Around the Nation board

Started by Pat Coleman, September 22, 2005, 03:16:50 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

frank uible

Additionally the value of endowments are down, and the income which they produce will, if it has not already, decline.

HScoach

Keith:  Part 1 was well done as always!    Looking forward to Part 2.
I find easily offended people rather offensive!

Statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is essential.

Knightstalker

The NAIA school my nephew has been coaching at is in financial trouble, they don't have a large endowment and enrollment is down.  His position is being eliminated at the end of the school year along with many others.

"In the end we will survive rather than perish not because we accumulate comfort and luxury but because we accumulate wisdom"  Colonel Jack Jacobs US Army (Ret).

K-Mack

With regard to the drop in applications and endowments ... perhaps it's a market-driven correction of the now-outrageous cost of attending (schools that were in the teens in the 90s are over $30,000), not unlike the housing market correction.

Does it mean if the pool of applicants is smaller that the schools will take fewer students, or take the same number, with worse credentials?

Will some choose the former and some the latter, to survive?

And from the perspective of a student who maybe didn't excel, is it a great time for a buy-low bargain? (Aw yeah, my 1100 is getting me into Amherst, baby!!!)

I have a lot of questions and not many answers, sorry.

Thanks for the acknowledgement, hscoach.

Just did my Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year vote. I know a little something about Division II (the D2/D3 committee is combined), but I always feel weird voting for their coach for my reasons.

D3 was a pretty easy decision.
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

K-Mack

Found this looking for a quote to add to my sig line  ;D

I had missed this response to a Mount Union post I made earlier in the postseason, and thought it was only fair to put it here, for those who had been following along, and for me ... since is the only thread I am likely to go back and read, and is likely to still exist, at some point in the future.

QuoteD3Keith Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 12:34 am


This is more general, but since you mentioned it last ...

"even if it doesn't bow to the altar that is Mt Union Football."

What's with the Mount Union hate from the LL/E8? I know it's not everyone, and it's mostly been the past couple seasons.

I get the idea of rooting against the favorite and going for the underdog. I get that Pat and I are perhaps quick to assume Mount Union is going to get to a certain round of the postseason without giving it much thought, but trust it's because we've seen this movie before and we know how it ends.

What I don't get about the snide comments about Mount Union — and as you all know, not only am I NOT a Mount Union guy, I should be rooting against them this week more than anyone — is that they are not like the Yankees or Cowboys, teams that are hateable because they are good, but also because of the way they do business.

Mount Union does business the exact same way the majority of the rest of us do, just better. If anyone in D3 plays with a stacked deck, it's the low-tuition state schools with 10,000 students in the WIAC and NJAC. And CNU.

The thing about Mount Union, love them or hate them, is you have to respect them. They conduct themselves more or less with class, they play football in a way that deserves to be emulated, and at least within the program — fans might be an exception at times — they emphasize having respect for the opponent. They aren't flawless or unbeatable, but they do about as good as job as one can expect within the Division III football framework.

It's the model program. If I bow at the altar, it's because they earned it, fair and square. I would do the same for any other Division III program that accomplishes a fraction of what Mount Union has.

Pat Coleman Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 12:37 am


Yes, Keith, talk about gross generalizations.

labart96 Says:
November 17th, 2008 at 1:13 am


I think you guys (pat, ralph, and keith) are missing the point. I can't speak for all the "East" fans/alums, but context is extremely difficult to convey via written words vs face to face conversion, namely:

we don't "hate" MUC - we actually do respect them and wish our teams were more like them (ie. they are the standard now - and some teams like Union, IC, etc were the same 20 some years ago)

we may be jealous, envious, etc, but from an outsider POV (esp. via written media - not saying it's how you are guys are but how it can be interpreted w/o context) is that you kiss the *** of the current dynasty program for the benefit for your business (this is not a fault, but a reality and tougher "skin" as journalists should prepare you accordingly. Problem here is once again context, ie since it's D3 it takes a more personal tone so when that gets called into question we react with a defensive posture).

re the WIAC and CNU - it's not even close:

there are 100s, if not 200-300s of eastern (NE, NY, etc) schools with total cost of attendance over 35-40k annually. i'd be interested in seeing a similar list from the midwestern US. that's not a fair statement and one that leads "east" fans into the "sour grapes" mode (although we've got no beef vs. the Oxy, CLU's SCIAC and probably TX teams of the nation...)

re: ralph's comments that:

The inclusion of Administrative Regions in the definition of "Regional Games" has expanded the options for non-conference play for Liberty League teams in NY and PA to include every Presidents AC team except Thomas More and Bethany and the Centennial Conference teams except JHU and McDaniel. For WPI, they pick up Wesley, JHU, McDaniel, Frostburg and Salisbury.

