FB: New England Small College Athletic Conference

[frank uible]

A simple answer certainly but one which yet does not explain the "inferior" treatment NESCAC gives to football compared to its other sports.

[lumbercat]

Post season play and a ninth game have been discussed for years and each seems intertwined with the other. Unfortunately most of the discussion on this issue takes place among alumni, coaches and fans as opposed to the College Presidents who make the call on these things. It appears that those in power seem content in maintaining the status quo.
It's a shame that the Football player does not get the same opportunities as other athletes at NESCAC colleges.

[quicksilver]

Interesting argument. Why does the conference handcuff its football programs, when allowing other programs to compete at a national level?

(sorry if this question has been asked a thousand times over)

NCAA's D3 football play-offs run deep first semester exams and deep into winter sports seasons.  They may run as late as December 20th in some years for the two finalists. The NESCAC prides itself in accommodating multi-sport athletes (there are a few football-hockey football-basketball players although not many). Those are practical reasons why participation in post-season play would be problematic for football. Soccer post-season play overlaps with hockey and basketball but not to quite the extent that fball does . .

[river]

Interesting argument. Why does the conference handcuff its football programs, when allowing other programs to compete at a national level?

(sorry if this question has been asked a thousand times over)

NCAA's D3 football play-offs run deep first semester exams and deep into winter sports seasons.  They may run as late as December 20th in some years for the two finalists. The NESCAC prides itself in accommodating multi-sport athletes (there are a few football-hockey football-basketball players although not many). Those are practical reasons why participation in post-season play would be problematic for football. Soccer post-season play overlaps with hockey and basketball but not to quite the extent that fball does . .

Re scheduling, the conference is no different from other "academic", "'multi-sport' accommodating" conferences who let their football teams strive to make the football playoffs.  Only one NESCAC team would likely be "inconvenienced" by making the playoffs.  Scheduling seems more an excuse than an actual reason. It is likely that NESCAC teams--like many teams in other self-described "academic" conferences--would not do well against the Whitewaters, Mt Unions, MHBs, Linfields, or Wesleys of DIII.  NESCAC has done well in the regional or smaller specialty sports -- rowing, skiing (?), ice hockey, squash, tennis, etc. -- and may not want to give up its good record in these sports by letting its "multi-sport" athletes play post-regular season football with a less likely chance of achieving national prominence. Or, possibly NESCAC schools do not want to spend substantially more funds to be competitive in football.  A few rich schools would clearly be able to do it, but maybe the others cannot.  If finances are not the problem, then a case can certainly be made that the NESCAC policy bespeaks a certain arrogance of attitude and behavior -- us and the rest of the unwashed 99%.   

[nescac1]

I really don't think it's the multi-sport athletes that motivates the policy.  Rather (and I am someone who would be happy with postseason football and, at the very least, a full nine game schedule, so don't shoot the messenger) my sense is that the NESCAC Presidents are not keen on devoting even more admissions resources ... resources meaning, the very, very small allotment lower-band academic admits ... that no doubt would be required to make football even remotely nationally competitive, and that they don't want the pressure from national competition driving admissions policies in one of only two remotely high profile (and that term is being used generously, it's all relative of course) NESCAC sports (men's hoops being the other). 

NESCAC teams can be nationally competitive in sports like tennis with barely any admissions repercussions (if any at all).  They can admit basically 1 stretch admit per year and still be nationally competitive in basketball (as Williams has demonstrated).  Already, about 20 percent of the TIPS at most NESCAC schools (meaning, recruits who would be unlikely to be admitted without an athletic attribute) are devoted to a single sport -- football.  [Again, all is relative, so the lowest-band TIP at Amherst or Williams might still have a 1200-1250 SAT and B plus / A minus grades, but that is still a dramatic difference from the college average].  And beyond TIPS, at smaller NESCAC schools in particular, a substantial percentage (often around 10 percent) of male first years are football recruits,  which is perceived by many faculty and administrators to have a detrimental impact on academic life at the colleges. 

Again, don't shoot the messenger, I am just sharing my sense of campus perceptions.  There is a belief that pressure that a higher level of competition would engender -- because they wouldn't want NESCAC schools to be embarrassed nationally, and pressure would come to bear to succeed -- would push some schools to take even more football players, and more towards the lower end of the admissions spectrum, leading to a domino effect.  That is the true concern that, in my view, drives policy on football, and why it is highly unlikely that it will ever change, particularly after a decade when academics standards for athletes on campuses (again, in particular at Amherst and Williams) have been moving in the OTHER direction.   

[Jonny Utah]

I really don't think it's the multi-sport athletes that motivates the policy.  Rather (and I am someone who would be happy with postseason football and, at the very least, a full nine game schedule, so don't shoot the messenger) my sense is that the NESCAC Presidents are not keen on devoting even more admissions resources ... resources meaning, the very, very small allotment lower-band academic admits ... that no doubt would be required to make football even remotely nationally competitive, and that they don't want the pressure from national competition driving admissions policies in one of only two remotely high profile (and that term is being used generously, it's all relative of course) NESCAC sports (men's hoops being the other). 

