FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[badgerwarhawk]

The CCIW school that recruited my daughter gave her academic money and guaranteed it for five years.  They told us that was their standard practice.  She ended up transfering from the school after a year so the issue was mute.  Obviously this is just one school and I don't know about others.  But that was what the admissions people told us.

[ncc58]

There was an energetic discussion on these boards in August about greyshirting. Let's just say it does occur. I have talked to one parent of a UWW player whose son was greyshirted this year. I don't think UWW greyshirts 40 players, but a number in the 10ish range wouldn't surprise me.

Sounds about right.  That wouldn't surprise me either, especially where there are cases of education majors, (UWW has a national recognized education school,) when a player knows he's in for a 4 1/2 to 5 year haul anyway.  A fair amount of players are P.E. majors every year.

The Accounting program at UWW, which is one of the best in the country, is a 5 year program. Enough about academics though.  I've also been told about a local player who is greyshirting at an OAC school. Greyshirting occurs more than many of us realize.

[Sakman 1111]

A young man who are family was guardian played basketball at Elmhurst and received an academic package that was extended a half year enabling his graduation this December......4.5 years. I have another son who was a redshirt and played at Whitewater for the five years who didn't receive a dime.. Actually the Elmhurst student athlete turned out costing significantly less than the UWW student athlete in the long run.....Both were  excellent experiences......

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

RE:  Grayshirting

It probably happens more than any of us know as it isn't publicized and you wouldn't really know unless you were privy to the situation.  I know when I started school my Fr. year roommate had been out of HS for a year.  He took a year off and went on the outward bound program.  He wasn't ready to go to college and wanted to make sure he really wanted to go before committing to it.  For the record, I don't have a problem with it either way.

[maripp2002]

In regards to an earlier post I made which may have been confusing.

When talking about roster limits I mean for all teams. IE: Mount Union would be allowed 80 players total and Rockford would be allowed 80 players total. Those players all practice, all travel, etc. The, MUC could field two 70-80 man rosters, statement was meant to imply that there are 120 players for MUC that aren't likely to see the field this year or next, or maybe even the year after that. They wouldn't have a JV team, those 120 players would play at another college or not at all.

In that sense, the Oberlins and Rockfords could fill their rosters with players that aren't playing JV or third or fourth team at MUC, UWW, Wabash, Wheaton, Ithaca etc.

This helps with grayshirting because coaches now have to decided between recruiting an incoming freshman or keeping the old man around. This also helps promote student athletes so that colleges without graduate schools where kids almost have to (or should anyway) graduate in 4 years are doing so, can compete with 5 year programs and on campus masters degrees.


This also helps to keep those extra five weeks of practice from becoming "too much" when you figure every two year run to the Stagg bowl is another year of experience (10 full games worth of practice) for a player who is practicing but not playing or playing limited amounts. It would help even out the field, and really make sure everyone is on an even page from the start.

[wheels81]

I know someone who played at a D3 school.....

[NCF]

In regards to an earlier post I made which may have been confusing.

When talking about roster limits I mean for all teams. IE: Mount Union would be allowed 80 players total and Rockford would be allowed 80 players total. Those players all practice, all travel, etc. The, MUC could field two 70-80 man rosters, statement was meant to imply that there are 120 players for MUC that aren't likely to see the field this year or next, or maybe even the year after that. They wouldn't have a JV team, those 120 players would play at another college or not at all.

In that sense, the Oberlins and Rockfords could fill their rosters with players that aren't playing JV or third or fourth team at MUC, UWW, Wabash, Wheaton, Ithaca etc.

This helps with grayshirting because coaches now have to decided between recruiting an incoming freshman or keeping the old man around. This also helps promote student athletes so that colleges without graduate schools where kids almost have to (or should anyway) graduate in 4 years are doing so, can compete with 5 year programs and on campus masters degrees.


This also helps to keep those extra five weeks of practice from becoming "too much" when you figure every two year run to the Stagg bowl is another year of experience (10 full games worth of practice) for a player who is practicing but not playing or playing limited amounts. It would help even out the field, and really make sure everyone is on an even page from the start.

