FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Gregory Sager]

I totally disagree with you on this one.  You are correct that that recruiting is the bottom line here, which was the original premise of the discussion.  You are also a smart guy Gregory, however, with all due respect, you don't know anything about the situation at Hope with regards to the recruiting and admissions aspects and how that has translated to the, let's say "challenges", performance and talent level in recent years there.

You're forgetting that I am an alumnus of a school that has not had a winning football season since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House, and which only last year managed to snap an 89-game conference losing streak. You're right that I am not privy to the inside scoop as to Hope's recent travails. But those travails, whatever they may have been, are dwarfed by North Park's. Heck, the fact that Hope snapped out of that three-season funk from 2008 thru 2010 is all the proof you need. In fact, those are the only three years in recent memory in which Hope's finished underwater -- and yet those 3-7 seasons would've been cause for rejoicing at NPU, as last year's 3-7 mark certainly was at Foster & Kedzie.

In other words, whatever bad stuff you knew about at Hope in 2008, 2009, and 2010, I could show you much, much worse.

I am also sure our head coach is no less committed to winning games than yours is when they both "shook the hands of their respective ADs in accepting the job.

I didn't say that he wasn't.

No one likes to lose game a large percentage of the time, however, depending on the school, that is not always going to translate 100% of the time in getting the head coach fired, even after several years.

No, maybe not in and of itself every time. But there's a spillover effect, even for coaches who work at schools whose administrators have a lot of forebearance when it comes to losing. Season after season of losing makes recruiting harder and harder, because, above everything else, student-athletes tend to want to enroll at a school where they're going to win, or where they have a reasonable chance of winning in the future. The more losing seasons in a row you pile up, the harder it gets to convince kids to take a chance on your school. And the harder it gets to convince kids to take a chance on your school, the more likely you are to fail to keep up your recruiting numbers -- which, at an awful lot of D3 schools, will cost a football coach his job because he's not bringing in enough students.

Moreover, I distinctly noted the caveat in my post that this is a rare situation, but it does happen.

I don't think it's all that rare. A slide in recruiting can lead to a slide in quality, just as inferior practice or film instruction can lead to a slide in quality. It happens all the time. It's a key reason why some programs that used to rule the roost no longer do so [cough Augustana cough]. Sooner or later, a program in decline gets to that point where it runs out of players who can step up and handle Plan X at first one position. Then another. Then another. And so on.

It may not be that way at your NPU, however, you or anyone can't say that situation doesn't or can't exist because you are simply not there and do not know or understand the specifics of what the underlying parameters are at Hope.

I'm saying that this applies to everybody. Recruiting is the lifeblood of college sports. If you can recruit well, you've already pointed your car down the road toward success, even if you're an X's-and-O's dunderhead, or a poor instructor in practices, or a poor administrator, or some combination thereof. Having the horses doesn't automatically make you a winner, but it's the necessary first step to becoming one. If you can't recruit ... well, sorry, Charlie, but your program's going nowhere. Now, that doesn't mean that all programs start off on an even footing when it comes to recruiting. In fact, the opposite is very much the case. There are any number of ways in which a school can be advantaged when it comes to recruiting, and there's any number of ways that a school can be disadvantaged when it comes to recruiting. I've gone on record several times in this room citing NPU's inherent, coach-proof disadvantages vis-a-vis football recruiting. There may have been a window at the end of the last decade when Hope had some sort of institutional hiccup that made recruiting harder for the Dutch, too (on top of which I think that there's some validity to the complaints of MIAA fans that their league is dinged by the heavy presence of scholarship football programs in their state). But stating that doesn't detract from my main point. It's a coach's job to put competent (or potentially competent) players in depth at each position on his roster. If he fails in that regard, it's on his shoulders -- even if he's got valid excuses. It's not always fair, but coaching is still a bottom-line business, even at this level (although, as I said, wins and losses aren't necessarily the only bottom line).

Likewise, I apply the same to myself with regard to your school's situation because I obviously don't know, am not there and you are, knowing the "behind the scenes" philosophy, framework and decisions of those who have the authority to make the decisions at NPU.  So, to use that old cliché/saying..."we agree to disagree" on this one.

