Let's start the discussion.
Who are the top seeds in each of the brackets?
Does UMHB have the chance to play four at home?
Looks like Mount Union, Bethel, Whitewater and MHB
I haven't been able to look at the playoff material very thoroughly. (It's difficult to read well on a phone.) Some of the bracket looks funny. Wesley vs Johns Hopkins seems unfair. That seems like a second round match up to me.
I'm not sure where Hobart is seeded. Is it #2 or 3? Not really complaining about it. Gallaudet is a good first round opponent.
Mount Union should cruise to the semi's without breaking a sweat.
MHB, watch out for John Carroll.
Possible monster game in round 2, Platteville at North Central. Bethel probably meets the survivor.
And it looks to me like the committee got as far away from North, South, East, West as possible - whether they were trying to or not.
Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on November 17, 2013, 06:45:42 PM
I haven't been able to look at the playoff material very thoroughly. (It's difficult to read well on a phone.) Some of the bracket looks funny. Wesley vs Johns Hopkins seems unfair. That seems like a second round match up to me.
I'm not sure where Hobart is seeded. Is it #2 or 3? Not really complaining about it. Gallaudet is a good first round opponent.
agree Rev. Hopkins has to be shaking their head right now. Some lesser teams got easier first round drawers, at least on paper, including the other part of this bracket. Ithaca hosting Framingham seems off a little.
Hobart should be happy with first round, from their it is tough in most places.
I've been waiting all year for the playoffs with this Hobart team to find out how good they are. The OAC folks appear to have already penciled in JCU/UMHB in the bracket finals and if they both get through it'll probably be the best/toughest second round playoff game (Hobart/JCU, if Gaulludet or SJF can't stop either team from advancing).
On the one hand, it's a very tough matchup for Hobart (rematch of 2002 when Arth was QB in a muddiest in Geneva), but on the other hand I've been waiting for the statesmen to have a chance to show how good they are (hopefully as good as I think they can be), so it's a heck of a challenge. Both could be top 10 teams.
No doubt some of the hosting decisions were about $$$, but after the first round it seems that they decided to let it fly. Which is good.
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 07:02:11 PM
No doubt some of the hosting decisions were about $$$, but after the first round it seems that they decided to let it fly. Which is good.
Aside from a team flying to the Pacific Northwest and another to Texas (both of which would be unavoidable in round 2 anyway) what other potential flights to you see? (I'm curious----not in anyway saying you are wrong).
Maybe not flights, but I was surprised to see IWU pushed over to Iowa and the West. My perception may be off, but the bracket seemed to make sense from a football standpoint after the usual hosting $$ issues in round one.
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 07:14:00 PM
Maybe not flights, but I was surprised to see IWU pushed over to Iowa and the West. My perception may be off, but the bracket seemed to make sense from a football standpoint after the usual hosting $$ issues in round one.
It is a pretty good bracket. A few head scratchers but I think they set things up for a good Stagg this year!
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 07:14:00 PM
Maybe not flights, but I was surprised to see IWU pushed over to Iowa and the West. My perception may be off, but the bracket seemed to make sense from a football standpoint after the usual hosting $$ issues in round one.
The good thing about the Bethel bracket is that NCU and IWU are not bracketed to meet until the round of 8.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2013, 07:21:14 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 17, 2013, 07:14:00 PM
Maybe not flights, but I was surprised to see IWU pushed over to Iowa and the West. My perception may be off, but the bracket seemed to make sense from a football standpoint after the usual hosting $$ issues in round one.
The good thing about the Bethel bracket is that NCU and IWU won't meet until the round of 8.
I really like the way the brackets are laid out this year, some potential interesting and first time match ups.
I'm a homer for the SJF Cards, who got a very tough draw in JCU in Round 1. Common opponent in Otterbein, produced same result for each team a shutout win: 28-0.
What are the rules regarding tape exchange for the playoffs, anyone?
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2013, 07:31:50 PM
What are the rules regarding tape exchange for the playoffs, anyone?
I believe, from memory, it is the last two games.
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 17, 2013, 07:34:33 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2013, 07:31:50 PM
What are the rules regarding tape exchange for the playoffs, anyone?
I believe, from memory, it is the last two games.
o.k. so this week the last two regular season games, next week the last reg. season and the first round, and so forth....thanks.
Video is exchanged online now most of the time
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2013, 07:35:39 PM
Quote from: Kira & Jaxon's Dad on November 17, 2013, 07:34:33 PM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 17, 2013, 07:31:50 PM
What are the rules regarding tape exchange for the playoffs, anyone?
I believe, from memory, it is the last two games.
o.k. so this week the last two regular season games, next week the last reg. season and the first round, and so forth....thanks.
It is actually the last three games.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2013, 06:38:37 PM
Who are the top seeds in each of the brackets?
Does UMHB have the chance to play four at home?
I know this isn't how it reads on d3football.com's front page, but I believe UMHB to be the #2 overall seed, which will give them home field until the Stagg if they keep winning.
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 18, 2013, 01:03:13 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2013, 06:38:37 PM
Who are the top seeds in each of the brackets?
Does UMHB have the chance to play four at home?
I know this isn't how it reads on d3football.com's front page, but I believe UMHB to be the #2 overall seed, which will give them home field until the Stagg if they keep winning.
They could well be. The absence of discussion and info from the NCAA is unhelpful here. 2/3 could go either direction.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2013, 01:21:59 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 18, 2013, 01:03:13 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2013, 06:38:37 PM
Who are the top seeds in each of the brackets?
Does UMHB have the chance to play four at home?
I know this isn't how it reads on d3football.com's front page, but I believe UMHB to be the #2 overall seed, which will give them home field until the Stagg if they keep winning.
They could well be. The absence of discussion and info from the NCAA is unhelpful here. 2/3 could go either direction.
Looking at the bracket on NCAA.com (http://www.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/external/gametool/brackets/football_d3_2013.pdf) it looks like UMHB is #2, but could be UWW.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 18, 2013, 01:21:59 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 18, 2013, 01:03:13 AM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 17, 2013, 06:38:37 PM
Who are the top seeds in each of the brackets?
Does UMHB have the chance to play four at home?
I know this isn't how it reads on d3football.com's front page, but I believe UMHB to be the #2 overall seed, which will give them home field until the Stagg if they keep winning.
They could well be. The absence of discussion and info from the NCAA is unhelpful here. 2/3 could go either direction.
Has the NCAA ever given a reason for being unwilling to publicly commit to seedings for this tournament? Obviously, it's an intentional decision. Because the way the NCAA chooses non-communication of seedings, there is a general lack of certainty in looking ahead a few weeks for folks who may (or may not) have to make contingency plans to travel. It seems like the least the NCAA could do is tell us WHY they are making such a choice.
From http://static.psbin.com/5/e/0q4k4pkhtyqarm/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Football.pdf (http://static.psbin.com/5/e/0q4k4pkhtyqarm/2013_Pre_Championship_DIII_Football.pdf)
●● The highest-seeded team that meets all selection criteria will be selected as the host institution, provided geographic proximity is maintained.
Which basically means the NCAA knows the seedings and will probably share them on a need to know basis. The schools probably have or will be informally told - if you win round one you will be hosting next week, or if you win round one and this other opponent wins round two, you are hosting. For most matchups - it should be fairly obvious (i.e. - Mount Union will not be scheduling a rugby tournament on their home field on any of the next four saturdays).
Of course the above quote makes the comment someone from the NCAA made to Pat Coleman about how there are no formal seedings and never have been all the more laughable. I'm sure the answer is basically along the lines of " we don't want any more hate mail." I wish the NCAA would grow up and realize that, in large part thanks to this website, the D3 fan base is a little more educated about the fact that #2 may have to play a #4 in round one to keep the tournament under budget.
I'm glad Baghdad Bob found employment at the NCAA! ;)
On our podcast Frank rattled off his guesses on seedings as follows:
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. Bethel
4. UWW
5. Linfield
6. NCC
7. Hobart
8. JHU
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2013/11/18/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Quote from: ITH radio on November 18, 2013, 12:18:14 PM
On our podcast Frank rattled off his guesses on seedings as follows:
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. Bethel
4. UWW
5. Linfield
6. NCC
7. Hobart
8. JHU
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2013/11/18/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Appears to be:
1. UMU
2. UWW
3. UMHB
4. Bethel
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 18, 2013, 12:27:54 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 18, 2013, 12:18:14 PM
On our podcast Frank rattled off his guesses on seedings as follows:
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. Bethel
4. UWW
5. Linfield
6. NCC
7. Hobart
8. JHU
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2013/11/18/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Appears to be:
1. UMU
2. UWW
3. UMHB
4. Bethel
Mary Hardin-Baylor is in the exact same spot that Mount was in last year and Mount was the number 2 overall seed. So if they went by how they did it last year it's
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. UWW
4. BETHEL
I read into it that UMHB was #2 and UWW was #3. I guess we'll find out...(or not, of course, depending on upsets).
Quote from: wrdad on November 18, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 18, 2013, 12:27:54 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 18, 2013, 12:18:14 PM
On our podcast Frank rattled off his guesses on seedings as follows:
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. Bethel
4. UWW
5. Linfield
6. NCC
7. Hobart
8. JHU
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2013/11/18/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Appears to be:
1. UMU
2. UWW
3. UMHB
4. Bethel
Mary Hardin-Baylor is in the exact same spot that Mount was in last year and Mount was the number 2 overall seed. So if they went by how they did it last year it's
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. UWW
4. BETHEL
When reading a normal playoff bracket the 1 overall is USUALLY placed top right and the 2 overall is bottom left. This would indicate UMHB is 2.
When looking at the 2011 and 2012 brackets the 1 and 2 have been placed at these spots.
However, we all know the NCAAs brackets tend to be a little odd at times. Either way im excited to see how everything plays out.
Quote from: CouchCru4life on November 18, 2013, 01:00:30 PM
Quote from: wrdad on November 18, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 18, 2013, 12:27:54 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 18, 2013, 12:18:14 PM
On our podcast Frank rattled off his guesses on seedings as follows:
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. Bethel
4. UWW
5. Linfield
6. NCC
7. Hobart
8. JHU
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2013/11/18/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Appears to be:
1. UMU
2. UWW
3. UMHB
4. Bethel
Mary Hardin-Baylor is in the exact same spot that Mount was in last year and Mount was the number 2 overall seed. So if they went by how they did it last year it's
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. UWW
4. BETHEL
When reading a normal playoff bracket the 1 overall is USUALLY placed top right and the 2 overall is bottom left. This would indicate UMHB is 2.
When looking at the 2011 and 2012 brackets the 1 and 2 have been placed at these spots.
However, we all know the NCAAs brackets tend to be a little odd at times. Either way im excited to see how everything plays out.
I agree. My strong guess is:
UMU
UMHB
UWW
Bethel
I know I'm probably being way too impatient but do we have an ETA on the playoff capsules yet?
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 18, 2013, 01:17:06 PM
I know I'm probably being way too impatient but do we have an ETA on the playoff capsules yet?
My favorite reads come playoff time!
Quote from: CouchCru4life on November 18, 2013, 01:37:36 PM
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 18, 2013, 01:17:06 PM
I know I'm probably being way too impatient but do we have an ETA on the playoff capsules yet?
My favorite reads come playoff time!
They're my favorite too, that's why I'm impatient. Don't kill me Pat! ;)
I think they said Wednesday in the Podcast.
Wednesday is the earliest we can produce them. Ton of work goes into these, compounded by the fact that I was out of the country on business last week and couldn't get started on any of them. Ryan Tipps, Dave McHugh and Keith McMillan did a great job keeping the site moving in my absence.
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 18, 2013, 01:04:24 PM
Quote from: CouchCru4life on November 18, 2013, 01:00:30 PM
Quote from: wrdad on November 18, 2013, 12:54:00 PM
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 18, 2013, 12:27:54 PM
Quote from: ITH radio on November 18, 2013, 12:18:14 PM
On our podcast Frank rattled off his guesses on seedings as follows:
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. Bethel
4. UWW
5. Linfield
6. NCC
7. Hobart
8. JHU
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/ith/2013/11/18/in-the-huddlle--liberty-league-football-talk-show
Appears to be:
1. UMU
2. UWW
3. UMHB
4. Bethel
Mary Hardin-Baylor is in the exact same spot that Mount was in last year and Mount was the number 2 overall seed. So if they went by how they did it last year it's
1. UMU
2. UMHB
3. UWW
4. BETHEL
When reading a normal playoff bracket the 1 overall is USUALLY placed top right and the 2 overall is bottom left. This would indicate UMHB is 2.
When looking at the 2011 and 2012 brackets the 1 and 2 have been placed at these spots.
However, we all know the NCAAs brackets tend to be a little odd at times. Either way im excited to see how everything plays out.
I agree. My strong guess is:
UMU
UMHB
UWW
Bethel
I absolutely love the fact that we have a D3 playoff with AQ's and at-large bids, but what a joke that we have to "guess" what the seedings are. Is it really that hard for the NCAA to publish them too?