I'd argue until now that only Pat, Keith and Ralph (and maybe a handful of VERY informed others) knew that fact.

So it should not become a "surprise" to the crew here that the fan base is still learning the rules of the game.

Have a heart and not be so judgmental of the group that's driving the traffic and interest into the game and site you've so graciously provided.

If anything, I'd say the opposite would be preferred, ie, to correct, but not get defensive (ie, easy for me to say since I haven't been hawking d3football.com or dealing with crazed zealots for the past 9 years).

not sure if this makes any sense, but i appreciate the format the opportunity to debate.

i guess i really have become my voted moniker from the LL boards.
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

K-Mack

So this is from the Stagg Bowl 36 thread. MUCnashvegas01 is generally a pretty wise poster, and not to pick on him, but I strongly disagree with this. Thought I would throw it here since the blog string is a few days old and no one would ever see it there (as opposed to four of you here):

QuoteThat and a prevent like defense Mount was playing late in the game was crazy. To me, the prevent defense "prevents" you from winning games.

To me that's something people say because they've heard other people say it.

In the case of Mount Union the other day, it couldn't be further from the truth. Playing a loose defense and coming up and making tackles caused Whitewater to burn all their time trying to catch up, and once MUC got the onside kick, they were out of time.

The alternative would be to, what? Play press-man coverage and have someone get beat for a 60-yard TD so Whitewater could score in 30 seconds rather than six minutes?

What people describe as the 'prevent' is a misnomer anyway. Prevent is like five DBs 20 yards off the ball defending the hail mary at the end of the half. Really what people claim doesn't win games is the defense that gives up the short flat and quick outs in lieu of playing the 10-12 yard sideline area and all the deep middle zones. In theory, if you give up yards in three-, five- and seven-yard chunks and tackle well, it will take a team much longer to make a dent in your lead than if they can squeeze a big play or two in there.

Mount Union executed this to perfection the other day, protecting their 31-13 lead well enough to get out of there with the win and the national championship.

Thoughts?
Former author, Around the Nation ('01-'13)
Managing Editor, Kickoff
Voter, Top 25/Play of the Week/Gagliardi Trophy/Liberty Mutual Coach of the Year
Nastradamus, Triple Take
and one of the two voices behind the sonic #d3fb nerdery that is the ATN Podcast.

KitchenSink

My thoughts about the quote unquote Prevent is that it can build up the pressure - for MUC, there was great pressure on that onside kick.  If a funny bounce had gone to UWW, their offense was rolling and chances are strong they would have at least gotten into the red zone, and maybe score and steal that game.  Relying on one play to salve over your approach has always seemed dangerous to me.

I have always beleived that defenses have to be aggressive to be successful, especially in the playoffs.  You ease up even just slightly in the 4th quarter, and you can give up momentum.  A defense getting predictable can be attacked more effectively.  That's why I like to see a blitz mixed in those situations - sure, that brings a little risk but that can also lead to an offensive mistake and a turnover.  And then it's Goodnight Irene.
What the hell was that?  That was a Drop-kick.  Drop-kick? How much is that worth?  Three points.  THREE POINTS?!

Ralph Turner

Quote from: K-Mack on December 24, 2008, 01:16:12 PM
So this is from the Stagg Bowl 36 thread. MUCnashvegas01 is generally a pretty wise poster, and not to pick on him, but I strongly disagree with this. Thought I would throw it here since the blog string is a few days old and no one would ever see it there (as opposed to four of you here):

QuoteThat and a prevent like defense Mount was playing late in the game was crazy. To me, the prevent defense "prevents" you from winning games.

To me that's something people say because they've heard other people say it.

