FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

What I was getting at was that simply because Coach Clark said he pushes the tradition doesn't mean that it trumps facilities every time. In fact, I look at what Clark exactly said (or at least, what you quoted):

I asked if he thought a bigger/better press box really made a difference in a recruit's mind.  I remember him saying something like "Absolutely, but we really push the fact that we've won 10 playoff games, five conference titles, etc..."

Your "in other words" was certainly a positive spin, but it wasn't his words at all.

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

What I was getting at was that simply because Coach Clark said he pushes the tradition doesn't mean that it trumps facilities every time. In fact, I look at what Clark exactly said (or at least, what you quoted):

I asked if he thought a bigger/better press box really made a difference in a recruit's mind.  I remember him saying something like "Absolutely, but we really push the fact that we've won 10 playoff games, five conference titles, etc..."

Your "in other words" was certainly a positive spin, but it wasn't his words at all.

Actually, I think you read my "in other words" wrong.

My "spin" means that we've recruited better than our conference foes have over the last five years.  Winning has been the reason.  And we've won because of Clark and his staff, not upgrades we've made.

[CNU85]

interesting discussion between Kid and Pat. I think the real answer is that both are important (facilities and winning tradition). I would think that the kid being recruited (and his parents) will apply different weighting to each factor than the next kid being recruited. And of course they will consider tons of other factors as well.....location, academics, cost, % of females, and the fact that rugbyguy is faster than llamaguy.......

ok, I got carried away at the end....but y'all know what I meant.

[SU97]

What I was getting at was that simply because Coach Clark said he pushes the tradition doesn't mean that it trumps facilities every time. In fact, I look at what Clark exactly said (or at least, what you quoted):

I asked if he thought a bigger/better press box really made a difference in a recruit's mind.  I remember him saying something like "Absolutely, but we really push the fact that we've won 10 playoff games, five conference titles, etc..."

Your "in other words" was certainly a positive spin, but it wasn't his words at all.

Actually, I think you read my "in other words" wrong.

My "spin" means that we've recruited better than our conference foes have over the last five years.  Winning has been the reason.  And we've won because of Clark and his staff, not upgrades we've made.

Simple logic may prove otherwise. 

Your reasoning in the last post indicates that the two reasons for BC's success over the past five years are the coaching staff and THE winning tradition.  Yet you contradict yourself in that assumption.

While Clark has done an amazing job the past five years, he's been at BC since 1995. Your dominance began in 2001. There were some very lean years in between.  (trust me – being a Hornet fan means I'm watching some lean years right now)  With the longer tenure involved, I would say that coaching is not the sole reason for the turnaround.

You also indicate that winning over the past five years is why you are winning the recruiting war in the ODAC.  Fair enough, I would think that the past three or four years it would be a very nice pitch to a potential recruit.  You sure kick the *** out of us annually.   

Yet I think we all would agree that Frosh don't win championships...   So... in theory, you need to go back a few years earlier - before BC began to win - to get to the true answer of why/how BC turned around the ship (sorry, a  little USASAC humor for CNU85).  So what happened prior to 2001 that sparked the winning tradition and recruiting dominance that BC now enjoys?  It sure cannot be a "history of winning" prior to this century.

A month or so ago you guys had a nice little argument going on over here and you lynched the gentleman from W&L.  While I was not too thrilled by his somewhat elitist tone, he was getting close to the reasoning.  Unfortunately, he could not articulate his argument.  (how ironic – the elitist guy can't get his point across)  His idea behind admissions standards was along the right path, but he was missing the big picture.  To me, success in DIII boils down to recruiting.  You have to get the talent in the door in order to compete.  What W&L1856 couldn't grasp is that it is the financial picture that is the final straw (and arguably the most important point) in the recruiting process.  Yes, admissions requirements shrink the pool, but at the end of the day, with an investment at $100k+ for college it boils down to money. 

One could argue that it may be a simple result of out-pricing the rest of the market. 

I love having this argument with CNU85.

With BC, however, it is a little different (CNU is a public school).  So, it all comes down to the amount of grant aid the school provides in comparison to the rest of the schools in the ODAC, which BC has been crushing the rest of the ODAC in the recruiting game.  In order to save time I will copy some previous posts from the USASAC board that will explain. 