Quote from: HScoach on November 18, 2013, 06:30:06 PM
I absolutely love the fact that we have a D3 playoff with AQ's and at-large bids, but what a joke that we have to "guess" what the seedings are. Is it really that hard for the NCAA to publish them too?
I agree with coach. In terms of who the top seeds are: MUC as undefeated defending champ should be obvious, body of 2013 work is Bethel, followed by UWW. I personally do not agree with MHB, but they do share the bracket with an undefeated conference champion who advanced in the playoffs last year . . . so, i'll say it is Hobart even though it is clearly MHB.
Regardless, I fully expect the winner of the
JCU/SJF match-up to take the bracket anyway!!!!!!!!
Quote from: middlerelief on November 18, 2013, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 18, 2013, 06:30:06 PM
I absolutely love the fact that we have a D3 playoff with AQ's and at-large bids, but what a joke that we have to "guess" what the seedings are. Is it really that hard for the NCAA to publish them too?
I agree with coach. In terms of who the top seeds are: MUC as undefeated defending champ should be obvious, body of 2013 work is Bethel, followed by UWW. I personally do not agree with MHB, but they do share the bracket with an undefeated conference champion who advanced in the playoffs last year . . . so, i'll say it is Hobart even though it is clearly MHB.
Regardless, I fully expect the winner of the JCU/SJF match-up to take the bracket anyway!!!!!!!!
you can say Hobart if you want, but the road to the Semi's goes through Belton...Again. Out of curiosity, have you ever seen UMHB play?
Also need to remember that the NCAA criteria allows for taking into account last season results when seeding between like regarded teams. This is the "whitewater rule" from the year they got jobbed into playing at NCC. This is likely what ranked Mount and MHB as the top 2 seeds. Especially over UWW that didn't qualify last season.
Quote from: middlerelief on November 18, 2013, 08:23:31 PM
Regardless, I fully expect the winner of the JCU/SJF match-up to take the bracket anyway!!!!!!!!
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZx__Y31cT99D0J-9auMOc_QJRzv-Niiiyanfngf2bEHZ00s3R)
"When a former WIAC head coach became the chair of the Division III football committee, it's understandable why strength of schedule was more important this year."
What the committee chair said. Posted by Pat Coleman in Around the Nation, General, NCAA
Revealing comment! When there are only 2 conferences west of Iowa, it is no wonder that the West Region seedings are so biased. LInfield always schedules tough non-conference games. It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year. Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all for Linfield.
Linfield got robbed! Not as bad as two years ago, but still no favors!
GT
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 18, 2013, 01:04:24 PM
I agree. My strong guess is:
UMU
UMHB
UWW
Bethel
Then your assumption is that Linfield was #6 and North Central was #5? That's where I have trouble with this. Also, Bethel's SOS jumped to 0.574, while UWW saw its SOS drop to 0.537. They both had similar records vs. RROs. Even if UWW went 3-0 while Bethel went 2-0 vs. RROs, that would've forced a criteria tie, meaning results in 2012 playoffs would've become the tiebreaker. Bethel went 1-1, while UWW went 0-0. Bethel should've been ahead of UWW when all of this is considered. In addition, the SOSs of Linfield and North Central were in an order that would suggest Linfield should've been ahead of North Central. My guess is that it was 1) UMU, 2) MHB, 3) BTH, 4) UWW, 5) LIN, 6) NCC, 7) HOB, 8) JHU, but the desire to keep UMU and UWW at opposite ends of the brackets made them swap the 3/6 pairing with the 4/5 (these numbers being the placement of the Top 8 teams they assigned to those teams).
Quote from: George Thompson on November 18, 2013, 10:47:25 PM
Linfield always schedules tough non-conference games. It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year. Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all....
1) the "last five years" comment is kind of irrelevant. This stuff has to be decided based on this season with a POSSIBLE nod to last season if breaking ties between undefeated teams (and the people who complain about Mount Union getting to host when they're defending national champs & undefeated are just out of touch with reality; on one hand they want "common sense over criteria" when selecting Pool C teams, but apparently not when giving the #1 overall seed to an undefeated returning national champion).
2) no, it is not Linfield's "fault" that their OOC opponents were not up to their usual standard, but not is that the committee's job to say "well, Hardin-Simmons USED to be pretty good, so we'll pretend that counts as a win against a regionally ranked opponent and boost their SOS a little bit." What sense does that make? Trying to schedule well is admirable, but if the team doesn't end up actually being good then that's just a tough break.
3) in general I find it very unbecoming when fans of top-5 programs complain about whether they're a 1 or 2 seed. The NCAA is paying for your travel. Play to win the game, as Herm Edwards would say. In a previous exchange (non playoff related) a different Linfield fan made a snarky comment about one of D3's struggling programs and how their radio announcers did not sound extremely confident while Linfield's mantra was EXPECT TO WIN. Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 06:29:38 AM
Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.
Well said.
I originally posted this on the MIAC board and thought I'd share it here as well.
Sharing a little exercise I've done the last couple of years, but never posted here on this board (that I can recollect).
I took the playoff bracket and simply put the final top 25 ranking from D3 football next to each team. For teams not in the top 25 but still receiving votes, I simply continued counting down until there were no more teams with votes. Finally, if a team received no votes they got the highest number, which this year is a 39. There are 6 39 teams this year, 3 on each side of the bracket. Here are the results:
184 UWW
180 BU
178 UMHB
155 UMU
These numbers say that the "toughest" bracket is Mount Union's - but don't be fooled by the total numbers. If we take just the top two teams in each bracket we come up with these numbers:
11 UMU
11 UMHB
10 BU
7 UWW
Finally, taking the top 4 teams in each bracket we get these numbers:
45 UMHB
40 UWW
38 UMU - two of these teams play in the first round, effectively making it a three horse race in the second round.
31 BU
Being a BU fan is not the reason for my saying the following, but it seems pretty obvious that the BU bracket looks the toughest to get through, regardless of what team you are rooting for in the finals.
Go Royals!
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 19, 2013, 02:22:49 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 18, 2013, 01:04:24 PM
I agree. My strong guess is:
UMU
UMHB
UWW
Bethel
Then your assumption is that Linfield was #6 and North Central was #5? That's where I have trouble with this. Also, Bethel's SOS jumped to 0.574, while UWW saw its SOS drop to 0.537. They both had similar records vs. RROs. Even if UWW went 3-0 while Bethel went 2-0 vs. RROs, that would've forced a criteria tie, meaning results in 2012 playoffs would've become the tiebreaker. Bethel went 1-1, while UWW went 0-0. Bethel should've been ahead of UWW when all of this is considered. In addition, the SOSs of Linfield and North Central were in an order that would suggest Linfield should've been ahead of North Central. My guess is that it was 1) UMU, 2) MHB, 3) BTH, 4) UWW, 5) LIN, 6) NCC, 7) HOB, 8) JHU, but the desire to keep UMU and UWW at opposite ends of the brackets made them swap the 3/6 pairing with the 4/5 (these numbers being the placement of the Top 8 teams they assigned to those teams).
I don't think it really matters where Bethel and UWW are ranked in comparison to each other. If they face each other in the playoffs, the game will be played on a neutral location anyway. Bethel is ranked ahead of NCC, but behind UMU...that's really all that matters to Bethel at this point.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 06:29:38 AM
Quote from: George Thompson on November 18, 2013, 10:47:25 PM
Linfield always schedules tough non-conference games. It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year. Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all....
1) the "last five years" comment is kind of irrelevant. This stuff has to be decided based on this season with a POSSIBLE nod to last season if breaking ties between undefeated teams (and the people who complain about Mount Union getting to host when they're defending national champs & undefeated are just out of touch with reality; on one hand they want "common sense over criteria" when selecting Pool C teams, but apparently not when giving the #1 overall seed to an undefeated returning national champion).
2) no, it is not Linfield's "fault" that their OOC opponents were not up to their usual standard, but not is that the committee's job to say "well, Hardin-Simmons USED to be pretty good, so we'll pretend that counts as a win against a regionally ranked opponent and boost their SOS a little bit." What sense does that make? Trying to schedule well is admirable, but if the team doesn't end up actually being good then that's just a tough break.
3) in general I find it very unbecoming when fans of top-5 programs complain about whether they're a 1 or 2 seed. The NCAA is paying for your travel. Play to win the game, as Herm Edwards would say. In a previous exchange (non playoff related) a different Linfield fan made a snarky comment about one of D3's struggling programs and how their radio announcers did not sound extremely confident while Linfield's mantra was EXPECT TO WIN. Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.
I'm a Linfield fan and I agree with all of your points ExTartan. I already called GT out on the NWC board but he's just complaining about something we all knew was going to (and by the criteria used, should) happen.
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 19, 2013, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 06:29:38 AM
Quote from: George Thompson on November 18, 2013, 10:47:25 PM
Linfield always schedules tough non-conference games. It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year. Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all....
1) the "last five years" comment is kind of irrelevant. This stuff has to be decided based on this season with a POSSIBLE nod to last season if breaking ties between undefeated teams (and the people who complain about Mount Union getting to host when they're defending national champs & undefeated are just out of touch with reality; on one hand they want "common sense over criteria" when selecting Pool C teams, but apparently not when giving the #1 overall seed to an undefeated returning national champion).
2) no, it is not Linfield's "fault" that their OOC opponents were not up to their usual standard, but not is that the committee's job to say "well, Hardin-Simmons USED to be pretty good, so we'll pretend that counts as a win against a regionally ranked opponent and boost their SOS a little bit." What sense does that make? Trying to schedule well is admirable, but if the team doesn't end up actually being good then that's just a tough break.
3) in general I find it very unbecoming when fans of top-5 programs complain about whether they're a 1 or 2 seed. The NCAA is paying for your travel. Play to win the game, as Herm Edwards would say. In a previous exchange (non playoff related) a different Linfield fan made a snarky comment about one of D3's struggling programs and how their radio announcers did not sound extremely confident while Linfield's mantra was EXPECT TO WIN. Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.
I'm a Linfield fan and I agree with all of your points ExTartan. I already called GT out on the NWC board but he's just complaining about something we all knew was going to (and by the criteria used, should) happen.
Thanks MonroviaCat. FYI, lest you get the wrong impression, I have no qualms with a mantra like EXPECT TO WIN, I just found it humorous that a previous exchange had a Linfield fan poking fun at a lesser program for not having this balls-out, we'll-take-on-anyone-anywhere attitude...and then a different Linfield fan complains about them having to go on the road in the playoffs despite having lost just one regular season game in five years (although several of the top-10-caliber programs can make a similar boast). I have nothing but respect for the Linfield program, although I've never come into contact with it firsthand, it seems like one of the "coolest" programs in D3 and I hope to catch them in a playoff game in this neck of the woods someday.
Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 19, 2013, 02:22:49 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 18, 2013, 01:04:24 PM
I agree. My strong guess is:
UMU
UMHB
UWW
Bethel
Then your assumption is that Linfield was #6 and North Central was #5? That's where I have trouble with this. Also, Bethel's SOS jumped to 0.574, while UWW saw its SOS drop to 0.537. They both had similar records vs. RROs. Even if UWW went 3-0 while Bethel went 2-0 vs. RROs, that would've forced a criteria tie, meaning results in 2012 playoffs would've become the tiebreaker. Bethel went 1-1, while UWW went 0-0. Bethel should've been ahead of UWW when all of this is considered. In addition, the SOSs of Linfield and North Central were in an order that would suggest Linfield should've been ahead of North Central. My guess is that it was 1) UMU, 2) MHB, 3) BTH, 4) UWW, 5) LIN, 6) NCC, 7) HOB, 8) JHU, but the desire to keep UMU and UWW at opposite ends of the brackets made them swap the 3/6 pairing with the 4/5 (these numbers being the placement of the Top 8 teams they assigned to those teams).
Yeah, I found it strange how they seemed to get lined up. And this might explain how it happened. Bottom line, either way Bethel was on the road for the Semis (provided they win their first 3 and no on got upset opposite them).
Hard to complain though, when your team got a 1 seed! At this point, I could care less which 1 they got. Now just hoping we play up to our billing.
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 10:20:14 AM
Quote from: MonroviaCat on November 19, 2013, 09:40:37 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 06:29:38 AM
Quote from: George Thompson on November 18, 2013, 10:47:25 PM
Linfield always schedules tough non-conference games. It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year. Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all....
1) the "last five years" comment is kind of irrelevant. This stuff has to be decided based on this season with a POSSIBLE nod to last season if breaking ties between undefeated teams (and the people who complain about Mount Union getting to host when they're defending national champs & undefeated are just out of touch with reality; on one hand they want "common sense over criteria" when selecting Pool C teams, but apparently not when giving the #1 overall seed to an undefeated returning national champion).
2) no, it is not Linfield's "fault" that their OOC opponents were not up to their usual standard, but not is that the committee's job to say "well, Hardin-Simmons USED to be pretty good, so we'll pretend that counts as a win against a regionally ranked opponent and boost their SOS a little bit." What sense does that make? Trying to schedule well is admirable, but if the team doesn't end up actually being good then that's just a tough break.
