FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[CardinalAlum]

CA, Norm doesn't run the school (maybe Dennie Bridges does , but IWU has been and I think will always be primarily a bball school); a RB w/ an ACT of 20 is NOT getting in.   (FYI, TQ, the average ACT is now 29.  Average SAT (traditional math/reading) is now 1278.)

It is not elitism but a simple fact: you have FB players (I assume, based on your averages) who could not have been admitted to IWU.  This is NOT a put-down: different schools serve different needs.  A school is not 'better' because it admits 'better' students; a school is better if their students leave better than they otherwise would have.  I am a fan of schools everywhere from Harvard to 'we'll take you if you have a pulse' IF they make the student a better, more educated person.

I think my SAT was 29!   

Nice line, but back when you took the SAT you got 400 just for signing your name!

Nope, I spelled my name wrong.  The crayon broke and made my letters unreadable!

[izzy stradlin]

Oh brother. Here we go again. I just love the implication of the highlighted bullet point. The "ability" to get kids admitted. Wow!
Very classy. However, I shouldn't be surprised as the "we're superior" attitude has been a long played theme emanating from Bloomington and its emissaries. Yep, its impossible to be a good athlete and also have some smarts if you go to NCC.

I didn't say it's "impossible to be a good athlete and also have some smarts if you go to NCC" -- I said nothing close to that.

The simple fact is the average ACT at North Central is 25, at Illinois Wesleyan it's 28, and at Wheaton 30.  In terms of getting football players admitted, that's an advantage for NCC (one recruiting advantage among many - in addition to the NCC football program being better than everyone else's, the facilities, etc).  That's all I said.

Q is absolutely correct when it comes to football recruiting.  Look at programs like WashU, Amherst and Williams.  They compete on a national level in all sports but football.  It is extremely hard to have the academic standards of those schools and get 100 good football players admitted. 

Top schools don't bend as much as people might think to admit athletes.  I have a good friend who is a head coach at a good UAA school and they can't get the admissions committee to look at a kid with an ACT under 30-- not even a discussion.  IWU is not quite on the level of the UAA/Amherst/Williams type schools of the world but they are closer than North Central. 

As Titan Q said, North Central is the school in our conference best set up to have a powerhouse program (similar profile to Mount Union, UW-wherever, St. Thomas, etc).  I am hoping they make a run to the Stagg.     

[Mr. Ypsi]

CA, Norm doesn't run the school (maybe Dennie Bridges does , but IWU has been and I think will always be primarily a bball school); a RB w/ an ACT of 20 is NOT getting in.   (FYI, TQ, the average ACT is now 29.  Average SAT (traditional math/reading) is now 1278.)

It is not elitism but a simple fact: you have FB players (I assume, based on your averages) who could not have been admitted to IWU.  This is NOT a put-down: different schools serve different needs.  A school is not 'better' because it admits 'better' students; a school is better if their students leave better than they otherwise would have.  I am a fan of schools everywhere from Harvard to 'we'll take you if you have a pulse' IF they make the student a better, more educated person.

I think my SAT was 29!   

Nice line, but back when you took the SAT you got 400 just for signing your name!

Nope, I spelled my name wrong.  The crayon broke and made my letters unreadable!

Then how did they track you down to say you got a 29?!

I'm super-proud of IWU because I went to grad school at U of Michigan.  My fellow grad students tended to be from Ivy-League schools, Stanford, Amherst, etc.  After about three weeks I went from uh-oh, what have I gotten myself into, to 'OMG, I'm better prepared for most of these courses than they are'!  THAT is the mark of a good school, not the entering average GPAs or SATs.

I have no idea how NCC ranks in that regard, but it is a simple FACT that you can admit fball players that would not get into IWU.  That's not elitism, just a statement of fact (and different missions?).

[Gregory Sager]

NPU's win over Millikin may not have merited a story in the Decatur Herald-Review -- despite the rather insulting pregame article in that paper to which oldnuthin linked -- but it did get mentioned in this USA Today piece.

Also, congrats to NPU's Noah Moore on being named CCIW Special Teams Player of the Week for his game-winning field goal on Saturday.

Greg, traditionally the H&R does not due articles on the football team after a loss.

