FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[ncc58]

Paul Plinske (UWW AD) said this in 2010:

When I came to Whitewater, we had very strong men's programs, but there had been two Title IX complaints and the chancellor wanted to solve this problem. At the time, our enrollment was about 52 percent female and the athletic opportunities were 44 percent female.

To start, the coaches of male teams agreed to reduce their roster numbers, and the female programs agreed to add junior varsity competition. We submitted a proposal to the chancellor and he decided to also provide some financial assistance to help with staffing and additional travel costs.

[02 Warhawk]

Paul Plinske (UWW AD) said this in 2010:

When I came to Whitewater, we had very strong men's programs, but there had been two Title IX complaints and the chancellor wanted to solve this problem. At the time, our enrollment was about 52 percent female and the athletic opportunities were 44 percent female.

To start, the coaches of male teams agreed to reduce their roster numbers, and the female programs agreed to add junior varsity competition. We submitted a proposal to the chancellor and he decided to also provide some financial assistance to help with staffing and additional travel costs.

Interesting, this sounds like a UWW issue rather than a WIAC issue. Maybe the WIAC as a whole was in a similar situation.

[Gregory Sager]

CCIW have any sort of roster limitations? Sorry if this was discussed already.

No, and as I posted about a half-hour ago, you'll never see the CCIW institute a roster limitation rule. CCIW schools need the tuition money, and they need the male bodies on campus as well to help offset the disproportionate female:male ratio that has become the norm at non-technical colleges and universities across the nation.

And carrying this one step further, not only do CCIW (and likely many other truly "small" small colleges/conferences) need the tuition money to both balance the budget, and also to often help balance the female:male ratio, another reason is that some schools have a policy of not cutting freshmen. Be it football, basketball, or another sport, freshman often make up a rather large percentage of a team's roster. Accordingly, if a school doesn't cut freshmen, this can certainly help account for a rather sizeable roster.

Good point, Mark. From the standpoint of the school, retention is absolutely crucial with regard to enrollment. In other words, it's vital not only to bring in new students, but to keep the students that you already have. Cut a freshman student-athlete from his or her sport before he or she ever gets a chance to play, and the odds are very high that the kid will transfer out. Cut a sophomore, or a junior, or a senior -- if you have to make cuts at all, and lots of schools would rather their coaches retain bloated rosters than cut players -- and the odds are better that he or she already has enough of an academic and emotional investment in the school that he or she won't transfer out.

I agree. Mount Union doesn't cut their freshman. I read over on their board they had 99 freshman "tryout" at camp this year.    None will get cut, but most will quit within a year. I think their total camp is over 180 athletes....that's a crazy amount.

Yep. Mount Union is another example of a tuition-driven D3 private that makes its bones every year by flooding the football program with fresh 18-year-old bodies. And I would hazard a guess that a freshman who quits the team is more likely to hang around and stay at that school than a freshman who is cut. They're both a lot more likely to transfer out, or to just drop out of college altogether, than a player who makes the team -- even if he's fifth or sixth on the depth chart at his position -- but a kid who quits probably didn't have the high emotional investment in that sport, and thus the ensuing sense of crushing disappointment and rejection (and probably resentment), of a kid who got cut.

[AndOne]

CCIW have any sort of roster limitations? Sorry if this was discussed already.

No, and as I posted about a half-hour ago, you'll never see the CCIW institute a roster limitation rule. CCIW schools need the tuition money, and they need the male bodies on campus as well to help offset the disproportionate female:male ratio that has become the norm at non-technical colleges and universities across the nation.

And carrying this one step further, not only do CCIW (and likely many other truly "small" small colleges/conferences) need the tuition money to both balance the budget, and also to often help balance the female:male ratio, another reason is that some schools have a policy of not cutting freshmen. Be it football, basketball, or another sport, freshman often make up a rather large percentage of a team's roster. Accordingly, if a school doesn't cut freshmen, this can certainly help account for a rather sizeable roster.

