Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?

[Knightstalker]

May I suggest that your third from the last sentence is absolutely risible - the 'majority' of students couldn't care less what division they play in (apparently WAY less than half of them ever even attend games), but sure would care about almost $500!   The thought of student riots in 'beautiful downtown Whitewater' makes my skin crawl!

I also have serious doubts about the vast riches to be won in d2.

$475 is nothing when compared to the cost of college. It would be a 2.5% increase in tution. Small stuff.  I think they can spare an extra $475. Once again, that is a max. number. I took a look at the football and basketball roster for Wisconsin-whitewater. 68.75% of the athletes are from in state. Assuming that they keep with that ratio the actual cost of providing scholarships for 250 athletes would be $3,265,625. Divide that by the 10,000 students attending Wisconsin-Whitewater and the tution raise would only be $326.56. The median of those two numbers is $400. I would estimate that as being the cost per student to go to D-2. Although the number could be lower. Once again going from D-3 to D-2 would not be the extremely costly thing for a school of 10,000 students as some of you are trying to make it sound like. And the school would actuallly be on the same level as their opponents instead of a clear level above like they are now.
The money in D-2 compared to D-3 is slim, but it brings them one closer to D-1 where there is money to be made.

You are being pretty free with other peoples money are you a congressman?  I kid I kid, but I can tell you from experience if you propose raising tuition at a state institution 350+ dollars per semester or even per year there would be hell to pay from students, parents and faculty just to go to a less competitive division?  Also just because you are a D-1 or D-2 program you do not need to offer scholarships to athletes.

The biggest problem with an individual sport moving up a division has nothing to do with title IX in my opinion, it has to do with giving a football player a scholarship to play football and that kid wanting to play basketball, baseball, wrestle or run track.  The coaches of other teams all of a sudden get a scholarship player, or the track coach makes a deal with the football coach and gets that great sprinter on the track team who is on a football scholarship.  Too many chances for abuse.

[badgerwarhawk]

Yipsi, you are correct that UW-Milwaukee was once a member of the Wisconsin State University Conference. The last year they participated in the conference was in the mid-1960's (1963, I think).  UW-Parkside has never been a member.   

Assuming that students are willing to pay an extra $200-$400 in tuition simply to have the "prestige" of having D2 athletic programs is faulty.  Not only that but that cost would only rise in the future requiring additional tuition increases in the future.  Whenever I read a post implying that our schools have an advantage because they are "state subsidized" institutions I can't help but roll my eyes and think how misinformed that poster is.   

[Tuxguy]

No.

   I think it's a region problem.    It's not like UW-W or Mount are out in Oregon dipping into our
Player pool, that will be getting smaller when George Fox plays football in 2013. They are getting the best
players in the area.
   I mean Really? Look at the roster of a D-1 and you will find students from all across the Nation. Look at a St. Thomas and It's full of Minn. WW,  Wisconsin, Limfield, Oregon, PLU, Washington, Mount, Ohio and so on.
   I always heard the saying ... To be the best you have to play/beat the best.
   I'm not sure what to say about bearcatchatters remark about Linfields easy 10 game schedule, they play 9, and play the best that money/availability and lo-cal can get. CLU, Hardin-Simmons both ranked high at the time, are just 2 from the last few years. You wont see the Cats playing a Portland st.or SOU in the near future.
JMHO   
MERRY CHRISTMAS to all!!

[Pat Coleman]

Knightstalker, those things aren't allowed. You can't play scholarship lacrosse at Johns Hopkins and also play a Division III sport. Also you must offer scholarship money as a department to be a Division II member. Ivy is an exception but there is none in D-II. They could play non-scholarship in football but the school would still have to give money in other sports.

Surprised none of the WIAC folks have noted that the entire system is D-III because of state law. It would take an act of the legislature to change that.

[emma17]

Jknezik- in the context of my post, the sentence  "The playing field itself is entirely level as are the hours in a day available to all" is meant from the player's perspective. IMO D III football players aren't thinking "UWW v Mt is unfair/ bad for DIII". IMO, the players especially that watch the two teams play or play against them are motivated by them. To the competing player, there is nothing "un-level" about the game.

