MBB: Northwest Conference

[Keandre]

I had a chance to see UPS play and they are pretty good. They have several options on offense and their defense is good as well, except for the Ogelthorpe game where they shot the ball very well. They deserve to be in the winning the NWC conversation as well. They have beat WM 2 out of the last 3 years to go to the championship game, and one of those games were at WM where everyone on this board was saying WM will beat them. They can play fast, or they can play slow. They challenged WW hard in the championship game last year and if WW is not as good as last year and UPS having almost everyone back, how are they not in the conversation to win the NWC. WM will have to adjust the way they play if they are going to win it all, you cannot press all game against every team, gotta make adjustments and get stops in the half court to win championships.

[A Buc Forever]

To all you Hayford and Whitworth haters out there, I'll give you two more reasons to be glad Hayford went to Eastern Washington.  Two of the starters that played key roles in the EWU win over Indiana were slated to play at Whitworth.  When Hayford went to EWU he convinced both of them to follow him to EWU and walk on.  One of those guys is picked to be the Big Sky player of the year.  Wouldn't that have been fun?

WW is looking vulnerable this year.  However, I have faith that Logie will pull it together and get them playing at the level they need to be at to win the NWC.  Until they lose the crown--Long Live the King!!!

[A Buc Forever]

With regard to Chapman beating WMN, don't think of Chapman as a regular SCIAC team.  They just joined the league and have a strong athletic department. They also have a much larger student body (7,500) than the rest of the SCIAC and NWC schools.  I've seen them play both football and basketball over the years. They will be a force to be reckoned with over the years. My guess is they have a desire to move up a division or two at some point.  No inside knowledge. Just speculating.

On another note, where is Playball?  Ever since he left Linfield, they have stunk it up.  He needs to stay on the board so he can thump his chest when they make it back to being competitive.

[Pinecone_Curtain]

To all you Hayford and Whitworth haters out there, I'll give you two more reasons to be glad Hayford went to Eastern Washington.  Two of the starters that played key roles in the EWU win over Indiana were slated to play at Whitworth.  When Hayford went to EWU he convinced both of them to follow him to EWU and walk on.  One of those guys is picked to be the Big Sky player of the year.  Wouldn't that have been fun?

WW is looking vulnerable this year.  However, I have faith that Logie will pull it together and get them playing at the level they need to be at to win the NWC.  Until they lose the crown--Long Live the King!!!

There is no doubt in my mind that had Hayford stayed, Whitworth would have won a national championship at some point. Parker Kelly, Tyler Harvey and Collin Chiverton would have looked great in a different red and black. Belated congrats, BTW, on David getting promoted.

[Gregory Sager]

With regard to Chapman beating WMN, don't think of Chapman as a regular SCIAC team.  They just joined the league and have a strong athletic department. They also have a much larger student body (7,500) than the rest of the SCIAC and NWC schools.

Since when does the size of the student population have any effect upon how good a basketball team a school has? Teams aren't drawn from out of the student body at large. They're recruited.

Also, you're counting grad students in that total. Chapman's undergrad population is only about 5,000-something.

I've seen them play both football and basketball over the years. They will be a force to be reckoned with over the years. My guess is they have a desire to move up a division or two at some point.  No inside knowledge. Just speculating.

I disagree. Chapman put years and years of effort into getting into the SCIAC. It's a conference that enjoys a high level of academic luster, and that's good for Chapman's brand.

There is no doubt in my mind that had Hayford stayed, Whitworth would have won a national championship at some point.

Plenty of doubt in my mind. Whitworth was certainly a high-quality program under Coach Hayford, but you don't just snap your fingers and win a Walnut & Bronze. It's not that easy. Just ask Steve Moore at Wooster or Glenn Robinson at F&M.

[Pinecone_Curtain]

I disagree. Chapman put years and years of effort into getting into the SCIAC. It's a conference that enjoys a high level of academic luster, and that's good for Chapman's brand.

I agree with this. I don't think Chapman moves up any further. I think they will be plenty happy at D3 with the combo of athletics and academics.

Plenty of doubt in my mind. Whitworth was certainly a high-quality program under Coach Hayford, but you don't just snap your fingers and win a Walnut & Bronze. It's not that easy. Just ask Steve Moore at Wooster or Glenn Robinson at F&M.

Cool, you can have your doubts. But those guys who were coming to Whitworth just beat Indiana at Indiana. It's not a snap of your fingers--especially out in the PNW island, but the talent he was bringing in would have been right up there with anyone else in the country.

