FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:05:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

sigma one

Good post, Wally.  I agree with your analysis:  Witt #1 in the pre-season poll.  Advantage Wabash in the schedule and the defense of a home record that has been tainted and needs to be restored.  Teams have to re-learn that they come into Hollett Little Giant Stadium at their peril.  Don't schedule Wabash on your Homecoming, and don't mess with the Little Giants at their house.
    Won't it also be interesting to read where OWU, Wabash, and Wittenberg are placed in the DIIIfootball pre-season hierarchy?  Where do the pros place the three in the national picture after a good playoff win by Witt, a surge at OWU, and the confusion of Wabash's 2012--off set, as always, by the knowledge that the NCAC suffers fro lack of depth.  (Not about placement, but it's good to remember that Wabash v. North Central and Wittenberg v. Heidelberg in recent playoffs should be something that those of us who follow the NCAC hold as some evidence of competitiveness at least among NCAC champions in underdog situations.)

Dr. Acula

If I was guessing I'd say Witt in the #10-12 range, Wabash in the 20's and OWU unranked.  I don't think there's that big of a gap, but Witt won a playoff game and has Florence back while Wabash lost Belton.  I think that lands them where I said. 

wally_wabash

Quote from: Dr. Acula on January 03, 2013, 05:33:12 PM
If I was guessing I'd say Witt in the #10-12 range, Wabash in the 20's and OWU unranked.  I don't think there's that big of a gap, but Witt won a playoff game and has Florence back while Wabash lost Belton.  I think that lands them where I said.

I think 10-12 is probably too high for Witt.  They did lose to the two best teams that they played last year.  I'd probably have them somewhere between 15-20.  I think Wabash could sneak just in to that top 25 and OWU just outside.  All, I believe, are going to be very good teams that are capable of winning at least one game in the postseason. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

sigma one

Logic dictates that Wittenberg's only losses were to the two best teams they played last year--Wabash and Hobart.  But  in the playoff predictions Pat, Keith, and Ryan all chose Heidelberg, though not by impressive margins:  33-24, 21-17, 27-20.  And from the playoff team profiles this close paraphrase on Heidelberg: With the schedule they've had, regional finals are definitely within reach.  It's neither here nor there, but I'm giving the Student Princes about equal status with Wabash and Hobart even though Hobart handled Wittenberg easily and Wabash surprised Witt on Homecoming by keeping the ball for the last 8+ minutes of the game when Witt needed to get its defense off the field and knew the LGs were going to pound the ball. (Maybe the highlight of Wabash's season on offense.)  Heidelberg trailed Mt Union by less than a touchdown at the half and except for a one-point win v. Baldwin Wallace defeated every other team with relative ease.  Good off-season debate.
   I'd place Wittenberg around 15 in my early poll based on both their 2012 season and their returning offensive firepower.  As for Wabash with the defensive returners, maybe 22 or 23.  Ohio Wesleyan remains something of a mystery given the 2012 schedule and the decisive loss to the best team they played (jump in here OWU supporters).  Still, around 30.  Give or take two or so places for each. 
    Yes, all will be good teams if the injury bug doesn't bite, and capable of winning at least one playoff game, except that's one we will never have the chance to test. 
   

Schwami

Just a note that Stan Parrish has been named offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach at Eastern Michigan.
Long shall we sing thy praises, Old Wabash

wally_wabash

Here's a good discussion topic or time waster depending on your life perspective...nobody got elected to the MLB Hall of Fame today.  Who might get elected to an NCAC football hall of fame this year?  It's too tedious to start from scratch, so I thought I'd just look at the group of guys who last played in 2007, five years being the standard HOF cutoff.  Here would be the ballot as it were (which I am largely pulling straight off the all-league team from 2007):


Chad Ellis, LB, OWU
Chad Finley, P, Wabash
Andy Fleming, C, Allegheny
Brian Hilts, OL, Wabash
Chase Palmer, DB, Oberlin
Chris Pisani, DL, Oberlin
Mark Porter, K, Witt
Adrian Pynenberg, LB, Wabash
Mike Russell, WR, Wabash
Rafael Sanchez, QB, Kenyon
Chris Schubert, WR, Oberlin
Dan Smith, OL, Witt
Joe Swanson, LB, Witt
Andy Vanover, RB, Witt
Mateo Villa, LB, Allegheny

