Emergent programs vs Tradition-laden powerhouses

[PaulNewman]

I was going to post this in the new Haverford thread but made more sense to expand the discussion.

The challenge for teams like Haverford and Kenyon is how they will handle new and very high expectations.  Last year's Haverford team (albeit maybe a little stronger) reminded me of the 2013 Kenyon squad that seemingly came out of nowhere before losing in the instant-classic Sweet 16 tilt with national champ Messiah.  The 2014 Kenyon team then had enormous expectations, mostly met with a phenomenal season but a bitter ending on the home pitch against the arch-rival.  Haverford will be saddled with that level of pressure this season.

This made me think about the dynamics, in terms of pressure, for emerging programs vs traditional powerhouses.  I think the edge goes to the traditionals as they have a deep, built-in expectation for a high level of success.  The Messiahs, OWUs, Wheatons, Loras's, Williams, etc and to some extent the Oneontas, Montclairs, Trinitys and Amhersts are already over the hump as opposed to the pressure of trying to get over a hump and then sustain consistently high performance over a number of years.  Watching some really good emergent programs trying to get over the hump really sheds light on the greatness of programs that can stay at or near the top for 10, 20, and 20+ years.  Having a good 3-5 year run (recently I think of schools like Tufts, F&M, Brandeis, Kenyon, etc) is easier to achieve than a run of 10+ years, with the caveat that during the 3-5 year run those schools may feel more pressure to take advantage of what may feel like the best opportunity they are going to have for a long time. 

Of course the long-term hope for schools on a good 3-5 year run is to see if they can become one of the schools on a 10+ years run.  I think several schools have a decent chance to graduate to the top tier in terms of program success longevity.  Tufts stands out for me at the moment, as they've already won a  national title, and because the school has become wildly popular so recruiting should remain strong.  The biggest risk for Tufts might be whether Shapiro ends up moving along at some point (like if an Ivy or similar academically strong D1 job comes his way).

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

I was going to post this in the new Haverford thread but made more sense to expand the discussion.

The challenge for teams like Haverford and Kenyon is how they will handle new and very high expectations.  Last year's Haverford team (albeit maybe a little stronger) reminded me of the 2013 Kenyon squad that seemingly came out of nowhere before losing in the instant-classic Sweet 16 tilt with national champ Messiah.  The 2014 Kenyon team then had enormous expectations, mostly met with a phenomenal season but a bitter ending on the home pitch against the arch-rival.  Haverford will be saddled with that level of pressure this season.

This made me think about the dynamics, in terms of pressure, for emerging programs vs traditional powerhouses.  I think the edge goes to the traditionals as they have a deep, built-in expectation for a high level of success.  The Messiahs, OWUs, Wheatons, Loras's, Williams, etc and to some extent the Oneontas, Montclairs, Trinitys and Amhersts are already over the hump as opposed to the pressure of trying to get over a hump and then sustain consistently high performance over a number of years.  Watching some really good emergent programs trying to get over the hump really sheds light on the greatness of programs that can stay at or near the top for 10, 20, and 20+ years.  Having a good 3-5 year run (recently I think of schools like Tufts, F&M, Brandeis, Kenyon, etc) is easier to achieve than a run of 10+ years, with the caveat that during the 3-5 year run those schools may feel more pressure to take advantage of what may feel like the best opportunity they are going to have for a long time. 

Of course the long-term hope for schools on a good 3-5 year run is to see if they can become one of the schools on a 10+ years run.  I think several schools have a decent chance to graduate to the top tier in terms of program success longevity.  Tufts stands out for me at the moment, as they've already won a  national title, and because the school has become wildly popular so recruiting should remain strong.  The biggest risk for Tufts might be whether Shapiro ends up moving along at some point (like if an Ivy or similar academically strong D1 job comes his way).

Agreed. Will be interesting to see the progression of these up and coming schools that have had some short term success!

On a side note, thoughts on a team like Messiah? Will they get back to being Messiah again or will they continue to struggle, by their standards, like they did last season?

[luckylefty]

The long term schools also have a tradition of supporting athletics institutionally.  Sometimes you will see a 3-5 year bump, and then it starts to backslide.  Why?  Very often its because people within the institution make a decision that supporting an individual sport or multiple sports with the things they need to be powerhouses isn't worth it.  A full time head coach, a full time assistant, state of the art facilities, actual real recruiting budgets, wiggle room with financial aid.  Schools are hurting, and many of them are making the decision that whether the soccer team wins 15 games, or 8 games, the school will still have the same number of kids on the roster that are paying the same amount of tuition.

