FB: New England Small College Athletic Conference

[Ephmen]

But just to be clear the former QB is 5'7. Thanks Mole for a legit answer, as for Ephman I am not bitter I just think Raymond is overrated. To go 3-6 at Williams is almost more difficult than to go 9-0....

0-8 in his first year, with a team largely inherited from his predecessor, who had three consecutive 2-6 years before that.  So not that difficult, when there's a bad coach in charge.

[Scoops]

I wasn't quoting you in saying that it was a "great feat". Simply acknowledging that you saying his 9-0 year buys him some kind of reprieve is questionable at best. He did inherit a bad team, which is usually the case in a coaching change. And he did well in putting together a core group and riding them to a title. Him going 3-6 this year with a group that was entirely recruited by him, and that was part of that 9-0 culture, is just as telling as the Ephs perfect season in my opinion. Hence my point in saying that this year will really prove whether it was Raymond's coaching or Maimaron and co. talent that deserves the credit for their reemergence of the program.

But just to be clear the former QB is 5'7. Thanks Mole for a legit answer, as for Ephman I am not bitter I just think Raymond is overrated. To go 3-6 at Williams is almost more difficult than to go 9-0....

0-8 in his first year, with a team largely inherited from his predecessor, who had three consecutive 2-6 years before that.  So not that difficult, when there's a bad coach in charge.

[lumbercat]

Johnny Eph-

Conclusive statements about Coach Raymond and his shortcomings. One would assume your position might emanate from some knowledge of the game.....then you ask the question "can a 5'7" guy coach a taller Quarterback?"

I agree with Ephman- think you have an agenda.

[LochNescac]

As Mister T would say....

"Enough of this Coach Raymond jibber jabber ya fools!!"

I'd rather see Ironhorse22's updated recruiting class numbers.....

("Stay in school....don't do drugs....")

[maineman]

If the top NESCAC team decided they wanted to go the NCAA's some fall, would the NCAA give them a Pool A right away or would they have to wait a few years?  Obviously, like Union, it would be the end of their tenure in NESCAC.  I noticed the NCAA doesn't even regionally rank any of the NESCAC teams, probably because they always  decline the bid. 

If the NESCAC did decide to go to the NCAA's sometime, do you think, like in other sports, the conference  would be pretty much combined in their own region with a few other New England teams like Endicott, UNE, WPI, Springfield, etc.?  If the NESCAC had a 9-0 team, an 8-1 team and a 7-2 team, do you they would stand a chance of getting multiple bids?

I realize it is folly to talk about this, but it is better than debating Coach Raymond!

[DagarmanSpartan]

Personally, I can't understand the NESCAC aversion to participating in the d3 football post-season.

I mean, consider this.  The UAA schools (Chicago, Carnegie-Mellon, Washington U-St. Louis, Case Western Reserve U., and Rochester) are every bit as selective and every bit as academically rigorous as any NESCAC schools, and they all permit their members to participate in the NCAA d3 football post-season; this was true even before most of them affiliated other d3 conferences for football.

If UAA administrations don't mind, then what's the hang-up with the NESCAC?

I would assume that the NESCAC champ would get an automatic bid to the d3 football playoffs, were they allowed to accept one.

That said, I want to say "good match" to NESCAC member Tufts.  My beloved CWRU Spartans just played them in the d3 men's tennis finals.

[sigma one]

As an observer who follows DIII closely, I really have never been able to understand why the NESCAC allows student-athletes in other sports the league sponsors to participate in post-season participation but prohibits football from doing so.  I understand the aversion to a sport with no female counterpart and with a history of severe injuries (though other sports have their fair share of injuries too).  But if you sponsor football, why treat it differently?
    I've heard the arguments, both pro and con, and lament the absence of serious student-athletes from competing with all other members of DIII in the post-season.  I try to follow NESCAC much as I can, having a long association with the football HC at Bowdoin.    As far as I can understand, the NESCAC plays really good football and would, I believe, be a challenging opponent in the playoffs.  It's a shame that this perception cannot be tested.  And a disservice to the players and coaches--and in a certain way to the schools as well.
      Nothing I've written here has not been expressed before again and again, and nothing any of us writes or encourages is going to change the minds of those in control.  I just want to be someone not connected in any way to the NESCAC to join others crying in the wllderness against what many  perceive to be a serious injustice.   