I will admit entirely that I am unqualified to judge offensive linemen.  I need to spend more time going back over the careers of some of these guys, but I think Pynenberg and Schubert are easy to pick off of this list as all time greats.  Pynenberg was just awesome every single game he ever played.  Chris Schubert had more career all purpose yards than anybody who has ever played in the NCAC not named Tony Sutton.  Anyway, just something to chew on while we wait for August to roll around.   :)
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Bishopleftiesdad


augie77

After enduring the BCS championship game, I'm so glad D-III has a real playoff!

seinfeld

Anyone who has some familiarity with a typical coaching search process, and in particular the timeline and manner in which they contact applicants, have any thoughts on Wooster's timeline? Schmitz left on Dec. 12, and from what I can gather, the school had a pretty good idea that they would go this route probably the day after the season ended. We are now about a month into the process, and from everything I can gather, they have not contacted a single candidate. And by contact, I mean nothing. No "can you come in for an interview in two weeks." No "can you provide us with more information?" No "our plan is to have a new coach in place by February 1." In other words, if you applied for this job, you are still waiting to hear even if you are going to get an interview, and you aren't even sure when that interview will be. My only concern is that a good coach that would come to Wooster will not be able to wait for this job and grab another one, particularly when their application has been met with silence.

Or maybe it is unrealistic for Wooster to handle it in any other way.

Pat Coleman

You have a week and a half out of that month that is basically dead time in the academic world, so you might want to take that into account.
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.

sigma one

I've said before on this and and another board that colleges and univesities usually structure head coaching searches the way they structure faculty searches.  As fans, we are used to seeing the big boys lose a coach one day and hire one within the week.  Not so for most of Division III.  Every head coaching search I am aware of in the NCAC has taken more time that fans want and that is good for recruiting. 
     Pat's comment about academic down time is pertinent.  Nothing much of consequence--except perhaps for some athletic department and internal conversations--takes place between Christmas week and the beginning of school in January.  Faculty and others, including student-athletes, who are usually seen as a necessary part of the hiring process are often unavailable.  Sometimes a president is off campus, on vacation, etc.  To fans' dismay, hiring a coach is often not seen as among the highest institutional priorities.
    Still, I'm a bit surprised that Wooster has not advanced further, or at least not advanced in public.  Since it's mid-January, I would expect to hear something soon.  But if they are conducting a search that promises candidates' privacy until very late in the process (i.e. the visit to campus), Wooster may actually be doing something off campus--telephone work, hotel interviews, etc.--that no one should know about except for the search committee, president, and a few others.  Confidentiality is key.  It will be interesting to see the decision, whether they hire from close by, or whether they have conducted a truly wide search.  And once they do campus interviews the decision ought to come quickly unless someone gets cold feet and delays the outcome.

sigma one

A couple of days ago Wally listed NCAC players from 2007 who might be in an NCAC Hall of Fame, using 5 years as a standard cut off for eligibility.  While the NCAC itself does not have a Hall of Fame in any sport, it does list two all-decade teams, representing play since its founding.  Even these are confusing (to me at least) because the conference lists the teams from 1984-1993 and 1993-2004 (?)  Anyway this got me thinking about an "all-decade team" in two ways:  the next NCAC decade, 2004-2013, which will end with next season; and the first decade of this century, 2001-2010.  (I recognize the old debate about whether a decade starts in '00 or '01 and have chosen to begin in '01.). 
     Any thoughts?

wally_wabash

Quote from: sigma one on January 13, 2013, 10:52:00 AM
A couple of days ago Wally listed NCAC players from 2007 who might be in an NCAC Hall of Fame, using 5 years as a standard cut off for eligibility.  While the NCAC itself does not have a Hall of Fame in any sport, it does list two all-decade teams, representing play since its founding.  Even these are confusing (to me at least) because the conference lists the teams from 1984-1993 and 1993-2004 (?)  Anyway this got me thinking about an "all-decade team" in two ways:  the next NCAC decade, 2004-2013, which will end with next season; and the first decade of this century, 2001-2010.  (I recognize the old debate about whether a decade starts in '00 or '01 and have chosen to begin in '01.). 
     Any thoughts?