No excuse for that. That's just plain bad journalism. I'm not terribly impressed by the Bloomington Pantagraph, but at least it covers the games when Illinois Wesleyan loses. That's not simply journalistic objectivity, that's accepting the basic responsibility of reporting upon a topic relevant to the paper's readership. Shame on the Decatur Herald-Review.

I did not find the aricleto be insulting,but I am on the other side, and the author's son played at Millikin and graduated last year if I remember correctly.

I understand the whole "North Park hasn't beaten ____ College since 19__" angle, since I use it myself on the air. Again, it's Journalism 101 to cite basic facts relevant to the topic at hand. But the author really laid it on thick, to the point where it seemed to take him about four or five paragraphs just to get around to talking about the 2013 NPU football team. Now that I know that the author's kid played football for MU, his approach makes a little more sense.

As for the game Saturday, I was very impressed with the heart and determination of the Vikings. Even though TD Conway thru 4 picks,

Three picks, not four. Let's not make a tough day for T.D. worse.

his toughness was present on every play. I saw him take some hits that would have left a lesser player on the turf, and needing to be carried off.

Yep, T.D. certainly is a tough kid. He's taken a pounding in several CCIW games this season. I would imagine that it would be hard to be Mike Conway's son and decide to be a football player if you weren't tough, though.

Your RB Jones, how tall is he? He was a ton of fun to watch. I hope Magwood is ok, another tough runner.

D.J. Jones is listed at 5'2, 155. The radio color guy for Millikin cited his height and weight numbers and said, "I'll bet that they're lies."  He is certainly the smallest player I've ever seen in a North Park uniform, and maybe the smallest player that I've ever seen in a college football uniform, period. Standing next to the 6'4, 220 T.D. Conway in the North Park backfield, they look like the ultimate football Mutt & Jeff.  But D.J. nevertheless broke out of a pile at the five-yard line and carried several Millikin defenders into the end zone with him. The MU radio guys, who are usually pretty unabashed homers, were absolutely astonished by that. Frankly, I was, too. I've never seen anything like that before, and I've watched a lot of football in my day. I've become a huge D.J. Jones fan.

I'm not sure about Magwood's condition. He was on crutches at the end of Saturday's game with his ankle and foot wrapped up. I certainly hope that he'll be available and ready for Wheaton on Saturday, because NPU's gonna need all the help it can get against the Orangies.

No excuses for Millikin, but to be inside the 10 and only score 3 points was disconcerting to say the least. Congrats on the win, and in my post before the game I hoped for a good show. It was that and more.

It certainly was a highly entertaining game, if not a notably well-played one. Millikin's second-half comeback showed a lot of moxie on the part of the Big Blue. I empathize with your pain regarding MU's numerous missed opportunities. A lot of that had to do with a much-maligned NPU defense bucking up and standing tall in key third- and fourth-down situations, as well as their being opportunistic when it came to creating turnovers. But the other side of it is that the Big Blue are simply a very young team, and, like most young teams, they find ways to repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot. If Patrick Etherton can hold that young roster together over the next couple of years -- a mighty big "if" -- MU could really have something there. They already have a stud RB around whom they can build next season -- Stunning Sean Dunning is the real deal by anybody's standards.

[Stagg Again!!]

To call Wheaton's recruiting dynamic "a tremendous advantage" is some serious irrational exuberance. That's simply not the case.

Agree -- I don't see Wheaton having an inherent advantage in recruiting.  And I don't think kids "recruit themselves" to Wheaton.

As far as I can see, no school has a bigger recruiting advantage in CCIW football today than North Central in terms of:

* Program strength
* Facilities
* Location
* Total cost relative to other top CCIW programs
* Ability to get kids admitted academically relative to other top CCIW programs

Of all the CCIW schools, I think NCC is set-up the best, by far, to land great football talent.

Oh brother. Here we go again. I just love the implication of the highlighted bullet point. The "ability" to get kids admitted. Wow!
Very classy. However, I shouldn't be surprised as the "we're superior" attitude has been a long played theme emanating from Bloomington and its emissaries. Yep, its impossible to be a good athlete and also have some smarts if you go to NCC.

It's like I said last week when I went with IWU70's prediction------I had to go with a Weenie's prediction because we all know that they are just a little bit smarter than the rest of us.

