D3boards.com

There has been a lot of bantering on the boards about running up the score lately.

Pat

If you think this isn't a good idea than feel free to delete it!

Here are some of the things others have complained about.
(1) Teams scoring 60 to 70 pts.
(2) Teams passing with big leads
(3) Coaches not emptying their benches
   
All three of these complaints can be addressed together.

When teams do get leads and use their second and even third string players, these players want to show what they can do too. And I would think that the kids who are getting an opportunity on the other end of these one sided games that they want to show what they can do too. Also some of the conferences have roster restrictions so teams only carry maybe two stings of players on the road.

  Some of these games get out of hand so quickly it's hard for a coach to say to his starters that all the hard they did all week was great but we need to sit you down so ....ST. or ....U. doesn't feel bad..the final

  And finally there is no way a  coach can play 100 players in a game.  There aren't many if any coaches who can game plan a blowout and have a sheet that tells him what player deserves to play 4th ,5th or 6th  I understand how parents want their kids to play but to be honest some of them are not ready to step on the field as freshmen.

Anything I missed I am sure the DIII guru's will add 

I just finished reading Lou Holtz's Wins, Losses and Lessons.  He and Bobby Bowden are very close friends and they played when Coach Holtz was at William & Mary and Coach Bowden was at West Virgina.  West Virginia won in a lopsided game and kept their starters in until late in the game.  Coach Holtz asked Coach Bowden why he did that since they are friends.

Coach Bowden's response:  "It's your job to keep the score down, not mine.  If you don't like the score, either recruit harder or coach better.  I've got to coach my team and you've got to coach yours.  You can only coach one team."

Coach Holtz said that stung, because he knew he was right.

Interesting thought on running up the score.

In addition to the players wanting to play as if it meant something, I'm sure coaches want to be able to evaluate the talent of their reserve players under game conditions. There are some players who look good in practice, and don't seem to perform as well in a game, and also the reverse.

Some squads have so many players that the only time a coach really "sees" a player perform might be in these situations. Injuries are inevitable, and evaluation of talent is paramount.

Larry Kehres has basically written the book on how to handle this with class. If you look what MUC did in its opener, it's a lesson to all in that situation.

Guess that's because he's had so much practice ... :)

If a teams second and third team guys are beating you snot out of you first team (as it seems so of the complaints are), then you need to be mad at your recruiter and not the other team.

Just_that_kid, well said and karma for you.  None of the coaches at any of the schools have made one block, one tackle, or scored a TD. 

Quote from: repete on September 30, 2007, 02:08:25 PM
Larry Kehres has basically written the book on how to handle this with class. If you look what MUC did in its opener, it's a lesson to all in that situation.

Guess that's because he's had so much practice ... :) 

This could be a thread of its own. Pat and I mentioned it briefly this past week as a story idea.

I know Mount Union is trying really hard to stop when they get in the 60s, guys running out of bounds inside the 5 and then they kick field goals and stuff, but ... That might hurt just as much. Not that they're being mean about it, just that they are that much better than you that they have to TRY not to score. They have to go out of their way.

I know it's meant to be a classy thing, but I've never been able to decide if that helps or calls attention to the fact they're killing you more than just running in a straight line would. I guess it holds down the final score, but 52-0, 66-0, 78-0 ... aren't they kind of all the same at some point?

I am not a big keeping down the score guy, so feel free to argue with me on this one.

Starters should definitely get a half of work, although at some point are you risking injury with little to gain? And not only that, are they getting less out of the game at that point (being that out of hand can sometimes be non-competitive on both sides; no longer talking about just MUC) than they would in practice?

Just some things to think about.

Speaking of quotes on running it up, it was either Spurrier or Bowden who said something to the effect of: When he(the other coach) stops trying to score, I'll stop trying to score.

Methinks it was Spurrier, but also think it came up during some 77-?? FSU thrashing of Duke way back.

Quote from: retagent on September 30, 2007, 12:50:58 PM
In addition to the players wanting to play as if it meant something, I'm sure coaches want to be able to evaluate the talent of their reserve players under game conditions. There are some players who look good in practice, and don't seem to perform as well in a game, and also the reverse.

Some squads have so many players that the only time a coach really "sees" a player perform might be in these situations. Injuries are inevitable, and evaluation of talent is paramount.

Exactly ... except are those really game situations?

Butch Davis and a slew of Miami coaches used to get railed for the same thing. If a coach puts in his 2nd and 3rd team, that IS his way of slowing it down. If you can't stop that, you're out of luck. I'd run my offense. Your depth (or lack thereof) might haunt you! If you can't stop soph. and fresh. (generally), then don't step on the field.

Quote from: Just_that_kid on October 01, 2007, 09:39:09 AM
Butch Davis and a slew of Miami coaches used to get railed for the same thing. If a coach puts in his 2nd and 3rd team, that IS his way of slowing it down. If you can't stop that, you're out of luck. I'd run my offense. Your depth (or lack thereof) might haunt you! If you can't stop soph. and fresh. (generally), then don't step on the field.

But the reality of the fact of a 2nd teamer and a 3rd teamer getting a season's worth of reps in game conditions is that he is almost a good as the starter by the end of the season.

In the Pony Express days of SMU with Eric Dickerson and Craig James, Coach Bobby Collins deliberately ran two offensive lines... first line, first line, second line, first line, second line, ...

He probably did that because if he played the first line all of the time - their performance bonuses would have blown the slush fund budget!

Texas Tech 75 - Northwestern State 7. THAT'S running up the score. Especially when TT only plays two QBs, the backup goes 9-12 for 196 and 3 TDs. The starting QB was in there throwing when it was 45-7 in the third quarter.

I know TT has a 'pass-wacky' offense, but they HAVE to have more than two QBs, and they certainly have some running plays up the middle. They didn't STOP passing until it was 75-7.

Quote from: smedindy on October 01, 2007, 11:31:38 AM
Texas Tech 75 - Northwestern State 7. THAT'S running up the score. Especially when TT only plays two QBs, the backup goes 9-12 for 196 and 3 TDs. The starting QB was in there throwing when it was 45-7 in the third quarter.

I know TT has a 'pass-wacky' offense, but they HAVE to have more than two QBs, and they certainly have some running plays up the middle. They didn't STOP passing until it was 75-7.

Actually, the Texas Tech Athletic Department picked up the tab for 2nd string QB practice to the tune of about $400,000, payable to the Athletic Department at Northwestern LA.  :D

That's (one of) the problem(s) with D-I ... lots of alumns with deep pockets WANT to see the score run up. 

Quote from: smedindy on October 01, 2007, 11:31:38 AM
Texas Tech 75 - Northwestern State 7. THAT'S running up the score. Especially when TT only plays two QBs, the backup goes 9-12 for 196 and 3 TDs. The starting QB was in there throwing when it was 45-7 in the third quarter.

I know TT has a 'pass-wacky' offense, but they HAVE to have more than two QBs, and they certainly have some running plays up the middle. They didn't STOP passing until it was 75-7.

I didnt see the game but...

-Ive seen that Northwestern St. team play this year.  Very unorganized and lots of fumbles (only 4 vs TT it looks like)

-If you backup qb gets in the game like this, I would think you need him to pass and practice against a real team.  I dont see that much wrong with it.

Quote from: repete on September 30, 2007, 02:08:25 PM
Larry Kehres has basically written the book on how to handle this with class. If you look what MUC did in its opener, it's a lesson to all in that situation.

Guess that's because he's had so much practice ... :)

I said it after the game (MU & Averett) and I will say it again. MU did not run up the score intentionally on Averett. Kehres is a class act and he did everything he knew how to keep the score from going to 200. Averett plain and simple didn't do their part. I haven't heard one complaint from the Averett parents or coaches that MU ran up the score I don't think you ever will. We were there and saw what happened. Can't speak to any other game that folks may be complaining about but this one needs to be left alone.

um, kickerdad....I think repete was saying Kehres does it with class. 

Wasn't a criticism...

Quote from: Jonny Utah on October 01, 2007, 01:47:23 PM

Quote from: smedindy on October 01, 2007, 11:31:38 AM
Texas Tech 75 - Northwestern State 7. THAT'S running up the score. Especially when TT only plays two QBs, the backup goes 9-12 for 196 and 3 TDs. The starting QB was in there throwing when it was 45-7 in the third quarter.

I know TT has a 'pass-wacky' offense, but they HAVE to have more than two QBs, and they certainly have some running plays up the middle. They didn't STOP passing until it was 75-7.

I didnt see the game but...

-Ive seen that Northwestern St. team play this year.  Very unorganized and lots of fumbles (only 4 vs TT it looks like)

-If you backup qb gets in the game like this, I would think you need him to pass and practice against a real team.  I dont see that much wrong with it.

Sure, but put the backup in earlier, and don't pass in the fourth quarter, OR put in #3 or #4 QB! There's no excuse for having the #2 slinging passes to hang 75 on a team.

Quote from: SaintsFAN on October 01, 2007, 03:01:52 PM
um, kickerdad....I think repete was saying Kehres does it with class. 

Wasn't a criticism...

Wasn't trying to say anything negative about what repete said, just using his statement as a reference.

