FB: Empire 8

[Frank Rossi]

I think you're missing the most important factor.  COACHING.  Both in capability and stability.

Coaching is important, but it's honestly not primary in this discussion.  Doid hit it on the head -- it's administration support and resources.  Larry and Lance are both excellent coaches -- don't get me wrong.  However, if their schools did not back their programs in their admissions departments and financial aid departments prior to their surges, and if their schools did not provide a large enough budget, their coaching abilities would be minimized or marginalized.  It takes a mix of talent in players and talent in coaching -- but which came first, the chicken or the egg?  In this case, was it administrative focus and backing to aid the coaching or was it the coaching itself?  I'm close enough to enough schools to tell you that in most cases, the focus and backing were primary to programs' success or drop.  I think there are many coaches out there who are excellent coaches, but they can't get every player they want through the door in the first place.  Maybe Larry and Lance don't need to anymore because player interest is so widespread that Admissions in their schools can select a higher tier of student.  Yet, when this started many years ago, I'm sure that there had to be a certain level of cooperation to enable the talent level each coach needed through the gates in the first place.  Coaching has kept these programs strong, but the respective administrations helped to start them off in the direction in the first place, unless these schools are anomalies in this respect somehow.

[fisheralum91]

I think you're missing the most important factor.  COACHING.  Both in capability and stability.

Coaching is important, but it's honestly not primary in this discussion.  Doid hit it on the head -- it's administration support and resources.  Larry and Lance are both excellent coaches -- don't get me wrong.  However, if their schools did not back their programs in their admissions departments and financial aid departments prior to their surges, and if their schools did not provide a large enough budget, their coaching abilities would be minimized or marginalized.  It takes a mix of talent in players and talent in coaching -- but which came first, the chicken or the egg?  In this case, was it administrative focus and backing to aid the coaching or was it the coaching itself?  I'm close enough to enough schools to tell you that in most cases, the focus and backing were primary to programs' success or drop.  I think there are many coaches out there who are excellent coaches, but they can't get every player they want through the door in the first place.  Maybe Larry and Lance don't need to anymore because player interest is so widespread that Admissions in their schools can select a higher tier of student.  Yet, when this started many years ago, I'm sure that there had to be a certain level of cooperation to enable the talent level each coach needed through the gates in the first place.  Coaching has kept these programs strong, but the respective administrations helped to start them off in the direction in the first place, unless these schools are anomalies in this respect somehow.

DOID?  Sheesh, I rarely get credit and Frank ya give it to DOID?

[Bombers798891]

Pat,
I agree that there are certain things that can be done- from the Board of Trustees on down.
It takes the Board and the College President to agree to make someting a priority.
First and foremost every person in Higher Ed will tell you that academics are the focus and number one priority.
Utilizing resources to promote Athletics must come from above, and not infringe with the Mission of the college and work to enhance the overall college experience.
I have no idea what Mount Union or UWW have in their respective budgets for the football programs, but obviously there is a priority level that some other institutions of higher learning dont have.
Im not saying that other Colleges dont spend as much or try as hard, it is just painfully obvious that there are different levels of prioritization.

And that level can ebb and flow in individual schools over the years. At Ithaca, for example, Jim Butterfield got more help from administration than Mike Welch ever did. In fact, I've heard that one of the reasons Jerry Boyes didn't coach Ithaca was that, while the administration wanted him, he basically said that he wanted the same kind of support Jim got. When it became clear that wasn't going to happen, he decided it wasn't for him. Can't blame the guy. Can't blame Mike if it drives him up a wall.

As a football fan and professor, I'm torn on this issue. I believe that academics should always come first, and lowering standards to let in good players is a bad practice. That said, if you're going to have athletic teams, don't hamstring them. Otherwise, what's the point?

If you're good enough and have a pulse and half a brain they can get you in.

Of course they can. The point isn't if they can, but if they will.

If the coaches will?

The administration. Are they willing to bend over backwards for a football coach, to admit players that, academically, could go either way? Or give a kid that can't afford a $48,000 price tag enough financial aid to make a difference?