3) in general I find it very unbecoming when fans of top-5 programs complain about whether they're a 1 or 2 seed. The NCAA is paying for your travel. Play to win the game, as Herm Edwards would say. In a previous exchange (non playoff related) a different Linfield fan made a snarky comment about one of D3's struggling programs and how their radio announcers did not sound extremely confident while Linfield's mantra was EXPECT TO WIN. Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.
I'm a Linfield fan and I agree with all of your points ExTartan. I already called GT out on the NWC board but he's just complaining about something we all knew was going to (and by the criteria used, should) happen.
Thanks MonroviaCat. FYI, lest you get the wrong impression, I have no qualms with a mantra like EXPECT TO WIN, I just found it humorous that a previous exchange had a Linfield fan poking fun at a lesser program for not having this balls-out, we'll-take-on-anyone-anywhere attitude...and then a different Linfield fan complains about them having to go on the road in the playoffs despite having lost just one regular season game in five years (although several of the top-10-caliber programs can make a similar boast). I have nothing but respect for the Linfield program, although I've never come into contact with it firsthand, it seems like one of the "coolest" programs in D3 and I hope to catch them in a playoff game in this neck of the woods someday.
Yeah--like any program there are a lot of different opinions and personalities that support it. I'm sure I've complained about seedings and matchups in the past (or like most people about the continual string of first round rematches for the Cats) but I think the bracket is pretty darn appropriate this year, again, based on the criteria used.
Quote from: hazzben on November 19, 2013, 10:54:43 AM
Quote from: Frank Rossi on November 19, 2013, 02:22:49 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 18, 2013, 01:04:24 PM
I agree. My strong guess is:
UMU
UMHB
UWW
Bethel
Then your assumption is that Linfield was #6 and North Central was #5? That's where I have trouble with this. Also, Bethel's SOS jumped to 0.574, while UWW saw its SOS drop to 0.537. They both had similar records vs. RROs. Even if UWW went 3-0 while Bethel went 2-0 vs. RROs, that would've forced a criteria tie, meaning results in 2012 playoffs would've become the tiebreaker. Bethel went 1-1, while UWW went 0-0. Bethel should've been ahead of UWW when all of this is considered. In addition, the SOSs of Linfield and North Central were in an order that would suggest Linfield should've been ahead of North Central. My guess is that it was 1) UMU, 2) MHB, 3) BTH, 4) UWW, 5) LIN, 6) NCC, 7) HOB, 8) JHU, but the desire to keep UMU and UWW at opposite ends of the brackets made them swap the 3/6 pairing with the 4/5 (these numbers being the placement of the Top 8 teams they assigned to those teams).
Yeah, I found it strange how they seemed to get lined up. And this might explain how it happened. Bottom line, either way Bethel was on the road for the Semis (provided they win their first 3 and no on got upset opposite them).
Hard to complain though, when your team got a 1 seed! At this point, I could care less which 1 they got. Now just hoping we play up to our billing.
+k HB
Some of the "wine" out there was leaving a bad taste in my mouth. ;D
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 18, 2013, 01:43:03 PM
Quote from: CouchCru4life on November 18, 2013, 01:37:36 PM
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 18, 2013, 01:17:06 PM
I know I'm probably being way too impatient but do we have an ETA on the playoff capsules yet?
My favorite reads come playoff time!
They're my favorite too, that's why I'm impatient. Don't kill me Pat! ;)
Anybody want to help!?!?
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 19, 2013, 06:29:38 AM
Quote from: George Thompson on November 18, 2013, 10:47:25 PM
Linfield always schedules tough non-conference games. It is not our fault that the Wildcats' 3 non-conference teams stubbed their toes in unusual fashion this year. Apparently losing one regular season game in five years does not count at all....
1) the "last five years" comment is kind of irrelevant. This stuff has to be decided based on this season with a POSSIBLE nod to last season if breaking ties between undefeated teams (and the people who complain about Mount Union getting to host when they're defending national champs & undefeated are just out of touch with reality; on one hand they want "common sense over criteria" when selecting Pool C teams, but apparently not when giving the #1 overall seed to an undefeated returning national champion).
2) no, it is not Linfield's "fault" that their OOC opponents were not up to their usual standard, but not is that the committee's job to say "well, Hardin-Simmons USED to be pretty good, so we'll pretend that counts as a win against a regionally ranked opponent and boost their SOS a little bit." What sense does that make? Trying to schedule well is admirable, but if the team doesn't end up actually being good then that's just a tough break.
3) in general I find it very unbecoming when fans of top-5 programs complain about whether they're a 1 or 2 seed. The NCAA is paying for your travel. Play to win the game, as Herm Edwards would say. In a previous exchange (non playoff related) a different Linfield fan made a snarky comment about one of D3's struggling programs and how their radio announcers did not sound extremely confident while Linfield's mantra was EXPECT TO WIN. Well, ya can't have it both ways. If you have this wonderful EXPECT TO WIN attitude then drop the whining about getting screwed in the seedings and maybe needing to go on the road in the quarterfinals.
BRA-vo.
Someone should hire this guy to write for Kickoff.
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2013, 10:48:31 AM
Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.
That said, the OOWP third of SoS takes this into account. You might schedule a good team and that team have a down year, but if it's a team from a power conference, you still get some of the credit for going out and doing that.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2013, 10:48:31 AM
Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.
That said, the OOWP third of SoS takes this into account. You might schedule a good team and that team have a down year, but if it's a team from a power conference, you still get some of the credit for going out and doing that.
Some, but not a lot especially if the conference is pretty loaded with conference games and there's not a lot of wiggle room.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2013, 10:48:31 AM
Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.
That said, the OOWP third of SoS takes this into account. You might schedule a good team and that team have a down year, but if it's a team from a power conference, you still get some of the credit for going out and doing that.
Unfortunately, the ASC is an "isolated" conference. It's OOWP will always be around .500.
I feel sorry for TLU. They played every D-3 school within a 500 mile radius of the campus except UMHB.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 20, 2013, 12:09:41 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 19, 2013, 12:46:47 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 19, 2013, 10:48:31 AM
Scheduling is tough - had HSC or Cal Lutheran had their normal years - had Trinity and Kean been where they were before - then the seedings would be drastically different, I think.
That said, the OOWP third of SoS takes this into account. You might schedule a good team and that team have a down year, but if it's a team from a power conference, you still get some of the credit for going out and doing that.
Unfortunately, the ASC is an "isolated" conference. It's OOWP will always be around .500.
I feel sorry for TLU. They played every D-3 school within a 500 mile radius of the campus except UMHB.
Now, now, let's not feel too sorry for pool ol' Texas Lutheran.
TLU pulled out of the ASC, but this year they still played a whole bunch of the ASC schools, making it pretty darn tootin' clear that they wanted to steer clear of UMHB...which is perfectly fine if your goal is to build your program through other means than playing the best team within a 500-mile radius. I may sound flippant with that statement, but I'm really not - that is an acceptable move, in my mind...but by doing so you also forfeit any real right to complain if your at-large resume doesn't quite stack up. What sense does it make to reward a team for dropping its hardest game with a playoff berth? To use a ridiculous example, what if Heidelberg leaves the OAC, plays the entire OAC except for Mount Union, replaces Mount Union with Hiram and goes 9-1 with a loss to OAC runner-up John Carroll but never plays Mount - are we arguing that team's playoff case? Or what if Pacific Lutheran withdraws from the NWC so they don't have to play Linfield, replaces them with an NAIA game or two, goes 8-1 with a loss to, say, Whitworth - are you feeling sorry for them? The PLU example is probably more germane since that's another set of schools isolated from the rest of D3.
TLU had Pool A access. They chose to give that up and then played every team in the conference they just left except for the one guaranteed loss. If you do that, you have absolutely
zero margin for error. Undefeated TLU gets my sympathy. 8-1 TLU with a loss does not, especially not a loss to Hardin-Simmons (Ralph, I know you love to talk up how good those ASC teams are, and they sure can score, but HSU wasn't some hard-luck-gee-willikers-they-were-a-good-team-that-didn't-get-the-breaks-this-year team). HSU went 3-6 against Division III opponents and got just plain
obliterated by the three best teams they played. Would a lot of teams get obliterated by UMHB, Linfield, and Willamette? Yes...but if you want TLU to be a playoff team, you have to acknowledge that they lost by 30 points to a team that is NOT a good team this year. A dangerous team, maybe, but not a GOOD team.
Here's another take: if TLU had been in the ASC this year and played the same exact schedule plus UMHB - which is basically what they would have had to do, right? - they would have lost to UMHB, been 8-2 and probably would never have sniffed the board in Pool C, much less been a serious candidate for inclusion. They may not even have been regionally ranked, and they certainly would not have been ranked ahead of Thomas More.
Your rant would have made sense had not TLU pulled out of the ASC in every sport - and there is more to a conference than football (or even athletics).
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2013, 06:18:51 PM
Your rant would have made sense had not TLU pulled out of the ASC in every sport - and there is more to a conference than football (or even athletics).
Thanks for the comments, Tartan and smed.
My continuing "rant" is that SOS is a difficult issue for isolated schools. WashUStL has the about 30-50 schools within a 500 mile radius. We know how easy it is for Wesley football (or the old Chapman Baseball) to rack up fantastic SOS numbers. TLU played every D-3 school within 590 miles, except UMHB! There is no one else to play! As for TLU moving to the SCAC, it was a good move for the TLU administration. Their mission and vision is closer to the private schools in the SCAC as currently constructed than the ASC. I applaud their move. (The ASC is just different without founding members McMurry, Mississippi College and Austin College.) The discussions now in the ASC have to revolve about what to do with the loss of the AQ. I do not see any other ASC schools adding football, and the ASC loses the AQ in 2 years if they do not add an affiliate in that time.
I thought that Wesley deserved it. I will follow Framingham State to see how well they do in the playoffs. I thought that they were the 4th or 5th best team in Pool B, with Millsaps and/or TLU being #3.
Ralph,
I wasn't commenting on your rant, just the notion that TLU pulled out solely because they wanted to avoid UMHB in football.
Quote from: smedindy on November 20, 2013, 07:35:14 PM
Ralph,
I wasn't commenting on your rant, just the notion that TLU pulled out solely because they wanted to avoid UMHB in football.
Yes, and thank you for correctly parsing my post. :) +1!
I feel worse for Rhodes than I do TLU. The only reason the SAA winner didn't get a playoff invite is because they are a year away. Rhodes had quality wins, Millsaps, Centre, and Chicago, and lost two games by 4 points total, including a game to a playoff team. Granted the loss to BSC is a little ugly, but a road OT loss to a .500 team by a failed 2pt conversion is a heck of a lot more sympathetic than a 30+ pt loss to an under .500 team. 1-1 against RR teams is playoff worthy as well.
Oh well, the SAA knew the drill when they gave up the A for a few years. Still, if any team deserves sympathy, it's probably Rhodes who was the only 7 or more team conference champion not to go to the playoffs.
Quote from: MasterJedi on November 18, 2013, 01:17:06 PM
I know I'm probably being way too impatient but do we have an ETA on the playoff capsules yet?
ETA?
Don't you ever fly? Estimated Time of Arrival.
I'm sure he knows what it means. Three days later he's asking for an update.
They're on the site now.
What do you think are the best Rd 1 match ups by bracket?
Here's an initial pass:
UWW bracket
PLU @ Linfield
UMHB bracket
Fisher @ JCU
Bethel bracket
Concordia @ UWP
UMU bracket
Wesley @ JHU
The number of combined National Championships per bracket this year are
UMHB bracket 0
Bethel bracket 1
Whitewater bracket 6
Mount Union bracket 16
Quote from: ITH radio on November 21, 2013, 04:04:11 PM
What do you think are the best Rd 1 match ups by bracket?
Here's an initial pass:
UWW bracket
PLU @ Linfield
UMHB bracket
Fisher @ JCU
Bethel bracket
Concordia @ UWP
UMU bracket
Wesley @ JHU
One of these things is not like the other...can you spot it?
I just don't see Concordia giving UWP any sort of challenge. The other 3 are all intriguing. But I think Wesley v. JHU would be my pick.
Quote from: ITH radio on November 21, 2013, 04:04:11 PM
What do you think are the best Rd 1 match ups by bracket?
Here's an initial pass:
UWW bracket
PLU @ Linfield
UMHB bracket
Fisher @ JCU
Bethel bracket
Concordia @ UWP
UMU bracket
Wesley @ JHU
Assuming by best you mean closest/exciting I'd have to go with
UWW bracket: Maryville @ Hampden-Sydney (with WashU-Franklin a close 2nd)
UMHB bracket: Endicott @ Rowan (with SJF-JCU 2nd)
Bethel bracket: Wartburg @ IWU (none of the others will be close)
UMU bracket: Wesley @ JHU (Framingham-Ithaca a close 2nd)
Quote from: Craft_Beermeister on November 21, 2013, 11:42:31 PM
The number of combined National Championships per bracket this year are
UMHB bracket 0
Bethel bracket 1
Whitewater bracket 6
Mount Union bracket 16
Interesting way of looking at it. And it isn't just Mount and UWW carrying all the numbers. Remove both of their titles from the count and their brackets have the most, albeit by a much smaller margin, but still the most:
UMHB bracket 0
Bethel bracket 1
Whitewater bracket (w/o UWW) 2
Mount Union bracket (w/o MTU) 5
All the posts this week are interesting. I back ExTartan's thesis statement that TLU had no margin for error with the schedule it assembled. The SAA, as j said, knew what it was giving up.