But, more to the point----when I was at NC in the 80s getting pounded, was that a result of the high academic standards that we had relative to our CCIW opponents at that time.     All of the sudden, I feel real smart! And, I am glad that those standards declined when Thorne arrived so we can win all of these games. 

Kovo, I know for a fact that there were a few smart people at North Central in the 1980s.   .

Ypsi, FYI, there have been a few NCC grads who have gone onto high quality graduate and law schools and done quite well.  IWU is certainly a good school, but has not cornered the market on high caliber students.

[Kovo]

To call Wheaton's recruiting dynamic "a tremendous advantage" is some serious irrational exuberance. That's simply not the case.

Agree -- I don't see Wheaton having an inherent advantage in recruiting.  And I don't think kids "recruit themselves" to Wheaton.

As far as I can see, no school has a bigger recruiting advantage in CCIW football today than North Central in terms of:

* Program strength
* Facilities
* Location
* Total cost relative to other top CCIW programs
* Ability to get kids admitted academically relative to other top CCIW programs

Of all the CCIW schools, I think NCC is set-up the best, by far, to land great football talent.

Oh brother. Here we go again. I just love the implication of the highlighted bullet point. The "ability" to get kids admitted. Wow!
Very classy. However, I shouldn't be surprised as the "we're superior" attitude has been a long played theme emanating from Bloomington and its emissaries. Yep, its impossible to be a good athlete and also have some smarts if you go to NCC.

It's like I said last week when I went with IWU70's prediction------I had to go with a Weenie's prediction because we all know that they are just a little bit smarter than the rest of us.

But, more to the point----when I was at NC in the 80s getting pounded, was that a result of the high academic standards that we had relative to our CCIW opponents at that time.     All of the sudden, I feel real smart! And, I am glad that those standards declined when Thorne arrived so we can win all of these games. 

Kovo, I know for a fact that there were a few smart people at North Central in the 1980s.   

Sure, but I have to take you out of the mix since you have a Master's Degree with Honors from the University of Chicago----so you aren't really an NC grad-----heck you are almost an honorary Titan!!

[Mr. Ypsi]

To call Wheaton's recruiting dynamic "a tremendous advantage" is some serious irrational exuberance. That's simply not the case.

Agree -- I don't see Wheaton having an inherent advantage in recruiting.  And I don't think kids "recruit themselves" to Wheaton.

As far as I can see, no school has a bigger recruiting advantage in CCIW football today than North Central in terms of:

* Program strength
* Facilities
* Location
* Total cost relative to other top CCIW programs
* Ability to get kids admitted academically relative to other top CCIW programs

Of all the CCIW schools, I think NCC is set-up the best, by far, to land great football talent.

Oh brother. Here we go again. I just love the implication of the highlighted bullet point. The "ability" to get kids admitted. Wow!
Very classy. However, I shouldn't be surprised as the "we're superior" attitude has been a long played theme emanating from Bloomington and its emissaries. Yep, its impossible to be a good athlete and also have some smarts if you go to NCC.

It's like I said last week when I went with IWU70's prediction------I had to go with a Weenie's prediction because we all know that they are just a little bit smarter than the rest of us.

But, more to the point----when I was at NC in the 80s getting pounded, was that a result of the high academic standards that we had relative to our CCIW opponents at that time.     All of the sudden, I feel real smart! And, I am glad that those standards declined when Thorne arrived so we can win all of these games. 

Kovo, I know for a fact that there were a few smart people at North Central in the 1980s.   .

Ypsi, FYI, there have been a few NCC grads who have gone onto high quality graduate and law schools and done quite well.  IWU is certainly a good school, but has not cornered the market on high caliber students.

Never said they had.

Just expressing how I discovered they were better than I had assumed they were (as some minor school in the middle of nowhere that none of my fellow grad students had ever heard of).

I doubt there are ANY bad schools in the CCIW.  And the best schools, IMO, are not properly measured by entering test scores, but by whether graduates are better than they would have been elsewhere.  If NCC is one of them (and I have no reason to doubt it), bully on them.

My point was simply (and it is FACT, not opinion) that NCC can get football players admitted that IWU and Wheaton cannot.  NOT a knock on NCC; if they make them better people and better educated than they otherwise would be, bully on them!

