FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

What's the philosophy behind the travel roster limit?

It's cheaper? 

Does the league subsidize travel cost?  This feels like a thing they could do away with, let the teams with giant rosters travel with as many players as they want at their own expense, and then you can play 20 minutes of football with StO's 1s and 2s vs. UST's 4s and 5s.  You probably don't get to Ninety-whatever-to-zero in that scenario. 

[hazzben]

I have enjoyed this board lumping Bethel into the top three athletic schools because they have good football. I would say Gustavus is overall much stronger athletically. Regardless, grouping Bethel with the Tommies and the Johnnies is laughable.

Overall, that's certainly true, but in the sports that probably get the most attention (football, basketball, baseball) BU has won the conference, or been involved in conference championship games multiple times in the past 10 years in each of those sports, which has not been the case for the Gusties.

Given that football has for the most part driven this whole issue, I don't think it's "laughable" to group BU with SJU and UST.

If you were really looking holistically at the MIAC as a sporting group though, yeah, Gustavus is good.  We should probably kick them out of the MIAC, given their dominant history in tennis.  I mean, look at all of those 9-0 losses.  The Gusties certainly could have allowed things to be a little closer. 

https://athletics.bethel.edu/opponent-history/mens-tennis/gustavus-adolphus-college/10/4

GoldandBlueBU stole the words from my keyboard.

Bethel's athletic department has grown leaps and bounds since the 80's, not just in football. Basketball and baseball are top programs in the MIAC. Their track team has gotten very competitive as well. Lumping them in there isn't far off, as G&B pointed out, GAC is probably a better athletic department, but it's in all the sports no one really cares about (unless your son is a GAC tennis player). 

[hazzben]

Greg nailed this. Limited home rosters would actually lead to greater blood baths. The 5th string Frosh RB is now sitting in the stands and not mercifully only gaining 8 yds on Power where the 1st string guy was breaking it for 50+ in the 1st Q.

And again, per Greg, roster limits would actually hurt the Hamline's and Augsburgs of the world. Their solution is to get their rosters over 100, not require everyone to get under 80. They need the tuition dollards.

FWIW, Bethel usually only has a little north of 100 guys on the roster. Coach J has said in the past his magic number was around 110ish. Good balance of depth, and being able to coach up the guys they have.

[hazzben]

Triple post ... cuz we need to keep our page numbers up now that we'll soon be losing all the Tommie posters. 

Outside the box solution ... Limit Coaching staff sizes.

If you limited the number of FT coaches on a staff that could provide some of the parity schools are looking for (I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit). Without digging, I'm guessing UST has a substantially more man hours to throw at film, practice, recruiting, etc. than Hamline or Augsburg. Not to mention non-coaching admin support.

If Team A has 10 FT coaches and Team B has 4, the difference can be huge. Team B fills out their staff with part time, typically in season only help. Guys who usually can only devote 25 or so hours a week to coaching (still a massive commitment considering they have FT jobs).

In season:
Team A has 800 man hours to allot to film, in season recruiting, coaching, scouting, admin, etc. (Assuming 80 hours per week for coaches in season)
Team B has 470 man hours. And over half their staff is doing this as a second job.

330 man hour advantage per week. And so you end up with behind the back 2 pt conversions, cuz coaches 9 and 10 had to do something on Friday at 2 pm.

Off Season:
Team A has 500 man hours to allot to recruiting, spring football, strength & conditioning, admin, etc.
Team B has 200 man hours to allot.

300 man hour advantage per week.

Team A is better to begin with. So they are more attractive to the best players. They also have more 300 extra man hours every week to devote to recruiting better players and finding gems no one else is aware of nationally. Then once those better players get to campus, they have 330 extra man hours every week of the season to coach up and develop that superior talent.

In all honesty, I don't love this solution. But it's better than kicking UST out and better than artificially limiting roster sizes. But got to make these participation trophy loving presidents happy somehow!!

President Anderson can give me a call for consulting help whenever he's ready. 