Messiah will get higher then they were last year, whether they can get back to where they were in their hayday is the real question.  There is too much institutional support for them not to be better then they were.

[Saint of Old]

It is all about a good Coach.
@ the pro level we see it all the time.
New Coach comes in, new philosophy a few of his own pieces and WALA.

Once you find the formula it is simply rinse and repeat.

It is also about institutional support, but said coach also knows how to get the institution to support his vision as well.

Coaches like Russo/Durocher/Bean/Brandt/Dr. J could take over a sub 500 team today and in 5 years they will be in a final 4.
It is simply because they have their formula in their back pocket and can rinse and repeat at will.

It sounds like fantasy, but it is very real.

[luckylefty]

Put any of those guys at an institution that is a total mess and doesn't support athletics, and they would never ever make a final 4. The team would most certainly be better, but let's not pretend like those guys weren't coaching with incredible supports. That is not in any way a criticism of them, but there is schools out there paying head coaches part time $7,000 a year. Those guys wouldn't make a final 4 in a situation like that. Zero chance.

[Ryan Harmanis]

The great coaches earned institutional support.  I don't think schools just decide they want to be great in sport X and that's the sport they throw support behind.  They bring in coaches for all of the sports over the years, and the sports/coaches that show they're capable of being elite get the institutional support.  (I suppose some schools may have kneecapped good coaches by withholding support, but if that were the case you'd expect them to go elsewhere).

Sure, some schools fully fund everything, and there are funding differences between schools, but it's an upward cycle thing.  The coach proves he can win, he gets better support, which lets him recruit better players and improve the team, which garners even more support, and so on.  Then once the program is consistently elite, there's an alumni base in place that's invested (both time and $$$) in keeping the program there.  And there's an institutional advantage because the program gets media and momentum from being consistently competitive.

I do agree that if you're a coach at a school that is elite in other sports, you might be fighting an uphill battle.  Best example I can point to is OWU basketball, which was decent during the latter 2000s and has now taken off.  Same coach for years and years, had to slowly build while taking a backseat to soccer, lacrosse, even track, but is now reaching a nationally competitive level.  The key, as Saint pointed out, is the coach.

And even more than the coach, it's the coach's recruiting.  That's where the programs that sustain 10+ years of national relevance are able to do it consistently.  Schools that have 2, 3, 4 years of success and then drop off, it's usually because they could only pull a couple of good/great recruiting classes in a row, and then once those kids graduated, the program fell off.  Since I've been involved at OWU, for example, Jay and his assistants always seem to pull off a big class right when they need it - and this year will (hopefully) be a prime example.

The best teams I've seen at OWU (and Messiah, and Wheaton, etc.) are teams that have 2-3 excellent recruiting classes all playing together.  So to do that over 10+ years you need a good/great class, at a minimum, every other year.  That's what Messiah is dealing with - they graduated one of the best classes in D3 history, and are struggling to replace all of that production over a few recruiting cycles.

[Shooter McGavin]

The great coaches earned institutional support.  I don't think schools just decide they want to be great in sport X and that's the sport they throw support behind.  They bring in coaches for all of the sports over the years, and the sports/coaches that show they're capable of being elite get the institutional support.  (I suppose some schools may have kneecapped good coaches by withholding support, but if that were the case you'd expect them to go elsewhere).

Sure, some schools fully fund everything, and there are funding differences between schools, but it's an upward cycle thing.  The coach proves he can win, he gets better support, which lets him recruit better players and improve the team, which garners even more support, and so on.  Then once the program is consistently elite, there's an alumni base in place that's invested (both time and $$$) in keeping the program there.  And there's an institutional advantage because the program gets media and momentum from being consistently competitive.

I do agree that if you're a coach at a school that is elite in other sports, you might be fighting an uphill battle.  Best example I can point to is OWU basketball, which was decent during the latter 2000s and has now taken off.  Same coach for years and years, had to slowly build while taking a backseat to soccer, lacrosse, even track, but is now reaching a nationally competitive level.  The key, as Saint pointed out, is the coach.