I feel bad for the players who don't get to experience it, but not the schools who made their own playoff beds. It's good though, for the excitement of the playoffs, that supply is greater than demand. Weird as this sounds, teams not getting in make the desire to and reward of getting in even sweeter.
Definitely IWU-Wartburg. I think the second round in that bracket has the potential to be outstanding.
Off topic, I wonder what Midwestern ECACish games would look like.
I don't think the SAA would think of it as 'giving up' though - by forming a league that's more suited to their academic footprint and without the trips to Texas.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 22, 2013, 10:01:40 AM
Off topic, I wonder what Midwestern ECACish games would look like.
I posted a potential D3 NIT tourney a few days ago in the NCAC board. It would be a stout tournament and I even think I missed a team or two.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 22, 2013, 10:01:40 AM
All the posts this week are interesting. I back ExTartan's thesis statement that TLU had no margin for error with the schedule it assembled. The SAA, as j said, knew what it was giving up.
I feel bad for the players who don't get to experience it, but not the schools who made their own playoff beds. It's good though, for the excitement of the playoffs, that supply is greater than demand. Weird as this sounds, teams not getting in make the desire to and reward of getting in even sweeter.
Definitely IWU-Wartburg. I think the second round in that bracket has the potential to be outstanding.
Off topic, I wonder what Midwestern ECACish games would look like.
Assuming the path continues, UMHB is going to be in that boat pretty soon, unless they can strike up a deal with someone to play football. They'll be looking to get in on a Pool B bid. That's scary.
Rowan pick-6; up 7-0 late 1st!!
Pros up 14-0; 100+ yards rushing for the RB @ half.
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
second best conference in the nation...nope.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
Completely defensible position if you conveniently ignore last week's game. John Carroll took care of business all season, even blowing out the other good team in the league, and played Mount Union well last week. Yeah, today in the snow, didn't get it done but that's what the playoffs are like.
If you looked at the UWW-St. Norbert game today as the only game you look at all season you wouldn't think the WIAC and MWC are so far apart either. It's not like we think the Empire 8 is a crap league, right? Aren't we pretty much in agreement that that's a power conference?
I'm sure glad thatIWU got in as a Pool C. Concordia or St Thomas were obviously inferior to that powerhouse.
Also, wrdad, You might want to consider the MIAC. Look at Non-con record, as well as record vs the "SEC of D-III."
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
second best conference in the nation...nope.
OAC second best in the nation.... nope. Best in the nation? yep
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
Completely defensible position if you conveniently ignore last week's game. John Carroll took care of business all season, even blowing out the other good team in the league, and played Mount Union well last week. Yeah, today in the snow, didn't get it done but that's what the playoffs are like.
If you looked at the UWW-St. Norbert game today as the only game you look at all season you wouldn't think the WIAC and MWC are so far apart either. It's not like we think the Empire 8 is a crap league, right? Aren't we pretty much in agreement that that's a power conference?
Yes, they took care of business....in the OAC. That's kind of my point. St. Scholastica took care of business as well in their conference, that doesn't mean they are a great team. They just took advantage of playing in a week conference. You would think a Pool C team in the 2nd best rated conference in the country would win at least ONE playoff game in the past two seasons. The last team in the OAC (outside Mount) to win a playoff game I believe was Ohio Northern...6 years ago.
I'm not here to defend the WIAC, I've been saying all season Whitewater isn't nearly the same Whitewater from 2005 to 2011. They over achieved all season long this year, IMO. UWW's offense won't scare anyone this year. They may win one more, but that's about it. As a WIAC fan, I was glad to see a non-Whitewater team from the WIAC make it to the semi finals last year.
That's two years in a row now that a supposedly "good" OAC team was upset at home in the playoffs. Considering UMU only won by 14, maybe that says something about the OAC well?
I just think this is the season that neither Mount or Whitewater will reach the Stagg. Pat, I think I even heard you say the words that the playoffs are a good measuring stick on how godd a conference is.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:00:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
Completely defensible position if you conveniently ignore last week's game. John Carroll took care of business all season, even blowing out the other good team in the league, and played Mount Union well last week. Yeah, today in the snow, didn't get it done but that's what the playoffs are like.
If you looked at the UWW-St. Norbert game today as the only game you look at all season you wouldn't think the WIAC and MWC are so far apart either. It's not like we think the Empire 8 is a crap league, right? Aren't we pretty much in agreement that that's a power conference?
Yes, they took care of business....in the OAC. That's kind of my point. St. Scholastica took care of business as well in their conference, that doesn't meen the are a great team.
When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:00:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
Completely defensible position if you conveniently ignore last week's game. John Carroll took care of business all season, even blowing out the other good team in the league, and played Mount Union well last week. Yeah, today in the snow, didn't get it done but that's what the playoffs are like.
If you looked at the UWW-St. Norbert game today as the only game you look at all season you wouldn't think the WIAC and MWC are so far apart either. It's not like we think the Empire 8 is a crap league, right? Aren't we pretty much in agreement that that's a power conference?
Yes, they took care of business....in the OAC. That's kind of my point. St. Scholastica took care of business as well in their conference, that doesn't meen the are a great team.
When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading.
I'm just comparing teams that dominated their conference...which means nothing on a national level.
Quote from: retagent on November 23, 2013, 05:12:28 PM
I'm sure glad thatIWU got in as a Pool C. Concordia or St Thomas were obviously inferior to that powerhouse.
Also, wrdad, You might want to consider the MIAC. Look at Non-con record, as well as record vs the "SEC of D-III."
You can be the "SEC of D-III" when:
1) Your head cheerleader represented your home state in the Miss America pageant.
2) Your Barbecue is beef and pork, and you fight over which actually tastes better!
3) You know the names, numbers and crew chiefs of all 13 drivers in the NASCAR Chase.
4) You can sing "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Rainy Night in Georgia" equally well and you have "Georgia on Your Mind".
5) The number "3" reminds you of Dale Earnhard Sr more often the points awarded for a Field Goal, either football or hoops.
6) Hot spicy food is normal for your taste buds.
7) Your Uncle Charley still has his "Hounds tooth" Hat that he wore attending every Alabama football game.
8) You know exactly where you are when you hear "Cowbells", "Sooie Pig", "Roll Tide", "War Eagle", "How bout them Dawgs" or the "12th man".
9) Half of your mascots are "cats" and "dogs".
and finally
10) Your second person plural pronoun is y'all.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:12:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:00:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
Completely defensible position if you conveniently ignore last week's game. John Carroll took care of business all season, even blowing out the other good team in the league, and played Mount Union well last week. Yeah, today in the snow, didn't get it done but that's what the playoffs are like.
If you looked at the UWW-St. Norbert game today as the only game you look at all season you wouldn't think the WIAC and MWC are so far apart either. It's not like we think the Empire 8 is a crap league, right? Aren't we pretty much in agreement that that's a power conference?
Yes, they took care of business....in the OAC. That's kind of my point. St. Scholastica took care of business as well in their conference, that doesn't meen the are a great team.
When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading.
I'm just comparing teams that dominated their conference...which means nothing on a national level.
One of these teams played Mount Union, and played them competitively. One of them played Whitworth and got crushed. For John Carroll we have an actual useful piece of information that helps us determine how good they are, and it's not games against Baldwin Wallace, Capital, Heidelberg, or whatever. It's against a team that is generally believed to be pretty good on a national level.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 07:38:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:12:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:00:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
Completely defensible position if you conveniently ignore last week's game. John Carroll took care of business all season, even blowing out the other good team in the league, and played Mount Union well last week. Yeah, today in the snow, didn't get it done but that's what the playoffs are like.
If you looked at the UWW-St. Norbert game today as the only game you look at all season you wouldn't think the WIAC and MWC are so far apart either. It's not like we think the Empire 8 is a crap league, right? Aren't we pretty much in agreement that that's a power conference?
Yes, they took care of business....in the OAC. That's kind of my point. St. Scholastica took care of business as well in their conference, that doesn't meen the are a great team.
When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading.
I'm just comparing teams that dominated their conference...which means nothing on a national level.
One of these teams played Mount Union, and played them competitively. One of them played Whitworth and got crushed. For John Carroll we have an actual useful piece of information that helps us determine how good they are, and it's not games against Baldwin Wallace, Capital, Heidelberg, or whatever. It's against a team that is generally believed to be pretty good on a national level.
It certainly makes for a good debate. I'm not going to try to out wit you. In the six years i've been a part of this board I don't think you've ever lost an argument. ;D
It's just my opinion....but what do I know.
What I think today shows is that John Carroll was not a team that was likely to advance far, but not because of the strength of the OAC. It's because a team has to be able to win in the snow in the playoffs and if you can't run, that's going to make it really difficult to win.
Usually we have a couple more weeks before we have to consider a team's snow potential but it showed up today.
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2013, 07:24:43 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 23, 2013, 05:12:28 PM
I'm sure glad thatIWU got in as a Pool C. Concordia or St Thomas were obviously inferior to that powerhouse.
Also, wrdad, You might want to consider the MIAC. Look at Non-con record, as well as record vs the "SEC of D-III."
You can be the "SEC of D-III" when:
1) Your head cheerleader represented your home state in the Miss America pageant.
2) Your Barbecue is beef and pork, and you fight over which actually tastes better!
3) You know the names, numbers and crew chiefs of all 13 drivers in the NASCAR Chase.
4) You can sing "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Rainy Night in Georgia" equally well and you have "Georgia on Your Mind".
5) The number "3" reminds you of Dale Earnhard Sr more often the points awarded for a Field Goal, either football or hoops.
6) Hot spicy food is normal for your taste buds.
7) Your Uncle Charley still has his "Hounds tooth" Hat that he wore attending every Alabama football game.
8) You know exactly where you are when you hear "Cowbells", "Sooie Pig", "Roll Tide", "War Eagle", "How bout them Dawgs" or the "12th man".
9) Half of your mascots are "cats" and "dogs".
and finally
10) Your second person plural pronoun is y'all.
I thought the plural was "all y'all".
(And "all y'all's" -- plural possessive.) ::)
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 07:38:10 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:12:32 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:00:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
Completely defensible position if you conveniently ignore last week's game. John Carroll took care of business all season, even blowing out the other good team in the league, and played Mount Union well last week. Yeah, today in the snow, didn't get it done but that's what the playoffs are like.
If you looked at the UWW-St. Norbert game today as the only game you look at all season you wouldn't think the WIAC and MWC are so far apart either. It's not like we think the Empire 8 is a crap league, right? Aren't we pretty much in agreement that that's a power conference?
Yes, they took care of business....in the OAC. That's kind of my point. St. Scholastica took care of business as well in their conference, that doesn't meen the are a great team.
When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading.
I'm just comparing teams that dominated their conference...which means nothing on a national level.
One of these teams played Mount Union, and played them competitively. One of them played Whitworth and got crushed. For John Carroll we have an actual useful piece of information that helps us determine how good they are, and it's not games against Baldwin Wallace, Capital, Heidelberg, or whatever. It's against a team that is generally believed to be pretty good on a national level.
It certainly makes for a good debate. I'm not going to try to out wit you. In the six years i've been a part of this board I don't think you've ever lost an argument. ;D
It's just my opinion....but what do I know.
That's a mystery I am continuing to try to figure out. ;D
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:00:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
Completely defensible position if you conveniently ignore last week's game. John Carroll took care of business all season, even blowing out the other good team in the league, and played Mount Union well last week. Yeah, today in the snow, didn't get it done but that's what the playoffs are like.
If you looked at the UWW-St. Norbert game today as the only game you look at all season you wouldn't think the WIAC and MWC are so far apart either. It's not like we think the Empire 8 is a crap league, right? Aren't we pretty much in agreement that that's a power conference?
Yes, they took care of business....in the OAC. That's kind of my point. St. Scholastica took care of business as well in their conference, that doesn't mean they are a great team. They just took advantage of playing in a week conference. You would think a Pool C team in the 2nd best rated conference in the country would win at least ONE playoff game in the past two seasons. The last team in the OAC (outside Mount) to win a playoff game I believe was Ohio Northern...6 years ago.
I'm not here to defend the WIAC, I've been saying all season Whitewater isn't nearly the same Whitewater from 2005 to 2011. They over achieved all season long this year, IMO. UWW's offense won't scare anyone this year. They may win one more, but that's about it. As a WIAC fan, I was glad to see a non-Whitewater team from the WIAC make it to the semi finals last year.
That's two years in a row now that a supposedly "good" OAC team was upset at home in the playoffs. Considering UMU only won by 14, maybe that says something about the OAC well?
I just think this is the season that neither Mount or Whitewater will reach the Stagg. Pat, I think I even heard you say the words that the playoffs are a good measuring stick on how godd a conference is.