This may have shown up on other threads.  I usually enjoy reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com, but this time I think the author, Gregg Easterbrook is woefully misguided about Mount Union and D-III football:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071002&sportCat=nfl&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab6pos1

Obscure College Score of the Week No. 2: Mount Union 62, Heidelberg 3. Located in Alliance, Ohio, Mount Union -- the defending D-III champion -- is the scourge of small college football, a program dedicated to running up the score. In Division III, some schools emphasize sports and some don't: Mount Union strongly emphasizes football, then schedules schools that do not emphasize football to ensure blowout win after blowout win. So far this season, Mount Union has won by finals of 75-7, 58-14, 62-0 and 62-3. On Saturday versus hapless Heidelberg, Mount Union kept its starting quarterback on the field until the margin was 49-3, although the Purple Raiders did attempt a field goal on first-and-goal in the fourth quarter rather than run for the likely touchdown. Once Mount Union reaches the D-III playoffs, it faces other schools that likewise emphasize football and its scores fall back into the normal range. Maybe it would be enjoyable to play for a team that always won by runaway margins, but where is the sportsmanship in a regular-season schedule of opponents with little or no chance of winning? Mount Union also has six home games versus four road dates, a sure sign of a manipulated schedule.

1.  They're called conference games.  You can't pick and choose your whole schedule from the nation's Top 10.

2.  Mount Union more than any other school, works hard to not run up the score.  They are just that much better.

3.  How unbelievably unfair to accuse a school of not being dedicated to football on the basis of one blowout to the best team in the country.

I think all D-III fans need to write in and politely tell Gregg Easterbrook (TMQ_ESPN@yahoo.com) how badly he's messed this one up.

EDIT:  You know, he's so far off base, I almost feel like he's baiting us.

This is not a jab at any program or coach.  But I feel compelled to mention that collegiality and sportsmanship should, at least IMHO, be part of the DIII game.  Sure, you play to win every week, but at the end of the day, you're going back to class to study hard and prepare for a career in the "real world"--just like the kids on the other team, regardless of score.  Just my humble .02 worth.   :-\

Quote from: smedindy on October 01, 2007, 03:33:01 PM

Quote from: Jonny Utah on October 01, 2007, 01:47:23 PM

Quote from: smedindy on October 01, 2007, 11:31:38 AM
Texas Tech 75 - Northwestern State 7. THAT'S running up the score. Especially when TT only plays two QBs, the backup goes 9-12 for 196 and 3 TDs. The starting QB was in there throwing when it was 45-7 in the third quarter.

I know TT has a 'pass-wacky' offense, but they HAVE to have more than two QBs, and they certainly have some running plays up the middle. They didn't STOP passing until it was 75-7.

I didnt see the game but...

-Ive seen that Northwestern St. team play this year.  Very unorganized and lots of fumbles (only 4 vs TT it looks like)

-If you backup qb gets in the game like this, I would think you need him to pass and practice against a real team.  I dont see that much wrong with it.

Sure, but put the backup in earlier, and don't pass in the fourth quarter, OR put in #3 or #4 QB! There's no excuse for having the #2 slinging passes to hang 75 on a team.

See, I might disagree with you here.

Precisely because of the offense Texas Tech runs.

They are not going to beat every team that bad. They could end up needing that second-string QB for a long stretch of the season against teams like Oklahoma and Texas A&M and Texas.

If they do, won't they have been glad to get him all the reps they possibly could have in their real offense, regardless of whether they are game-speed reps or not, as opposed to having him hand off?

I understand the class act part of the equation, however, a coach's job is to get his team ready, and one can argue that he is wasting reps by not running his offense with players who don't often get a chance to play or to play together.

I think a far more bothersome show of no-class, as opposed to scoring a lot, is how your team handles itself throughout the game, regardless of the score. Do your receivers point every first down they get, or do they help the DB up? Do they do a tackle dance after 3-yard gains? Do they talk trash and pick fights?

I'm all for celebrating and enjoying the game, but I am far more annoyed by than than I am passing when you have a big lead, especially in today's climate where it's OK to pass on any down in any situation.

That might illustrate the to-each-his-own-ness of the running-up-the-score debate.

Quote from: K-Mack on October 03, 2007, 12:38:08 AM
...
If they do, won't they have been glad to get him all the reps they possibly could have in their real offense, regardless of whether they are game-speed reps or not, as opposed to having him hand off?

I understand the class act part of the equation, however, a coach's job is to get his team ready, and one can argue that he is wasting reps by not running his offense with players who don't often get a chance to play or to play together.

I think a far more bothersome show of no-class, as opposed to scoring a lot, is how your team handles itself throughout the game, regardless of the score. Do your receivers point every first down they get, or do they help the DB up? Do they do a tackle dance after 3-yard gains? Do they talk trash and pick fights?

I'm all for celebrating and enjoying the game, but I am far more annoyed by that than I am passing when you have a big lead, especially in today's climate where it's OK to pass on any down in any situation.

That might illustrate the to-each-his-own-ness of the running-up-the-score debate.

+5!!!!!

I strongly agree!  :)

Thanks.

Can you really get +5? You're gonna have to stay committed to follow through on that.  :)

Quote from: K-Mack on October 03, 2007, 01:07:42 AM
Thanks.

Can you really get +5? You're gonna have to stay committed to follow through on that.  :)

Hopefully by the middle of next week, at the latest!  :D

Quote from: Just Bill on October 02, 2007, 07:31:47 PM
This may have shown up on other threads.  I usually enjoy reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com, but this time I think the author, Gregg Easterbrook is woefully misguided about Mount Union and D-III football:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071002&sportCat=nfl&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab6pos1

Obscure College Score of the Week No. 2: Mount Union 62, Heidelberg 3. Located in Alliance, Ohio, Mount Union -- the defending D-III champion -- is the scourge of small college football, a program dedicated to running up the score. In Division III, some schools emphasize sports and some don't: Mount Union strongly emphasizes football, then schedules schools that do not emphasize football to ensure blowout win after blowout win. So far this season, Mount Union has won by finals of 75-7, 58-14, 62-0 and 62-3. On Saturday versus hapless Heidelberg, Mount Union kept its starting quarterback on the field until the margin was 49-3, although the Purple Raiders did attempt a field goal on first-and-goal in the fourth quarter rather than run for the likely touchdown. Once Mount Union reaches the D-III playoffs, it faces other schools that likewise emphasize football and its scores fall back into the normal range. Maybe it would be enjoyable to play for a team that always won by runaway margins, but where is the sportsmanship in a regular-season schedule of opponents with little or no chance of winning? Mount Union also has six home games versus four road dates, a sure sign of a manipulated schedule.

1.  They're called conference games.  You can't pick and choose your whole schedule from the nation's Top 10.

2.  Mount Union more than any other school, works hard to not run up the score.  They are just that much better.

3.  How unbelievably unfair to accuse a school of not being dedicated to football on the basis of one blowout to the best team in the country.

I think all D-III fans need to write in and politely tell Gregg Easterbrook (TMQ_ESPN@yahoo.com) how badly he's messed this one up.

EDIT:  You know, he's so far off base, I almost feel like he's baiting us.

How about

4. Mt. Union also blows out some of the other top teams in the playoffs.....

Quote from: Jonny Utah on October 03, 2007, 03:57:01 AM

Quote from: Just Bill on October 02, 2007, 07:31:47 PM
This may have shown up on other threads.  I usually enjoy reading Tuesday Morning Quarterback on ESPN.com, but this time I think the author, Gregg Easterbrook is woefully misguided about Mount Union and D-III football:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/071002&sportCat=nfl&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab6pos1

Obscure College Score of the Week No. 2: Mount Union 62, Heidelberg 3. Located in Alliance, Ohio, Mount Union -- the defending D-III champion -- is the scourge of small college football, a program dedicated to running up the score. In Division III, some schools emphasize sports and some don't: Mount Union strongly emphasizes football, then schedules schools that do not emphasize football to ensure blowout win after blowout win. So far this season, Mount Union has won by finals of 75-7, 58-14, 62-0 and 62-3. On Saturday versus hapless Heidelberg, Mount Union kept its starting quarterback on the field until the margin was 49-3, although the Purple Raiders did attempt a field goal on first-and-goal in the fourth quarter rather than run for the likely touchdown. Once Mount Union reaches the D-III playoffs, it faces other schools that likewise emphasize football and its scores fall back into the normal range. Maybe it would be enjoyable to play for a team that always won by runaway margins, but where is the sportsmanship in a regular-season schedule of opponents with little or no chance of winning? Mount Union also has six home games versus four road dates, a sure sign of a manipulated schedule.

1.  They're called conference games.  You can't pick and choose your whole schedule from the nation's Top 10.

2.  Mount Union more than any other school, works hard to not run up the score.  They are just that much better.

3.  How unbelievably unfair to accuse a school of not being dedicated to football on the basis of one blowout to the best team in the country.

I think all D-III fans need to write in and politely tell Gregg Easterbrook (TMQ_ESPN@yahoo.com) how badly he's messed this one up.

