Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?

[emma17]

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.

Mount Union made a decision to become great on the field. They were already great in the classroom. Did they really spend more than other similar schools to get there? No. They are dedicated to succcess at many levels. School management took an active role. (supurb coaches really help) UWW wanted that, so they made the decision to imitate that program. Not just on the field. Not just better facilities. Now you see Franklin, and Oshkosh looking at the system very hard. It takes a lot of people working together to get there for years. Many schools in D3 are not dedicated to this.

D3 is played by kids that get no scholarships to play their sports. That is the only equal thing it has.

Getting scholarships to play at a small private school will still usually cost the kid more money than paying full price at a bigger state school like UWW. If the kids get their school paid for because they are athletes, isn't that athletic scholarships? Isn't that cheating? Calling it one thing that it isn't to stay within the rules is cheating. In D3, the only ones that should get scholarships are students based upon need or achievement in the classroom. That is the great thing I like about D3 - the stupid athletes that are mainly stupid athletes, don't get paid to play their sport. They get financial aid, based upon uniform criteria. If you are a big stupid athlete that gets paid, you go D-1.

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. 

There is a free market aspect to this that can't be regulated out.  Schools decide what they want to be really strong in and it seems to me there are those that feel everything needs to be equalized.  Choice is the equalizer.  Student athletes can choose where they want to go based on the choices that administrations make within their schools. 

[jknezek]

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. I repeat this, because it is astonishing. There are 240 (approximately) D3 football teams. The same 2 have played for the national title for seven straight years and one of those two has played in the vast majority of Stagg Bowls for 20 years.

Why do I think a few restrictions would provide more diversity at the top level? Because divisions that have balancing factors, such as scholarships, do not show the same kind of dynasties. Certainly in football and soccer... Remember this?

Now for some fun. FCS football, 12 of the last 15 championships by different teams, most is 6 by Ga Southern since 1978. d2 football, 10 of 15 different, 5 is most since 1973. d3 football, 5 of 15 different, 10 is most since 1973. Now adjust for the number of schools, FCS 126, D2 146, d3, 239. So FCS, 1 champion per 10.5 teams in the last 15 years, 1 repeat by the top dynasty every 5.5 years. D2, 1 championship per 15 schools, 1 repeat by the top dynasty every 7.5 years. D3, 1 championship per 48 schools, 1 repeat by the top dynasty every 3.8 years. UGGH, D3 has no variety in football compared to the other playoff divisions.

So in a D4 that has some rules regarding important factors such as roster size, money spent per player, etc., there is good evidence to suggest you would not have the same dominance. Would you have good teams and bad? Absolutely. Even the most controlled league in the world, the NFL (or maybe MLS, although the DP rule in MLS certainly causes odd ripples), has dominant teams rise and fall. But they don't last anywhere near as long as they seem to in D3.

As for the argument about D4 eventually breeding D5, that is most likely true so long as the number of colleges and universities keep expanding. As I said, it's a continuation of a very long trend in college athletics.

[smedindy]

Or maybe this era is just anomalous.

[jknezek]

Or maybe this era is just anomalous.

Entirely possible. But you have to loosely define "era" considering UMU's dominance from '93-'11 is 19 out of 39 championships, basically half of the history of D3! That's less of an "era" and more of a long-term type thing! As for the last 7 years, you could define that as an "era", but I'd be interested in how many other analagous (5+ years of the same 2 teams in the championship) eras you could find in modern college athletics with playoff formats.

I'm thinking there won't be too many with either a 15+ year run like UMU's or a 5+ year run like UMU-UWW. I'd imagine there will be very, very few outside of D3, and if any do occur, I'd expect it to be in lower-participation sports like Water Polo or Rowing, not high participation sports like football, m/w basketball, m/w soccer, etc...

If I get some time one of these days I'll try and look it up...

[jknezek]

Just for kicks, UNC won the D1 Women's Soccer championship 15 out of the first 20 times, so that is certainly analagous to UMU's run. However, there is no significant second party at any stretch of that run to play UWW's role.

In D1 field hockey, the ACC has been dominant, however no two teams play at the top every year, just generally two teams from the ACC.

Iowa and Ok St have both had amazing runs in wrestling, but I don't think that is a team playoff format for the championship. Similarly, there have been great runs in D2 most recently by Nebraska-Omaha. D3 looks an awful lot like football, with Wartburg and Augsburg duking it out even longer than UMU and UWW, as one of those two teams has won the title every year since 1995. I will say there are only 95 teams left in D1, 44 in D2, and 106 in D3.

I'm sure there are more. I'm thinking there is a rifle team in Alaska, Kenyon's run in swimming, the PAC 10 has dominated Water Polo, although I think there are only around 80 teams nationwide.

Basically, dominance happens, though not too often in the sports with higher member counts. Even UNC's soccer run has hit road bumps as they have won much less frequently since '99 as more teams entered the sport.

Overall, I still think the UMU-UWU run, and UMU's run overall, is an outlier among team championships. That doesn't mean there aren't other outliers, just not many...

