Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?

[frank uible]

 Why should anyone (except for members of NESCAC themselves) care about what NESCAC does about football? In the vein of what some coaches like to say, NESCAC football is what it is.

[ExTartanPlayer]

But the NESCAC has lots of scorn heaped upon it for isolating itself. Not caring about the playoffs is fine, but many think that not playing outside of its own league isn't the right way to go. Just one non-conference game would help determine where the NESCAC fits in the D-3 world.

I agree, smed, but the NEFC gets just as much scorn for taking a playoff spot and getting killed every year.* 

*Yes, I'm often an NEFC defender - I always have to remind people that an NEFC team defeated an Empire 8 team two straight times in the playoffs, and in one of those years it wasn't even the NEFC champion - but no one can seriously argue that the NEFC is consistently competitive with other top teams.

IMHO, if a school is REALLY committed to the so-called "D4" philosophy, do they really care if they are "scorned" by the rest of D3 for playing in isolation?  The NESCAC apparently doesn't (nor should they).  Why does it matter where they stand compared to the rest of D3?  If they were officially kicked out of NCAA Division III tomorrow and they were just playing each other as the NESCAC Football Club League, would it make any difference?

I understand what you're saying when you call NESCAC football a "varsity club" sport, but isn't that basically what we're talking about with "D4" anyway?  Why is that so bad?  And, in that vein, if other schools choose to do the same, why does it really matter to the rest of Division III?  I suspect that a lot of East Region fans would be very happy if the NEFC declared that they would no longer play nonconference games or participate in the playoffs.  They'd have another playoff spot freed up, and 16 schools that are GENERALLY not competitive with much of Division III would now be playing against their peer institutions for their own conference championship.  Doesn't everyone win in that scenario?

[smedindy]

You know, you can say that about other conferences as well as the NEFC, but that's what happens when you have an honest-to-goodness playoff that includes all conference titlists, as it should!

The scorn of the NESCAC is when people say 'why don't you rank them' or 'they could be just as good as anyone else' but there are no external points of reference.

[frank uible]

Under current circumstances NESCAC collrges should not be entitled to be ranked for football, nor do I hear them asking to be except on these boards, and then only infrequently.

[DGPugh]

2 southern fried NCAA dominance in sports (Natioanl Championship)
Auburn: Womens Swimming/Diving - 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007
           Mens Swimming?Diving - 1997, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
                                            2007, 2009

on a side note: D-2 UNA (Florence Al) just re hired thier former hall of fame coach Bobby Wallace (who won national championships 1993,1994, 1995). Coach Wallace has since resurrected the UWA program, retired a year ago, and is being hired from retirement just this past week.

and

i think the Purple powers are good for D-3...to stay on point 

[sigma one]

I am going to try this from a different perspective, and probably getting myself in trouble as a result.  Different schools have different definitions of success--we know that.  Sure, winning the National Championship appears to be the ultimate goal, but we know that's not the case for every school.  I've done a quick count, so don't hold me completely to it, but over the past five years (2007-2011) six schools have won 50 or more games (Whitewater, Mt. Union, MHB, Wesley, North Central, Wabash) and 10 have won at least 45 games (add Case Western Reserve, Franklin, Montclair St., W&J).  Theses school appear to want to be among the elite, and there are some others who approach this number of wins: 40+.  Over this same period 68 schools (again, don't hold me to the exact number) have won at least 9 games in one season; 43 have won at least 10 games in a single season. Those numbers indicate that about a quarter of the teams in DIII have had  really good success (if we define success by the won/lost records) with their programs. And 32 teams have had winning seasons every year 2007-2011 (defined as .500 or better each year). On the other side, 35 teams have not had a winning season (defined by leaving out .500 seasons), and 20 more have had a best record of not more that .500--a total of 55 without a "winning" season in the past five years. A number of them probably count 50/50 as being successful. (As a sad aside, I think I want to phrase it this way, 16 schools that have played all five years have won 10 or fewer games total). During these five years it looks like 21 teams have made it to the final 8 of the D III playoffs.  Of these, Mt. Union and UW Whitewater have appeared all five times; two teams have been there four times, one team, three times; three teams, twice; 13 teams, once.    We could also look to see how many total have made the tournament field.  My point is that while the championship game in these years has been between the same teams, other schools have had their moments.  And some that have established a football tradition have, year in and year out, been near the top of the rankings, # of victories, and conference championships.  Many of them, I'm supposing, have reached what their school, coaches, and players deem a good level of success--however frustrated that are in the end by not achieving even more.  After all, only one team emerges each year as the champion; the rest of the playoff teams go home with a loss.  If, as DIII philosophy indicates, sport is about participation and competition, quite a few teams and their schools should ultimately feel good, and at the same time be disappointed sometimes, about their football team. I'm sure, too, that some schools measure success by winning their conference title.  My point is that different schools measure success in different ways, as we all know.  When the same teams meet in the Title Game for more years to come--which might happen--or continue their success as long a Kenyon swimming (I know the men lost this year) then I, for one, will be concerned.  Until then, I marvel at WhiteH20's and Mount's success and wait for the moment when someone unseats one or both.  Am I off base here?

