<p>
To get to 10%, there would have to be 50 guys in categories 1 and 2, in addition to the 70 on the roster. This number strikes me as implausibly high.</p>
<p>But even if it is correct – why is it “embarrassing” ? It is well known that:</p>
<p>(a) football teams require a lot of male players, typically around 70 for a DIII squad, and
(b) liberal arts colleges have small enrollments, typically around 1000 men and 1000 women</p>
<p>Given points (a) and (b), any LAC football team will represent some 5-10 % of the male enrollment. If a LAC has a football program, this result is inevitable, not cause for embarrassment.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Midd actually has a lower “football team ratio” than most peer institutions. Schools like Williams, Amherst, Bowdoin, Bates, Colby, Trinity, and Hamilton all have football rosters comparable in size to Middlebury’s. Yet they also have significantly smaller undergraduate enrollments (1600 to 2200, vs. 2400 at Midd). Mathematically, this means that football players represent an even higher percentage of the male enrollment at these other schools. So why should Midd be embarrassed?</p>
<p>I will admit that there are some other selective LACs in the New England / upstate NY area that do have a much lower “football team ratio” than Midd. Midd’s ratio could be considered “embarrassing” – if your standard of comparison is Wellesley, Smith, Mt. Holyoke, Vassar, Skidmore, or Connecticut College. </p>
<p>But I think comparison with Williams, Amherst, or Bowdoin is more realistic.</p>