[The Ghost of John Wesley]

Personally, I can't understand the NESCAC aversion to participating in the d3 football post-season.

I mean, consider this.  The UAA schools (Chicago, Carnegie-Mellon, Washington U-St. Louis, Case Western Reserve U., and Rochester) are every bit as selective and every bit as academically rigorous as any NESCAC schools,

From the quick searching I just did, it looks like Case Western and Rochester are really only close to Trinity in terms of their acceptance rate (the metric I will use for "selectivity"). They are fine schools, but saying they are every bit as selective as any NESCAC school is waaaay off the mark and demonstrably false.

Are you aware that almost all of the NESCAC schools apart from Trinity have <20% acceptance rates now, with most under 15%?

[DagarmanSpartan]

Check out their average SAT and ACT ranges and compare them with CWRU's.

I am guessing that CWRU's would meet or exceed those of many NESCAC schools.

And Chicago and WashU would be well ahead.

It's not just about how many people you reject that determines selectivity.  Some schools get a lot of applications from the unqualified.

It's the scores of those that are admitted and enroll that tell a truer selectivity story.

Check on that and get back to me.

If UAA schools with higher average SAT scores compete in the D3 playoffs, then there's no reason the NESCAC schools with lower average SAT scores can't.

[The Ghost of John Wesley]

Check out their average SAT and ACT ranges for CWRU.

I am guessing they would meet or exceed those of every NESCAC school.

And Chicago and WashU would be well ahead.

It's not just about how many people you reject that determines selectivity.  Some schools get a lot of applications from the unqualified.

It's the scores of those that are admitted and enroll that tell a truer selectivity story.

Check on that and get back to me.

If UAA schools with higher average SAT scores compete in the D3 playoffs, then there's no reason the NESCAC schools can't.

I understand you are a Case Western alum, so any type of "knock" (real or perceived) is likely to raise hackles. I did not intend to take a dig at the school, which is why I conceded that it's a fine school. And it is. Not every Tom, Dick, and Harry can gain acceptance or graduate from that school. It's hard. It's selective. But based on the most common, least subjective, and most absolute metric of selectivity (the acceptance rate, or acceptances divided by number of applications), it is not as selective as Williams, Amherst, Middlebury, Bowdoin, Colby, Tufts, Hamilton, Wesleyan, or Bates, and it's not really that close.

You could use your point regarding average test scores to also argue that Case Western or Rochester are as selective as Dartmouth or Columbia. That's obviously not true and shows how ridiculous it is to argue the point of selectivity based on average test score. And unfortunately, with so many schools going test score optional these days, it's becoming less and less of a relevant metric each year. It works out great for the schools, as the kids with lights out test scores submit and those with OK or marginal ones do not, bringing average SAT/ACT scores up across the board.

I wasn't interested in discussing the NESCAC competing in the playoffs because frankly I don't care about that, which is why I didn't engage you on it. We could have the same argument about the Ivies, and many people do. In this very thread this argument has been had probably 500 times already. The NESCAC is the way it is, the Ivies are they way they are, and so be it. I am always shocked when someone from outside the league has such an impassioned opinion about it. Most within the league (current players, coaches, and alums) do not care. The league is the league, the schools are the schools, and we're mostly fine with that.

[DagarmanSpartan]

Well if I were playing football at a NESCAC school, I'd be a bit perturbed that every other sport except mine gets to compete for a national title.

No other d3 conference whose players have comparable test scores (UAA) operates that way.

Seems strange to me.

[DagarmanSpartan]

Looking at Williams and Amherst, arguably the two most selective NESCAC schools, their average SAT scores were certainly not higher than Chicago's.