NESCAC teams can be nationally competitive in sports like tennis with barely any admissions repercussions (if any at all).  They can admit basically 1 stretch admit per year and still be nationally competitive in basketball (as Williams has demonstrated).  Already, about 20 percent of the TIPS at most NESCAC schools (meaning, recruits who would be unlikely to be admitted without an athletic attribute) are devoted to a single sport -- football.  [Again, all is relative, so the lowest-band TIP at Amherst or Williams might still have a 1200-1250 SAT and B plus / A minus grades, but that is still a dramatic difference from the college average].  And beyond TIPS, at smaller NESCAC schools in particular, a substantial percentage (often around 10 percent) of male first years are football recruits,  which is perceived by many faculty and administrators to have a detrimental impact on academic life at the colleges. 

Again, don't shoot the messenger, I am just sharing my sense of campus perceptions.  There is a belief that pressure that a higher level of competition would engender -- because they wouldn't want NESCAC schools to be embarrassed nationally, and pressure would come to bear to succeed -- would push some schools to take even more football players, and more towards the lower end of the admissions spectrum, leading to a domino effect.  That is the true concern that, in my view, drives policy on football, and why it is highly unlikely that it will ever change, particularly after a decade when academics standards for athletes on campuses (again, in particular at Amherst and Williams) have been moving in the OTHER direction.

You hit the nail on the head nescac1.

I'll add that the Ivy league schools also choose not to enter the post season football tourney but do participate in all other tourneys.

[PistachioX]

How is ^this^ different than for NESCAC hockey....which likely faces similar (if not more steep) academic recruiting challenges- but still has a post-season?

[Jonny Utah]

How is ^this^ different than for NESCAC hockey....which likely faces similar (if not more steep) academic recruiting challenges- but still has a post-season?

It is different in that there is little pressure from alumni for hockey to do well and compete on a national stage.  There are also a lot of prep/private students in the New England area that can fill the hockey spots on nescac rosters without having to drop the admission standards like you in football.  So no, the academic recruiting challenges are not the same in hockey as they are in football.

Bottom line is that there is more prestige in these football programs.

[PistachioX]

The same Prep School feeder programs you site for hocley, are all over the football rosters.  I'm not buying that.

[PistachioX]

A buch of the hockey recruits come from Juniors programs ... and are 20 years old for their freshman year of college.

Check out the excel list in this link:  http://nescachockey.wordpress.com/nescac-recruits/2012-nescac-recruits/

[nescac1]

The difference is, football teams already have 75 man varsity rosters and as many as 100 guys in preseason camp, with I believe something like 12-16 guys each year coming in who are TIP'd athletes.  Hockey, you might have 3-5 guys coming in via TIPS each year and far, far smaller rosters.  It's a HUGE difference in terms of the overall impact on campus recruiting.  But yes, men's ice hockey (along with football) features by far the biggest recruiting concessions among NESCAC sports - the difference is one of volume. 

[PistachioX]

I'll buy the volume thing.

[dlippiel]

The same Prep School feeder programs you site for hocley, are all over the football rosters.  I'm not buying that.

Football is seemingly more spread out regarding talent and paths to playing at the college level. In hockey, the Prep Schools are a factor because many very talented athletes go to the preps in order to play hockey and prepare for college. Not many nationally top notch football players do the same. As a matter of fact looking across to board nationally, how many college D3 football players come from Prep schools as opposed to high schools? Very few. Most come directly from high school. How many top notch college football players (D1) come from Prep schools? Not too many so that isn't even an option for most elite high school football players. In ice hockey, with some exceptions in the states of Minn, Wisc, and Mass (less and less now) hardly any D3 hockey players make the jump directly from high school to college. Hence even many of the most talented hockey players take that "alternate/neccessary" route through prep school (if they care about academics) and/or Juniors so they can play at the highest level of college hockey possible (and even be seen by schools). Not to mention, the Junior players that go to NESCAC schools are the exceptions when it comes to academics. They are almost always the brightest student athletes on their respective Junior teams/leagues. Hence my point, that the Prep School argument is quite valid in this case. Just some thoughts. An interesting discussion here

[frank uible]

My SWAG is that youse guys (nescac1 and Utes) through some freakish act of nature (for God knows you ain't got no smarts) have stumbled on something very close to the answer.

[PistachioX]

The rosters for virtually every NESCAC and Ivy athletic team are full of Prep, ISL and Catholic School graduates - that's nothing new.  Many of these athletes are transferring to exclusive day schools and repeating Junior year, in lieu of doing a PG year.  This is to beef up transcripts for admissions and to get bigger and stronger for recruiting purposes.  It's a little whacked IMO... but it's very, very common in NE high school sports - and a newer twist on the old PG/boarding thing.  So yes - the Prep School factor is a consideration in this process; but it is not isolated to hockey - or the biffy sports like crew, tennis, squash, swimming, etc.  Look at the rosters for helmet sports like football, lax, soccer.  Alums from these schools are everywhere.

With all due respect, dlip... the kids who elect to go the Juniors route tend to be D1 wanna-bees who are not good enough athletically to get a scholly, and/or who are not accepted to top tier academic schools (including the Prep/ISL schools)because they don't have the grades. 

They tend to choose the Juniors route as a way to mature and groom - both for the classroom and on the ice... because that is their best and last option for eventually getting that D1 scholly...or for getting into a more academically competitive school.  I would not classify these guys as strong academic candidates.