FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Old Gold Tiger

Noticed both the Denison and OWU QB 1s did not play Saturday.  Anyone have scoop on this?  Will be a much more interesting league race if they're on the field, particularly for Denison.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: Old Gold Tiger on October 12, 2015, 02:57:22 PM
Noticed both the Denison and OWU QB 1s did not play Saturday.  Anyone have scoop on this?  Will be a much more interesting league race if they're on the field, particularly for Denison.

Denison QB played the first quarter and left the game.  Unknown if it was due to injury or a voluntary change, looking for an offensive spark.  His replacement actually did fairly well if you just go by the numbers (16-21 for 178 yards and a TD), but obviously scoring 17 against Hiram is not an explosive performance.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

DPU3619

Hey y'all. Just stopping by. Was at DePauw/Witt this past weekend and I have the following dispatch:

1) I don't think anybody thinks that DePauw's defense is as good as Wabash's defense. Witt scored a lot more dang points and DePauw didn't turn them over quite like Wabash did. 4 is close to 6, but it ain't 6. A lot of Wabash's turnovers are schematically based. DePauw just doesn't do what Wabash does X&O wise. Both DePauw & Witt sat in Cover 4 most of the day with no blitz (I'd guess that was probably 85%+ of the total plays from Saturday.) Both teams hit lots of hitches & outs for 5-7 yards. Wabash won't let you do that all day. They've just got a different philosophy. They're going to blitz, twist & stunt, and try to lock you up behind all that chaos. Part of that is Wabash having the dudes to back it up.

2) DePauw's offense is pretty legit. They run it well. Two back power & zone - both Lynch staples. Galley & Kirchhoff are a pretty good tandem in the backfield, I think. They aren't bruisers, but they don't need to be bruisers. This isn't 3 yards and a cloud of dust type stuff anyway. DPU is 2nd in the conference in yards/rush to Wabash by 0.1 yds, so I don't think much of the "this OL is too small and they stink!" talk is justified. 3 sacks hurt the rushing total from Saturday. It wasn't prototypical Bill Lynch "40 carries for 255 and 4 TDs on the ground" type stuff, but it was certainly serviceable. Brett Dietz called a heck of a game Saturday, too. 18 completions for 336 yards by Matt Hunt against a team playing mostly quarters in the secondary is pretty ridiculous.

I think Witt is pretty good. Zack Jenkins is either on or very, very not on. I like their receivers. They're big, physical, and they can scoot. Jenkins did them no favors with a couple of pretty bad throws. He can't turn it over like he did against DePauw & Wabash. That offense doesn't stay on the field long enough to do their D any favors.

My takeaway was that if you try to play DePauw with more than 6 in the box to take away the power, you're taking a pretty big risk. Witt made their choice. Tried to play 6 1/2 in the box and they got burned by the quarterback. DePauw runs the power too well to sit in a 6 man box against them all day. But, at the same time, I think it's the first time in the last 5 or 6 years that DePauw actually has the combo of a good QB and good enough WRs to make you pay for adding a 7th to the box. You better have good press corners if you're going to play 4 in the secondary. It's nice to have some explosiveness again.

MUC57


Wally Wabash

Awhile back you said the "2015 OAC stinks". Now that d3football has ranked the OAC #4 and the NCAC #18, does that mean the great NCAC is stinkier? Just curious!
I'm old! I get mixed up and I forget things! Go Everybody! 🏈 ☠

wally_wabash

Quote from: MUC57 on October 15, 2015, 09:18:11 AM

Wally Wabash

Awhile back you said the "2015 OAC stinks". Now that d3football has ranked the OAC #4 and the NCAC #18, does that mean the great NCAC is stinkier? Just curious!

First, when I said that the 2015 OAC stinks, I did that without any qualifier or comparison to the NCAC.  This isn't a my-conference-is-better-than-your-conference thing.  Tipps is awesome, but I disagree pretty strongly with his assessment of the OAC.  The NCAC is buried down at 18 and down three on the list from the preseason while the OAC remains at the tippy top of the D3 conference rankings list.  Why?  Tipps says the NCAC "is a 10-team conference, not a 4-team one."  I couldn't agree more.  We should be applying that same logic to the OAC.  Mount Union is great, per usual.  ONU and JCU are ok.  Decent, but they aren't great (any higher appraisal of those two teams right now is a result of their rubbing elbows with Mount Union).  And then there's a giant bucketful of hot garbage underneath those three teams.  That's the 4th best conference in D3?  No, no it isn't. 

