MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[kiko]

If you want my guesses as to why school administrators are reluctant to introduce (or re-introduce) wrestling, I'd say it's likely one or more of the following, in no particular order:

1) Title IX fears, whether real or imagined;
2) The common perception that college wrestling is in eclipse, which brings concern about the number of potential opponents (now or in the future);
3) The parallel perception that college lacrosse is on the rise, making it a better bet in terms of potential opponents and/or student interest;
4) For schools looking to add males to correct a lopsided female:male student ratio, football (2010-11 D3 roster average: 100.3 athletes) and lacrosse (34.1 athletes) look like better ways to augment the male population than wrestling (27.2 athletes). This is especially true for football, which not only brings in three times as many male athletes as lacrosse (and four times as many as wrestling), but also has a so-called "halo effect" in that studies show that, on average, schools that have football teams are viewed more positively as potential college choices by male high-schoolers than schools that don't, even if the male in question is not a football player.

If I had to put my money on one of these guesses, it'd be #2.

I think you've captured the primary reasons an administrator would consider, aside from any budgetary differences, perceived scheduling challenges (depending upon your geography) or facility considerations.  In my mind the reason for not reintroducing wrestling would be a combination of #2 and #3.  At the risk of sounding brutal toward wrestling, why would I introduce your grandfather's sport when I can introduce something that is going to make my school seem comparatively more contemporary to prospective students?

[AndOne]

And, with regard to any discussion of athletic program addition/subtraction lets not forget the always, or almost always, numero uno driving force, that of dinero.

Football has been prominently mentioned in the above examples. I'm most familiar with the North Central program, so lets use some NCC numbers as a specific example.

The wrestling team at NCC last season was comprised of 29 men. As far as I've heard, these athletes are as passionate about, and dedicated to their sport as any of the NC teams. They've also had a good degree of success recently, and some outstanding individual performers. As far as overhead costs, the team has their own dedicated practice facility, Nichols Gymnasium, on the 2nd floor of Merner Fieldhouse. Not much cost involved here as the space hadn't really been used for much of anything for an extended length of time. Add some mats and the team uniforms, and I think you've about covered most of the costs, save for the transportation cost involved getting to meets. If you're looking at closing the gender gap, lets give full credit and say the wrestling team closes the gap by all 29 team members. The team had 3 home meets last season. I imagine they were rather sparsely attended. Not that attendance matters anyway, as NO admission is charged. Wrestling provides NO income.

Conversely, the 2011 NCC football roster numbered 139 players. Not to mention the sheer roster numbers alone,  NCC football has been highly successful the past several years. Being the most major of the "major" sports, I believe it certainly can be said that the football team has afforded the College a large degree of favorable publicity recently. The 139 men close the gender gap by more than any other team. Costs are by far the highest, but 2011 attendance was almost 21,000 at $6.00 a pop. Add any concession sales.

Finally, as GS pointed out above, the "halo effect" plays a role. Over the past several years, I've heard several high school kids say they would never consider going to a college that didn't have a football team. They just expect that any school worth considering will field a football team. Its just part of a "normal" college experience to them. I've never heard that said about a college wrestling program.   

[markerickson]

I blame administrators for the decline in wrestling.  If athletic conferences required schools to offer wrestling for affiliation, schools would offer the sport.  I don't know why Wisconsin dropped baseball, but if the Big Ten required member institutions to offer baseball, then Wisconsin could have either left the Big Ten or retained its baseball team.

[Gregory Sager]

I think you've captured the primary reasons an administrator would consider, aside from any budgetary differences, perceived scheduling challenges (depending upon your geography) or facility considerations.  In my mind the reason for not reintroducing wrestling would be a combination of #2 and #3.  At the risk of sounding brutal toward wrestling, why would I introduce your grandfather's sport when I can introduce something that is going to make my school seem comparatively more contemporary to prospective students?

Good point. There's a youth-market value in lacrosse that's lacking in wrestling.

And, with regard to any discussion of athletic program addition/subtraction lets not forget the always, or almost always, numero uno driving force, that of dinero.

Football has been prominently mentioned in the above examples. I'm most familiar with the North Central program, so lets use some NCC numbers as a specific example.

