FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:19:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

57Johnnie

Quote from: AO on November 14, 2018, 09:49:42 AM
Quote from: faunch on November 13, 2018, 10:42:11 PM
Quote from: sjujohnnie on November 13, 2018, 09:17:23 PM
Someone in the SCIAC board posed a question asking if Claremont-Mudd-Scripps could defeat Whitworth & if so, would they be able to defeat St John's. "SaintsFan" replied, "Having just watched St. Johns in person this past weekend, I'm going to say they only teams that can beat them are:  Whitewater, Mary Hardin-Baylor and Mount Union.  And they'll be a huge challenge for those three defenses, as well. Johnnie QB Erdmann is pretty special and has a great corps of WR's/TE's he is on the same page with." I apologize that I'm not familiar with easily quoting so will settle for copy & paste until I become more sophisticated with the board. I wonder what SaintsFan thought of attending a game in Collegeville at Clemens? I really hope his insight is accurate & obviously that St John's can take it all the way! Very excited with what is happening at St John's under Gary! I hope this is just the start of a very long run of historic seasons in Collegeville!

CMS (7-3) beat Northwestern "Bible" College of Roseville 14-3 in week 2. NW went 5-5 and lost to St. Scholastica 14-7 this year (that team SJU beat 98-0) last year. I might be proven wrong but I highly doubt CMS gets by Whitworth or that the game is even close. I believe Whitworth went 9-0.
Yeah, well our little "Bible" college is actually pretty impressive if you take a closer look at the schedules.
Northwestern MN   beat   Iowa Wesleyan   28-0
III   Iowa Wesleyan   is better than   Presentation   because Iowa Wesleyan beat Crown MN 44-7
and Presentation only beat Crown MN 42-14
NAIA   Presentation   beat   Waldorf   44-38
NAIA   Waldorf   beat   Dickinson St ND   23-22
NAIA   Dickinson St ND   beat   WI LaCrosse   35-17
III   WI LaCrosse   beat   WI Stout   29-23
III   WI Stout   beat   Gust Adolphus   24-23
III   Gust Adolphus   beat   Concordia Mhd   27-14
III   Concordia Mhd   is better than   St John's MN   because Concordia Mhd beat Hamline 55-0
and St John's MN only beat Hamline 51-0 , therefore Northwestern is better than St. John's.   Didn't even have to get a score from last year to prove my point.
Glad the Johnnies don't have to face that juggernaut in the first round.  :)
The older the violin - the sweeter the music!

USTBench

I believe in 01-02 I made a similar argument as to why UST had the best men's basketball team in the country:

UST beat Macalester
Macalester beat Yale
Yale beat Clemson
Clemson beat Florida State
Florida State beat Duke
Duke ended up winning the National Championship
Augsburg University: 2021 MIAC Spring Football Champions

art76

Anybody else read the front page of D3 Football today and see that Earlham is hanging up the cleats for a full season to regroup? Numbers mentioned in the article are that the Quakers only had 52 players show up for training camp, and the average at that time of year for all of D3 was 112. Do numbers alone create competitiveness? Thoughts/takes?
You don't have a soul. You are a soul.
You have a body. - C.S. Lewis

jamtod

Quote from: art76 on November 14, 2018, 10:29:44 AM
Anybody else read the front page of D3 Football today and see that Earlham is hanging up the cleats for a full season to regroup? Numbers mentioned in the article are that the Quakers only had 52 players show up for training camp, and the average at that time of year for all of D3 was 112. Do numbers alone create competitiveness? Thoughts/takes?

No. Not at all.
Numbers are correlated with other qualities, but do not create competitiveness.

USTBench

Quote from: jamtoTommie on November 14, 2018, 10:33:43 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 14, 2018, 10:29:44 AM
Anybody else read the front page of D3 Football today and see that Earlham is hanging up the cleats for a full season to regroup? Numbers mentioned in the article are that the Quakers only had 52 players show up for training camp, and the average at that time of year for all of D3 was 112. Do numbers alone create competitiveness? Thoughts/takes?