The OAC being 4th on that list is a legacy play...it's like voting Cal Ripken into all star games in 2000/2001.  It's credit for what you were more than credit for what you are. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 15, 2015, 09:47:23 AM
Quote from: MUC57 on October 15, 2015, 09:18:11 AM

Wally Wabash

Awhile back you said the "2015 OAC stinks". Now that d3football has ranked the OAC #4 and the NCAC #18, does that mean the great NCAC is stinkier? Just curious!

First, when I said that the 2015 OAC stinks, I did that without any qualifier or comparison to the NCAC.  This isn't a my-conference-is-better-than-your-conference thing.  Tipps is awesome, but I disagree pretty strongly with his assessment of the OAC.  The NCAC is buried down at 18 and down three on the list from the preseason while the OAC remains at the tippy top of the D3 conference rankings list.  Why?  Tipps says the NCAC "is a 10-team conference, not a 4-team one."  I couldn't agree more.  We should be applying that same logic to the OAC.  Mount Union is great, per usual.  ONU and JCU are ok.  Decent, but they aren't great (any higher appraisal of those two teams right now is a result of their rubbing elbows with Mount Union).  And then there's a giant bucketful of hot garbage underneath those three teams.  That's the 4th best conference in D3?  No, no it isn't. 

The OAC being 4th on that list is a legacy play...it's like voting Cal Ripken into all star games in 2000/2001.  It's credit for what you were more than credit for what you are.

Co-sign. 

If the bottom of the NCAC is going to be the reason to rank the NCAC poorly, the bottom of the OAC (which is, make no mistake, every bit as bad) should also count against the OAC.  For what it's worth, Denison beat Marietta 41-14, much more easily than they beat OWU and Hiram recently.  Otterbein got smoked by Buffalo State.  Muskingum lost to Waynesburg (currently 1-4 and looking like the 10th-best team in the PAC).  Baldwin-Wallace lost to Bluffton (Bluffton!).  Any suggestions that the back half of the OAC is better than the back half of the NCAC is just wishful thinking.

The OAC's top teams (even besides Mount) are usually pretty good.  But the bottom is just as bad as the bottom everywhere else.  And for some reason, that only gets used against other leagues.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

MUC57


Wally

Looking at the NCAC standings, I see the following-
   Hiram and Allegheny   0-5
   Wooster                     1-4
   Kenyon and Oberlin     2-4
   OWU                          2-3
   Wittenberg                 3-2

I guess I can't see a 10 team conference. The OAC certainly has similar numbers for their bottom teams. Oh well, what do I know?
I'm old! I get mixed up and I forget things! Go Everybody! 🏈 ☠

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: MUC57 on October 15, 2015, 10:00:15 AM

Wally

Looking at the NCAC standings, I see the following-
   Hiram and Allegheny   0-5
   Wooster                     1-4
   Kenyon and Oberlin     2-4
   OWU                          2-3
   Wittenberg                 3-2

I guess I can't see a 10 team conference. The OAC certainly has similar numbers for their bottom teams. Oh well, what do I know?

LOL.  This is dumb.  The NCAC plays one OOC game and 9 conference games (just like the OAC).  Almost by definition, there have to be teams with those records at this point in the season, unless literally every team is going to go 5-5.  Just listing the teams' records is silly; they had to play the top teams in their own conference, just like the teams at the bottom half of the OAC have to play the teams at the top of the OAC.

Muskingum 0-5 (OOC: lost to second-worst team in the PAC 35-10)
Wilmington 1-4 (OOC: beat 2-3 Bluffton 14-10)
Marietta 1-4 (OOC: lost to 5-0 Denison 41-14)
Heidelberg 2-3 (OOC: lost to 5-1 Cortland State 26-24)
Capital 2-3 (OOC: lost to 4-2 Wittenberg 38-27)

I think you missed the point of the "10 team league" comment.  Neither wally nor Tipps was saying the NCAC has 10 good teams.  The point was that "it's a 10 team league" means you have to count all 10 teams in your assessment of the league.  And that's fine, I agree, but it's pretty clear that they're not doing the same with the OAC, whose bottom half is every bit as wretched as the bottom half of the NCAC.  And this would be true of almost every league.  The Empire 8 is one of the only places I can think of where even the teams near the bottom are actually pretty good.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