In truth, I think time will prove this entire discussion was an over reaction to a special moment in time. I'm convinced the UWW v Mt battle will raise the level of play to a broad number of schools and result in even greater variety of championship caliber teams in the near future.

[ncc58]

$475 is nothing when compared to the cost of college. It would be a 2.5% increase in tution. Small stuff.  I think they can spare an

Small stuff, no. College costs go up 5-8% each year. With the changes proposed to the education budget in Wisconsin (before the recall campaigns against the State Senators and Governors), they were talking about a 20% increase in tuition. Add in another 2.5% and the Wisconsin state universities won't be looking as attractive choices.

[jknezek]

Jknezik- in the context of my post, the sentence  "The playing field itself is entirely level as are the hours in a day available to all" is meant from the player's perspective. IMO D III football players aren't thinking "UWW v Mt is unfair/ bad for DIII". IMO, the players especially that watch the two teams play or play against them are motivated by them. To the competing player, there is nothing "un-level" about the game.

In truth, I think time will prove this entire discussion was an over reaction to a special moment in time. I'm convinced the UWW v Mt battle will raise the level of play to a broad number of schools and result in even greater variety of championship caliber teams in the near future.

Perhaps. I remember a friend of mine in school who played on the offensive line. We spent a lot of years getting beat by the same team every year. One year he came back from losing the game and told me he had to line up against a kid he played with in h.s. Said the kid could barely stay academically eligible in h.s. and had missed his senior season because he hadn't passed enough classes as a junior. Was kind of amazed that some college found a way to get him on the field and thought it was a complete joke that he lined up against him. Was pretty vocal that he thought there was no way a kid like that could have gotten into college.

While I don't remember him saying it was unfair, I'm pretty sure he thought it was, at a minimum, completely ridiculous that somehow that kid found a way to play college ball. The differing standards between teams in D3 leads to a lot of unlevel playing fields, and the players at a lot of schools know it.

That's just one example. I have no doubt that the kid was within the rules to play. I don't think any team cheated to get him out there and it is just an example of D3's diversity. But there is no way I will ever believe that the D3 landscape is, in any meaningful form, level...

[mizzoukispot]

I played for North Central back in the middle and late 80's when Augustana rolled on EVERYONE for 4 years. Now THAT was a dynasty. Maybe if they had a bunch of guys debating whether they were good for football or not things would have changed all of that good coaching and playing. Doubt it. They were good. Keep on rolling purple powers, til someone is good enough to end things......

[frank uible]

Put 'em on the schedule and play 'em, or leave 'em off the schedule. In both cases forget about the academic inequities.

[02 Warhawk]

Surprised none of the WIAC folks have noted that the entire system is D-III because of state law. It would take an act of the legislature to change that.

Very interesting...I didn't know that.

[zach]

Surprised none of the WIAC folks have noted that the entire system is D-III because of state law. It would take an act of the legislature to change that.

Very interesting...I didn't know that.

What was the reasoning behind the law? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just wondering why/how it came about.

[D3interest]

Yes, they are bad for D III football on a number of different levels. I also believe this is a situation that has been manufactured.

So how is this bad for D III. First, for the past 7 years the showcase game has had the attention of the same fan base. I would like to say that the fan base is increasing but the evidence does not indicate that based on the coverage. ESPN does not broadcast the selections, its now on line. The game was moved from Saturday to Friday.  These are not good indicators.

Let me explain why I believe this has been manufactured. Going into the 2011 season why were WW and Mt Union 1 and 2 in the polls. WW was the defending national champion no problem there. However, just because Mt. Union was runner up does that make them an automatic 2.  The polling situation was then carried over to the NCAA selection process. Where both WW and Mt Union were then given home field advantage throughout the 2011 playoffs. Entering into the 2011 playoffs there were 10, 10/9-0 teams. Certainly one of these teams may have warranted a number 2 ranking.  If another team is ranked number 2 the entire dynamics of the backets changes.
Let's move on, in other blogs I have asked "what NCAA championships give the home team an advantage for 51 consecutive non championship games" ? Mt Union has now hosted 51 NCAA games. In D III the home field advantage is huge. I don't remember UCLA playing all their NCAA playoff game at Pauly Pavillion. I don't believe this is fair. I also realize that the NCAA changed the procedure in 2010 where WW was on the road for two games, a move in the right direction.