[SU97]

Wow, I rolled over to the ODAC board a minute ago and they actually have semi-intellectual debates going on over there, while it appears the USASAC Board is stuck in 3rd grade...

Although I was VERY disappointed that in 7 pages worth of banter, those guys never brought up the real issue with why/how Bridgewater Football made the huge jump in the early part of the decade:  that is around the exact same time they began to operate with a freshman discount rate of more than 60%.  I wonder how many pages they will continue to argue about "admissions standards" and "better academics" with each other.   

Then Pat jumps in...

You have a source to back up that claim?

I'm not quite sure how to take the intended meaning of that sentence. 

I don't know why. Seems rather clear. What's your source on the discount rate which you are alleging Bridgewater used?

Alleging?  You make it sound like this is a legal proceeding...

Regardless, from what I'm told most public data for discount rates are for institutions as a whole, not listed for just the frosh class.  So, I'm not sure if you will find information to contradict my previous statement.  Of course, trying to find any historical information from 2000 for something like this would be a tad difficult to say the least (2001 was when BC started winning right? - I can't find much information on their new school website for football) as they don't have tuition information available from that timeframe. 

However, in the spirit of the thing, you may want to check out the following sites: 

http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/screen.aspx?screenId=40
http://www.suffolk.edu/files/Enrollment_Research_PDF/discount_rates.pdf

Basically, what the NCES/COOL site indicates is that in 2004 99% of BC students receive institutional grants. At the bare minimum, the entire BC school receives an average of $9,464 in institutional grants/scholarship.  If the 2004 tuition was listed at $17,990 (found on same site), then that alone is a 52% discount rate.  That does not take into account other grants, etc..., making the true number a higher percentage.  Add that to this thought:  that was 4 years after the timeframe I am trying to find info about. 

Next is the data found on the second site, citing the first site while indicating that BC's discount rate was 55% in 1999/2000 school year. 

So I guess I can't find all the data from 7 years ago to justify my "claim" - but I also can't find any to really dispute it.  Anyways, to help the W&L folks... the real issue is that it's pretty obvious in looking over the rest of the ODAC schools on the second list that none of them were even in the same ballpark back then...

I was just surprised that no one brought it up.  PSBBG was going down the right road, but USNews isn't the place to look for it.

Yes, hell is freezing over as I am somewhat agreeing with PSBBG.  I need to go have a cold beverage after that realization... 

Then Narch jumped in...

the entire BC school receives an average of $9,464 in institutional grants/scholarship.  If the 2004 tuition was listed at $17,990 (found on same site), then that alone is a 52% discount rate

WOW...just wow...those seem like HUGE numbers to me...i know i could find it, but any idea what the bc endowment is like?...answered my own question...$54.1 million per peterson's...is that big enough to support that kind of discount rate?  it must be..

here are discount rates for usasac schools per cool:

mu - $6576/$16,700 (39%) - avg tuition after inst. aid = $10,124
gboro - $5015/$16820 (30%) - avg tuition after inst. aid = $11,805
ncwc - $6670/$13,550 (49%) - avg tuition after inst. aid = $6880
fc - $6060/$16,870 (36%) - avg tuition after inst. aid = $10,810
au - $6741/$18,430 (37%) - avg tuition after inst. aid = $11,689
su - $5950/$19,240 (31%) - avg tuition after inst. aid = $13,290
cnu - $1535/$5314 (29%) - avg tuition after inst. aid = $3779
m'ville - $11,794/$21,065 (56%)...WOW - - avg tuition after inst. aid = $9271

does anyone remember the old sesame street or electric company song that went "one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just does not belong"?...

su's discount rate is 2nd lowest among private usasac schools, but they actually have an endowment similar to that of bc ($46 million per peterson's) - m'ville, on the other hand, has the highest discount rate and an endowment of $36.5 million according to peterson's - mu is just over $14 million (not bad for a 50 year old institution, but a far cry from 36.5 or 55 or more) - according to peterson's, gc has an $80.5 million endowment, ferrum is at $40.5, au is $22.6, ncwc is $7.5, cnu is $3.2 million...never would have guessed that gc had such a large endowment...they need to spend some of that money on a gym

my conclusion - i'm not sure that discount rates and endowment are related, although i initially thought they might be...

i found this interesting...harvard's endowment MADE over $28 million last year...their endowment made more in one year than mu has in total...the rich get richer

So at the most basic level, I would say you guys haven't given one of the biggest factors any "airtime" on here:  cost. 

