FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[jamtod]

I know this may sound strange, but many of the MIAC schools don't want to change for the sake of athletics.  They aren't athlete factories.  Sure you can be great at academics and athletics, but some of you seem to think that sacrifices need to be made in the name of athletics.  Not every school shares that philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to lower their admissions standards to build a football team or cut funding to their library so they can hire a better coach.  Some schools have student-athletes that are far more focused on their academics which involves missing practices and even games.  Winning is fun, but is it worth the cost?  If you are looking for athletic glory to propel you to the next level in the MIAC you are in the wrong conference.

This is all well and good but St Olaf has the nicest fieldhouse in the conference, a new hockey palace, an Athletic Director from the University of Maryland, and a lot of resources MIAC schools envy. They are playing the game as much as anyone. And unless you have information otherwise the only sports program that has been rumored to lower admissions standards was Meidt's football team at St Olaf. That was a widespread whisper through the conference at the time. So it is a bit disingenuous for Um Ya Ya to be leading this charge.

And hired a coaching staff from UST with (I presume) basically the same coaching philosophy as the hated Caruso.

The thing I don't understand is that, by all accounts the MIAC is one of the top athletic conferences across D3 in all sports. Maybe that's significantly driven by the schools at the top which the bottom tier wants to get rid of, but it's not as if the MIAC is the [insert conference here] in terms of athletics. And it's also not as if UST is dominating across the board in D3. So I understand that there are differences in priority and commitment of resources, but... I dunno.

[emma17]

JK,
I agree with much of your post, however, imo there is still a need for the presidents to clearly express the big picture plan/protocol/rules. Meaning, what level of success is too much before the next school is forced out?
Shouldn't that be known by all in the conference?

[GoldandBlueBU]

JK,
I agree with much of your post, however, imo there is still a need for the presidents to clearly express the big picture plan/protocol/rules. Meaning, what level of success is too much before the next school is forced out?
Shouldn't that be known by all in the conference?

Exactly!

Just how good can you get before you're out?  If athletic success is a standard for removal, it should be objective....this feels very subjective.  That way, SJU can toe the line appropriately, as it seems like football is the catalyst for this sort of ejection.

And across which sports are you allowed to succeed?  GAC Men's tennis has been awfully good for a long time...Augsburg wrestling probably intimidates a lot of other MIAC's from participating...

[wm4]

Yes. But you play at a given level where you choose to compete as well. That's why there is NFL, FBS, FCS, DII, and DIII for football and various other levels in other sports. If most of the rest of the MIAC felt that UST was playing at a different level, which is clearly the case given the athletic dominance over a long term across many sports, they chose to try and reset the scenario to where they were more comfortable.

Do you do that by becoming the outlier or by removing the outlier? In competition we like to say you become the outlier. In reality, almost all other countries remove the outlier through promotion and relegation. We are about the only country that does not use this form of athletic reward/punishment in our leagues. And no, it's not just soccer. Pretty much every sporting league throughout the world, except North America, uses promotion/relegation. And even we do it at youth levels. Our collegiate and professional leagues are stupidly resistant to this concept and it's 100% about money.

Do I support what the MIAC did? Not really. But I understand it. There wasn't another mechanism to use to create the effect they wanted. So they removed the outlier. The few statements we've gotten have been consistent and appropriate. This was done mainly for competitive purposes, they aren't ducking that, they are fully admitting it. The MIAC was in danger of breaking up without this happening, and for the fence sitters, this was the lesser of two bad choices. They aren't going to bash UST, and they aren't going to provide a roll call for how everyone was feeling.

What you want and think you deserve from them is different from what you are going to get. Personally I think the MIAC Presidents have played this fairly well. They took their lumps for a few days and now it is over. As they knew it would be. Did they probably take more than expected? Yeah, I doubt they thought it would be a national story for a day or two. But that's all it was. Personally I think it was something of a mistake to give UST 2 years to find a new home. This is going to be ugly for those 2 years on the field. I probably would have cut that pain in half.

