FB: Empire 8

[Mr. Ypsi]

If the alternative is having them meet in a different game and having UWW beat Wesley 27-7 or Mount Union beat Bethel 34-14 in Salem, I'm sure that's not better.

If the alternative is Mount Union pounding someone other than UW-Whitewater because there's no second team to challenge Mount Union, not sure that's better.

If the alternative is a third and fourth team stepping up to meet the challenge, like UWW did ... well, that I like, obviously.

With Wenger graduating, perhaps it now won't happen.  But NCC looked this year like they just might be team #3 to join the party.

Trine also looked very good, but I don't know how many seniors (other than Watts ) they are losing.  Despite their weak conference, they just might be a comer.

[Bombers798891]

I think what's odd is that MUC isn't really being challenged any more than they were before. It feels that way now because Whitewater's always there, whereas before, MUC's opponents in the Stagg Bowl were varied somewhat

In the last six years, since the "arrival" of Whitewater, here's MUC's record, with the previous six-year stretches as well

2005-2010: 85-3, three titles
1999-2004: 79-3, three titles
1993-1998: 78-3, four titles

Those records and ring counts look pretty identical to me. (Remember, prior to 2005, you maxed out at 14 wins, not 15)

Yes, one individual team presents a bigger challenge to them, than any individual team ever did before (except maybe Rowan). But since that team only meets them in the Stagg Bowl, on the whole, the Purple Raiders are humming along at essentially the same clip relative to the rest of D-III.

Whitewater's arrival hasn't improved things as far as parity goes in D-III because they're the only other team benefiting. Here are the number of different champions and championship game participants in those same six-season stretches

2005-2010: Two different champions, two different participants
1999-2004: Four different champions, eight different participants
1998-2003: Three different champions, six different participants

Is it "better" that MUC finishes the season in the Stagg playing Whitewater instead of a mix of opponents? I guess it's personal preference.

Is looking at only the title games too narrow a view when defining parity across the whole sport? Maybe. People used to say the Yankees were killing parity in baseball even though the eight-year gap between titles for them saw seven different champions and 12 different World Series participants. For lots of baseball fans, there was no parity in the sport even when winner changed all the time, because we still saw the Yankees winning a bunch, making the playoffs, etc.

But D-III sports are so much different because the casual fan, or even the fan that follows a team pretty hard really don't get a chance to see many games besides the title game, and the however many their team is involved in--and even then, you need to be in the area, or by a computer. So I think the arena in which parity functions is, unfortunately, a lot smaller than it is for other sports

[HScoach]

^ interesting.  +k for the research and thoughts.

As a Mount guy, I'm probably not the guy to answer this, but I would prefer to see other opponents in Salem.  Which is the same reason I've enjoyed the last few years of Mount being sent to the East Region.  It gives us 3 new teams to play each year.  With only 1 non-conference game, the playoffs are our only chance to branch out and see new teams.  It get kind of old playing the same guys year after year.

[sjfcards]

If the alternative is having them meet in a different game and having UWW beat Wesley 27-7 or Mount Union beat Bethel 34-14 in Salem, I'm sure that's not better.

If the alternative is Mount Union pounding someone other than UW-Whitewater because there's no second team to challenge Mount Union, not sure that's better.

If the alternative is a third and fourth team stepping up to meet the challenge, like UWW did ... well, that I like, obviously.

With Wenger graduating, perhaps it now won't happen.  But NCC looked this year like they just might be team #3 to join the party.

Trine also looked very good, but I don't know how many seniors (other than Watts ) they are losing.  Despite their weak conference, they just might be a comer.

I think what gets frustrating is that every few years we think we have a new team to Join the party. In the past Rowan was looked at as that team, and then UWW came along (not that they have left the party), and now these new teams like NCC and Wesley. We think these teams are making that jump and then they fall off. I don' know what it is about UMU and UWW that makes them so consistent other than success bringing more success, but they are way ahead of everyone else. As noted earlier, the talent gap is obvious in the national semifinals. (otherwise elite teams).

I think it is going to be tough for any team to really join that party if UMU and UWW are the only teams getting any type of national exposure. I love DIII football, but before I went to college all I knew was UMU was really good. I think the really elite recruits are in the same boat and want to go play at those schools.

I am just not sure what can be done about it. It is easy to say teams should step up and find a way to compete, but there is only so much talent out there, and UMU and UWW are obviously playing with more of it than anyone else. So what can be done about it?

[maxpower]

The infield fly rule was invented because there was a runner on first one day in the 19th century (or later), and the shortstop let a popup drop for an easy double play.

That shortstop did something brilliant, and within the rules. But it was recognized that the situation was a problem. So the rules were changed.

There's nothing wrong with UMU and UWW meeting every year from their perspective. What would you have them do?

But if I were in charge and saw that there was no foreseeable end to this (even if one of them gets upset one year, the next year will likely be more of the same), I might think about ways to change it, with all respect to UMU and UWW for accomplishing what they have.

UMU and UWW are great programs. But is it anything but bad for the sport to have a foregone conclusion EVERY season?

[sjfcards]

The infield fly rule was invented because there was a runner on first one day in the 19th century (or later), and the shortstop let a popup drop for an easy double play.

That shortstop did something brilliant, and within the rules. But it was recognized that the situation was a problem. So the rules were changed.

There's nothing wrong with UMU and UWW meeting every year from their perspective. What would you have them do?

But if I were in charge and saw that there was no foreseeable end to this (even if one of them gets upset one year, the next year will likely be more of the same), I might think about ways to change it, with all respect to UMU and UWW for accomplishing what they have.