No. Not at all.
Numbers are correlated with other qualities, but do not create competitiveness.

Disagree. 52 players showing up to camp means at some spots you're only two-deep. If there's only two or three guys in a position group, and they're all pretty mediocre, there's not a lot of in-house competition. If the starter goes down, look out, because the cupboard just got incredibly bare, and if #2 isn't up to the task then the coach has to get creative and play someone out of position.

"But Bench, the NFL only has a 53 man roster." True, but they can activate guys off the practice squad or claim someone off waivers who actually PLAYS said position. 52 players is a disaster for a NCAA program.

If you can't put 75+ on your squad, you shouldn't have a squad IMO.
Augsburg University: 2021 MIAC Spring Football Champions

RoyalsFan

Quote from: USTBench on November 14, 2018, 10:47:13 AM
Quote from: jamtoTommie on November 14, 2018, 10:33:43 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 14, 2018, 10:29:44 AM
Anybody else read the front page of D3 Football today and see that Earlham is hanging up the cleats for a full season to regroup? Numbers mentioned in the article are that the Quakers only had 52 players show up for training camp, and the average at that time of year for all of D3 was 112. Do numbers alone create competitiveness? Thoughts/takes?

No. Not at all.
Numbers are correlated with other qualities, but do not create competitiveness.

Disagree. 52 players showing up to camp means at some spots you're only two-deep. If there's only two or three guys in a position group, and they're all pretty mediocre, there's not a lot of in-house competition. If the starter goes down, look out, because the cupboard just got incredibly bare, and if #2 isn't up to the task then the coach has to get creative and play someone out of position.

"But Bench, the NFL only has a 53 man roster." True, but they can activate guys off the practice squad or claim someone off waivers who actually PLAYS said position. 52 players is a disaster for a NCAA program.

If you can't put 75+ on your squad, you shouldn't have a squad IMO.

But the question was do 'numbers alone' create competitiveness. Now you are bringing in other factors, ie. injuries. If your starters are quality players, then they can be competitive regardless of how many players are on the bench. So technically I agree that numbers alone does not create competitiveness. Also, you can have 100+ players on the roster, but if they are all mediocre, then again, that doesn't guarantee competitiveness.


hazzben

Quote from: USTBench on November 14, 2018, 10:47:13 AM
Quote from: jamtoTommie on November 14, 2018, 10:33:43 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 14, 2018, 10:29:44 AM
Anybody else read the front page of D3 Football today and see that Earlham is hanging up the cleats for a full season to regroup? Numbers mentioned in the article are that the Quakers only had 52 players show up for training camp, and the average at that time of year for all of D3 was 112. Do numbers alone create competitiveness? Thoughts/takes?

No. Not at all.
Numbers are correlated with other qualities, but do not create competitiveness.

Disagree. 52 players showing up to camp means at some spots you're only two-deep. If there's only two or three guys in a position group, and they're all pretty mediocre, there's not a lot of in-house competition. If the starter goes down, look out, because the cupboard just got incredibly bare, and if #2 isn't up to the task then the coach has to get creative and play someone out of position.

"But Bench, the NFL only has a 53 man roster." True, but they can activate guys off the practice squad or claim someone off waivers who actually PLAYS said position. 52 players is a disaster for a NCAA program.

If you can't put 75+ on your squad, you shouldn't have a squad IMO.

To Jam's point, numbers aren't a guarantee of quality or success.

But as Bench says, there's a floor that matters. Before I read his response the number floating in my head was around 70+. If you fall below that attrition to injury becomes a huge issue. And you're probably playing a lot of underclassmen, given that a recruiting class always loses some guys, especially if the team isn't winning. The difference between your typical 18 or 19 year old and a 22 year old who's been in a college weight program (and just going through the natural physical maturation process) is significant.