[Upstate]

Pat,
I agree that there are certain things that can be done- from the Board of Trustees on down.
It takes the Board and the College President to agree to make someting a priority.
First and foremost every person in Higher Ed will tell you that academics are the focus and number one priority.
Utilizing resources to promote Athletics must come from above, and not infringe with the Mission of the college and work to enhance the overall college experience.
I have no idea what Mount Union or UWW have in their respective budgets for the football programs, but obviously there is a priority level that some other institutions of higher learning dont have.
Im not saying that other Colleges dont spend as much or try as hard, it is just painfully obvious that there are different levels of prioritization.

And that level can ebb and flow in individual schools over the years. At Ithaca, for example, Jim Butterfield got more help from administration than Mike Welch ever did. In fact, I've heard that one of the reasons Jerry Boyes didn't coach Ithaca was that, while the administration wanted him, he basically said that he wanted the same kind of support Jim got. When it became clear that wasn't going to happen, he decided it wasn't for him. Can't blame the guy. Can't blame Mike if it drives him up a wall.

As a football fan and professor, I'm torn on this issue. I believe that academics should always come first, and lowering standards to let in good players is a bad practice. That said, if you're going to have athletic teams, don't hamstring them. Otherwise, what's the point?

If you're good enough and have a pulse and half a brain they can get you in.

Of course they can. The point isn't if they can, but if they will.

If the coaches will?

The administration. Are they willing to bend over backwards for a football coach, to admit players that, academically, could go either way? Or give a kid that can't afford a $48,000 price tag enough financial aid to make a difference?

Most of the football programs get "chips" to get players in who normally wouldn't qualify in. 

Those players of course have to go through some sort of academic support program during their freshman year, sometimes longer.

Sometimes those students flame out sometimes they make the best of their opportunity, it's up to the coaches to try and figure out who will be able to come in, work hard and stay in the program. 

[Bombers798891]

Coaching is important, but it's honestly not primary in this discussion.  Doid hit it on the head -- it's administration support and resources.  Larry and Lance are both excellent coaches -- don't get me wrong.  However, if their schools did not back their programs in their admissions departments and financial aid departments prior to their surges, and if their schools did not provide a large enough budget, their coaching abilities would be minimized or marginalized.  It takes a mix of talent in players and talent in coaching -- but which came first, the chicken or the egg?  In this case, was it administrative focus and backing to aid the coaching or was it the coaching itself?  I'm close enough to enough schools to tell you that in most cases, the focus and backing were primary to programs' success or drop.  I think there are many coaches out there who are excellent coaches, but they can't get every player they want through the door in the first place.  Maybe Larry and Lance don't need to anymore because player interest is so widespread that Admissions in their schools can select a higher tier of student.  Yet, when this started many years ago, I'm sure that there had to be a certain level of cooperation to enable the talent level each coach needed through the gates in the first place.  Coaching has kept these programs strong, but the respective administrations helped to start them off in the direction in the first place, unless these schools are anomalies in this respect somehow.

Exactly. I write for a trade magazine, and we're constantly talking to coaches and AD's and asking them how they were able to get their programs to the next level. Universally, they all bring up administrative support.

Now, I'm not naive. Of course, on record, coaches and AD's are going to be supportive of their administration. But, when you press for specifics, they can always provide them. Usually, it's a financial commitment, but just as often it's a idealogical  change. Great coaching obviously helps, but, great players help more, and the administration is the gatekeeper in that regard

[Bombers798891]

Most of the football programs get "chips" to get players in who normally wouldn't qualify in. 

Those players of course have to go through some sort of academic support program during their freshman year, sometimes longer.

Sometimes those students flame out sometimes they make the best of their opportunity, it's up to the coaches to try and figure out who will be able to come in, work hard and stay in the program.

I don't doubt this is true, but how many of these "chips" are you getting? How far below normal qualifications are these players falling? Are we talking half a dozen kids who are 30 points below the SAT cutoff? Or 20 kids who are 70 below? These things no doubt exist, but they're not the same for each school

[sjfcards]

Players, coaches and supporters of teams can all influence change. Some more than others, but it can be done. It's certainly not just players.