Five extra weeks is not "too much", especially for those players who come from strong high school programs that go deep into the play-offs every year. For my son this season was too short as his high school played for 13, 12 and 13 weeks during his soph-senior seasons. He can't wait for next season to start.

[maripp2002]

Not too much physically, "too much" with regards to advantage gained. If MUC and UWW make four straight runs to the Stagg Bowl those players will have played 6 regular seasons worth of football, compared to any team that didn't make a playoff (excluding the NESCAC) having just 4 or less, like the SCAC this year only had 9 games.

No need to greyshirt when you get two whole years worth of extra eligibilty just by being on one of the best teams. It is a system that allows winners to continue winning, and losers to be punished by not getting to practice more (sort of exactly opposite of what you need to be closer to equal). And if you figure that MUC has 200+ guys on their team (only so many can dress for the playoffs but ALL can practice) you start to see how that can become "unfair" with all that extra competition and time to learn the system. At least with a roster limit, you only have so many guys getting that extra two years worth of time and it won't be as big of an advantage.

[NCF]

Not too much physically, "too much" with regards to advantage gained. If MUC and UWW make four straight runs to the Stagg Bowl those players will have played 6 regular seasons worth of football, compared to any team that didn't make a playoff (excluding the NESCAC) having just 4 or less, like the SCAC this year only had 9 games.

No need to greyshirt when you get two whole years worth of extra eligibilty just by being on one of the best teams. It is a system that allows winners to continue winning, and losers to be punished by not getting to practice more (sort of exactly opposite of what you need to be closer to equal). And if you figure that MUC has 200+ guys on their team (only so many can dress for the playoffs but ALL can practice) you start to see how that can become "unfair" with all that extra competition and time to learn the system. At least with a roster limit, you only have so many guys getting that extra two years worth of time and it won't be as big of an advantage.

That makes sense, and would help eliminate the over recruiting of athletes that will spend most of their four years standing on the sidelines.

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

No one is forcing these players to go to these schools.  They are choosing to go to MUC, UWW, SJU, etc because they want a chance to be champions.  No one is guaranteed a starting job at MUC and if those players choose to go there and "work" for a chance to start, then better off for them.

Sounds like sour grapes.  If you can't beat them, let's make up rules to bring the others down to our level.  Might as well just give everyone a trophy just for participating.

[Goal Line Stand]

Not too much physically, "too much" with regards to advantage gained. If MUC and UWW make four straight runs to the Stagg Bowl those players will have played 6 regular seasons worth of football, compared to any team that didn't make a playoff (excluding the NESCAC) having just 4 or less, like the SCAC this year only had 9 games.

No need to greyshirt when you get two whole years worth of extra eligibilty just by being on one of the best teams. It is a system that allows winners to continue winning, and losers to be punished by not getting to practice more (sort of exactly opposite of what you need to be closer to equal). And if you figure that MUC has 200+ guys on their team (only so many can dress for the playoffs but ALL can practice) you start to see how that can become "unfair" with all that extra competition and time to learn the system. At least with a roster limit, you only have so many guys getting that extra two years worth of time and it won't be as big of an advantage.

I've got an idea, let's get rid of the D-3 play-off system and go to a BCS format with the games to be played one week after the final season game.   Then the best teams only get one more week of practice a year.  That will level the playing field.  
                                   

[maripp2002]

In my original post I did mention virtually everything you just criticized me for (CCIW 1325 halfway down). I am not saying that MUC or UWW has done anything but win with class, grace and often. I am not saying we should go to a BCS, I am not saying that winning doesn't have it's perks. All I am saying is that there is something not quite right with the system. I am not going to sit here and say MUC wouldn't have still won 10 national titles, that very well may have happened or they may have won more. I am not going to say UWW wouldn't have been as dominant either.