I agree. Mount Union doesn't cut their freshman. I read over on their board they had 99 freshman "tryout" at camp this year.    None will get cut, but most will quit within a year. I think their total camp is over 180 athletes....that's a crazy amount.

.
Maybe its an Ohio or OAC thing?  (Actually, many schools prob have pretty large rosters)
Long, long ago in a galaxy not so far away my dad QB'd and captained the Baldwin Wallace football team. Just for fun, I checked this year's BW roster which is now up on their site. Between returnees and newbies, they have a current roster of 188.     
How would you like to work with that? Do I hear large recruiting quota perhaps?

Also, with regard to a no cut of freshmen policy, I believe the prevailing theory is that the vast majority of the freshmen who not only never or rarely play, but never even rise above 5th or 6th string in football or #4 on the depth chart at their position in basketball, will, in effect, cut themselves, by not returning for their soph year or junior year at most. Thats when you see the majority of transfers to another school, although the majority probably stay at the same school. They drop the athlete portion of student-athlete. The school receives tuition income for 4 years, but the kid is out of the athletic picture after the 1st or 2nd, and sometimes even 3rd year.

*The potential for a school to have a student-athlete as a member of the institution's family for four years, whether they retain the athlete portion of the term or not, is often reflected in the financial "package" a school might offer a recruit. Many, if not most, schools will not offer a kid transferring in after one or two years at another school or schools, as much of a financial package as they would have gotten as an entering freshman. In the case of a transfer, the new school knows they will have him/her for only 2 or 3 years.
When someone enters as a freshman, there exists at least the potential for a full 4 year stream of tuition/fee income. The amount offered in an incoming student-athlete's $ "package" is usually reflective of the number of years of potential income stream to the institution.

[AndOne]

Ninety freshmen at Carthage has to be a record enrollment for any CCIW school!  Is overall enrollment at Carthage hurting and thus a push to get money tuition money by recruiting dozens of players who will never see varsity action?

I had hoped Oshayne Brown from Niles North HS (Skokie IL) would enroll at North Park.  Mr. Brown was the conference's 2011 offensive POY.  He led the conference in rushing (and finished first in the 100m sprint this spring).  He is very slipperly and regularly created long runs despite playing on an inferior team.  Given North Park's penchant for running the ball, I envisioned Mr. Brown starting as a freshman and having an immediate impact for the Vikings.  However, Mr. Brown ended up at North Central.  Having said this, what talent does NCC return at tailback?

Isn't NCC a pass-happy offense?  Perhaps Mr. Brown will convert to WR.  If so, what is NCC's returning talent pool at that position?

Manny Juarez returns after sitting out last year due to an injury. Also Bai Kabba is and Jeff Stolzenberg are back as well. The backfield returns everyone, but he could see action there. Not so sure on the rest of the receivers. Have to agree with you on bringing in so many freshmen. They tend to get discouraged and quit or transfer.

Not sure about Kabba returning this season. He is not listed on the roster.

I can now confirm that starting wide receiver Bai Kabba will not return to the NCC football team this season.
In late July he made the decision to use the remainder of the summer, and the fall term to rehab a slightly injured hamstring in order to be ready for the indoor and outdoor track seasons.
His speed and pass catching ability will be missed. Time for someone else from the Cardinals strong corps of receivers to emerge as  a primary deep ball threat.

[Gregory Sager]

*The potential for a school to have a student-athlete as a member of the institution's family for four years, whether they retain the athlete portion of the term or not, is often reflected in the financial "package" a school might offer a recruit. Many, if not most, schools will not offer a kid transferring in after one or two years at another school or schools, as much of a financial package as they would have gotten as an entering freshman. In the case of a transfer, the new school knows they will have him/her for only 2 or 3 years.
When someone enters as a freshman, there exists at least the potential for a full 4 year stream of tuition/fee income. The amount offered in an incoming student-athlete's $ "package" is usually reflective of the number of years of potential income stream to the institution.

Very true. It's one of the obstacles in trying to use transfers as a major component of an athletic program at a D3 private.

[NCF]

Ninety freshmen at Carthage has to be a record enrollment for any CCIW school!  Is overall enrollment at Carthage hurting and thus a push to get money tuition money by recruiting dozens of players who will never see varsity action?