[warhawkguard]

Those runs by the various teams are almost always the result of the school, its commitment, and most importantly, a great coaching staff that is stable and sticks around. Kids are drawn to successful programs. Nobody likes to lose. If school A is coached by a Kehres and school B isn't, chances are school A has a higher chance of landing the top recruit because school A is going to beat school B almost every time. Put a quality staff in at a tiny school and he will get results. It isn't the money in D3 as much as the coaches. UWW was a decent team for many years and had the coolest stadium, like when I played there. It wasn't the money that made them champions. It doesn't hurt though.

As was also discussed, an 18 year old kid isn't usually caring about how cool his Professors are going to be at either school when picking where he wants to play ball. A Psychology 101 prof is pretty much the same at every school. Same content. Perhaps the final degree specialty makes a difference at the end of the day, but if a kid is going to a bigger school there are more options. UWW is bigger and thus has numerous degrees one can work for. I got a Social Studies teaching degree, but they have a pretty big Arts program and their Business program is very prominent. The little private schools cannot offer as much and limit themselves in regards to recuiting potential players. Its just reality.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Or maybe this era is just anomalous.

Entirely possible. But you have to loosely define "era" considering UMU's dominance from '93-'11 is 19 out of 39 championships, basically half of the history of D3! That's less of an "era" and more of a long-term type thing! As for the last 7 years, you could define that as an "era", but I'd be interested in how many other analagous (5+ years of the same 2 teams in the championship) eras you could find in modern college athletics with playoff formats.

I'm thinking there won't be too many with either a 15+ year run like UMU's or a 5+ year run like UMU-UWW. I'd imagine there will be very, very few outside of D3, and if any do occur, I'd expect it to be in lower-participation sports like Water Polo or Rowing, not high participation sports like football, m/w basketball, m/w soccer, etc...

Might not be as rare as you think, although I want to note up front that the reasons for many of these dynasties can somehow be "rationalized" (i.e. sports with lower participation, bygone era with less competition, et cet).

NCAA Division I basketball (men's) - UCLA, 10 titles in 12 years (1964-75)*

*Yes, you can argue that this occurred in an era before the popularity of men's basketball expanded into the hypercompetitive state that currently permeates Division I college basketball.  I don't dispute that.  This will never happen again in men's basketball at the Division I level.  However, it certainly still exists in women's basketball at Division I.

NCAA Division I basketball (women's) - Tennessee, 6 titles in 12 years (1987-98)
NCAA Division I basketball (women's) - Connecticut, 6 titles in 11 years (2000-10)

Moving to lower divisions....

NCAA Division II basketball (men's) - from 1999-2003, four out of five times the final game was Kentucky Wesleyan vs. Metropolitan State

NCAA Division II basketball (women's) - from an 11-year stretch (1989-1999), every championship was won by Delta State, North Dakota, or North Dakota State

NCAA Division III basketball (women's) - WashU won four straight titles from 1998-2001 and has made a total of 8 finals appearances in 13 years

So basketball certainly has seen similar stretches like this before, in multiple divisions, both men's and women's basketball.  None has been quite so pronounced, but one in particular was very close (D-II basketball from 1999-2003).  Now let's move past basketball to another "high-participation" sport (soccer).

NCAA Division II soccer (men's) - Southern Conn State, 7 finals in 12 years (1987-1999)
NCAA Division III soccer (men's) - Messiah, 6 titles in 7 years (2004-2010)

NCAA Division I soccer (women's) - North Carolina, 15 titles in 20 years (1979-1999)
NCAA Division II soccer (women's) - Franklin Pierce, 5 titles in 6 years (1994-1999)
NCAA Division III soccer (women's) - Messiah and Wheaton won every title from 2004-2009, and played one another in the 2011 title game this year.

Moving into more obscure sports, dynasties are quite common, as you suspected.

NCAA Division I wrestling - Iowa, 11 titles in 12 years (1975-86),
NCAA Division I wrestling - Iowa again, 9 titles in 10 years (1991-2000)

NCAA women's lacrosse - Maryland, 9 titles in 10 years (1992-2001)

Basically...dynasties have occurred at one time or another in many collegiate sports, men's and women's alike, at multiple levels.  There are certainly a number of analagous eras (an extended stretch of dominance by the same 1-3 teams), even if none meet the EXACT criteria of 5+ consecutive years with the same teams in the championship game.  The best parallels are probably Division II men's basketball from 1999-2003 (two teams won every title and played each other 4/5 years), Division II women's basketball from 1989-1999 (three teams combined to win all 11 titles), and Division I women's basketball in the 2000's (although a few teams have crashed the party, UConn and Tennessee have generally ruled the sport for 20 years now)

[ExTartanPlayer]

Basically, dominance happens, though not too often in the sports with higher member counts. Even UNC's soccer run has hit road bumps as they have won much less frequently since '99 as more teams entered the sport.

You posted while I was composing the previous post, but look at my stuff re: basketball and soccer.  There actually ARE several stretches in those "high member count" sports with an extended stretch of dominance by anyhwere from 1-3 teams.