[Gregory Sager]

I think that His Ypsiness is being more than fair to NCC here. Moreover, Chuck also keeps making a very good point that it's not so much about who gets into your school -- it's more about the finished product that comes out after graduation.

This whole conversation reminds me of a New Year's Eve party I attended back home in suburban Syracuse a year after I had finished up at North Park, a party which consisted of about a dozen or so of my high-school friends and I. I was talking to our class valedictorian, whom I hadn't seen since our graduation day. Being valedictorian of my high-school class was a pretty big deal, since there were 986 of us in our class, and he had deservedly gone on to Harvard on a full scholarship.

He asked me if I felt I had received a good education at North Park (a school about which neither he nor any of my high-school friends really knew anything). I said, "Yeah, but probably not nearly as good as the one that you got at Harvard."

He replied, "I'll bet you're wrong. North Park is basically a small liberal arts college, right?"

"Yeah."

"Well, how many of your classes were taught by professors rather than by adjuncts or grad students?"

"All of them," I replied.

He said,"I didn't have a class that was taught by a professor until I was a junior. How many of your professors knew you by name?"

"All of them," I replied.

"And did you socialize with any of them? Would they have known anything about you other than your name and the course of theirs in which they had you?"

"Yeah, I socialized with several of them. In fact, a few of them had me over to their houses for dinner. I'd say that most of them knew me pretty well."

"The only prof at Harvard who knew my name was my advisor, and he didn't have any time for me or for any other undergrad in terms of a social setting. The idea of going out for coffee or a beer with a prof and talking about the great subjects of the world, or even just about the Red Sox, just didn't exist. What sort of extracurricular stuff did you do at North Park?"

"Well, I was editor of the school paper. I wrote for it for three years. I also contributed to the literary magazine, wrote two Homecoming plays and the school's 90th anniversary play, acted in four different productions, served on the Student Senate, and a bunch of other stuff."

"At Harvard you would've been able to do one of those things -- tops. Time and competition would've kept you from participating in more of those things. And I'll bet that you learned as much, if not more, from those extracurricular activities than you did in the classroom in terms of learning about yourself and about how people think and interact and about group dynamics, right?"

"Yeah, that's a fair assessment," I replied.

"On balance," he said, "I'd say that you got a better education, in terms of really learning the things we all need to learn at our age, at that obscure little liberal arts school of yours than I did at Harvard. Of course," he added with a smile, "I wouldn't trade my Harvard education for the world. The contacts I've made there, and the fact that I have a diploma with the word 'Harvard' on it, opens things up for me in terms of my future. But it doesn't mean that I got a better education than you got."

And I thought to myself, "Crap. It's bad enough that he was a better student than I was in high school. Now he's wiser than me, too."

[USee]

To call Wheaton's recruiting dynamic "a tremendous advantage" is some serious irrational exuberance. That's simply not the case.

Agree -- I don't see Wheaton having an inherent advantage in recruiting.  And I don't think kids "recruit themselves" to Wheaton.

As far as I can see, no school has a bigger recruiting advantage in CCIW football today than North Central in terms of:

* Program strength
* Facilities
* Location
* Total cost relative to other top CCIW programs
* Ability to get kids admitted academically relative to other top CCIW programs

Of all the CCIW schools, I think NCC is set-up the best, by far, to land great football talent.

Oh brother. Here we go again. I just love the implication of the highlighted bullet point. The "ability" to get kids admitted. Wow!
Very classy. However, I shouldn't be surprised as the "we're superior" attitude has been a long played theme emanating from Bloomington and its emissaries. Yep, its impossible to be a good athlete and also have some smarts if you go to NCC.

It's like I said last week when I went with IWU70's prediction------I had to go with a Weenie's prediction because we all know that they are just a little bit smarter than the rest of us.

But, more to the point----when I was at NC in the 80s getting pounded, was that a result of the high academic standards that we had relative to our CCIW opponents at that time.     All of the sudden, I feel real smart! And, I am glad that those standards declined when Thorne arrived so we can win all of these games. 

Kovo, I know for a fact that there were a few smart people at North Central in the 1980s.   .

