FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[RoyalsFan]

But the question was do 'numbers alone' create competitiveness. Now you are bringing in other factors, ie. injuries. If your starters are quality players, then they can be competitive regardless of how many players are on the bench. So technically I agree that numbers alone does not create competitiveness. Also, you can have 100+ players on the roster, but if they are all mediocre, then again, that doesn't guarantee competitiveness.

Yeah, but injuries in football, year over year, are inevitable. There's a point of diminishing returns when you drop below a certain number. 50 guys on a squad ... figure a typical breakdown of 20 Freshman, 15 Sophomores, 10 Juniors, 5 Seniors. You are really young and going to take your knocks. You also have a lack of depth for practice and scout team reps.

Not disagreeing with that at all. But that wasn't the question. Again, numbers alone (meaning disregarding all other factors), does not create competitiveness. I am just sticking with the parameters of the question.

[Pat Coleman]

I think we are seeing the tail end of the golden era of football Art.

I'm with you Hazz, as even schools like Bethel are finding it harder and harder to find men to attend. It's 2 to 1 at BU, and a lot of smaller schools are closer to 3 to 1. For many reasons, fewer and fewer guys are getting college educations. It really is an interesting phenomena to observe.

Not to quibble but I haven't seen ratios like you describe. Here's Bethel's official info, taken from their U.S. Department of Education filing, 1.5 to 1:

GENERAL INFORMATION
Location: 3900 Bethel Dr Saint Paul, MN 55112-6999

Phone: (651) 638-6400
Number of Full-time Undergraduates:  2,377
Men: 941
Women:  1,436

[RoyalsFan]

I think we are seeing the tail end of the golden era of football Art.

I heard Mel Tjeerdsma say back in the 2000's that the caliber of talent in small college football had shifted. Due to Title IX restrictions, the fringe FBS guys were pushed down into FCS, causing a domino effect down into D2, and D3/NAIA. That, combined with the sophistication of the passing games teams were executing in high school meant that the combination of talent and scheme complexity had dramatically reshaped the quality of small college football. The talent pool was better and the typical freshman was better prepared to play in a college scheme.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does Title IX have to do with football players being pushed down? I thought Title IX only referred to non discrimination based on sex. In other words, women can go out for football if they wanted to. Please elaborate.

[jamtod]

But the question was do 'numbers alone' create competitiveness. Now you are bringing in other factors, ie. injuries. If your starters are quality players, then they can be competitive regardless of how many players are on the bench. So technically I agree that numbers alone does not create competitiveness. Also, you can have 100+ players on the roster, but if they are all mediocre, then again, that doesn't guarantee competitiveness.

Yeah, but injuries in football, year over year, are inevitable. There's a point of diminishing returns when you drop below a certain number. 50 guys on a squad ... figure a typical breakdown of 20 Freshman, 15 Sophomores, 10 Juniors, 5 Seniors. You are really young and going to take your knocks. You also have a lack of depth for practice and scout team reps.

Not disagreeing with that at all. But that wasn't the question. Again, numbers alone (meaning disregarding all other factors), does not create competitiveness. I am just sticking with the parameters of the question.

Same. There are nuances involved. And a line somewhere between "fielding a team" and "creating competitiveness" that others have articulated better than I did in my original response.

[jamtod]

I think we are seeing the tail end of the golden era of football Art.

I heard Mel Tjeerdsma say back in the 2000's that the caliber of talent in small college football had shifted. Due to Title IX restrictions, the fringe FBS guys were pushed down into FCS, causing a domino effect down into D2, and D3/NAIA. That, combined with the sophistication of the passing games teams were executing in high school meant that the combination of talent and scheme complexity had dramatically reshaped the quality of small college football. The talent pool was better and the typical freshman was better prepared to play in a college scheme.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does Title IX have to do with football players being pushed down? I thought Title IX only referred to non discrimination based on sex. In other words, women can go out for football if they wanted to. Please elaborate.

It involves requiring equal opportunities and scholarships for men's and women's sports.

[RoyalsFan]

I think we are seeing the tail end of the golden era of football Art.

I heard Mel Tjeerdsma say back in the 2000's that the caliber of talent in small college football had shifted. Due to Title IX restrictions, the fringe FBS guys were pushed down into FCS, causing a domino effect down into D2, and D3/NAIA. That, combined with the sophistication of the passing games teams were executing in high school meant that the combination of talent and scheme complexity had dramatically reshaped the quality of small college football. The talent pool was better and the typical freshman was better prepared to play in a college scheme.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does Title IX have to do with football players being pushed down? I thought Title IX only referred to non discrimination based on sex. In other words, women can go out for football if they wanted to. Please elaborate.

It involves requiring equal opportunities and scholarships for men's and women's sports.

Thanks - guess I wasn't looking at it from a scholarship angle.

[hazzben]

FCS schools have 85 scholarship to dole out.

Pre Title IX I believe the number was something like 120ish. Someone can look up the exact number.