I'm absolutely spending time on this.  I'll probably try to work on one position every day or so as time allows.  Today, quarterbacks.  I'll report back in a bit. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

wally_wabash

Ok...quarterback of the decade (2004-2013).  I think our pick here has already finished his career, but Mason Espinosa can make a strong case if he wins a league title and another Gregory Award next year.  Should winning a league title matter?  Maybe as a secondary criteria.   :)

Anyway, I think I've got basically four finalists for this.  I'll put it out there and open it up for discussion. 

Justin Rummell, Earlham (2002-2006) - Rummell holds the NCAC record for career total offense, career completions, and career passing yards (side note...Jake Knott's freshman year stats don't get counted for NCAC career stats otherwise Jake would lead by a wide margin), and is third in career touchdown passes.  He accumulated all of this at Earlham, which I think is even more impressive.  Rummell was a three time all-NCAC selection, making the cut on the first team in 2004. 

Russ Harbaugh, Wabash (2002-2005) - Harbaugh started most of Wabash's games between 2003 and 2005.  While his career stats aren't necessarily all-time in the NCAC, the 2005 season was transcendant and Harbaugh deserves recognition here for that season alone.  In 2005 Harbaugh won the Gregory Award, was a Gagliardi finalist, and set single season NCAC records for total offense, completions, passing yards, completion percentage as well as a single game record 95% completions vs. Denison (would have been a perfect 20-20 if not for Eric Summers tripping).  It was and remains, quite simply, the single best season a quarterback has ever had in the history of the conference.  That season also earned Wabash an undefeated regular season and a top seed in the playoffs, something that hasn't happened at any other NCAC team during this decade. 

Matt Hudson, Wabash (2006-2009) - Thrust into the starting role in 2007 after Dustin Huff was injured in the first game, Hudson piled together a huge career.  Three times Matt was a first team all-NCAC selection, twice a winner of the Gregory Award.  Hudson ended his career third in league history in total offense, fourth in completions, third in passing yards, and second in touchdown passes.  Hudson's teams won conference titles in 2007 and 2008 (Hudson did not play in the 2009 loss to Witt) and advanced to the playoffs in all three of his seasons as a starter and Wabash was 3-2 in Hudson's playoff starts (Hudson did not start in the 2007 loss to Whitewater). 

Ben Zoeller, Wittenberg (2008-2011) - A two year starter, Ben Zoeller was selected as the all-NCAC first team quarterback and Gregory Award winner in 2010 and 2011.  Wittenberg won the NCAC in 2010 behind Zoeller's 2997 yard season.  In just two years as a starting quarterback, Zoeller managed to become Wittenberg's second all-time leading passer behind only Aaron Huffman. 

Some good quarterbacks to not make my list of finalists for various reasons (mostly due to a lack of championships or a lack of all-league and POY recognition or a lack of longevity): Chase Belton, Aaron Huffman, Justin Schafer, Dustin Huff, Rafael Sanchez, TJ Salopek, Mason Espinosa (who is one more monster year and Gregory Award from being a finalist here). 

I haven't chosen a selection from my list of finalists yet.  I'm still thinking.  Debate away. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

smedindy

#25364
You know, after reading Bill Barnwell's piece on Grantland today, I don't know about winning championships as a top level criteria. A QB can't help it if his defense is horrid, or his running game or line is sub-par, or if his receivers are all butterfingers. He does have to get the most out of what he's been given.

If that DB for the Broncos didn't fall down and go boom like he was an six-month old, then we'd be having a totally different conversation about Manning and Flacco today.

Maybe a tertiary criteria? I can see where leadership is important, and it can't all be about raw stats. The question is not can he take his'n and beat your'n; it's can he take you'rn and beat his'n?