University Athletic Association

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:06:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: ADL70 on July 28, 2014, 01:03:10 PM
I'm still pondering whether to pick 2006 CMU or 2008 CWRU as top UAA team.

Convincing CMU playoff win over Millsaps might be the edge, but then next was the 0-37 loss although to #7 Wesley. 

2006 CMU #22
2008 CWRU #21

I'll get to this in detail eventually...I do agree that those are the top two candidates for the top spot, pretty clearly.  I think sorting out the next few teams will be kinda fun, though, and I'll learn a few things about some of those 7-8 win teams along the way.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

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

wally_wabash

#3316
Quote from: ADL70 on July 28, 2014, 12:26:40 PM
Nice analysis.

I'd go with 2008 as best for CWRU, mostly same players from 2007 with more experience, who had more convincing wins than 2007 team and came within one play of beating Wabash in playoffs, losing 17-20 in the final minute on a kinda fluky long TD pass.

2014 Spartans preview:

http://athletics.case.edu/sports/fball/2014-15/releases/2014072599llj7

Nothing fluky about Wes Chamblee being the fastest dude on the field, friend. 

Interestingly enough, the whole series of events that led to Wabash's final drive was probably triggered by a Wabash timeout (which I really thought was a bad idea at the time).  With Wabash up 13-10, CWRU had driven to the Wabash 1 with under 2:00 to play.  Spartans are held out on 3rd down.  FG unit comes on to tie.  TIMEOUT Wabash.  What?  Debeljak just took Dan Whalen off the field.  Why give him a minute to change his mind?  Change his mind he did, and Whalen sneaks in (so the official record says...I remain unconvinced).  So instead of protecting the ball and playing for an overtime session (which I'm certain is what would have happened), Wabash has to turn it all loose.  Sacked on third down, Wabash faces a 4th a 15 at their own 27.  Hudson to Chamblee for 21 yards.  Move the sticks.  Next snap, Hudson to Chamblee for 52 yards...table for 6, please.  Ballgame.  And none of that would have happened had Raeburn not called timeout and given CWRU the chance to put Whalen back on the field on 4th and G.    Funny how things work out. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

ADL70


Expected that would get a rise.

Yes, absolutely great play by Chamblee.  But I say kinda fluky because it wasn't that he got behind the secondary and cruised for the TD.  It was a throw into the middle of the zone defense and he evaded several potential tacklers to score.  At the time I also noted that Wabash likely would have run out the clock to OT had CWRU kicked the FG instead of Whalen sneaking the ball (not himself) in.
SPARTANS...PREPARE FOR GLORY
HA-WOO, HA-WOO, HA-WOO
Think beyond the possible.
Compete, Win, Respect, Unite

wally_wabash

Thank goodness for internet archives!  The video can still be viewed on the youtube and upon further review, there wasn't much fluky there.  Just a soft coverage and no pass rush...Chamblee gets the ball in space (he's good in space...ring the cliché bell) and beats everybody to the end zone.  That's not fluky, that's just a great player making a great play.  The 2001 Monon Miracle...maybe a little fluky, even if it was a designed play.  The tipped two pointer to beat North Central in 2011 was pretty fluky (although multiple LG receivers were open there).  But not that one.  That was an awesome ball game though.  I almost didn't make that trip up there.  I was definitely relieved that I did. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

Mr. Ypsi

Quote from: wally_wabash on July 28, 2014, 03:04:32 PM
Thank goodness for internet archives!  The video can still be viewed on the youtube and upon further review, there wasn't much fluky there.  Just a soft coverage and no pass rush...Chamblee gets the ball in space (he's good in space...ring the cliché bell) and beats everybody to the end zone.  That's not fluky, that's just a great player making a great play.  The 2001 Monon Miracle...maybe a little fluky, even if it was a designed play.  The tipped two pointer to beat North Central in 2011 was pretty fluky (although multiple LG receivers were open there).  But not that one.  That was an awesome ball game though.  I almost didn't make that trip up there.  I was definitely relieved that I did.