MUC57


ExTartanPlayer

I understand what you are saying. What's really dumb is the comment "the 2015 OAC stinks" to the exclusion of some other conferences, including the NCAC. I guess I'm overly sensitive about negative remarks about the OAC and my alma mater (UMU).
I'll close this discussion and let you experts debate the d3football ranking of the conferences.
Good luck to all your teams. Go Purple Raiders!
I'm old! I get mixed up and I forget things! Go Everybody! 🏈 ☠

wally_wabash

Quote from: MUC57 on October 15, 2015, 10:23:35 AM

ExTartanPlayer

I understand what you are saying. What's really dumb is the comment "the 2015 OAC stinks" to the exclusion of some other conferences, including the NCAC. I guess I'm overly sensitive about negative remarks about the OAC and my alma mater (UMU).
I'll close this discussion and let you experts debate the d3football ranking of the conferences.
Good luck to all your teams. Go Purple Raiders!

I don't think I said anything negative about Mount Union.  I think I've been pretty effusive in my praise of Mount Union, actually.  But if you can't objectively look at the OAC and see that that league, taken as a whole, isn't very good in 2015, then you're just not looking.  And that's a conversation that can be had without introducing any other league for comparison.  Again, I wasn't trying to say that my league is better than your league.  I honestly haven't even given it any thought and I'm probably not going to.  There's just nowhere near enough intersecting data to make that assessment in an educated fashion. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Desertraider

#31795
Quote from: wally_wabash on October 15, 2015, 09:47:23 AM
Quote from: MUC57 on October 15, 2015, 09:18:11 AM

Wally Wabash

Awhile back you said the "2015 OAC stinks". Now that d3football has ranked the OAC #4 and the NCAC #18, does that mean the great NCAC is stinkier? Just curious!

First, when I said that the 2015 OAC stinks, I did that without any qualifier or comparison to the NCAC.  This isn't a my-conference-is-better-than-your-conference thing.  Tipps is awesome, but I disagree pretty strongly with his assessment of the OAC.  The NCAC is buried down at 18 and down three on the list from the preseason while the OAC remains at the tippy top of the D3 conference rankings list.  Why?  Tipps says the NCAC "is a 10-team conference, not a 4-team one."  I couldn't agree more.  We should be applying that same logic to the OAC.  Mount Union is great, per usual.  ONU and JCU are ok.  Decent, but they aren't great (any higher appraisal of those two teams right now is a result of their rubbing elbows with Mount Union).  And then there's a giant bucketful of hot garbage underneath those three teams.  That's the 4th best conference in D3?  No, no it isn't. 

The OAC being 4th on that list is a legacy play...it's like voting Cal Ripken into all star games in 2000/2001.  It's credit for what you were more than credit for what you are.

A couple of quick comments. First I agree it is based on legacy. Outside of Alliance I don't see much in the OAC this year. Last year - it would be easier to justify the No. 3 because of JCU. Second, having seen ONU this year against Mount it can not be said they are "decent" or that they rubbed elbows with Mount.  ;D ONU looked pathetic (No offense intended to ONU fans - but they did not look decent or even so-so). Most of their yardage came after Mounts 1st team D was seated on the bench. ONU had 4 first downs mid way through 4th quarter and 10 punts. In addition - 10 (or 11) 3 and outs with a 4 play drive resulting in a pick 6.

My point is that Tipps makes it a point to state it is based on "all the teams in the conference" - but the OAC this year seems to be based on 1 team. My .02 cents.

Granted it is one hell of a team!!
ROLL RAIDERS ~ ROLL!!
RIP MUC57 - Go Everybody!
National Champions: 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2015, 2017
The Autumn Wind is a Raider!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzEYK_XjyLg
Immaculate Prevention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZLq_acsVN0

Dr. Acula

Quote from: MUC57 on October 15, 2015, 10:23:35 AM

ExTartanPlayer

I understand what you are saying. What's really dumb is the comment "the 2015 OAC stinks" to the exclusion of some other conferences, including the NCAC. I guess I'm overly sensitive about negative remarks about the OAC and my alma mater (UMU).
I'll close this discussion and let you experts debate the d3football ranking of the conferences.
Good luck to all your teams. Go Purple Raiders!

The 2015 OAC does stink, especially compared to the OAC historically.  That's how I took Wally's comment and I agree with him.  I didn't read it as a comparison with the NCAC so much as a general statement on the OAC.