Ypsi, FYI, there have been a few NCC grads who have gone onto high quality graduate and law schools and done quite well.  IWU is certainly a good school, but has not cornered the market on high caliber students.

and there are a few CCIW grads that have gone onto grad school at NCC and done quite well.....hmmmmm, well at least one person I know has done that..........

[CardinalAlum]

To call Wheaton's recruiting dynamic "a tremendous advantage" is some serious irrational exuberance. That's simply not the case.

Agree -- I don't see Wheaton having an inherent advantage in recruiting.  And I don't think kids "recruit themselves" to Wheaton.

As far as I can see, no school has a bigger recruiting advantage in CCIW football today than North Central in terms of:

* Program strength
* Facilities
* Location
* Total cost relative to other top CCIW programs
* Ability to get kids admitted academically relative to other top CCIW programs

Of all the CCIW schools, I think NCC is set-up the best, by far, to land great football talent.

Oh brother. Here we go again. I just love the implication of the highlighted bullet point. The "ability" to get kids admitted. Wow!
Very classy. However, I shouldn't be surprised as the "we're superior" attitude has been a long played theme emanating from Bloomington and its emissaries. Yep, its impossible to be a good athlete and also have some smarts if you go to NCC.

It's like I said last week when I went with IWU70's prediction------I had to go with a Weenie's prediction because we all know that they are just a little bit smarter than the rest of us.

But, more to the point----when I was at NC in the 80s getting pounded, was that a result of the high academic standards that we had relative to our CCIW opponents at that time.     All of the sudden, I feel real smart! And, I am glad that those standards declined when Thorne arrived so we can win all of these games. 

Kovo, I know for a fact that there were a few smart people at North Central in the 1980s.   .

Ypsi, FYI, there have been a few NCC grads who have gone onto high quality graduate and law schools and done quite well.  IWU is certainly a good school, but has not cornered the market on high caliber students.

and there are a few CCIW grads that have gone onto grad school at NCC and done quite well.....hmmmmm, well at least one person I know has done that..........

Hmmmm, yes, I think I know one of those also....

[AndOne]

CA, Norm doesn't run the school (maybe Dennie Bridges does , but IWU has been and I think will always be primarily a bball school); a RB w/ an ACT of 20 is NOT getting in.   (FYI, TQ, the average ACT is now 29.  Average SAT (traditional math/reading) is now 1278.)

It is not elitism but a simple fact: you have FB players (I assume, based on your averages) who could not have been admitted to IWU.  This is NOT a put-down: different schools serve different needs.  A school is not 'better' because it admits 'better' students; a school is better if their students leave better than they otherwise would have.  I am a fan of schools everywhere from Harvard to 'we'll take you if you have a pulse' IF they make the student a better, more educated person.

Mr.,

Please accept, in advance, my apology for nitpicking. However, I know you like to have your facts in order. 

From the IWU web site:

FACTS 2013-14

ENTERING CLASS PROFILE

Average composite SAT score   1210
Average composite ACT score      28

[Langhorst_Ghost]

Let's break this down. Apparently you have spoken to every coach in the league and they ALL agree that Wheaton has a "clear advantage" through physical size and athleticism? Can you quantify that? The way I see it is this:

Okay, Usee, you win - you are right, I did not call every coach in the league - I guess my insignificant perspective is of diminished value - I will try and Skype in Coach Conway next time or Tweet Coach Yeager before making such wild and exuberant claims   

Whether you value my perspective or not, the truth is, when you have spent a significant number of seasons both coaching and playing in this league - you talk to people about the league, about programs in this league - to coaches, to other players - and mine is not a bold or novel take.  And to be honest, I have no skin in this game, I don't care either way what size tank tops Wheaton dudes wear - i'm just sharing the generally accepted view of the league from beyond McCully Stadium

And for the love of Billy Graham, you can argue that point with me in as many posts as you prefer, but its not going to change the widely acknowledged league perception.

Look, i cannot offer you quantified, sorted and measured evidence from all corners of the conference, but i can offer you a quote from John Thorne in his "Redzone" interview last week: "Wheaton College gets a real special type of athlete...they are very intelligent guys that are a little bit bigger than most of the players in the rest of the conference, they have a great strength program, they get 'em really strong, and they always have more speed than others in the conference."