[DuffMan]

Outside the box solution ... Limit Coaching staff sizes.

The problem with that is that it may create parity within the MIAC, but it does a disservice the the teams with aspirattions of deep playoff runs.  How many FT coaching positions to UMU and UMHB have?

[GoldandBlueBU]

Outside the box solution ... Limit Coaching staff sizes.

The problem with that is that it may create parity within the MIAC, but it does a disservice the the teams with aspirattions of deep playoff runs.  How many FT coaching positions to UMU and UMHB have?

While I agree that this could help create parity if it could be enacted, I don't see how you could reasonably enforce.  What is to stop a school from hiring someone as an "athletics department XXX" employee, but have them working basically 100% dedicated to football? 

[jamtod]

I like the idea, if it's a D3 NCAA wide decision. But any possibility of that seems to get more into the D4 conversation.

[hazzben]

Totally agree. Just throwing out another option for those who feel like competing on their own merits is too steep a hill to climb.

[Gregory Sager]

I find your coaching-limits trial balloon intriguing, hazzbeen, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter and I think it's the most constructive proposal I've read yet on this board.

One thing, though:

Team A is better to begin with. So they are more attractive to the best players. They also have more 300 extra man hours every week to devote to recruiting better players and finding gems no one else is aware of nationally. Then once those better players get to campus, they have 330 extra man hours every week of the season to coach up and develop that superior talent.

FTFY.

It's not just the superior talent that wants to enroll at the school with the superior program in his or her sport; the marginal talent feels the same way, because: a) winning is a universal attraction; and b) a lot of marginal players are convinced that they're actually superior players, or can be if they work hard enough. Winning programs are always going to draw more prospects of all types, and losing programs are always going to have to work harder to draw prospects of all types. The imbalance of coaching man-hours that you pointed out exacerbates this situation.

Outside the box solution ... Limit Coaching staff sizes.

The problem with that is that it may create parity within the MIAC, but it does a disservice the the teams with aspirattions of deep playoff runs.  How many FT coaching positions to UMU and UMHB have?

This is where the rubber meets the road with regard to the difference between UST (and SJU, for that matter) and the rest of the league. Football is different than every other college sport because of: a) the immense size of the rosters as compared to other college sports; and b) the immense resources required to run a football program as compared to other college sports. In order to compete with the tiny handful of programs that have gone all-in on football and have the postseason bona-fides to prove it (Mount Union, UMHB, UWW, UWO, and perhaps a precious few others), a massive investment needs to be made in the program that goes well above and beyond the budgetary imbalance that already exists within an athletic department in favor of football. That massive investment, as you imply, includes huge coaching staffs that have a disproportionate number of full-timers.

It's one thing to talk about roster sizes, because that affects institutional income -- an important factor for tuition-dependent schools, and therefore an issue in which the pro-UST and anti-UST schools within the MIAC can find common ground (if perhaps for different reasons). But the resources arms race that includes having twice as many (or more) full-time football coaches at the two schools that aspire to go toe-to-toe with the Warhawks and the Purple Raiders and the Crusaders and the Titans? Now you're into an area where there is going to be genuine philosophical disagreement. The Tommies and Johnnies are going to say, "Why don't the rest of you want to have 8-10 full-time football coaches, indoor practice football facilities, expanded weight rooms, etc.? That's what a competitive football program ought to have." And the people who are against that are going to say, "Why do you want to be like the D1 schools, where the tail wags the dog as far as football and the institution itself are concerned? Devoting such disproportional resources to the football team would mean that we're losing our perspective on how football relates to the rest of the institution."

I like the idea, if it's a D3 NCAA wide decision. But any possibility of that seems to get more into the D4 conversation.

D4 is a dead issue. The division has already examined it at length in this decade and decided not to split.

Like it or not, this is what UST has to deal with if it really wants to stay in D3.

[TheChucker]

I find your coaching-limits trial balloon intriguing, hazzbeen, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter and I think it's the most constructive proposal I've read yet on this board.