[D O.C.]

Excellence way out west....

http://www.linfield.edu/sports/data_assets/pdfs/coachandadmagazine.pdf

Never trust the NCAA. No dunking to level the playing field (court); the Lew Alcindor rule. http://www.realclearsports.com/lists/rules_named_after_players/alcindor_rule.html

[ExTartanPlayer]

sigma one, that is a very nice post.  That's cool that 68 schools have won 9+ games at least once in the last five years, which certainly suggests that many schools have experienced at least one season of decent "success" in recent times (that number is higher than I thought it would be).  It's also impressive that only 35 schools have NOT had a .500 season, indicating that nearly 200 of the D3 schools HAVE at least touched .500 once in the past five years - again, a sign that "most" of D3 is at least moderately competitive with their conference peers.

Incidentally, if there were no Division III playoffs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion because no one would "know" that UMU and UWW were the dominant teams nationally.  Everyone would compete against their conference peers for their conference title and that would be it.

So now let's consider the playoffs.  Suppose that Wesley had beaten Mount Union and UWW this year.  Would that really have changed things for the rest of Division III?  I really doubt it.  Do you think that Carnegie Mellon, or Allegheny, or Rowan, or Hampden-Sydney, or any other program (outside the OAC and WIAC) would REALLY feel the reverberations of that?  As a player at Carnegie Mellon, I certainly followed Mount's success (and UWW's subsequent rise) with interest, but it's not like it affected our team in any way.  We didn't have a lot of recruits coming to campus that were also interested in Mount or UWW.  We never were going to play them head-to-head.  If someone had upset them in the playoffs one year...I would have loved it as a "fan" of the game, but it wouldn't have changed anything for our team in the ensuing season.

That's why I'm now leaning towards answer C) the Purple Powers are neither good nor bad for most of Division III.  Even if you removed the Purples, there would still be less than 25 realistic contenders for the "national" title in any given year.  The rest of the Division would march on essentially unchanged.

[jknezek]

Keith wrote a very good article in a similar vein earlier this season or late last season. He made the same point, that there is a lot of variety in D3 once you get outside the annual Final Four. Always a good point and if you can find the article it is a good read.

[SUADC]

That's why I'm now leaning towards answer C) the Purple Powers are neither good nor bad for most of Division III.  Even if you removed the Purples, there would still be less than 25 realistic contenders for the "national" title in any given year.  The rest of the Division would march on essentially unchanged.

As a former Division III athlete, I agree that the purple powers are neither good nor bad for Division III. However, as a fan of the sport now, I believe 25 championship contenders are better than 2 contenders. 

[emma17]

Nice posts Sigma and Ex.
UWW and Mt aren't doing anything that prevents other schools from success and realistic hopes of their own national championship.

I lean more toward UWW and Mt are Good for D3 football simply because their play has elevated the overall play. Whether a D3 school has national championship aspirations or not, all teams most likely strive to get better.  UWW/Mt provides all D3 programs and players with an example of what is possible at this level.

[warhawkguard]

If you ever establish a new D4 set of teams, somebody will emerge as a top tier program in it. That program will have a better set of coaches. They will find a way to recruit the better kids that want to play in the lowest of the low in college sports. Chances are some of the new D4 programs will try to differentiate themselves by having better facilities than the other small college down the road to get the better kids to play there. It will just repeat what has already happened in D3. Somebody will emerge as a dominant power and the teams that still can't play well will still be the losers on the field. New mini-superpowers will replace the current powers.  You guys are dreaming if you think it won't happen.

