FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[HSCTiger fan]

Wow the state of "Friday Night Lights" and 58 million dollar stadiums HS stadiums is saying Wisconsin teams have advantages? 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Other in-state options plays a huge part as well.

9 FBS Schools in Texas
8 FBS Schools in Ohio
1 FBS School in Wisconsin

8 FCS Schools in Texas
2 FCS Schools in Ohio
0 FCS Schools in Wisconsin

10 D2 Schools in Ohio
6 D2 Schools in Texas
0 D2 Schools in Wisconsin

So, when you tally all of this up, and you see how many programs UMHB has to beat out, you see the magnitude of what they have accomplished. Obviously, the size of the state means more players, but still.

Let's reframe this, because the way you presented it was, um, misleading.

Texas: 9 FBS Schools in Texas, 8 FCS Schools in Texas, 6 D2 Schools in Texas, 8 D3 Schools in Texas = 31 football-playing schools in Texas
Ohio: 8 FBS Schools in Ohio, 2 FCS Schools in Ohio, 10 D2 Schools in Ohio, 21 D3 Schools in Ohio = 41 football-playing schools in Ohio
Wisconsin: 1 FBS School in Wisconsin, 0 FCS Schools in Wisconsin, 0 D2 Schools in Wisconsin, 18 D3 Schools in Wisconsin = 19 football-playing schools in Wisconsin

...and then add Ralph's population estimates....

2013 population (estimate).

Texas - 26,528,398
Ohio - 11,544, 225
Wisconsin - 5,742,713

And then let's put to bed the idea that UMHB is somehow handicapped in any way, shape, or form by the number of programs that they're competing for players with relative to Mount and UWW.  There are far more "people per football playing school" in Texas than in either Ohio or Wisconsin, by a fairly large margin.  We have previously noted that UWW benefits from the lack of higher-division schools instate (and thus may end up getting many FCS and D2 caliber athletes that wish to remain close to home), but that doesn't fly for Mount, who has a ton of instate lower-level FBS, FCS, and D2 programs to slurp up local talent.

[D3ISGREAT]

Hey everyone, I have been a reader for many years and never posted but this is a topic that I love and there is great chatter about this. First and foremost congrats AGAIN to UWW and UMU on making the Stagg Bowl. I will offer my two cents on this and I am sure I am sharing stuff that many already know. Over the past 10 years I have been fortunate enough to coach football at the d3 level(no longer coaching) and also have had the opportunity to work in higher ed including the world of admissions. While so many of the comments are spot on with great coaching, supportive administration (for me I wrap this up with flexible admissions/and $ backing athletics), the most important item in this whole equation is the cost of the school. While coaching and a supportive adm is def part of it there is only so much a school at the D3 level will be able to do when it comes down to cost. I could write three pages of how this process works but I will try to sum it up, I hope.

Every program has there strengths and weaknesses as selling points, and obviously at this level most kids are not only buying into the programs they select but really where the school is going to position them for a career or grad school. Every year the admissions office and FA office at every school needs to send a report to the NCAA about the grant dollars student athletes receive from that institution. They are also sending in an aggregate report for non athletes and their FA packages.( that is broken down by gender race etc) NCAA looks to see if red flags pop up. So an example Johhny Smith who is coming as a football player and has 25,000 grant from the school and he is a B student. Well all the other students who are B students with similar financial need better have a similar packages. Obviously there are ways you can get creative to a certain point but as the cost of schools go up especially in the private school world the separation is only going to get worse. So schools that have a lower cost, great coaching and supportive adm always have a chance to compete if they can put it all together. When you have football guys as Ath directors (Wesley , UMU) also helps a ton. Some previous posters also pointed out state population, I look past that and point out they are traditionally football rich states( a lot of talent in those states). If a school in FLA started a D3 program, my money would be on them to get into the stagg bowl after a few yrs of playing. Now there are certainly other factors that contribute to the success or dynasties of programs, but cost will always be the main factor when it comes down to shaking things up at a D3 level and taking programs to the next level. Sorry for the length of My first post but I figured I would make it count!!!  Here are some approximate numbers of Final 8
Wesley College-$33,000 COA (cost of  Attendance)
UMU- $35,000 COA
UWW-$14,000 COA (in state)
Linfield-$49,000* always exceptions to any rule
Wartburg $45,000
Hobart- $60,000
Widener-$52,000
John Carroll-$46,000

I guess my overall point is if I can pay lets say 6g a yr out of pocket to go UWW and play for a Nat Champ or pay 18g out of pocket to go t lets say St Thomas with hopes of getting there, man that's a tough sell. Have a great day everyone

[Bombers798891]

Also, having a lot of huge blowouts wins can actually make recruiting easier (ignoring the fact that you know the whole winning a lot of games helps recruiting a ton) because you can pretty much tell any kid that is good enough to make the Mount Union roster that he is very likely going to end up playing a lot because the backups will likely be getting a lot of snaps.