One thing, though:

Team A is better to begin with. So they are more attractive to the best players. They also have more 300 extra man hours every week to devote to recruiting better players and finding gems no one else is aware of nationally. Then once those better players get to campus, they have 330 extra man hours every week of the season to coach up and develop that superior talent.

FTFY.

It's not just the superior talent that wants to enroll at the school with the superior program in his or her sport; the marginal talent feels the same way, because: a) winning is a universal attraction; and b) a lot of marginal players are convinced that they're actually superior players, or can be if they work hard enough. Winning programs are always going to draw more prospects of all types, and losing programs are always going to have to work harder to draw prospects of all types. The imbalance of coaching man-hours that you pointed out exacerbates this situation.

Outside the box solution ... Limit Coaching staff sizes.

The problem with that is that it may create parity within the MIAC, but it does a disservice the the teams with aspirattions of deep playoff runs.  How many FT coaching positions to UMU and UMHB have?

This is where the rubber meets the road with regard to the difference between UST (and SJU, for that matter) and the rest of the league. Football is different than every other college sport because of: a) the immense size of the rosters as compared to other college sports; and b) the immense resources required to run a football program as compared to other college sports. In order to compete with the tiny handful of programs that have gone all-in on football and have the postseason bona-fides to prove it (Mount Union, UMHB, UWW, UWO, and perhaps a precious few others), a massive investment needs to be made in the program that goes well above and beyond the budgetary imbalance that already exists within an athletic department in favor of football. That massive investment, as you imply, includes huge coaching staffs that have a disproportionate number of full-timers.

It's one thing to talk about roster sizes, because that affects institutional income -- an important factor for tuition-dependent schools, and therefore an issue in which the pro-UST and anti-UST schools within the MIAC can find common ground (if perhaps for different reasons). But the resources arms race that includes having twice as many (or more) full-time football coaches at the two schools that aspire to go toe-to-toe with the Warhawks and the Purple Raiders and the Crusaders and the Titans? Now you're into an area where there is going to be genuine philosophical disagreement. The Tommies and Johnnies are going to say, "Why don't the rest of you want to have 8-10 full-time football coaches, indoor practice football facilities, expanded weight rooms, etc.? That's what a competitive football program ought to have." And the people who are against that are going to say, "Why do you want to be like the D1 schools, where the tail wags the dog as far as football and the institution itself are concerned? Devoting such disproportional resources to the football team would mean that we're losing our perspective on how football relates to the rest of the institution."

I like the idea, if it's a D3 NCAA wide decision. But any possibility of that seems to get more into the D4 conversation.

D4 is a dead issue. The division has already examined it at length in this decade and decided not to split.

Like it or not, this is what UST has to deal with if it really wants to stay in D3.

I think the coaching staff issue hits the heart of the matter and easily identifies the "haves" from the "have nots"...or the "serious" to "moderately serious" along with facilities. I happen to know something about UMHB just from being on that campus and knowing someone well who was recruited there recently in another sport. Their football coaching staff is huge. Similarly, I'm sure all the relevant national teams have large coaching staffs too. Outside of football though, UMHB's other sports are staffed similarly to other D3 schools (even if facilities are great).

The difference between St. Thomas and other MIAC schools, and D3 in general, is that MANY their sports are supported with large staffs. For example, the UST softball team lists 6 coaches and the baseball team 8 coaches. That's more than the University of Minnesota, much less most D3 schools. St. Thomas has been willing to fund the spectrum athletic teams across the board which is admirable (yet out of the league of many D3 schools).

[Mr.MIAC]

I've taken a few days to gather my thoughts on this whole mess. I think what we're witnessing with this attempted coup is symptomatic of a much larger challenge than personality conflicts and/or a lack of parity in athletics. Some administrators might not like certain coaches and/or coaching styles, but personal grudges alone don't usually drive major administrative decisions. The administrators at schools that don't broadly prioritize athletic competiveness know there will always be those that do to a greater degree.

Administrators care first and foremost about sustaining and/or growing their institutions. Analysts predict a major contraction within the education sector. The institutions most likely to survive will be financially stable, nationally prestigious, culturally unique, and/or effective at meeting demands of the employment market.