Yes, but it's not really something that necessarily has to do with philosophies, frameworks, and/or decisions. Again, whether they tie a coach's hands or not, the coach is still responsible for his program's success -- even if that success is merely measured in his ability to keep bringing in forty new kids a year to keep the administration happy for bean-counting purposes.

[formerd3db]

No, I am not forgetting you are an alumnus of a school that had not had a winning season for a long time, much longer than Hope.  Nor was I disputing that you could show me much worse "bad stuff" than Hope's during the losing stretch.  That was not what I disagree with you on-rather your assertion that coaches are responsible for player individual performances per se.  You seem to be missing my point.  You can philosophize, reason, explain all you want about it, Gregory (and I agree with you about all the recruiting variables), however, there is no way anyone can dispute that if you don't have the high talent level, no matter how good the coaching is, there are situations where the player performance doesn't measure up and the coach cannot do anything about it, again despite great coaching.you made my exact point in your fourth response below and that was simply the single point I was making and talking about-period.   

Again, I agree with your points in the overall picture.  Furthermore, I also never said that those aspects don't apply to everyone (nor did I say you said that our coach wasn't committed to winning-you made the statement/brought attention to the fact that a coach makes the commitment from the onset-which is obvious and I was just pointing out that our head coach did the same. You know well what I meant in making the reply statement. Of course, all coaches make that commitment, yet as we have both pointed out, the recruiting parameters may and do vary among schools. I do disagree to an extent with your assertion in your last reply-as the head coach is not the sole responsible person for the success of the program (he may be the "head that is accountable", but not the sole determiner) and, in part, that all depends on what one bases that definition of success one.  Nonetheless, I believe everyone here in the discussion knows what each of us i.e. you and I are talking about/attempting to get our points across.  Nice explanation about the recruiting differences, though. Always great to debate you Gregory.    

[Gregory Sager]

You seem to be missing my point.  You can philosophize, reason, explain all you want about it, Gregory (and I agree with you about all the recruiting variables), however, there is no way anyone can dispute that if you don't have the high talent level, no matter how good the coaching is, there are situations where the player performance doesn't measure up and the coach cannot do anything about it, again despite great coaching.

But there isn't great coaching if there's no high talent level. That's the whole point. The coach may be a good teacher, and a good game tactician and strategist, but his first and most important duty is roster assembly. He is responsible for recruiting that high talent level. If he fails to get it, relative to what is possible at his school, he's not a good head coach. QED.

You say that our differences in this discussion lie along the lines of player individual performances. But your first post indicated that the lack of good individual performances by Hope players during that three-year stretch -- their inability to execute Plan X, to use the original language -- was due to a substandard quality of talent in the players themselves. And what I'm saying is that the coach is ultimately responsible for that, because he's the one who brings in the players in the first place.

And, again, I'm not saying that the head coach is the sole determiner of success. That's why I referred to recruiting disadvantages, which, in NPU's case, include some that are coach-proof. There's probably plenty of other schools that have coach-proof recruiting disadvantages (although few that have them that loom as large on a power-conference level as NPU's). There's a bunch of things that are out of a coach's hands when it comes to his team's fortunes (which may explain why so many coaches are control freaks; it's probably out of an obsession to control that which they can control in a profession filled with things they can't  ). But, as you said, he is the "head that is accountable," and it's that accountability that we're talking about when we speak of a coach's success or failure, or whether he's a good coach or not.

(And "good" is probably a relative term, inasmuch as "good" at one school may be measured as 10-0 and at another school as 7-3, and at still another school as 4-6, etc.)

[Kovo]

You seem to be missing my point.  You can philosophize, reason, explain all you want about it, Gregory (and I agree with you about all the recruiting variables), however, there is no way anyone can dispute that if you don't have the high talent level, no matter how good the coaching is, there are situations where the player performance doesn't measure up and the coach cannot do anything about it, again despite great coaching.

But there isn't great coaching if there's no high talent level. That's the whole point. The coach may be a good teacher, and a good game tactician and strategist, but his first and most important duty is roster assembly. He is responsible for recruiting that high talent level. If he fails to get it, relative to what is possible at his school, he's not a good head coach. QED.

