FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Mr. Ypsi]

Wash U is joining the CCIW as an associate member for football in 2018.
http://bearsports.wustl.edu/sports/fball/2015-16/releases/20150611z55r5g

Chicago is also leaving the SAA after the 2017 season.  No new football conference affiliation has been announced.
http://athletics.uchicago.edu/sports/fball/2014-15/releases/20150612631ks3

Interesting.  I guess the conference decided that the convenience in scheduling of an even number of teams outweighed the downside of having only one non-con game.  I'm guessing that WashU's one non-con game will be UChi; I'll be interested to see who everyone else decides to schedule with their one game (that assumes, of course, that the conference will want a full round-robin of games - I'd be quite dismayed if they went a different route).  Any non-con opponents that qualify as true rivalries?  (For a number of years IWU seemed to have that going with Hope, but that series has gone bye-bye.)

Aside from a lack of flexibility in choosing opponents, the main downside is that all SoS's will henceforth be right about .500 - potentially a real problem in getting Pool C selections.

[Gregory Sager]

Here's the CCIW press release about Wash U joining as an associate member for football.

I'm not terribly surprised that the CCIW is adding an associate member for football. The league's eight presidents made it clear when the Carroll expansion was announced that they weren't anticipating adding a tenth full member any time in the immediate future. But, more than any other sport sponsored by this league, football is adversely affected by the imbalance of nine CCIW teams. The small schedule of only ten games in total and the only-on-Saturdays nature of that schedule, combined with the relative lack of nearby alternative opponents for October and November games, would have really hampered trying to schedule the odd-man-out team on a weekly basis. Now, by adding Wash U, the CCIW will only have to worry about that problem for one season (2017).

What does surprise me is that Wash U is the new associate, rather than Chicago. The U of C is a better geographic fit for the CCIW (although it's not as though St. Louis is on the other side of the world), and it was in the same boat as Wash U in terms of being both a reluctant addition to the SAA and a frustrated football school within the UAA.

The SAA, which consists of schools located in the southeastern corner of the country, wasn't a great fit for either Chicago or Wash U; while those two athletic departments are used to putting their various sports teams on planes in order to compete in the UAA, those are long-term, multi-sport relationships. One has to believe that the Wash U and Chicago athletic departments have the logistics of flying to Boston, New York, Atlanta, Rochester, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh (and busing between those cities for two-city weekend road trips) down pat by now. Places like Sewanee, TN; Danville, KY; and Conway, AR are another matter entirely.

Then there's the UAA situation. That league has sponsored all of Wash U's and Chicago's sports up until now, but it's a woefully incomplete league as far as football is concerned, since only four of the eight schools offer the sport. That's not even close to being adequate, either for filling out the schedule or for getting an automatic bid to the D3 playoffs, which is why those four UAA football schools have each also been part of a second league (Chicago and Wash U in the SAA, Carnegie Mellon and Case Western Reserve in the PAC). It looks to me as though Chicago and Wash U don't feel the need to keep up with the pretense of the UAA being a viable football league any longer, although as archrivals they'll still keep playing each other annually for the Founders Cup -- which is ironic, because that trophy was named for the fact that Chicago and Wash U started playing for it the year that the UAA was founded. According to the Wash U press release, the UAA hopes to remain a football league in some fashion, but it appears that that ship has sailed with the defection of Wash U and Chicago in terms of this particular sport.

Getting back to where the Maroons and the Bears are going, I wonder if this was a case of Wash U getting its foot in the CCIW's door first? Or it could be that the U of C is close to securing an associate-member deal with a different league. The MIAA, perhaps? That league currrently has an odd number of football teams, since Calvin is allergic to pigskin. Or might the Maroons go back to their pre-UAA roots by rejoining the MWC as an associate for football? The defection of Carroll will leave an opening in that league's North Division.

Whatever the scenario, our friends down in Hyde Park had better make their move soon. In D3 football, schedules are typically set a couple of years in advance, and 2017 is short notice to: a) join a new league; and b) secure multiple non-conference opponents.

As far as Wash U is concerned, I think that the Bears will acquit themselves respectably in CCIW football. I don't see them being a powerhouse, but I don't think they'll be a pushover, either.

[Gregory Sager]

I guess the conference decided that the convenience in scheduling of an even number of teams outweighed the downside of having only one non-con game.