Here's where things stand at the moment:

Financial Stability:

Tier 1: Carleton, Macalester, St. Olaf, and UST
Tier 2: Concordia, Gustavus, and SJU/CSB
Tier 3: Augsburg, Bethel, Hamline, St. Kate's, and St. Mary's

National Reputation:

Tier 1: Carleton and Macalester
Tier 2: Gustavus, SJU/CSB, St. Olaf, and UST
Tier 3: Augsburg, Bethel, Concordia, Hamline, St. Kate's, and St. Mary's

All MIAC schools are culturally unique. However, schools that have made pursuing athletic competitiveness a distinctive feature of campus culture include: Bethel, SJU/CSB, and UST.

Meeting demands of the employment market is accomplished in different ways: investing in STEM, adding graduate programs, and/or offering flexible learning pathways. Schools that have invested heavily in STEM include: Augsburg, Carleton, Macalester, and UST. Schools that have invested in offering a range of graduate programs include: Augsburg, Bethel, Concordia, Hamline, St. Kate's, St. Mary's, and UST. Schools that have invested in offering flexible learning pathways—online degrees and/or satellite campuses—include: Augsburg, Bethel, Hamline, St. Kate's, St. Mary's, and UST.

So I think we have three categories of schools within the MIAC that are attempting to deal with contraction differently:

Strongly Positioned: Carleton and Macalester have large endowments and significant national prestige; they heavily recruit and fundraise nationally; they've made investments in STEM in order to meet market demands; as small residential liberal arts colleges they have unique cultures, but to maintain this they have had to forgo adding graduate programs and flexible learning pathways. UST has a slightly smaller endowment and moderate national prestige; it actively recruits and fundraises nationally, though most students come from the region; it's made investments in STEM, added graduate programs, and offered flexible learning pathways in order to meet market demands. It has relied heavily on its urban location and athletics to offer a unique campus culture.

Fairly Positioned: St. Olaf has a large endowment and moderate national prestige. Gustavus has similar prestige, but a smaller endowment; both actively recruit and fundraise nationally, though most students come from the region; neither have invested as heavily in STEM; as small residential liberal arts colleges they have unique cultures, but to maintain this they have had to forgo adding graduate programs and flexible learning pathways. SJU/CSB has an endowment and level of prestige that rivals Gustavus; it actively recruits and fundraises nationally, though most students come from the region; it hasn't invested as heavily in STEM; as a small residential liberal arts college is has a unique culture, but to maintain this it has had to forgo adding a range of graduate programs and flexible learning pathways. It has relied heavily on athletics (and self-imposed sexual deprivation) to offer a unique campus culture.

Poorly Positioned: Augsburg, Bethel, Concordia, Hamline, St. Kate's, and St. Mary's have small endowments and limited national prestige. None heavily recruit or fundraise nationally, and the majority of students come from the region; aside from Augsburg, they haven't invested as heavily in STEM; most are pursuing a survival strategy that prioritizes meeting employment market demands and doesn't prominently feature athletics. St. Kate's has a unique niche as a women's college. Bethel is the only one using athletics (and religiosity) to create a campus culture unique enough to ensure its survival.   

According to Reusse, it's a handful of schools that want to boot UST from the MIAC. Some of them—Augsburg, Concordia, Hamline, St. Kate's, and St. Mary's—are the least well positioned to survive contraction within the education sector, while Gustavus and St Olaf are only fairly positioned to deal with contraction. Keeping UST in the MIAC doesn't greatly benefit any of them. It especially doesn't help administrators mindful of the views of prospective students, parents, and donors when a competitor that's similarly or better positioned for the future also regularly beats you on the athletic field.

None of these schools have chosen to differentiate themselves by being broadly competitive in athletics, but trying to keep up with UST in athletics might be harmful. Augsburg, Concordia, Hamline, St. Kate's, and St. Mary's don't necessarily have the resources to compete in athletics while advancing their other strategic initiatives. Gustavus and St Olaf might have the means, but pursuing athletic competitiveness could hinder their pursuit of academic prestige. The best option for these schools is to have UST disappear.

