Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?

[jknezek]

You want me to quantify how many people have the impression that the rest of d3 is intramurals based upon their viewing of the uww/umu stagg bowl?  It's pretty safe to say it's darn near Zero. If you're that dumb, why are you watching the d3 championship in the first place?  The far more likely reaction if this was your first exposure to d3 is to judge d3 based upon what you see rather than what you don't see. 

And there you have it folks! The first person to take a civil discussion and head for insults when they can't come up with answer. That is not what I asked to have quantified. The discussion is about "Are the Purple Powers bad for D3". I can't quantify that they are bad, but I believe they are. You told me since I couldn't quantify it I should give it up. I asked you to quantify the reverse, that they are good for D3 and you reverted to an insult.

[jknezek]

Every one of those teams, whether they started out the season thinking they could win the national title or not, gets the bid and starts dreaming of going on the magic run. That tells me that the argument holds very little water.

I think you're saying that every team (except the NESCAC) has a desire to win the national championship.  Every team at least has that goal when they make the playoffs. I agree with you here. Football players -- and athletes in general -- are competitive. They want to win every game. And maybe they even believe they can (though, for some, it's probably more a hope than a belief).

My point is that some institutions -- those who govern the college and decide where to allocate limited resources -- aren't putting a priority on winning a national championship. They view the threshold for the football team's success or failure in different terms.  They want the football team to "succeed" but the Stagg Bowl isn't the sole measure of that success. So they don't put as much money in coaches, the travel budget, the facilities, etc. They decide to put money elsewhere. Not because they want the football team to lose, but because they would rather invest the resources elsewhere.  They have limited resources and building a Stagg Bowl caliber football program isn't a priority.

I have no doubt that the players and coaches feel as you suggest. They want to win every game. But if they haven't been given the resources to do it, they have limited ability to make that happen.

And that leads to a lack of parity, just as you suggest.

Here's my problem with your response. The assumption was that D3 isn't as un-level as I believe because not all teams are trying to win the Championship. But you can't turn on and off who is trying to win by teams that ARE winning.

I see what you are saying about administrators, but that's besides the point because administrators don't go out on the field and lose in the first round by 40 pts. The players do. If the players care, and the coaches care about going for it all, isn't that what matters for trying to make the best possible playing experience a division where more than 2% can actually have a shot at winning?

I kind of see your point but I just can't put it together with the facts. At the beginning of the season every team dreams of winning. At the end of the season, every team dreams of making the playoffs through an A, B, or C. Once in the playoffs, every team dreams of winning every game.

At game one there were 239 teams (minus the NESCAC) dreaming of winning the National Title. At playoff week one there were 32. Unfortunately, at week 1 there were only 5 capable. No matter how you slice it, the numbers are the same. The sport is about the players. The way the sport in D3 is currently constructed, of those approximately 23,000 players at the start of the season, only about 500 had a real shot at realizing the dream. Its just a bad situation.

I'm not saying you don't get a successful season by winning your conference. Heck, I think W&L had a great season going 8-2 and finishing second in the ODAC and missing the playoffs this year. I'm sure the administration and the players consider it a successful season as well. I loved it. But that doesn't mean I can't spot the flaw in having only 2% of teams with a real shot to win any given year.

[bleedpurple]

Every one of those teams, whether they started out the season thinking they could win the national title or not, gets the bid and starts dreaming of going on the magic run. That tells me that the argument holds very little water.

I think you're saying that every team (except the NESCAC) has a desire to win the national championship.  Every team at least has that goal when they make the playoffs. I agree with you here. Football players -- and athletes in general -- are competitive. They want to win every game. And maybe they even believe they can (though, for some, it's probably more a hope than a belief).

My point is that some institutions -- those who govern the college and decide where to allocate limited resources -- aren't putting a priority on winning a national championship. They view the threshold for the football team's success or failure in different terms.  They want the football team to "succeed" but the Stagg Bowl isn't the sole measure of that success. So they don't put as much money in coaches, the travel budget, the facilities, etc. They decide to put money elsewhere. Not because they want the football team to lose, but because they would rather invest the resources elsewhere.  They have limited resources and building a Stagg Bowl caliber football program isn't a priority.

I have no doubt that the players and coaches feel as you suggest. They want to win every game. But if they haven't been given the resources to do it, they have limited ability to make that happen.

And that leads to a lack of parity, just as you suggest.

