FB: USA South Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

mu has a full jv staff and a full jv schedule - i believe that every one of these kids knew exactly what he was getting into when he made the commitment

I understand Methodist's desire to have a large roster and admissions and financial aid's role in the process, but you can't tell me there isn't a single Methodist incoming freshman who saw this and thought, "oh yeah, but it won't be me. I'll be contributing on the varsity right away."

[scottiedoug]

Earning a degree from most D3 school is likely to be a good thing to do.  Students recruited and admitted to a college should have a reasonable likelihood of success, which means that the college has an obligation to provide whatever support the student needs to succeed.  If the school cannot do that for a particular young person, it should not accept and admit the student.

If a school recruits and admits and enrolls many more people than it can help graduate, and takes the students' money while they flounder, get discouraged, and drop out, I think that is shameful. It is especially so if the student never really had a likelihood of success in both football and academics.

I have no specific knowledge about MU's practices in this regard.  I do know that a dropout rate for football players that is much higher than for students who were not recruited to play football is not an encouraging sign. 

[Scots13]

Narch, buddy. Come on.

A JV football program can't be considered "successful" if there are only 25-30 sophomores on the team each year. If there were 50-60, then yes. And, in which case, every college and university in America would have a full JV program after the MU model.

[narch]

let's judge the model after more than 1 year...i know that there are more in school than are on the roster, but i don't know how many more...there is no question that even i raised an eyebrow when i saw how few sophomores were on the roster - it's disappointing, but i'm not sure there is enough data to suggest this is a trend - i also know the commitment is there from the university to see this through more than a single year to measure success (or lack of success...we'll see) - this model has been proven to work at other places...i don't know what mt. union's retention was after year 1, but i'd be willing to bet it wasn't as high as it is now

nobody wants to address the concern that i have of schools that regularly roster 130 to 150 (which is also WAY more common and still WAY more than will ever play), have 6 to 8 coaches and play a token jv schedule (if any jv games at all) - the reason nobody wants to address that is because, by and large,  it's what is happening at their school(s) - it's easier to point out what others are doing "wrong" and ignore what is happening with the team you root for - in reality, there really isn't a "need" for more than about 80 to 85 on a football roster, and that roster size would call for 6 to 8 coaches - by that math, most of the programs (if not all) in this conference are recruiting way more than they can support with their coaching staff

i have a family friend who went to another usasac school fully aware that he could potentially play some jv as a freshman, but was incredibly disappointed when he realized that this particular school had scheduled just 3 jv "games" and that the "games" were nothing more than a glorified practice against another school, even down to wearing practice gear - there were no coaches committed to the jv program, little to no travel and very little interaction between jv players and coaches during the season (those coaches were focused, rightly so, on helping the varsity win games) - during the recruiting process he was sold on the fact that he would play as a freshman, even if it was on the jv team - i mentioned what mu was doing with a full jv program to this family and the response was that they wished mu had done this back when he was in school - had this kid stayed in school, i think he would have made a fine d3 football player and likely a proud graduate - instead he moved back home, attended local public u and got a degree...all while wishing he had been given a real opportunity to play as he had been promised

pat - you are correct...i would be willing to say that virtually every player thinks they are going to make an impact on the varsity, just as every pre-med student thinks he/she will be a doctor, just as every communications major thinks they'll work for espn or cnn or d3sports.com - being aware of possibilities and being realistic about probabilities rarely go together with the 17 to 19 year old set - hopefully a legit jv program which allows kids to get on the field and see the possibility of actually making that impact down the road will lead to more returners - i understand it didn't happen in year 1, but that doesn't mean it can't ever happen, does it?