[5 Words or Less]

Outside the box solution ... Limit Coaching staff sizes.

Hazzben for President

[jknezek]

None of these schools have chosen to differentiate themselves by being broadly competitive in athletics, but trying to keep up with UST in athletics might be harmful. Augsburg, Concordia, Hamline, St. Kate's, and St. Mary's don't necessarily have the resources to compete in athletics while advancing their other strategic initiatives. Gustavus and St Olaf might have the means, but pursuing athletic competitiveness could hinder their pursuit of academic prestige. The best option for these schools is to have UST disappear.

This is a point I made a few days ago and I wholeheartedly agree. You did a great job with the supporting analysis. This is tangentially about athletics and, because football is big to athletics, somewhat about football. But what this is really about is the changing college landscape and having a lot of air sucked out of the area by one school that doesn't seem real concerned about its supposed peer group. Eventually, that group is going to get irritated enough to do something. The MIAC schools can't dictate to UST how it grows or its future aspirations, but what they can do is say "we are going to try and make it so you aren't our peer anymore and we are less in competition for as many kids as possible." One way they can do that is by making it so they don't compete at the same athletic level anymore, and they send UST to compete for both athletes, and kids that care about athletic success, with someone else.

I don't think it's overly effective, and I bet the administrators of these schools know that as well, but it's something tangible they can do to express their displeasure other than simply wag fingers and say words at meetings. There are precious few things that fall in that category.

[OzJohnnie]

GoldandBlueBU stole the words from my keyboard.

Bethel's athletic department has grown leaps and bounds since the 80's, not just in football. Basketball and baseball are top programs in the MIAC. Their track team has gotten very competitive as well. Lumping them in there isn't far off, as G&B pointed out, GAC is probably a better athletic department, but it's in all the sports no one really cares about (unless your son is a GAC tennis player). 

[Mr.MIAC]

None of these schools have chosen to differentiate themselves by being broadly competitive in athletics, but trying to keep up with UST in athletics might be harmful. Augsburg, Concordia, Hamline, St. Kate's, and St. Mary's don't necessarily have the resources to compete in athletics while advancing their other strategic initiatives. Gustavus and St Olaf might have the means, but pursuing athletic competitiveness could hinder their pursuit of academic prestige. The best option for these schools is to have UST disappear.

This is a point I made a few days ago and I wholeheartedly agree. You did a great job with the supporting analysis. This is tangentially about athletics and, because football is big to athletics, somewhat about football. But what this is really about is the changing college landscape and having a lot of air sucked out of the area by one school that doesn't seem real concerned about its supposed peer group. Eventually, that group is going to get irritated enough to do something. The MIAC schools can't dictate to UST how it grows or its future aspirations, but what they can do is say "we are going to try and make it so you aren't our peer anymore and we are less in competition for as many kids as possible." One way they can do that is by making it so they don't compete at the same athletic level anymore, and they send UST to compete for both athletes, and kids that care about athletic success, with someone else.

I don't think it's overly effective, and I bet the administrators of these schools know that as well, but it's something tangible they can do to express their displeasure other than simply wag fingers and say words at meetings. There are precious few things that fall in that category.

I saw that post and agree with your assessment. I think this is especially true for St. Olaf and Gustavus. They're residential liberal arts colleges like Carleton and Macalester, but most of their students are drawn from the region. There are a lot of cross-admits choosing amongst St. Olaf, Gustavus, and UST. Not so much amongst these three, Carleton, and Macalester. The latter two are less affected by UST's athletic dominance because fewer of their students, parents, and donors prioritize athletics and/or will go on to live and work in the region. Many of the kids going to St. Olaf, Gustavus, and UST will go on to live and work in the Twin Cities. It's nice to have a large alumni network, a robust schedule of alumni activities (including football games at Target Field), and bragging rights tied to things like athletics.