Best D3 Conferences

[Bombers798891]

None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.

Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger

Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?

Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?

Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.

But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.

I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?

[02 Warhawk]

None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.

Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger

Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?

Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?

Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.

But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.

I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?

yea, i can actually see where you're coming from as far as getting handcuffed when allowing only a certain number of freshman into an institution. but i'm not convinced that's a big enough advantage to grant a team success on the athletic field. There's far too many examples of small colleges having success in DIII, as well as too many large schools experiencing little to no success.

One thing that doesn't get discussed is I think whitewater has an advantage over other WIAC schools is their location. They are the only school in the WIAC in Southeastern WI. We are able to easily tap into the Northern IL (Chicago) market, Madsion market and Milwaukee market...other WIAC schools are able to do the same, but it's more convienant for UWW to do so, IMO.

Seems to me we got off topic here    (Best D3 Conferences)

[jknezek]

I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?

Just my personal opinion but of the three factors you mention I'd say academic standards of the athletic program, not the institution, would be first, followed by cost, including any tuition assistance, followed by a distant size factor. Before you got to size I'm inclined to believe you'd have to deal with the number of competing institutions as a function of recruiting populations and a few other factors. Finally, I believe coaching staff / recruiting ability trumps all but academic standards in importance. Put it all together and you get enough of a hodge podge that no one factor, even academic standards, is all that important. Therefore I have no problem with the WIAC or any school participating in D3 as long as they follow the rules.

[Warhawk 96]

None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.

Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger

Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?

Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?

Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.

But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.

I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?

If the study was done would it change anything? There's nothing that says that in order to be a certain division you have to be a certain size. At the end of the day, the size of your institution is a self-imposed restriction. I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong but if you wanted to you could admit more people or make it more affordable. You don't want to do it so that you protect the small college mystique and exclusivity that you value. With that being said, it's the price you've paid to have the institution you want. There's nothing unfair about it because if you really wanted to you could be as big as a WIAC school. Your institution doesn't value athletics enough to admit more than a certain amount of total students so you suffer accordingly. If there's anyone to complain to it's them.

[Bombers798891]

None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.

Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger

Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?

Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?

Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.

But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.

I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?

If the study was done would it change anything? There's nothing that says that in order to be a certain division you have to be a certain size. At the end of the day, the size of your institution is a self-imposed restriction. I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong but if you wanted to you could admit more people or make it more affordable. You don't want to do it so that you protect the small college mystique and exclusivity that you value. With that being said, it's the price you've paid to have the institution you want. There's nothing unfair about it because if you really wanted to you could be as big as a WIAC school. Your institution doesn't value athletics enough to admit more than a certain amount of total students so you suffer accordingly. If there's anyone to complain to it's them.

Easy there killer, no-one's saying it's unfair as though the WIAC schools have something to apologize for. Certainly, I'm not complaining about academics or cost being an issue at IC--although I know numerous coaches and ex-athletes who do and its a lot of hot air.

Likewise, nowhere in my post was I advocating for a change of any kind. It's just something interesting to think about and discuss.

I've got no problem if my institution "doesn't value" athletics because, well, aside from it not being true"

1) I'd rather they value academics (not that schools who value athletics don't, just in general). I've gone on record as saying Ithaca's massive athletic and events center is a waste of money for the institution. While I want to see the teams do well, if a football person complains to me that they couldn't get a kid in due to academics, that actually makes me happy, not sad because it means the school didn't compromise their standards to admit a great cornerback (again, I'm not saying other schools do that). Now the money thing is different, but that's more about my feeling that college in general is too expensive for everyone. But again, if a lacrosse player decides to go to Cortland because it's 1/10th of the cost, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

As I said, it would just be something interesting to know.

2) We hardly "suffer" athletically at Ithaca. Yeah, we're not all-world in football like you are right now, but we've got a pretty well stocked trophy case of our own, finished 22nd in the Directors Cup last season, and has been in the top 30 all 15 years, top 20 11 times and top 10 four times.

Imagine what we could do if we actually did value athletics? 

[Warhawk 96]

None of these teams are roaming the hallways trying to find athletes. Recruiting is a big part of building a program and if more quality players are gravitating towards another program then it means that you need to find a way to attract more quality athletes. No one is using any sports related financial incentives to play at a division three school so the playing field is about as level as it can get in that regard.