I know Coach J has said in the past that their ideal numbers are in that 95-110 range. Every program is different, I know SJU loves to have close to 200, but a glance at the sideline will tell you that 50-60 of those kids are just out for the fun of it and not MIAC caliber guys. (that's not a dig on SJU or their way of doing it, it's kinda cool they make room for those kids to be a part of it)

art76

All right - so if we use 75 as the number needed for "critical mass", in 5 or 10 years, will there be enough high school players available for all 250 or so D3 schools? Somebody with better resources at their finger tips could probably look up total numbers for D1, D2 and NAIA schools as well, just to see how many athletes it takes to run all these college teams. Could it be that Earlham is the tip of the iceberg and more and more teams are not going to be able to field teams because there just aren't enough players graduating from high school?
You don't have a soul. You are a soul.
You have a body. - C.S. Lewis

art76

And being a bit Orwellian, would teams like St. John's be forced to share their wealth of players in some way?
You don't have a soul. You are a soul.
You have a body. - C.S. Lewis

hazzben

Quote from: RoyalsFan on November 14, 2018, 11:15:13 AM
But the question was do 'numbers alone' create competitiveness. Now you are bringing in other factors, ie. injuries. If your starters are quality players, then they can be competitive regardless of how many players are on the bench. So technically I agree that numbers alone does not create competitiveness. Also, you can have 100+ players on the roster, but if they are all mediocre, then again, that doesn't guarantee competitiveness.

Yeah, but injuries in football, year over year, are inevitable. There's a point of diminishing returns when you drop below a certain number. 50 guys on a squad ... figure a typical breakdown of 20 Freshman, 15 Sophomores, 10 Juniors, 5 Seniors. You are really young and going to take your knocks. You also have a lack of depth for practice and scout team reps.


Another element of this when it comes to the elite programs in D3 ... elite talent & talent depth.

This is what separates the UMHB's, Mount's, and UWW's (especially when they had things humming a few years back) from the pack year over year.

Teams capable of making the semi-finals in a given year have to have a handful of elite players (you've gotta have some dudes who can just go make a play when the chips are down) and no holes in the top 30. Aka, every guy who sees significant playing time is at least a very good D3 player. These teams usually have 8+ all conference caliber players. If you're lacking that Top 30 quality, it's usually because you've got a generational talent covering for it. But elite championship caliber teams will expose your weaknesses Belichick style. 

Teams capable of winning the Stagg Bowl often have a generational player or two (e.g. Blake Elliot, Pierre Garcon, Coppage, Kleppe, Kmic, Jerrell Freeman, Brett Elliot, etc.) and elite players (all region and All american types) and a complete Top 30 that really extends to their entire Two Deep.

Teams Capable of being perennial Stagg Bowl Contenders/Champs have everything from the preceding category, but more of it. Their are underclassmen generational gems that are just emerging or merely role players because of the talent ahead of them. There are loads of elite players on the entire Two Deep, vying for playing time and their shot. And no one on the playoff travel roster doesn't have at least All Conference potential. These are the teams that just seem to reload.

It's also what makes Mount's run so impressive. Think of all the generational talent they've had over the years. Or the years where they won a Stagg w/o one of those guys, but there was an even greater accumulation of elite talent to make up for the absence of a Chuck Moore caliber guy. Their 20+ year run in this category is truly astounding.

SaintsFAN

Quote from: jamtoTommie on November 14, 2018, 10:33:43 AM
Quote from: art76 on November 14, 2018, 10:29:44 AM
Anybody else read the front page of D3 Football today and see that Earlham is hanging up the cleats for a full season to regroup? Numbers mentioned in the article are that the Quakers only had 52 players show up for training camp, and the average at that time of year for all of D3 was 112. Do numbers alone create competitiveness? Thoughts/takes?

No. Not at all.
Numbers are correlated with other qualities, but do not create competitiveness.

We had about 55 for my junior season at Thomas More.  We went 3-7 in that 1998 season.  Depth was obviously a problem, especially along the DL and OL.  After injuries and attrition within that first month; we ended up having 1's versus 1's while rotating periods for who was acting as the scout team.  This obviously meant less practice time preparation for each unit.  And our specials were awful that year.  Multiple Missed and blocked FGs/PATs and a blocked punt (returned for a go-ahead TD with under 2 minutes left in the game). 

