Future of DIII Baseball

[pitchersmom]

I was checking out some of the DIII scores around the country, and it triggered a few questions. Some of the scores were horrendous: Case Western 14 - Wash. U 2; Wittenberg 17 - Anna Maria 2; Swarthmore 23 - Penn State Harrisburg 4; and my all time favorite: Husson 23 - Mitchell 21. Even my beloved Heidelberg laid some smack on Mt St Joe's and Olivet, winning 14-0 and 16-1.

I know that every school can't be in the top 25, and that it is early in the season and things could change, but my concern is for the future of the game. What reason would a school have to continue a program that has not nor will not be competitive? Why would anyone want to play against such a program?

I fear that the trend of eliminating baseball at the DI level will continue. On the surface, this appears to be a good thing for the lower divisions, as the talent will trickle down, but I doubt that it will raise the overall level of DIII, but rather make the strong stronger and widen the gap between the haves and have nots. What effect will this have on the DIII level as a whole? Any thoughts?

[chad]

The biggest thing to remember in DIII is that every school (or even conference) places differing value on athletics as a whole and baseball specifically. Some (OAC/NCAC) place high value on the national competitiveness of their sports. Others (UAA/NESCAC) have a handful of great programs, but for the most part are academically driven with sports serving more of a participatory role like other extra-curriculars.

You said you were a Berg fan, so let's look at the OAC. Berg and Etta place high value on baseball. Baseball has resources and excellent and ample coaching. A school like Wilmington places far less emphasis. Tony Haley is part-time and doesn't work in another capacity at the school. Last season I only saw 1 asst. coach at their game. The reason schools like Wilmington will continue to have a program is that in some sense small schools view the opportunity to play sports as a part of the larger college experience.

The third direction, so to speak, are the money pushers. Some schools place less emphasis on winning than on recruiting. Matt Palm keeps his roster size lower presumably to maximize reps/development for players as well as allowing him to target and focus recruiting on the most talented kids he feels he can get. But every player = tuition money. So some schools are more interested in bringing in 25 freshmen every year. A lot will quit, but you're banking on them staying in school after they quit. This isn't the way to win necessarily, but the coach answers to the AD who answers to the President. And when the President decides enrollment, not winning, is your goal then you do it or leave.

[chad]

And before any NCAC guys jump on me, I know the NCAC is extremely academically driven....just didn't want you to think I was trying to slight the athletics! My thought process was "If you have multiple national caliber programs in football, hoops, baseball then you emphasize athletics too."

[marietta alum]

Throw the scores of the game sout the window, they don't mean a thing. When I was at Marietta in the late 90s we won 40 games in a row and beat teams by 10-15 runs consistantly...every one of those teams are still around. It's an academic thing, not a competitive athletic thing. If a school like Marietta, Heid, WOO, or OWU decides they want to invest resources into their baseball program, then that helps.