can't wait to see some on-field football

[jknezek]

nobody wants to address the concern that i have of schools that regularly roster 130 to 150 (which is also WAY more common and still WAY more than will ever play), have 6 to 8 coaches and play a token jv schedule (if any jv games at all) - the reason nobody wants to address that is because, by and large,  it's what is happening at their school(s) - it's easier to point out what others are doing "wrong" and ignore what is happening with the team you root for - in reality, there really isn't a "need" for more than about 80 to 85 on a football roster, and that roster size would call for 6 to 8 coaches - by that math, most of the programs (if not all) in this conference are recruiting way more than they can support with their coaching staff



pat - you are correct...i would be willing to say that virtually every player thinks they are going to make an impact on the varsity, just as every pre-med student thinks he/she will be a doctor, just as every communications major thinks they'll work for espn or cnn or d3sports.com - being aware of possibilities and being realistic about probabilities rarely go together with the 17 to 19 year old set - hopefully a legit jv program which allows kids to get on the field and see the possibility of actually making that impact down the road will lead to more returners - i understand it didn't happen in year 1, but that doesn't mean it can't ever happen, does it?

can't wait to see some on-field football

Yep to all of the above. I'm pretty happy my team falls in the minority (though I'd prefer if they were getting closer to 35 first years per year than 25). But I do think 100+ rosters, 50+ first years is all about filling school coffers and not the students. And yes, 17-19 year olds are easy to play on delusions of grandeur. Doesn't make it right.

[scottiedoug]

It is hard to know what exactly recruits are told from school to school about what the deal is, so it is hard to evaluate the relative complicity with getting the schools' enrollment goals by recruiting more potential ball players and students than the schools can responsibly support.  The number of coaches per player is one issue but it is not the same issue as is the amount of academic support given to the student athletes.  Doing college at some colleges and universities is way harder than doing high school, never mind the requirements of participating in football. 

Most USASouth schools are heavily dependent on enrollment for cash flow and in my opinion way too many of them use football to generate income. I do not have a better idea.  Does anyone know if the richer D3 schools, presumably less tied to tuition for survival, are equally committed to having too many prospective football players in school?

[jknezek]

Does anyone know if the richer D3 schools, presumably less tied to tuition for survival, are equally committed to having too many prospective football players in school?

Simply put, they generally don't. NESCAC schools have roster limits but generally have 80 or so in camp. Swarthmore simply dropped football. W&L's team has not broken 90 players in my memory. JHU usually has about 90. Carnegie Mellon generally has over 100, so they tend to the high side, MIT has less than 90. Chicago has around 100. Emory doesn't play football. Wash U has a bit over 100, so again on the high side. But CMU, Chicago, and Wash U are all pretty large schools. NYU doesn't play football. Pomona has around 70. Rochester has around 90. Grinnell has only 35 according to our beloved source in camp. I think that covers the bulk of the D3 schools in the top 50 endowments. In these cases they don't need to drive enrollment through football, but even more important, it's simply hard to get that many kids in the door. The standards are really high at these schools, so just cornering the market on 30-40 DIII capable football players with the academics to get in is generally a task in itself.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Does anyone know if the richer D3 schools, presumably less tied to tuition for survival, are equally committed to having too many prospective football players in school?

Simply put, they generally don't. NESCAC schools have roster limits but generally have 80 or so in camp. Swarthmore simply dropped football. W&L's team has not broken 90 players in my memory. JHU usually has about 90. Carnegie Mellon generally has over 100, so they tend to the high side, MIT has less than 90. Chicago has around 100. Emory doesn't play football. Wash U has a bit over 100, so again on the high side. But CMU, Chicago, and Wash U are all pretty large schools. NYU doesn't play football. Pomona has around 70. Rochester has around 90. Grinnell has only 35 according to our beloved source in camp. I think that covers the bulk of the D3 schools in the top 50 endowments. In these cases they don't need to drive enrollment through football, but even more important, it's simply hard to get that many kids in the door. The standards are really high at these schools, so just cornering the market on 30-40 DIII capable football players with the academics to get in is generally a task in itself.

Neither Wheaton or Illinois Wesleyan (the 'rich' schools by CCIW standards, though paupers by U of Chicago standards ) use athletics to drive enrollment.  Can't speak to other CCIW schools, but probably not judging by freshman class sizes.  I don't think either has an active JV program in football, though at least IWU definitely does in basketball - not because of over-recruiting, but as genuine development.  The classic case was d3hoops all-decade selection Keelan Amelianovich, who (stuck behind some talented seniors) was JV as a freshman, CCIW MOP as a sophomore!

