Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?

[dahlby]

firstdown:

Historically speaking, private colleges have a much higher tuition cost than public schools. At Chapman University in  Orange County (southern Ca) CA, tuition, books, room and board etc run around $60,000 per year, plus or minus.

[Mr. Ypsi]

firstdown:

Historically speaking, private colleges have a much higher tuition cost than public schools. At Chapman University in  Orange County (southern Ca) CA, tuition, books, room and board etc run around $60,000 per year, plus or minus.

It is important to note, however, that the 'sticker' price differential is generally MUCH greater than the 'net' price differential for students qualifying for financial aid.  Aside from those lucky few qualifying for a total 'free ride', private school students will generally pay more bottom line than at state-supported schools, but there is usually not nearly the gap that 'sticker' prices would suggest.

[ncc58]

Wow, this thread is going all over the place.

First of all, in 2009, there were 784 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students from outside of Wisconsin at UWW. That's 932 students - less than 10%. The split in in state and out of state is not 50-50 as claimed. The demographics by state are available on the UWW web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have a reciprocity agreement allowing Minnesota residents tuition nearly equal to Wisconsin in state residents. However, the number of Freshmen from Minnesota in 2009 was only 19.  They do not have a similar agreement for FISH (derogatory term for Illinois residents). Tuition and room and board for Wisconsin residents is approximately $17,000. For Illinois residents, it is $24,000. I'm the parent of a UWW student so I know the costs. For a CCIW school, tuition plus room plus board is $40,000. That's probably representative of most private colleges.

Let's be real. The MWC is not going to compete in recruiting against UWW. The MWC has good schools, nice campuses, pretty good athletic resources. But they can't compare with UWW. If UWW wants a kid, they're going to get him.

The state of Wisconsin funds the University System at $1.1B - about 25% of the budget. As mentioned previously, the state also funds building projects. All the data is available online, this is in the record. For the 25%, private schools have to get that through tuition, fees, and donors. Some schools do well at that, others less so.

UWW also conducts football camps in the summer for high school students that are well regarded. These are great opportunities to introduce young players to the UWW facilities.

[Gray Fox]

The UWW Vital Statistics

  http://www.uww.edu/campus-info/about-uww/vital-statistics

[WashedUp]

The vast majority of D2/D3 kids stay in-state Smed. I don't know what the financial incentive is in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But if you aren't going D1 on scholarship, you are probably looking to save money on your college education however possible. Staying in state is usually a big cost saver for most US states.

That doesn't stop Cortland from grabbing 2 or 3 kids from New Jersey. But as a rule, you usually play ball in-state.

That isn't true at every college.  Carleton, for example, had a roster that was split about 50/50 last year in state vs. out of state and had players from 16 states and Kenya.  St. Olaf has had a pretty steady pipeline from Florida for several years and had 22 from Florida (and one from the Bahamas) on the team this last year.  Gustavus, on the other hand, is in the same conference and is almost exclusively MN kids.  It seems to me like teams reflect where the coaches choose to focus their recruiting efforts rather than a rule that you always play in state.

[FB24]

Not only recruiting the right states, but also Admissions department can dictate which areas to recruit.  Some of the HIGHLY ACADEMIC schools such as Carleton and Kenyon and Oberlin and NESCAC schools have to recruit nationally to keep their Ranking what it is.  Te be a top ranked academic school like Carleton is at Number 8 I think, they can't recruit from just in state.  They have to go out of state and be a nationally recognized school.  That is a reason why some small private liberal arts schools can;t compete against teams like UWW and Mount Union because they have a small recruiting area.  Meaning, although they recruit nationally, a lot of the kids they recruit are looking at academics and not solely football and it is tough to get kids nationally to visit a school, but some admissions department make it mandatory to recruit that way.  I think as a whole, admissions, coaches and the school need to be on the same page to be successful.  If you are not on the same page in all three phases, you will struggle. 

[smedindy]

FB24 - I think more schools are looking outside their 'comfort' zone for sure, not because of athletics, but to bring a well-rounded student body to the institution. Diversity is key and that even means bringing a kid from Texas to Minnesota or Indiana.