Boy, I caught holy hell for terming it 'fluky' at the time! :o ;)

wally_wabash

I probably shouldn't have used "fluky" there.  I really don't like that word when we talk about these kinds of things...it really takes away from the play and the players and more often than not gets used to delegitimize a game result which is probably the biggest crime of all. 
"Nothing in the world is more expensive than free."- The Deacon of HBO's The Wire

ExTartanPlayer

#3321
Completing my rankings post that started on the previous page....I present to you, the best UAA teams of the D3football.com era (1999-2013):

Honorable Mention

2007 Carnegie Mellon (7-4, ECAC bowl win, 264 PF, 181 PA, best wins: 33-10 at 6-5 Rochester, 18-13 vs. 7-3 WashU, 39-21 vs. 6-3 Wash & Lee, 21-20 vs. 6-5 Gettysburg in ECAC bowl) is probably a bit of a homer pick but deserves an honorable mention.  Coming off a playoff season, the Tartans still had a formidable rushing game but were done in by turnovers and poor QB play early in the season, losing four straight close games to drop to 2-4, with an overtime loss against Case being a possible nail in the coffin for this season...only to run off four straight wins to close the regular season and then winning an ECAC bowl game.  Obviously, there's an "I was there" bias for me when analyzing this team, but remain convinced that the 2006 playoff team was only marginally better than the 2007 team and that luck, turnovers, and a questionable play call or two was all that separated this squad from another UAA title and playoff berth (or at least an eight-win regular season).  This team also makes the list by virtue of playing a much tougher schedule (notice that it recorded four wins against teams with 6+ wins, whereas some other teams ON this list with 8-2 or 9-1 records only beat one or two of those) than some teams ranked here.  It should also be noted that this team's four losses came against 8-3 Hobart (playoff team), 5-5 Allegheny (yuck), 8-2 Randolph-Macon (in playoff hunt on final weekend), and 11-1 Case Western, all in close games that came down to the final moments or overtime.  I'll admit that we're probably reaching if we include any teams that finished with only 6 regular season wins, so I'll gladly stick this at the "bottom" of our list 

2001 Carnegie Mellon (7-2, no postseason, 246 PF, 152 PA, best wins: 23-17 vs. 6-3 Chicago) is a team that I can't tell much about because it really predates much of my knowledge of Division III football and there aren't many statistical archives there.  But it looks like a solid club and any two-loss-or-better team at least drew some consideration here.

2010 WashU (7-3, 190 PF, 139 PA, best wins: 24-20 vs. 8-2 Wabash, 14-13 vs. 8-2 CWRU) is the lowest-scoring team considered, the only team listed here with less than 20 ppg scored for the season.  Nonetheless, the 2010 Bears nearly made this list by upsetting a very good Wabash team (8-2, blew out SCAC champion DePauw in the Monon Bell game) and coming within a field-goal of the 2010 Chicago team ranked here.

2000 Chicago (7-2, UAA champ, 193 PF, 106 PA, best wins: 13-3 vs. 6-3 Rochester, 20-6 vs. 6-4 CMU, 12-9 vs. 5-4 WashU) has the same description as 2001 Carnegie Mellon.  Couple wins against decent teams, predates my era, don't know much about them because statistical archives online don't go back that far.

The Top Ten

10. 1999 Carnegie Mellon (8-3, ECAC bowl win, 232 PF, 109 PA, best wins: 31-7 vs. 6-4 Alfred, 28-10 vs. 8-3 Frostburg State in ECAC bowl): I suppose you could make an argument that all ranked teams should have won the conference title and these guys didn't (lost to the 1999 WashU playoff team).  But, they won an ECAC bowl game, gave up less than 10 ppg for the season, and our coaches raved about this team when I was a player there, so I'll give them some benefit of the doubt.

9. 2011 Case Western (9-1, UAA champ, 237 PF, 129 PA, best wins: 16-6 vs. 6-4 WashU, 24-17 vs. 5-5 John Carroll): a somewhat low ranking for a 9-1 team on this list, but one that I think is justified despite their record (versus the mere 8-win campaigns of the four teams ranked above them).  On the flip side, it could also be argued that this should have been a playoff team, since their sole loss was a non-region loss (they were technically 9-0 in-region).  There are two big things working against them historically: one, that loss was a ghastly loss, a 17-7 home defeat against a Rochester team that would lose 52-3 the following week to St. John Fisher and finish the season 4-5, and two, there's a complete dearth of quality wins to offset the bad loss.  They beat a 6-4 WashU team 16-6, and after that, their next best win was probably 5-5 John Carroll (or 5-5 CMU, or 5-5 Chicago, or 5-5 Allegheny, but you get the point).  They didn't play a schedule full of really awful teams, just a schedule full of very mediocre ones (as evidenced by the four wins against 5-5 teams), and while you can only play who they put in front of you, if it's that "blah" of a schedule, you've got to beat them all.  This Case team was far lower-scoring than its predecessors in the big three-year run (23.7 ppg compared to those teams scoring in the high 30's and low 40's), so while it's tempting to lump them in with 2007-2009 Case, it was really nothing like those squads.