The wrestling team at NCC last season was comprised of 29 men. As far as I've heard, these athletes are as passionate about, and dedicated to their sport as any of the NC teams. They've also had a good degree of success recently, and some outstanding individual performers. As far as overhead costs, the team has their own dedicated practice facility, Nichols Gymnasium, on the 2nd floor of Merner Fieldhouse. Not much cost involved here as the space hadn't really been used for much of anything for an extended length of time. Add some mats and the team uniforms, and I think you've about covered most of the costs, save for the transportation cost involved getting to meets. If you're looking at closing the gender gap, lets give full credit and say the wrestling team closes the gap by all 29 team members. The team had 3 home meets last season. I imagine they were rather sparsely attended. Not that attendance matters anyway, as NO admission is charged. Wrestling provides NO income.

Conversely, the 2011 NCC football roster numbered 139 players. Not to mention the sheer roster numbers alone,  NCC football has been highly successful the past several years. Being the most major of the "major" sports, I believe it certainly can be said that the football team has afforded the College a large degree of favorable publicity recently. The 139 men close the gender gap by more than any other team. Costs are by far the highest, but 2011 attendance was almost 21,000 at $6.00 a pop. Add any concession sales.

Finally, as GS pointed out above, the "halo effect" plays a role. Over the past several years, I've heard several high school kids say they would never consider going to a college that didn't have a football team. They just expect that any school worth considering will field a football team. Its just part of a "normal" college experience to them. I've never heard that said about a college wrestling program.

The question that administrators have to ask, though, is: "For how many students is this sport a deal-maker if we offer it, or a deal-breaker if we don't?" Would North Central get those 29 wrestlers to attend NCC even if the school was to discontinue the program? (Lots of high-school wrestlers end up going to colleges that don't have wrestling teams; it's really a matter of how badly the athlete wants to continue playing his sport in college.) And, for those who would not attend NCC if it didn't offer wrestling, could they be satisfactorily replaced by other applicants whom the NCC admissions department turned down without too adversely affecting the school's academic or economic baselines? And the four CCIW schools that have discontinued wrestling would have to ask those questions in reverse if they were to contemplate re-introducing wrestling.

I blame administrators for the decline in wrestling.  If athletic conferences required schools to offer wrestling for affiliation, schools would offer the sport.  I don't know why Wisconsin dropped baseball, but if the Big Ten required member institutions to offer baseball, then Wisconsin could have either left the Big Ten or retained its baseball team.

I've never heard of a league making wrestling a mandatory sport in and of itself. Even in the sport's heyday I doubt that it had that much juice. There have been leagues that have required each member school to participate in the entire package of sports sponsored by the league (which may or may not include wrestling), but I truly doubt that any league's ever mandated wrestling as a stand-alone.

The CCIW's had enough trouble over the years trying to maintain the requirement for the few mandatory sports it does have, what with NPU wanting to drop football and Wheaton wanting to drop baseball (and that's just the two that I know of). The idea that the CCIW might've tried to force it's members to hang on to their wrestling programs -- in spite of the fact that five of the nine schools wanted to drop the sport within the space of less than a decade -- is crazy.

[Mr. Ypsi]

The IIAC might be an exception.  Talk on that board suggests that the only reason Grinnell is not in the IIAC is because they refuse to add wrestling.

[Gregory Sager]

The IIAC might be an exception.  Talk on that board suggests that the only reason Grinnell is not in the IIAC is because they refuse to add wrestling.

No, it's not an exception. The IIAC is one of those "package leagues" of which I spoke. Here's the pertinent article from the IIAC constitution:

ARTICLE III -- MEMBERSHIP

3.1 To be eligible for membership, an institution must offer four years of college work leading to a Bachelor's Degree; be an NCAA Division III member; be committed to the principle of equity and give equal emphasis to men's and women's sports; and sponsor, at a minimum, the following nineteen (19) sports: baseball, basketball (men's and women's), cross-country (men's and women's), football, golf (men's and women's), soccer (men's and women's), softball, tennis (men's and women's), indoor track and field (men's and women's), outdoor track and field (men's and women's), volleyball, and wrestling.

The only sports that the IIAC sponsors that are not included in the league's mandatory package are men's swimming & diving and women's swimming & diving.

[newCCIWfan]

I was on vacation for the last few weeks so I've been having to get caught back up on the d3boards. Nothing we didn't know but I saw this over on the MIAA board and thought it ought to be posted over here as well.

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/newsnow/x1267875283/Holland-basketballs-Trent-Windemuller-to-play-for-Millikin

Any news on Carthage recruits ... I have not been able to find out anything?

[AndOne]

I have made inquires as to the possibility/names of any additional Carthage recruits. I'll let the board know if I get any  news. 

I was on vacation for the last few weeks so I've been having to get caught back up on the d3boards.

Any news on Carthage recruits ... I have not been able to find out anything?