Mount's backup QBs have attempted 36 passes between them this year. They have nine So/JR/SR RBs listed on their roster, several of whom had single digit carries. At the end of the day, you're only going to get maybe 70-80 snaps a game. There's only so many to go around.

And there's also the question of quality. Sure, you make get five handoffs a game, but it's going to be in the 4th quarter of a 59-0 game. For some guys, that matters.

Obviously, winning trumps everything. Period. It's a huge recruiting advantage. But on the micro level, I'm sure there are guys who'd rather start for a good team than ride the bench for a national title winner, just like there are guys who'd do the opposite.

[D3ISGREAT]

Hey everyone, I have been a reader for many years and never posted but this is a topic that I love and there is great chatter about this. First and foremost congrats AGAIN to UWW and UMU on making the Stagg Bowl. I will offer my two cents on this and I am sure I am sharing stuff that many already know. Over the past 10 years I have been fortunate enough to coach football at the d3 level(no longer coaching) and also have had the opportunity to work in higher ed including the world of admissions. While so many of the comments are spot on with great coaching, supportive administration (for me I wrap this up with flexible admissions/and $ backing athletics), the most important item in this whole equation is the cost of the school. While coaching and a supportive adm is def part of it there is only so much a school at the D3 level will be able to do when it comes down to cost. I could write three pages of how this process works but I will try to sum it up, I hope.

Every program has there strengths and weaknesses as selling points, and obviously at this level most kids are not only buying into the programs they select but really where the school is going to position them for a career or grad school. Every year the admissions office and FA office at every school needs to send a report to the NCAA about the grant dollars student athletes receive from that institution. They are also sending in an aggregate report for non athletes and their FA packages.( that is broken down by gender race etc) NCAA looks to see if red flags pop up. So an example Johhny Smith who is coming as a football player and has 25,000 grant from the school and he is a B student. Well all the other students who are B students with similar financial need better have a similar packages. Obviously there are ways you can get creative to a certain point but as the cost of schools go up especially in the private school world the separation is only going to get worse. So schools that have a lower cost, great coaching and supportive adm always have a chance to compete if they can put it all together. When you have football guys as Ath directors (Wesley , UMU) also helps a ton. Some previous posters also pointed out state population, I look past that and point out they are traditionally football rich states( a lot of talent in those states). If a school in FLA started a D3 program, my money would be on them to get into the stagg bowl after a few yrs of playing. Now there are certainly other factors that contribute to the success or dynasties of programs, but cost will always be the main factor when it comes down to shaking things up at a D3 level and taking programs to the next level. Sorry for the length of My first post but I figured I would make it count!!!  Here are some approximate numbers of Final 8
Wesley College-$33,000 COA (cost of  Attendance)
UMU- $35,000 COA
UWW-$14,000 COA (in state)
Linfield-$49,000* always exceptions to any rule
Wartburg $45,000
Hobart- $60,000
Widener-$52,000
John Carroll-$46,000

I guess my overall point is if I can pay lets say 6g a yr out of pocket to go UWW and play for a Nat Champ or pay 18g out of pocket to go t lets say St Thomas with hopes of getting there, man that's a tough sell. Have a great day everyone

I also forgot to add in my previous post, academic standards are obviously another part of this equation when it comes to what type of package a student can get. As an institution you can admit anyone,b ut can you fund them based off of the students individual academics

[Ralph Turner]

NAIA schools in Texas include Wayland Baptist, Southwestern Assemblies and Texas College.

I have posted on this numerous times in the past.  The difference with Texas and Ohio is that most of the Ohio kids going to private schools are playing football at the OAC, NCAC and HCAC schools.

In Texas, I think most of those players are going to private schools like Baylor, TCU, SMU and Rice and not playing football.  In the nearly 20 years of D-3 football on a grand scale in Texas (the ASC was formed in 1996), playing D-3 football has not taken off as I thought that it would.