[madzillagd]

Since when does the size of the student population have any effect upon how good a basketball team a school has? Teams aren't drawn from out of the student body at large. They're recruited.

Since always?  Teams are not drawn out of the student body but resources that support those teams are.  IF schools choose to channel those resources towards athletics then they are at an advantage over schools that may be 1/5 their size (with exceptions of small schools with massive endowments).  But, we all know there are dozens if not hundreds of schools that don't go that route and channel their resources in other areas.  But I think the results speak for themselves.  7 out of the last 10 Championships have been won by schools of 5,000 or more (UW-WW, UW-SP, UST, Wash U).  18 out of the last 25 have been won by schools with 3000+ in enrollment. 

[A Buc Forever]

Madzillagd,

Thanks for doing the research to prove my point. 

Pinecone,

Thanks.

[OxyBob]

They also have a much larger student body (7,500) than the rest of the SCIAC and NWC schools.

Also, you're counting grad students in that total. Chapman's undergrad population is only about 5,000-something.

According to Princeton Review, Chapman has 6,005 undergrads, more than Cal Lutheran (2,803) and Redlands (2,683) combined.

The SCIAC will rue the day it allowed Chapman into the conference.

OxyBob

[WoostAr]

How about the comparison of Chapman at 6005 to Caltech at 985.

[madzillagd]

Caltech is one of those exceptions though.  They've got a $1.8B endowment so if they chose to push athletics to the front like Amherst and Williams do I'm sure they would start to have success down the road.  But I don't think we'll be seeing that in our lifetime. 

[WoostAr]

Both of those schools have between 1500 and 2000 students.  Caltech is uniquely small -- the only reason their endowment is so high is because of the academic standard they hold themselves to and they refuse to compromise those standards to build an athletics program.

I don't know how good this team will be...I've thought for the last 2-3 years they were due for a breakthrough -- they held their own in the NWC against George Fox, Willamette, and Pacific a couple weeks ago -- but they were obviously outclassed by Whitworth last week.  It would be really a cool thing to build a competitive basketball team out of future NASA engineers and Silicon Valley programmers -- the epitome of scholar athletes.

[Gregory Sager]

Since when does the size of the student population have any effect upon how good a basketball team a school has? Teams aren't drawn from out of the student body at large. They're recruited.

Since always?  Teams are not drawn out of the student body but resources that support those teams are.

No, the resources of most of the top-drawer private school programs are drawn out of endowment money. Even if the operating procedures of the school state that the athletics budget must come out of student fees, that money is ultimately fungible for a wealthy institution. On the other hand, private schools that are tuition-driven with regard to their annual budgets generally have more difficulty competing nationally, although D3 does have plenty of exceptions to that rule.

IF schools choose to channel those resources towards athletics then they are at an advantage over schools that may be 1/5 their size (with exceptions of small schools with massive endowments).

... and those "small schools with massive endowments" include several SCIAC rivals of Chapman. Here's the 2013 endowment figures for SCIAC schools, according to NACUBO:

Pomona-Pitzer	$1,941.7m
Caltech	$1,849.8m
Claremont-Mudd-Scripps	$1,122.9m
Occidental	$356.7m
Chapman	$229.5m
Redlands	$110.8m
Whittier	$88.6m
California Lutheran	$59.1m
LaVerne	$56.4m

But, we all know there are dozens if not hundreds of schools that don't go that route and channel their resources in other areas.

Doesn't matter. The point is that those endowment figures negate the statement that student population size is the determinant of athletic success. Those big-money schools have the resources to put together athletic programs like those in the UAA or the NESCAC if they so choose.

But I think the results speak for themselves.  7 out of the last 10 Championships have been won by schools of 5,000 or more (UW-WW, UW-SP, UST, Wash U).  18 out of the last 25 have been won by schools with 3000+ in enrollment.

You're picking nits with the "3000+" figure, since that's likely somewhere in the vicinity of the D3 enrollment median (if not the mean). But I would argue that the results don't speak for themselves, because correlation does not equal causation in this case.

