FB: Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[rockcat]

You're right about that Saber.  If the upper administration doesn't care than coaches will have a tough time recruiting anybody.  That happens at schools that aren't highly competative in admissions too.  I think of Pacific U. up in the NWC.  They suck at pretty much everything and probably have the weakest new student profile of any NWC school.

[rockcat]

During a presidential search alums like yourself should be active in voicing your concerns.  You will be heard, especially if there are many who emphasize the same thing.  If you want a pro-athletics president send an email or give a call to the alumni office.  It is important to keep the alumni population happy....they want your money!

[OXY Oswald]

Not to start another debate, but I think the rundown Browneagle gave is pretty standard for any school. 

No kidding, Browneagle's post consist generalities and rambling on about a party scene that I know for a fact he was not a part of during his tenure here.... might I suggest reading Browneagles posts more like this in the future

Good week in the SCIAC....
blah blah blah....
blah blah blah....
Go Tigers!

And lets leave it at that

[OxyFan21]

Let's hope the new president values athletics as a whole, not just football and basketball.  Our other teams need just as much help, if not more so.  There needs to be a certain level of administrative support. 

As I have said on the hoops site before, the NESAC can be a great example for the SCIAC in terms of getting quality student athletes.  Having a handful of 'special admits' or whatever the chosen name may be, helps a great deal if those students prove to be successful on the field and in the classroom.

I really believe that a front page article in the LA Times and "Occidental" scrolling on the ESPN and CBS Bottom Line does wonders to recruit athletes and non athletes.  Amongst my non Oxy friends, people have asked me "what's Occidental?" while sitting down on a Saturday afternoon watching ESPN.

As all colleges prepare for the upcoming drop in college age applicants, the administrations at all of our schools need to become increasingly committed to finding students, or in the case of many D3 institutions, diamonds in the rough. 

Oxy has boasted of a tremendous increase in applicants within the last 8 years or so, but hasn't just about every top-notch school gone through the same increase?  It's just a matter of there being more 18 year olds now than in the past.

Just my two cents, and change.

[Sabretooth Tiger]

OxyFan21:  I'm sure that the new president will support all sports, including club, as did President Mitchell.  And it is my understanding the increase in applicants that Oxy has experienced over the past years has outstripped its comparable institutions.

[rockcat]

Most private institutions have had a noticable jump in applicants in recent years, the last couple in particular.  Much of it has to do with positive economic signs.  Parents are much more comfortable sending kids to private colleges when they are financially confident. 

Sabretooth,

I think that most colleges with profiles similar to Oxy have had very steady growth in enrollment and applicants over the past decade.  There are exceptions but as a general rule it has been a good stretch. 

The college I worked at, a bit different than Oxy but a private liberal arts college, has reset records for enrollment and applicants for like 19 straight years now.  There has been a significant jump the last two years, again significantly impacted by the economy.

[rockcat]

OxyFan21:  I'm sure that the new president will support all sports, including club, as did President Mitchell.  And it is my understanding the increase in applicants that Oxy has experienced over the past years has outstripped its comparable institutions.

I don't think that it can be assumed that a new presidnet will automatically be very supportive of athletics.  Presidents are usually hired to fulfill the goals of the trustees during their tenure.  Most presidents are brought in with a plan preassigned to them.  It may be to raise a significant amount of money for buildings, raising academic recognition, increasing faculty research, etc. 

Lewis and Clark is a good example of what can happen when you hire the wrong person.  The president who was fired a few years back came in and pushed hard to raise the academic profile.  He was fired for spending some stupid amount of money, like $2 million or something, without getting approval from the trustees.  That president was so focused on one task that he didn't even think about athletics...which were of little concern to him anyway.  Thus, the campus ethos was changed, you have a student body who is rabidly anti-athlete, and their once decent football program and very good basketball program have gone down the toilet.  Picking a president is a huge deal.

[Sabretooth Tiger]

Oxy has a board of trustees that includes a number of former athletes and the board, as a whole, understands the importance of finding a president who is a friend to athletics, among the numerous other qualities sought.  The presidential search committee is also composed of enough individuals who believe in college athletics to overcome any contingency that does not.  I'm confident that the next president will be one who will continue to support varsity and club sports.

[Sagecock]

Prior to this fall I worked in admissions at a d3 school and was the department liason to the athletics department.  My experience showed me that coaches who put the effort in and also know how to recruit get good recruits.  Those who put in little effort, which is suprisingly a lot of coaches, end up in the bottom of the conference. The school I worked won a national championship in one sport and was a top-ten team in another.  The rest of the teams were mediocre at best.

I appreciate your point regarding admissions standards and JC's, but I think that effort is often times not a problem within the SCIAC.  The multitude of schools back east provide an educational opportunity that does not have a comparison in California.  Kids who would most likely go to a JC in California back east can get into many of the local smaller schools.  I think an apt comparison would be Whittier and LaVerne in the SCIAC.  And, feel free to correct me as I'm going off word of mouth here, when those two schools simply ignored admissions standards in the 90's they put together some pretty dominant teams.  However, even those schools have raised their standards to the point where they can't get in the same caliber players anymore.  Or, conversely, they simply can't get the recruits interested and are doing a poor job attracting them.  Also, the expense of a SCIAC school is pretty high compared to your local JC, even at schools you might be able to get in to (LaVerne, Whittier, Cal Lu).