9 D-3 Texas football schools plus provisional McMurry.

[Bombers798891]

State population is irrelevant. What matters is the size and direction of your player pool

According to the National Federation of High Schools:

The number of boys playing 11-man high school football in Texas in 2012-13 was 165,359, an increase of nearly 8,000 from 2002-2003.

In Ohio, the number was 45,882 in 2012-13, an increase of just 1,600 from 2002-2003, and a staggering 10,000 player decrease from three years earlier.

The number in Wisconsin for 2012-2013 was 27,840, a decrease of about 3,000 from 2002-03

Texas' player pool is down a bit from last year, but is undeniably growing, rapidly. Wisconsin's is shrinking. Ohio's has grown over the course of a decade, but has been decimated in the past three years.

[ExTartanPlayer]

State population is irrelevant. What matters is the size and direction of your player pool

According to the National Federation of High Schools:

The number of boys playing 11-man high school football in Texas in 2012-13 was 165,359, an increase of nearly 8,000 from 2002-2003.

In Ohio, the number was 45,882 in 2012-13, an increase of just 1,600 from 2002-2003, and a staggering 10,000 player decrease from three years earlier.

The number in Wisconsin for 2012-2013 was 27,840, a decrease of about 3,000 from 2002-03

Texas' player pool is down a bit from last year, but is undeniably growing, rapidly. Wisconsin's is shrinking. Ohio's has grown over the course of a decade, but has been decimated in the past three years.

Good points.   Let's marry the two posts here, then:

Texas: 9 FBS Schools in Texas, 8 FCS Schools in Texas, 6 D2 Schools in Texas, 8 D3 Schools in Texas = 31 football-playing schools in Texas
Ohio: 8 FBS Schools in Ohio, 2 FCS Schools in Ohio, 10 D2 Schools in Ohio, 21 D3 Schools in Ohio = 41 football-playing schools in Ohio
Wisconsin: 1 FBS School in Wisconsin, 0 FCS Schools in Wisconsin, 0 D2 Schools in Wisconsin, 18 D3 Schools in Wisconsin = 19 football-playing schools in Wisconsin


The number of boys playing 11-man high school football

Texas: 165,359 / 31 = 5334 HS players per in-state college program
Ohio: 45,882 / 41 = 1119 HS players per in-state college program
Wisconsin: 27,840 / 19 = 1465 HS players per in-state college program

Point is, Texas has far more "high school football players per college football program" than Ohio or Wisconsin.

I don't really think this stuff makes much difference one way or the other when it comes to the top couple of programs.

I'm just trying to dispel nonsensical myths like a certain school having a substantial advantage that doesn't exist.

[bman]

State population is irrelevant. What matters is the size and direction of your player pool

According to the National Federation of High Schools:

The number of boys playing 11-man high school football in Texas in 2012-13 was 165,359, an increase of nearly 8,000 from 2002-2003.

In Ohio, the number was 45,882 in 2012-13, an increase of just 1,600 from 2002-2003, and a staggering 10,000 player decrease from three years earlier.

The number in Wisconsin for 2012-2013 was 27,840, a decrease of about 3,000 from 2002-03

Texas' player pool is down a bit from last year, but is undeniably growing, rapidly. Wisconsin's is shrinking. Ohio's has grown over the course of a decade, but has been decimated in the past three years.

Good points.   Let's marry the two posts here, then:

Texas: 9 FBS Schools in Texas, 8 FCS Schools in Texas, 6 D2 Schools in Texas, 8 D3 Schools in Texas = 31 football-playing schools in Texas
Ohio: 8 FBS Schools in Ohio, 2 FCS Schools in Ohio, 10 D2 Schools in Ohio, 21 D3 Schools in Ohio = 41 football-playing schools in Ohio
Wisconsin: 1 FBS School in Wisconsin, 0 FCS Schools in Wisconsin, 0 D2 Schools in Wisconsin, 18 D3 Schools in Wisconsin = 19 football-playing schools in Wisconsin


The number of boys playing 11-man high school football

Texas: 165,359 / 31 = 5334 HS players per in-state college program
Ohio: 45,882 / 41 = 1119 HS players per in-state college program
Wisconsin: 27,840 / 19 = 1465 HS players per in-state college program

Point is, Texas has far more "high school football players per college football program" than Ohio or Wisconsin.

I don't really think this stuff makes much difference one way or the other when it comes to the top couple of programs.

I'm just trying to dispel nonsensical myths like a certain school having a substantial advantage that doesn't exist.