Players, coaches, administrators, and certain fans yes, if they've got power and money. But what exactly can the average fan (which I think most of us are) do to influence change on that level? What could Max and I have done these last few years to prevent, for example, Ithaca's offensive line from becoming a black hole of awfulness?

The only thing I can think of is that the average fan can contribute to the atmosphere at the game, to hopefully get the attention of recruits. A big crowd that was into the game would help recruit me anyway. Atmosphere during an on campus visit can help.

Having said that I think atmosphere is almost always secondary to coaching, facilities, commitment from the school, etc. The only time I think atmosphere can play a major roll in building a program is when the atmosphere is so over the top awesome that everyone else falls short. An example would be Cortland or Ithaca bringing recruits to the Cortaca game the week after that same recruit saw a Fisher/Utica game where there was roughly 300 people in the stands.

[AUKaz00]

Players, coaches and supporters of teams can all influence change. Some more than others, but it can be done. It's certainly not just players.

Players, coaches, administrators, and certain fans yes, if they've got power and money. But what exactly can the average fan (which I think most of us are) do to influence change on that level? What could Max and I have done these last few years to prevent, for example, Ithaca's offensive line from becoming a black hole of awfulness?

Or when you have a rockin' Pep Band!!!

The only thing I can think of is that the average fan can contribute to the atmosphere at the game, to hopefully get the attention of recruits. A big crowd that was into the game would help recruit me anyway. Atmosphere during an on campus visit can help.

Having said that I think atmosphere is almost always secondary to coaching, facilities, commitment from the school, etc. The only time I think atmosphere can play a major roll in building a program is when the atmosphere is so over the top awesome that everyone else falls short. An example would be Cortland or Ithaca bringing recruits to the Cortaca game the week after that same recruit saw a Fisher/Utica game where there was roughly 300 people in the stands.

Or when you have a rockin' Pep Band!!!

[sjfcards]

Players, coaches and supporters of teams can all influence change. Some more than others, but it can be done. It's certainly not just players.

Players, coaches, administrators, and certain fans yes, if they've got power and money. But what exactly can the average fan (which I think most of us are) do to influence change on that level? What could Max and I have done these last few years to prevent, for example, Ithaca's offensive line from becoming a black hole of awfulness?

Or when you have a rockin' Pep Band!!!

The only thing I can think of is that the average fan can contribute to the atmosphere at the game, to hopefully get the attention of recruits. A big crowd that was into the game would help recruit me anyway. Atmosphere during an on campus visit can help.

Having said that I think atmosphere is almost always secondary to coaching, facilities, commitment from the school, etc. The only time I think atmosphere can play a major roll in building a program is when the atmosphere is so over the top awesome that everyone else falls short. An example would be Cortland or Ithaca bringing recruits to the Cortaca game the week after that same recruit saw a Fisher/Utica game where there was roughly 300 people in the stands.

Of course. I thought that was a given...

[Luv D3]