02 on and off the bandwagon alert!!!!!
UWW doesn't score 50 points vs. the lowly Midwest Conference - They musn't be that good???
02's quote from earlier this evening shows once again that 02 is a "game at a time fan" -
on the band wagon - off the band wagonI'm not here to defend the WIAC, I've been saying all season Whitewater isn't nearly the same Whitewater from 2005 to 2011. They over achieved all season long this year, IMO. UWW's offense won't scare anyone this year. They may win one more, but that's about it.Just kiddin' 02. I'll let BP finish the thought
Just a reminder -- the OAC was NOT the No. 2 conference in our most recent rankings, either, 02:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 11:24:44 PM
Just a reminder -- the OAC was NOT the No. 2 conference in our most recent rankings, either, 02:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings
Ha! I didn't see the latest rankings. ;D I was going off the Kickoff rankings.
Soooo......this is awkward :-X
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 11:51:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 11:24:44 PM
Just a reminder -- the OAC was NOT the No. 2 conference in our most recent rankings, either, 02:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings
Ha! I didn't see the latest rankings. ;D I was going off the Kickoff rankings.
Soooo......this is awkward :-X
Not nearly as awkward as next week's tailgate after you dissed this year's team ;)
I know that JCU lost today and it looks bad. I saw them last week and they are very good. granted, I did not expect that snow would derail them, but credit has to go to Fisher. Sometimes you have to give credit to the team that wins the game and not discredit the team that lost.
Quote from: kiko on November 23, 2013, 08:42:11 PM
Quote from: Ralph Turner on November 23, 2013, 07:24:43 PM
Quote from: retagent on November 23, 2013, 05:12:28 PM
I'm sure glad thatIWU got in as a Pool C. Concordia or St Thomas were obviously inferior to that powerhouse.
Also, wrdad, You might want to consider the MIAC. Look at Non-con record, as well as record vs the "SEC of D-III."
You can be the "SEC of D-III" when:
1) Your head cheerleader represented your home state in the Miss America pageant.
2) Your Barbecue is beef and pork, and you fight over which actually tastes better!
3) You know the names, numbers and crew chiefs of all 13 drivers in the NASCAR Chase.
4) You can sing "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Rainy Night in Georgia" equally well and you have "Georgia on Your Mind".
5) The number "3" reminds you of Dale Earnhard Sr more often the points awarded for a Field Goal, either football or hoops.
6) Hot spicy food is normal for your taste buds.
7) Your Uncle Charley still has his "Hounds tooth" Hat that he wore attending every Alabama football game.
8) You know exactly where you are when you hear "Cowbells", "Sooie Pig", "Roll Tide", "War Eagle", "How bout them Dawgs" or the "12th man".
9) Half of your mascots are "cats" and "dogs".
and finally
10) Your second person plural pronoun is y'all.
I thought the plural was "all y'all".
(And "all y'all's" -- plural possessive.) ::)
LOL! +1!
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 23, 2013, 11:56:05 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 11:51:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 11:24:44 PM
Just a reminder -- the OAC was NOT the No. 2 conference in our most recent rankings, either, 02:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings
Ha! I didn't see the latest rankings. ;D I was going off the Kickoff rankings.
Soooo......this is awkward :-X
Not nearly as awkward as next week's tailgate after you dissed this year's team ;)
LOL. I've talked to at least 10 people today at the game that share my sentiments.
No matter what happens, this team has exceeded everyone's expectations. I'm happy with how this season has turned out.
JCU proved once again that you must be able to run the ball in the playoffs to combat Mother Nature. Congrats to SJF on the win.
I think I'll start defending this point soon since I'm noticing a contingent start to imply that the snow is the main reason for John Carroll's loss. I think Fisher handled the elements more favorably and therefore it gave them an additional advantage, but the advantage in my mind was slight and not significant.
Prior to the snow it was not as if John Carroll's wide receivers were blazing by our defense with great speed. There was no separation. I don't know how some people argue that the snow was slowing down or diminishing the abilities of one team as if the other team wasn't playing on the exact same field at the exact same time. Our passing game was not hindered by the elements. It was hindered by John Carroll's effective pressure. But we started pounding the ball and wearing them down in the second half and even in the snow and wind Fenti started making throws in the 3rd and 4th quarter.
What I'm saying is the throws were there to be made. The snow wasn't so bad that you couldn't pass the ball. Our QB was not limited in anyway by the elements, the only limits came from a strong defensive unit. I mean look at the 20 yard bullet pass he had on 3rd and 14 in the crucial moments of the 4th quarter. It's such a cop out to say it was the weather that forced Myers into such a terrible day. Couldn't have been Fisher disguising blitzes, coverage schemes, etc. that forced him into those poor decisions? It wasn't as if the ball was getting caught up in the air. Plus Fisher's defense has forced 12 turnovers in the last two games. Twelve.
Just some food for thought.
There was another fisher poster who stated JCU had an obvious speed advantage but the conditions mitigated that and fishers size took over. You guys need to discuss internally on this one I think.
lol just two differing opinions I guess...
I think it mostly had an effect on the JCU defense, they were not big at any position. Early on they were flying around and making tackles but Fisher spread them out, I mean they had two WRs one each side right next to the numbers, they then ran up the middle on their inside zones. The weather also turned and killed the JCU defensive speed advantage.
They tried to be aggressive early on D and a DB went for the tip/pick on the long TD but jumped too soon and the ball went over his head. After that they didn't bring too much pressure and dropped 8 for most of the game. They sent the occasional overload blitz to once side but other than that they let the QB make them beat them by forcing it into coverage. Fisher did a great job of getting their hands on passes and coming away with the INTs...
Quote from: pumkinattack on November 24, 2013, 10:55:30 AM
There was another fisher poster who stated JCU had an obvious speed advantage but the conditions mitigated that and fishers size took over. You guys need to discuss internally on this one I think.
There is nothing to discuss. The other poster was Upstate and he was referring to their defensive speed. I'm talking about their highly touted offense. The offense is what people are referring to when they say you can't be one dimensional offensively in the elements. They never displayed superior speed at any point on offense, including before the snow. Pierre Garçon and Cecil Shorts they were not.
On defense they started out on fire and they were swarming like crazy. This must be what Upstate is alluding to. They were definitely quicker on defense. We also made adjustments with lining up two wide receivers on each side, spreading them out. It was a great offensive adjustment. So again like I said...Fisher handled the weather better, so it provided somewhat of an extra advantage. It was slight. It was not THE defining advantage and to argue otherwise is in my mind a disservice to a fantastic all around effort.
Checking out the bracket update and it lists the Wesley/Ithaca game in Dover. that would be great, but would also be interested in the reason for the change. Is ithaca's field in bad shape, I think they have grass?
And now until we hear more, we can really let the conspiracy theories run wild... In theory Johns Hopkins was the 2 seed and yet the team they lost to apparently was seeded higher than Ithaca who also hosted in the first round. It's one thing for the NCAA to "adjust" out west to keep flights down, but the east coast doesn't really have a problem of schools not being close.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 07:00:40 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
Completely defensible position if you conveniently ignore last week's game. John Carroll took care of business all season, even blowing out the other good team in the league, and played Mount Union well last week. Yeah, today in the snow, didn't get it done but that's what the playoffs are like.
If you looked at the UWW-St. Norbert game today as the only game you look at all season you wouldn't think the WIAC and MWC are so far apart either. It's not like we think the Empire 8 is a crap league, right? Aren't we pretty much in agreement that that's a power conference?
Yes, they took care of business....in the OAC. That's kind of my point. St. Scholastica took care of business as well in their conference, that doesn't mean they are a great team. They just took advantage of playing in a week conference. You would think a Pool C team in the 2nd best rated conference in the country would win at least ONE playoff game in the past two seasons. The last team in the OAC (outside Mount) to win a playoff game I believe was Ohio Northern...6 years ago.
I'm not here to defend the WIAC, I've been saying all season Whitewater isn't nearly the same Whitewater from 2005 to 2011. They over achieved all season long this year, IMO. UWW's offense won't scare anyone this year. They may win one more, but that's about it. As a WIAC fan, I was glad to see a non-Whitewater team from the WIAC make it to the semi finals last year.
That's two years in a row now that a supposedly "good" OAC team was upset at home in the playoffs. Considering UMU only won by 14, maybe that says something about the OAC well?
I just think this is the season that neither Mount or Whitewater will reach the Stagg. Pat, I think I even heard you say the words that the playoffs are a good measuring stick on how godd a conference is.
KLAXON HORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 02 WarHawk is definitely in the DEEP END! HA HA! It's all good dude! 8-)
Quote from: HScoach on November 24, 2013, 08:00:39 AM
JCU proved once again that you must be able to run the ball in the playoffs to combat Mother Nature. Congrats to SJF on the win.
Amen.......BALANCE is the key. When UWW started mixing the play-action pass (successfully) with their strong running game, they took their game to the next (and best) level.
The only thing that saves you if you are one dimensional on offense is if you have a lights out defense, and/or superior special teams.
Quote from: boobyhasgameyo on November 24, 2013, 08:46:29 AM
I think I'll start defending this point soon since I'm noticing a contingent start to imply that the snow is the main reason for John Carroll's loss.
Know I'm a day late to this but my take on the podcast was as such:
The snow itself is not the main reason for JCU losing, but the fact that they weren't balanced enough offensively to succeed in imperfect weather. Think there is a difference although I am parsing a little bit.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 25, 2013, 03:09:24 PM
Quote from: boobyhasgameyo on November 24, 2013, 08:46:29 AM
I think I'll start defending this point soon since I'm noticing a contingent start to imply that the snow is the main reason for John Carroll's loss.
Know I'm a day late to this but my take on the podcast was as such:
The snow itself is not the main reason for JCU losing, but the fact that they weren't balanced enough offensively to succeed in imperfect weather. Think there is a difference although I am parsing a little bit.
Not being able to conduct a passing game in snow is something that I would expect from a Texas team, not a team from Cleveland.
Quote from: wesleydad on November 24, 2013, 02:01:58 PM
Checking out the bracket update and it lists the Wesley/Ithaca game in Dover. that would be great, but would also be interested in the reason for the change. Is ithaca's field in bad shape, I think they have grass?
I wrote this in the East Region Playoff Discussion PP related to someone else guessing the relative seeding in this quadrant. It seems relevant to your post here:
"I would've said:
1. Mount Union
2. Johns Hopkins (We know the first two automatically.)
3. Wittenberg (9-0 in "Region" and respectable SOS.)
4. Framingham State (One loss, but to an RRO -- Rowan -- and very good SOS.)
5. Wesley (Two losses, but extreme SOS. Not placed above Framingham St. based on Framingham's very good SOS and 9-1 record. Both lost to Rowan by nearly identical amounts.)
6. Ithaca (Win vs. RRO -- SJF -- placed team above remaining two. SOS well below Wesley.)
7. Lebanon Valley (Was behind Ithaca in last seen Regional Rankings and the losses were equal, meaning no reason to swap, although Lycoming may have become an RRO in final unseen rankings.)
8. Washington & Jefferson (If Lycoming was an RRO, it would explain the 7/8 ordering better since W&J had a better SOS than LebVal.)
Note that because of the location of Wittenberg, Mount Union, Wittenberg, Lebanon Valley and W&J had to be podded together to avoid any Second Round flight -- as per the new NCAA's budgeting requirements. The question concerning the ordering of JHU/ITH/FS/WES is an interesting one. My inclination is this: the Committee viewed Wesley and Ithaca as virtually identical seeds -- you could balance them in either direction and have valid arguments either way. As such, and in order to not force Framingham State, as a higher seed that couldn't host, to travel a huge distance, they lined up the teams in a way that left Wesley for nearby JHU and left Framingham for nearby Ithaca. They are not required to strictly follow seedings, but my guesstimate is it ended up as the above if they were forced to seed."
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 24, 2013, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 24, 2013, 08:00:39 AM
JCU proved once again that you must be able to run the ball in the playoffs to combat Mother Nature. Congrats to SJF on the win.
Amen.......BALANCE is the key. When UWW started mixing the play-action pass (successfully) with their strong running game, they took their game to the next (and best) level.
The only thing that saves you if you are one dimensional on offense is if you have a lights out defense, and/or superior special teams.
Amen to your Amen, Skunks. I have been saying this for years. My connection with UWW started in 03 when we were just a very good WIAC team with a, "run first, run often," philosophy but UWL owned the conference. The stark difference that happen in 05, with a record breaking QB and a WR that ended his career in the NFL, was crazy. By the start of the conference season, we were saying, "holy crap," this team can pass as well, if not better, than run, (and we could run pretty damn well,) and is a totally different animal. UWW did not become a national powerhouse
until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off. And I have, also, always contended since then that no team will go deep into the play-offs without one, not even with a, "lights out defense, and/or superior special teams." Not by the 3/4th round, anyway. And UWW's defensive coordinator, Borland's #1 goal and philosophy, each and every game, is to, "make the opponent one dimensional! I'm sure he just loves it when a team starts out that way. ;D
I also changed my thought process about just how much weather affects a
talented team after watching our California QB throw for 4 touchdowns in an, absolute, blizzard in 07. Weather be damned, you still have to be able to mix it up against the best in the country to move on in December, IMHO
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 26, 2013, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 24, 2013, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 24, 2013, 08:00:39 AM
JCU proved once again that you must be able to run the ball in the playoffs to combat Mother Nature. Congrats to SJF on the win.