8. 2001 WashU (8-2, UAA champ, 226 PF, 128 PA, best wins: 17-7 vs. 8-2 Albion, 17-14 vs. 7-2 Illinois Wesleyan, 17-7 vs. 7-2 CMU, 21-17 vs. 6-3 Chicago): a surprisingly good team that I knew very little about until I started researching this little project.  I'll concede that this team also has a bad loss (a 7-6 loss to 5-5 Rhodes at midseason) like the 2011 Case team I just ranked #9, but they have several quality wins to make up for that, which is why I've got them ranked one notch higher.  2001 WashU beat four teams with a winning record, three of which finished with only two losses; 2011 Case Western didn't even play a team with more than six wins.  They posted a comparable point differential against a much tougher schedule than 2011 Case.  2001 WashU gets the nod.

7. 2010 Chicago (8-2, UAA champ, 317 PF, 190 PA, best wins: 56-24 vs. 8-2 Concordia-Chicago, 24-20 vs. 8-2 Case Western, 13-10 vs. 7-3 WashU for UAA title): here's the highest-ranked team to miss the postseason on our list.  You might even be able to argue for them one notch higher, as they did have a more explosive offense than either of the WashU teams ranked above them, and they did notch a few quality wins.  However, they also had a lesser defense than those WashU teams, and each of those WashU squads had something noteworthy that (IMO) set them apart from this group.

The Playoff Teams – I didn't set out to rank them this way, but ultimately, I think the six playoff teams probably do rank as the six best teams considered for this listing. 

5B. 1999 WashU (8-3, UAA champ, playoff berth, 259 PF, 152 PA, best wins: 24-7 vs. 8-3 CMU, 12-7 vs. 6-3 Rhodes, playoff loss: 28-21 vs. Hardin-Simmons)

5A. 2013 WashU (8-3, UAA champ, playoff berth, 209 PF, 127 PA, best wins: 10-7 vs. 8-2 Rhodes, 31-14 vs. 7-3 Centre, 17-7 vs. 6-4 Chicago, notable loss: 17-7 vs. eventual national champion UW-Whitewater, playoff loss: 17-10 vs. Franklin):

Maybe there's a bit of recency bias here, but I'm ranking 2013 WashU a smidge above 1999 WashU for a couple of reasons.  One, they had a fantastic defense (take out one oddball shootout with Hendrix and they gave up 82 points in 10 games).  They scored a couple of pretty good non-conference wins against Rhodes and Centre.  Perhaps most impressively, they led 7-0 entering the fourth quarter against eventual national champion UW-Whitewater before falling 17-7.  That's arguably the single most impressive "result" any of these teams lodged, including the teams ranked above them.

1999 WashU was no slouch, and they did log an impressive win vs. a pretty good CMU team that made the Honorable Mention on this list.  They also get some bonus points for a competitive 28-21 playoff loss to Hardin-Simmons, who crushed W & J in the next round before falling 40-33 against Trinity in the quarterfinals.  That's what sets these teams apart from the 2010 Chicago team, IMO; both WashU squads showed well in the playoffs and against tough competition, and I don't think the 2010 Chicago team can claim a result as impressive as either of these.

3B. 2007 Case Western (11-1, UAA champ, playoff win, 409 PF, 199 PA, best wins: 20-17 (OT) vs. 7-4 CMU, 35-27 vs. 7-3 WashU, 21-20 vs. 8-3 Widener in NCAA first round)

3A. 2009 Case Western (10-1, UAA champ, playoff berth, 466 PF, 207 PA, best wins: 38-24 vs. 5-4 Chicago, 53-32 vs. 5-5 Wooster, playoff loss: 51-38 vs. Trine in NCAA first round)