The WIAC schools are public institutions that enjoy the enormous advantage of an inexpensive tuition when compared to their local D3 rivals, as well as taxpayer-subsidized facilities (although it's not likely that WIAC schools are going to be able to go to that particular well for the near future if they're interested in upgrading facilities, which makes me wonder if UW-Superior really will start a football program once it joins the UMAC). Furthermore, Wisconsin has a dearth of small scholarship schools; UW-Parkside (D2) and Viterbo and Cardinal Stritch (both NAIA) are the only ones in the entire state. That means a distinct in-state recruiting advantage for WIAC schools in terms of the kids who are the next tier down from the D1 prospects. In other words, it's not an accident that UWW is the only school that has won the D3 Triple Crown (football, men's basketball, baseball) in a single school year, or that UWL is third and UWO fourth on the D3 list of overall team national championships -- but it's not because of enrollment size, either.

The University of St. Thomas is the beneficiary of enormous athletics donations that have upgraded UST's facilities to the point where they're at least equal to, if not superior to, pretty much every other school in all of D3. And Wash U, as a UAA school, has both the endowment resources and the academic cachet to be a national power in just about any D3 sport if it so chooses (and it does; WUSTL is a perennial Directors' Cup power and is currently tenth on the D3 overall team national championships list with 19 Walnut & Bronze trophies).

If your thesis was correct, comparatively huge state schools such as those within the SUNYAC, the NJAC, the MASCAC, and the Little Eight would be the kings of this division, across the board. And they're not. NYU, which has an undergraduate enrollment that dwarfs those of its UAA rivals (to say nothing of the rest of D3) would be the Tyrannosaurus Rex of D3. And it most certainly isn't.

Plenty of doubt in my mind. Whitworth was certainly a high-quality program under Coach Hayford, but you don't just snap your fingers and win a Walnut & Bronze. It's not that easy. Just ask Steve Moore at Wooster or Glenn Robinson at F&M.

Cool, you can have your doubts. But those guys who were coming to Whitworth just beat Indiana at Indiana. It's not a snap of your fingers--especially out in the PNW island, but the talent he was bringing in would have been right up there with anyone else in the country.

I won't disagree with that. But there's a world of difference between having talent that "would have been right up there with anyone else in the country" and your previous statement of absolute certitude, "There is no doubt in my mind that had Hayford stayed, Whitworth would have won a national championship at some point."

According to Princeton Review, Chapman has 6,005 undergrads, more than Cal Lutheran (2,803) and Redlands (2,683) combined.

After having checked petersons.com (which I should've done in the first place), I concede that my first source was incorrect.

The SCIAC will rue the day it allowed Chapman into the conference.

Tilt on, Don Quixote.

Both of those schools have between 1500 and 2000 students.  Caltech is uniquely small -- the only reason their endowment is so high is because of the academic standard they hold themselves to and they refuse to compromise those standards to build an athletics program.

No, the reason why Caltech's endowment is so high is because it has some extremely wealthy friends (probably most of whom are alumni) who have been generous benefactors of the institution. Some of those benefactors may have publicly stated that the school's academic standards and the administration's refusal to compromise them for the sake of athletics is their reason for giving Caltech money, but the existence of their wealth in the first place and their willingness to give it are the a priori causes of Caltech's brobdingnagian endowment. There is a correlation between having high academic standards and having a high endowment, although it's hardly automatic -- but there's certainly no correlation between having high academic standards and having an athletics program that's little more than an afterthought, as your own undergraduate institution (among many others in D3) proves. The College of Wooster is a good example of a D3 school that has both high-caliber academics and national athletic success.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Greg, one nit to pick.  Unless my memory is even more shot than I think it is, the d3 median enrollment is a lot closer to 1,200 than 3,000.

[WoostAr]

While I certainly agree that Wooster has high-caliber academics, they do not come close to approaching Caltech's. Just for a point of argument -- Wooster (as far as I'm aware) has one nobel prize winner in it's entire history, where-as Caltech currently has 5 on staff and 30+ in it's history. 

I think the size argument boils down to more space to put athletes.  At many schools with larger student bodies the admissions standards can be relaxed so that a stellar athlete that would contribute (say a d1 transfer for example) is guaranteed to get in.  This simply doesn't happen at Caltech and no amount of endowment dollars will create spots for athletes here. 

MIT might be a better comparison for Caltech -- they have a nationally ranked basketball program and are essentially the East Coast version of Caltech on steroids: ~5000 student undergrad enrollment. This allows them extra space to put athletes while maintaining their academic prowess.

Think about it this way: at Caltech a roster of 20 players is 2% of the entire student population....and now expand that over 17 sports programs...that would be 34% of Caltech's student body would need relaxed academic standards to build the kind of sports programs at larger schools.