BTW, I think there are about 25 players from outside of Wisconsin on Whitewater's roster, so it is no way exclusively a Wisconsin recruiting base.

St. Norbert has about 45 or so players on its roster from outside of Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, North Central's roster is almost exclusively Illinois kids and there are a boat-load of options for in-state folks.

[dahlby]

Mr. Ypsi:

I can only speak for what I know about Chapman and the local state schools and other D3 schools in the area. As CU has grown over the past 10 years, the amount of money available thru the scholarship pipeline to incoming students has reduced as the cost has increased. Many students, including the ones that I hired before I retired, are taking out higher loans to offset the balance. Although the state is in bad shape financially, it is still way less expensive to attend a state school. And, as CU's academic standards have risen, it is harder to qualify for scholarship funds. I know of stuidents that have graduated with well over a hundred thousand dollars iin loans. But, they feel that the extra financial burden will pay off in the long run.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Mr. Ypsi:

I can only speak for what I know about Chapman and the local state schools and other D3 schools in the area. As CU has grown over the past 10 years, the amount of money available thru the scholarship pipeline to incoming students has reduced as the cost has increased. Many students, including the ones that I hired before I retired, are taking out higher loans to offset the balance. Although the state is in bad shape financially, it is still way less expensive to attend a state school. And, as CU's academic standards have risen, it is harder to qualify for scholarship funds. I know of stuidents that have graduated with well over a hundred thousand dollars iin loans. But, they feel that the extra financial burden will pay off in the long run.

Yeah, there are always exceptions.  I was speaking of the general picture, and those privates with decent endowments generally can be more forthcoming on FA than can most publics.  Generally speaking, the net tuition gap is far less than the 'sticker' tuition gap.

Fearing that 'sticker shock' would eliminate applicants before they could even learn about 'net' costs, North Park tried something innovative a few years ago.  They drastically lowered the 'sticker' price (with, of necessity, a commensurate decrease in FA for all but the neediest students).  I'm not associated with NPU in any way, but reports are that it has worked VERY well.  For some schools, high 'sticker' price is a PR plus, but perhaps other schools should investigate the NPU tactic.

But this is starting to stray pretty far afield from the announced topic!   I already opened a 'Title IX' thread; if anyone wants to open a 'public vs. private' or a 'size DOES matter' thread, feel free!

[zach]

Wow, this thread is going all over the place.

First of all, in 2009, there were 784 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students from outside of Wisconsin at UWW. That's 932 students - less than 10%. The split in in state and out of state is not 50-50 as claimed. The demographics by state are available on the UWW web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have a reciprocity agreement allowing Minnesota residents tuition nearly equal to Wisconsin in state residents. However, the number of Freshmen from Minnesota in 2009 was only 19.  They do not have a similar agreement for FISH (derogatory term for Illinois residents). Tuition and room and board for Wisconsin residents is approximately $17,000. For Illinois residents, it is $24,000. I'm the parent of a UWW student so I know the costs. For a CCIW school, tuition plus room plus board is $40,000. That's probably representative of most private colleges.

Let's be real. The MWC is not going to compete in recruiting against UWW. The MWC has good schools, nice campuses, pretty good athletic resources. But they can't compare with UWW. If UWW wants a kid, they're going to get him.

The state of Wisconsin funds the University System at $1.1B - about 25% of the budget. As mentioned previously, the state also funds building projects. All the data is available online, this is in the record. For the 25%, private schools have to get that through tuition, fees, and donors. Some schools do well at that, others less so.

UWW also conducts football camps in the summer for high school students that are well regarded. These are great opportunities to introduce young players to the UWW facilities.

We're talking about the football programs. How would 10% of the overal student body being from out of state be in anyways relevant to this discussion? I just counted up the in-state/out of state players on the wisconsin whitewater roster. There's 26 players from out of state. That's 27% of the roster. It's not the 50-50 split I had reported earlier, I was thinking of someone else. Still 26 players is alot more than "2 or 3" like the original poster that I was responding to had said.

[emma17]

Wow, this thread is going all over the place.