I think your assertion as to the athleticism and strength of Wheaton is a fallacy.  There are some physical specimens, but no more than the other top teams from my viewpoint.

Well, there are other viewpoints in the conference, and I am, in fact, offering mine from outside of the Thunder snow globe.  You want to cherry pick players vitals, crunch the numbers, and run some averages...be my guest, i'm all for a statistical scavenger hunt to underline a point...but your data is narrow. 

You highlight this past week's participants - i get that, it just happened, and understandably a bit frustrating i am sure - i am, however, talking about the program's overall personality over an extended number of years - on balance, and in most years, and in most games - not just Saturday's contest featuring a mixed bag of front-liners and second tier, depth chart cats.

You want to pluck averages, lets do this instead - let's look at last year's team for fun:

Starting receivers - Hiben 6'5", 210, Cook 6'3" 227, Thorson (TE) 6'6" 245...come on...these are dudes are D3 monsters - your standard issue 5'8" D3 corner has no chance.
Linebackers - Dansdill 6'2" 230, Vanheest 6'2" 225, Anderson 6'3" 230...studs.
Safeties - these guys were beasts...Vargyas 6'0" 212, and Cook 6'1" 205...two 6 foot plus and 200 pounds plus on the back end of the D?  Come on, at this level?  That's impressive.
And we know Dykstra's a load at 6'3" 308

Actually, on the football roster webpage, you click back through the past 6 or 7 seasons (if one were so inclined) and find similarly sized gentlemen featured throughout the years. 

Now, don't get me wrong - i would LOVE to have a handful of these dudes in the home locker room at Langhorst (heck - one would do), and i credit the program for attracting these young men and developing them - that's never been my point. My point still stands - with Swider rolling out regulars like these, year in, year out, it seems to me that we should be having these Crusader discussions in the National forum way more often.  Instead - the conversation has been loaded with excuses and inconsistencies.  Thunder have made some playoff runs, no doubt, and captured the Bell a fair share of late - but as a non-Wheatie, CCIW fan, i see missed opportunity.  Look, the sky's not falling on College Avenue, never even asserted that it was, but i do find it fair to question if the program is fulfilling its lofty potential...from my view, three Metra stops east, i would say that they have not been.

[Stagg Again!!]

I think that His Ypsiness is being more than fair to NCC here. Moreover, Chuck also keeps making a very good point that it's not so much about who gets into your school -- it's more about the finished product that comes out after graduation.

This whole conversation reminds me of a New Year's Eve party I attended back home in suburban Syracuse a year after I had finished up at North Park, a party which consisted of about a dozen or so of my high-school friends and I. I was talking to our class valedictorian, whom I hadn't seen since our graduation day. Being valedictorian of my high-school class was a pretty big deal, since there were 986 of us in our class, and he had deservedly gone on to Harvard on a full scholarship.

He asked me if I felt I had received a good education at North Park (a school about which neither he nor any of my high-school friends really knew anything). I said, "Yeah, but probably not nearly as good as the one that you got at Harvard."

He replied, "I'll bet you're wrong. North Park is basically a small liberal arts college, right?"

"Yeah."

"Well, how many of your classes were taught by professors rather than by adjuncts or grad students?"

"All of them," I replied.

He said,"I didn't have a class that was taught by a professor until I was a junior. How many of your professors knew you by name?"

"All of them," I replied.

"And did you socialize with any of them? Would they have known anything about you other than your name and the course of theirs in which they had you?"

"Yeah, I socialized with several of them. In fact, a few of them had me over to their houses for dinner. I'd say that most of them knew me pretty well."

"The only prof at Harvard who knew my name was my advisor, and he didn't have any time for me or for any other undergrad in terms of a social setting. The idea of going out for coffee or a beer with a prof and talking about the great subjects of the world, or even just about the Red Sox, just didn't exist. What sort of extracurricular stuff did you do at North Park?"

"Well, I was editor of the school paper. I wrote for it for three years. I also contributed to the literary magazine, wrote two Homecoming plays and the school's 90th anniversary play, acted in four different productions, served on the Student Senate, and a bunch of other stuff."

"At Harvard you would've been able to do one of those things -- tops. Time and competition would've kept you from participating in more of those things. And I'll bet that you learned as much, if not more, from those extracurricular activities than you did in the classroom in terms of learning about yourself and about how people think and interact and about group dynamics, right?"