[SU97]

These are just my thoughts – I still applaud the BC program because they have done a terrific job of turning a program around and creating a winning tradition in a short amount of time. You can't take anything away from that.

Plus, it's a tough spot because you're at the top of the heap and everybody wants to knock you off.  But, like Phil Jackson and the Bulls back in the day, you still have to win.  That is something you really have to credit the staff with, because the guys on the field still have to play and the coaches have won with the talent.  I'm sure there are plenty of teams out there that have had the talent, but not lived up to expectations.  Kudos to BC. 

Anyways... just wanted to stir the pot because the posts on the USASAC board are kinda boring right now.

[allsky7]

These are just my thoughts – I still applaud the BC program because they have done a terrific job of turning a program around and creating a winning tradition in a short amount of time. You can't take anything away from that.

Plus, it's a tough spot because you're at the top of the heap and everybody wants to knock you off.  But, like Phil Jackson and the Bulls back in the day, you still have to win.  That is something you really have to credit the staff with, because the guys on the field still have to play and the coaches have won with the talent.  I'm sure there are plenty of teams out there that have had the talent, but not lived up to expectations.  Kudos to BC. 

Anyways... just wanted to stir the pot because the posts on the USASAC board are kinda boring right now.

     STIR THE POT?!?! It will take someone a week to come up with a rebuttal for that post!! 

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

[...] So what happened prior to 2001 that sparked the winning tradition and recruiting dominance that BC now enjoys?  It sure cannot be a "history of winning" prior to this century. [...]

SU97,

I really appreciate your comments.  You make an excellent point.

It's clear it took Clark a handful of years to get his system into place, and the right kind of kids into Bridgewater to be successful (12-37-1 from 1995 to 1999, 72-13 from 2000 to 2006).

But he would be the first to say that by 1999, even 1998, he had the "right" kids.  They were just young.  Also, if you look at the scores from the 1999 games, you'll see we were 13 points from being 8-2, and 5-1 in the conference.  But we lost those games because we were young.

And remember the whole reason I began this topic; winning is more important to a recruit than facilities.  It definitely wasn't our facilities that brought Jason Lutz, Davon Cruz, Matt Huffman, Lonnie Parker, and Ryan Bailey (all eventual All-Americans who played their first year in '98 or '99).

I suppose it was Coach Clark who sold those players (and others) on his system and the potential of the program to be a winner.

[allsky7]

[...] So what happened prior to 2001 that sparked the winning tradition and recruiting dominance that BC now enjoys?  It sure cannot be a "history of winning" prior to this century. [...]

SU97,

I really appreciate your comments.  You make an excellent point.

It's clear it took Clark a handful of years to get his system into place, and the right kind of kids into Bridgewater to be successful (12-37-1 from 1995 to 1999, 72-13 from 2000 to 2006).

But he would be the first to say that by 1999, even 1998, he had the "right" kids.  They were just young.  Also, if you look at the scores from the 1999 games, you'll see we were 13 points from being 8-2, and 5-1 in the conference.  But we lost those games because we were young.

And remember the whole reason I began this topic; winning is more important to a recruit than facilities.  It definitely wasn't our facilities that brought Jason Lutz, Davon Cruz, Matt Huffman, Lonnie Parker, and Ryan Bailey (all eventual All-Americans who played their first year in '98 or '99).

I suppose it was Coach Clark who sold those players (and others) on his system and the potential of the program to be a winner.

      I don't think that there is any question that on the field success breeds success. Not too many would argue that point. I think that is the biggest reason for BC's success over the last 6 seasons. Most things in life are never completely black and white though. Would a kid choose a school with conference championship/NCAA tourn. caliber success with crappy facilities to a doormat with great facilities? Probably.  But then you start to get into that grey area. How about a program that has had good success but not great success that has top shelf facilities? Then you also get into factors like money, academics, did Uncle Bob and grandpa go there, how far is it from home, etc.  I think that is also when you get into factors related to coaches and whether they can sell you that the program is going to be a winner. Obviously, BC has gotten more of those recruits in recent years. One thing is certain.....it is a moving target and likely to change over time. 