EDIT:  You know, he's so far off base, I almost feel like he's baiting us.

How about

4. Mt. Union also blows out some of the other top teams in the playoffs.....

Ugh.

I thought we were finished with this clown.

Mount Union schedules one game a year. The other nine are OAC games. In '08 and '09, they have set up a home-and-home with St. John Fisher, whom they defeated in the national semifinals last year.

They play in a conference that awards an automatic playoff bid to its champion (not that Division I followers would know anything about that), so it behooves them to schedule an opponent that will test them since they are guaranteed to only have a few competitive games a year with the way they dominate their conference.

It also can't be very easy for Mount Union to find anyone that actually wants to play them, given what they do to teams that have to play them.

In any case, my next (and final) e-mail to Easterbrook will go something like this:

"You are a clown. Please stop using your ESPN column as a platform to talk out of your [butt] about something you clearly know little about. Regarding the issue of "running up the score," you clearly can't look beyond the scores themselves.

We have been over this twice before in well-detailed e-mails that you have either not bothered to read or chosen not to take seriously. I'll be brief, so as not to waste my time making perfect arguments you'll ignore.

I have no reason to lie to you about Mount Union. They are simply that much better than the competition, and they go to great lengths not to run up scores. They play with class, they respect their opponents and if you spend any time around them, you'll find them awful hard to hate.

I'm not sure why you have a hard-on for these guys, but please refrain from further embarassing yourself on this topic."

I probably should move "You are a clown" to the end to get maximum results.

I think we actually should do the letter writing campaign this time, and then next time he mentions it, ignore him like I do his column (except when people post parts of it here).

Just Bill, I have done polite twice before. It appears to have no effect, but feel free to try it.

Sent my e-mail just now. Added in an example of what Kehres does to not run up the score and the point about them only being in control of one non-conference date, while other strong D3 teams openly refuse to schedule powerful in-state rivals.

Let me know if I should link to the detailed arguments from the past few years (maybe in ATN, maybe in year in review columns) about why this guy is off-base.

Clearly it's just a fixation he has with Mount Union; he's referred to them before as The Death Star of college football, and the slander goes back to '01 or so, on NFL.com and ESPN.com.

Guy's a Colorado College grad too, for what that's worth.

If someone worked for me and was repeatedly that arrogant about his opinion and clearly put little time or thought into forming those opinions, he wouldn't be writing for me anymore.

I can respect a difference of opinion, much more so if it is well thought-out and argued.

Easterbrook's full range of thought on this seems to be "Mount Union keeps winning by a lot, so they must be bad sports."

As we know, not much could be further from the truth.

Don't get me started on "six home games is a sure sign of a manipulated schedule."

Oh yeah? You mean to tell me it didn't possibly occur to this guy that they could have played six road games last year, maybe because their schedule and Averett's didn't match up when they signed the home-and-home and they took the deal anyway despite it unbalancing their schedule?

(They did play six regular-season road games in '06, for the record; five of the first seven were away)

That wasn't even in my e-mail, someone else can use that one.

I mean, that's just blatant not thinking.

Post here if you've e-mailed him. Part of me says ignore the fool, but the other part says perhaps if it's more than just the surly columnist e-mailing, if it's a bunch of people from around the country who aren't MUC fans or alums, maybe he'll take heed.

(He won't, but it'll make us feel better)

Quote from: Just Bill on October 02, 2007, 07:31:47 PM
EDIT:  You know, he's so far off base, I almost feel like he's baiting us.

Very possible.

(took bait)

I will try not to drive any more traffic his way, although I don't think it'll affect the numbers much :)

Should we be more offended that he referred to Mount Union as "obscure?"

Quote from: cwru70 on October 03, 2007, 07:42:54 AM
Should we be more offended that he referred to Mount Union as "obscure?"

Perhaps Mt. Union is an "obscure" venue only for someone who knows little, if anything, about D3 football.

Quote from: Warren Thompson on October 03, 2007, 08:01:09 AM

Quote from: cwru70 on October 03, 2007, 07:42:54 AM
Should we be more offended that he referred to Mount Union as "obscure?"

Perhaps Mt. Union is an "obscure" venue only for someone who knows little, if anything, about D3 football.

One could argue that his column is obscure.

Quote from: Knightstalker on October 03, 2007, 08:15:03 AM

Quote from: Warren Thompson on October 03, 2007, 08:01:09 AM

Quote from: cwru70 on October 03, 2007, 07:42:54 AM
Should we be more offended that he referred to Mount Union as "obscure?"

Perhaps Mt. Union is an "obscure" venue only for someone who knows little, if anything, about D3 football.

One could argue that his column is obscure.

Well, yes, he certainly seems to have obscured some facts.  ::)

Quote from: Knightstalker on October 03, 2007, 08:15:03 AM

Quote from: Warren Thompson on October 03, 2007, 08:01:09 AM

Quote from: cwru70 on October 03, 2007, 07:42:54 AM
Should we be more offended that he referred to Mount Union as "obscure?"

Perhaps Mt. Union is an "obscure" venue only for someone who knows little, if anything, about D3 football.

One could argue that his column is obscure.

Unfortunately, after Bill Simmons and Pat Forde, it's one of the most popular columns on ESPN.com.

I also wrote pointing out another mistake in his "facts." In 2000 and 2003, Mount beat their semi-final opponents by, if my memory serves, 60 points each year (before running into the powerhouse Johnnies who returned them to "normal scores") What an ultra-maroon this guy must be.

Here's what I wrote to Eastrbrook:

Mr. Easterbrook,

You appear to be very uninformed about Mount Union College football and Division III football in general, so I thought I would attempt to enlighten you.  I am a fan of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and have no connection to Mount Union other than being a fan of Division III sports.

First you attest that Mount Union must be loading their schedule with cupcakes and home games.  Mount plays in a 10-team conference, which means nine of their games are scheduled for them.  They have control of exactly ONE game on their schedule.  In the past they have scheduled UW-Whitewater (national runner-up) and in the future they schedule St. John Fisher (national semifinalist).  With nine conference games, they begin with either 5 at home and 4 on the road or vice versa.  I would think you would understand that with their success they have difficulty finding opponents willing to play.  Isn't it possible that the one non-conference game they scheduled wasn't able to accomodate them creating an unbalanced schedule?  In fact, basic research that any junior reporter would have done would show the Mount Union played six ROAD games and just four home games in 2006.

Secondly, simply because you see a lopsided score you assume Mount Union is running it up.  As a fan who sat on the opposite end of an MTC blowout, I can assure that they go to extreme measures to avoid blowouts.  Against Averett, their starting running back touched the ball just 7 times (and two of those were punt returns).  Against Heidelberg, they opted for field goal attempts on first down following a turnover three times to avoid scoring more touchdowns.  You also state that Mount Union's game scores "fall back into the normal range" once the enter the D-III playoffs.  Again my junior reporting skills (which you lack) shows the Mount Union has won playoff games by scores of 49-0, 35-3, 49-6 and 44-7 in the last two years.  The fact is, they are just that much better than most of the rest of the country.

Finally, it is a horrible slap in the face at the other schools when you accuse them of not taking football seriously based on one lopsided game to the top ranked team in the country.  The other teams in the Ohio Athletic Conference are very serious about football and peform very well when playing outisde of the conference.  Did you say the same about Northwestern St. when they were crushed by Texas A&M?  Did you call out Northwestern when they were pounded by Ohio State?

Please take more care in your reporting.  You have an exellent column, but your shoddy reporting on this reflects poorly on you and your employer.  All the information you need to write an informed column is readily available just a few clicks away.  I am sure the Coach Kehres would also be glad to explain to you the way that Mount Union conducts business, should you ever bother to call.

Uhhh....the two years Mount played UW-W, the Warhawks were a combined 12-8.  Not to discredit your argument, because it's generally solid.  But it's not like those were the best 'Hawk teams of the decade....

Plus for every UW-W and SJF on the Raiders schedule, there's an Allegheny and a Wash U.   :-X

If I thought he'd bother to check my work, I'd be worried.

I also wrote a very polite, respectful response to Easterbrook. I love his column - I enjoy witty, erudite football discussion. He is no clown - I think he thought Mt. Union really had more control over its schedule than it does.

Quote from: Just Bill on October 03, 2007, 10:20:12 AM
If I thought he'd bother to check my work, I'd be worried.

Good point.

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 03, 2007, 10:23:40 AM

Quote from: Just Bill on October 03, 2007, 10:20:12 AM
If I thought he'd bother to check my work, I'd be worried.

Good point.

Seriously though, even if Whitewater wasn't the team from 2005 and 2006, they were still a winning team from an elite conference.  That's hardly picking out softies, the way that Easterbrook implies.

Quote from: smedindy on October 03, 2007, 10:22:39 AM
I think he thought Mt. Union really had more control over its schedule than it does.

That may be true, but it wopuld have taken a 20-second journey into Google-land to discover that Mount Union plays nine conference games.  That's weak reporting any way you slice it.

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 03, 2007, 10:12:53 AM
Uhhh....the two years Mount played UW-W, the Warhawks were a combined 12-8.  Not to discredit your argument, because it's generally solid.  But it's not like those were the best 'Hawk teams of the decade....