And even more than the coach, it's the coach's recruiting.  That's where the programs that sustain 10+ years of national relevance are able to do it consistently.  Schools that have 2, 3, 4 years of success and then drop off, it's usually because they could only pull a couple of good/great recruiting classes in a row, and then once those kids graduated, the program fell off.  Since I've been involved at OWU, for example, Jay and his assistants always seem to pull off a big class right when they need it - and this year will (hopefully) be a prime example.

The best teams I've seen at OWU (and Messiah, and Wheaton, etc.) are teams that have 2-3 excellent recruiting classes all playing together.  So to do that over 10+ years you need a good/great class, at a minimum, every other year.  That's what Messiah is dealing with - they graduated one of the best classes in D3 history, and are struggling to replace all of that production over a few recruiting cycles.

I agree Ryan. What I have been preaching as well but somehow get blamed for giving out negative karma by NCAC because that was my viewpoint. Which I did not give out any karma except + recently. But as I digress, I am glad that yourself, MAF, and Saint of Old agree on what I was trying to get at before. +K for you.

[luckylefty]

Sure, some schools fully fund everything, and there are funding differences between schools, but it's an upward cycle thing.  The coach proves he can win, he gets better support, which lets him recruit better players and improve the team, which garners even more support, and so on.  Then once the program is consistently elite, there's an alumni base in place that's invested (both time and $$$) in keeping the program there.  And there's an institutional advantage because the program gets media and momentum from being consistently competitive.

There are a lot of points I agree with you on in your post, but I disagree with you here.  There are programs where coaches prove they can win, and the school still will not invest in them. 

Some schools are operating with one full time head coach, others have a part timer, others have a full time head coach and a full time assistant.  That might not sound like a big deal to you, but its gigantic.  Some of the schools that are winning, or having moderately successful seasons will never get invested in..Why?  Because the institution has decided that a 8-7-2 team brings in just as much revenue as a 14-3 team.  Same amount of kids, same amount of tuition payers etc etc.  You could take two average coaches, make one head coach and the other his full time assistant, and they would be able to have more success over someone who is a very very good coach but doing it part time.  The name of this game is recruiting, and that comes down to how much time can you invest in interacting with kids.

Division 3 teams that make runs in the national tournament rarely ever get much exposure from it on a regional level.  Yeah there are great article on d3soccer.com and some other soccer related websites, but how many kids who are planning to be an engineer and never played soccer a day in their life head to d3soccer.com?

Sports like basketball and football get more regional exposure, the public quite frankly cares about those sports more and therefore you get on the radio and in the paper every day.

With the downturn colleges are taking we're going to see more and more schools look to see where they can make cuts, and some of them are going to choose to do so on the athletics front.

[Ryan Harmanis]

Sounds like we're on the same page.  I understand the full-time, part-time, assistant aspect of it.  I'm just of the opinion that if the coach has the potential to reach the top echelon of coaches in Division III, they'll either (a) persuade the school to fund it better or (b) leave that school.  It's like any other job, if you prove you're capable of producing at a level higher than where you're currently at you're going to look for a promotion (or more funding for your soccer program) or you're going to go somewhere else. 

So while I agree that some schools make the decision that they won't fund the team adequately, I think we both agree those schools with part-time coaches who don't have the time or resources to recruit are not going to compete.  But it's a self-selection process.  I doubt there are many situations where you have great coaches who are only being held down by funding - at least not for more than a season or two.  And a great coach who coaches part-time is not a "great" DIII coach by my standards because they're unable to put in the requisite time.  Put another way, Coach K would not be a great basketball coach if he couldn't devote enough time to it.

If we think about it in terms of scores out of 10 on characteristics of a program - a grade for coaching, a grade for recruiting, a grade for facilities, a grade for academics, a grade for location/campus, etc. - I'd put the most weight on recruiting and coaching by a mile.  To be an elite program, you need probably an 8-10 in both categories.  But I do not think you need 8s in any of the other categories.  You can reach that upper echelon as a program even if the rest of it is a 5.  It might be a little more difficult, but if you have a great coach who has adequate (if not great) support, you're going to get there.  The inverse is not true.  You're not going to reach an elite level even if you have 10/10 in academics, campus, funding, etc. if your coach is a 5 and recruits at a 6.  There is, I'll admit, a chicken and egg problem.  Better campus, academics, etc. makes recruiting easier and whatnot.  But you still have to be a great coach and have the personality to get players to want to play for you or else it's all irrelevant.