A little lower actually. 

Washington U's were about on par with Williams and Amherst.

Even Case Western Reserve U., one of the least selective UAA schools, has a middle SAT range of 1420-1520.

That's well ahead of the middle SAT range of 1310-1450 for Connecticut College, and it's about on par with Middlebury.

In that regard, UAA selectivity compares quite well with the NESCAC from top to bottom.

So as I said, if UAA teams can compete for football nattys, there's no reason that NESCAC teams shouldn't be able to.

And no, admission rates are NOT the most basic measure of selectivity.  All that shows is that some schools get a larger number of unqualified applicants, which in turn affords them the luxury of rejecting more.  A lot of people apply there that really shouldn't be applying there.

When you look at the numbers of those actually admitted, the NESCAC and UAA are comparable.  As such, the academic credentials of the UAA football players will likewise be comparable to those of NESCAC players.  There's no reason, given that, why one group should be allowed to compete for a natty when the other cannot.

Doesn't seem fair to me!

[The Ghost of John Wesley]

Looking at Williams and Amherst, arguably the two most selective NESCAC schools, their average SAT scores were certainly not higher than Chicago's.

A little lower actually. 

Washington U's were about on par with Williams and Amherst.

Even Case Western Reserve U., one of the least selective UAA schools, has a middle SAT range of 1420-1520.

That's well ahead of the middle SAT range of 1310-1450 for Connecticut College.  And it's about on par with Middlebury.

In that regard, UAA selectivity compares quite well with the NESCAC from top to bottom.

So as I said, if UAA teams can compete for football nattys, there's no reason that NESCAC teams shouldn't be able to.

And no, admission rates aren't the most basic measure of selectivity.  All that shows is that some schools get a larger number of unqualified applicants, which in turn affords them the luxury of rejecting more.  A lot of people apply there that really shouldn't be applying there.

When you look at the numbers of those actually admitted, the NESCAC and UAA are comparable.  As such, the academic credentials of the UAA football players will likewise be comparable to those of NESCAC players.  There's no reason, given that, why one group should be allowed to compete for a natty when the other cannot.

Doesn't seem fair to me!

Notice I never mentioned UChicago in my original post. There was a reason for that. In terms of selectivity, it's in a different league. It's disingenuous to use them to argue a point about Case Western and Rochester, the two schools I singled out in my original post.

I suppose if you attended a school with high average test scores, you are proud of that and want to emphasize that. That is obvious and understandable. From my understanding, schools with STEM focuses tend to have higher test scores across the board compared to their "peer" schools. I also understand that Case Western and Rochester are generally considered "STEM-focused" schools given their strong math/science programs. That's awesome and commendable. High test scores shows that the average student they accept and matriculate is very good at test taking. I will concede that that also demonstrates a high degree of intellectual horsepower, given the correlation between test scores and IQ. It shows that their average student is intelligent. But it does not demonstrate that it is a more selective school than schools who accept 15-20% fewer students on average.

The common or accepted definition of "selectivity" re college admissions has and will continue to be acceptance/admissions rate first and foremost. Acceptances / applications = a pretty clear and definable metric for a school's selectivity. Average test scores, GPA, extracurriculars, etc. are all components that feed into this calculation, but for the populace at large selectivity = acceptance rate. That's why I chose it.

[SpringSt7]

Most people in here would absolutely want to see the NESCAC compete in the football postseason. But we have all been here long enough and been through enough of these pop up "hey, why don't you guys compete in the playoffs?" offseason posts, and we all know that it just won't happen. Arguing the merits of it and its feasibility and execution would make sense if it seemed like it was anywhere on the horizon. But it isn't, so we all unfortunately just keep it moving.

Also, for whatever it's worth, the further forward these schools go with test optional admissions, the less reflective those numbers will be of applicant pool and selectivity. Carry on.

[DagarmanSpartan]

Can't understand why it isn't on the horizon.

Chicago and Washington U get to compete for the football Natty and NESCAC schools don't?

Makes NO sense whatsoever.