But what D3ISGREAT mentioned DOES matter:

2 schools, under 100 Miles apart...
School A:  Playoff caliber program program...school committed to winning.. Tuition 35K with 85% receiving on average 11K in grant money...>75% acceptance.

School B:  Playoff caliber program...school committed to winning.. Tuition 60K with 75% receiving on average 8K in grant money...> 60% acceptance...

School B, (unless the school takes a complete win at all cost mentality) will always struggle to compete with A.  Unless a studen'ts values align directly with B or there's a previous association...the choice comes down to simple mathematics....

[jknezek]

2 schools, under 100 Miles apart...
School A:  Playoff caliber program program...school committed to winning.. Tuition 35K with 85% receiving on average 11K in grant money...>75% acceptance.

School B:  Playoff caliber program...school committed to winning.. Tuition 60K with 75% receiving on average 8K in grant money...> 60% acceptance...

School B, (unless the school takes a complete win at all cost mentality) will always struggle to compete with A.  Unless a studen'ts values align directly with B or there's a previous association...the choice comes down to simple mathematics....

And this is where I slot in institutional will and coaching. School B has to have more. That means the school has to be willing to up the grant money, and it has to be for more than football, or they are probably going to get slapped on the wrist. However, the focus can be on football and then the rest is balanced out among the student body. Second, facilities. School B needs to go after the facilities war. That takes money, but it's not "matched money." Plus in some senses it benefits other parts of the student body. Improved fitness facilities help a good percentage of the student body while an improved practice field or stadium will be used in the off-season for something else.

Finally, coaches. School B needs to have a better recruiter. Money talks, but we all know kids that went to a more expensive school. I did. U of Richmond offered me a ton of money, as did in-state Rutgers, but I went to more expensive W&L because I loved the school. I kicked out a few liberal arts schools in PA, like Dickinson and Gettysburg because I believed W&L was a better school and they didn't offer me significantly more value.

Finally, those coaches need to recruit and coach. Simply put, School B's coach needs to win against School A. Whether it starts with a fluky game or super seniors, or just an unexpected game plan, that coach has to get the jump and then build on it. Great coaches can do this, then take the momentum and move forward to maintain.

As I said at the beginning, it's about institutional will and coaches. If you have those, and it takes some luck to get the second one, you can build a championship program. The problem is putting them all together at the same place and the same time is a pretty rare event.

[bman]

2 schools, under 100 Miles apart...
School A:  Playoff caliber program program...school committed to winning.. Tuition 35K with 85% receiving on average 11K in grant money...>75% acceptance.

School B:  Playoff caliber program...school committed to winning.. Tuition 60K with 75% receiving on average 8K in grant money...> 60% acceptance...

School B, (unless the school takes a complete win at all cost mentality) will always struggle to compete with A.  Unless a studen'ts values align directly with B or there's a previous association...the choice comes down to simple mathematics....

And this is where I slot in institutional will and coaching. School B has to have more. That means the school has to be willing to up the grant money, and it has to be for more than football, or they are probably going to get slapped on the wrist. However, the focus can be on football and then the rest is balanced out among the student body. Second, facilities. School B needs to go after the facilities war. That takes money, but it's not "matched money." Plus in some senses it benefits other parts of the student body. Improved fitness facilities help a good percentage of the student body while an improved practice field or stadium will be used in the off-season for something else.

Finally, coaches. School B needs to have a better recruiter. Money talks, but we all know kids that went to a more expensive school. I did. U of Richmond offered me a ton of money, as did in-state Rutgers, but I went to more expensive W&L because I loved the school. I kicked out a few liberal arts schools in PA, like Dickinson and Gettysburg because I believed W&L was a better school and they didn't offer me significantly more value.

Finally, those coaches need to recruit and coach. Simply put, School B's coach needs to win against School A. Whether it starts with a fluky game or super seniors, or just an unexpected game plan, that coach has to get the jump and then build on it. Great coaches can do this, then take the momentum and move forward to maintain.

As I said at the beginning, it's about institutional will and coaches. If you have those, and it takes some luck to get the second one, you can build a championship program. The problem is putting them all together at the same place and the same time is a pretty rare event.

Agree ...but that admissions bar is significant.  It sounds like you didn't have that issue.  There's lot's of great football talent under that bar...so institutional will has to include admissions...

Delaware fired KC Keeler..not because he wasn't putting competitive teams on the field, but because the means that he did it, was at odds with the admissions philosophy of the institution, and they chose to go in another direction...
It was the same at Rowan...
If the discussion is solely about why some teams have an advantage, where the bar is, and what an institurion will allow under that bar, is as significant as population or school density....