As an aside, I've been able to interview 7 Final Four coaches over the last 2 years, and the one thing that stands out about them is that I left each conversation thinking that those are coaches players would play hard for.  And that's often not true in sports.  I would run through a wall for Jay Martin, and I have the feeling that the players at Amherst, Loras, etc. would do the same for their coaches.  Those guys don't need a 10/10 on funding to be successful, and coaches that can inspire that in their players probably can win the behind-the-scenes funding and support battles necessary to sustain success at the DIII level.  So maybe the support starts at a 5/10, and then after a few years they persuade the school to bump it to a 6, then a 7, then an 8.  Each bump in other support makes the recruiting part of it easier, and that's the cycle of success I was thinking about.  If the school never bumps things up, then maybe after a period of time the coach leaves, or doesn't put in the same amount of effort because it's harder to succeed with less funding and support.  But I still think it all starts and ends with the coach.

Bottom line, I think what we're both getting at is that you need a good coach and an elite recruiter, but you also need a school that's on board and gives the coach the platform to be successful.  If a school has the necessary support, then a great coach will have success.

Also - fun discussion.

[PaulNewman]

Great posts, RH.

These aren't easy discussions to have online because of the difficulty of accounting for nuance and if one highlights one variable there is an easy assumption/presumption that the poster is unaware of others.  There are many variables and the mix of variables that may work at one school aren't necessarily the same mix for others.  Schools have different strengths, different appeals, different weaknesses.  A great coach no doubt figures out how to maximize the strengths at his or her school, or moves on, or becomes comfortable with mediocrity.  One of my points is that different schools do have real differences.  If Jay Martin tells admissions at OWU he needs to bring in 18 kids next year I'm sure he'll pretty much get what he wants.  There is not a chance that Rineer is going to get 18 kids in one year at Haverford.  Now, could he possibly get 10-12 kids after winning a couple of national titles and putting Haverford soccer at the center of how Haverford is defined?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  He's still not going to get 18 no matter what.  Can he get 6-7 really good players?  I would guess so, but he better have a 90% hit rate on those recruits panning out or exceeding expectations, and he better be very fortunate in terms of injuries and retention.

Great coaches by the standards we are talking about, for starters, are rare.  We can cite the chicken and egg thing, but very few coaches are going to stay at one program for 15-20+ years.  There's a reason why Jay Martin has more wins than any coach in any division.  All credit to him for creating and maintaining a place of excellence where he was happy to stay at for 30+ years.

Almost every great program in all sports can be linked to a coach (especially when talking about dynasty-level programs)....Lombardi, Belichick, Auerbach, Bear Bryant, Rupp, Knight, Coach K, Phil Jackson, Wooden, Woody Hayes,  etc, etc.  I would argue that the greatest programs are the ones that thrive long after the legends leave.  That's true of Alabama football, Ohio State football, UK basketball, UNC basketball, etc...even those kind of programs had dips but the programs developed an identity so huge that they survived the dips.  UCLA and Indiana in bball have remained good programs but they are not what they were.  The ultimate greatness of a program may be its ability to thrive well beyond whoever was most responsible for getting the tradition started.

Is there any doubt that the success of Williams soccer was inseparable from Russo?  Now we'll see what happens to that program over the next 5-10 years.  What will happen to OWU once Martin steps down?  Will the alumni base that RH reflects so well lead to coaches and continued success on the same or a similar level?  Just raising those questions tells us how great those coaches are.  There were recent coaches at Colby and Bates for 25+ years.  Was their relative mediocrity a result of their coaching or meager institutional supports or simply competition that was too stiff?  As I mentioned above, what is the likelihood that Shapiro will stay at Tufts for the next 10 or more years?  As long as he does stay I would expect Tufts to remain at or near the top tier.  Then there is a Coven at Brandeis who won a national title early in his career, went through many years of relative mediocrity and in the last 5 years has overseen a major program resurgence. 