That being said, look at the tremendous advantage enjoyed by both WW and MU over the vast majority of the 239 D III members. Over the course of the 7 year run both teams have played 35 more games, have had 35 additional weeks of practice. Given the way the backets and home fields are assigned these teams could have as many as 9 home games each season. What a recruiting advantage on both a local and national basis. Imagine how this aids in team development both for the the starters and back ups.

How is this situation remedied ? The NCAA should place them on the same side of the bracket or even in the same quadrant. Both WW and MU were given easy paths to the finals this year. They enjoyed home field advantage and easy draws.  There is a  college football performance ranking based out of Wisconsin. Based on those rankings, the Mary Hardin Baylor quadrant contained 7 teams ranked in the top 11 teams of that performance ranking. Wesley travelled to Texas only to win and then be given the Mt Union assignment. I wonder how MU would have done under these same circumstances.         

[Pat Coleman]

Merry Christmas.

One thing most veteran D-III observers know is that the NCAA doesn't care for one second what our poll says. Just look at 2010 for confirmation. Remember when the NCAA thought Wesley was the No. 1 team?

As for jiggering the brackets, why would the NCAA want a blowout in the title game?

[Knightstalker]

Knightstalker, those things aren't allowed. You can't play scholarship lacrosse at Johns Hopkins and also play a Division III sport. Also you must offer scholarship money as a department to be a Division II member. Ivy is an exception but there is none in D-II. They could play non-scholarship in football but the school would still have to give money in other sports.

Surprised none of the WIAC folks have noted that the entire system is D-III because of state law. It would take an act of the legislature to change that.

Pat I understand that, I was making the point of why they are not allowed.  I assume that most already know that about D-3 so I did not bother stating it was not allowed.

[D O.C.]

bleedpurple:

Technically speaking, I think it is a red herring

By all means, it's time to get red into the Stagg. 

This isn't 32 NFL teams in a league of owners where football is the core function.  This is 240 colleges for which football is a small (even if important) part of their whole operation.

- Gordon Mann

What is that other state school league, New Jersey? They don't seem to fare as well.  I believe PC stated 25% of d3 state schools win 25% of the championships (and that means no advantage?)

http://www.wiacsports.com/sports/2010/7/23/GEN_0723103641.aspx?tab=nationalchampionshipteams

By Academic Year

2011-12
Football (UW-Whitewater)

2010-11
Football (UW-Whitewater)
Women's Indoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)

2009-10
Women's Cross Country (UW-Eau Claire)
Football (UW-Whitewater)
Men's Basketball (UW-Stevens Point)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)

2008-09
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Indoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse and UW-Oshkosh)
Men's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)

2007-08
Women's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-River Falls)
Softball (UW-Eau Claire)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Indoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse)
Football (UW-Whitewater)

2006-07
Women's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Men's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-Oshkosh)

2005-06
Women's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Men's Outdoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Indoor Track & Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Men's Indoor Track & Field (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Cross Country (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Volleyball (UW-Whitewater)

2004-05
Baseball (UW-Whitewater)
Men's Basketball (UW-Stevens Point)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Indoor Track and Field (UW-Oshkosh)
2003-04
Men's Basketball (UW-Stevens Point)
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Indoor Track and Field (UW-Oshkosh)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-Oshkosh)

2002-03
Men's Cross Country (UW-Oshkosh)
Women's Volleyball (UW-Whitewater)
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)

2001-02
Men's Cross Country (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Basketball (UW-Stevens Point)
Men's Ice Hockey (UW-Superior)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)

2000-01
Men's Indoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Outdoor Track and Field (UW-La Crosse)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)
Men's Golf (UW-Eau Claire)

1999-2000
None (even BIG 'OL STATE SCHOOLS can have an off year)

1998-99
Men's Basketball (UW-Platteville)
Women's Gymnastics (NCGA) (UW-La Crosse)

Now! back to good or bad. Good, if you can schedule one of them in preseason for two years to see what you need to do t o compete, but, then, that is obvious: more speed, more size, more depth.