[jknezek]

Agree ...but that admissions bar is significant.  It sounds like you didn't have that issue.  There's lot's of great football talent under that bar...so institutional will has to include admissions...

Delaware fired KC Keeler..not because he wasn't putting competitive teams on the field, but because the means that he did it, was at odds with the admissions philosophy of the institution, and they chose to go in another direction...
It was the same at Rowan...
If the discussion is solely about why some teams have an advantage, where the bar is, and what an institurion will allow under that bar, is as significant as population or school density....

I'm with you 100% here. I discussed that as flexibility in a previous post and didn't want to repeat myself. But yes... I think Bridgewater is a very, very good example. Those years they were Stagg quality? There was a lot of institutional will that made that happen. And when a certain administrator left... what do you know, Bridgewater moved back down again toward the ODAC pack. Amazing.

[D3ISGREAT]

Coaching does matter in alot of cases, but as the old adage goes 'its about the johnnies and joes not the x's and o's. If you cant get the players admitted and funded you cant compete. If you have a stronger academic school that costs a lot of $, you just arent getting the quality in quantity that you need to compete against the big boys of d3. Academic profile is very important, while as I mentioned in  a previous post, you can take any student you want as a college but can you fund that student based off of your academic profile?  You can get way with one or maybe two kids a year but you need to get 10-12 per yr who can really compete against the UMU or UWW. Now the simple answer would be to find very wealthy kids who are great players or find very very smart awesome players that can earn merit awards. The problem with the latter , now you run into those kids looking at the Ivy's, and they bypass the Dickinsons, Carnegie Mellons, John Hopkins of the world bc they can go play "d1" and get an ivy league degree. Because  of the never ending rise in tuition schools are going to price themselves out of actually competing.

[Bombers798891]

I'm with you 100% here. I discussed that as flexibility in a previous post and didn't want to repeat myself. But yes... I think Bridgewater is a very, very good example. Those years they were Stagg quality? There was a lot of institutional will that made that happen. And when a certain administrator left... what do you know, Bridgewater moved back down again toward the ODAC pack. Amazing.

Something similar happened at Ithaca as well. The President/AD combo during the Butterfield era had a different will regarding football than the ones that took over in Welch's era.

This is why I think the "It's the responsibility of everyone else to get better" is a lazy solution to the parity issue at this level. We simply have too wide a disparity in what schools are willing to commit to make their football program nationally competitive. They're simply not interested in investing that heavily in their programs.

Now, to be frank, I don't think that's the wrong decision for many schools, even Ithaca. But it's also created much of this issue. In a perfect world, I'd love to see a split of D-III, into the schools that are willing to say "We're going to commit to making our program competitive with the elites of the country," and those who say "We support our football team, but we're content to do so on a much smaller scale."

[jknezek]

I'm with you 100% here. I discussed that as flexibility in a previous post and didn't want to repeat myself. But yes... I think Bridgewater is a very, very good example. Those years they were Stagg quality? There was a lot of institutional will that made that happen. And when a certain administrator left... what do you know, Bridgewater moved back down again toward the ODAC pack. Amazing.

Something similar happened at Ithaca as well. The President/AD combo during the Butterfield era had a different will regarding football than the ones that took over in Welch's era.

This is why I think the "It's the responsibility of everyone else to get better" is a lazy solution to the parity issue at this level. We simply have too wide a disparity in what schools are willing to commit to make their football program nationally competitive. They're simply not interested in investing that heavily in their programs.

Now, to be frank, I don't think that's the wrong decision for many schools, even Ithaca. But it's also created much of this issue. In a perfect world, I'd love to see a split of D-III, into the schools that are willing to say "We're going to commit to making our program competitive with the elites of the country," and those who say "We support our football team, but we're content to do so on a much smaller scale."

Why does there need to be a split? You could simply opt out of the playoffs ala the NESCAC. You don't have to opt out of OOC games, and you can schedule those with like minded opponents. In theory your conference is more or less like minded. But again, I'm not sure what else you need to do. If you were to split into a DIV I'd be interested in how you define the criteria of "smaller scale".

Again, I'm not sure I consider UMU's football program vis a vis the OAC all that different from W&L's tennis program vis a vis the ODAC. There are many, many, many situations like this in all conferences, I'm just familiar with that one, so I'm really not sure how you would define where one school is working too hard.