In the case of Mount Union the other day, it couldn't be further from the truth. Playing a loose defense and coming up and making tackles caused Whitewater to burn all their time trying to catch up, and once MUC got the onside kick, they were out of time.

The alternative would be to, what? Play press-man coverage and have someone get beat for a 60-yard TD so Whitewater could score in 30 seconds rather than six minutes?

What people describe as the 'prevent' is a misnomer anyway. Prevent is like five DBs 20 yards off the ball defending the hail mary at the end of the half. Really what people claim doesn't win games is the defense that gives up the short flat and quick outs in lieu of playing the 10-12 yard sideline area and all the deep middle zones. In theory, if you give up yards in three-, five- and seven-yard chunks and tackle well, it will take a team much longer to make a dent in your lead than if they can squeeze a big play or two in there.

Mount Union executed this to perfection the other day, protecting their 31-13 lead well enough to get out of there with the win and the national championship.

Thoughts?
Great explanation...

There are enough times when the prevent "prevents" victory that the "theory and proper execution" is forgotten or not recognized.

Just imagine...MUC only wins the Stagg because of the big plays.

section13raiderfan

Substitute the word concessionary for the word prevent to describe the loose zone defense. I still maintain that it backfires on you more times than not. But then again LK has 10 National Titles and I dont have any. MUC gave WWW too large of a cushion in my opinion. After the catch the receiver had time and room to make the defender miss the tackle and gain extra yardage. It frustrates me as a fan watching the game. And if I were the defender it would frustrate me as well.  Still I cant argue with the outcome.....this time. When I think of the prevent defense the MUC/MHB game comes to mind.  Last play of the game...no rush....Hail Mary.....MHB wins the jump ball and the game.  My absolute worst memory during MUCs historic run.

Pat Coleman

It wasn't on the last play of the game. Mount Union had three plays or so after the ensuing kickoff.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Knightstalker

Quote from: K-Mack on December 24, 2008, 01:16:12 PM
In theory, if you give up yards in three-, five- and seven-yard chunks and tackle well, it will take a team much longer to make a dent in your lead than if they can squeeze a big play or two in there.




The key is tackling well.  The problem is so many programs on every level don't tackle well.  The NFL is a great example.  Teams that tackle well always seem to be in the game, even when the other team has more talent.  Too many players want to either light someone up, try to strip the ball or arm tackle rather than use good form and technique.  I was always taught, head up, knees bent, drive into the ball carrier and wrap up.

"In the end we will survive rather than perish not because we accumulate comfort and luxury but because we accumulate wisdom"  Colonel Jack Jacobs US Army (Ret).

HScoach

Quote from: K-Mack on December 24, 2008, 01:16:12 PM
So this is from the Stagg Bowl 36 thread. MUCnashvegas01 is generally a pretty wise poster, and not to pick on him, but I strongly disagree with this. Thought I would throw it here since the blog string is a few days old and no one would ever see it there (as opposed to four of you here):

QuoteThat and a prevent like defense Mount was playing late in the game was crazy. To me, the prevent defense "prevents" you from winning games.

To me that's something people say because they've heard other people say it.

In the case of Mount Union the other day, it couldn't be further from the truth. Playing a loose defense and coming up and making tackles caused Whitewater to burn all their time trying to catch up, and once MUC got the onside kick, they were out of time.

The alternative would be to, what? Play press-man coverage and have someone get beat for a 60-yard TD so Whitewater could score in 30 seconds rather than six minutes?

What people describe as the 'prevent' is a misnomer anyway. Prevent is like five DBs 20 yards off the ball defending the hail mary at the end of the half. Really what people claim doesn't win games is the defense that gives up the short flat and quick outs in lieu of playing the 10-12 yard sideline area and all the deep middle zones. In theory, if you give up yards in three-, five- and seven-yard chunks and tackle well, it will take a team much longer to make a dent in your lead than if they can squeeze a big play or two in there.

Mount Union executed this to perfection the other day, protecting their 31-13 lead well enough to get out of there with the win and the national championship.

Thoughts?

Well said and I agree.  Giving up a huge play would have been killer.  Making WWW trade time for yardage was the proper call. 

And I wouldn't classify Mount's defense in the 4th as the "prevent" either.   To me, the prevent is what you play against the hail-mary.  Mount was just playing conservative in that situation, which IMHO was the right call and is always the right call up 31-13 in the 4th quarter against a team that is a legit threat, specially one that runs the ball as well as Whitewater does. 