Yeah, you're right that guys aren't signing up to play D-III football on a sheet of notebook paper taped to a wall by an RA, but there is a limit to the number of kids a school can take overall. According to Alfred's website for example, they admitted 295 men in 2010. Whitewater doesn't break it down by gender, but with 2,300 freshman, I'm thinking it's just a tad larger

Sure, you're recruiting and targeting these guys, but can you target as many? Can you admit as many targets? You're telling me, if faced with one of the two, you'd pick Alfred?

Of course, there are other factors that influence who you can get. You think some quality football players don't go to say Cortland over Ithaca College because it's a fraction of the cost? Or because Ithaca's a tougher school to get in academically?

Look, I understand it's not like in D-I where you're tossing out scholarship money and lord knows what else at recruits. And yes, as Pat alludes to, it's not like disadvantages can't be overcome. Obviously, Alfred does pretty well despite having a small student body. Obviously, Ithaca was a heck of a lot better than Cortland for like, 20 years, despite the higher cost and tougher academics.

But just because they can't be overcome doesn't mean we should pretend that these advantages don't exist, and that they don't play a role. Just because Mount Union was able become a powerhouse with 2,100 students, and IC was able to do it charging a higher tuition doesn't mean that those aren't stumbling blocks for others. Just because Buffalo State can't take advantage of a large student body and state-school tuition relative to other teams, doesn't mean Whitewater isn't.

I'd be very interested to see a large scale, statistical study done to see if there are institutional factors that influence team success on the D-III level. Yeah, there's anecdotal evidence we can spot, but overall, does institution size factor in to success? Does cost of attending? Does academic standards?

If the study was done would it change anything? There's nothing that says that in order to be a certain division you have to be a certain size. At the end of the day, the size of your institution is a self-imposed restriction. I'm not debating whether it's right or wrong but if you wanted to you could admit more people or make it more affordable. You don't want to do it so that you protect the small college mystique and exclusivity that you value. With that being said, it's the price you've paid to have the institution you want. There's nothing unfair about it because if you really wanted to you could be as big as a WIAC school. Your institution doesn't value athletics enough to admit more than a certain amount of total students so you suffer accordingly. If there's anyone to complain to it's them.

Easy there killer, no-one's saying it's unfair as though the WIAC schools have something to apologize for. Certainly, I'm not complaining about academics or cost being an issue at IC--although I know numerous coaches and ex-athletes who do and its a lot of hot air.

Likewise, nowhere in my post was I advocating for a change of any kind. It's just something interesting to think about and discuss.

I've got no problem if my institution "doesn't value" athletics because, well, aside from it not being true"

1) I'd rather they value academics (not that schools who value athletics don't, just in general). I've gone on record as saying Ithaca's massive athletic and events center is a waste of money for the institution. While I want to see the teams do well, if a football person complains to me that they couldn't get a kid in due to academics, that actually makes me happy, not sad because it means the school didn't compromise their standards to admit a great cornerback (again, I'm not saying other schools do that). Now the money thing is different, but that's more about my feeling that college in general is too expensive for everyone. But again, if a lacrosse player decides to go to Cortland because it's 1/10th of the cost, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

As I said, it would just be something interesting to know.

2) We hardly "suffer" athletically at Ithaca. Yeah, we're not all-world in football like you are right now, but we've got a pretty well stocked trophy case of our own, finished 22nd in the Directors Cup last season, and has been in the top 30 all 15 years, top 20 11 times and top 10 four times.

Imagine what we could do if we actually did value athletics? 

Hold on a minute man, you're taking what I'm saying in the wrong way. What I meant is that they don't value it enough to jeopardize the small feel of your campus. It's not saying that they don't value it. We all value academics, we just differ in our philosophy and that was my point. We invite virtually everyone who is qualified to try their hand at receiving an education. If there's an increasing number of students applying we will expand. You have your own beliefs and that's fine but it's your personal beliefs and identity that have created that obstacle. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just having a healthy debate and making a point that I think has been omitted.