That looks like a no-brainer to me, Chuck. An odd number of teams is a real headache, because you force one team per week in October and November (i.e., everybody else's conference seasons as well as the CCIW's) to either find a non-con opponent or take their bye week. Finding a non-con opponent for that odd-man-out week is much easier said than done, with practically no independents left in D3 football and the only other leagues with an odd number of teams that're anywhere within practical driving distance being the MIAA, the HCAC, the NACC, and the MIAC (and the MIAC is pushing it in terms of being a practical driving distance). And the bye week scenario raises issues of fairness, because having the bye week at different points of the season will affect teams differently.

Non-con games aren't a priority as far as the league is concerned. League competition, and what's best for it, is the focus of the CCIW's braintrust.

Scheduling is becoming more and more difficult in D3 football, at least in this part of the country, so the league's presidents made it easier on the coaches and ADs by adding the tenth member for football.

I'm guessing that WashU's one non-con game will be UChi;

No need to guess, Chuck, since it indicates right there in the tenth paragraph of the Wash U press release that the Bears and Maroons will continue to play annually for the Founders Cup.

I'll be interested to see who everyone else decides to schedule with their one game (that assumes, of course, that the conference will want a full round-robin of games - I'd be quite dismayed if they went a different route).

Of course the CCIW will retain the full round-robin. Why on Earth would the league get rid of it?

Don't forget that for 22 years, from 1970 thru 1991, CCIW teams only played one non-con game. They played eight conference games as part of a nine-game schedule. A schedule that includes only one non-con game is hardly the end of the world.

Any non-con opponents that qualify as true rivalries?

Well, obviously Wash U is going to continue to play Chicago for the Founders Cup. Given the facts that: a) it's a trophy game; and b) those two schools are archrivals in every sport, albeit that that's a rivalry fostered by a league in which neither will now be a football member, I don't see the Bears looking for a new non-con opponent anytime soon.

A quick perusal of past schedules seems to indicate that the longest-running non-con series in which a CCIW team participates is the Carthage vs. Lakeland series. The Red Men and the Muskies have been going at it annually on the gridiron since 1996. A nineteen-year series would appear to be long enough to constitute a legitimate rivalry, but it's awfully one-sided; the Muskies haven't beaten Carthage since 2003. Even last season, in which Lakeland (6-4, 6-1) finished in a three-way tie for first in the NACC and the Red Men (3-7, 2-5) finished in a three-way tie for fifth in the CCIW, the Red Men still managed to mount a fourth-quarter comeback and nip Lakeland, 21-14, at Keller Field.

Aside from a lack of flexibility in choosing opponents, the main downside is that all SoS's will henceforth be right about .500 - potentially a real problem in getting Pool C selections.

As I said, I'm not sure that "flexibility" is a word that should be used for non-con games at this point, anyway, given the general midwestern D3 football landscape. Your point about the reduction of non-con games to one apiece adversely affecting the SOSes of CCIW teams is valid. It doesn't appear that the CCIW's leadership considered that to be as important as balancing everybody's schedules, though.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg, the 9-member, therefore every team has a Saturday bye sometime, problem can be solved two ways.  Have two pre-conference games, then use the bye for healing nagging injuries (especially good if your bye is midseason and your next opponents are Wheaton and NCC! ), or have the CCIW link up with another 9-team conference (not sure who within reasonable distance) with each week's bye teams playing each other.  Apparently they decided having an even number of teams was better than these alternatives.  I'll miss the extra non-con games - IWU used to come up to play someone in Michigan virtually every season, but it may be a LONG time before I can see them with an easy drive!

Saw your response just before I posted.  (Of course, if teams don't want a bye week, UChi would be available - they could be an 'independent' who was effectively the 11th CCIW team (and #2 'associate'))

[Gregory Sager]

The problem with that, Chuck, goes back to flexibility. By assuming that the CCIW could pair its odd team with another league's odd team during October and November, the league would be vulnerable to the needs and/or ongoing relationships of other football circuits. Take the MIAA, for example, an odd-numbered league with which the CCIW currently has a challenge matchup (which will expire after this coming season). The MIAA currently has a working agreement with the NACC to have its (the MIAA's) odd team play a NACC team during those October and November Saturdays. The CCIW would have to horn in on that agreement if it sought to meet its own odd-team needs in October and November by pairing up the CCIW odd team with the MIAA odd team.

That basically leaves you with the choice of the HCAC or the MIAC, which isn't much in the way of flexibility at all. You mentioned Chicago, but we don't know yet what the U of C is going to do yet in terms of realignment; as the Maroons press release indicated, Chicago is now seeking to affiliate itself with another conference. One can't assume that Chicago would be available to soak up all of those odd-week CCIW non-con games.