I am new to the message board here, but have followed numerous conversations over the season. I found this one very interesting. There are a lot of advantages some schools have over others. Primarily academic qualifications and C.O.A(cost of attendance) For example if you look at the LL and E8  and what the price tag is and requirements and compare them to SUNY and NJAC schools its very very very different. No disrespect to either of those conferences what so ever different types of schools period. I am first comparing this on a regional level. So even compare LL to E8 schools. LL academically overall is stronger than the E8(not knocking the E8, I graduated from one of those schools). Also look at price tag. Hobart, SLU, Union, and RPI all over 50g per year. E8 schools are not chump change either most in the mid to upper 30's. My point is , and I know some of you prob agreee you are going to lose a lot of kids because of money and low academic standards. And yes, schools do get some chips, free passes, but its only a few. Whats happening at alot of these private schools that do have great traditions of football, either you are getting the kid that can pay full shot or the kid that is dirt poor. Alot of these schools are losing the hardnose middle class kid, who may be bright enough to get in, but mom and dad make a little too much to get any need base aid. I think it is going to only be harder for schools like Ithaca, Fisher, Hobart, Union, Rpi..etc to compete on the national level and get deeper in the playoffs, unless you have an administration that is 100% on board with making football top priority, which is not going to happen at least at some of those schools. You may see a surge from the state schools over the next few years. If you look at UWW , Mnt Union, Wesley and St Thomas. All are great programs and St Thomas has made a surge over the last few years. Mnt union and Wesley both head coaches are the AD's as well. I think that obv makes a biiig difference. But if you look at MU and WC, COA is cheaper than all previous said schools, and academic requirement is easier. UWW state school, proud tradition, affordable, above avg academics, just like most state school systems. STU is interestin bc they came out of no where over the last few years to be a national player. I guess to sum everything up, I don't see some of these schools able to compete unless someone goes all in and the athetic dept is 100% football all the time. Some of these schools administration are just happy to have a winning team. Im sure some will disagree, but I have been around d3football for awhile and also have worked at a couple of college institutions, so I think I have a good perspective on this (IMO)

Most of the football programs get "chips" to get players in who normally wouldn't qualify in. 

Those players of course have to go through some sort of academic support program during their freshman year, sometimes longer.

Sometimes those students flame out sometimes they make the best of their opportunity, it's up to the coaches to try and figure out who will be able to come in, work hard and stay in the program.

I don't doubt this is true, but how many of these "chips" are you getting? How far below normal qualifications are these players falling? Are we talking half a dozen kids who are 30 points below the SAT cutoff? Or 20 kids who are 70 below? These things no doubt exist, but they're not the same for each school

[Bombers798891]

Players, coaches and supporters of teams can all influence change. Some more than others, but it can be done. It's certainly not just players.

Players, coaches, administrators, and certain fans yes, if they've got power and money. But what exactly can the average fan (which I think most of us are) do to influence change on that level? What could Max and I have done these last few years to prevent, for example, Ithaca's offensive line from becoming a black hole of awfulness?

The only thing I can think of is that the average fan can contribute to the atmosphere at the game, to hopefully get the attention of recruits. A big crowd that was into the game would help recruit me anyway. Atmosphere during an on campus visit can help.

Having said that I think atmosphere is almost always secondary to coaching, facilities, commitment from the school, etc. The only time I think atmosphere can play a major roll in building a program is when the atmosphere is so over the top awesome that everyone else falls short. An example would be Cortland or Ithaca bringing recruits to the Cortaca game the week after that same recruit saw a Fisher/Utica game where there was roughly 300 people in the stands.

I think you're right, but that gets back to Frank's chicken and egg point. (Frank, this is the second time I've agreed with you today. And you say I'm holding a grudge ) You can't expect fans to show up for mediocre teams, or drab opponents. There was actually a really good crowd at the IC-Fisher game, but Frostburg isn't getting the masses riled up after you go 4-6. Also, if the administration doesn't care, why should the students/community? Especially at a D-III school, I think you really need to give people a compelling reason to care. It's not like a big D-I school where it's just how it is

[sjfcards]

Players, coaches and supporters of teams can all influence change. Some more than others, but it can be done. It's certainly not just players.

Players, coaches, administrators, and certain fans yes, if they've got power and money. But what exactly can the average fan (which I think most of us are) do to influence change on that level? What could Max and I have done these last few years to prevent, for example, Ithaca's offensive line from becoming a black hole of awfulness?

The only thing I can think of is that the average fan can contribute to the atmosphere at the game, to hopefully get the attention of recruits. A big crowd that was into the game would help recruit me anyway. Atmosphere during an on campus visit can help.

Having said that I think atmosphere is almost always secondary to coaching, facilities, commitment from the school, etc. The only time I think atmosphere can play a major roll in building a program is when the atmosphere is so over the top awesome that everyone else falls short. An example would be Cortland or Ithaca bringing recruits to the Cortaca game the week after that same recruit saw a Fisher/Utica game where there was roughly 300 people in the stands.

