomplished, implying that it was because we are just a large, cheap, public school with low academic standards.  It was, much more, the result of a decade of hard work by some very talented players, staff and A.D., boosters and top administration, who set a goal, and went on record with that goal, to win a national championship back in the early 2000's, and then achieved that goal, far beyond what many of us could have imagined.  I could never have predicted the, ultimate, success that the Warhawks have been able to achieve but I do know how it happened and it was NOT because we are a public school with built in advantages.     As _______ so eloquently pointed out, if it was that simple, every public school could do it."

   And once again, I will say, these, "advantages," were NEVER brought up before 2005 when, back then, we heard comments like, "no WIAC team will be playing football in December," instead, made by posters from several of the elite D-3 programs with, in some cases, multiple National Championships on their resumes!   

[jknezek]

When newbies join the boards, or when particularly stubborn people resurface, you have to go over it again. Unless you just shrug and leave them to their delusions. It's really hard to change most people's minds with logic when they truly BELIEVE something.

[02 Warhawk]

When newbies join the boards, or when particularly stubborn people resurface, you have to go over it again. Unless you just shrug and leave them to their delusions. It's really hard to change most people's minds with logic when they truly BELIEVE something.

Tailgate and PurpleSuit could benefit from some useful advice from their fellow Mount friends jknezek, Dr. Acula, HScoach...among others.