"Yeah, that's a fair assessment," I replied.

"On balance," he said, "I'd say that you got a better education, in terms of really learning the things we all need to learn at our age, at that obscure little liberal arts school of yours than I did at Harvard. Of course," he added with a smile, "I wouldn't trade my Harvard education for the world. The contacts I've made there, and the fact that I have a diploma with the word 'Harvard' on it, opens things up for me in terms of my future. But it doesn't mean that I got a better education than you got."

And I thought to myself, "Crap. It's bad enough that he was a better student than I was in high school. Now he's wiser than me, too."

+k.  Your story reminds me of something my mother used to say.  "It's not always the opportunity you get, but what you do with it that counts."  It sounds like you made the most of yours Greg. 

What impresses me about the young men that I have met on the NCC football team over the past several years as much as anything is their character.  I don't know if the average ACT at one school or another is higher.  I just care that the young men and women that compete in all sports for North Central are representing themselves and the school in a positive way.  I think that the administration, professors, Jimmy Miller (the AD), and all of the coaches (including John Thorne) have done a wonderful job recruiting and guiding these student athletes down the right path.  I am sure the same can be said for the student athletes at WC and IWU (as well as many of the other DIII schools).

[Mr. Ypsi]

CA, Norm doesn't run the school (maybe Dennie Bridges does , but IWU has been and I think will always be primarily a bball school); a RB w/ an ACT of 20 is NOT getting in.   (FYI, TQ, the average ACT is now 29.  Average SAT (traditional math/reading) is now 1278.)

It is not elitism but a simple fact: you have FB players (I assume, based on your averages) who could not have been admitted to IWU.  This is NOT a put-down: different schools serve different needs.  A school is not 'better' because it admits 'better' students; a school is better if their students leave better than they otherwise would have.  I am a fan of schools everywhere from Harvard to 'we'll take you if you have a pulse' IF they make the student a better, more educated person.

Mr.,

Please accept, in advance, my apology for nitpicking. However, I know you like to have your facts in order. 

From the IWU web site:

FACTS 2013-14

ENTERING CLASS PROFILE

Average composite SAT score   1210
Average composite ACT score      28

My numbers came from elsewhere (and apparently 2012) - OMG, they are going downhill!

The rest of my post stands as is.  I'm not really concerned with entering stats - what do the grads look like?

With NO condescension intended whatsoever, the fact remains that NCC can admit players who would not be admitted to IWU (or Wheaton).  Not a slam, just an observation of fact.

[formerd3db]

Gentlemen, I have been following this entertaining discussion.  It is clear that everyone is passionate about their opinions and the inside information you all know and rightly so.  I don't pretend at all to know the inner workings of the administrations at any of your schools with regard to the athletics/academics issues.

That said, I wanted to add comment on one aspect, if I may, and that was the reference to Adrian with respect to "institutional accent on athletics".  For the record, Adrian's push to upgrade their athletic facilities and add significantly to their athletic programs offered (varsity men's and women's NCAA ice hockey as well as their two club-collegiate ACHA ice hockey teams and varsity men's and women's lacrosse and a new football stadium and baseball stadium) were not so much a main effort to improve their athletic programs (of course, that is part of the reason and an important one without question), but rather the main focus was unequivocally for improving enrollment at the college.  The latter had alarmingly and significantly fallen in the recent decade and adding those athletic programs was a good way to do it (although not all their fellow MIAA administrations saw it that way ).  Nonetheless, by going that route, they have achieved their long-range goal (so far) of achieving and maintaining the level of enrollment which they currently desire.  Of course, it also helped in the cost factor that they had some wealthy alumni donate for the construction of the facilities to help make this possible (on-campus ice rink paid for).