I understand football is a team sport. I understand no one is making players go to MUC, UWW, or St. Johns. But we could certainly STOP players from going there. It is a difficult thing to balance, I understand. Academics and athletics when put in true concordance is never an easy thing to juggle. I just think that we, as a division, could sure try. I just think sometimes D3 sports are like those ALLY bank commercials. If you really take a step back and ask yourself if everything is as even as it could be from the get go, the answer is unequivocally no. 

All other divisions of sports have roster limits and scholarship rules. IMHO, that is a good thing. It doesn't mean we still don't see dynasties but it gives others a chance to compete. IF I have to point to one thing, the NCAA divisions recently changed scholarship limits in D1 and D1AA and D2. Now, before that happened who saw App State beating Michigan? It is a trickle down effect. If Michigan has ten less players on their roster, and those players go play at WMU, and those ten at SIU, and those ten at Grand Valley etc.. It evens out the wealth of players. Hell, I wrote a frickin piece for this website about playing scout team, so I know what it's like to be on a team with more players than can reasonably see the field. I don't begrudge teams for winning, I just wonder if playoff teams and teams with rosters double and triple the size of some schools don't have a head start in the race . My alma-mater would be one of the teams losing 40-50 guys if D3 went to an 80 man roster. I still think it would be a good thing for D3 in general not because MUC and UWW wouldn't still win, but at least this way everyone starts at the same line. I mean in the NFL the roster limit 53 players. 53! MUC could field four of those.

With all of that said, I wish both MUC and UWW good luck in their games this weekend. I truly have the utmost respect for both schools, and wish them continued success.

[Gregory Sager]

Comparing D3 to the scholarship levels is comparing apples to oranges, maripp. At the D1 level, it's all about large schools with lots of money dispensing financial outlays in the form of football scholarships in order to compete at that level. At the D3 level, it's about receiving money from players in the form of tuition and room & board, not giving it to them. That's significant, because a sizeable number of D3 schools don't have huge D1-sized endowments and are what's known as tuition-driven schools (i.e., their budgets are dependent upon incoming tuition money rather than simply drawing down interest from endowment accounts). These are schools that need bodies in order to pay the bills, especially male bodies (given the growing imbalance of female:male ratios at most schools). Football provides a means to bring a lot of male bodies onto campus in order to help pay those bills. Hence, some schools view large football rosters as almost as much a function of admissions as of the football program itself.

I'm also not convinced that oversized rosters are some sort of secret weapon. If there was a direct correlation between biggest roster and on-the-field success, Carthage would be the 400-pound gorilla of the CCIW every year and Wheaton would annually be at or near the bottom.

I agree with kirasdad. This all sounds too much like sour grapes. And I really dislike the idea that roster limits can be used to dictate to kids which schools they can attend in order to play football and which schools they can't. Beat UWW and MUC by scoring more points than them on the gridiron, not by changing the rulebook.

[footballfan413]

In my original post I did mention virtually everything you just criticized me for (CCIW 1325 halfway down). I am not saying that MUC or UWW has done anything but win with class, grace and often. I am not saying we should go to a BCS, I am not saying that winning doesn't have it's perks. All I am saying is that there is something not quite right with the system. I am not going to sit here and say MUC wouldn't have still won 10 national titles, that very well may have happened or they may have won more. I am not going to say UWW wouldn't have been as dominant either.

I understand football is a team sport. I understand no one is making players go to MUC, UWW, or St. Johns. But we could certainly STOP players from going there. It is a difficult thing to balance, I understand. Academics and athletics when put in true concordance is never an easy thing to juggle. I just think that we, as a division, could sure try. I just think sometimes D3 sports are like those ALLY bank commercials. If you really take a step back and ask yourself if everything is as even as it could be from the get go, the answer is unequivocally no.  