Warhawkguard, I agree completely.  Some number of teams will rise to dominance in D4 and somewhere down the line you'll have the same discussion- should there be a D5.

No doubt some teams would rise to prominence. However, in a division that was devised to be a little more balanced, as opposed to pretty much allowing whatever you want, presumably you wouldn't have a 20 year dominance by 1 team and seven years of repeat performances in the title game.

No offense, but I think that the three of you have missed the point of what the D4 movement of which Pat spoke was all about. The D4 movement of a few years ago was an attempt by some administrators from a few academically elite schools to set up a division within the NCAA that would be much more restrictive in terms of how its member schools were allowed to operate their athletics programs: Specific time blocks in which coaches were allowed to recruit off-campus, or the banning of off-campus recruiting altogether (a la the MWC); no out-of-season practices; and there was quite a bit of talk among D4 advocates that it might be best to not have any postseason tournaments or national championships whatsoever, and that all competition should be strictly regional in character.

In other words, D4 would not only be tightly straitjacketed by its rules so as to prevent UMU/UWW-type dominance, there was a solid possibility that it wouldn't even have postseason tournaments with which to establish that sort of national dominance in the first place.

Oh, I'm not offended at all. I just feel that football is a sport of warriors. As long as you keep score you might as well try to win. The idea that you point to in making a D4 a totally different type of game altogether makes that whole idea of even bothering to play seem futile. If you don't want to be good, or care if anybody is better than you at the sport, don't do it. Stick to club sports like flag football, rugby, field hockey, and soccer. Its just an intramural pastime in the end.

Lets all be honest here - D3 is practically a joke when you look at the sports and their little teams and compare them to D1 athletics. Head to head D3 would generally get annihilated,even worse than FCS teams when they play somebody like the Badgers. The general population really doesn't care about small time sports, just the students, alumni, and parents. If I ask 1000 Wisconsin people what team plays for UW-Whitewater, I bet 80% couldn't tell me. 99.9% have no idea what the Stagg Bowl is. Thats pretty sad when you have a 4 time National Champ just an hour away. If you want to dumb down D3 athletics even more, make it truly just an amateur undertaking, make it completely uninteresting to even watch, make it non-competitive and even more irrelevant than it already is, then you might as well drop your programs and make them all club sports. D3 teams are already the smallest player on the field, but making them even smaller? The heck with that I say! Why waste your time? High school teams get their kids to practice in some form year-round to get better. What kid that expects to win by puttting in the hard work would go to the school that limits everything they do and is clearly trying to be a step DOWN from HS? Not this kid. That would really cut down a lot of kids enthusiasm to play in college. If you don't get a scholarship offer to play for a real team, the last chance D3 would SUCK. Ya, no thanks. I'll drink beer and chase girls, even more than I did as an athlete.

[jknezek]

Oh, I'm not offended at all. I just feel that football is a sport of warriors. As long as you keep score you might as well try to win. The idea that you point to in making a D4 a totally different type of game altogether makes that whole idea of even bothering to play seem futile. If you don't want to be good, or care if anybody is better than you at the sport, don't do it. Stick to club sports like flag football, rugby, field hockey, and soccer. Its just an intramural pastime in the end.

Lets all be honest here - D3 is practically a joke when you look at the sports and their little teams and compare them to D1 athletics. Head to head D3 would generally get annihilated,even worse than FCS teams when they play somebody like the Badgers. The general population really doesn't care about small time sports, just the students, alumni, and parents. If I ask 1000 Wisconsin people what team plays for UW-Whitewater, I bet 80% couldn't tell me. 99.9% have no idea what the Stagg Bowl is. Thats pretty sad when you have a 4 time National Champ just an hour away. If you want to dumb down D3 athletics even more, make it truly just an amateur undertaking, make it completely uninteresting to even watch, make it non-competitive and even more irrelevant than it already is, then you might as well drop your programs and make them all club sports. D3 teams are already the smallest player on the field, but making them even smaller? The heck with that I say! Why waste your time? High school teams get their kids to practice in some form year-round to get better. What kid that expects to win by puttting in the hard work would go to the school that limits everything they do and is clearly trying to be a step DOWN from HS? Not this kid. That would really cut down a lot of kids enthusiasm to play in college. If you don't get a scholarship offer to play for a real team, the last chance D3 would SUCK. Ya, no thanks. I'll drink beer and chase girls, even more than I did as an athlete.