UMU and UWW are great programs. But is it anything but bad for the sport to have a foregone conclusion EVERY season?

A great point. UMU and UWW are doing nothing but being better than everyone else, and you can't really look to them to stop for the good of everyone else, but I agree that it is bad for the sport. Whenever I get a chance to talk to a casual DIII fan, or someone not at all familiar with it, I always hear the same thing; "Well, they are all playing for 3rd place anyway". That thought process doesn't really help bring in the new fans.

[Bombers798891]

The infield fly rule was invented because there was a runner on first one day in the 19th century (or later), and the shortstop let a popup drop for an easy double play.

That shortstop did something brilliant, and within the rules. But it was recognized that the situation was a problem. So the rules were changed.

There's nothing wrong with UMU and UWW meeting every year from their perspective. What would you have them do?

But if I were in charge and saw that there was no foreseeable end to this (even if one of them gets upset one year, the next year will likely be more of the same), I might think about ways to change it, with all respect to UMU and UWW for accomplishing what they have.

UMU and UWW are great programs. But is it anything but bad for the sport to have a foregone conclusion EVERY season?

But here's the thing: There's nothing you can do right now aside from, as Pat said, sticking them on the same side of the brackets for the sole purpose of making it impossible. But I think that kind of cheapens the whole thing. It's basically telling everyone else, "Fine, you can't do it yourselves, we'll do it for you." MUC and Whitewater have earned their success. We shouldn't create ways to take it away.

There's nothing to be done. But of course, just because we accept it, doesn't mean we have to like it.

[Mr. Ypsi]

True.  And I hope that the selection committee never deliberately sets out to make the seedings fit that scenario.

But the opposite is equally true - the seedings this year (IMO) seem to have been designed specifically to allow UMU/UWW, chaper VI. 

I find it equally distasteful if the seeding are manipulated to prevent UMU/UWW or to allow UMU/UWW - let them be what they should be.

[Doid23]

The infield fly rule was invented because there was a runner on first one day in the 19th century (or later), and the shortstop let a popup drop for an easy double play.

That shortstop did something brilliant, and within the rules. But it was recognized that the situation was a problem. So the rules were changed.

There's nothing wrong with UMU and UWW meeting every year from their perspective. What would you have them do?

But if I were in charge and saw that there was no foreseeable end to this (even if one of them gets upset one year, the next year will likely be more of the same), I might think about ways to change it, with all respect to UMU and UWW for accomplishing what they have.

UMU and UWW are great programs. But is it anything but bad for the sport to have a foregone conclusion EVERY season?

Great point Max, +K. I don't know the answer, but certainly realize that there is a problem. This isn't interesting anymore. Short lived dynasties I get, and are natural. This is no longer natural. This is similar to when Hobart dominated DIII lacrosse in the 70's and 80's, winning 12 or 13 straight championships. It ended when they went up to DI (non scholarship). But it was hopeless for a two decade period.

The two programs are certainly doing nothing wrong, just playing by the rules that exist. I would say that in the name of competition, they should move up to DI-AA, but that's not fair, because that means a larger investment in scholarships, facilities, etc. Again, I don't know the answer.

Pertaining to the brackets, that just masks the odor. In the end, one of the two will still be there.

[drt]

The first thought that comes to mind, with regards to UMU, is roster limits.
Mount's depth maintains the status quo, in part, by keeping a lot of talent off their opponent's rosters, thus maintaining their OAC dominance.
Then you look at UWW, with a 100-player roster and wonder how they do it.
The fact remains, winning breeds winning.
No one in the East likes Mount Union coming their way, but to something other than putting the top four seeds in different regions would cheapen the whole thing.  Think March Madness.

[HScoach]

The first thought that comes to mind, with regards to UMU, is roster limits.
Mount's depth maintains the status quo, in part, by keeping a lot of talent off their opponent's rosters, thus maintaining their OAC dominance.
Then you look at UWW, with a 100-player roster and wonder how they do it.
The fact remains, winning breeds winning.
No one in the East likes Mount Union coming their way, but to something other than putting the top four seeds in different regions would cheapen the whole thing.  Think March Madness.

Affordable state tuition with no scholarship competition in the state except for UW-Madison.

[sjfcards]

we should also not forget that at the head of the UMU and UWW programs are real quality coaches that can flat out recruit and make in game adjustments. That certainly helps them have the success they have had.

[dlippiel]

dlip concurrs that the mainstay of these two programs in our version of the "show" is getting a bit old for him as a fan. There is no question though in dlip's mind that both of these programs are doing everything they need to to keep excellence in place year in and year out. dlip can do nothing but tip his hat to both U-Dub and The Mount and respect the hell out of them. In dlip's opinion, until someone can defeat either of these two they have every right and are completely deserving of thheir annual meeting in the Alonzo Mount WhiteWater Stagg Bowl.

[Jonny Utah]

And lets not forget there were those years where everyone was complaining because the Stagg Bowls were blowouts.

I've been to Mt. Union and seen them play.  They are a d3 school in all aspects.  I don't know about UWW, but their stadium looks a little bit bigger than most d3 programs do.  You can't really penalize them for that either I guess.

But the football coach in me loves watching these two programs play in that final game.  I don't mind seeing the best two teams in the country play at the end.  Its usually a great game too.  I'm looking forward to it.

[Bombers798891]

I don't mind seeing the best two teams in the country play at the end.  Its usually a great game too.  I'm looking forward to it.

At the end of the day, I take some solace in that. As nice as upsets/variety is, there's a lot to be said for having the consensus two best teams in the country in the title game