On 4/4, I sent a note to Carthage SID Steve Marovich inquiring as to possible Carthage recruits other than Sean Valentine. A copy of the note is posted below.

http://athletics.carthage.edu/images/2010/11/2/headshot_2_Steve_Marovich.jpg
Dear Mr. Marovich,

I am a CCIW basketball fan, and am wondering about Carthage's basketball recruits for the 2012-2013 season.
The only CC recruit I have heard about so far is Sean Valentine, a 6'3" guard from Prairie Ridge HS.
I was wondering if any other recruits/transfers have yet committed to Carthage for next season.
Thanks very much.

Unfortunately, I never rec'd a reply, or even an acknowledgement. Silly me thought a Sports Information Director was in the business of providing information about and promoting his institution's athletes, and might be a good source. However, I guess Mr. Marovich is currently quite busy with his sports information duties, especially now that school is out for the summer. 

[markerickson]

Not as a "stand alone" sport, but part of a broader requirement.  Obviously the Big Ten does not require hockey, but it does require certain sports be offered in order for schools to retain membership.  The DI paperwork is dated and buried somewhere at work, but I have documentation that various conferences required a selection of sports in order to be a member. 

[Pat Coleman]

I have made inquires as to the possibility/names of any additional Carthage recruits. I'll let the board know if I get any  news. 

I was on vacation for the last few weeks so I've been having to get caught back up on the d3boards.

Any news on Carthage recruits ... I have not been able to find out anything?

On 4/4, I sent a note to Carthage SID Steve Marovich inquiring as to possible Carthage recruits other than Sean Valentine. A copy of the note is posted below.

http://athletics.carthage.edu/images/2010/11/2/headshot_2_Steve_Marovich.jpg
Dear Mr. Marovich,

I am a CCIW basketball fan, and am wondering about Carthage's basketball recruits for the 2012-2013 season.
The only CC recruit I have heard about so far is Sean Valentine, a 6'3" guard from Prairie Ridge HS.
I was wondering if any other recruits/transfers have yet committed to Carthage for next season.
Thanks very much.

Unfortunately, I never rec'd a reply, or even an acknowledgement. Silly me thought a Sports Information Director was in the business of providing information about and promoting his institution's athletes, and might be a good source. However, I guess Mr. Marovich is currently quite busy with his sports information duties, especially now that school is out for the summer. 

His job is primarily to provide information to the media and Carthage fans, not another team's fans. Also, since most SIDs work about 60-80 hours a week during the school year, they often take some actual time off in the offseason.

[Gregory Sager]

Not as a "stand alone" sport, but part of a broader requirement.  Obviously the Big Ten does not require hockey, but it does require certain sports be offered in order for schools to retain membership.  The DI paperwork is dated and buried somewhere at work, but I have documentation that various conferences required a selection of sports in order to be a member.

Yes, and that's what I referred to above as a "package requirement league," of which the IIAC is one. As I quoted to Chuck on Tuesday, the IIAC's mandatory package consists of 19 sports, one of which is wrestling. That's a very large package. No doubt other leagues have smaller requirement packages, but the principle is the same: If you want to join our league (or stay in it), you have to get on board with all of our sports, or at least the ones that we had when we drew up these rules.

The CCIW does not take the same approach as the IIAC. The CCIW constitution was on a pdf file on the league's website, but it was taken down sometime within the past couple of years. Fortunately, matblake posted the pertinent section from the CCIW constitution back in the spring of 2010:

There are some sports that you can't get rid of if you want to stay in the CCIW.  From the CCIW Constitution:

Section 2: Core Sports. In the men's program, every member of the Conference must play every other Conference member in football, basketball and baseball and must participate in the Conference (meet) program of at least five other sports. In the women's program, every member of the Conference must play every other Conference member in volleyball, basketball and softball and must participate in the Conference (meet) program of at least
five other sports.

In other words, the CCIW is a different animal than the IIAC. The CCIW is a "selective requirement league." Each of the eight CCIW schools has to participate in eight of the league's sports per gender, but the schools are each at liberty to determine five of the eight on their own. That means that the league does have three stand-alone required sports per gender: Football, basketball, and baseball for men; and volleyball, basketball, and softball for women.