I had hoped Oshayne Brown from Niles North HS (Skokie IL) would enroll at North Park.  Mr. Brown was the conference's 2011 offensive POY.  He led the conference in rushing (and finished first in the 100m sprint this spring).  He is very slipperly and regularly created long runs despite playing on an inferior team.  Given North Park's penchant for running the ball, I envisioned Mr. Brown starting as a freshman and having an immediate impact for the Vikings.  However, Mr. Brown ended up at North Central.  Having said this, what talent does NCC return at tailback?

Isn't NCC a pass-happy offense?  Perhaps Mr. Brown will convert to WR.  If so, what is NCC's returning talent pool at that position?

Manny Juarez returns after sitting out last year due to an injury. Also Bai Kabba is and Jeff Stolzenberg are back as well. The backfield returns everyone, but he could see action there. Not so sure on the rest of the receivers. Have to agree with you on bringing in so many freshmen. They tend to get discouraged and quit or transfer.

Not sure about Kabba returning this season. He is not listed on the roster.

I can now confirm that starting wide receiver Bai Kabba will not return to the NCC football team this season.
In late July he made the decision to use the remainder of the summer, and the fall term to rehab a slightly injured hamstring in order to be ready for the indoor and outdoor track seasons.
His speed and pass catching ability will be missed. Time for someone else from the Cardinals strong corps of receivers to emerge as  a primary deep ball threat.

JR has had hamstring injuries the past two track seasons, so hoping he can stay injury free this year. He is an amazing athlete.

[NCF]

CCIW have any sort of roster limitations? Sorry if this was discussed already.

No, and as I posted about a half-hour ago, you'll never see the CCIW institute a roster limitation rule. CCIW schools need the tuition money, and they need the male bodies on campus as well to help offset the disproportionate female:male ratio that has become the norm at non-technical colleges and universities across the nation.

And carrying this one step further, not only do CCIW (and likely many other truly "small" small colleges/conferences) need the tuition money to both balance the budget, and also to often help balance the female:male ratio, another reason is that some schools have a policy of not cutting freshmen. Be it football, basketball, or another sport, freshman often make up a rather large percentage of a team's roster. Accordingly, if a school doesn't cut freshmen, this can certainly help account for a rather sizeable roster.

Good point, Mark. From the standpoint of the school, retention is absolutely crucial with regard to enrollment. In other words, it's vital not only to bring in new students, but to keep the students that you already have. Cut a freshman student-athlete from his or her sport before he or she ever gets a chance to play, and the odds are very high that the kid will transfer out. Cut a sophomore, or a junior, or a senior -- if you have to make cuts at all, and lots of schools would rather their coaches retain bloated rosters than cut players -- and the odds are better that he or she already has enough of an academic and emotional investment in the school that he or she won't transfer out.

I agree. Mount Union doesn't cut their freshman. I read over on their board they had 99 freshman "tryout" at camp this year.    None will get cut, but most will quit within a year. I think their total camp is over 180 athletes....that's a crazy amount.

Yep. Mount Union is another example of a tuition-driven D3 private that makes its bones every year by flooding the football program with fresh 18-year-old bodies. And I would hazard a guess that a freshman who quits the team is more likely to hang around and stay at that school than a freshman who is cut. They're both a lot more likely to transfer out, or to just drop out of college altogether, than a player who makes the team -- even if he's fifth or sixth on the depth chart at his position -- but a kid who quits probably didn't have the high emotional investment in that sport, and thus the ensuing sense of crushing disappointment and rejection (and probably resentment), of a kid who got cut.

Retention of student-athletes would be higher without huge recruiting classe. If you want bodies for tuition that's fine, keep bringing those 80, 90+ newbies in. You'll get your tuition from them for maybe a year, maybe two and then they'll leave. IMHO you don't build a tradition with a revolving door of players.

[NCF]

CCIW have any sort of roster limitations? Sorry if this was discussed already.