Here's my problem with your response. The assumption was that D3 isn't as un-level as I believe because not all teams are trying to win the Championship. But you can't turn on and off who is trying to win by teams that ARE winning.

I see what you are saying about administrators, but that's besides the point because administrators don't go out on the field and lose in the first round by 40 pts. The players do. If the players care, and the coaches care about going for it all, isn't that what matters for trying to make the best possible playing experience a division where more than 2% can actually have a shot at winning?

I kind of see your point but I just can't put it together with the facts. At the beginning of the season every team dreams of winning. At the end of the season, every team dreams of making the playoffs through an A, B, or C. Once in the playoffs, every team dreams of winning every game.

At game one there were 239 teams (minus the NESCAC) dreaming of winning the National Title. At playoff week one there were 32. Unfortunately, at week 1 there were only 5 capable. No matter how you slice it, the numbers are the same. The sport is about the players. The way the sport in D3 is currently constructed, of those approximately 23,000 players at the start of the season, only about 500 had a real shot at realizing the dream. Its just a bad situation.

I'm not saying you don't get a successful season by winning your conference. Heck, I think W&L had a great season going 8-2 and finishing second in the ODAC and missing the playoffs this year. I'm sure the administration and the players consider it a successful season as well. I loved it. But that doesn't mean I can't spot the flaw in having only 2% of teams with a real shot to win any given year.

I think you are doing a great job of presenting your points.  However, I'm having a hard time following your logic on two of your arguments.  First, it seems to me that administrations that choose not to adequately resource their football program are part of the point and not "besides the point".  The team's ability to compete nationally is greatly affected by this lack of resourcing.  If administrators chose to allow only 3 practices per week, certainly their decision-making would have far greater impact on that particular team's ability to compete for a national championship than the Purple Powers do. I understand low priority of football by an administration is far more subtle than limiting practices, but I use that to illustrate my point.  Is it not fair to say that part of the reason for the gap between the bottom, say,  200 schools and the Top 10 schools is the differing levels of administration commitment?

My second question is regards to your citing that 2% of schools have a "chance" for a national championship as evidence the Purple Powers are bad for D3.  Let's grant that is accurate for this discussion (I'm not sure it is).  Do you really believe that the Purple Powers are responsible for that?  What % of these 239 schools do you figure has a chance to win the National Championship in a playoffs system that includes Wesley, Linfield, St. Thomas, Wabash, and Mary-Hardin Baylor?

I understand your belief that relatively few teams have a legitimate shot at a national championship is bad for D3.  you haven't yet sold me on the idea that the Purple Powers have all that much to do with that.

Maybe you've stated this earlier, but what % do you think would be a healthy % of schools with a legitimate shot at the national championship?

[smedindy]

There are 345 teams that Sagarin rates as playing D-1 hoops. How many have a legit chance of cutting down the nets? It's less than 10%, probably closer to 5%.

Of the 412 (or so) D-3 hoops playing schools, I would say less than 5% have an actual legitimate chance of winning the championship.

[jknezek]

I think you are doing a great job of presenting your points.  However, I'm having a hard time following your logic on two of your arguments.  First, it seems to me that administrations that choose not to adequately resource their football program are part of the point and not "besides the point".  The team's ability to compete nationally is greatly affected by this lack of resourcing.  If administrators chose to allow only 3 practices per week, certainly their decision-making would have far greater impact on that particular team's ability to compete for a national championship than the Purple Powers do. I understand low priority of football by an administration is far more subtle than limiting practices, but I use that to illustrate my point.  Is it not fair to say that part of the reason for the gap between the bottom, say,  200 schools and the Top 10 schools is the differing levels of administration commitment?

My second question is regards to your citing that 2% of schools have a "chance" for a national championship as evidence the Purple Powers are bad for D3.  Let's grant that is accurate for this discussion (I'm not sure it is).  Do you really believe that the Purple Powers are responsible for that?  What % of these 239 schools do you figure has a chance to win the National Championship in a playoffs system that includes Wesley, Linfield, St. Thomas, Wabash, and Mary-Hardin Baylor?

I understand your belief that relatively few teams have a legitimate shot at a national championship is bad for D3.  you haven't yet sold me on the idea that the Purple Powers have all that much to do with that.

Maybe you've stated this earlier, but what % do you think would be a healthy % of schools with a legitimate shot at the national championship?