First of all, in 2009, there were 784 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students from outside of Wisconsin at UWW. That's 932 students - less than 10%. The split in in state and out of state is not 50-50 as claimed. The demographics by state are available on the UWW web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have a reciprocity agreement allowing Minnesota residents tuition nearly equal to Wisconsin in state residents. However, the number of Freshmen from Minnesota in 2009 was only 19.  They do not have a similar agreement for FISH (derogatory term for Illinois residents). Tuition and room and board for Wisconsin residents is approximately $17,000. For Illinois residents, it is $24,000. I'm the parent of a UWW student so I know the costs. For a CCIW school, tuition plus room plus board is $40,000. That's probably representative of most private colleges.

Let's be real. The MWC is not going to compete in recruiting against UWW. The MWC has good schools, nice campuses, pretty good athletic resources. But they can't compare with UWW. If UWW wants a kid, they're going to get him.

The state of Wisconsin funds the University System at $1.1B - about 25% of the budget. As mentioned previously, the state also funds building projects. All the data is available online, this is in the record. For the 25%, private schools have to get that through tuition, fees, and donors. Some schools do well at that, others less so.

UWW also conducts football camps in the summer for high school students that are well regarded. These are great opportunities to introduce young players to the UWW facilities.

We're talking about the football programs. How would 10% of the overal student body being from out of state be in anyways relevant to this discussion? I just counted up the in-state/out of state players on the wisconsin whitewater roster. There's 26 players from out of state. That's 27% of the roster. It's not the 50-50 split I had reported earlier, I was thinking of someone else. Still 26 players is alot more than "2 or 3" like the original poster that I was responding to had said.

I think the 2 or 3 comment was from a school or conference in another state, and not UWW or the WIAC.  In any event, when UWW began its run, there were very few out of state kids on their roster.  The out of state participation increased after the success of the Stagg Bowls in 2005 and 2006.  At that time, UWW had Perkins Stadium, with a grass field and none of the new facilities.  The program experienced success with the same facilities and student source as it had for decades before- when there weren't complaints about state funding or some other advantage.  With the success, they simply continued to build.  It is also important to note the steady staff of assistants, including defensive staff and offensive line and running back staff.   

[zach]

Wow, this thread is going all over the place.

First of all, in 2009, there were 784 undergraduate students and 148 graduate students from outside of Wisconsin at UWW. That's 932 students - less than 10%. The split in in state and out of state is not 50-50 as claimed. The demographics by state are available on the UWW web site.

Minnesota and Wisconsin have a reciprocity agreement allowing Minnesota residents tuition nearly equal to Wisconsin in state residents. However, the number of Freshmen from Minnesota in 2009 was only 19.  They do not have a similar agreement for FISH (derogatory term for Illinois residents). Tuition and room and board for Wisconsin residents is approximately $17,000. For Illinois residents, it is $24,000. I'm the parent of a UWW student so I know the costs. For a CCIW school, tuition plus room plus board is $40,000. That's probably representative of most private colleges.

Let's be real. The MWC is not going to compete in recruiting against UWW. The MWC has good schools, nice campuses, pretty good athletic resources. But they can't compare with UWW. If UWW wants a kid, they're going to get him.

The state of Wisconsin funds the University System at $1.1B - about 25% of the budget. As mentioned previously, the state also funds building projects. All the data is available online, this is in the record. For the 25%, private schools have to get that through tuition, fees, and donors. Some schools do well at that, others less so.

UWW also conducts football camps in the summer for high school students that are well regarded. These are great opportunities to introduce young players to the UWW facilities.

We're talking about the football programs. How would 10% of the overal student body being from out of state be in anyways relevant to this discussion? I just counted up the in-state/out of state players on the wisconsin whitewater roster. There's 26 players from out of state. That's 27% of the roster. It's not the 50-50 split I had reported earlier, I was thinking of someone else. Still 26 players is alot more than "2 or 3" like the original poster that I was responding to had said.

I think the 2 or 3 comment was from a school or conference in another state, and not UWW or the WIAC.