No, and as I posted about a half-hour ago, you'll never see the CCIW institute a roster limitation rule. CCIW schools need the tuition money, and they need the male bodies on campus as well to help offset the disproportionate female:male ratio that has become the norm at non-technical colleges and universities across the nation.

And carrying this one step further, not only do CCIW (and likely many other truly "small" small colleges/conferences) need the tuition money to both balance the budget, and also to often help balance the female:male ratio, another reason is that some schools have a policy of not cutting freshmen. Be it football, basketball, or another sport, freshman often make up a rather large percentage of a team's roster. Accordingly, if a school doesn't cut freshmen, this can certainly help account for a rather sizeable roster.

I agree. Mount Union doesn't cut their freshman. I read over on their board they had 99 freshman "tryout" at camp this year.    None will get cut, but most will quit within a year. I think their total camp is over 180 athletes....that's a crazy amount.

.
Maybe its an Ohio or OAC thing?  (Actually, many schools prob have pretty large rosters)
Long, long ago in a galaxy not so far away my dad QB'd and captained the Baldwin Wallace football team. Just for fun, I checked this year's BW roster which is now up on their site. Between returnees and newbies, they have a current roster of 188.     
How would you like to work with that? Do I hear large recruiting quota perhaps?

Also, with regard to a no cut of freshmen policy, I believe the prevailing theory is that the vast majority of the freshmen who not only never or rarely play, but never even rise above 5th or 6th string in football or #4 on the depth chart at their position in basketball, will, in effect, cut themselves, by not returning for their soph year or junior year at most. Thats when you see the majority of transfers to another school, although the majority probably stay at the same school. They drop the athlete portion of student-athlete. The school receives tuition income for 4 years, but the kid is out of the athletic picture after the 1st or 2nd, and sometimes even 3rd year.

*The potential for a school to have a student-athlete as a member of the institution's family for four years, whether they retain the athlete portion of the term or not, is often reflected in the financial "package" a school might offer a recruit. Many, if not most, schools will not offer a kid transferring in after one or two years at another school or schools, as much of a financial package as they would have gotten as an entering freshman. In the case of a transfer, the new school knows they will have him/her for only 2 or 3 years.
When someone enters as a freshman, there exists at least the potential for a full 4 year stream of tuition/fee income. The amount offered in an incoming student-athlete's $ "package" is usually reflective of the number of years of potential income stream to the institution.

I completely agree with this. The amount of the financial aid package is a HUGE consideration for a recruit at a small, private D3. If you're wanted the package will be very, very good and it helps if you are a good student. The problem is that as the cost of tuition increasethe amount of the financial aid package does not. I was told by a financial aid counselor that the package amount you receive as a freshman will stay the same for four years and the student(student's family) must pay the increase. If you apply for and receive any additional scholarships throughout your four years, other aid is reduced to the first year award amount. In other words, reel em in with a good package and hope that first year experience is good so they keep  coming back, no matter what they have to pay. From what I understand, this is a common practice.

[NCF]

Bluejay season preview is up...

http://www.elmhurstbluejays.com/news/2012/8/16/FB_0816125619.aspx

Borrowing a quote from Head Coach Tim Lester - “The key to moving up in this league is playing to your highest potential with sustained consistency. Having strong leadership and maturity will help bring out the consistency. In my four years here, we've moved from the lower half of the league standings to the top half of the league standings. I believe that we can continue to climb up in the standings. The question is how big of a step can we make?”

Couldn't agree more - looking forward to September 1st.

You and me both!! I am looking forward to reading Kick-off first, however!

[02 Warhawk]

Retention of student-athletes would be higher without huge recruiting classe. If you want bodies for tuition that's fine, keep bringing those 80, 90+ newbies in. You'll get your tuition from them for maybe a year, maybe two and then they'll leave. IMHO you don't build a tradition with a revolving door of players.

Some Mount Union fans would beg to differ.

[NCF]

Retention of student-athletes would be higher without huge recruiting classe. If you want bodies for tuition that's fine, keep bringing those 80, 90+ newbies in. You'll get your tuition from them for maybe a year, maybe two and then they'll leave. IMHO you don't build a tradition with a revolving door of players.