The reason why the CCIW chose those three particular men's sports as stand-alone requirements is obvious: They're the three traditional major sports. They also represent each of the three sports seasons of the school year (fall, winter, spring), which is a nice bonus from the league's perspective. (CCIW baseball's not in the top three men's sports in terms of attendance; soccer outdraws baseball by somewhere between 3:1 and 4:1 in CCIW regular-season and tournament play, but I strongly doubt that soccer will supplant baseball as the third required men's sport.) When the CCIW began sponsoring women's sports in 1986-87 and thus needed to draw a parallel core-sports rule for women's competition, it made sense to pair the three women's sports that operate in tandem with the three already-required men's sports. Yeah, I know that volleyball doesn't really look like it belongs with football the way that men's basketball and women's basketball, and baseball and softball, are obvious pairings. But volleyball is the non-soccer ball sport that's played by CCIW women in the fall, so it made sense to align it with the non-soccer ball sport that's played by men in the fall, which is football.

Getting back to the point, which is about wrestling:

1) Even during the heyday of the sport, wrestling was never viewed as a major sport the way that football, basketball, and baseball have been viewed as major sports;
2) It would thus have made no sense to make wrestling a mandatory stand-alone sport prior to the start of the sport's decline, given that the rationale was to make each school sponsor the major sports (and to make them participate in those three sports under CCIW auspices);
3) Once schools began looking to drop wrestling, the idea of making wrestling a mandatory stand-alone, a la football, basketball, and baseball, would've made even less sense;
4) There's no way that the CCIW is going to make mandatory a sport in which only half of the league's schools currently participate; and
5) There is no obvious parallel on the women's side to wrestling that would make this feasible, even if that's the direction in which the league would want to go.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I have made inquires as to the possibility/names of any additional Carthage recruits. I'll let the board know if I get any  news. 

I was on vacation for the last few weeks so I've been having to get caught back up on the d3boards.

Any news on Carthage recruits ... I have not been able to find out anything?

On 4/4, I sent a note to Carthage SID Steve Marovich inquiring as to possible Carthage recruits other than Sean Valentine. A copy of the note is posted below.

http://athletics.carthage.edu/images/2010/11/2/headshot_2_Steve_Marovich.jpg
Dear Mr. Marovich,

I am a CCIW basketball fan, and am wondering about Carthage's basketball recruits for the 2012-2013 season.
The only CC recruit I have heard about so far is Sean Valentine, a 6'3" guard from Prairie Ridge HS.
I was wondering if any other recruits/transfers have yet committed to Carthage for next season.
Thanks very much.

Unfortunately, I never rec'd a reply, or even an acknowledgement. Silly me thought a Sports Information Director was in the business of providing information about and promoting his institution's athletes, and might be a good source. However, I guess Mr. Marovich is currently quite busy with his sports information duties, especially now that school is out for the summer. 

His job is primarily to provide information to the media and Carthage fans, not another team's fans. Also, since most SIDs work about 60-80 hours a week during the school year, they often take some actual time off in the offseason.

Furthermore, some SID's don't even get information on recruits from some of their coaches until the next school year begins and the students are enrolled. Not every college sends out press releases about recruits "committing" or attending their respective college or play a specific sport.

I am not surprised you didn't get a response... it just isn't something SID's are normally tasked with being responsible for .

[Mr. Ypsi]

Not as a "stand alone" sport, but part of a broader requirement.  Obviously the Big Ten does not require hockey, but it does require certain sports be offered in order for schools to retain membership.  The DI paperwork is dated and buried somewhere at work, but I have documentation that various conferences required a selection of sports in order to be a member.

Yes, and that's what I referred to above as a "package requirement league," of which the IIAC is one. As I quoted to Chuck on Tuesday, the IIAC's mandatory package consists of 19 sports, one of which is wrestling. That's a very large package. No doubt other leagues have smaller requirement packages, but the principle is the same: If you want to join our league (or stay in it), you have to get on board with all of our sports, or at least the ones that we had when we drew up these rules.

The CCIW does not take the same approach as the IIAC. The CCIW constitution was on a pdf file on the league's website, but it was taken down sometime within the past couple of years. Fortunately, matblake posted the pertinent section from the CCIW constitution back in the spring of 2010:

There are some sports that you can't get rid of if you want to stay in the CCIW.  From the CCIW Constitution:

Section 2: Core Sports. In the men's program, every member of the Conference must play every other Conference member in football, basketball and baseball and must participate in the Conference (meet) program of at least five other sports. In the women's program, every member of the Conference must play every other Conference member in volleyball, basketball and softball and must participate in the Conference (meet) program of at least
five other sports.

In other words, the CCIW is a different animal than the IIAC. The CCIW is a "selective requirement league." Each of the eight CCIW schools has to participate in eight of the league's sports per gender, but the schools are each at liberty to determine five of the eight on their own. That means that the league does have three stand-alone required sports per gender: Football, basketball, and baseball for men; and volleyball, basketball, and softball for women.