[Pat Coleman]

You guys are kind of talking out of your butt over here and I see Ypsi is again dragging out that old chestnut about Keelan Amelianovich, who, by the way, did not play football.

In Kickoff we list the number of players who report to camp each year for each team. The average has steadily risen over the decade we have been tracking this and is now 112 players. Five schools had 190 or more players report this year and 29 schools had 150 or more.

[jknezek]

You guys are kind of talking out of your butt over here and I see Ypsi is again dragging out that old chestnut about Keelan Amelianovich, who, by the way, did not play football.

In Kickoff we list the number of players who report to camp each year for each team. The average has steadily risen over the decade we have been tracking this and is now 112 players. Five schools had 190 or more players report this year and 29 schools had 150 or more.

Actually I think this proves my point. Of schools with top 50 size endowments, only Carnegie Mellon and maybe Wash U had more than your listed average in camp and none fell in your two outlier areas. Several had closer to half your average than the number.  Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the schools with these huge numbers are those more dependent on tuition and therefore taking an "every breathing body" approach to football. Which, as I suspect is your point, is something growing more common as many of the D3 schools fight and claw for enrollment.

I will also.say that as we are fond of telling people in the public/private debate, D3 football teams aren't made up of student body walk ons. They are made of recruits. So these schools with mega camps aren't just because everyone loves football at those schools, it's because the coaches hustled to get them on campus. Now that begs the question are the coaches such garbage talent evaluators that they have to recruit that many to ensure a few good ones, are they that good of recruiters that they can pull 100+ D3 quality football players as freshman, or the simplest solution, they are told to recruit everyone and anyone because the school needs admission dollars?  I'll stick with Occam's Razor...

Either way it doesn't look good. You shouldn't need 125 freshman to have 20 seniors that can play. There shouldn't be a 75% drop rate in year one. Schools shouldn't be taking every warm body to keep the lights on, and athletics shouldn't be enabling it and driving it. But when you have more college seats than qualified attendees it is something of a desperate race to fill those seats. Here's hoping the kids that get sold a bill of athletic dreams stick around to get a diploma payoff.

[Pat Coleman]

No, that's good -- I just wasn't sure we were using the stats that were conveniently available.

Twenty-five schools in Division III, right about 10%, started camp with 75 or fewer. (Unfortunately, some started with far fewer.)

[scottiedoug]

As jknezek aptly put it:

"Either way it doesn't look good. You shouldn't need 125 freshman to have 20 seniors that can play. There shouldn't be a 75% drop rate in year one. Schools shouldn't be taking every warm body to keep the lights on, and athletics shouldn't be enabling it and driving it. But when you have more college seats than qualified attendees it is something of a desperate race to fill those seats. Here's hoping the kids that get sold a bill of athletic dreams stick around to get a diploma payoff."

There are other implications of this practice, not all of them positive.  Team identity and/or peer/coach pressure often leads to there being a quite large group of young men who are more likely to hang with each other than to develop other identities and affiliations. Not necessarily bad, but there are other people and organizations you miss out on if you live in a bubble with strong internal identity.   Most of these schools are liberal arts institutions supposedly run so as to broaden people's perspectives and experiences.  A 1400 student  liberal arts college with a football team of 120 people is likely to have a quite different student culture from a similar sized school with no football or 70 players.

[jknezek]

No, that's good -- I just wasn't sure we were using the stats that were conveniently available.

Twenty-five schools in Division III, right about 10%, started camp with 75 or fewer. (Unfortunately, some started with far fewer.)

That's where the stats came from and why I didn't give exact numbers. They want exact they can she'll out a few bucks and get way more than camp numbers. Buy Kickoff people. It's a great read.

[Ralph Turner]

Narch. please check your personal messages.  Thanks

[narch]

Narch. please check your personal messages.  Thanks

ralph - sorry i didn't get back to you...while i appreciate the offer, i don't feel qualified to be a member of the fan poll as my consumption of d3 football consists of the teams that are on the Monarchs home slate (if i can make all of the games) and what i read online and in box scores - i'm sure there are others who get to see much more d3 football in person than i, and are thus much more qualified to rank teams in the region...besides, i would have mu as the top team each week