Thanks! This is a great post! One problem I have is who defines what "choose not to adequately resource their football program are part of the point and not "besides the point"." means? I sure don't. In D3 I'm not sure you can define it. Remember the two pronged mandate that I referred to twice already, "consistent, equitable competition" as well as "infringing on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs." Given these two mandates there is no such thing as adequate or inadequate. Simply preference.

I've said a few times that as long as that two pronged mandate exists, there isn't anything that can really be done. But that doesn't change my viewpoint that what is happening NOW isn't GOOD for D3.

As for what percentage I think would be good, that is certainly going to be preference. My belief is D3 would be better off if you had 10-15% of schools, roughly 25 or so, that were within 1 player on both sides of the ball of being able to win the championship. No idea how to define that other than gut feeling, but I'm pretty sure we aren't there right now. Right now I see two schools that are there, UWW and UMU, and maybe 3 or 4 more that are 2 or 3 impact players from being able to challenge. Wesley, St. Thomas, UMHB are my picks for this year, but in other years that lineup obviously shifts around.

I think one interesting way of thinking about this is when we look at how people poll for D3 there is very little disagreement at the top, but a lot of interchangeability from 6-15 and from 16-RV. With 240 programs, there should be a lot more programs being bantered about at the top through the middle of that list. But that is just my guess.

Hypothetically, if you removed UMU and UWW from D3, which IS NOT something I believe should happen, I do think you open up. Wesley lost to a D3 team during the regular season this year. Wabash lost to 2 D3 teams last year. Linfield lost last year to Cal Lutheran. UMHB lost a regular season game in '09. None of these teams go 4 or 5 years without losing to a D3 team outside the playoffs. While they would still be the best of the best, the situation would have more depth.

As for the last point, I don't blame the Purple Powers for the situation in D3 and I've been on record as saying that repeatedly. I think the Purple Powers are bad for D3 because of the situation they are in, not because their is anything wrong in what they are doing. UWW and UMU are just better. It is up to the rest of D3 to haul them back. You will never hear me say they should move out of D3 or should be put on the same side of the bracket or anything else designed to punish them.

The Purple Powers are simply the end result of the extremely unlevel playing surface in D3. I don't think it is good for D3 to be two teams deep at the championship level, but that isn't UMU or UWW's fault. They just happen to take advantage of the surface significantly better than anyone else.

[jknezek]

There are 345 teams that Sagarin rates as playing D-1 hoops. How many have a legit chance of cutting down the nets? It's less than 10%, probably closer to 5%.

Of the 412 (or so) D-3 hoops playing schools, I would say less than 5% have an actual legitimate chance of winning the championship.

I don't argue about D3 hoops as my argument was not just that football in D3 is top heavy, but that D3 itself allows for dynasties. I already went down that road with soccer a few posts back.

As for D-1, with the success of the mid-majors over the last couple years I think you could have chosen a better example. Butler, GM, VCU and Gonzago have all had outsiders chances and come within a few buckets of playing for or winning the national title. It is also fairly rare in D1 hoops for the 4 Number 1 seeds to make the Final 4. It has only happened once.

I think I might have tried for a different example. Are there 30 teams that can win the D1 NCAA basketball title? Not much of one, but Villanova won as an 8 seed and I believe Syracuse won as a 7. Then again, Linfield won the D3 football title as a low seed, so it can happen. But D3 football doesn't really get the Butler, George Mason, VCU types let alone Richmond winning games in various years as a 15,14,13 and 12 seed.

Credit to Wikipedia for most of the stats on here...

[bleedpurple]

JK,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I appreciate your willingness and ability to parse the issue and recognize that UW-W and Mount are not culpable by simply embracing the opportunity as two of the schools doing an excellent job of pursuing their "special objectives and programs". 

Another couple of questions for you:

Is it possible that you could be attaching too much significance to the most recent era (last 7 years of UW-W/Mount and 16 years of Mount) in terms of negative impact on D3?

Do you believe that John's Wooden's UCLA teams (10 national championships in 12 years and 88 game winning streak) were bad for D1 basketball?

If so, college hoops has made a nice recovery. It seems to be pretty popular these days.  I think many people look back and cherish those memories. I would guess that many former players of schools that played against them have cherished memories and great stories of the time they took on "Wooden's UCLA team".  I have never had huge discussions regarding D1 basketball, but i have never heard the argument that Wooden or those UCLA teams were bad for college basketball.  I'm thinking in the middle of that run, not a very high % of teams had a chance to win the national championship. 