How did UST get to this level of dominance and what's preventing the other MIAC schools from doing the same?  How is this level of dominance different from UST's level of similar "all sports" dominance in from say 1980-1995?

[jknezek]

JK,
I agree with much of your post, however, imo there is still a need for the presidents to clearly express the big picture plan/protocol/rules. Meaning, what level of success is too much before the next school is forced out?
Shouldn't that be known by all in the conference?

What makes you think it's not? I suspect it's like the old Supreme Court definition of pornography, you know it when you see it. But the MIAC is not a public institution. They don't have to tell fans squat. And I highly doubt they would box themselves into a corner on this. But I bet the Presidents all talked it over and get the concept.

['95 Blugold]

Yes. But you play at a given level where you choose to compete as well. That's why there is NFL, FBS, FCS, DII, and DIII for football and various other levels in other sports. If most of the rest of the MIAC felt that UST was playing at a different level, which is clearly the case given the athletic dominance over a long term across many sports, they chose to try and reset the scenario to where they were more comfortable.

Do you do that by becoming the outlier or by removing the outlier? In competition we like to say you become the outlier. In reality, almost all other countries remove the outlier through promotion and relegation. We are about the only country that does not use this form of athletic reward/punishment in our leagues. And no, it's not just soccer. Pretty much every sporting league throughout the world, except North America, uses promotion/relegation. And even we do it at youth levels. Our collegiate and professional leagues are stupidly resistant to this concept and it's 100% about money.

Do I support what the MIAC did? Not really. But I understand it. There wasn't another mechanism to use to create the effect they wanted. So they removed the outlier. The few statements we've gotten have been consistent and appropriate. This was done mainly for competitive purposes, they aren't ducking that, they are fully admitting it. The MIAC was in danger of breaking up without this happening, and for the fence sitters, this was the lesser of two bad choices. They aren't going to bash UST, and they aren't going to provide a roll call for how everyone was feeling.

What you want and think you deserve from them is different from what you are going to get. Personally I think the MIAC Presidents have played this fairly well. They took their lumps for a few days and now it is over. As they knew it would be. Did they probably take more than expected? Yeah, I doubt they thought it would be a national story for a day or two. But that's all it was. Personally I think it was something of a mistake to give UST 2 years to find a new home. This is going to be ugly for those 2 years on the field. I probably would have cut that pain in half.

How did UST get to this level of dominance and what's preventing the other MIAC schools from doing the same?  How is this level of dominance different from UST's level of similar "all sports" dominance in from say 1980-1995?

The level of dominance is different because its on the football field with a coach who runs up the score in an unsportsmanlike fashion. Once again, I'm an insider looking in on this (UWEC grad, living now near Rochester), but I have witnessed first hand and could list off examples of what I have seen. I could easily be wrong in this assumption, but regardless of what is being said I think this all basically comes down to Coach C. Plain and Simple.

[jknezek]

Yes. But you play at a given level where you choose to compete as well. That's why there is NFL, FBS, FCS, DII, and DIII for football and various other levels in other sports. If most of the rest of the MIAC felt that UST was playing at a different level, which is clearly the case given the athletic dominance over a long term across many sports, they chose to try and reset the scenario to where they were more comfortable.

Do you do that by becoming the outlier or by removing the outlier? In competition we like to say you become the outlier. In reality, almost all other countries remove the outlier through promotion and relegation. We are about the only country that does not use this form of athletic reward/punishment in our leagues. And no, it's not just soccer. Pretty much every sporting league throughout the world, except North America, uses promotion/relegation. And even we do it at youth levels. Our collegiate and professional leagues are stupidly resistant to this concept and it's 100% about money.

Do I support what the MIAC did? Not really. But I understand it. There wasn't another mechanism to use to create the effect they wanted. So they removed the outlier. The few statements we've gotten have been consistent and appropriate. This was done mainly for competitive purposes, they aren't ducking that, they are fully admitting it. The MIAC was in danger of breaking up without this happening, and for the fence sitters, this was the lesser of two bad choices. They aren't going to bash UST, and they aren't going to provide a roll call for how everyone was feeling.