The most analagous stretches, IMHO, are Division II men's basketball from 1999-2003 (two schools combining for 5 straight titles and meeting in the finals in four of those games), Division II women's basketball from 1989-1999 (eleven consecutive titles won by three schools), and Division III women's soccer from 2004-2011 (two schools combining for 7 of 8 titles and often playing one another in the title game).

[emma17]

There is no doubt the UWW - Mt run is out of the ordinary. But it will end.
I still don't think the statistical comparisons to other divisions in terms of percentage of total teams competing for the title are all that telling. Again, IMO there are fewer programs at the D3 level that have national title aspirations. At scholarship schools I believe a great percentage want national results to justify the expense.

[jknezek]

The most analagous stretches, IMHO, are Division II men's basketball from 1999-2003 (two schools combining for 5 straight titles and meeting in the finals in four of those games), Division II women's basketball from 1989-1999 (eleven consecutive titles won by three schools), and Division III women's soccer from 2004-2011 (two schools combining for 7 of 8 titles and often playing one another in the title game).

A couple things, I don't see the D2 men's bball run you see. I see Kentucky Wesleyan making 5 straight finals, but winning only 2. In that frame, Metro State won 2, Northeastern State won 1. Certainly a good run by Kentucky Wesleyan, but not the same level of dominance we see in D3 football. The length by 1 team, KW, is nothing near what UMU has accomplished, while the dominance by two teams, only ran for 4 years. Four versus seven is very significant.

I see North Dakota ran roughshod over D2 women's basketball from 93-99, but they played a different team in the finals every year. Again, nowhere near approaching UMU for length or UMU vs UWW for total dominance over a period.

As for the D3 sports, that actually would play into my argument. I've said D3 lends itself to dynasties, and not just in football. Messiah has certainly had an amazing run.

To be honest, I think UCLA is too far back in history for men's bball. It was a totally different time in regards to competition and recruiting. What they accomplished is amazing, but I wouldn't hold it out for this argument. I also think they played a different foil in every championship year. So again, a good streak, but only 1/2 as good as UMU (although more consistent with every appearance!), but no UWW equivalent.

I also agree UNC looks like UMU in the early years of women's soccer. But that, to me, looks like the best example of such long-term dominance. Not much of a UWW type challenger every year, either.

As for D1 women's basketball, you could combine UConn and TN and come up with the equivalent of UMU. Unfortunately, over the span of '95 through '10, about the same length as UMU, they both rose and fell and only met in the finals 4 times over a 9 year span. Less than half the time is a far cry from 7 in a row!

I also admit D1 wrestling is a very good analogy, as is D2 wrestling. But these are not playoff tournaments.

Lacrosse is always interesting, but with relatively low participation. In fact, before 2001 it wasn't a D1 classification, it was a national collegiate championship. In 2011 there were only 80 or so teams total, there were fewer at the time of Maryland's run.

Basically I'd go with the wrestlings and D1 soccer. There is a UMU type dynasty in each, less of a two team domination for the better part of a decade. Very unusual. Especially since these are clearly very rare events.

[Gregory Sager]

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.

[jknezek]

Yes, I read through the discussion. There was a lot to flesh out and it did fail in that form. I don't think, should a D4 movement reappear in the future, it will be oriented quite the same, nor do I think it would have to be to attract the same schools plus the necessary additions to make it a reality.

However, the general concept of having a much more tightly controlled competition will be at the root of it. How you define that control will be the devil in the details. At the moment, however, with no discussion on the table for the foreseable future, all those details can be bandied about.

[ExTartanPlayer]

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.

Thanks for that summary, Greg.

In some ways, I really appreciate what the D4 "mission" would represent.  Much has been said on here about the "commitment" to winning that UMU, UWW, and other schools have made, and many have alluded to the financial portion of that.*  In that respect, shouldn't there be a place for schools that want to follow an old-time philosophy?  When Harvard, Yale, and the other ancient football squads started playing in the 1800's, they were just a team full of guys drawn from the student population playing against one another for sport.

*Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I am NOT complaining about how good the Purple Powers are or suggesting that the move up a level.  I love the Powers' dominance and rooting for someone to topple them.

I suppose one could argue that, if fielding a highly competitive squad is not enough of a priority for the school to put some money into the football program, the school(s) in question should just sponsor a club sport and/or intramurals.  There's certainly some truth to that. 

One solution that (presumably) has been discussed before is that any schools who felt REALLY strongly about such a move could form their own NESCAC-like conference and institute the same rules described above (i.e. limitations on recruiting, coaching salaries, overall budget, and no postseason play).  IMHO, this is why D4 isn't really necessary.

[emma17]

No offense taken Gregory and thanks for the clarification on D4.  Given your summary, IMO the way to prevent possible national dominance would be elimination of post season games.

Which leads me into agreement with Extartan- just set up NESCAC type conferences.

Although I still believe certain schools within this quasi D4 set up will rise to power.
Football is competition and as long as scores are kept, the humans will look for ways to be the best.

[smedindy]

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.

As it is, NESCAC football is more of a varsity club sport.