Plus for every UW-W and SJF on the Raiders schedule, there's an Allegheny and a Wash U.   :-X

When that series was scheduled Allegheny was giving Mount Union its toughest playoff games.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 03, 2007, 11:00:38 AM

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 03, 2007, 10:12:53 AM
Uhhh....the two years Mount played UW-W, the Warhawks were a combined 12-8.  Not to discredit your argument, because it's generally solid.  But it's not like those were the best 'Hawk teams of the decade....

Plus for every UW-W and SJF on the Raiders schedule, there's an Allegheny and a Wash U.   :-X

When that series was scheduled Allegheny was giving Mount Union its toughest playoff games.

Yeah, Josh, I almost had to call you out for erring while you called someone else out.

In the 90s, Allegheny was a perennial playoff team. When they played Mount in 00-01, they weren't so far removed from that era that scheduling them was viewed as searching for a cupcake.

I probably wouldn't even make that claim if they scheduled them now.

There ARE top 25 teams who do purposely schedule cupcakes (or avoid good teams who could plausibly beat them pre-conference schedule), and there are powerhouses who for years couldn't fill out a schedule with Division III opponents.

It's not that this is a worthless topic, just that one isn't going to get anyone very far if they pursue it with Mount Union. There's not much there.

SOMETIMES 'running up the score' is pretty blatant (and, long-term, costly).  Sorry this isn't d3, but the classic case is Woody Hayes, 1968 (and '69):

In the 1968 OSU-UM game, OSU scored at the end of the game to make it 48-14.  Woody went for two(!): final score 50-14.  When asked after the game why in the world he would do that, he replied "Because they wouldn't let me go for three".  The result was that the UM coach was fired and replaced by Woody's protege, Bo Schembechler.

In 1969 OSU had what was at the time often called the greatest team in college football history (and which Woody himself said was the greatest team he ever coached).  OOPS!  UM 24, OSU 12.  While obviously Michigan would have had no trouble getting up for the game anyway, Bo (and several players) said that the two-point conversion in '68 was a 'huge' extra motivator.

Anyone tempted to 'rub it in' should remember that opponents have memories! ;)

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 03, 2007, 11:00:38 AMWhen that series was scheduled Allegheny was giving Mount Union its toughest playoff games.

Quote from: K-Mack on October 03, 2007, 11:47:18 AM
Yeah, Josh, I almost had to call you out for erring while you called someone else out.

In the 90s, Allegheny was a perennial playoff team. When they played Mount in 00-01, they weren't so far removed from that era that scheduling them was viewed as searching for a cupcake.

I probably wouldn't even make that claim if they scheduled them now.

There ARE top 25 teams who do purposely schedule cupcakes (or avoid good teams who could plausibly beat them pre-conference schedule), and there are powerhouses who for years couldn't fill out a schedule with Division III opponents.

It's not that this is a worthless topic, just that one isn't going to get anyone very far if they pursue it with Mount Union. There's not much there.

Gentlemen--

This all may be so, but since 1999, the Gators have never won more than seven games in a season, and made one solitary playoff appearance--losing in the first round to Montclair State in 2003. 

Prior to the 1998-99 seasons, DIII was much smaller and more centralized in the midwest and east coast, too--something that must be taken into consideration for the sake of this discussion.

I'm not saying Mt. Union schedules cupcakes, or that Allegheny is a cupcake.  But at the same time, MUC hasn't exactly gone out of their way to get out of their general local or even their own region and schedule another legitimate playoff contender, either.  St. John's, Wheaton, Millikin, Washington & Jefferson, Rowan...all teams that have been largely successful during that period of time and henceforth--and well within bussing distance for an Ohio team.  Wabash and Hanover also had some good runs during that period of time, as did Central--also within bussing distance.

Look I'm not trying to start anything, here.  The truth of the matter is somewhere squarely in the middle of the original article and today's letter of response.  I do applaud the Raiders for scheduling SJF for the next two years.  The Cardinals seem to be the class of the northeast now, and it should prove to be a good series.

Nor, for the record, do I think the Raiders run up the purposefully run up the score.  I do think it happens, but I don't think that Coach Kehres could ever legitimately be accused of doing so just for the sake of doing so.

Other programs across the nation, though.....well, who am I to say?    ;)

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 03, 2007, 01:21:12 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 03, 2007, 11:00:38 AMWhen that series was scheduled Allegheny was giving Mount Union its toughest playoff games.

Quote from: K-Mack on October 03, 2007, 11:47:18 AM
Yeah, Josh, I almost had to call you out for erring while you called someone else out.

In the 90s, Allegheny was a perennial playoff team. When they played Mount in 00-01, they weren't so far removed from that era that scheduling them was viewed as searching for a cupcake.

I probably wouldn't even make that claim if they scheduled them now.

There ARE top 25 teams who do purposely schedule cupcakes (or avoid good teams who could plausibly beat them pre-conference schedule), and there are powerhouses who for years couldn't fill out a schedule with Division III opponents.

It's not that this is a worthless topic, just that one isn't going to get anyone very far if they pursue it with Mount Union. There's not much there.

Gentlemen--

This all may be so, but since 1999, the Gators have never one more than seven games in a season, and made one solitary playoff appearance--losing in the first round to Montclair State in 2003. 

True, but wholly irrelevant.

What is relevant:

1997 playoffs
First round, Nov. 22
at Mount Union 34, Allegheny 30
Mount Union won the rest of its playoff games 59-7, 54-7 and 61-12.

1996 playoffs
First round, Nov. 23
at Mount Union 31, Allegheny 26
Mount Union won the rest of its playoff games 49-14, 39-21 and 56-24.

That was the reality in which the deal was signed. Remember that the 2008-09 St. John Fisher contract was a done deal in mid-2006.

And scheduling is a two-way street. The truth of the matter is it takes two to tango. And St. John's isn't interested in playing long-distance road games -- they're not returning to Marietta next year, for example.

I disagree regarding the relevance, but agree that we may be splitting hairs. 

The two teams continued to play in 2000 and 2001--at least three years removed from their playoff clashes with each other.  Given players only have four years of eligibility and the changing DIII landscape at the time, I'd say that Allegheny had begun to enter their rebuilding phase at least two years prior to the 2000 and 2001 seasons where they played MUC.

But not when the game was scheduled, and it's the act of scheduling that you are calling into question.

This isn't basketball, where schedules are seemingly in flux up until the start of the season. In football, many teams have schedules locked down for four years in D-3, and many more years in D-1.

If Mt. Union decides to schedule Central, for instance, who is to say in 4 years they may not fall to the 5-5 or 6-4 Central of a few years ago? If they schedule Washington & Jefferson, in four years they could be in a slump. Who knows?

Plus it appears W&J is satisfied simply scrimmaging Mount Union. :)

My honest first reaction to Easterbrook's column is that he was baiting us.  I generally enjoy his column, check to see which Division III team is mentioned out of curiosity and ignore whatever he says about them.  :)

Well if he was baiting us, it worked on me as I just sent him email with a few words of constructive critism  ;)

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 03, 2007, 01:21:12 PM
I'm not saying Mt. Union schedules cupcakes, or that Allegheny is a cupcake.  But at the same time, MUC hasn't exactly gone out of their way to get out of their general local or even their own region and schedule another legitimate playoff contender, either.  St. John's, Wheaton, Millikin, Washington & Jefferson, Rowan...all teams that have been largely successful during that period of time and henceforth--and well within bussing distance for an Ohio team.  Wabash and Hanover also had some good runs during that period of time, as did Central--also within bussing distance.

Look I'm not trying to start anything, here.  The truth of the matter is somewhere squarely in the middle of the original article and today's letter of response.  I do applaud the Raiders for scheduling SJF for the next two years.  The Cardinals seem to be the class of the northeast now, and it should prove to be a good series.

I'm not sure I like your tone in implying that MUC should schedule some real competition.  I seriously doubt anyone in D3 has more trouble getting an opener than MUC.  How many teams want a 1 in a 100 shot (or worse) of winning their opener?  Not many.

I applaud SJ Fisher for stepping up to play MUC.  Not the other way around.

Well, considering the team I cheer for, Hardin-Simmons, has to schedule the likes of UW-Whitewater, UW-Stout, UW-Stephens Point, UW-LaCrosse, Linfield and Azusa Pacific just to fill out a ten game schedule, hscoach, allow me a moment of indignance.  Just in our conference, Mary Hardin-Baylor has had to do the same thing against UW-Whitewater and Willamette, recently, too--so this isn't exactly an isolated case.

So with all due respect, I'm not sure we southerners feel much sympathy when it comes to scheduling for anybody in the midwest or east coast.  You guys live in the smack-dab middle of the DIII world for crying out loud.  Nobody there should ever have any trouble scheduling games. 

Finding a game within driving distance isn't the problem.  Finding a team willing to run the risk of getting drilled in Week 1 is the problem.

Even blind squirrels find acorns once in a while, hscoach. 