These teams were tough for me to disentangle.  Before I looked into it, I assumed that I'd rank the 2009 team ahead of the 2007 team because 2009 was Whalen's senior year, and I assumed that the team had continued to build and improve vs. those couple of seasons....but now I'm not so sure.  Although I recalled the 2007 team playing a dreadfully weak schedule (including TWO games against start-up programs), they did record three wins against 7+ win teams, since 2007 was a pretty strong year for the UAA and WashU + CMU both also had pretty good teams.  Amazingly enough, the 2009 team played an even worse schedule (down year for the UAA + drawing all of the NCAC dregs in the scheduling agreement) and, while they dominated...they dropped the ball with a first-round playoff loss to Trine, who may or may not have been a better playoff opponent than 2007 Widener.  The 2009 team may have been better (they were certainly dominant against that weak schedule), but I think the 2007 team "proved" a little more if that makes any sense.  Ultimately, I've got the 2009 team higher because Whalen was at the height of his powers and I think the WR's may have been a little better than the 2007 team, but the 2007 team probably had a little better defense...ADL70, your thoughts?

2. 2006 Carnegie Mellon (11-1, UAA champ, playoff win, 308 PF, 119 PA, best wins: 10-7 (OT) at 6-4 WashU for UAA title, 21-0 vs. 7-4 Millsaps in NCAA first round):

Grrrrr, this kills me, it really does, but I've got to apply my criteria consistently...and the fact is that the 2006 CMU team also played a jarringly weak schedule, with only one game against a team with a winning record during the regular season (Incredibly, as I noted, the 2007 CMU team posted an inferior record at 7-4, but probably had more "quality" wins than the 2006 team thanks to a much tougher overall schedule).  And, despite that weak schedule and the sense that they controlled most games pretty handily, they weren't an "utterly dominant" team, struggling to beat WashU in overtime (admittedly starting an inexperienced sophomore QB after senior starter was injured at Case two weeks prior, but still) and notching close-ish games with Case (20-10) and Thiel (14-7).

There was a semi-serious debate going on throughout the season about whether this team would even get a playoff bid if they went undefeated because the first half of the schedule was so weak.  It wasn't quite as bad as it looked for awhile: WashU finished 6-4, Case ended up 5-5 after upsetting playoff team Washington & Lee in Week 11, and Thiel finished a respectable 5-5 team coming off a playoff season in 2005...but still, when those are the BEST teams that you've beaten, that's a pretty darned weak schedule.  The Tartans validated the playoff selection by posting a quality shutout win against Millsaps in round 1, but if I'm going to hammer that 2009 Case Western team and rank it below 8-win teams for lacking quality wins, this is only fair (the only real "quality" win CMU notched was probably the playoff win).  This was a steady but unspectacular team with two really good running backs, a deep and experienced offensive line, and a consistent defense that allowed just 82 points in the regular season and pitched a shutout in round 1 of the playoffs.  You'll probably never convince me that the 2008 Spartans would have beaten the 2006 Tartans, but I'm ranking them here.

1. 2008 Case Western (10-1, UAA champ, playoff berth, 416 PF, 153 PA, best wins: 45-14 vs. 6-4 Denison, 28-7 vs. 8-2 Wooster, playoff loss: 20-17 vs. Wabash in NCAA first round)

We can debate whether the Chamblee touchdown to beat CWRU was "fluky" or not, but this Case team probably had the best UAA quarterback of the era in question, a deep corps of WR's, maybe the best defense of the three undefeated Case teams (though the 2007 team had Tom Brew), it played a bit better schedule than 2006 CMU did, and it was more dominant than 2006 CMU, which was ultimately my tiebreaker.  These guys blew out everyone in the regular season; the closest games were a 38-24 win over Chicago (in which they held a double-digit lead the entire second half and led 38-17 until a late Chicago touchdown closed it to 38-24) and a 17-0 win over WashU in the finale.  They decisively beat an 8-2 Wooster team that finished second in the NCAC, a far better win than any regular-season win 2006 CMU accomplished.  As I pointed out, CMU had a handful of close, competitive games; Case blew everyone out until the playoffs.