In comparison, schools like Hope and Calvin have not faced the problem of enrollment in the same sense that Adrian (and other of the MIAA schools have) as for the former, record enrollment applications have continued to pour in.  All of this, however, is not intended to overlook the problems faced in football recruiting as is being discussed.  Yet, upgrading facilities for that does not necessarily or usually correlate with more success of the program - it certainly helps bring in more numbers perhaps but doesn't guarantee more success on the field. We all know there are varied factors involved in this, unique to each school as has been discussed and also in previous discussions we've had here on this and other boards. But, that said, I just wanted to clarify that Adrian's particular situation, including their upgrade in their football facilities, was focused on improving the enrollment problem and, with regard to football, bringing back an on-campus stadium which had been discontinued some four decades before in an effort to improve attendance at games (which, unfortunately, it has not overly helped in that regard). 

Yes, I was already well aware of why Adrian decided to put the accent upon athletics in recent years. But the "why" part of it wasn't the point. I cited Adrian simply as an example of a midwestern D3 school that put a much higher proportion of its resources into athletics than does Wheaton. Same deal with Carthage as a point of comparison to Wheaton. And, yes, you're certainly correct in saying that upgrading facilities doesn't automatically translate into more wins. But it sure doesn't hurt, either.

To call Wheaton's recruiting dynamic "a tremendous advantage" is some serious irrational exuberance. That's simply not the case.

Agree -- I don't see Wheaton having an inherent advantage in recruiting.  And I don't think kids "recruit themselves" to Wheaton.

As far as I can see, no school has a bigger recruiting advantage in CCIW football today than North Central in terms of:

* Program strength
* Facilities
* Location
* Total cost relative to other top CCIW programs
* Ability to get kids admitted academically relative to other top CCIW programs

Of all the CCIW schools, I think NCC is set-up the best, by far, to land great football talent.

Oh brother. Here we go again. I just love the implication of the highlighted bullet point. The "ability" to get kids admitted. Wow!
Very classy. However, I shouldn't be surprised as the "we're superior" attitude has been a long played theme emanating from Bloomington and its emissaries. Yep, its impossible to be a good athlete and also have some smarts if you go to NCC.

It's like I said last week when I went with IWU70's prediction------I had to go with a Weenie's prediction because we all know that they are just a little bit smarter than the rest of us.

But, more to the point----when I was at NC in the 80s getting pounded, was that a result of the high academic standards that we had relative to our CCIW opponents at that time.     All of the sudden, I feel real smart! And, I am glad that those standards declined when Thorne arrived so we can win all of these games. 

Apparently, the Green Weenies will be applying for admittance to the Ivy League next year?  Q, that's an unfair shot and wreaks of sour green grapes. 

Look, guys, I get just as annoyed with the elitism and arrogance that emanates from IWU quarters as anybody. (Although I honestly don't think that Bob was being either elitist or arrogant in his post; I think that he was simply stating a fact relative to NCC football and was not attempting to puff up his alma mater at all. Remember, this conversation is about Wheaton and North Central, not Illinois Wesleyan, and if there's any institution in this league that enjoys ultimate bragging rights in terms of academics, it's Wheaton rather than IWU.) But there's no escaping the fact that North Central can get student-athletes into school that won't get through either the Wheaton or IWU admissions departments. Getting angry about it isn't going to change that fact, whether the person pointing it out has an IWU diploma or not. Getting angry just makes it look as though the North Central people are the ones with the sour grapes, not the Wesleyan people.

The question is: How much of a difference does it make? Has North Central ever gone after an athlete or athletes in whom Wheaton or Illinois Wesleyan coaches were interested but were unable to get admitted because said jock or jocks didn't have either the grades or the test scores to get into WC or IWU? And, if so, has said athlete(s) ever been a difference-maker or difference-makers in terms of CCIW competition?

I honestly don't know the answer to those questions. But it seems to me that they're the questions that you first have to ask if you're gonna debate this issue. Bob's bullet point about NCC being better able to get football players admitted in terms of academics relative to WC or IWU is accurate. The question is whether or not it's relevant.

Perhaps you were aware of the why at Adrian Gregory, however, I'm sure some of the others were not.  And secondly in that regard, I never said the "why" part was the point.  I simply was adding to the discussion (I stated that) since you brought it up about the resources, regardless of the reason you were intending your comment about that particular aspect.  And for sure, your are correct that it certainly doesn't hurt in upgrading the facilities (such as Hope recently did with their stadium and your North Park in recent years) - heck, all the DIII schools, regardless of size, simply have to do it or they won't be able to have a chance in competing better in the recruiting process.  I think we all agree on that.