(And, yes, other readers, Chuck and I are discussing a point that's now completely moot. )

[Mr. Ypsi]

Obviously, I was going on the premise that UChi would not find another conference - as an independent, they would need plenty of games!  I'm a bit at sea as to what conference they would have any reasonable affinity?

Being the de facto #11 CCIW team might be their best bet.

[Gregory Sager]

It's never anybody's "best bet" to be at someone else's mercy, Chuck, be it a person or an institution. By relying upon the good graces of the CCIW's member institutions to supply it with ten football games per season without the U of C having any real say in the matter, the University of Chicago athletic department would be abdicating its role to look out for the best interests of its student-athletes. There's no plausible way to argue to that the Maroons would be better off hoping that all ten CCIW programs would schedule the Maroons for what is for each of those CCIW schools their only non-conference game, especially since those ten CCIW programs would be under no compulsion to do so.

There is no conference in D3 aside from the UAA with which the University of Chicago has any sort of "reasonable affinity," if by that you're referring to mission, prestige, structure, academic rigor, endowment, etc. There are only degrees of non-affinity. That's true of Wash U as well -- Washington University in St. Louis is a poor fit, institution-wise, for the CCIW -- but, since this is football and only football we're talking about, it's something that can be put aside, as the CCIW and Wash U alike have cheerfully done in bringing the Bears on board for CCIW football purposes. Similarly, I could see Chicago doing the same thing by joining the MIAA for football, since the MIAA is about as close to a twin as the CCIW has in terms of its member institutions. Chicago could also join the NACC and keep it even more local than the Maroons would have in the MIAA, and the HCAC would be a possibility as well.

There's no perfect solution for U of C football. But the best solution, which the school has already adopted according to today's press release, is to find a new conference home for its football program ... somewhere, somehow.

[jaybird44]

I am happy to see Wash-U being welcomed by the CCIW for football!  I believe our fans will very much enjoy developing fun football rivalries with schools that already compete against each other yearly in other sports.  The student athletes will appreciate shorter day trips for great competition, while reducing time away from studies.  And, having a chance to be an affiliate member of a very stable conference and compete for an AQ each year resolves long-time efforts to find such a home for the Bears' football program.

Wash-U had a 9-1 team that was left out of playoff consideration in 1995 (a very well-balanced team that I thought could've made some noise in the tournament--I was thankful to have the oppportunity to call the home games of that season).  Another team that was 8-2 in 2001 missed the playoff cut, and there were some 7-3 teams that would've been fun to see in postseason play, had there been an AQ available to the UAA champion.

It will be very tough to win the AQ--it seems that the CCIW football gauntlet is as rugged to get through as it is for basketball.  It's just nice to know that if you have an exceptional team, you'll have an AQ option to win on the field instead of solely hoping to win a musical-chairs Pool B game at the end of the season.  I know it has been irksome for some of our fans to realize that without an AQ to play for, you have to be nearly perfect just to get a chance to pass the muster of the NCAA selection committee.  An early-season loss is quite a damper to overcome in that situation.

With that said, I also reflect the gratitude expressed in the press release for the SAA, in bringing Wash-U in as an affiliate member for 2015 and 2016.  That had the makings of a very good long-term relationship, but the aforementioned benefits of saving time for studies and saving travel expenses--while playing in a great conference that our fans are more familiar with--were just too good to pass up.

[jaybird44]

Wash-U's record vs. CCIW teams:

Illinois Wesleyan 9-8 (first meeting 1899, last meeting 2002)
Wheaton 4-10 (first meeting 1961, last meeting 2007)
North Central 1-3 (first meeting 2004, last meeting 2007)
North Park 1-1 (first meeting 2011, last meeting 2014)
Millikin 3-2 (first meeting 1908, last meeting 1975)

Wash-U has never played Augustana, Carthage, and Elmhurst in football.

[Pat Coleman]

Obviously, I was going on the premise that UChi would not find another conference - as an independent, they would need plenty of games!  I'm a bit at sea as to what conference they would have any reasonable affinity?

Being the de facto #11 CCIW team might be their best bet.

I'm hearing that Chicago will be in the Midwest Conference for football, although I think the NACC, with just seven teams, needs the Maroons more.

[Gregory Sager]

That might be the most sensible place for the Maroons, Pat. The exodus of Carroll to the CCIW leaves a hole in the North Division of the MWC that would've created an imbalance between the league's two football divisions, so Chicago can step right into the spot vacated by the Pioneers. And there's historical precedent to this move as well, since the University of Chicago was a MWC member until the UAA was formed in 1987. Travel isn't great in the MWC North, but it's certainly a better option for the U of C to bus the Maroons to Appleton, DePere, Ripon, Beloit, and the Twin Cities than it is for them to have the football team hop on a plane to the southeast and then grab a bus to places like Sewanee, Danville, or Conway.