You say that our differences in this discussion lie along the lines of player individual performances. But your first post indicated that the lack of good individual performances by Hope players during that three-year stretch -- their inability to execute Plan X, to use the original language -- was due to a substandard quality of talent in the players themselves. And what I'm saying is that the coach is ultimately responsible for that, because he's the one who brings in the players in the first place.

And, again, I'm not saying that the head coach is the sole determiner of success. That's why I referred to recruiting disadvantages, which, in NPU's case, include some that are coach-proof. There's probably plenty of other schools that have coach-proof recruiting disadvantages (although few that have them that loom as large on a power-conference level as NPU's). There's a bunch of things that are out of a coach's hands when it comes to his team's fortunes (which may explain why so many coaches are control freaks; it's probably out of an obsession to control that which they can control in a profession filled with things they can't  ). But, as you said, he is the "head that is accountable," and it's that accountability that we're talking about when we speak of a coach's success or failure, or whether he's a good coach or not.

(And "good" is probably a relative term, inasmuch as "good" at one school may be measured as 10-0 and at another school as 7-3, and at still another school as 4-6, etc.)

Great discussion guys.


I would go as far to say that the "head ball coach" must recruit, retain and oversee the development talent as his top priority.  I have spoken to a number of coaches who have told me that they don't want to be the head coach because they like working on the field with the kids, calling plays etc.  A head coach has to focus on many administrative (i.e. the budget and fund raising) and recruiting aspects as  top priorities to be successful IMHO.

[79jaybird]

Recruiting plays a huge part.  Some schools (i.e. Wheaton) have unique hurdles and parameters they must adhere to, which often can conflict the recruiting process.  Salesmanship plays a big role.  Indeed, a majority of success occurs off the field.  However, I still believe in the end, the players have to execute on the field, to make the team successful. 

Former & Greg were discussing the school's will to win.    Definitely a concern and often I questioned this with Elmhurst.  For years, I felt Elmhurst's attitude (in many sports) was "We have the team, just to be able to say we have the team".  Thankfully, this approach has been put to bed and recent years have shown more attention to athletics. 

Then there's philanthropy and Alumni support which is another soapbox topic.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I would go as far to say that the "head ball coach" must recruit, retain and oversee the development talent as his top priority.  I have spoken to a number of coaches who have told me that they don't want to be the head coach because they like working on the field with the kids, calling plays etc.  A head coach has to focus on many administrative (i.e. the budget and fund raising) and recruiting aspects as  top priorities to be successful IMHO.

Anecdotally, that's been my observation as well.  Head coaches have to bring in talent, and then rely on their coordinators and position coaches to 1) develop that talent and 2) put that talent into position to win on gameday.  Most HC's probably ache to do more on-field coaching and game-planning than they actually get to do.

[emma17]

I would go as far to say that the "head ball coach" must recruit, retain and oversee the development talent as his top priority.  I have spoken to a number of coaches who have told me that they don't want to be the head coach because they like working on the field with the kids, calling plays etc.  A head coach has to focus on many administrative (i.e. the budget and fund raising) and recruiting aspects as  top priorities to be successful IMHO.

Anecdotally, that's been my observation as well.  Head coaches have to bring in talent, and then rely on their coordinators and position coaches to 1) develop that talent and 2) put that talent into position to win on gameday.  Most HC's probably ache to do more on-field coaching and game-planning than they actually get to do.

Right on. Not too long ago I asked a head coach how he liked it and he said "I miss coaching". 

[devildog29]

I would go as far to say that the "head ball coach" must recruit, retain and oversee the development talent as his top priority.  I have spoken to a number of coaches who have told me that they don't want to be the head coach because they like working on the field with the kids, calling plays etc.  A head coach has to focus on many administrative (i.e. the budget and fund raising) and recruiting aspects as  top priorities to be successful IMHO.

Anecdotally, that's been my observation as well.  Head coaches have to bring in talent, and then rely on their coordinators and position coaches to 1) develop that talent and 2) put that talent into position to win on gameday.  Most HC's probably ache to do more on-field coaching and game-planning than they actually get to do.