What you want and think you deserve from them is different from what you are going to get. Personally I think the MIAC Presidents have played this fairly well. They took their lumps for a few days and now it is over. As they knew it would be. Did they probably take more than expected? Yeah, I doubt they thought it would be a national story for a day or two. But that's all it was. Personally I think it was something of a mistake to give UST 2 years to find a new home. This is going to be ugly for those 2 years on the field. I probably would have cut that pain in half.

How did UST get to this level of dominance and what's preventing the other MIAC schools from doing the same?  How is this level of dominance different from UST's level of similar "all sports" dominance in from say 1980-1995?

I suspect some of what is different is the role athletics plays. Pre internet, if you wanted D3 sports information you maybe got a local paper. Recruiting was much different, as were facilities and costs.

I suspect most of the difference, however, is that there are different presidents involved with different priorities, including UST's.  In what way, other than as a member of the MIAC, is UST a peer of the schools that it competed against? Not much other than the state. The other schools can't do much about that, but they could change athletics. In what way was UST  a peer pre 1990? Lots of ways. Things change. UST changed a lot. Now the MIAC is as well.

Why now exactly? Well, there are probably lots of catalysts, not just one thing. As many have pointed out, this has been building for a while. It just finally came to a head.

[art76]

... I think this all basically comes down to Coach C. Plain and Simple.

What if --- Caruso had stayed at MAC? Would MAC now be getting the boot instead of St. Thomas? Why, or why not?

[Texas Ole]

I know this may sound strange, but many of the MIAC schools don't want to change for the sake of athletics.  They aren't athlete factories.  Sure you can be great at academics and athletics, but some of you seem to think that sacrifices need to be made in the name of athletics.  Not every school shares that philosophy.  Some schools aren't going to lower their admissions standards to build a football team or cut funding to their library so they can hire a better coach.  Some schools have student-athletes that are far more focused on their academics which involves missing practices and even games.  Winning is fun, but is it worth the cost?  If you are looking for athletic glory to propel you to the next level in the MIAC you are in the wrong conference.

This is all well and good but St Olaf has the nicest fieldhouse in the conference, a new hockey palace, an Athletic Director from the University of Maryland, and a lot of resources MIAC schools envy. They are playing the game as much as anyone. And unless you have information otherwise the only sports program that has been rumored to lower admissions standards was Meidt's football team at St Olaf. That was a widespread whisper through the conference at the time. So it is a bit disingenuous for Um Ya Ya to be leading this charge.

I'm not sure that was a rumor. I was told St. Olaf tried to mirror the Ivy League model with athletic admissions. I know several coaches have complained about admissions rejecting athletes. I don't know where the practice is today

St. Olaf has nice facilities. We aren't the only school with an on campus ice arena. In fact our old arena was a joke. it's great for local hockey, but it isn't functional for high school or college. We have a great field house and other facilities that are used by several sports. St. Olaf sponsors more varsity sports than any other MIAC school.

Many of you want to blame St. Olaf for your problems without acknowledging others role. Several other schools felt the same way and have for some time. I would think some schools that want to pursue excellence on the athletic field would want to elevate their programs and gain the notoriety.

If your school is so upset with the MIAC and UST leaving feel free to join them.

[DuffMan]

What if --- Caruso had stayed at MAC? Would MAC now be getting the boot instead of St. Thomas? Why, or why not?

Didn't Mac leave the MIAC (in football) prior to Caruso taking over?  SJU last played them in 2001, my junior year.

[Texas Ole]

What if --- Caruso had stayed at MAC? Would MAC now be getting the boot instead of St. Thomas? Why, or why not?

Didn't Mac leave the MIAC (in football) prior to Caruso taking over?  SJU last played them in 2001, my junior year.

