Are the Purple Powers bad for D3?

[jknezek]

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.

This is a tough one for me. The Purple Powers have what little national media attention they get because they play in the Stagg. If more variety played in the Stagg, more teams would have that exposure, it would be better for D3. To be honest, I think Coe is getting the most bang for its buck right now nationally with Fred Jackson.

As for having better faculty, the better your school is, the more your diploma is worth. Most alumni get a lot more out of a school improving academically and gaining a national reputation for learning than they ever will for a D3 football team.

Finally, the schools aren't businesses. They are non-profits. They aren't allowed to make a profit. For profit schools are a different animal altogether, but I don't think there are many in D3 and I can't think of one of the top of my head.

The NCAA is like high school, except its more flexible. Instead of being forced to compete with your "size", you get to compete with the level you feel comfortable. Want to be big time? Play D1. Want to offer athletics to complement your students growth and potential? Well, D3 is a good option. Want to offer scholarships to entice athletes but not spend the big bucks? Try D2.

If the NCAA were really like high school, UWW WOULD be playing D1 or D2, along with the rest of the WIAC and parts of the NJAC and others. D1 and D2 are the traditional homes of the non-flagship state institutions, they represent a very small percentage of D3 schools.

I've said multiple times I don't advocate moving UWW or UMU or anyone else who plays by D3 rules, but you have to make arguments that work with the actual facts. D3 is a universe of teams with, essentially, small-time athletic programs that complement the schools and help draw in students. That is the purpose of D3. If you have a different purpose in mind, you are in the wrong division.

My argument for D4 is simply that there are diverging views on how athletics should be handled in D3 these days. There are plenty of teams in D3 for a split, and should the option of D4 emerge there are probably good reasons for it depending on how it is structured.

[HScoach]

^ unfortunately I have to agree with the statement about SOME colleges.  Back in the late 90's or early 00's (I can't remember exactly which year) I had a kid that didn't start at OT until his senior year at our medium sized high school (Div 3 out of 6 in Ohio) that finished 4-6.  However he went to Hiram and was a 4 year starter on their O-line. 

I realize Hiram isn't a juggernaut, but seriously.  How can a kid that barely cracked the starting lineup at an average HS be an instant starter in college.  There are a few college programs in Ohio such as Wilmington, Hiram and Oberlin that I firmly believe would lose to some of the better Ohio HS teams.    Don't know about in other states as I only see playoff teams from outside the OAC, but I'd have to imagine they exist elsewhere too.

[Gregory Sager]

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.

That's not how D3 works. In fact, it's the opposite of how D3 works. This is the division that has the highest requirement in terms of the mandatory minimum of sports offered within all of small-college sports -- some combination that adds up to 12 sports will now be required of D3 coed schools. If you want to tailor your athletic department around a few select sports in which you think you can compete, you don't join D3. You join the NAIA or the USCAA or the NCCAA, none of which has a mandatory minimum. Or you go to D2, which has a mandatory minimum of 10 sports.

D3 is also the level that has the highest student participation rate. The percentage of students on campus that are varsity athletes is far, far higher on the D3 level than it is at D2 or D1. In part that's because most D3 schools are much smaller than the schools at the scholarship levels, but it's also in part because sports are considered to be enrollment drivers by D3 administrators. As smeds said, D3 schools are adding football, not dropping the sport, in large part because it brings male students on campus in an era in which colleges and universities are growing ever more feminized in terms of their male:female ratios.

It's not at all obvious that "some schools would be better off if they focused on a few sports and didn't try to offer one of each." That's not the D3 ethos at all.

How many dropped football over the years?

Again, as smeds said, on balance D3 schools are adding football right now rather than dropping football, primarily for male-enrollment purposes but also because there is frequently sufficient demand within various collegiate constituencies (faculty excepted ) to add football as a quality-of-campus-life issue.

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.

I heartily disagree with the implication that it's easier to build a national powerhouse in cross-country or soccer than it is in football. As has been demonstrated in this thread, those sports have serious logjams at the top within D3 as well, just like football. It's almost always the same cast of characters; in D3 men's cross-country, you can see here how North Central has completely dominated the sport, with major long-term national success by the likes of Calvin, UW-Oshkosh, UW-LaCrosse, and Williams (and now good short-term success by Haverford, as well). In men's soccer, Messiah is the 400-pound gorilla, but you know that every year the topmost tier will include some combination of Ohio Wesleyan, Trinity (TX), Calvin, St. Lawrence, and Stevens.

[smedindy]

^ unfortunately I have to agree with the statement about SOME colleges.  Back in the late 90's or early 00's (I can't remember exactly which year) I had a kid that didn't start at OT until his senior year at our medium sized high school (Div 3 out of 6 in Ohio) that finished 4-6.  However he went to Hiram and was a 4 year starter on their O-line. 