Right on. Not too long ago I asked a head coach how he liked it and he said "I miss coaching".

Although a great Xs and Os coach may be able to get subpar talent to play above their capabilities, and given that the IDEAL is to be great at both Xs and Os as well as recruiting, I would submit that if I couldn't have both and had to choose one, I'd take the great recruiter first.  IMHO, great playmakers can overcome subpar game planning more so than great game plans can overcome subpar talent. I know DI is a 4 letter word here, but Les Miles at LSU has made a career out of winning with athletes, and he couldn't manage a game of tiddlywinks.

[formerd3db]

Gregory, Kovo, 79jay, ExTartan, emma, and devilgog:

All great points everyone.  The one point I was simply trying to make and which I wholeheartedly believe (again, because I've seen it on several levels and know it to be true) is that the head coach can't make the players physically execute i.e. the actual physical performance no matter how good a recruiter or coach he is.  That is physically impossible.  A coach may be able to motivate players to improve their performance, however, there are without question some cases where that is simply not going to happen because the talent level is just not there, no matter how good a coach is.  There are many current examples of that right now even at the DI level -great coaches who get the best they can out of their talent level, but it won't rise beyond to the next level because they are limited-again by many factors-as to who they can bring in irrespective of how great a recruiter they are in all aspects.

And that, without question, relates to recruiting, which a head coach does not have final control over regardless of how great a recruiter he is.  That is the point where I disagree with you on.  Of course, a good/great head coach is one who is a great recruiter. However, a coach can be a great recruiter, but simply cannot bring in better talent level if his hands are tied with the academic/community, and need based financial packages offered by his particular school.  And I'm telling you that has been one of the main problems at Hope in the past several years.  We are simply not getting the type of talent level we did years ago because of the financial limitations that Hope is willing to offer as compared to other schools (that is obviously Hope's choice) and also a part of that recruiting problem is a result of the DII opportunities in our region.  We've all discussed that latter topic before so I will not bring that up again other than to say it has definitely affected Hope as compared to some schools).   

As to the other aspects, I, too, know about some head coaches who would rather be assistants because of the coaching factor you are talking about.  You guys are "right on" with that one as well.  Also, jaybird's point about some schools' will to win is valid.  An example of that our way has been Olivet and Kazoo.  They have been more competitive in the last decade or so, yet, overall, looking at their history, they have been nearly as bad as NPU in football.  They will never drop football as they have too much tradition dating back to the 1890's and it is a big part of their campus life.  However, they have had good coaches and do now as well who are also good recruiters and have improved the programs.  Yet, I'm telling you they will never get the talent level that other schools are able to do simply because of the limitations involved in financial aspect and their overall curriculum offerings they promote and offer no matter how great and how hard their coaches recruit.  That's just the way it is (and I do not intend that as any disrespect to their current coaching staff or programs at all-I love the history and tradition of football at those schools and they have good people there).

Regardless, again this has been a truly great and fun discussion.  I respect and appreciate everyone's opinions on this, even if we disagree on some aspects!  These kind of discussions are what make these boards even more enjoyable, although I'm sure we all agree we have a blast talking about the true basis of the x's and o's!  And again, a big thanks to Pat for making this possible all these years.  I can hardly believe it has been some 14+ years for this (at least since I signed up to participate in posting).  Anyway, good luck to your teams this weekend.  We MIAA'ers have our "bye" weekend at this time. 

[Gregory Sager]

All great points everyone.  The one point I was simply trying to make and which I wholeheartedly believe (again, because I've seen it on several levels and know it to be true) is that the head coach can't make the players physically execute i.e. the actual physical performance no matter how good a recruiter or coach he is.  That is physically impossible.  A coach may be able to motivate players to improve their performance, however, there are without question some cases where that is simply not going to happen because the talent level is just not there, no matter how good a coach is.  There are many current examples of that right now even at the DI level -great coaches who get the best they can out of their talent level, but it won't rise beyond to the next level because they are limited-again by many factors-as to who they can bring in irrespective of how great a recruiter they are in all aspects.