This was the quote

The vast majority of D2/D3 kids stay in-state Smed. I don't know what the financial incentive is in Wisconsin or Minnesota. But if you aren't going D1 on scholarship, you are probably looking to save money on your college education however possible. Staying in state is usually a big cost saver for most US states.

That doesn't stop Cortland from grabbing 2 or 3 kids from New Jersey. But as a rule, you usually play ball in-state.

He was replying to

Dan,

There's plenty of competition for Wisconsin kids. The CCIW, the nearby Minnesota privates, MWC schools, and NATHC schools are close enough to nab kids from Wisconsin. It's not that far to either Chicago or Minneapolis for the majority of the population.

So yes, he was referring to UWW. The "2 or 3 kids from NJ" was a point he made to say that Cortland is the exception by having that many guys from out of state. When in reality it is the exception that they have that little.

[K-Mack]

Bleed Purple said it well in the original post.

My official position is that it does no good to wonder whether it's good or bad -- it just IS. So I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it, or reading this entire thread, to be honest.

Two truisms that don't quite answer the question:
1) The 32-team playoff produces an undisputed champion. Along the way, it produces exciting games, as well as its fair share of duds/blowouts, but also something more: A chance for D-III athletes to measure themselves against the best, and compete against their peers.

And to that end, you have to ask yourself, what do you want out of a playoff system? Is the goal just to mix up who gets to win championships? Or to produce a deserving champion? To give as many teams as possible to opportunity to truly earn a championship? How much does just getting to have the experience factor in?

The playoffs aren't perfect, but I've yet to hear a suggestion that will clearly and fairly improve them. I love that it wraps up before Christmas, with the undisputed champ, and gives 32 schools 1-5 extra weeks of team bonding, road trips, tailgates, on-campus fan experiences and memories that last a lifetime.

2) There's been a lack of variety in Salem, but the games have not been boring, and that wasn't always true pre-UWW. I've never walked away from an all-purple Stagg Bowl thinking "well, that was a crappy game."

Most of the other good points have surely been made so I won't attempt to repeat them. Enjoy!

[mattvsmith]

The Rev apologizes if these things have been mentioned in earlier pages. The Rev skipped around and read highlights.

1) Hobart dominated D3 lacrosse since the beginning of championships in 1980. Hobart lost only twice: in 1992 and 1994. Even if Hobart had not left D3 lacrosse, their domination of the sport was ending. The Rev chalks this up to the fact that other schools were putting time, money and effort into lacrosse that they hadn't before.
(As an aside, The Rev wants Hobart to go back to D3 lacrosse--not a popular opinion.)

b) No one has mentioned the deleterious effect that Title IX has had on men's sports as a means of "leveling the playing field" for women's sports. Let's be frank: American colleges and universities are extremely liberal (with a few exceptions like Wheaton; for every Wheaton, there are 100 Oberlins). If a college, such as Hobart, decided to put a big emphasis on football with the idea of  becoming a dominant national force, the harpies and their gelded enablers that control the socio-political tone of the schools would come flying out of the coven on their broomsticks with swords brandished screaming sexism, phallo-centrism, yada yada yada. If The Rev were president of a college I'd rather have a good but non-national-level football team than to put up with the PC bulls!t from the leftists who want to tear down any and every one who strive to excel at anything.

iii) It seems that D3 schools do not consider football a worthwhile investment toward the goals of their schools. Let's say that Hobart wants to rise from being #64 among national liberal arts colleges to being top 10. Will spending an extra few million dollars on the football team get them the kind of students and faculty that will bring them up into the top 10, or would that money be better spent on other programs that really will bring in kids with higher SAT scores and from better high schools?
If Hobart spends the money and takes the time and effort to become D3 national champs, will Hobart be ranked up their with Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore? If not, most people at Hobart won't see the point in spending the money. Hobart is in a comfy spot: good enough academically, good enough athletically. Meh. Why get worked up about it? Why not stay comfy?

[smedindy]

Rev,

Sorry but you're way off on b. Way way off. See the Title IX thread and I shoot down the effect on men's sports. It's inept and cowardly administrators, not the act.