I'd be interested to hear how much support your admissions department was willing to give the athletic department in terms of getting athletes in once they'd commited to the school.  I know there is a chronic problem at Pomona of athletes wanting to come, but simply not being able to get admitted.  I feel that this is probably a problem at only a couple schools in the SCIAC, but it warrants discussion.

p.s.  Wheaton is signifigantly below Oxy, Pomona, and Claremont in academic rankings...it's even a few slots behind Pitzer.

[Browneagle64]

Hahah---- Sounds like Oxy Oswald had a lot to say....Not

THe only reason why i wrote some post like that in the past was to not Stir up nonsense, rambling or just a lack of classy attitude. I'm just not that type of person. Seems like Ligerlover did that so much and ended up having a lot of people hating his post and probabily hating him. Regardless of how oxy did, i am not that type of perosn.THat definately isn't me. SO if you expected me to say blah , blah , blah, so be it. How about you add some of your own opinions and your own rambling and add something goo d to hear about.

Btw, I understand that our president at the time didn't like the parties. But at the time in 1999 the guys that were on the team wanted to show the young kids what college was about. Whether it was a party or just going to classes to see first hand what oxy was all about. And no there was no Colorado univeristy scandales as well, Just guys showing what to see in college. 

[rockcat]

Wheaton is actually a top 40 overall liberal arts college nationally.  They are also one of the most highly selective liberal arts colleges in the country....I promise, I heard all about Wheaton when I worked in admissions.  That is who all of the schools like the one I worked at wanted to be like.

[rockcat]

Pomona has the advantage of using Pitzer for students that can't get into Pomona.  I was actually recruited to play baseball there but couldn't get into Pomona so they had me apply to Pitzer instead.  They should be able to do better than they do.  I didn't go there because I had an awful visit, the campus was disgusting and the athletic facilities weren't very impressive at all.

Our office worked very well with the athletics department.  I attended some coaches meetings early in the year and communicated regularly with some of the coaches.  A few in particular called or emailed with me at least a couple of times a week letting me know who they were talking to.  I also would get a list of their top recruits at the beginning of the month.  Some of the coaches didn't seem to want to take advantage of my assitance, which was really done in addition to my normal work load.  I just wanted to help out with I could.

As an office we didn't necessarily give out special treatment or allow unqualified students in but when we knew the recruits personally, which was the case with quite a number, it would help them if they were in the "gray" area.  If they were boarderline and we had a good visit on campus, at their home, coffee shop, etc, it would help them out.  As an admissions counselor I would sort of be their spokesperson to the admissions committee so my opinion was respected.

As I said earlier I don't think all coaches care as much about recruiting as others.  At some schools coaches salary is based on coaching but also for teaching health classes or taking administrative roles.  Because of this I think some coaches wouldn't work as hard at recruiting, almost saying they are paid to spend their off season coaching.

I worked at a Christian college that is very different than SCIAC schools but had its own recruiting problems.  The biggest is that you have instantly narrowed the students who would be interested in attending a college whose mission is focused as it is.  Many would visit, love the coach, but decide not to come based on religious reasons. 

Let me clarify about Wheaton....Wheaton is ranked very similar in academic rankings like US News (when you work in admissions you learn that those rankings mean little, much of it is based on things unrelated to the undergraduate experience).  Wheaton has a ridiculously high number of applicants because every top Christian student in the country wants to go there.    There average GPA is probably about 3.95 and average SAT is probably at least 1350, maybe in more like 1380 or so.  Regardless of how they match up with Oxy, Claremont, Pomona, etc, we are splitting hairs really.  The important things is that they have a top notch athletics department top to bottom.

[Sagecock]

rockcat:

I think you ahve to be right regarding recruiting in that it is probably a matter of effort.  However, I think that in Pomona's case it gets a little confused for a couple of reasons.  For one, Pitzer is no longer the easy in it once was.  It's not Pomona, but their admissions standards and applicant pool has been steadily rising over the last couple of years.  Also, like you said: not many athletes are that turned on by Pitzer, especially kids who want to go to Pomona instead.  However, the fact that Pomona consistently loses to Oxy when it comes to recruits is often based on admissions pure and simple.  Pomona just can't get the numbers in that other schools can.  Additionally, there is only a limited pool of athletes that can meet the requirements that Pomona demands that is divided up amongst the other top schools (i.e. Amherst, Williams, Trinity, etc..). 

As far as your thoughts on Wheaton, I have to admit I made that comment on the US News report (which I know is flawed, but its all I had to go on).  However, I think that the problem you described in many ways benefits a school like Wheaton's athletics, in that athletes with a Christian focus, or who want a christian college for their education will be far more inclined to go to Wheaton instead of maybe a slightly bigger school where they could play.  Pure speculation there, but it's a thought. 

[rockcat]

There is probably some truth in your comments about Wheaton.

[pomonaalum]

I can't say that I've ever heard the Claremont campuses called disgusting.  At least not Claremont, Scripps or Pomona.  I guess you could make an argument for portions of Pitzer and HMC.

As far as the athletic facilities, I would say that for baseball, the SCIAC has some really nice places.  Pomona's field a great, CMC is a nice setting, Cal Lu is nice, Oxy is nice.  LaVerne is ok, Redlands is pretty nice, Whittier is ok.  I've seen a number of D3 facilities, and I would say that the one's at Pomona rank up there.  The football field isn't a thing of beauty, and the metal bleachers aren't great - but the gym, track, soccer fields, etc are all first class.

As for not having a great visit, that I can understand.  But Wheaton and Pitzer are also very different kinds of schools, and attract a very different student body.