We're essentially down to a battle of semantics at this point. You continue to say that a "good coach" or a "great coach" can be someone who doesn't bring in good (or good enough) talent as a recruiter. And I say that a coach who is inadequate in the recruiting department is, ipso facto, neither a good coach nor a great one. Regardless of how good he is with tactics, strategy, and teaching, and regardless of his motivational skills in terms of getting the best he can out of whatever talent his team has, he has failed in his primary task, which is to procure the players that will enable him to win ballgames.

And, again, I'm painfullly aware that there are football programs that are forced to operate within recruiting limitations that are outside of a head coach's control. That's why I said that the bar for what one school considers to be a successful season can certainly be set at a different height than what another school considers to be a successful season.

And that, without question, relates to recruiting, which a head coach does not have final control over regardless of how great a recruiter he is.  That is the point where I disagree with you on.  Of course, a good/great head coach is one who is a great recruiter. However, a coach can be a great recruiter, but simply cannot bring in better talent level if his hands are tied with the academic/community, and need based financial packages offered by his particular school.  And I'm telling you that has been one of the main problems at Hope in the past several years.  We are simply not getting the type of talent level we did years ago because of the financial limitations that Hope is willing to offer as compared to other schools (that is obviously Hope's choice) and also a part of that recruiting problem is a result of the DII opportunities in our region.  We've all discussed that latter topic before so I will not bring that up again other than to say it has definitely affected Hope as compared to some schools).

Yes, but you then go on to cite two other schools in Hope's conference, Olivet and Kalamazoo, and you basically consign them to perpetual football oblivion for the exact same reason for which you blame Hope's supposed decline: Financial aid. And then there's the matter of that supposed decline itself. Following the three straight 3-7 seasons we've talked about, Hope has gone on to record a 21-12 mark (including this season's first three games), including a pair of 7-3 seasons that were the best that the Dutch had posted in a decade. That doesn't look like a decline to me. All indications in terms of wins and losses are that, since 2011, Hope has gotten right back to where it used to be, i.e., the top tier of the MIAA. What I'm saying is that, while Hope's football teams may not be as talented as they used to be -- I'll certainly take your word for that -- it hasn't interfered with the program's success over the past three years, because the rest of your league appears to be unable to take advantage of Hope's talent slippage (probably because the other six MIAA programs have ongoing problems of their own, including the D2 thing). In other words, neither football programs nor admissions departments operate in a vacuum. What may look like a newly-imposed hindrance to recruiting may, in relative terms with regard to the competition, be less of a problem than it appears to be.

As to the other aspects, I, too, know about some head coaches who would rather be assistants because of the coaching factor you are talking about.  You guys are "right on" with that one as well.

One thing should be pointed out, though. As much as I got a chuckle out of emma17's comment with regard to the head coach who said, "I miss coaching," it's not as though assistant coaches get off scot-free as far as recruiting duties are concerned. A great deal of what a head coach is supposed to do involves delegating responsibilities, and quite often a lot of the initial contact and prospect tracking involved in the recruiting process lies not in the head coach's hands but in the hands of a specific assistant coach or coaches to whom he has delegated those tasks.

Anyway, good luck to your teams this weekend.  We MIAA'ers have our "bye" weekend at this time.

Five of our eight teams have byes this weekend as well, which perhaps explains why the CCIW room has been wide open for use as a debating forum.

[formerd3db]

Gregory:

Semantics, it is (to a degree).  I never said nor implied that a coach who is inadequate in the recruiting department is neither a good coach nor a great one.  Our coach(es) are very good recruiters and your statements about the "bar" and recruiting limitations we agree.  However, subsequently the latter absolutely does not translate into a coach "failing in his primary task in failing to procure players that will enable him to win ball games." We'll obviously continue to disagree on that specific point.

As to the your responses to my discussion about Hope's decline, just because we've returned to a winning record doesn't also translate to improved talent level overall. You are over-reaching on my point to a degree in the overall picture, but I'm glad to see you accept my word on how the present talent compares with years ago (particularly when many of your colleagues continue to point out how weak the MIAA is compared to other DIII conferences-and, of course, they are right-I do agree with that.  The MIAA has slipped since Albion's 1994 Stagg Bowl national title and certainly the face of DIII football has changed much over those past two decades.