Quote from: hscoach on October 03, 2007, 03:45:12 PM
I'm not sure I like your tone in implying that MUC should schedule some real competition.  I seriously doubt anyone in D3 has more trouble getting an opener than MUC.  How many teams want a 1 in a 100 shot (or worse) of winning their opener?  Not many.

And that's the problem MUC is going to have...teams that have serious and legitimate playoff aspirations aren't going to put themselves behind the 8-ball in week 1.  Here's the deal when you schedule MUC...you're probably going to lose which puts you into an AQ or bust situation (2-loss teams shouldn't count on getting invited to the tournament).  So when you schedule MUC, in all likelihood you've put yourself into a do or die game every single week for the rest of the year...that can't be ideal. 

Anybody who wins a Stagg Bowl is going to have to beat MUC somewhere along the way.  If you're lucky enough to hit on that 1 in 100 chance, wouldn't you rather have that lucky day come in December as opposed to September?

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 03, 2007, 04:12:15 PM
UW-Stephens Point

Stevens.  Sorry, pet peeve.  Thank you for not putting an apostrophe in it.  ;)

Back to the show.

Along with Texas, Wisconsin is another case study in difficult scheduling.  Just about every school has had to schedule a higher division team, NAIA teams, or fly across the country just to make a game.  That's what happens when one of the best leagues in the country shares territory with tow of the worst (MWC, IBC).

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 03, 2007, 04:27:16 PM

Quote from: hscoach on October 03, 2007, 03:45:12 PM
I'm not sure I like your tone in implying that MUC should schedule some real competition.  I seriously doubt anyone in D3 has more trouble getting an opener than MUC.  How many teams want a 1 in a 100 shot (or worse) of winning their opener?  Not many.

And that's the problem MUC is going to have...teams that have serious and legitimate playoff aspirations aren't going to put themselves behind the 8-ball in week 1.  Here's the deal when you schedule MUC...you're probably going to lose which puts you into an AQ or bust situation (2-loss teams shouldn't count on getting invited to the tournament).  So when you schedule MUC, in all likelihood you've put yourself into a do or die game every single week for the rest of the year...that can't be ideal. 

Anybody who wins a Stagg Bowl is going to have to beat MUC somewhere along the way.  If you're lucky enough to hit on that 1 in 100 chance, wouldn't you rather have that lucky day come in December as opposed to September?

However, you can use the "in-region" rule to your advantage.

MUC vs SJF is not an in-region game.

MUC vs SJU is not an in-region game.

MUC vs UWW is not an in-region game. Nor are

MUC vs HSU
MUC vs Linfield
MUC vs Rowan
MUC vs UMHB
MUC vs Wartburg or Central IA.

Quote from: Just Bill on October 03, 2007, 04:34:52 PM

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 03, 2007, 04:12:15 PM
UW-Stephens Point

Stevens.  Sorry, pet peeve.  Thank you for not putting an apostrophe in it.  ;)

Back to the show.

Along with Texas, Wisconsin is another case study in difficult scheduling.  Just about every school has had to schedule a higher division team, NAIA teams, or fly across the country just to make a game.  That's what happens when one of the best leagues in the country shares territory with tow of the worst (MWC, IIBC).

D'oh.  Sorry, stupid mistake.   :P

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 03, 2007, 04:38:38 PM
However, you can use the "in-region" rule to your advantage.

MUC vs SJF is not an in-region game.

MUC vs SJU is not an in-region game.

MUC vs UWW is not an in-region game. Nor are

MUC vs HSU
MUC vs Linfield
MUC vs Rowan
MUC vs UMHB
MUC vs Wartburg or Central IA.

Thanks for illustrating my point better than I seem to have been able to do, Ralph.   :-\

But is there not a limit on how far Mt. Union can travel for a game - by their rules (or the OAC's)? Averett was about 460 miles away. SJF will be a bit short of 300.

Rowan is closer than Averett - Whitewater is almost 500 miles away. But farther than that and a bus ride isn't going to be very practical.

I wouldn't claim to know the answer to that question, smedindy. 

If it's their rule, then that just illustrates my point.  I have no knowledge of a conference ever imposing that kind of rule on its teams, but it's something that is certainly plausible.

Because of a personal connection that I won't get into here, I do have a pretty good idea about how enthusiastically the administrative leadership of MUC supports its football team.  Because of that, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't work something out (institutionally speaking) fairly easily to send the football team basically wherever they wanted to go, whenever they wanted to go there.

Where I come from, though, everybody that thinks they're anybody wants a shot at the champ, every year.  Evidently, that's different in other parts of the country, though...

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 03, 2007, 05:11:08 PM
Where I come from, though, everybody that thinks they're anybody wants a shot at the champ, every year.  Evidently, that's different in other parts of the country, though...

I want my shot at the champ too...I just want to make sure that the reward for beating the champ is substantial.  You don't win squat for beating MUC in September. 

Well, yes, MUC should support their team. But do they take a trip to Linfield and waste resources that are needed for the other 20 sports at Mt. Union, or the other activities? Even at Mt. Union, the well is not bottomless. And even if the administration supports the team - it may be tough to change the rules of the college, since the Trustees would have to approve that no doubt.

The financial support for MUC isn't as great as you would think. According to their site, they get about $1 million in annual fund donations, and their endowment is $121 million.

Quote from: wally_wabash on October 03, 2007, 06:08:17 PM

Quote from: Josh Bowerman on October 03, 2007, 05:11:08 PM
Where I come from, though, everybody that thinks they're anybody wants a shot at the champ, every year.  Evidently, that's different in other parts of the country, though...

You don't win squat for beating MUC in September. 

Really? I would think a team that beats Mt. Union in any month does, in fact, win a good deal of "squat" and likely a helluva lot more than that ....  ;)

For what it's worth, I've heard lots of reasons that coaches can't fill their schedules.  Some of them are not particular to Mount Union or isolated regions.  Those reasons include...

1) "Everyone around us has lots of conference games": the MAC runs into that next year when the NJAC expands (a role reversal from when the MAC had 10 teams and the NJAC needed games). It's a different sport, but this was one of the factors that pushed Lincoln (Pa.) to go Division II in basketball.

2) "We have trouble filling our schedule because we're an independent": This is one reason teams will drive long distances to part of illogical conference alignments.

3) "No one wants to play us because we're too good": One coach of a new program jokingly told me the opposite.  "Everyone wants to play us to be their homecoming queen."

4) "We can't afford to travel that far": One team had an intriguing offer to play a game half way across the country, but the school doesn't have the funds to make the trip.  "That would blow our whole budget for one game," he lamented.

5) "We can't find enough opponents who are 'like minded institutions'": No one has explicitly said the words "like minded institutions" to me, but there have certainly been implications that some schools are not interested in playing others because they view their institutions' approach to athletics as inherently different.  The corollary theory is...

6) "They won't play us because we're a public school"

7) "We can't find games because no one wants to travel here": The implied completion of the sentence is "...and we're not going drive to Wassamatta U if they're not returning the favor next year."  Can't say I fault those coaches.

8 ) "We just can't make the schedules work":  This may be the case where coaches are trying to avoid having a game on a particular week.  One coach told me he couldn't schedule games for Week 1 because of quirks in the institution's academic schedule.  Tough to fault them for putting the schoolwork first.

No. 7 can also combine with No. 3 to limit opening week opportunities.  Another coach who had a bye in Week 1 told me he couldn't fill that week because it would mean bringing players back to campus a week early and they couldn't afford to pay for the players' accommodations.  This was a coach who was easily within driving distance of lots of schools...but his budget wasn't.


The point is, putting together a schedule is hard for lots of reasons.  And those reasons aren't always evident from a comparison of open dates or looking at Mapquest.

Quote from: gordonmann on October 03, 2007, 07:44:28 PM
"...and we're not going drive to Wassamatta U

Yea, noone wants to go to Frostbite Falls.  Tip of the hat to Jay Ward.  Although FWIW Wikipedia spells it Wossamotta U

One can't expect two Russians, a squirrel and a moose to be very particular about the spelling of the name of a prestigious American university.

Ha.  Thanks, CWRU70.

"Now we NEVER catch Moose and Squirrel!"

Quote from: frank uible on October 03, 2007, 10:02:09 PM
One can't expect two Russians, a squirrel and a moose to be very particular about the spelling of the name of a prestigious American university.

+1 for frank, whether he wants it or not. :)

I need all the help I can get.

Quote from: frank uible on October 03, 2007, 10:02:09 PM
One can't expect two Russians, a squirrel and a moose to be very particular about the spelling of the name of a prestigious American university.

But Mr. Know-It-All would be!  He'd get it wrong, but would still be concerned ...

As I recall Boris and Natasha were Pottsylvanians, although clearly modeled after Russians (Soviets).

I confess guilt for failing to take the word play to its ultimate.

Can we put Larry Kehres in the Way Back Machine, swap him for John Cooper at OSU and see a completely different d3 landscape the past two decades.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ficons.wunderground.com%2Fdata%2Fwximagenew%2Fm%2FMargieKieper%2F700.jpg&hash=32890c8cd378e1baef21a29f98cffa738fe1f2bb)

AHA! I've figured it out! Kehres has kidnapped Mr. Whoopie and the 3-D BB to draw up plays. But unlike Tennessee Tuxedo, he actually listens to him!