125 teams x 35 scholarships = 4,375 players who aren't getting an FCS offer in 2018 that were in 1970.

The other element is the changing mindset of players. In 1985, a kid was more likely to do play as a walk on for the Gophers, Wisconsin, or Nebraska than those kids are in 2018. Nebraska used to have 60+ walkons from around Nebraska, but those kids are much more enamored with playing time and end up on FCS squads like USD, SDSU, NDSU, UND, UNI, etc. That pushes more talent down as well.

Just look at Bethel, UST, and SJU. All three starting quarterbacks were at FBS programs or have that level of talent. But they're now playing D3 ball and loving it.

[bennie]

I think we are seeing the tail end of the golden era of football Art.

I heard Mel Tjeerdsma say back in the 2000's that the caliber of talent in small college football had shifted. Due to Title IX restrictions, the fringe FBS guys were pushed down into FCS, causing a domino effect down into D2, and D3/NAIA. That, combined with the sophistication of the passing games teams were executing in high school meant that the combination of talent and scheme complexity had dramatically reshaped the quality of small college football. The talent pool was better and the typical freshman was better prepared to play in a college scheme.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does Title IX have to do with football players being pushed down? I thought Title IX only referred to non discrimination based on sex. In other words, women can go out for football if they wanted to. Please elaborate.

It involves requiring equal opportunities and scholarships for men's and women's sports.

Sometimes the "opportunity" part of that is the bigger issue. I know when a school I am familiar with wanted to add Baseball (men) and Stunts and Tumbling (women), they dropped wrestling because they didn't have an additional women's sport to add (or the funding to cover the costs of an additional sport separate from the scholarship issue), so something had to go.

[OzJohnnie]

Good point, Bennie. Relativity is a thing. There are two ways to even a scale: lighten one side or put your finger on the other.

[MiacMan]

I think we are seeing the tail end of the golden era of football Art.

I heard Mel Tjeerdsma say back in the 2000's that the caliber of talent in small college football had shifted. Due to Title IX restrictions, the fringe FBS guys were pushed down into FCS, causing a domino effect down into D2, and D3/NAIA. That, combined with the sophistication of the passing games teams were executing in high school meant that the combination of talent and scheme complexity had dramatically reshaped the quality of small college football. The talent pool was better and the typical freshman was better prepared to play in a college scheme.

Forgive my ignorance, but what does Title IX have to do with football players being pushed down? I thought Title IX only referred to non discrimination based on sex. In other words, women can go out for football if they wanted to. Please elaborate.

It involves requiring equal opportunities and scholarships for men's and women's sports.

Sometimes the "opportunity" part of that is the bigger issue. I know when a school I am familiar with wanted to add Baseball (men) and Stunts and Tumbling (women), they dropped wrestling because they didn't have an additional women's sport to add (or the funding to cover the costs of an additional sport separate from the scholarship issue), so something had to go.

University of Wisconsin Badgers dropped their Big10 baseball program in a similar fashion due to Title IX.

[jamtod]

The elephant in the room with Title IX discussions is how does this impact an all-men's school like St John's?

Likewise when the discussions come up about enrollment at the WIAC schools and St Thomas and we compare apples to oranges with SJU.

[bennie]

The elephant in the room with Title IX discussions is how does this impact an all-men's school like St John's?

I don't know that I would characterize it as an elephant in the room. It very well could be that Title IX doesn't impact St. John's at all. At least where it comes down to gender equity issues (there is more to Title IX than that). Just like it wouldn't have impacted UST before they chose to go coed. That's how them cookies crumble!

[jamtod]

The elephant in the room with Title IX discussions is how does this impact an all-men's school like St John's?

I don't know that I would characterize it as an elephant in the room. It very well could be that Title IX doesn't impact St. John's at all. At least where it comes down to gender equity issues (there is more to Title IX than that). Just like it wouldn't have impacted UST before they chose to go coed. That's how them cookies crumble!

Not really an elephant. Just a question that wasn't explicitly noted.

So the fact that Title IX doesn't impact SJU but does impact these other schools (phrase this how you like, we're getting at the same thing), how does that change the athletic dynamics for them? I assume it provides some benefits (perhaps those are offset by other things) by not having to balance those scholarships and opportunities, etc. I'd like to hear thoughts on that.

Edited to note: Scholarships is the wrong word here given a D3 landscape. I was also considering this question from a D1 perspective. I think there would be some funding and emphasis elements, but I really don't know. Maybe it's not a factor at all.

[sjusection105]

The elephant in the room with Title IX discussions is how does this impact an all-men's school like St John's?

I don't know that I would characterize it as an elephant in the room. It very well could be that Title IX doesn't impact St. John's at all. At least where it comes down to gender equity issues (there is more to Title IX than that). Just like it wouldn't have impacted UST before they chose to go coed. That's how them cookies crumble!   )

+K Bennie 

[bennie]

Not football related, but wow!!

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/division-iii-player-ejected-delivering-vicious-elbow-face-180152960.html

What makes anyone think that this would go unnoticed and that they would get away with it?