Amen.......BALANCE is the key. When UWW started mixing the play-action pass (successfully) with their strong running game, they took their game to the next (and best) level.
The only thing that saves you if you are one dimensional on offense is if you have a lights out defense, and/or superior special teams.
Amen to your Amen, Skunks. I have been saying this for years. My connection with UWW started in 03 when we were just a very good WIAC team with a, "run first, run often," philosophy but UWL owned the conference. The stark difference that happen in 05, with a record breaking QB and a WR that ended his career in the NFL, was crazy. By the start of the conference season, we were saying, "holy crap," this team can pass as well, if not better, than run, (and we could run pretty damn well,) and is a totally different animal. UWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off. And I have, also, always contended since then that no team will go deep into the play-offs without one, not even with a, "lights out defense, and/or superior special teams." Not by the 3/4th round, anyway. And UWW's defensive coordinator, Borland's #1 goal and philosophy, each and every game, is to, "make the opponent one dimensional! I'm sure he just loves it when a team starts out that way. ;D
I also changed my thought process about just how much weather affects a talented team after watching our California QB throw for 4 touchdowns in an, absolute, blizzard in 07. Weather be damned, you still have to be able to mix it up against the best in the country to move on in December, IMHO
Couldn't have said it better.
JCU rushed for 1521 yards this year, a 138 yd per game average with 22 rushing touchdowns. Although they passed for a lot more (3446 yards/313 per game), it wasn't like they were a run and shoot offense with no rushing game were they?
I mean, I assume teams tried different things throughout the year against them (rushing 3, rushing 6-7, delayed blitzes), and they must have had an answer for them all.
How much of that was "running out the clock" running, though?
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2013, 11:59:54 AM
How much of that was "running out the clock" running, though?
Yea don't know. I have to admit, I only watched the fourth quarter of the SJF game, where JCU needed to move the ball.
Are they a run and shoot team? Or just a standard spread team?
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 24, 2013, 12:35:44 AM
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 23, 2013, 11:56:05 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 11:51:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 11:24:44 PM
Just a reminder -- the OAC was NOT the No. 2 conference in our most recent rankings, either, 02:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings
Ha! I didn't see the latest rankings. ;D I was going off the Kickoff rankings.
Soooo......this is awkward :-X
Not nearly as awkward as next week's tailgate after you dissed this year's team ;)
LOL. I've talked to at least 10 people today at the game that share my sentiments.
No matter what happens, this team has exceeded everyone's expectations. I'm happy with how this season has turned out.
02- I'm sorry to be late to this discussion as I feel you were a little ganged up on. Some comments were made that I feel were more about protecting a conference or previous opinion than they were about respectfully discussing your point.
I stand with you in that one of the best ways to determine the strength of a conference is playoff performance- AND performance against another conference's best teams. The OAC dominates with one team and falls flat since 2005 or so with the rest. Posters can give every rationalization under the sun, or snow, but it is what it is.
Some seem to feel that the measuring stick of "how well they played vs. Mt" is the best way to determine the strength of the OAC. There are holes in this approach. "Decent/good teams" will often play the top team in their conference relatively tough because of the massive familiarity that exists within conference play. Not just familiarity with players, but coaches in a variety of ways. Suggesting that the OAC must be a good conference (initially #2) simply because JCU and Hedi play Mt tough and blow everybody else in the OAC out is a weak argument. The OAC will prove itself to be a top conference when more than Mt does something good in the playoffs and/or when more than Mt takes on and defeats tougher non conference opponents.
Along those lines, my intention isn't to promote the WIAC as the best conference this year, In fact I think it may be the MIAC. But that said, Ret, your argument in favor of the MIAC partly based upon its record with the WIAC is silly. In fact, it only proves how strong the WIAC is. The WIAC's
weakest teams played the MIAC's and the CCIW's best team(s). The fact that the MIAC won those games says little about the strength of the MIAC.
If the OAC is to be deserving of top conference recognition, the teams not named Mt should start beating better non-conf competition, either in the regular season or in the playoffs.
Lastly 02- not everybody believes that a true fan is only one that never questions their team or has doubts about their ability to win a national championship. I think one sign of a true fan is one that attends a game with wind chill below 0.
Quote from: emma17 on November 26, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
If the OAC is to be deserving of top conference recognition, the teams not named Mt should start beating better non-conf competition, either in the regular season or in the playoffs.
Which is why it doesn't have top conference recognition.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2013, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 26, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
If the OAC is to be deserving of top conference recognition, the teams not named Mt should start beating better non-conf competition, either in the regular season or in the playoffs.
Which is why it doesn't have top conference recognition.
First, I'm not referring to only the most recent rankings (which even #4 is too high IMO).
Second, the majority of your replies to 02 seemed as though you lacked a willingness to engage the actual point. Replies such as "When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading"- are not only a complete twisting of the point 02 was making, but disrespectful IMO.
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 26, 2013, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 24, 2013, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 24, 2013, 08:00:39 AM
JCU proved once again that you must be able to run the ball in the playoffs to combat Mother Nature. Congrats to SJF on the win.
Amen.......BALANCE is the key. When UWW started mixing the play-action pass (successfully) with their strong running game, they took their game to the next (and best) level.
The only thing that saves you if you are one dimensional on offense is if you have a lights out defense, and/or superior special teams.
Amen to your Amen, Skunks. I have been saying this for years. My connection with UWW started in 03 when we were just a very good WIAC team with a, "run first, run often," philosophy but UWL owned the conference. The stark difference that happen in 05, with a record breaking QB and a WR that ended his career in the NFL, was crazy. By the start of the conference season, we were saying, "holy crap," this team can pass as well, if not better, than run, (and we could run pretty damn well,) and is a totally different animal. UWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off. And I have, also, always contended since then that no team will go deep into the play-offs without one, not even with a, "lights out defense, and/or superior special teams." Not by the 3/4th round, anyway. And UWW's defensive coordinator, Borland's #1 goal and philosophy, each and every game, is to, "make the opponent one dimensional! I'm sure he just loves it when a team starts out that way. ;D
I also changed my thought process about just how much weather affects a talented team after watching our California QB throw for 4 touchdowns in an, absolute, blizzard in 07. Weather be damned, you still have to be able to mix it up against the best in the country to move on in December, IMHO
Let me start by saying, I think balance is a great thing. It's tough to scheme against teams that are strong in both the run and the pass.
But we overstate the matter when we pretend a team can't win with just a great run game, defense and special teams. Evidence, you say...
Nebraska & Georgia Southern (to name just a few).
The former dominated more balanced teams for decades until they abandoned the triple option with the ouster of Frank Solich. Those option teams beat Florida, FSU, Miami & Tennessee teams that were
much more balanced on paper.
The latter proves that you can win a
playoff championship in this way. They just beat Florida (a team with loads more 'talent' and scholarships) without throwing a single pass. They've also won multiple FCS/IAA national titles with a run oriented, option approach. For a DIII version, how about Augustana back in the 80's?
There are more teams that could be sighted, but the fact is, you
can win with a dominant, one dimensional offense. And you can win against defenses that are faster, more athletic and more physical than anything that has ever set foot on the field of a Stagg Bowl.
The better question might be, can you win with a run dominant approach from a more tradition/pro-style offensive set? Suffice to say though, there are teams who win national titles against the 'more balanced team' by relying (at times almost exclusively) on the run.
Quote from: hazzben on November 26, 2013, 12:23:47 PM
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 26, 2013, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 24, 2013, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 24, 2013, 08:00:39 AM
JCU proved once again that you must be able to run the ball in the playoffs to combat Mother Nature. Congrats to SJF on the win.
Amen.......BALANCE is the key. When UWW started mixing the play-action pass (successfully) with their strong running game, they took their game to the next (and best) level.
The only thing that saves you if you are one dimensional on offense is if you have a lights out defense, and/or superior special teams.
Amen to your Amen, Skunks. I have been saying this for years. My connection with UWW started in 03 when we were just a very good WIAC team with a, "run first, run often," philosophy but UWL owned the conference. The stark difference that happen in 05, with a record breaking QB and a WR that ended his career in the NFL, was crazy. By the start of the conference season, we were saying, "holy crap," this team can pass as well, if not better, than run, (and we could run pretty damn well,) and is a totally different animal. UWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off. And I have, also, always contended since then that no team will go deep into the play-offs without one, not even with a, "lights out defense, and/or superior special teams." Not by the 3/4th round, anyway. And UWW's defensive coordinator, Borland's #1 goal and philosophy, each and every game, is to, "make the opponent one dimensional! I'm sure he just loves it when a team starts out that way. ;D
I also changed my thought process about just how much weather affects a talented team after watching our California QB throw for 4 touchdowns in an, absolute, blizzard in 07. Weather be damned, you still have to be able to mix it up against the best in the country to move on in December, IMHO
Let me start by saying, I think balance is a great thing. It's tough to scheme against teams that are strong in both the run and the pass.
But we overstate the matter when we pretend a team can't win with just a great run game, defense and special teams. Evidence, you say...
Nebraska & Georgia Southern (to name just a few).
The former dominated more balanced teams for decades until they abandoned the triple option with the ouster of Frank Solich. Those option teams beat Florida, FSU, Miami & Tennessee teams that were much more balanced on paper.
The latter proves that you can win a playoff championship in this way. They just beat Florida (a team with loads more 'talent' and scholarships) without throwing a single pass. They've also won multiple FCS/IAA national titles with a run oriented, option approach. For a DIII version, how about Augustana back in the 80's?
There are more teams that could be sighted, but the fact is, you can win with a dominant, one dimensional offense. And you can win against defenses that are faster, more athletic and more physical than anything that has ever set foot on the field of a Stagg Bowl.
The better question might be, can you win with a run dominant approach from a more tradition/pro-style offensive set? Suffice to say though, there are teams who win national titles against the 'more balanced team' by relying (at times almost exclusively) on the run.
Good point Hazzben. I think there is a difference between "system offenses" and "unbalanced" offenses. The Triple Option and Wing-T offenses are system offenses which are run based but still always have that threat to pass at any time. (Ithaca also ran triple option during their national championships in 1988 and 1991)
Emma17 -
I respectfully disagree. The strength of a conference lies not with the top, but how the second and lower tiers fare against the other conferences.
You throw Wesley into the UMAC and that doesn't change the UMAC's overall strength one whit. But you can gauge a league where a league is by the masses. Case in point, the HCAC - one great team and then a disaster in non-conference for the most part.
The issue, of course, is that limited non-conference opportunities, anomalous results can skew things a bit. Case in point - somehow Earlham beat Kenyon. That is what I would call an outlier result and if the data set were bigger, I'd throw that out of the conversation (because upsets happen and bad teams beat good teams - over time with enough results it would normalize but that's not the case here.) But you gotta connect all the dots in the ENTIRE league, not just the top heavy piece.
The OAC wasn't as strong this year - their non-conference results bear that out. But JCU poleaxing St. Norbert is a real result - that matters.
Quote from: emma17 on November 26, 2013, 12:21:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2013, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 26, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
If the OAC is to be deserving of top conference recognition, the teams not named Mt should start beating better non-conf competition, either in the regular season or in the playoffs.
Which is why it doesn't have top conference recognition.
First, I'm not referring to only the most recent rankings (which even #4 is too high IMO).
Second, the majority of your replies to 02 seemed as though you lacked a willingness to engage the actual point. Replies such as "When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading"- are not only a complete twisting of the point 02 was making, but disrespectful IMO.
I wonder if you finished the conversation, because I actually did finish the conversation.
As to your other point, next year's preseason conference rankings will reflect results since October.
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 12:54:17 PM
Emma17 -
I respectfully disagree. The strength of a conference lies not with the top, but how the second and lower tiers fare against the other conferences.
You throw Wesley into the UMAC and that doesn't change the UMAC's overall strength one whit. But you can gauge a league where a league is by the masses.
This is ironic, because we ranked the WIAC as the top conference in Division III well before 2005 based on precisely this, because the WIAC hadn't done squat in the playoffs. If we were ranking conferences in October 2005 by Emma's standard, we would probably have had the WIAC 4 or 5 instead of 1.
Quote from: smedindy on November 22, 2013, 11:00:33 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 22, 2013, 10:01:40 AM
Off topic, I wonder what Midwestern ECACish games would look like.
I posted a potential D3 NIT tourney a few days ago in the NCAC board. It would be a stout tournament and I even think I missed a team or two.
Cool. I don't venture off general football anymore unless prompted. Who has that kind of time? :D
Here's who I had:
Wabash
UW - Oshkosh
St. Thomas
Concordia - Moorhead
St. John's
Heidelberg
Millsaps
Rhodes
Thomas More
Alfred
Willamette
Wheaton
Illinois College
Coe
Delaware Valley
Lake Forest
But even here, I forgot Greenville and Chapman, two one loss teams.
