Best D3 Conferences

[DoubleDomer]

Wally_wabash: I don't believe I was "banging" on anybody. No comment about the circumstances of the player's dismissal from UW or that he somehow isn't deserving.  (I'd be happy to discuss both points elsewhere.) In this case, I was just offering an illustration of the point that this is a numbers game--which, in fact, it is.

Warhawk02: It seems to me that you're continuing to obscure the issue--in the same way, it seems, that folks often confuse necessary conditions with sufficient conditions. Nobody is saying that the advantage is conclusive. It it were--say, for example, in the way that scholarship dollars are presumably conclusive--it presumably would have been settled long ago by the governing body. The point, again, is the relative gravity of the advantage.  As an economist would frame it, other things equal--and, no, I'm not talking about perfect equality, but about substantial equity--is there an advantage? In other words, the discussion seeks to plumb correlation, not causation. I continue to believe that the answer to the pertinent question is certainly "yes."

Anybody know a graduate student in, say, actuarial science who needs a dissertation topic? (Hey, I thought you Whitewater guys were supposed to be world-class quants.  )

[Just Bill]

Wally_wabash: I don't believe I was "banging" on anybody. No comment about the circumstances of the player's dismissal from UW or that he somehow isn't deserving. 

I wouldn't exactly call labeling him a "castoff" as a term of endearment.

[wally_wabash]

You had some reason for even bringing it up in the first place...presumably to bolster this absurd idea that Whitewater is playing by a different set of rules than the rest of us because they'll accept just about anybody, even that guy.  That was the point, wasn't it?  If that wasn't the point, then I don't understand why you'd bring that player specificially into this conversation.  

[DoubleDomer]

First of all, "castoff" is exactly what he is--endearing or not; he was, as a matter of fact, categorically dismissed from the team at UW in December 2005, and hadn't played college football for any team since.  By the way, "convicted triple felon" is also a statement of fact, though likewise not one that's very complimentary.  As it happens, I'm familar first-hand with both the young man involved as well as the HS coach who tried to help get him squared away. I don't intend any slander by the labels, but facts are stubborn things.

Second, I think y'all need to go back and follow the argument.  The point in Stanley's case isn't admissions standards. (It could be, but I haven't seen his admissions file.)  The point, rather, is once again the advantage of having 10,000 undergraduate seats available, and with a turnover rate of something like 20% each year, a well-worn transfer path from Madison, and a tolerance for something on the order of 175 young men vying for program spots.  Together, these circumstances allow a school like Whitewater to cycle through football players at an astonishing rate. Again, it's all about the numbers.  With a sample size that big, you're more likely to get an outlier, or two, or three, which is a windfall that your competition just doesn't get.  In this case, the outlier is a surpassing talent at running back (all-state/DI proven, 1200 Big 10 yards averaging 3.8 YPC, and with up to EIGHT years of physical maturity over some of the players he's lined up against) sitting in the larder.

[T_Unit14]

In this case, the outlier is a surpassing talent at running back (all-state/DI proven, 1200 Big 10 yards averaging 3.8 YPC, and with up to EIGHT years of physical maturity over some of the players he's lined up against) sitting in the larder.

yeah...and a guy who was out of football and playing shape for how many years and then you add in the fact that his body took the punishment of 1200 Big 10 yards and you start to wonder if that "physical maturity" is helpful or a drawback...

by the way...just a side note from knowing Booker a bit in his playing days in HS...you would probably confuse him with Levell Coppage with his size and cutting ability...then he goes to the Big 10 and becomes a "power" back...

[Ralph Turner]

First of all, "castoff" is exactly what he is--endearing or not; he was, as a matter of fact, categorically dismissed from the team at UW in December 2005, and hadn't played college football for any team since.  By the way, "convicted triple felon" is also a statement of fact, though likewise not one that's very complimentary.  As it happens, I'm familar first-hand with both the young man involved as well as the HS coach who tried to help get him squared away. I don't intend any slander by the labels, but facts are stubborn things.

Second, I think y'all need to go back and follow the argument.  The point in Stanley's case isn't admissions standards. (It could be, but I haven't seen his admissions file.)  The point, rather, is once again the advantage of having 10,000 undergraduate seats available, and with a turnover rate of something like 20% each year, a well-worn transfer path from Madison, and a tolerance for something on the order of 175 young men vying for program spots.  Together, these circumstances allow a school like Whitewater to cycle through football players at an astonishing rate. Again, it's all about the numbers.  With a sample size that big, you're more likely to get an outlier, or two, or three, which is a windfall that your competition just doesn't get.  In this case, the outlier is a surpassing talent at running back (all-state/DI proven, 1200 Big 10 yards averaging 3.8 YPC, and with up to EIGHT years of physical maturity over some of the players he's lined up against) sitting in the larder.

I know that Wheaton IL can recruit from the finest Christian/private schools in the country.  They basically have a lock on those kids.  They get the 3-4 top football players out of Dallas Fort Worth every year.  Their reach is national, and I bet that the recruiting base is roughly the same as the WIAC in-state kids that are split among 8/9 D-III schools. 

In Texas, we get plenty of kids who go out of state to D-1 schools, do not get the playing time that they want, and just want to come home and play in front of friends and family.  It's a "Texas football thing".  The number of stars in the ASC who have done that is numerous.

The thing that I like about D-III is that it is pure amateur athletics.  Every school has its advantages and weaknesses.  UWW has assembled a strong program that has become a "talent magnet".  The same can be said for Wesley, Mount Union, UMHB, Linfield, St Johns... the list goes on.   (Hmm, I just named 5 private schools with strong programs.) Winners like to be surrounded by winners and to be in strong program.  I think that we can see those attributes especially in D-III where the intangibles can make so much difference.