[smedindy]

Of course, it could be argued that because of the way power rankings are constructed, the mid-majors are at a disadvantage in the seeding process. No major conference program will schedule a home-and-home with many of those excellent mid-major programs, so they're kind of stuck at times. But that's another argument.

And yes, I was counting the successful mid-majors. Because some teams who get a 4 seed probably don't have a legit chance by my eyes.

[zach]

For those arguing that this is not bad for D-3, how is it good for D-3? I understand the David vs Goliath concept, but when there's 2 davids it really doesn't help. I am not in favor of punishing Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater for their achievements. They worked hard to get to the top, they should not be punished for that. I have a simple solution that I think would help level the field though. Homefield advantage is huge. What if the final four was played at a neutral location instead of just championship game? I know that Wisconsin-whitewater won a few years ago after having to play on the road, but for the most part both teams have been able to play at home for the whole tournament run. In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's. Putting the game at a neutral site could break up the championship run these two teams have had. It would not punish them and make it impossible for them to advance. Simply it would make it a more level field.

[roocru]

In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's.

Not entirely true. UMHB beat Mount Union in Alliance in 2004 on their way to the Stagg Bowl.

[frank uible]

I'm in favor of football Darwinism.

[jknezek]

For those arguing that this is not bad for D-3, how is it good for D-3? I understand the David vs Goliath concept, but when there's 2 davids it really doesn't help. I am not in favor of punishing Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater for their achievements. They worked hard to get to the top, they should not be punished for that. I have a simple solution that I think would help level the field though. Homefield advantage is huge. What if the final four was played at a neutral location instead of just championship game? I know that Wisconsin-whitewater won a few years ago after having to play on the road, but for the most part both teams have been able to play at home for the whole tournament run. In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's. Putting the game at a neutral site could break up the championship run these two teams have had. It would not punish them and make it impossible for them to advance. Simply it would make it a more level field.

D3 has enough attendance problems without going to neutral site games for the semi-finals. One neutral site game involves enough trouble for the fan bases and since I'm all for engaging the fan bases, the best way to do that is to have the games on campus.

[Raider 68]

For those arguing that this is not bad for D-3, how is it good for D-3? I understand the David vs Goliath concept, but when there's 2 davids it really doesn't help. I am not in favor of punishing Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater for their achievements. They worked hard to get to the top, they should not be punished for that. I have a simple solution that I think would help level the field though. Homefield advantage is huge. What if the final four was played at a neutral location instead of just championship game? I know that Wisconsin-whitewater won a few years ago after having to play on the road, but for the most part both teams have been able to play at home for the whole tournament run. In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's. Putting the game at a neutral site could break up the championship run these two teams have had. It would not punish them and make it impossible for them to advance. Simply it would make it a more level field.

D3 has enough attendance problems without going to neutral site games for the semi-finals. One neutral site game involves enough trouble for the fan bases and since I'm all for engaging the fan bases, the best way to do that is to have the games on campus.

jknezek,

Well said!

[Fannosaurus Rex]

For those arguing that this is not bad for D-3, how is it good for D-3? I understand the David vs Goliath concept, but when there's 2 davids it really doesn't help. I am not in favor of punishing Mount Union and Wisconsin-Whitewater for their achievements. They worked hard to get to the top, they should not be punished for that. I have a simple solution that I think would help level the field though. Homefield advantage is huge. What if the final four was played at a neutral location instead of just championship game? I know that Wisconsin-whitewater won a few years ago after having to play on the road, but for the most part both teams have been able to play at home for the whole tournament run. In the case of Mount Union, they haven't lost at home since the 90's. Putting the game at a neutral site could break up the championship run these two teams have had. It would not punish them and make it impossible for them to advance. Simply it would make it a more level field.

D3 has enough attendance problems without going to neutral site games for the semi-finals. One neutral site game involves enough trouble for the fan bases and since I'm all for engaging the fan bases, the best way to do that is to have the games on campus.

More than home field, I think the bigger advantage the Purples have over everyone else is that for the last two years, their seniors have practiced and played a season and a half (15) more than the seniors on most of the teams they compete against.  Again, my problem isn't with them but with the need to determine a national champ via a five week tournament.

[smedindy]

D3 has the best way to determine a champion. And yes, I think there needs to be a tournament. I loathe the bowl structure before and hate it even more now.