I realize Hiram isn't a juggernaut, but seriously.  How can a kid that barely cracked the starting lineup at an average HS be an instant starter in college.  There are a few college programs in Ohio such as Wilmington, Hiram and Oberlin that I firmly believe would lose to some of the better Ohio HS teams.    Don't know about in other states as I only see playoff teams from outside the OAC, but I'd have to imagine they exist elsewhere too.

A. Not Oberlin, not now. You haven't been paying attention to the recent bunch of Yeomen.

B. Sometimes kids get better as they mature. You should know that. Wabash has players that weren't three-year starters in HS that make it four-year starters in college. That kids' experience at Hiram may be solely attributable to his particular circumstance at that particular time. Without lots of data, you can't draw ANY conclusions.

C. I am sure that loaded HS programs where many of the kids get D-1 scholarships may compete well with the lower level D-3. But again, the TYPICAL HS program is miles below the TYPICAL D-3 program.

[D O.C.]

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.

How about focus on the guy in front of you or make sure every thing is executed as practiced? How about focusing on the teammates? Enthusiasm comes from within by doing the very best you can. IMHO

[Jonny Utah]

^ unfortunately I have to agree with the statement about SOME colleges.  Back in the late 90's or early 00's (I can't remember exactly which year) I had a kid that didn't start at OT until his senior year at our medium sized high school (Div 3 out of 6 in Ohio) that finished 4-6.  However he went to Hiram and was a 4 year starter on their O-line. 

I realize Hiram isn't a juggernaut, but seriously.  How can a kid that barely cracked the starting lineup at an average HS be an instant starter in college.  There are a few college programs in Ohio such as Wilmington, Hiram and Oberlin that I firmly believe would lose to some of the better Ohio HS teams.    Don't know about in other states as I only see playoff teams from outside the OAC, but I'd have to imagine they exist elsewhere too.

Funny you bring something like this up.  At the high school I coach at we had a kid who ended up being a 2nd string linebacker when he was a senior and got some average playing time.  I coach a top 20-50 program in Massachusetts (top 10 this year!) which would probably be a 200-500 program in Ohio I would assume.  Anyway, after he graduates he comes back to one of our HS games with some warmups of an ECFC team and tells us (the coaching staff) that he is starting there.  We kind of had the feeling that he was trying to tell us that we didn't know what we were doing not starting him in HS when he can start in college.  Anyway we didn't really want to get into it with him there and did some research and found out that although he didn't start (it looked like he was 3rd string) he was getting some playing time.

And another interesting thing smed brings up and I'm interested to hear if you have had a similar experience.  I can think of 2 instances in my 10 years of coaching where a linemen as a sophmore can be one of the worst athletes a human being can see, but then transforms himself into a decent lineman as a senior.  Maybe not d3 football good, but decent.

[HScoach]

Over time, yes, the kids can definitely change.  But to start the opener his freshman year at college speaks volumes.

And I retract Oberlin.  Wilma and Hiram still apply now.  Oberlin did then.

[HScoach]

How many dropped football over the years?

Again, as smeds said, on balance D3 schools are adding football right now rather than dropping football, primarily for male-enrollment purposes but also because there is frequently sufficient demand within various collegiate constituencies (faculty excepted ) to add football as a quality-of-campus-life issue.

On the subject of adding or cutting football programs, I offer the recent article from AFCA:



Mind That Your Football Program Matters
Mike Podoll, Associate Publisher/Editor-In-Chief – This is AFCA

When Larry Kehres led the University of Mount Union to the Amos Alonzo Stagg Bowl victory in 1993, which gave the Raiders their first NCAA Division III National Championship in front of a nationally televised audience, the game's color commentator made a rousing statement as the final seconds ticked off the clock, emphatically stating, "And the tiny school in Alliance, Ohio, with an enrollment of 1,000 students ... has just won the national championship!"
Eighteen years later, with more than 300 gridiron victories and 10 national championships under Kehres' belt, the school in Alliance, Ohio, isn't exactly tiny these days. Today, enrollment hovers around 2,200 students, which is a 220% rise in school numbers since Kehres' football program first put its stamp on the national college football landscape.

Looking at college tuition and expenses data for Mount Union as published by the CollegeData.com (the site is run by 1st Financial Bank USA), the difference between 2011 school enrollment numbers of 2,200 as compared to the 1,000-student enrollment in 1993, represents a difference of approximately $42 million more in total gross revenue. Furthermore, those numbers are strictly enrollment related and tied to student tuition and expenses. They do not factor in revenue generated by the football program or financial help the school receives from alumni and boosters. In other words, Mount Union's success is a big deal in every sense of the word.