Plus, Chumley is one of his linemen. It's hard to shed a block from a walrus, you know.

I am also a Rocky & Bullwinkle fan, but I want to make one comment about the theme of this thread. I have made several specific comments on the ASC board.  People obviously have different opinions about it, but I tend to agree with Keith in almost every respect.

I do believe in emptying the bench if at all possible in a true blowout.  I frankly think it is both arrogant and stupid to risk injury to key players at that point.  Play can get sloppy and the losing side can get embarrassed and do something foolish that could hurt your players--literally.

However, when I played sports once upon a time, I would have been much much more humiliated by my opponent taking knees, punting on 1st down, kicking field goals, etc. that having the 4th string running  back running hard  or even the 3rd string QB throwing a pass. I guess if it approaches 70 or 80 points maybe even those extreme let's not run it up tactics are appropriate, but I have seen coaches do stuff like that at 30 or 40 points, and to me that calls more attention to the facts---we whipped you badly--than playing the game with substitutes.

I also agree that  HOW the game is played by both sides is more important than the score. Respect your opponent no matter what.  I am not that big a fan however of the losing side playing its starters against 4th teamers just to make the score more "respectable." I think that cheapens the game, and each coach I guess has to play the game the way he sees it, but I don't think you should have it both ways--have mercy on me, but I play all out for 60 minutes with my first team.

Common sense and mutual respect would go a long way, and usually does, on all sides.

You know whats wrong with D3 football? Nobody has a 100 thousand seat stadium they can fill with deep pocket boosters to watch their team beat up on anybody willing to be the victim for the right payday.

It takes courage to schedule a 9 time champion when you can avoid them until the playoffs. But on the outside chance you actually beat them.....then you are riding a tsunami sized wave of momentum for the next 9 games. If you lose....oh well, nobody expected you to win anyways, just cash the check and be happy you got the chance to face the best.

First game of the season, or your last game of the playoffs....you have to play the best to be the best. Averett may have been schooled by MUC, but at least they know exactly where their program stands. Plus they have 9 games to get better for a shot at redemption. In the playoffs its one and done, so to speak. Which is worse?

Quote from: section13raiderfan on October 15, 2007, 07:34:23 PM
You know whats wrong with D3 football?

I do. It's not related to your second sentence at all, however. :)

Quote from: section13raiderfan on October 15, 2007, 07:34:23 PM
Nobody has a 100 thousand seat stadium they can fill with deep pocket boosters to watch their team beat up on anybody willing to be the victim for the right payday.

I wasnt disrespecting D3 at all. D1 yes. For the right payout some programs will take the whipping for the payday and the exposure. D3 doesnt generate enough money to temp someone to take the risk. Its a less tainted scenario. I prefer the D3 setup actually. Plus, you get an undisputed champion every year.

Quote

Quote from: repete on October 04, 2007, 07:55:30 AM
Can we put Larry Kehres in the Way Back Machine, swap him for John Cooper at OSU and see a completely different D3 landscape the past two decades.
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ficons.wunderground.com%2Fdata%2Fwximagenew%2Fm%2FMargieKieper%2F700.jpg&hash=32890c8cd378e1baef21a29f98cffa738fe1f2bb)

This is good food for thought. Would LK stay 25 years at OSU? What would OSUs records look like under LKs system? What would recruiting be like for OSU under LK? How long would Cooper last in D3?  Who would transition to the other level the best? This could be a topic of its own.

Mike DuBose, late of Alabama, doing pretty well at Millsaps.

Quote from: gordonmann on October 03, 2007, 07:44:28 PM
For what it's worth, I've heard lots of reasons that coaches can't fill their schedules.  Some of them are not particular to Mount Union or isolated regions.  Those reasons include...

1) "Everyone around us has lots of conference games": the MAC runs into that next year when the NJAC expands (a role reversal from when the MAC had 10 teams and the NJAC needed games). It's a different sport, but this was one of the factors that pushed Lincoln (Pa.) to go Division II in basketball.

2) "We have trouble filling our schedule because we're an independent": This is one reason teams will drive long distances to part of illogical conference alignments.

3) "No one wants to play us because we're too good": One coach of a new program jokingly told me the opposite.  "Everyone wants to play us to be their homecoming queen."

4) "We can't afford to travel that far": One team had an intriguing offer to play a game half way across the country, but the school doesn't have the funds to make the trip.  "That would blow our whole budget for one game," he lamented.

5) "We can't find enough opponents who are 'like minded institutions'": No one has explicitly said the words "like minded institutions" to me, but there have certainly been implications that some schools are not interested in playing others because they view their institutions' approach to athletics as inherently different.  The corollary theory is...

6) "They won't play us because we're a public school"

7) "We can't find games because no one wants to travel here": The implied completion of the sentence is "...and we're not going drive to Wassamatta U if they're not returning the favor next year."  Can't say I fault those coaches.

8 ) "We just can't make the schedules work":  This may be the case where coaches are trying to avoid having a game on a particular week.  One coach told me he couldn't schedule games for Week 1 because of quirks in the institution's academic schedule.  Tough to fault them for putting the schoolwork first.

No. 7 can also combine with No. 3 to limit opening week opportunities.  Another coach who had a bye in Week 1 told me he couldn't fill that week because it would mean bringing players back to campus a week early and they couldn't afford to pay for the players' accommodations.  This was a coach who was easily within driving distance of lots of schools...but his budget wasn't.


The point is, putting together a schedule is hard for lots of reasons.  And those reasons aren't always evident from a comparison of open dates or looking at Mapquest.

Take this post as virtual gospel.

I ask about scheduling nearly everywhere I go and those are the main responses, in one form or another, I hear.

When they know you aren't quoting them, coaches are often very glib.

Outside of the logical pairings of NWC, WIAC and ASC top-half teams who all share the need games/no one will play us/can travel situation, I believe the top-flight East and Midwest teams who say they literally cannot get anyone to take them for a non-conference game.

You would think there are more teams like Averett and St. John Fisher and Christopher Newport who believe that you gain something by playing the best, and that big games are what kids enjoy most.

Unfortunately, there are as many philosophies on scheduling as there are coaches making schedules.

I guess this is somehow relevant to running up the score.

Quote from: Rick Akins on October 04, 2007, 12:13:19 PMbut I tend to agree with Keith in almost every respect.

That is always worth +1 karma!  ;D

Quote from: Rick Akins on October 04, 2007, 12:13:19 PM
I am also a Rocky & Bullwinkle fan, but I want to make one comment about the theme of this thread. I have made several specific comments on the ASC board.  People obviously have different opinions about it, but I tend to agree with Keith in almost every respect.

I do believe in emptying the bench if at all possible in a true blowout.  I frankly think it is both arrogant and stupid to risk injury to key players at that point.  Play can get sloppy and the losing side can get embarrassed and do something foolish that could hurt your players--literally.

However, when I played sports once upon a time, I would have been much much more humiliated by my opponent taking knees, punting on 1st down, kicking field goals, etc. that having the 4th string running  back running hard  or even the 3rd string QB throwing a pass. I guess if it approaches 70 or 80 points maybe even those extreme let's not run it up tactics are appropriate, but I have seen coaches do stuff like that at 30 or 40 points, and to me that calls more attention to the facts---we whipped you badly--than playing the game with substitutes.

I also agree that  HOW the game is played by both sides is more important than the score. Respect your opponent no matter what.  I am not that big a fan however of the losing side playing its starters against 4th teamers just to make the score more "respectable." I think that cheapens the game, and each coach I guess has to play the game the way he sees it, but I don't think you should have it both ways--have mercy on me, but I play all out for 60 minutes with my first team.

Common sense and mutual respect would go a long way, and usually does, on all sides.

Great post all-around, by the way.

On topic too.  :o

Thanks, K-Mack.  I try! Watching a lot of UMHB this year I have had plenty of opportunities to see  different approaches to this issue from the losing side by UMHB opponents this year! Overall Coach Fredenburg has been more than fair, IMHO.

I remember a long long time ago when I was in high school.  We played one team every year that had no freshman or JV team, they only had about 20 kids in uniform in a good year.  The final score would usually end  up being 72-6 or something like that.  Our varsity would play the first quarter, JV the second and the freshman team the second half and the freshman would not pass after the fourth quarter started.  Those kids never quit, they played hard for the whole game and they could hit, just not enough skill or numbers.  They would get even quite often during the wrestling season, those farm boys make good wrestlers.

This, from the comments on the Daily Dose after St. Olaf scored 85, definitely belongs here:

Quote#  repete Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
You summed up the St. Olaf-Carleton mess nicely. It would be nice if STO would own up or explain, but not likely.

# wahoo3 Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
At face, I couldn't agree with you more on the 85 points put up by Ole; however, within context I think its getting a bit more scrutiny (relatively) than it deserves for several reasons. However, the specific reasons mentioned in the podcast why it was unsportsmanlike, were the following.