No matter if you choose five, ten, or fifty at large teams - someone will be angry.
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
second best conference in the nation...nope.
That argument works if you limit it to the past 2 years.
If you expand it to the fact that between 1999 and last year, an OAC team had been eliminated from the playoffs by a team other than Mount Union only once (B-W in a 16-12 loss to Wheaton 2003, IIRC), then you get where the reputation comes from.
It's fine if you want to argue that previous great runs by Capital, etc. are ancient history, but then you'd also have to note that the OAC was not No. 2 in the most recent conference rankings.
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings
They're No. 4.
8-)
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 11:51:41 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 23, 2013, 11:24:44 PM
Just a reminder -- the OAC was NOT the No. 2 conference in our most recent rankings, either, 02:
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings
Ha! I didn't see the latest rankings. ;D I was going off the Kickoff rankings.
Soooo......this is awkward :-X
Ah, I'm glad this was handled. I did read 2 pages before responding.
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 04:00:54 PM
Here's who I had:
Wabash
UW - Oshkosh
St. Thomas
Concordia - Moorhead
St. John's
Heidelberg
Millsaps
Rhodes
Thomas More
Alfred
Willamette
Wheaton
Illinois College
Coe
Delaware Valley
Lake Forest
But even here, I forgot Greenville and Chapman, two one loss teams.
No matter if you choose five, ten, or fifty at large teams - someone will be angry.
I agree with that. How many bowls does D-I have, and some 6-6 team that travels gets taken over an 8-4 and people make a stink about it (I think; I've actually gone from going to D-I games to not following at all)
Also, I didn't mean that I was too lazy to venture over there now that you had prompted.
I got your top 4 teams in the final 4. Thomas More and Wheaton the dark horses.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 26, 2013, 04:11:43 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 04:00:54 PM
Here's who I had:
Wabash
UW - Oshkosh
St. Thomas
Concordia - Moorhead
St. John's
Heidelberg
Millsaps
Rhodes
Thomas More
Alfred
Willamette
Wheaton
Illinois College
Coe
Delaware Valley
Lake Forest
But even here, I forgot Greenville and Chapman, two one loss teams.
No matter if you choose five, ten, or fifty at large teams - someone will be angry.
I agree with that. How many bowls does D-I have, and some 6-6 team that travels gets taken over an 8-4 and people make a stink about it (I think; I've actually gone from going to D-I games to not following at all)
Also, I didn't mean that I was too lazy to venture over there now that you had prompted.
I got your top 4 teams in the final 4. Thomas More and Wheaton the dark horses.
Hah! I had a moment to share it. I really should have posted it here earlier.
Oh, don't get me started on the 6-6 bowl teams. I have a friend who is complaining about Indiana scheduling Navy because they couldn't get to six wins. Heck, if you can't beat NAVY and five others (no offense to the Mids, but...) you shouldn't be in a bowl anyway.
Quote from: hazzben on November 26, 2013, 12:23:47 PM
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 26, 2013, 11:05:13 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 24, 2013, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: HScoach on November 24, 2013, 08:00:39 AM
JCU proved once again that you must be able to run the ball in the playoffs to combat Mother Nature. Congrats to SJF on the win.
Amen.......BALANCE is the key. When UWW started mixing the play-action pass (successfully) with their strong running game, they took their game to the next (and best) level.
The only thing that saves you if you are one dimensional on offense is if you have a lights out defense, and/or superior special teams.
Amen to your Amen, Skunks. I have been saying this for years. My connection with UWW started in 03 when we were just a very good WIAC team with a, "run first, run often," philosophy but UWL owned the conference. The stark difference that happen in 05, with a record breaking QB and a WR that ended his career in the NFL, was crazy. By the start of the conference season, we were saying, "holy crap," this team can pass as well, if not better, than run, (and we could run pretty damn well,) and is a totally different animal. UWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off. And I have, also, always contended since then that no team will go deep into the play-offs without one, not even with a, "lights out defense, and/or superior special teams." Not by the 3/4th round, anyway. And UWW's defensive coordinator, Borland's #1 goal and philosophy, each and every game, is to, "make the opponent one dimensional! I'm sure he just loves it when a team starts out that way. ;D
I also changed my thought process about just how much weather affects a talented team after watching our California QB throw for 4 touchdowns in an, absolute, blizzard in 07. Weather be damned, you still have to be able to mix it up against the best in the country to move on in December, IMHO
Let me start by saying, I think balance is a great thing. It's tough to scheme against teams that are strong in both the run and the pass.
But we overstate the matter when we pretend a team can't win with just a great run game, defense and special teams. Evidence, you say...
Nebraska & Georgia Southern (to name just a few).
The former dominated more balanced teams for decades until they abandoned the triple option with the ouster of Frank Solich. Those option teams beat Florida, FSU, Miami & Tennessee teams that were much more balanced on paper.
The latter proves that you can win a playoff championship in this way. They just beat Florida (a team with loads more 'talent' and scholarships) without throwing a single pass. They've also won multiple FCS/IAA national titles with a run oriented, option approach. For a DIII version, how about Augustana back in the 80's?
There are more teams that could be sighted, but the fact is, you can win with a dominant, one dimensional offense. And you can win against defenses that are faster, more athletic and more physical than anything that has ever set foot on the field of a Stagg Bowl.
The better question might be, can you win with a run dominant approach from a more tradition/pro-style offensive set? Suffice to say though, there are teams who win national titles against the 'more balanced team' by relying (at times almost exclusively) on the run.
Of course, there are no absolutes and I was, simply, referencing what I have observed with the D3 play-offs, up close and personal with UWW, the last ten years. It wasn't meant to be a for every team. at every level or for multiple decades. Augustana in the 80's? ;) You made some great points and provided us with many examples of a team winning, "being one dimensional," throughout the history of football. My point is that I sure haven't seen it at our level going back to 05.
Balance, I think, comes from balances on offense, defense and special teams. I don't think you're going to win championships by just trying to outscore anyone, nor by just relying on a stout defense. You need some elements of both offense and defense, because that way if one side of the game is faltering you still can turn to the other to try to get back into it.
Speaking on how we/I do the rankings themselves, I would say neither of these approaches are totally true.
You can only rank a conference by taking the whole conference into account. We start with the non-conference mark, and then dig into those results to see if they tell us anything. Playoff success is a major factor. We also look at the middle and the bottom of the conference, for bad losses, for outliers (one or two teams accounting for a majority of non-conference defeats).
The OAC is a special case for two reasons. One is how to weigh Mount Union's dominance, which we must give the OAC credit for, with the Wilmington end of the spectrum. It's hard to look into their non-conference results, given that they are a 10-team conference that plays one non-con a year.
The second part of the case is that the vast majority of players who have gone on to pro success have come from the WIAC or OAC. If it was just one player or one school, we could call them outliers or flukes, but when, over the years, it's been Jason Trusnik and Jamal Robertson from ONU, Mike Preston from Heidelberg, London Fletcher, Tom Arth from John Carroll, and Garcon, Shorts, Collins, Kyle Miller and others from Mount Union, it suggests some of the best football in D-III is being played in the OAC.
When you factor in the top of a conference (Wesley
would change the UMAC's rank) plus the middle and the bottom, plus other ways to assess strength or level of competition, you get what we've put out.
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 12:54:17 PM
Emma17 -
I respectfully disagree. The strength of a conference lies not with the top, but how the second and lower tiers fare against the other conferences.
You throw Wesley into the UMAC and that doesn't change the UMAC's overall strength one whit. But you can gauge a league where a league is by the masses. Case in point, the HCAC - one great team and then a disaster in non-conference for the most part.
The issue, of course, is that limited non-conference opportunities, anomalous results can skew things a bit. Case in point - somehow Earlham beat Kenyon. That is what I would call an outlier result and if the data set were bigger, I'd throw that out of the conversation (because upsets happen and bad teams beat good teams - over time with enough results it would normalize but that's not the case here.) But you gotta connect all the dots in the ENTIRE league, not just the top heavy piece.
The OAC wasn't as strong this year - their non-conference results bear that out. But JCU poleaxing St. Norbert is a real result - that matters.
I'll push back on the 'since 2005' comment.
This seems to state that at other levels or in the past, you could win with a run dominant approach, but not in todays D3. I'm just not buying it. smedindy is right, balance is more accurate when talking about being good in all three phases.
That was my point with Nebraska and Georgia Southern. They were beating teams with vastly superior defensive talent than anything on the field in the d3 playoffs, this year, in 2005 or any time before. But with run dominant offenses, they dominated teams. Point being, you could win in the playoffs next year with a run dominant offense.
97 Nebraska dominated a Peyton Manning led team in their bowl game (UT went on to win the Nat'l Title the following year w/o Manning, to give you sense how good Nebraska was). 1995 Nebraska destroyed defenses. I talked with a buddy who played for Iowa St in the mid 90's. He despises Nebraska, but admits, it was infuriating playing them. They knew that you knew exactly what they were going to do, and there was no way to stop it. He even said he had an offensive lineman who would taunt him by telling him the play before the snap, then beat him anyway!
You can back off your original point with the 'no absolutes' comment ;) But I see what you did there. You did make an implicit point about no one being able to win this way since 2005. And then implied that sure, teams in the past have, but I haven't seen anyone recently...making the leap in logic that this means it is no longer possible.
Maybe, maybe you could make that argument at the FCS level right now. But the speed, size and athleticism of D3 post-2005 isn't better or anywhere close to the teams Georgia Southern and Nebraska were beating week in, week out, year in, year our, with run dominant approaches.
And I'd be a little slower to denigrate the great Augie teams of the 80's. Something tells me that if you put those boys in a modern weight program from middle school onward, like players have today...all other things being equal, I'm betting they hold up just fine!
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 12:54:17 PM
Emma17 -
I respectfully disagree. The strength of a conference lies not with the top, but how the second and lower tiers fare against the other conferences.
You throw Wesley into the UMAC and that doesn't change the UMAC's overall strength one whit. But you can gauge a league where a league is by the masses. Case in point, the HCAC - one great team and then a disaster in non-conference for the most part.
The issue, of course, is that limited non-conference opportunities, anomalous results can skew things a bit. Case in point - somehow Earlham beat Kenyon. That is what I would call an outlier result and if the data set were bigger, I'd throw that out of the conversation (because upsets happen and bad teams beat good teams - over time with enough results it would normalize but that's not the case here.) But you gotta connect all the dots in the ENTIRE league, not just the top heavy piece.
The OAC wasn't as strong this year - their non-conference results bear that out. But JCU poleaxing St. Norbert is a real result - that matters.
Smed, I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with? If I gave the impression that conferences should be judged only by the teams at the top, it's not what I meant. I wrote "
one of the best ways to determine the strength of a conference is playoff performance-
AND performance against another conference's best teams." I realize the OAC shouldn't only be ranked by how Mt and JCU did in the playoffs this year. I think we all know how poor the worst teams in the OAC are. Thus, in the OAC, you have a conference with horribly performing lower tiers, poor performing 2nd tiers and other than Mt, one and dones at the top tier. That's what the OAC is of late.
I realize the game between JCU and St. Norbert actually occurred, but why do you feel the result somehow lends credence to the strength of the OAC?
I've always been a proponent of your position that a conference should be judged by the second and lower tiers and, to my memory, have never suggested otherwise.
That's why I think the MIAC and WIAC and E8 and CCIW and perhaps the NWC are better conferences than the OAC.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2013, 01:15:58 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 26, 2013, 12:21:33 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2013, 12:09:00 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 26, 2013, 12:04:52 PM
If the OAC is to be deserving of top conference recognition, the teams not named Mt should start beating better non-conf competition, either in the regular season or in the playoffs.
Which is why it doesn't have top conference recognition.
First, I'm not referring to only the most recent rankings (which even #4 is too high IMO).
Second, the majority of your replies to 02 seemed as though you lacked a willingness to engage the actual point. Replies such as "When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading"- are not only a complete twisting of the point 02 was making, but disrespectful IMO.
I wonder if you finished the conversation, because I actually did finish the conversation.
As to your other point, next year's preseason conference rankings will reflect results since October.
What does a sentence like this mean? Perhaps I'm just perceiving a level of arrogance or condescension that you didn't intend?
Quote from: hazzben on November 26, 2013, 04:48:09 PM
I'll push back on the 'since 2005' comment.
This seems to state that at other levels or in the past, you could win with a run dominant approach, but not in todays D3. I'm just not buying it. smedindy is right, balance is more accurate when talking about being good in all three phases.
That was my point with Nebraska and Georgia Southern. They were beating teams with vastly superior defensive talent than anything on the field in the d3 playoffs, this year, in 2005 or any time before. But with run dominant offenses, they dominated teams. Point being, you could win in the playoffs next year with a run dominant offense.