Both the NCAC and OAC have some programs that really need to get on track.  It's one thing to not be good.  It's another to be completely noncompetitive.  In the OAC the fact that neither Columbus school is any good is inexcusable IMO.  Allegheny would be the first program I'd point at in the NCAC as one that should be much better than they are.  Wooster is also curiously poor for a school that has national level baseball and hoops teams.

jknezek

Here comes the question, where would we actually put the OAC? For me, it's somewhere around 7th (or right after the ASC). The ASC to me is the last conference with at least two good teams and some depth following. ASC and HSU balance out the bottom of the ASC whereas the middle is going to match up well with most middle conferences across the country. I can't say the same about the OAC.

On the other hand, when you hit the NWC you start to see an OAC type spread. One really good team, a pair of meh, and a pile of uggh. Same with the CC, but I'll take UMU and give them the history to pip those two conferences. So for all of this, I'm only shifting the OAC down behind the NJAC, CCIW, and the ASC.

I will say I think the NCAC is too far down as well. The trio of Wabash, Witt and Depauw is pretty solid. A few meh types in the middle and a pile of suck at the bottom is better than the MIAA, the 4 team SCAC, the LL and the MAC (this year). The SCAC has TLU, but then nothing. Trinity has proved that. The LL is a mess this year. None of those teams is competing with the top 3 in the NCAC and the rest is as meh to uggh as the NCAC.

To be honest you could almost put the NCAC to where the PAC is. The PAC has two good teams, Case is still a possible third, and then a pile of uggh. How is that all that different from the NCAC?

I always find these rankings curious, but this update seems very odd to me.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: Dr. Acula on October 15, 2015, 02:01:55 PM
Both the NCAC and OAC have some programs that really need to get on track.  It's one thing to not be good.  It's another to be completely noncompetitive

Agreed.  Someone is always going to finish last place in the league, and in leagues that play 9 conference games, that probably means someone finishes 1-9 or 2-8 every year.  But it's not just about the record, it's about competitiveness, and that's what has been frustrating to see as an adopted-NCAC fan after we had that scheduling agreement for a while.  When the teams near the bottom of the league can at least score some points, or get some stops, and be in a game at halftime, at least there's something to play against.  But the last couple of years Allegheny (who we've really been dumping on in this thread, but it's the example we have to use) could barely get a first down in a lot of their games.  You really just end up feeling bad for the other team after awhile.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: jknezek on October 15, 2015, 02:14:37 PM
Here comes the question, where would we actually put the OAC? For me, it's somewhere around 7th (or right after the ASC). The ASC to me is the last conference with at least two good teams and some depth following. ASC and HSU balance out the bottom of the ASC whereas the middle is going to match up well with most middle conferences across the country. I can't say the same about the OAC.

On the other hand, when you hit the NWC you start to see an OAC type spread. One really good team, a pair of meh, and a pile of uggh. Same with the CC, but I'll take UMU and give them the history to pip those two conferences. So for all of this, I'm only shifting the OAC down behind the NJAC, CCIW, and the ASC.

I will say I think the NCAC is too far down as well. The trio of Wabash, Witt and Depauw is pretty solid. A few meh types in the middle and a pile of suck at the bottom is better than the MIAA, the 4 team SCAC, the LL and the MAC (this year). The SCAC has TLU, but then nothing. Trinity has proved that. The LL is a mess this year. None of those teams is competing with the top 3 in the NCAC and the rest is as meh to uggh as the NCAC.

To be honest you could almost put the NCAC to where the PAC is. The PAC has two good teams, Case is still a possible third, and then a pile of uggh. How is that all that different from the NCAC?

I always find these rankings curious, but this update seems very odd to me.

I think this shows that you really would be better served putting the leagues in "tiers" moreso than ranking every single one.  The huge numerical gap between the PAC at 11 and the NCAC at 18 makes it look like those leagues are really far apart, but I think the PAC and NCAC (ironically, the two leagues that I have the strongest ties to) are essentially the same league right now: two good, established contenders with a third/fourth team sort-of knocking at the door, then a very, very long drop-off.  I also have a ton of respect for Tipps, and don't really want this job myself, but that shows how hard it is to rank the entire middle of the division.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

http://athletics.cmu.edu/sports/fball/2011-12/releases/20120629a4jaxa