All other divisions of sports have roster limits and scholarship rules. IMHO, that is a good thing. It doesn't mean we still don't see dynasties but it gives others a chance to compete. IF I have to point to one thing, the NCAA divisions recently changed scholarship limits in D1 and D1AA and D2. Now, before that happened who saw App State beating Michigan? It is a trickle down effect. If Michigan has ten less players on their roster, and those players go play at WMU, and those ten at SIU, and those ten at Grand Valley etc.. It ss many rosters that range evens out the wealth of players. Hell, I wrote a frickin piece for this website about  is taken away from a lot of playplaying scout team, so I know what it's like to be on a team with more players than can reasonably see the field. I don't begrudge teams for winning, I just wonder if it playoff teams and teams with rosters double and triple the size of some schools don't have a head start in the race . My alma-mater would be one of the teams losing 40-50 guys if D3 went to an 80 man roster. I still think it would be a good thing for D3 in general not because MUC and UWW wouldn't still win, but at least this way everyone starts at the same line. I mean in the NFL the roster limit 53 players. 53! MUC could field four of those.

With all of that said, I wish both MUC and UWW good luck in their games this weekend. I truly have the utmost respect for both schools, and wish them continued success.

Your entire premise seems to be that roster limits would level the playing field. How do you square this thinking with the fact that the two powerhouses that you are using as examples as having unfair advantages, MUC and UW-W are exact opposites.  MUC has none and has anywhere from 170-200 players every year and UW-W DOES have a roster limit of 100 players mandated by the WIAC?  How in the world have the Warhawks been able to compete the last 5 years being at such a disadvantage?     Considering that the vast majority of conferences in D-3 do not have roster limits and field over 100 players every year, by limiting the number to 70-80, all I see your plan doing is insuring that the opportunity to play football at the D-3 level is taken away from a lot of players!  

[maripp2002]

At Wabash my freshman year we started with 52 freshmen football players and ended up senior year with like 15. Nearly all of those original 52 guys graduated. In an ideal world a school draws students who go to a school for academics that just happens to have a football team.

With regards to roster limits, and WIAC vs. OAC, the idea is that all those players who aren't seeing the field are still seeing the practice field. In MUC who won 3 of 4 vs. UWW, it should be even more important. MUC has 70-80 guys more they can have practicing and learning the system, building depth, and getting extra experience.

As for taking away the chance to play football, I don't see it that way. If there are 20 guys who aren't playing at Wabash maybe they look at playing at Oberlin, or Kenyon, etc. Similar academic institutions tend to group themselves together anyway. If it doesn't work out, but Wabash is their ideal school it shouldn't matter (see above). Also, to clear up the idea of keeping kids from going to MUC or St. Johns, I just meant, if football is something they really want to do and there is an 80 many roster limit, they will find a school to fit that as part of their need. Because saying you went to a college to play football first is a lot like saying athletics is more important than academics. I went to school to get a degree in Latin, football was just icing on the cake.

Football wise, how does D1 punish teams? They take away scholarships i.e. players. It is a huge part of why SMU sucked for a long time. And it is a great part of why Alabama struggled, and other programs as well. IF you have a pool of 200 players or a pool of 50 that matters. 

I am, however, willing to accept other opinions and proposals on this. I agree that shcolarship limits may not be the answer, but there has to be something. In the NFL they understood that if you wanted parity it meant concessions. At the very least, I think that any team with a losing record could use the 5 extra weeks of practice time. I also agree, beating UWW or MUC on the field is the key, we just haven't seen a lot of that in these last few years, and I wonder how many schools in D3 have the ability to do that on a regular basis ? And, for the record, I didn't start this whole thing. Roster limits were just my idea for closing the gap between the 4 or 5 elite teams and everyone else.

I  don't and probably never will think that d3 is as fair as we could make it. I am still a fan, I still respect every player that sets foot out there, I still enjoy watching games including MUC and UWW. And I accept and embrace things as we have them. I never made an excuse for Wabash. When we lost we lost to better teams. I accpet that. We don't play tee-ball, you accept the losses with the wins. I just didn't always feel like playing a 30 man Oberlin team or a 50 man Earlham squad when we had more o-linemen than that was always the most sporting. You make your bed you lay in it. So to UWW and MUC keep winning, just keep doing it. Let us hate and complain, but until you lose you're doing it right.