And finally, I think you know what emma17' meant regarding his comment about the head coach. Certainly, at some places that is true to a degree, albeit small.  I also don't think anyone implied that assistants get off the hook in recruiting.  Even part-time volunteer assistants at most DIII schools are assigned those responsibilities. 

Anyway, I think everyone here has made their points clear throughout this discussion, even if some of us disagree.  I'm done-it's time to move on to another topic. Where's that dead horse photo you guys use when we need it? !!           

[formerd3db]

Five of our eight teams have byes this weekend as well, which perhaps explains why the CCIW room has been wide open for use as a debating forum.

I think you are right!   But for some reason, our MIAA posters haven't taken advantage of that!  They are missing a great and fun opportunity!  

[Gregory Sager]

Gregory:

Semantics, it is (to a degree).  I never said nor implied that a coach who is inadequate in the recruiting department is neither a good coach nor a great one.  Our coach(es) are very good recruiters and your statements about the "bar" and recruiting limitations we agree.  However, subsequently the latter absolutely does not translate into a coach "failing in his primary task in failing to procure players that will enable him to win ball games." We'll obviously continue to disagree on that specific point.

True, although I'm not sure how to wade through what may or may not be an intentional double (or triple!) negative in your second sentence to get to your intent.

As to the your responses to my discussion about Hope's decline, just because we've returned to a winning record doesn't also translate to improved talent level overall.

Right. I've already implied that by saying that Hope's fortunes on the football field take place within the overall context of the MIAA, which means that what the other six programs are currently encountering in terms of recruiting ups and downs affects Hope's performance as well. Again, I'm willing to sign on to your stipulation that the three recent successful seasons featured rosters that are just as subpar (compared to Hope's traditional talent level) as were the three lean years before them. But, again, that invokes the context issue. If the Dutch have improved that dramatically in terms of wins and losses without actually improving in terms of talent, then what does that say about the other six programs in the MIAA?

You are over-reaching on my point to a degree in the overall picture,

I don't see how. Wins and losses are a pretty cut-and-dried measure of success. The fact that, in a league context, they are relative measures of success*, doesn't change that.

but I'm glad to see you accept my word on how the present talent compares with years ago

Well, you've been first a Hope player and then a Hope fan for a long time, while I've watched a grand total of one football game that involved your alma mater. So I'd be pretty foolish to challenge you on that point, wouldn't I?

(particularly when many of your colleagues continue to point out how weak the MIAA is compared to other DIII conferences-and, of course, they are right-I do agree with that.

Given how craptastic the CCIW has performed to date in non-conference play this season, I don't think that any of the regular posters here will be shooting spitwads at the MIAA anytime soon.

The MIAA has slipped since Albion's 1994 Stagg Bowl national title and certainly the face of DIII football has changed much over those past two decades.

And finally, I think you know what emma17' meant regarding his comment about the head coach. Certainly, at some places that is true to a degree, albeit small.  I also don't think anyone implied that assistants get off the hook in recruiting.  Even part-time volunteer assistants at most DIII schools are assigned those responsibilities.

I wasn't saying that anyone had implied that assistants have no recruiting responsibilities. I just thought that it was important to state for the record that assistant coaches play a part in football recruiting, too. Ultimately, however, recruiting is the head coach's responsibility -- not just because he's typically the one who is called upon to seal the deal with a prospect, but because he's the one with the old Harry Truman "The buck stops here" sign on his desk, even if it's only a metaphorical sign. Administration is a big part of a head coach's job, and part of what makes a coach a good administrator is his ability to bring assistant coaches into his program whom he feels confident in presenting as his program's representatives (and as his personal proxy) when they contact a prospect and his family.

Anyway, I think everyone here has made their points clear throughout this discussion, even if some of us disagree.  I'm done-it's time to move on to another topic. Where's that dead horse photo you guys use when we need it? !!         

Because it never gets old, here it is:



*This is the cue for Augustana and North Central fans who may be growing bored by all this Hope College talk to start arguing about which string of CCIW champions was the better one, Augie's in the '80s or NCC's in the present day. Have at it, boys.