It pains me, and I still would love a hypothetical game between the squads to settle it, but I'm giving this to 2008 Case Western, even over the two UAA teams that have actually won playoff games.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

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

sigma one

#3322
The CWR playoff loss to Wabash may have been a result of two fluky plays, if that's the way you want to characterize it.   
But like Wally, I don't like the word fluky to describe most plays, though the 2-pt conversion that resulted in the Wabash victory v. North Central may fit.  That play was not "designed" to end up the way it did.  The ball went through the hands of the intended receiver directly to another receiver who was behind him in the end zone.  Because the play was not designed to work the way it did, I'd call it a fluke.  By contrast, The Catch v. DPU on the last play of the Monon Bell game, was a designed play that Wabash had worked on all year for use in just such a situation.  However unlikely the result--the winning TD with no time on the clock, the final play of the game--it was designed to work the way it did and was perfectly executed.  Likewise, the two passes v. CWR, the first on fourth down that resulted in a first down, the second for a touchdown (similar or the same call by the way) were designed to  go down the middle of the field to a specific receiver, in both cases Chamblee.  From my side, the plays were not flukes but perfectly executed passes from an excellent QB (two-time offensive player of the year in the NCAC) to a shifty receiver, who could operate in the open field and who had good hands and superior speed. The first completion was hardly a surprise because CWR knew that Wabash had to throw the ball to gain the first down.  The second completion may have surprised the Case defensive backs, but it wasn't as though they had not seen the same play immediately before.  Two timely plays in a pressure situation v. a very good opponent--not fluky, but surely memorable.

ExTartanPlayer

Quote from: sigma one on July 28, 2014, 08:13:59 PM
That play was not "designed" to end up the way it did.  The ball went through the hands of the intended receiver directly to another receiver who was behind him in the end zone.  Because the play was not designed to work the way it did, I'd call it a fluke.

I like this definition of a "fluky" play. 

Good execution of a designed play and/or a big play resulting from an individual's skill in evading defenders...those are not a fluke.  Even plays like the famous Boise State hook-and-ladder and Statue of Liberty play, while surely considered a fluke by bitter Oklahoma fans, were designed and run to perfection.  Tricky, perhaps, but not fluky.

Things like an unintentional tipped ball (the Wabash-NCC play, or for a more recent example, Auburn's game-winning touchdown against Georgia last year, where a Georgia defensive back tipped it straight into an Auburn receiver's hands on a 4th and long) are what fall into the fluke category for me.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

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

ExTartanPlayer

#3324
Borrowing another idea from the NCAC board: best individual players on each side of the ball for each UAA squad in the D3football.com era (1999-2013)?  I'm willing to name more than one per side & school if someone really merits a mention, but I'll try to limit to 2-3 tops (naturally, I have a few extras from CMU, being the team I am most familiar with - feel free to add your own "honorable mentions" if you have them).

CMU Offense: FB Travis Sivek (2004-2007), also considered: G Chad Zimmerman, G Nathan Cheek, QB Rob Kalkstein, RB Robert Gimson
CMU Defense: S Aaron Lewis (2003-2006), also considered: DL Michael Reggie, LB Jamie Ploetzner, DB Jon Scholl, DB Sam Thompson

CWRU Offense: QB Dan Whalen (2006-2009), also considered: none (there are other good players, especially a few of the WR's, but no one is even close)
CWRU Defense: LB Tom Brew (2004-2007), also considered: DL Dale English, LB Jeff Brown, DB Dan Calabrese

Chicago Offense: WR Dee Brizzolara (2008-2011), also considered: none (same comment as Whalen...I don't think anyone else is even close here)
Chicago Defense: DL Rob Tamillow (2002-2005), also considered: LB Gaby Fernandez, LB Schuyler Montefalco

WashU Offense: this is weird...but WashU is such a defense-dominated team that I can barely think of a memorably "dominant" offensive player since I've been following the UAA?  I'd have to go combing through some statistics.  Everybody else listed here came to mind pretty quickly without needing to look into the stats.

WashU Defense: DL Drew Wethington (2004-2007), although I think one of the guys on the current defense might take this honor eventually

I wanted to put a bit more research into this, haven't really had the time to adequately do it yet.
I was small but made up for it by being slow...

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

ADL70

CWRU O:  Whalen

CWRU D:  Brew

Seem pretty clear
SPARTANS...PREPARE FOR GLORY
HA-WOO, HA-WOO, HA-WOO
Think beyond the possible.
Compete, Win, Respect, Unite

DagarmanSpartan

Yeah, pretty easy answers for Case.

Gotta go with the two All-Americans!


ADL70

SPARTANS...PREPARE FOR GLORY
HA-WOO, HA-WOO, HA-WOO
Think beyond the possible.
Compete, Win, Respect, Unite

BearFan

Nice story about a neat tradition Coach Kindbom has for the upcoming seniors at WashU.  I am sure the other schools have similar traditions, but thought I would share this with everyone.

http://bearsports.wustl.edu/sports/fball/2014-15/releases/20140818cmmv5v