I think you're right, but that gets back to Frank's chicken and egg point. (Frank, this is the second time I've agreed with you today. And you say I'm holding a grudge ) You can't expect fans to show up for mediocre teams, or drab opponents. There was actually a really good crowd at the IC-Fisher game, but Frostburg isn't getting the masses riled up after you go 4-6. Also, if the administration doesn't care, why should the students/community? Especially at a D-III school, I think you really need to give people a compelling reason to care. It's not like a big D-I school where it's just how it is

Agreed. I think the fans showing up actually goes back to the administration promoting an atmosphere that encourages current students and alumni to be involved and attend whenever possible. Reaching out to alumni to attend games, promoting the team in the local community, etc. More people at the games = more excitement. More Excitement = more money, and so on.

I like what Fisher tried a few years ago with the athletes for athletes idea to get athletes to support other athletic teams (Mens and Womens Soccer show up for a basketball game, in rertun for the basketball team coming to a soccer game). If nothing else it put a body in more seats. However, as an alum of Fisher I can only recall one time where I received an email from the school promoting a game (and that game was in Minnesota, so I wasn't going to make it). 

I think to have success at the level of MUC and UWW you really need a perfect mix of everything we are talking about.

[02 Warhawk]

I think to have success at the level of MUC and UWW you really need a perfect mix of everything we are talking about.

Ding, Ding, Ding......We have a winner.

I'll be the first to admit it though. The common denominator is $$$$ which leads to good facilities, which leads to good recruiting. A perfect example is what St. Thomas has accomplished over the past few seasons. That's why St. John's fans call them U$T. As big as a factor as donations and funding is, you still need a perfect mix of everything you talked about prior - like sjfcards said.

As mentioned earlier, the biggest thing UWW has going for them is the lack of college football in the state of Wisconsin. Tuition has little to do with it. MANY of Whitewater's players were offered up tuition assistance/grants (whatever you want to call it) from private DIII schools and DII schools to play for them. Our two best players (RB Coppage and QB Blanchard), as well as other UWW greats, are from IL. What they pay for out-of-state tuition rivals most private schools after they offer up its "assistance".

On a side note, I don't blame you guys. If I didn't graduate from UWW, I would be sick of these Stagg Bowls as well. I see where you're coming from.

[Jonny Utah]

I think to have success at the level of MUC and UWW you really need a perfect mix of everything we are talking about.

Ding, Ding, Ding......We have a winner.

I'll be the first to admit it though. The common denominator is $$$$ which leads to good facilities, which leads to good recruiting. A perfect example is what St. Thomas has accomplished over the past few seasons. That's why St. John's fans call them U$T. As big as a factor as donations and funding is, you still need a perfect mix of everything you talked about prior - like sjfcards said.

As mentioned earlier, the biggest thing UWW has going for them is the lack of college football in the state of Wisconsin. Tuition has little to do with it. MANY of Whitewater's players were offered up tuition assistance/grants (whatever you want to call it) from private DIII schools and DII schools to play for them. Our two best players (RB Coppage and QB Blanchard), as well as other UWW greats, are from IL. What they pay for out-of-state tuition rivals most private schools after they offer up its "assistance".

On a side note, I don't blame you guys. If I didn't graduate from UWW, I would be sick of these Stagg Bowls as well. I see where you're coming from.

St. Thomas also has a new coach though, and that might have a lot to do with how well they are doing.

And although I've never been to UWW, it seems like it has more of a 1-aa feel in terms of facilities, school size, and crowds at games.  I've been to Mount Union and I have to say that it seems just like any other d3 football school I played against or have been to (Union, Ithaca, SJF, Alfred, St. Lawrence, Hobart, Springfield).

And administrative support is huge, but you still need to be able to recruit players who can fit into your program.  Most d3 schools in the northeast will give you the $$ if you really need it. 

[pg04]

Well I am glad I evoked such a conversation.  Like someone said earlier on, I don't really buy that those of us on a message board have any say in who the team is that finally cracks the top tier.  However the resulting discussion has been great!