Yes. Kind of makes you wonder why Caruso has stayed at UST all these years. I'd think he'd have had other offers.

[art76]

What if --- Caruso had stayed at MAC? Would MAC now be getting the boot instead of St. Thomas? Why, or why not?

Didn't Mac leave the MIAC (in football) prior to Caruso taking over?  SJU last played them in 2001, my junior year.

My point exactly - it isn't all about Caruso, as bad as some want to paint that bleak picture. Other things were/are afoot, and that's a big reason there is so much wonderment about how it all went down. Because it isn't all about a particular person. Frankly, if Caruso had not been hired and some other "top notch" coach had run a similar gauntlet, I am thinking we're looking at the same results. St. Thomas is simply too good. (wink-wink.) This divorce is over a difference of how the money at schools should be spent. (And don't dare challenge the status quo.)

In my humble opinion.

[jamtod]

... I think this all basically comes down to Coach C. Plain and Simple.

What if --- Caruso had stayed at MAC? Would MAC now be getting the boot instead of St. Thomas? Why, or why not?

Nah. Even assuming MAC stayed in the MIAC or came back, unless they made the same institutional commitment to athletics that UST did, they would have had a much lower ceiling (maybe competing in the conference, but probably not at a national level).
Before Caruso, it was frequently noted that UST was a sleeping giant ready to come alive in football. I think that institutional support for the program is one of the reasons Caruso has stuck around. He's likely getting paid pretty decent for a D3 football coach and his family is pretty well attached to the St Paul community. Whatever your opinions about his approach on the football field and about his bombastic east coast Italian personality, the vilification of him is overblown.

[GoldandBlueBU]

... I think this all basically comes down to Coach C. Plain and Simple.

What if --- Caruso had stayed at MAC? Would MAC now be getting the boot instead of St. Thomas? Why, or why not?

Nah. Even assuming MAC stayed in the MIAC or came back, unless they made the same institutional commitment to athletics that UST did, they would have had a much lower ceiling (maybe competing in the conference, but probably not at a national level).
Before Caruso, it was frequently noted that UST was a sleeping giant ready to come alive in football. I think that institutional support for the program is one of the reasons Caruso has stuck around. He's likely getting paid pretty decent for a D3 football coach and his family is pretty well attached to the St Paul community. Whatever your opinions about his approach on the football field and about his bombastic east coast Italian personality, the vilification of him is overblown.

I think that's definitely the case.  Mac might've improved further...maybe not?  GC plus UST's "built in" advantages were the formula.  I actually think it's pretty cool that he's stuck around.  Hard to believe that he hasn't had the chance (likely chances) to move on to something bigger.  It doesn't seem to be a super common trait for the competitive coach type to forego career advancement in favor of providing a stable platform for the family.

[hazzben]

Promotion and Relegation is nice in theory, when it's actually a part of the system. But that's not how things work in collegiate athletics. We can argue the merits of it all we want, but to just pick and choose where you're going to apply that isn't fair to UST. As has been noted, this is nearly unprecedented (Wheaton basketball 50 years ago being the only analogous situation.) UST wasn't promoted to another league. They were involuntarily removed, and have been forced to scramble for a new conference and possibly division. It's one thing if every team understands that if you're good, you'll get moved up. It's also the goal to get moved up. For better or worse, that's not how the system works in US sports. And it's also not at all what the Presidents were trying to accomplish. They weren't doing UST a solid by "promoting them," they were kicking them to the curb.

And it's not fair to the other schools who want to pursue excellence. Someone stated that obviously the presidents have had discussions with SJU so that they know what's in and out of bounds. How on earth would we know that? I don't have any confidence at all that's been clearly communicated. It's a huge assumption. And to make the Supreme Court Pornography analogy, that's literally as subjective as it gets. It's not just that the Presidents didn't do themselves or the league any favors by how they've handled this. They've also done nothing to assure people that they won't do it again, in similarly ham fisted fashion.