The reason why the CCIW chose those three particular men's sports as stand-alone requirements is obvious: They're the three traditional major sports. They also represent each of the three sports seasons of the school year (fall, winter, spring), which is a nice bonus from the league's perspective. (CCIW baseball's not in the top three men's sports in terms of attendance; soccer outdraws baseball by somewhere between 3:1 and 4:1 in CCIW regular-season and tournament play, but I strongly doubt that soccer will supplant baseball as the third required men's sport.) When the CCIW began sponsoring women's sports in 1986-87 and thus needed to draw a parallel core-sports rule for women's competition, it made sense to pair the three women's sports that operate in tandem with the three already-required men's sports. Yeah, I know that volleyball doesn't really look like it belongs with football the way that men's basketball and women's basketball, and baseball and softball, are obvious pairings. But volleyball is the non-soccer ball sport that's played by CCIW women in the fall, so it made sense to align it with the non-soccer ball sport that's played by men in the fall, which is football.

Getting back to the point, which is about wrestling:

1) Even during the heyday of the sport, wrestling was never viewed as a major sport the way that football, basketball, and baseball have been viewed as major sports;
2) It would thus have made no sense to make wrestling a mandatory stand-alone sport prior to the start of the sport's decline, given that the rationale was to make each school sponsor the major sports (and to make them participate in those three sports under CCIW auspices);
3) Once schools began looking to drop wrestling, the idea of making wrestling a mandatory stand-alone, a la football, basketball, and baseball, would've made even less sense;
4) There's no way that the CCIW is going to make mandatory a sport in which only half of the league's schools currently participate; and
5) There is no obvious parallel on the women's side to wrestling that would make this feasible, even if that's the direction in which the league would want to go.

As William James said: "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".

I'm not certain that 'stand-alone' or 'package-deal' makes a difference.  The fact remains that the IIAC (and perhaps the MIAC, where wrestling is also a Big Deal) requires wrestling: no wrestling, not a member.  Grinnell may or may not have become an IIAC member (they reportedly had applied), but reportedly they are not a member for the sole reason that they refuse to add wrestling (they had all other required sports).  (Why, I have no idea.)

In what meaningful way does this differ from a single-sport mandate?

[Gregory Sager]

As William James said: "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".

I'm not certain that 'stand-alone' or 'package-deal' makes a difference.  The fact remains that the IIAC (and perhaps the MIAC, where wrestling is also a Big Deal) requires wrestling: no wrestling, not a member.  Grinnell may or may not have become an IIAC member (they reportedly had applied), but reportedly they are not a member for the sole reason that they refuse to add wrestling (they had all other required sports).  (Why, I have no idea.)

In what meaningful way does this differ from a single-sport mandate?

Functionally, it doesn't. In terms of administrative philosophy, it does. In other words, as you said, wrestling is the sticking point that keeps Grinnell out of the IIAC, so in terms of function there's no distinction between being part of a package of required sports and being a stand-alone required sport as far as Grinnell is concerned. But in terms of the governing philosophy under which the league and its member teams operate, there could be a significant difference. The IIAC as a whole may feel that the community created by the league needs to be all-encompassing, and that the individual sports themselves are of no concern with regard to budget and resource feasibility. In other words, as I said, it's a, "You're in for everything, or you're not in at all," philosophy. There's no prioritizing of sports. You can't draw the inference that the IIAC makes wrestling a mandatory sport because wrestling is a big deal in Iowa (although I do realize that the University of Iowa and Wartburg are two of the dominant wrestling programs in their respective NCAA divisions), because then you'd also have to say the same thing about men's tennis and men's golf, which are likewise mandatory in the IIAC.

Mark's point was:

Not as a "stand alone" sport, but part of a broader requirement.  Obviously the Big Ten does not require hockey, but it does require certain sports be offered in order for schools to retain membership.  The DI paperwork is dated and buried somewhere at work, but I have documentation that various conferences required a selection of sports in order to be a member.

He feels that wrestling should be one of those "certain sports," or part of "a selection of sports," to the exclusion of others (e.g., hockey). My point is that this is not how the IIAC operates. Wrestling's not one of those "certain sports" as far as the IIAC is concerned, because there are no "certain sports" or "a selection of sports" in that league. They're all mandatory.

Also, the MIAC does not sponsor wrestling. Only four MIAC schools (Augsburg, Concordia, St. John's, and St. Olaf) offer the sport.

[NCF]

.....maybe it's time for wrestling to have it's own board?