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

I don't think that there is any question that on the field success breeds success. Not too many would argue that point. I think that is the biggest reason for BC's success over the last 6 seasons. Most things in life are never completely black and white though. Would a kid choose a school with conference championship/NCAA tourn. caliber success with crappy facilities to a doormat with great facilities? Probably.  But then you start to get into that grey area. How about a program that has had good success but not great success that has top shelf facilities? Then you also get into factors like money, academics, did Uncle Bob and grandpa go there, how far is it from home, etc.  I think that is also when you get into factors related to coaches and whether they can sell you that the program is going to be a winner. Obviously, BC has gotten more of those recruits in recent years. One thing is certain.....it is a moving target and likely to change over time.

My original point was that to most recruits, winning is more important than nice facilities.  That's all.

[allsky7]

I don't think that there is any question that on the field success breeds success. Not too many would argue that point. I think that is the biggest reason for BC's success over the last 6 seasons. Most things in life are never completely black and white though. Would a kid choose a school with conference championship/NCAA tourn. caliber success with crappy facilities to a doormat with great facilities? Probably.  But then you start to get into that grey area. How about a program that has had good success but not great success that has top shelf facilities? Then you also get into factors like money, academics, did Uncle Bob and grandpa go there, how far is it from home, etc.  I think that is also when you get into factors related to coaches and whether they can sell you that the program is going to be a winner. Obviously, BC has gotten more of those recruits in recent years. One thing is certain.....it is a moving target and likely to change over time.

My original point was that to most recruits, winning is more important than nice facilities.  That's all.

     Agreed!! But it's no fun if we don't complicate things. 

[allsky7]

I don't think that there is any question that on the field success breeds success. Not too many would argue that point. I think that is the biggest reason for BC's success over the last 6 seasons. Most things in life are never completely black and white though. Would a kid choose a school with conference championship/NCAA tourn. caliber success with crappy facilities to a doormat with great facilities? Probably.  But then you start to get into that grey area. How about a program that has had good success but not great success that has top shelf facilities? Then you also get into factors like money, academics, did Uncle Bob and grandpa go there, how far is it from home, etc.  I think that is also when you get into factors related to coaches and whether they can sell you that the program is going to be a winner. Obviously, BC has gotten more of those recruits in recent years. One thing is certain.....it is a moving target and likely to change over time.

My original point was that to most recruits, winning is more important than nice facilities.  That's all.

     Agreed!! But it's no fun if we don't complicate things. 

     Funny thing.....most winning programs probably do have nice facilities too.  OR they get them once they start winning. I am in pretty good with the folks over in Funkhouser. Haven't visited the athletic folk in some time. I guess I need to tighten up and stay after Coach Soltis.    After the season of course. Doubt very seriously he wants to talk to me right now.  8)

[Menowannalickee U.]

When looking at cost you should also take into account room and board.  At least at BC, students are technically required to live on campus at a cost of more than $9,000/year.  I don't know how that compares to SU or many other schools, or if they are required to live on campus or can choose often less expensive off campus housing.

[pakownr97]

How important is the quality of tailgating when it comes to recruiting?  Do the parents consider that at BC the parents are treated like gold at the tailgates, and eat better than a King in the days of Caesar?

Godfathers Llamaguy, Skoaltrain, Snakehandler/Hug/???, etc., when did Stone Station begin the infamous tailgates that our grandchildren's grandchilden will speak of long after we are dead?

Kid, do you have any stats comparing the records of the BC football team and the quality and quantity of Stone Station food and beverage?  

Also, no one has mentioned the effect "communion" has on Eagle football success.  How does the consumption of "Smurf P!ss" relate to Eagle victory.

These are the burning questions all of D3 football needs to know.

 

[PA_wesleyfan]

  I here clanking in the kitchen, Must be Olinemom mixing the brownies....

I certainly hope the Stone Station makes another visit to Wesley in November...