[Warhawk 96]

First of all, "castoff" is exactly what he is--endearing or not; he was, as a matter of fact, categorically dismissed from the team at UW in December 2005, and hadn't played college football for any team since.  By the way, "convicted triple felon" is also a statement of fact, though likewise not one that's very complimentary.  As it happens, I'm familar first-hand with both the young man involved as well as the HS coach who tried to help get him squared away. I don't intend any slander by the labels, but facts are stubborn things.

Second, I think y'all need to go back and follow the argument.  The point in Stanley's case isn't admissions standards. (It could be, but I haven't seen his admissions file.)  The point, rather, is once again the advantage of having 10,000 undergraduate seats available, and with a turnover rate of something like 20% each year, a well-worn transfer path from Madison, and a tolerance for something on the order of 175 young men vying for program spots.  Together, these circumstances allow a school like Whitewater to cycle through football players at an astonishing rate. Again, it's all about the numbers.  With a sample size that big, you're more likely to get an outlier, or two, or three, which is a windfall that your competition just doesn't get.  In this case, the outlier is a surpassing talent at running back (all-state/DI proven, 1200 Big 10 yards averaging 3.8 YPC, and with up to EIGHT years of physical maturity over some of the players he's lined up against) sitting in the larder.

When you finally stop posting, does it mean that you've managed to literally drown in your tears? I wish that football was as simple as getting as many people to sign up as possible. I thought it was more about hard working people, good coaches, supportive administration etc. Cry all you want but the only thing that's going to change your situation is improving your team, not complaining about what you don't have.

[emma17]

Doubledomer- I went to UWW for a communications degree, so I don't know anything about quants.   Question-what is the difference between a school that brings in 200 athletes to the football program and keeps them on the roster vs one that brings in 175 and can only keep 105 on the roster?

[DoubleDomer]

Warhawk, you just keep telling yourself that. What strikes the rest of the land as parochial is well know to us Wisconsinites as exceptionalism--and, moreover, our birthright.  And as long as you never go west of the Mississippi, or east of Green Bay, or south of Beloit, you'll never have to think otherwise, or gladly suffer anybody who does.

[02 Warhawk]

Warhawk, you just keep telling yourself that. What strikes the rest of the land as parochial is well know to us Wisconsinites as exceptionalism--and, moreover, our birthright.  And as long as you never go west of the Mississippi, or east of Green Bay, or south of Beloit, you'll never have to think otherwise, or gladly suffer anybody who does.

Stop crying about what the WIAC schools are doing...If your son does end up playing in the NESCAC, this will all be irrelevant to you. They chose the path to exclude themselves from the rest of the DIII....so they are tucked away in the cozy confines of their own realm

Best of luck to your son where ever he choses to play.

[pg04]

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.

I think this is probably the best post in this entire argument.  +K 

[DoubleDomer]

For what it matters, Warhawk, it's frankly been irrelevant all along. My argument is based on probability and statistical inference, and it's entirely solid whether the Whitewater faithful want to hear it or not.  Second, there's no way on earth that I'd pay tuition to a UW school.  It's already nearly criminal that we pay outlandish state tax rates to help fund the kudzu-like growth of the extension system, which has managed now to choke off the kinds of top-shelf liberal arts institutions that thrive in all of our neighborhing states, though not here.

All that having been said, my son will most certainly be playing next year (service academy, Ivy League, or Patriot League), and I appreciate the gracious good wishes you offered.

[UofMUC2006]

To get back on topic I'm going to say that the OAC is the best conference for no other reason than to be a homer 

In all seriousness I think the OAC had 3 or 4 teams that could have competed or won in many conferences.  Mount obviously, Ohio Northern, and even Baldwin Wallace would likely win or compete at the top of many conferences.  BW was probably the biggest surprise to me in the OAC this year.  I went to the game BW/Mount game this year and BW played very solidly for the the first half and kind of broke down in the 2nd.  I have to wonder even about Otterbein this year.  I think they were actually a better team than the record shows.  They might not have won any conference but I think they could compete.

While WIAC has the top team in the country (as a Mount fan I will say that UWW is definitely the top team in the country this year) I don't think that puts WIAC as the top conference.  The only reason I don't put WIAC on the top is because WIAC 3/8 teams with winning conference records and 4/8 teams with a .500 or better overall record while OAC had 6/10 teams with winning conference records and 7/10 teams with a .500 or better overall record.  To me this shows WIAC had a very strong top tier with a smaller middle tier and OAC also had a strong top tier with a bigger middle tier. 

To me this all shows OAC is stronger overall IMHO. 

Keep in mind I'm an OAC and a Mount Union homer 

[emma17]

Uof Muc- You won't get an arguement from me supporting the WIAC as the top conference this year, it was a down year for them for sure.  One thing to give the WIAC credit for though is the large number of top teams they played this year.  Take a look some day at the number of ranked teams.  WIAC schools this year played Mt, NCC, Wheaton, St. John's, St. Thomas, Ohio Northern and some other good teams.  WIAC schools schedule tough competition to their credit.

[02 Warhawk]

Uof Muc- You won't get an arguement from me supporting the WIAC as the top conference this year, it was a down year for them for sure.  One thing to give the WIAC credit for though is the large number of top teams they played this year.  Take a look some day at the number of ranked teams.  WIAC schools this year played Mt, NCC, Wheaton, St. John's, St. Thomas, Ohio Northern and some other good teams.  WIAC schools schedule tough competition to their credit.

Plus i think the bottom three teams in the WIAC would wipe the floor with the bottom three teams in the OAC. Even though UWRF only won one game this year....take a look at their non-conference schedule, they lost to three playoff teams, including only losing to ONU by 14.

I think that's why the WIAC is considered the toughest conference each year....The gap between UWW and UWRF is a lot closer than say UMU and Willmington.