This was a result of the HC needing to be let go - and that offseason, Thomas More hired Dean Paul, who got the program going back in the right direction with a 7-3 record in 1999. 

But, man, that was a tough year. 
AMC Champs: 1991-1992-1993-1994-1995
HCAC Champs: 2000, 2001
PAC Champs:  2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
Bridge Bowl Champs:  1990-1991-1992-1993-1994-1995-2002-2003-2006-2008-2009-2010-2011-2012-2013 (SERIES OVER)
Undefeated: 1991, 1995, 2001, 2009, 2010, 2015
Instances where MSJ quit the Bridge Bowl:  2

miac952

Quote from: sjujohnnie on November 13, 2018, 10:57:14 PM
I don't think St John's will have any trouble with Martin Luther. Whitworth will undoubtedly be our 2nd round opponent. I think they'll be more of a challenge, although the real test will begin in the quarterfinals against Mary Hardin-Baylor.

I dont think the Bennie Soccer team would have trouble with Martin Luther. As others have said, rest the guys that are dinged up.

hazzben

Quote from: art76 on November 14, 2018, 11:35:48 AM
All right - so if we use 75 as the number needed for "critical mass", in 5 or 10 years, will there be enough high school players available for all 250 or so D3 schools? Somebody with better resources at their finger tips could probably look up total numbers for D1, D2 and NAIA schools as well, just to see how many athletes it takes to run all these college teams. Could it be that Earlham is the tip of the iceberg and more and more teams are not going to be able to field teams because there just aren't enough players graduating from high school?

I think we are seeing the tail end of the golden era of football Art.

I heard Mel Tjeerdsma say back in the 2000's that the caliber of talent in small college football had shifted. Due to Title IX restrictions, the fringe FBS guys were pushed down into FCS, causing a domino effect down into D2, and D3/NAIA. That, combined with the sophistication of the passing games teams were executing in high school meant that the combination of talent and scheme complexity had dramatically reshaped the quality of small college football. The talent pool was better and the typical freshman was better prepared to play in a college scheme.

The other side of this, is that with decreasing youth football numbers continuing each year (at some point I think it hits a floor), my assumption is going forward, you have less HS talent as a feeder which will lead to a decrease in the availability of quality college players.

There will be fewer players in general to draw from, and by extension, fewer elite players to go around.

The mitigating factor might be a 'Higher Ed Bubble Pop' like what is happening to Iowa Wesleyan. If there's a drop in the number of small colleges that are financially viable and some others drop football all together because they can't field teams, maybe the talent doesn't drop off too badly. I wouldn't be surprised if 10-15 years from now the number of D3 football schools is more around 220ish. My $.02

Pat Coleman

Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2018, 12:00:53 PM
The mitigating factor might be a 'Higher Ed Bubble Pop' like what is happening to Iowa Wesleyan. If there's a drop in the number of small colleges that are financially viable and some others drop football all together because they can't field teams, maybe the talent doesn't drop off too badly. I wouldn't be surprised if 10-15 years from now the number of D3 football schools is more around 220ish. My $.02

I have been thinking this for a while ... I'm surprised it hasn't happened faster than it already is. I pictured some of the state schools in Massachusetts merging, and more of the smallest schools going away like what happened with Mount Ida and Wheelock (non-football) this fall. 
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.

art76

Quote from: hazzben on November 14, 2018, 12:00:53 PM

I think we are seeing the tail end of the golden era of football Art.


I'm with you Hazz, as even schools like Bethel are finding it harder and harder to find men to attend. It's 2 to 1 at BU, and a lot of smaller schools are closer to 3 to 1. For many reasons, fewer and fewer guys are getting college educations. It really is an interesting phenomena to observe.
You don't have a soul. You are a soul.
You have a body. - C.S. Lewis