[retagent]

02 - You hint that we're getting off topic, yet isn't the mantra of the WIAC that they're the toughest conference in D III? You've just argued yourself into a conudrum if you're also saying that the size of the institution does not have some inherenct advantages,  since the WIAC has the highest average enrollment of any conference.

[02 Warhawk]

02 - You hint that we're getting off topic, yet isn't the mantra of the WIAC that they're the toughest conference in D III? You've just argued yourself into a conudrum if you're also saying that the size of the institution does not have some inherenct advantages,  since the WIAC has the highest average enrollment of any conference.

I admit, that UWW bringing in thousands of freshmen each year, compared to hundreds at other smaller schools, in theory provides a recruiting advantage for WIAC teams. this might give the larger school a better opportunity to bring in more recruits than other smaller institutions. However, I'm not convinced that a superior advantage is noticed the athletic field b/c of this.

Like I already stated, there's too many examples in DIII where that's not the case. There's pleanty of large schools that hardly experience success in athletics, and there's pleanty of smaller schools that compete at a high level year-in and year-out.

UWW's enrollment hasn't adjusted much over the years, yet they've only been relevant on the national scene in football since 2005. I guess if this was a substantial advantage.....WIAC teams will win a large majority of DIII championships, which is not the case.

There's too many other factors to take into account on why a program experiences success...A school having a large enrollment is hardly one of them.

[Bombers798891]

Hold on a minute man, you're taking what I'm saying in the wrong way. What I meant is that they don't value it enough to jeopardize the small feel of your campus. It's not saying that they don't value it. We all value academics, we just differ in our philosophy and that was my point. We invite virtually everyone who is qualified to try their hand at receiving an education. If there's an increasing number of students applying we will expand. You have your own beliefs and that's fine but it's your personal beliefs and identity that have created that obstacle. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just having a healthy debate and making a point that I think has been omitted.

No disrespect intended, or perceived...healthy debate is indeed what this is.

But there's no "your" here. Trust me, I have no hand in Ithaca's institutional or athletic approach.  

I'm 50/50 on the creating obstacles, because I think the obstacles we've been discussing a present well before an athletic program comes into place. Alfred, for example, was founded in 1836. The football team was started 60 years or so later (and really, that wasn't the kind of football we're discussing) So the administration at Alfred didn't really chose between the small, d-III feel and a powerhouse football team. They WERE a small campus, that eventually got a football team.

Likewise, Ithaca's football program started in 1930, 38 years after the college was founded. Cortland State became a four year college in 1868 and started football 25 years later (again, not in the form we know it today). So I don't think many of these policies were instituted with any shred of inclination of how they would impact athletics.

Now, you could argue that the continued presence of these obstacles is a detriment to football, but I don't think it's a conscious choice between "our institution or our athletics". Yes, schools will commit to building a program through various means, and IC is no exception--as our A&E center proves. And I guess you could argue things like academic standards can be raised or lowered over time

But, I think a lot of these things we're discussing are set in stone to a large degree and can't be changed. Ithaca didn't chose to be a private school, with tough academic standards at the expense of a competitive athletic program. They ARE a private school with tough academic standards and maybe, for them, that's hurting the athletic program right now. (Ok, not so much Ithaca, but, IDK, think like, Vanderbilt)

Likewise, I think the same is true for bigger schools, with lower standards, etc. They're not choosing to be that for their athletic program as much as that's the environment the program was brought into, and, if in the modern day, that environment is conducive to bringing in better athletes, that's the reality. It's not so much a conscious choice at times as what your program "inherited". If you're an athletic department at a school with more leinient academics, lower tuition and a bigger student body, you're going to benefit from that.

Now obviously, you have to work within those parameters, as there are plenty of cheap, big, "easier" schools with bad programs and vice versa. No-one's saying Whitewater hasn't earned their success and built their program, because they have, and they did, and they deserve credit for it. But I do believe any school with certain inherited advantages has an easier time than others to work within those parameters. Mostly because they're not faced with a tradeoff. They don't have to debate whether they should lower their academic standards to admit better athletes, or raise however many millions to expand a campus (again, not a slight at any school, just a general observation).

I guess this is a long-winded (sorry, it's my nature) of saying that I do believe, through elements out of their control, and even the current incarnation of their institutions' control, some school have an easier time, and, while there's nothing wrong with that, there's nothing wrong with admitting that either.