Some Mount Union fans would beg to differ.

02, that is their right to voice a different opinion. That's what makes these boards fun outlet to read and post!  If we all had the same opinion on every issue there would be no need for message boards:) The boards usually keep me out of trouble:)

[Gregory Sager]

Retention of student-athletes would be higher without huge recruiting classe.

The retention rate would be higher, but retention rate and raw retention numbers are completely different animals. If Team A brings in 100 freshmen football players, a la Mount Union, and loses 60 of them, then next year Team A's sophomore class has had a 40% retention rate and a raw retention number of 40 sophomores. If Team B brings in 40 freshmen football players, and loses five of them (which is more of a Wheatonesque roster formula), then next year Team B's sophomore class has had an 87% retention rate and a raw retention number of 35 sophomores. This will help Team B's school score better for their retention rate in the various annual college-shopping guides. But it is not an effective strategy if Team B's school is tuition-driven, because Team B's school has 50 fewer freshmen football players paying their tuition and room & board than Team A's school has, and next year Team B's school will have five fewer returning sophomores than Team A's school has.

If you want bodies for tuition that's fine, keep bringing those 80, 90+ newbies in. You'll get your tuition from them for maybe a year, maybe two and then they'll leave.

Some will, some won't. The college is banking on the possibility that the kids who aren't ever seeing the field, or who aren't even dressing for varsity games, will find other aspects of the school that appeal to them ... and, thus, that they'll either stick it out for four years of warming the bench, or they'll quit the team and become a mere student -- which is absolutely fine as far as the school is concerned, because that student's still paying tuition whether he's on the football team or not.

IMHO you don't build a tradition with a revolving door of players.

As 02 Warhawk said, Mount Union begs to differ with you.

[NCF]

Retention of student-athletes would be higher without huge recruiting classe.

The retention rate would be higher, but retention rate and raw retention numbers are completely different animals. If Team A brings in 100 freshmen football players, a la Mount Union, and loses 60 of them, then next year Team A's sophomore class has had a 40% retention rate and a raw retention number of 40 sophomores. If Team B brings in 40 freshmen football players, and loses five of them (which is more of a Wheatonesque roster formula), then next year Team B's sophomore class has had an 87% retention rate and a raw retention number of 35 sophomores. This will help Team B's school score better for their retention rate in the various annual college-shopping guides. But it is not an effective strategy if Team B's school is tuition-driven, because Team B's school has 50 fewer freshmen football players paying their tuition and room & board than Team A's school has, and next year Team B's school will have five fewer returning sophomores than Team A's school has.

If you want bodies for tuition that's fine, keep bringing those 80, 90+ newbies in. You'll get your tuition from them for maybe a year, maybe two and then they'll leave.

Some will, some won't. The college is banking on the possibility that the kids who aren't ever seeing the field, or who aren't even dressing for varsity games, will find other aspects of the school that appeal to them ... and, thus, that they'll either stick it out for four years of warming the bench, or they'll quit the team and become a mere student -- which is absolutely fine as far as the school is concerned, because that student's still paying tuition whether he's on the football team or not.

IMHO you don't build a tradition with a revolving door of players.

As 02 Warhawk said, Mount Union begs to differ with you.

GS-I now understand why you get the last word in-almost alway! You relentlessly beat an oppenent down with those novelesque(sp? may be off as im on my phone). I think our last posts "crossed in the mail" as I responded to 02. I'm raising the white flag on this issue, but I'll never change my viewpoint:) BTW, where you on the debate team in h.s. or college?

[Titan Q]

Sounds like IWU RB T.J. Stinde is healthy heading into the season.  Also, he now has 3 years of eligibility remaining after a medical redshirt - that's pretty big for the program.  I think Stinde has the ability to be a 1st Team All-CCIW player sooner than later.

Returning starting QB Rob Gallik is "80 to 85%" after off-season shoulder surgery.


http://wjbc.com/illinois-wesleyan-football-looks-to-overpower-foes-in-2012/