1. "Oles scored 28 points in the 4th Qtr," The last 7 were scored by an INT for a touchdown, so now we're down to 21. On 2 of the 3 touchdown drives there were 0 or 1 pass attempt and the 1 was by the backup QB in a drive that started with over 10 minutes left in the 4th. In terms of scoring on those drives, they were on short fields due to turnovers and there were several long runs. Whos fault is that?

2. "Passing late in the game — specifically the one long pass to Gant from Penz"
The pass in question came with 12:41 left in the 4th. I admit, it was not a run and catch, it was a deep throw. You CAN blame the coach for calling a pass (but I'd suggest you can find hundreds of other instances of coaches calling pass plays this late in the game up this many — if you want I can show you SJU stat sheets). However, you can't blame the coach for who the QB threw to or which route was thrown. If you know something about modern passing games you know against cover 2 press your outside receivers convert almost every route to a fade or side-pocket (see colts/pats game last night). This appears to be what happened. Meidt likely did call the pass, but Carleton's defense dictated which route was thrown and you CANNOT blame the QB for executing.

Should the starting QB have been in for this drive? Maybe, maybe not. How many QB's did the Oles travel to Carleton — 2. How many games does Penz have left to play in his life? 1. Personally, I would give my left nut to play in one more quarter.

My first reaction when I see scores like this is the same as I've read on Post Patterns and heard on the podcast; however, being at the game I feel obligated to give some additional color around the circumstances that led to the 85 points. Also, note that the Carleton QB threw for over 300 yards in the first half and shred our defense to put Carleton up 21-7.

# Pat Coleman Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
While you have people looking at St. John's boxes I'll send people to Mount Union boxes to see how they handle blowouts. Lots of intentionally running out of bounds, lots of starters on the bench, lots of field goals early in downs.

Not sure why we have to accept a 30-yard INT return for a TD as an automatic (fourth TD of fourth quarter). Not sure a 67-yard drive is considered a short field (second TD of fourth quarter).

# wahoo3 Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Not sure "intentially running out of bounds" is the best thing to do.

If you're suggesting that a coach can/should stop a senior DB who rarely plays from returning (assuming) the only INT of his career for a touchdown, I don't agree with you.

I have the utmost respect for Coach Kehres (sp?) and by all accounts he always does the right thing, but if he really is taking every precaution not to run it up how do you even score 73 vs. Capital in '99. If scoring too many points is such a concern, than why even kick a field goal? Why not just turn it over on downs? The point I guess I'm trying to make is that sometimes the score gets out of hand beyond the coaches control. You still have to let your players play. Its all in context. In a game where the Carleton QB threw for almost 350 yards in the first half and where Carleton was leading 21-7, I think context would suggest that "securing" the game (although clearly did not require 85) took additional effort than your typical blowout.

# repete Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
"(but I'd suggest you can find hundreds of other instances of coaches calling pass plays this late in the game up this many — if you want I can show you SJU stat sheets)"

Wahoo,

You tried this argument on the MIAC board. In your very own example, SJU's starter took a seat at halftime, while STO's was throwing long in the fourth. And the longest completion of the 2nd half by SJU was 13 yards — nothing downfield. Several runs were longer.

What's worse having No. 2s and 3s running short plays all second half or a starter throwing long in the 4th? Seems an easy question.

# Pat Coleman Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
wahoo — they do that too.

M 1-G A14 Zac Angel rush for 4 yards to the AUF10 (KNOWLES, Kenny;BELL, Allen).
M 2-G A10 Scott Thomas rush for 3 yards to the AUF7 (GLENN, Quincey;MCCAULEY,
Justi).
M 3-G A07 TEAM rush for loss of 2 yards to the AUF9.
M 4-G A09 TEAM rush for loss of 2 yards to the AUF11.

# wahoo3 Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Why didn't they take a loss on 1st and 2nd down as well, what are they trying to prove by gaining yardage? I'm sure they would have won if they didn't gain those yards.

The point is, where do you draw the line?

Against Augsburg, the Johnnies were playing at home — so I'd hope that all 9 of their QB's played in that game. The Oles only travelled 2 to Carleton — due to injuries. Further, they were only up by 1 point at half time so I don't think its likely that Penz was going to sit the whole second half.

See earlier post for why its not necessarily the coaches fault that his QB executed the play and threw it deep. The coach determines if its a run or a pass, after that its depends on what defense is run.

# Pat Coleman Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
"Why didn't they take a loss on 1st and 2nd down as well, what are they trying to prove by gaining yardage?"

Please. That's a ridiculous question, and I know you know it. Spare us the rhetoric.

Bear with me on this one.

Running it up is kind of like cheating on someone. You never really intend to do it, it sort of just happens.

And it always hurts the "victim" more than the "perpetrator." The disconnect comes in when either party fails to respect the difference in how important the other considers it.

Whaddya think?

Hm.  I was going to say running up the score is like chasing a goose with a toaster oven but your analogy makes more sense.

Quote from: gordonmann on November 08, 2007, 05:01:11 PM
Hm.  I was going to say running up the score is like chasing a goose with a toaster oven but your analogy makes more sense.

Post of the year.

Quote from: Just Bill on November 08, 2007, 05:03:29 PM

Quote from: gordonmann on November 08, 2007, 05:01:11 PM
Hm.  I was going to say running up the score is like chasing a goose with a toaster oven but your analogy makes more sense.

Post of the year.

I agree.  That's hilarious!

Quote from: hscoach on November 08, 2007, 05:11:08 PM

Quote from: Just Bill on November 08, 2007, 05:03:29 PM

Quote from: gordonmann on November 08, 2007, 05:01:11 PM
Hm.  I was going to say running up the score is like chasing a goose with a toaster oven but your analogy makes more sense.

Post of the year.

I agree.  That's hilarious!

I want to laugh (and I usually do at Gordon), but I'm struggling to "get" that one.

(is dumb)

I think that's his point.  It's just plain dumb. 

If you can ninja up on the goose you could wack her with the toaster oven.

Quote from: gordonmann on November 08, 2007, 05:01:11 PM
Hm.  I was going to say running up the score is like chasing a goose with a toaster oven but your analogy makes more sense.

And to think I my sons drag me out at 5 am, dig a hole in a wet corn field fill it with a little fodder for me to lay in and say this is goose hunting. And all I needed was a toaster oven ??? Daaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmm  ;D

Since - what's good for the goose, is good for the gander - it would appear that the toaster oven would work equally well for him.

This is opening up a whole new world.  Move over, Confuscious.  There's a new sheriff in town.

Pretty solid recap of the fallout from Utah going for an onside kick up 43-0 and the Wyoming coach giving the finger in reaction:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2007/11/a-guarantee-a-r.html

You know, I would have onsided after every TD in the first half if a coach ran his mouth like that. But after 43-0, I dunno.

I'm going to bump this back to the top, since the topic probably doesn't go away.

My opinion is that as long as the superior team has pulled their starters (and 2nd string and possibly 3rd string) it's up to the losing team to make a stop. As long as they're running their normal plays and not doing anything outrageous like onside kicks, trick plays, and 2pt conversions then whatever the score ends up is fine by me.
I'd be far more embarrassed to have an opponent think we're so utterly hopeless that their 3rd or 4th string need to just run the ball up the middle the rest of the game rather than end up with an 84-0 score.

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on May 01, 2018, 07:41:29 PM
My opinion is that as long as the superior team has pulled their starters (and 2nd string and possibly 3rd string) it's up to the losing team to make a stop. As long as they're running their normal plays and not doing anything outrageous like onside kicks, trick plays, and 2pt conversions then whatever the score ends up is fine by me.
I'd be far more embarrassed to have an opponent think we're so utterly hopeless that their 3rd or 4th string need to just run the ball up the middle the rest of the game rather than end up with an 84-0 score.

Agreed.  Some of the ways that coaches 'don't run up the score' are so brutally transparent as to be far more insulting than losing by 60+.

I think this is a very difficult balance in D-III especially, because the reality we sometimes face isn't just that two teams are mismatched, but the programs themselves are just not operating on the same level, and that needs to be taken into consideration too. My general rules:

1. If you're up 50+ points in the 4th quarter, don't throw the ball. There are few things I roll my eyes at more than the lame "This guy was the hardest worker in the weightroom, who rehabbed from a ton of injuries and the coaches wanted to reward him with a TD" excuse that I sometimes hear on this stuff. If you've got a guy like that on your roster who you want to reward, find a spot for him earlier in the game. Upsets happen, but I hate it when teams act like they needed to establish some 63-0 lead before putting in those guys. These coaches have understandings of the quality of their opponent, and some of these games you see coming. Figure it out before the numbers get crooked.

I don't agree with this "It's the normal offense" line. Even pass-heavy offenses have basic running plays they can call to just keep the clock moving and get everyone out of there. Great chance to work on them. Running them for one quarter isn't going to kill you.

2. On defensive returns, if there's no one in front of you when you get the ball, feel free to keep running. If not, go down. Arbitrary? Sure. But if you've got a clear path, I think it's more patronizing to go out of bounds. For coordinators, just don't blitz.