[T_Unit14]

how about instead of trying to make excuses other conferences teams start working harder, game planning better and putting in their time?

I guess if my team sucked I'd look for an excuse as to why too...

[AUKaz00]

I just realized my alma mater was being used as an example and so I thought I'd add some anecdotal evidence to the discussion. 

I'm a big fan of minor league baseball, especially the shortseason, single A NY-Penn League which dots this part of the country.  Their season starts a week after the draft, so the league is mostly filled with recent draftees and undrafted free agents.  My observation is that the most successful teams each year are the ones who have the most contributing undrafted free agents on their roster.

Now, onto D3 football.  I have no idea how many "greyshirted" players eventually become contributing members of any D3 team, but in my mind those players provide unexpected benefits to their team just as much as random transfers (not recruited transfers, if we can make that distinction).  Taking this another step with Alfred as an example, Nick Clark was a local wrestling talent that went to North Carolina to wrestle at the DI level, but after a year came home and joined the Saxon football team.  He is likely our best player whose addition could arguably be the difference between consistently finishing a game short of the playoffs and this year playing into December.

The larger the size of an instituion, the greater the likelihood that an athletically gifted student may decide to try out for the team and the more of those instances the more likely that one will contribute at the margins for the team and elevate that program to the next level.  Not a guarantee of success nor a reason that a program should have to change division, but certainly one of those factors which helps across the spectrum of D3 sports.

[02 Warhawk]

The larger the size of an instituion, the greater the likelihood that an athletically gifted student may decide to try out for the team and the more of those instances the more likely that one will contribute at the margins for the team and elevate that program to the next level.  Not a guarantee of success nor a reason that a program should have to change division, but certainly one of those factors which helps across the spectrum of D3 sports.

100% agree

[DoubleDomer]

Well, if you agree 02Warhawk, doesn't that seem pretty significant toyou?  Indeed, just today, a Wisconsin HS coach posted at the wissports.net board a statement that Whitewater, LaCrosse, and one or two others in the WIAC "bring in 180 players and let nature weed them" down to 105.  The margin for error in this situation increases dramatically--and meaningfully.  I mean, how many D3 schools with enrollments of 1500 carry a 27-year-old, all-state, Big 10 castoff on their rosters as a RESERVE?

To bring the debate into more constructive focus, then, the two key questions really are the ones that Bombers798891 has framed: 

1. Do the data suggest some correlation between the various objective data mentioned variously here (greyshirt scale, enrollment level, tuition level, academic selectivity, and do forth) and what one of the posters rightly called "inherited advantage."

2. If so, at what point, if any, does the level of "inherited advantage" rise to the level of material inequity--and, more perplexingly, what happens then?

[wally_wabash]

Yeah...let's bang on a guy who made mistakes, has since paid his debt and taken steps to get an education and put his life on a proper path.  Come on. 

[02 Warhawk]

Well, if you agree 02Warhawk, doesn't that seem pretty significant toyou?  Indeed, just today, a Wisconsin HS coach posted at the wissports.net board a statement that Whitewater, LaCrosse, and one or two others in the WIAC "bring in 180 players and let nature weed them" down to 105.  The margin for error in this situation increases dramatically--and meaningfully.  I mean, how many D3 schools with enrollments of 1500 carry a 27-year-old, all-state, Big 10 castoff on their rosters as a RESERVE?

To bring the debate into more constructive focus, then, the two key questions really are the ones that Bombers798891 has framed:  

1. Do the data suggest some correlation between the various objective data mentioned variously here (greyshirt scale, enrollment level, tuition level, academic selectivity, and do forth) and what one of the posters rightly called "inherited advantage."

2. If so, at what point, if any, does the level of "inherited advantage" rise to the level of material inequity--and, more perplexingly, what happens then?

a SIGNIFICANT advantage??  no, I do not think that. As long as Mount Union (enrollment 2000) remains a power house, and schools like Buffalo State (enrollment 8000+) keep ending the year with a sub .500 record, then no I won't be convinced that size matters  .

It still comes down to quality over quantity when it comes to recruiting. That is determained by how good your coaching staff is....which is what seperates UWW, UMU, Wesley, NCC, Linfield from the rest of the schools.