It's impossible to quantify just what sort of impact that Mount Union's success on the football field – and the national exposure it derives from being an annual college football powerhouse – has had on school enrollment. Or whether there is a tangible correlation between winning football championships and the growth in student numbers. In fact, it would be completely unscientific and inaccurate to attach a "cause-and-effect label" on Mount Union's football success as tied to growth in school enrollment.

But that being said, winning championships, running a clean program, playing games on ESPN, building a rabid Raider fan-base in football hungry Ohio, having former Mount Union players become big-names in the NFL (think Pierre Garcon in 2010 Super Bowl) and earning national notoriety in college football year-in and year out, can't hurt school enrollment numbers, right?

DIDN'T HURT
Kehres, who's also Mount Union's athletic director and a 9-time AFCA Coach of the Year award winner, as being a former AFCA President (who completed his term in 2010), deflects personal credit for the growth in school enrollment and dismisses any insinuated correlation as doing the school administration and school's marketing efforts to recruit new students a severe disservice.
"Mount Union has worked hard to grow the school on its own. We've added new academic programs, built new facilities and raised lots of money," says Kehres. "Just because we won some football championships is not the reason we've done that ... but it certainly didn't hurt."
Rather than a recruiting tool, PR machine or a revenue generator, the true role of a football program, according to Kehres, is to serve as a reflection of the school's big-picture mission statement for educating and preparing students for future success in life, and to cultivate positive, productive members of society.

"If your football program is helping student-athletes to become effective professionals and effective family members, then you are helping your institution achieve its mission," says Kehres. "The degrees to which an institution can demonstrate that it is achieving its mission, offers proof to potential students that the school is a good place to receive an education and that's when the school's enrollment numbers truly begin to rise. As a football program, we're simply a component part of the big picture of the academic institution and we need to remember that."

BE IN LOCK STEP
Kehres adds that football coaches must get in line with the mission and values of their institution. "My job as the athletic director and football coach is to contribute positively to my school's mission statement," he says. "Winning games is one way to do it. But if you're winning games, yet not producing successful graduates, then you're not really contributing to the mission statement of your institution. Whenever you hear of a big-time football program that gets into some sort of trouble, you invariably hear someone say that the program needs to get back into line with the guidelines of the institution."

So then what happens if a football program perfectly mirrors the mission statement of the school and continuously displays a high standard of excellence on the gridiron? Things like Mount Union happen. And that, my friends, is called a win-win scenario.

[emma17]

By the way, I'm not so sure this discussion doesn't mirror the political divide we have in this country. "You're making too much money- something must be changed". 

[Gomer Pyle]

Not all are created equally. Never will be.   The strength of the program pulls in the better players.  That being said, either the schools program improves or their motto is ," wait till next year" and for some, that never happens.

[AO]

just got back from Dallas and the FCS championship game.  There were a lot of positive things happening for NDSU, before during and after the game.  Back in their d2 days they would get 1500 to go to Alabama to watch the title game.  Now, they're selling out 20,000 seat stadiums 1000 miles from Fargo.  How could you not a want a piece of that success if you're UWW?  What if they take it one step further like Boise did? 

[smedindy]

The cost of becoming D-1AA in all sports way outweighs the benefit.

[AO]

The cost of becoming D-1AA in all sports way outweighs the benefit.

"i couldn't disagree more", says the Dakota schools.

[smedindy]

The Dakota schools are not congruent to the Wisconsin - Whitewater situation. The Dakota schools didn't move from non-scholarship to scholarship. The Dakota schools also did this for basketball, it seems, since they all wanted a piece of the NCAA D-1 hoops tournament at some point.

UW- W would have to totally blow up the mindset now at UWW, raise scholarship monies for all programs, break their current schedule contracts, ruin bonds and rivalries with other UW - branch schools and probably a bunch of bridges in state government.

It's not feasible, nor practical, nor ever ever going to happen.

[AO]

The Dakota schools are not congruent to the Wisconsin - Whitewater situation. The Dakota schools didn't move from non-scholarship to scholarship. The Dakota schools also did this for basketball, it seems, since they all wanted a piece of the NCAA D-1 hoops tournament at some point.

UW- W would have to totally blow up the mindset now at UWW, raise scholarship monies for all programs, break their current schedule contracts, ruin bonds and rivalries with other UW - branch schools and probably a bunch of bridges in state government.

It's not feasible, nor practical, nor ever ever going to happen.

NDSU blew up their rivalry with UND and fought off the state legislature in their move.  As for the money required, It is a shame you can't move up in football without having to pay for a bunch of other non-revenue scholarships, but we'd much rather be politically correct.  It is a pretty significant jump from DII to D-1, I would be curious as to what Whitewater might have to raise to make the jump from D3-d-1.  I'd imagine their budget is one of the bigger ones in D3 to begin with.  They might be forced to do what Nebraska-Omaha did, and jettison some male sports along the way so that they can pay for the transition and still comply with title IX.