Certainly the 7 coaches RH interviewed for the Final Four all are impressive.  What if there had been a different 7?  Would the same be true?  There's a bit of a tautology or self-fulfilling prophesy angle there.  You get to the Final Four and most of us are going to think you are doing something right.  I think there are doing something right, but we're talking about a sport where a single play or a single moment can be the difference between moving on or not moving on.  What if a team has a breakthrough and gets on the radar and becomes hugely popular for recruits as a destination for reasons that create a draw beyond the charisma and coaching brilliance of a single coach?  There is no question that success tends to breed success.  And this takes me back to the theme of emergent programs.  5-6 years ago I knew about F&M as a school but very little about its soccer program.  If I had a kid coming through now that F&M soccer is very much on the radar that school might well be a must visit.  My question is whether a F&M and similar emergent schools will be a must visit for very good recruits 10-15 years from today.  Clearly it's not easy to stay on top.  Just when it looked like F&M was developing a real stranglehold on the Centennial here comes Haverford down the Pike.  As lastguy noted, the Centennial has been quite diverse in terms of regular season and tourney title winners over the past 6-8 years.

Here's another related question.  What do the traditional powers do (or do they do anything?) in terms of adjustments in response to up-and-comers?  Will Williams and Amherst adjust to the threat of Tufts and reassert dominance?  Will Tufts push itself on to the same podium going forward?  We come full circle back to whether Shapiro will stay long-term and/or whether what he creates there will be so strong as to facilitate coaches after him keeping Tufts at a level where one has to speak about Tufts in the same breath with the other two? 

[lastguyoffthebench]

How does Rutgers-Camden do it?   Horrible city, decent education, okay facilities, small player pool and a part-time coach... Still part-time when they reached the Elite 8, still part time when they lost in NCAA FINAL. 

You can still be part-time and be successful if you're willing to sacrifice sleep and do whatever it takes to build a culture.  Probably 95 percent of NJAC players are from NJ, so rule out PA, NY, DE, MD kids.  I would pick 3 NJAC schools over RUC, but they find a way... 4 NJAC titles in 10 years with a part -time coach---that's crazy.

[Ryan Harmanis]

Excellent point on a program staying elite following the departure of the coach that built it.  You're right in that you rarely see coaches staying in one spot for 15-20 years, and perhaps that's one of the things that makes it difficult for programs to stay elite.

As for the Final Four coaches, definitely a self-fulfilling thing, but it's tough, under any circumstances, to separate a successful program from the coach.  Even if we look at legendary programs - Bama football, UNC basketball, etc. - the periods where they struggle correspond with coaches who couldn't get the job done.  Take an example near and dear to my heart as an Ohio State fan - Michigan football.  They had Rich Rod, who could coach but couldn't recruit at an elite level, and struggled.  They brought in Brady Hoke, who could recruit but couldn't coach at an elite level, and struggled.  Now they have Jim Harbaugh, who can (apparently) coach and recruit, and things seem to be trending upward.

To me, that means that the great programs sustain excellence by handling coaching transitions.  But I also think Michigan or Bama football can afford a longer dip and get back to the top quicker because they have a huge fan base and a longer tradition, so people expect and push for a return to excellence.  I'm not as sure that DIII soccer programs can pull that off.  If Messiah doesn't make the tournament for the next 3-4 years years, I think it would be really difficult for someone to waltz in and bring back a Final Four caliber team in a season or two.

So nailing that transition is difficult with all the moving pieces.  It's often the case that when a college coach leaves they've checked out a little bit.  It can be any number of reasons, but it first shows with a drop in recruiting.  That hurts the team on the field, and the only way to remedy that is to put more time and effort into recruiting.  But the coach sees retirement or knows he's leaving, and suddenly you miss on a few classes and you aren't competing at the same level any more.  Same goes for when a young coach leaves for a new gig, because if he does so abruptly it probably guts the current recruiting year and puts the incoming coach under the gun for the following year.  Since you probably need 2 really strong classes to field a top-level team, the incoming coach is in a tough spot to keep the program at the top.  And the margin for error is very slim.

So maybe the lesson is that schools and programs need to plan well for the next coach.  You see that in business all the time - founder/CEO retires or leaves, and the company falters without the visionary leader.  "Succession planning" is the technical term they apply.  Take Manchester United - Ferguson left the cupboard a little bare talent-wise, they picked a guy (Moyes) who couldn't handle it, and now they're well on the outside looking in even though they've spent a truckload of money.  I'm not sure how you can do it unless the current coach is always planning for the future and puts a concerted effort into leaving the program in great shape.
_____
As to your second question, I don't know if you get specific responses, but you see the best teams step up aspects of their program in response to "challengers".  These coaches are hypercompetitive or else they wouldn't be doing this well, so a challenge keeps the programs motivated.  That motivation helps most on the recruiting trail, where time and effort make such a huge difference.