As for the NACC, this is where the affinity thing might come into play. While the MWC schools are all small liberal arts colleges, and thus completely unlike the University of Chicago, they're also highly selective schools; I wouldn't be surprised if the U of C athletic department feels that their players would be matched up against MWC players who are a closer fit in terms of academics than what they'd be facing in the NACC. (No offense intended to any of the NACC schools, by the way; after all, this is the University of Chicago that we're talking about.)

The good news for the NACC is that Chicago probably isn't going to go to the MIAA, so the NACC and MIAA can renew their odd-team-out matchup agreement for the foreseeable future.

[Captain_Joe08]

That might be the most sensible place for the Maroons, Pat. The exodus of Carroll to the CCIW leaves a hole in the North Division of the MWC that would've created an imbalance between the league's two football divisions, so Chicago can step right into the spot vacated by the Pioneers. And there's historical precedent to this move as well, since the University of Chicago was a MWC member until the UAA was formed in 1987. Travel isn't great in the MWC North, but it's certainly a better option for the U of C to bus the Maroons to Appleton, DePere, Ripon, Beloit, and the Twin Cities than it is for them to have the football team hop on a plane to the southeast and then grab a bus to places like Sewanee, Danville, or Conway.

As for the NACC, this is where the affinity thing might come into play. While the MWC schools are all small liberal arts colleges, and thus completely unlike the University of Chicago, they're also highly selective schools; I wouldn't be surprised if the U of C athletic department feels that their players would be matched up against MWC players who are a closer fit in terms of academics than what they'd be facing in the NACC. (No offense intended to any of the NACC schools, by the way; after all, this is the University of Chicago that we're talking about.)

The good news for the NACC is that Chicago probably isn't going to go to the MIAA, so the NACC and MIAA can renew their odd-team-out matchup agreement for the foreseeable future.

I can see how the Maroons could be a decent fit for the NACC by raising the competitive profile of the league somewhat that has been challenged by the higher profile conferences in the postseason.

I think the only team in the NACC (whom Chicago is 13-9-1 vs the conference) that Chicago has played more or less frequently lately is Concordia Chicago (Chicago leads 12-5-1). I think eventually the NACC will try to find another school to join to replace the defection of Maranatha (maybe to offset the rather clunky scheduling in other sports IMO).

[Gregory Sager]

I can see how the Maroons could be a decent fit for the NACC by raising the competitive profile of the league somewhat that has been challenged by the higher profile conferences in the postseason.

I think the only team in the NACC (whom Chicago is 13-9-1 vs the conference) that Chicago has played more or less frequently lately is Concordia Chicago (Chicago leads 12-5-1). I think eventually the NACC will try to find another school to join to replace the defection of Maranatha (maybe to offset the rather clunky scheduling in other sports IMO).

IIT needs a league, although that school's lack of a football program means that adding the Scarlet Hawks wouldn't help the NACC's football situation.

[AndOne]

Does anyone close to (or far from) the NCC football program know if the Cardinals are still attempting to schedule a 10th game for 2015 season, or if they have decided to be content with their current 9 game schedule?
Also, why only the 2 non-conference games to date? Did a previously scheduled team back out?

[Captain_Joe08]

I can see how the Maroons could be a decent fit for the NACC by raising the competitive profile of the league somewhat that has been challenged by the higher profile conferences in the postseason.

I think the only team in the NACC (whom Chicago is 13-9-1 vs the conference) that Chicago has played more or less frequently lately is Concordia Chicago (Chicago leads 12-5-1). I think eventually the NACC will try to find another school to join to replace the defection of Maranatha (maybe to offset the rather clunky scheduling in other sports IMO).

IIT needs a league, although that school's lack of a football program means that adding the Scarlet Hawks wouldn't help the NACC's football situation.

Very true. ITT will help with the scheduling in the other sports. They need to get their DIII "sea legs" under them. They kind of struggled to compete in a few sports this year. I think the NACC will be a very good fit for them. Though in a few women's sports we just added Mount Mary so that will complicate things a bit.

If both leagues want to add schools, then they both add to schools at the same time or find another school that will participate to even out the challenge series.

(While the author of this post was looking around it seems MMU is joining the GSAC for all sports except Tennis and XCC which is still going to be in the NACC)