3. Special teams. Fair catches on punt returns. See my above point on the offensive guys. If you've got a young PR you want to try out, do it at 21-0 in the 1st quarter, not 70-0 in the 4th. Kickoffs? Complicated I guess. Don't bring it out of the endzone, just cover up the squib kicks. But if they kick it deep and it comes down at the 5, returning it is fair game. Like my arbitrary thoughts on clear path defensive returns, I think it stands out to not return them more than it does on a punt (where you see lots of FCs anyway).

4. This may be the most controversial: I believe that in the playoffs, all bets are off and you can do what you want. I'm all for sportsmanship, as I believe the above points show, but the playoffs are different. If you're there you're likely either playing someone of relatively equal caliber, or you're dealing with your last chance to get ready for those guys, before a win or go home scenario. Either way, the playoffs and regular season are different. Call what you want.

4A. I don't buy "This regular season game is essentially a playoff game, so we ran it up on the hapless team the week before" argument. Playoffs are playoffs, regular season games are regular season games, full stop.

5. In all cases, if you have a blowout, show decorum. Don't whoop it up when you make a big play, or throw brutal blindside blocks on returns. You can't always prevent a score. You can control how you act when you get there.

Quote from: FCGrizzliesGrad on May 01, 2018, 07:41:29 PM
My opinion is that as long as the superior team has pulled their starters (and 2nd string and possibly 3rd string) it's up to the losing team to make a stop. As long as they're running their normal plays and not doing anything outrageous like onside kicks, trick plays, and 2pt conversions then whatever the score ends up is fine by me.
I'd be far more embarrassed to have an opponent think we're so utterly hopeless that their 3rd or 4th string need to just run the ball up the middle the rest of the game rather than end up with an 84-0 score.

Absolutely.

So my opinion on this subject has changed over the years.
If:  Team A  is up by at least 35
      It is the second half
      Team B is truly outmatched on the field

Then:  Team A pulls its starters.  It seems that every team in D3 (with exception of NESCAC schools) have rosters well over 100 players.  This is the time to get the second string, third string and maybe even some freshman out on the field.  Football practice is miserable, football games are magical.  Any kid who has pushed through spring practice, humped through summer preseason, and worked the "look" squad during the week, deserves to get on the big field and play in an actual game.  Run the offense, rush the quarterback, throw your block.  I agree that there is no reason to get anyone hurt, so free catch all kickoffs and punts, but otherwise let the players play the game.  Team B most likely has done the same, and is letting their backups on the field as well.   Always, show class, shake hand after the game, take pictures with parents and teammates.  Enjoy college football, 4 years go by in a flash. 
     

Quote from: Oline79 on May 03, 2018, 03:26:22 PM
So my opinion on this subject has changed over the years.
If:  Team A  is up by at least 35
      It is the second half
      Team B is truly outmatched on the field

Then:  Team A pulls its starters.  It seems that every team in D3 (with exception of NESCAC schools) have rosters well over 100 players.  This is the time to get the second string, third string and maybe even some freshman out on the field.  Football practice is miserable, football games are magical.  Any kid who has pushed through spring practice, humped through summer preseason, and worked the "look" squad during the week, deserves to get on the big field and play in an actual game.  Run the offense, rush the quarterback, throw your block.  I agree that there is no reason to get anyone hurt, so free catch all kickoffs and punts, but otherwise let the players play the game.  Team B most likely has done the same, and is letting their backups on the field as well.   Always, show class, shake hand after the game, take pictures with parents and teammates.  Enjoy college football, 4 years go by in a flash. 
     

This is definitely not always the case.  Many teams have large rosters, but there are plenty that don't.  And in travel situations teams with large rosters may not necessarily have and endless bench to substitute from. 

I don't know what the right answer is on how to deal with lopsided scores.  Some coaches run the (mostly) full offense with 3rd stringers (or deeper)...some of which might not be necessary.  Some kick field goals on first down...which isn't as merciful as it seems, really.  And then everything in between.  I think before people get upset about a lopsided score and how a team handled the last 10 or 15 or 30 minutes of such a contest, try and see if there's evidence that a coach is trying to embarrass the outmatched team.  If yes, than rabble rouse.  If no, then there's not much to gripe over even if the way that coach went about managing the end of the game isn't the way you would have done it.  There's benefit here in recognizing that it's a really difficult spot for both teams. 

Quote from: wally_wabash on May 03, 2018, 04:18:05 PM

Quote from: Oline79 on May 03, 2018, 03:26:22 PM
So my opinion on this subject has changed over the years.
If:  Team A  is up by at least 35
      It is the second half
      Team B is truly outmatched on the field

Then:  Team A pulls its starters.  It seems that every team in D3 (with exception of NESCAC schools) have rosters well over 100 players.  This is the time to get the second string, third string and maybe even some freshman out on the field.  Football practice is miserable, football games are magical.  Any kid who has pushed through spring practice, humped through summer preseason, and worked the "look" squad during the week, deserves to get on the big field and play in an actual game.  Run the offense, rush the quarterback, throw your block.  I agree that there is no reason to get anyone hurt, so free catch all kickoffs and punts, but otherwise let the players play the game.  Team B most likely has done the same, and is letting their backups on the field as well.   Always, show class, shake hand after the game, take pictures with parents and teammates.  Enjoy college football, 4 years go by in a flash. 
     

This is definitely not always the case.  Many teams have large rosters, but there are plenty that don't.  And in travel situations teams with large rosters may not necessarily have and endless bench to substitute from. 

I don't know what the right answer is on how to deal with lopsided scores.  Some coaches run the (mostly) full offense with 3rd stringers (or deeper)...some of which might not be necessary.  Some kick field goals on first down...which isn't as merciful as it seems, really.  And then everything in between.  I think before people get upset about a lopsided score and how a team handled the last 10 or 15 or 30 minutes of such a contest, try and see if there's evidence that a coach is trying to embarrass the outmatched team.  If yes, than rabble rouse.  If no, then there's not much to gripe over even if the way that coach went about managing the end of the game isn't the way you would have done it.  There's benefit here in recognizing that it's a really difficult spot for both teams.

A crucial point to remember.  Notwithstanding Gregg Easterbrook (is he still around?), almost no coach enjoys a blow-out win much more than a blow-out loss (well, maybe a little more! ;D).  Avoiding a blow-out is sometimes impossible, given the disparities in talents, but I really think MOST coaches try MOST of the time.  (Though occasionally not.  Woody Hayes, when asked why he went for two [already up 48-14 late in a 1968 game against "that team up north"], responded "because I couldn't go for three"!  It worked out well - Woody got his pound of flesh, and UM hired some nobody named Bo Schembechler as their new coach. ;D  And I really wish they would rename the Heisman Trophy - John Heisman is IMO totally unworthy, having directed Georgia Tech to a 222-0 win over Cumberland College.)

If you're the winning coach, just make sure your measures are not blatantly patronizing.  Having a RB or WR run out of bounds rather than score an open-field TD is WORSE (IMO) than scoring.  (On the other hand, if you have an Oscar-worthy RB or WR who can convincingly trip himself up and fumble 15 yards from paydirt in a 73-0 game, more power to you! ;D)

Or, in line with #5 of bombers, remember the derivative of sport that is sportsmanship which no student athlete or coach/educator/leader in higher ed should ignore/avoid or otherwise forget/miss. 

If you're working as hard as possible with class and in the spirit of competition, this shouldn't be a discussion.  Problem is too many, ewpecially and acutely important at the D3 level, have eschewed or ignore this.  If superior teams basically always behaved like MUC does (99% of the time, you can't have 200 kids a year for 20yrs and avoid some bs same as huge corporations can't behave and police everyone all the time) this isn't a thread.  Without pointing fingers there's some staffs and programs that probably don't belong at this level due to that lack of character in sportsmanship.

or if you're Washington & Lee and the new Sewanee coach lets his players run through your warmups, you run up the score for a different reason...  ;)

Quote from: albatross on May 04, 2018, 10:07:03 AM
or if you're Washington & Lee and the new Sewanee coach lets his players run through your warmups, you run up the score for a different reason...  ;)

Yeah. That wasn't real bright. But to be fair, W&L played 3 qbs, had 11 players take a carry, and had 32 different players get or assist on a tackle. The Generals emptied the bench on both sides of the ball, which is how Sewanee got 14 points in the 4th quarter.

Quote from: wally_wabash on May 03, 2018, 04:18:05 PM

Quote from: Oline79 on May 03, 2018, 03:26:22 PM
It seems that every team in D3 (with exception of NESCAC schools) have rosters well over 100 players.   

This is definitely not always the case.  Many teams have large rosters, but there are plenty that don't.  And in travel situations teams with large rosters may not necessarily have and endless bench to substitute from. 

Oh, no.

Oxy this past year, as you know.

I counted 38 on Grinnell's roster.

There have been seasons where Kenyon and Oberlin have had less than 50 players with linemen playing both sides.

The farther away you get from the Top Tier Conferences and teams, the less likely you'll have a 100 player roster.

It's easy to tell, if there are few duplicates, and holes in the sequence between 51-99, then that's a big sign there aren't 100 players.

It's inevitable at times.

But if you play everyone, and play vanilla O and D in the second half, then you shouldn't be criticized.

In the playoffs, the rosters are shorter, so you won't have the #5 QB or the #6 MLB in there.