During those last couple drives, Ric and I were discussing on the air that it seemed like Mount was playing softer than normal to make the run look more enticing to Whitewater.   And we were very surprised that Whitewater kept running ball and thereby running the clock.  The soft zone lessens the chance of a running play going for big yardage as well as eliminating the big play thru the air too. 

So the conservative defense worked perfectly.  It took away the deep passes, eliminated a runningback from breaking a big one and made Whitewater burn the entire 4th quarter clock on two long drives.

Playing with a 3 score lead afforded Mount this luxury.  If it would have been only a 1 score game, you'd have seen Mount blitz MORE than normal in an effort to make the big play defensively or to force a mistake.
I find easily offended people rather offensive!

Statistics are like bikinis; what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is essential.

Ralph Turner

Gainesville TX State School vs Grapevine Faith HS.

This story has been posted elsewhere, and Rick Reilly had it in SI.

Here is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram story.

Enjoy!

Knightstalker

Quote from: hscoach on December 26, 2008, 01:01:56 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on December 24, 2008, 01:16:12 PM
So this is from the Stagg Bowl 36 thread. MUCnashvegas01 is generally a pretty wise poster, and not to pick on him, but I strongly disagree with this. Thought I would throw it here since the blog string is a few days old and no one would ever see it there (as opposed to four of you here):

QuoteThat and a prevent like defense Mount was playing late in the game was crazy. To me, the prevent defense "prevents" you from winning games.

To me that's something people say because they've heard other people say it.

In the case of Mount Union the other day, it couldn't be further from the truth. Playing a loose defense and coming up and making tackles caused Whitewater to burn all their time trying to catch up, and once MUC got the onside kick, they were out of time.

The alternative would be to, what? Play press-man coverage and have someone get beat for a 60-yard TD so Whitewater could score in 30 seconds rather than six minutes?

What people describe as the 'prevent' is a misnomer anyway. Prevent is like five DBs 20 yards off the ball defending the hail mary at the end of the half. Really what people claim doesn't win games is the defense that gives up the short flat and quick outs in lieu of playing the 10-12 yard sideline area and all the deep middle zones. In theory, if you give up yards in three-, five- and seven-yard chunks and tackle well, it will take a team much longer to make a dent in your lead than if they can squeeze a big play or two in there.

Mount Union executed this to perfection the other day, protecting their 31-13 lead well enough to get out of there with the win and the national championship.

Thoughts?

Well said and I agree.  Giving up a huge play would have been killer.  Making WWW trade time for yardage was the proper call. 

And I wouldn't classify Mount's defense in the 4th as the "prevent" either.   To me, the prevent is what you play against the hail-mary.  Mount was just playing conservative in that situation, which IMHO was the right call and is always the right call up 31-13 in the 4th quarter against a team that is a legit threat, specially one that runs the ball as well as Whitewater does. 

During those last couple drives, Ric and I were discussing on the air that it seemed like Mount was playing softer than normal to make the run look more enticing to Whitewater.   And we were very surprised that Whitewater kept running ball and thereby running the clock.  The soft zone lessens the chance of a running play going for big yardage as well as eliminating the big play thru the air too. 

So the conservative defense worked perfectly.  It took away the deep passes, eliminated a runningback from breaking a big one and made Whitewater burn the entire 4th quarter clock on two long drives.

Playing with a 3 score lead afforded Mount this luxury.  If it would have been only a 1 score game, you'd have seen Mount blitz MORE than normal in an effort to make the big play defensively or to force a mistake.

So in hindsight UWW would have been better off throwing quick 5 yard out patterns instead of running the ball?

"In the end we will survive rather than perish not because we accumulate comfort and luxury but because we accumulate wisdom"  Colonel Jack Jacobs US Army (Ret).

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: Ralph Turner on December 26, 2008, 07:07:43 PM
Gainesville TX State School vs Grapevine Faith HS.

This story has been posted elsewhere, and Rick Reilly had it in SI.

Here is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram story.

Enjoy!

Ralph, very inspiring story - thanks.

Can you get McMurry to recruit #7? ;)