D3 exists because schools couldn't and didn't want to play with D1. It offered a different type of athlete a chance to compete and win even if they weren't scholarship type athletes. From the players point of view, there is nothing "pretty much a joke" about the time and effort they put in. It's just a very balanced effort in regards to the time and effort they are expected to put into other things, like schoolwork.

I had a bunch of friends that played D3 athletics in college and still had time to work on the student paper, be in the investment society, or belong to social clubs. Their college experience wasn't defined by being an athlete, but the opportunity to be a collegiate athlete helped enhance their college experience.

D3 sports isn't for the spectators, though I happen to think that engaging spectators would be good for the sport and the colleges, it is for the athletes. And if there are schools/athletes that can't/won't compete the way D3 is currently set up, there is a viable reason to find a place where they do feel like they can compete.

D3 may be the smallest kids in the playground, but there are way more of those kids than there are the biggest kids around. D3 is 40+% of the NCAA membership by school count, and I believe it is even higher by percentage of total athletes. D3 is a massive universe, and there is room in the NCAA, if the schools desire, to create another division that would allow those D3 schools that want to focus more highly on athletics to do so, while other schools would be more interested in fitting athletics more tightly into budgeting and the overall college experience.

I don't see the big deal, but I wouldn't go walking around telling D3 athletes they are practically a joke in regards to anyone. Someone is liable to get very rightly offended especially when they elect to work very hard to play "last chance D3".

[warhawkguard]

Don't forget that I too was a D3 athlete and was proud to have been able to play a sport while attending college. My point is that the average Joe doesn't know they even exist. D3 sports get virtually no media coverage, little to no spectators, and no real respect compared to the big boys. Most comments are in the realm of oh, you didn't play REAL football. D3 is perceived as a joke by the common person that likes sports. Having the Purple Powers get some national media attention has been VERY good for the D3 scene as when I mention anything about Whitewater strangers seem to now know SOMETHING where there was nothing before. Perhaps some like the idea of playing for an obscure little team at some little school and have a little hobby like football.Thats nice for them. Not for me.

As an athlete, I was certainly much more enthusiastic when we played for a full house. People paid attention and it felt good. I hated the games we had when the place was empty. I applaud the schools that give a hoot about the show. A nice stadium, doesn't need to be 50,000 seats, but it better not be an old rickety pile of crap either. A good team and good atmosphere makes one a bit more proud of their chosen school. How can anyone say that is a bad thing? If one school chooses not to do that and gets some super duper scholar professor, well, thats very nice. Faculty are important. How does that help the alumni once they have graduated and moved on? This discussion is about D3 athletics, and the effect the Purple Powers have had on the sport. I say they have been great for the sport. Each school out there can toot its own horn about the great academic programs they offer, certainly none of them would say, yeah, our programs suck, but come here anyways. These are businesses above all. Make a profit or close down.

If many lament the fact that some schools in D3 try to make themselves appear to be a more rounded place to go with lots to do besides sit in the library and watch the debate team, well, thats their choice.

If anything, I think it is obvious that some schools would be better off if they focused on a few sports and didn't try to offer one of each. How many dropped football over the years? It isn't necessary to have that program to be a great school, look at Marquette here by me. Good roundball program at least. The 1000 kid schools will always struggle against the bigger, better financed schools. However, if they had some great Cross Country and Soccer programs, those are cheap and easy to be competitive in with some good coaches in the house.

The NCAA isn't like High School where you are grouped by enrollment. Even there you have the Have's verses the Have Not's.

I'm not trying to slam D3 sports, but some schools put on teams in a variety of sports that certainly seem to be a step down from what many kids had in HS.

[smedindy]

I disagree with that last statement. Almost all HS programs are many steps below the typical D3 program. Plenty of times HS athletes come into a middling D-3 program and realize that you have to work hard at this stuff.

Now sure, someone coming from a powerhouse HS program that goes to school at Kenyon may find it a bit less strenuous. But what about the typical kid at a typical school? Not so much.

And I think that schools NEED football to attract male students. That's why very few are dropping and more are adding. And that's great for D-3 as a whole. Let's ENCOURAGE football, not shun it by saying schools should drop it.

The average Joe doesn't enter into this. Don't worry about them - brush them off as ignorant or point to guys like Fred Jackson or Pete Metzelaars.