[PaulNewman]

First of all, for those on me about my Haverford comments, I have to eat a few of my words.  I looked last night and saw that the Fords had 11 frosh last year and also have 3-4 asst coaches.  I don't know how many of those 11 were truly recruited and whether a few would have been Haverford admits even if they weren't on the soccer roster, and I don't know how part-time some of those assistant coaches might be.  As surprised as I was to see that data I'll still be shocked if Haverford turns into a 10-20 year powerhouse. 

In response to RH, I think Michigan football is a great example.  Like some of the other schools mentioned the tradition at Michigan is now bigger than any one coach.  If Michigan dips they are simply going to keep getting new coaches until they get it right and get back to where the fanbase believes is almost a birthright.  Ohio State football and UK bball are the same.  Major scandals or just a mediocre coach can knock the programs down for a while but those schools where a certain level of success is now part of the school's DNA will pursued until it happens.  UK around 1989 appeared doomed and made the cover of SI with "Kentucky Shame" as the cover headline.  Sutton was out and Pitino comes in.  When and if Calipari leaves (or runs the program into trouble as so many UK haters predict), the school will go out and offer someone like Brad Stevens 20 mill a year.  Same story at Ohio State.  No doubt some of the dynamic has to do with the location and culture/demographics of the fanbase.  When we think of UCLA we still think of Wooden.  Despite surges of success they've never been the same.  I'm guessing that has something to do with the competition for interest in sports in the LA area.  Ohio is interesting because they do love their pro sports.  In states like Kentucky, Nebraska, Alabama, etc, the flagship college programs are King.

Obviously D3 is a far different animal, but tradition can still become part of a program's DNA.  I imagine that if OWU had a serious dip for an extended period the alumni and the school would be very invested in righting the ship.  Probably the same with Kenyon swimming, Trinity (CT) squash, etc.  Same with Messiah soccer.  The Messiah folks aren't going to let that program slip.

[PaulNewman]

How does Rutgers-Camden do it?   Horrible city, decent education, okay facilities, small player pool and a part-time coach... Still part-time when they reached the Elite 8, still part time when they lost in NCAA FINAL. 

You can still be part-time and be successful if you're willing to sacrifice sleep and do whatever it takes to build a culture.  Probably 95 percent of NJAC players are from NJ, so rule out PA, NY, DE, MD kids.  I would pick 3 NJAC schools over RUC, but they find a way... 4 NJAC titles in 10 years with a part -time coach---that's crazy.

I am curious about this one as well.  Seems like the NJAC and the SUNYAC share some characteristics that may account for the relative program success of those schools, whereas in Massachusetts the closest comparison are the regional state schools making up the MASCAC conference which is no where near the level of the NJAC/SUNYAC.  I actually can't think of any states other than NJ and NY that have anything similar, at least at the D3 level.

[jknezek]

I am curious about this one as well.  Seems like the NJAC and the SUNYAC share some characteristics that may account for the relative program success of those schools, whereas in Massachusetts the closest comparison are the regional state schools making up the MASCAC conference which is no where near the level of the NJAC/SUNYAC.  I actually can't think of any states other than NJ and NY that have anything similar, at least at the D3 level.

One thing to keep in mind about the NJAC especially is the area is ridiculously soccer rich, even among the kids not likely to be able to afford travel ball. A lot of those kids are immigrants, children of immigrants, or grandchildren of immigrants, their ties to soccer are different. They don't need to play travel, area select, state select, etc. to have a background in the game and knowledgeable coaching. It can come from their parents or their neighborhood. So you have a large population of really good soccer kids, many not well known because they aren't necessarily travelling in recruit rich circles, that can't afford private schools.

Is this the complete answer? Of course not. Many of the NJAC kids come from the typical recruit systems. But building out the team and especially the support players who push a team from being good with a few stars, to being great with a few stars and an outstanding supporting cast, might be a little easier.

As for other state systems, you still have a few WIAC teams, a few Penn State affiliates, the MD schools. I just don't see the same demographic characteristics in these states as you have in NJ or parts of NY. Although you think you would see it in MA...