[formerd3db]

Glad you caught my intended grammatical "error"!   Appreciate your follow-up responses. Thanks also for the "dead horse" image!  Indeed, that never gets old!

Your challenge to the Augies and NCC'ers should be an interesting debate.  I will look forward to reading those, although will definitely stay out of that discussion for obvious reasons! Hope your weekend is a good one.

[Kovo]

Gregory:

Semantics, it is (to a degree).  I never said nor implied that a coach who is inadequate in the recruiting department is neither a good coach nor a great one.  Our coach(es) are very good recruiters and your statements about the "bar" and recruiting limitations we agree.  However, subsequently the latter absolutely does not translate into a coach "failing in his primary task in failing to procure players that will enable him to win ball games." We'll obviously continue to disagree on that specific point.

True, although I'm not sure how to wade through what may or may not be an intentional double (or triple!) negative in your second sentence to get to your intent.

As to the your responses to my discussion about Hope's decline, just because we've returned to a winning record doesn't also translate to improved talent level overall.

Right. I've already implied that by saying that Hope's fortunes on the football field take place within the overall context of the MIAA, which means that what the other six programs are currently encountering in terms of recruiting ups and downs affects Hope's performance as well. Again, I'm willing to sign on to your stipulation that the three recent successful seasons featured rosters that are just as subpar (compared to Hope's traditional talent level) as were the three lean years before them. But, again, that invokes the context issue. If the Dutch have improved that dramatically in terms of wins and losses without actually improving in terms of talent, then what does that say about the other six programs in the MIAA?

You are over-reaching on my point to a degree in the overall picture,

I don't see how. Wins and losses are a pretty cut-and-dried measure of success. The fact that, in a league context, they are relative measures of success*, doesn't change that.

but I'm glad to see you accept my word on how the present talent compares with years ago

Well, you've been first a Hope player and then a Hope fan for a long time, while I've watched a grand total of one football game that involved your alma mater. So I'd be pretty foolish to challenge you on that point, wouldn't I?

(particularly when many of your colleagues continue to point out how weak the MIAA is compared to other DIII conferences-and, of course, they are right-I do agree with that.

Given how craptastic the CCIW has performed to date in non-conference play this season, I don't think that any of the regular posters here will be shooting spitwads at the MIAA anytime soon.

The MIAA has slipped since Albion's 1994 Stagg Bowl national title and certainly the face of DIII football has changed much over those past two decades.

And finally, I think you know what emma17' meant regarding his comment about the head coach. Certainly, at some places that is true to a degree, albeit small.  I also don't think anyone implied that assistants get off the hook in recruiting.  Even part-time volunteer assistants at most DIII schools are assigned those responsibilities.

I wasn't saying that anyone had implied that assistants have no recruiting responsibilities. I just thought that it was important to state for the record that assistant coaches play a part in football recruiting, too. Ultimately, however, recruiting is the head coach's responsibility -- not just because he's typically the one who is called upon to seal the deal with a prospect, but because he's the one with the old Harry Truman "The buck stops here" sign on his desk, even if it's only a metaphorical sign. Administration is a big part of a head coach's job, and part of what makes a coach a good administrator is his ability to bring assistant coaches into his program whom he feels confident in presenting as his program's representatives (and as his personal proxy) when they contact a prospect and his family.

Anyway, I think everyone here has made their points clear throughout this discussion, even if some of us disagree.  I'm done-it's time to move on to another topic. Where's that dead horse photo you guys use when we need it? !!         

Because it never gets old, here it is:



*This is the cue for Augustana and North Central fans who may be growing bored by all this Hope College talk to start arguing about which string of CCIW champions was the better one, Augie's in the '80s or NCC's in the present day. Have at it, boys.

Of course, I will take NCC's string of championships and argue that it is much more difficult to win in today's competitive environment.  More schools have spent lots of money on facilities, recruiting etc. But, even I have to admit that it is difficult to look past those four big door stops that Augie picked up in the 80's.  But if you focus solely on CCIW championships----NCC by far!