97 Nebraska dominated a Peyton Manning led team in their bowl game (UT went on to win the Nat'l Title the following year w/o Manning, to give you sense how good Nebraska was). 1995 Nebraska destroyed defenses. I talked with a buddy who played for Iowa St in the mid 90's. He despises Nebraska, but admits, it was infuriating playing them. They knew that you knew exactly what they were going to do, and there was no way to stop it. He even said he had an offensive lineman who would taunt him by telling him the play before the snap, then beat him anyway!
You can back off your original point with the 'no absolutes' comment ;) But I see what you did there. You did make an implicit point about no one being able to win this way since 2005. And then implied that sure, teams in the past have, but I haven't seen anyone recently...making the leap in logic that this means it is no longer possible.
Maybe, maybe you could make that argument at the FCS level right now. But the speed, size and athleticism of D3 post-2005 isn't better or anywhere close to the teams Georgia Southern and Nebraska were beating week in, week out, year in, year our, with run dominant approaches.
And I'd be a little slower to denigrate the great Augie teams of the 80's. Something tells me that if you put those boys in a modern weight program from middle school onward, like players have today...all other things being equal, I'm betting they hold up just fine!
No one has won a
D-3 Championship since 05 with a one dimensional offense which is the level I was talking about. You're the one making the leap, here, claiming that my original post was meant to imply anything more than just my opinion about the change in our offense, becoming more balanced, that allowed us to have success at the national level starting in 05, which is
exactly what Skunks said. I was simply agreeing with him and expounding on it. And I also was NOT denigrating Augie's 1980's championship success but rather your referencing teams from
30 years ago to make your point. You painted my entire post with way too broad a brush
assuming that I was saying more than I was. You are the one who took my comments out of the context of UWW success at the D-3 level but if I wasn't clear enough, I apologize. I certainly never meant to imply the no team, in the history of NCAA football,
has ever won a championship with a one dimensional offense but maybe you know more about what I meant to say than I do.
Quote from: K-Mack on November 26, 2013, 04:05:44 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
second best conference in the nation...nope.
That argument works if you limit it to the past 2 years.
If you expand it to the fact that between 1999 and last year, an OAC team had been eliminated from the playoffs by a team other than Mount Union only once (B-W in a 16-12 loss to Wheaton 2003, IIRC), then you get where the reputation comes from.
It's fine if you want to argue that previous great runs by Capital, etc. are ancient history, but then you'd also have to note that the OAC was not No. 2 in the most recent conference rankings.
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings
They're No. 4.
8-)
I completely understand, and agree, that the the OAC hasn't been a great conference the last couple years. However their reputation is built on LONG history of competing on a national stage. I 100% get that the most recent showings have been poor, but those of us in the OAC have openly acknowledged that the conference has been down the last couple of seasons.
OAC losses to Mount in the playoffs:
2006 - Capital lost to Mount in Round 3 (2 wins)
2005 - Capital lost to Mount in the Round 3 (2 wins)
2002 - John Carroll lost to Mount in the semi-finals (3 wins)
2000 - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 1 (0 wins)
1999 - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 2 (1 win)
1997 – John Carroll lost to Mount in Round 2 (1 win)
The '05 and '06 Capital teams lost to Mount in the playoffs by 3 points each time and were in many people's eyes the best team Mount played all year. Including UWW in the Stagg.
OAC losses against someone else:
Baldwin Wallace to Wheaton in 2nd round of 2003 (1 win)
Capital at Whitewater in Round 1 of 2007 (UWW was Nat Champs) (0 wins)
Otterbein to Franklin in 2008 round 1 (Franklin beat NCC in 2nd round, lost to Wheaton in regional final) (0 wins)
Heidelberg to Wittenberg in 2012 (easily the worst of the OAC losses) (0 wins)
John Carroll to St John Fisher in 2013 (0 wins)
Overall, the 2nd place OAC team is a respectable 9-11 in the playoffs. Remove their losses to Mount, they're a very respectable 9-5. Not stellar, but not too shabby either.
I fully realize we're not the WIAC, CCIW, NWC or E-8 when it comes to depth and/or parity, and I know it's hard for the rest of the nation to realize, but the OAC is has been HISTORICALLY a little bit more than just Mount Union and a bunch of crap teams.
And on the subject of balance, you better be freaking DOMINANT if your only one dimensional. Being really, really good won't cut it long term. You might get lucky with the matchups one season and avoid the handful of teams that can take away your strength, but over a course of years you must be reasonably balanced to win. In my opinion, if you're going to be lopsided, your best chances to win reside in the following order of preference:
1. defense
2. O-line and running attack
3. QB and receiving corps
I rank the running game ahead of passing because it's not typically weather dependent and is more consistent than a QB dominated team. A great QB might have an off day, but a great O-line is normally very consistent. And weather is a huge factor. 30 degrees, high winds and freezing rain is not conducive to being able to successfully throw it 50 times.
@413
Please explain how else to take this statement:
QuoteUWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off. And I have, also, always contended since then that no team will go deep into the play-offs without one, not even with a, "lights out defense, and/or superior special teams." Not by the 3/4th round, anyway. And UWW's defensive coordinator, Borland's #1 goal and philosophy, each and every game, is to, "make the opponent one dimensional! I'm sure he just loves it when a team starts out that way.
always contented...no team...without [a balanced offense]...not even with a lights out D
Again, how does one not read your initial post to mean anything but he fact that you have maintained since 2005 that no team can go deep or win a title w/o a balanced attack. Maybe you articulated your point poorly. But at first, second and third blush it is pretty clear you were making an absolute statement.
For that matter, explain what 'augustana in the 80's [wink]' means if not condescendingly implying that run dominant teams from the 80's can't be cited as evidence that running teams can win in the playoffs because that's ancient history. What else did you mean by throwing the Augie quote back at me with a wink. I'm all ears...(or eyes as it were)
Also, this is just pleasant back and forth, no need to get all overly intense (at least that's the tone I'm picking up)
Quote from: emma17 on November 26, 2013, 05:32:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 12:54:17 PM
Emma17 -
I respectfully disagree. The strength of a conference lies not with the top, but how the second and lower tiers fare against the other conferences.
You throw Wesley into the UMAC and that doesn't change the UMAC's overall strength one whit. But you can gauge a league where a league is by the masses. Case in point, the HCAC - one great team and then a disaster in non-conference for the most part.
The issue, of course, is that limited non-conference opportunities, anomalous results can skew things a bit. Case in point - somehow Earlham beat Kenyon. That is what I would call an outlier result and if the data set were bigger, I'd throw that out of the conversation (because upsets happen and bad teams beat good teams - over time with enough results it would normalize but that's not the case here.) But you gotta connect all the dots in the ENTIRE league, not just the top heavy piece.
The OAC wasn't as strong this year - their non-conference results bear that out. But JCU poleaxing St. Norbert is a real result - that matters.
Smed, I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with? If I gave the impression that conferences should be judged only by the teams at the top, it's not what I meant. I wrote "one of the best ways to determine the strength of a conference is playoff performance- AND performance against another conference's best teams." I realize the OAC shouldn't only be ranked by how Mt and JCU did in the playoffs this year. I think we all know how poor the worst teams in the OAC are. Thus, in the OAC, you have a conference with horribly performing lower tiers, poor performing 2nd tiers and other than Mt, one and dones at the top tier. That's what the OAC is of late.
I realize the game between JCU and St. Norbert actually occurred, but why do you feel the result somehow lends credence to the strength of the OAC?
I've always been a proponent of your position that a conference should be judged by the second and lower tiers and, to my memory, have never suggested otherwise.
That's why I think the MIAC and WIAC and E8 and CCIW and perhaps the NWC are better conferences than the OAC.
You definitely gave that impression it was playoff or bust.
@HSCoach
Agreed. If a team isn't offensively balanced, they have to be incredible at what they do. Which is why I think most of those run dominant examples were from offensive scheme sushi g misdirection and option techniques. Much harder to succeed in run dominant fashion if your never getting fancier than ISO, power or counter.
Quote from: hazzben on November 26, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
@413
Please explain how else to take this statement:
QuoteUWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off. And I have, also, always contended since then that no team will go deep into the play-offs without one, not even with a, "lights out defense, and/or superior special teams." Not by the 3/4th round, anyway. And UWW's defensive coordinator, Borland's #1 goal and philosophy, each and every game, is to, "make the opponent one dimensional! I'm sure he just loves it when a team starts out that way.
always contented...no team...without [a balanced offense]...not even with a lights out D
Again, how does one not read your initial post to mean anything but he fact that you have maintained since 2005 that no team can go deep or win a title w/o a balanced attack. Maybe you articulated your point poorly. But at first, second and third blush it is pretty clear you were making an absolute statement.
For that matter, explain what 'augustana in the 80's [wink]' means if not condescendingly implying that run dominant teams from the 80's can't be cited as evidence that running teams can win in the playoffs because that's ancient history. What else did you mean by throwing the Augie quote back at me with a wink. I'm all ears...(or eyes as it were)
Also, this is just pleasant back and forth, no need to get all overly intense (at least that's the tone I'm picking up)
A: By the fact that I started that comment with this line before.
UWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off.
It is called, "context." In this case, UWW/D-3 playoffs since 05. And, I say again, "No team
has won the D3 National Championship since 05 with a one dimensional offense so yes, when referring to D-3 championships since 05, I was making an absolute statement backed up by fact.
B: I already explained that but you aren't listening, apparently. It was not meant to be a dig at Augustana's championship teams like you asserted. Why would I do that? I was never referring in, my post, to what happened 30 years ago. I was always referring to the D-3 play-offs and one dimensional teams success since, "
My connection with UWW started in 03 when we were just a very good WIAC team with a, "run first, run often," philosophy but UWL owned the conference."
C. Really? If you want this to be a, "pleasant back and forth," I am all in but forgive me for not appreciating a poster twisting my words and
telling me what I meant to say and continuing to argue with me, not listening when I explain what I, actually, was saying. ::)
Quote from: K-Mack on November 26, 2013, 04:40:51 PM
When you factor in the top of a conference (Wesley would change the UMAC's rank) plus the middle and the bottom, plus other ways to assess strength or level of competition, you get what we've put out.
See, I don't think it would intrinsically, taking the entire D-3 universe and the UMAC data set as a whole. Move it up a skosh - yeah - but it wouldn't change it in a profound and meaningful way. But I don't think we'll ever have a test case unless UMHB continues to diverge from the rest of the ASC.
Quote from: HScoach on November 26, 2013, 06:01:57 PM
And on the subject of balance, you better be freaking DOMINANT if your only one dimensional. Being really, really good won't cut it long term. You might get lucky with the matchups one season and avoid the handful of teams that can take away your strength, but over a course of years you must be reasonably balanced to win. In my opinion, if you're going to be lopsided, your best chances to win reside in the following order of preference:
1. defense
2. O-line and running attack
3. QB and receiving corps
I rank the running game ahead of passing because it's not typically weather dependent and is more consistent than a QB dominated team. A great QB might have an off day, but a great O-line is normally very consistent. And weather is a huge factor. 30 degrees, high winds and freezing rain is not conducive to being able to successfully throw it 50 times.
I would agree with these three for the most part, but a running quarterback can be more important than the oline and running attack in many instances.
Quote from: HScoach on November 26, 2013, 05:55:23 PM
2000 - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 1 (0 wins)
This is one win -- ONU beat Millikin in round one. (Which is a good visual reminder for how long ago this was.)
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 06:58:03 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 26, 2013, 04:40:51 PM
When you factor in the top of a conference (Wesley would change the UMAC's rank) plus the middle and the bottom, plus other ways to assess strength or level of competition, you get what we've put out.
See, I don't think it would intrinsically, taking the entire D-3 universe and the UMAC data set as a whole. Move it up a skosh - yeah - but it wouldn't change it in a profound and meaningful way. But I don't think we'll ever have a test case unless UMHB continues to diverge from the rest of the ASC.
Agreed. Adding Wesley to the UMAC would move the conference up a few spots, but probably not above the HCAC. While Wesley is better than Franklin, the rest of the UMAC is worse than the rest of the HCAC.
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 06:18:58 PM
Quote from: emma17 on November 26, 2013, 05:32:32 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 12:54:17 PM
Emma17 -
I respectfully disagree. The strength of a conference lies not with the top, but how the second and lower tiers fare against the other conferences.
You throw Wesley into the UMAC and that doesn't change the UMAC's overall strength one whit. But you can gauge a league where a league is by the masses. Case in point, the HCAC - one great team and then a disaster in non-conference for the most part.
The issue, of course, is that limited non-conference opportunities, anomalous results can skew things a bit. Case in point - somehow Earlham beat Kenyon. That is what I would call an outlier result and if the data set were bigger, I'd throw that out of the conversation (because upsets happen and bad teams beat good teams - over time with enough results it would normalize but that's not the case here.) But you gotta connect all the dots in the ENTIRE league, not just the top heavy piece.
The OAC wasn't as strong this year - their non-conference results bear that out. But JCU poleaxing St. Norbert is a real result - that matters.
Smed, I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with? If I gave the impression that conferences should be judged only by the teams at the top, it's not what I meant. I wrote "one of the best ways to determine the strength of a conference is playoff performance- AND performance against another conference's best teams." I realize the OAC shouldn't only be ranked by how Mt and JCU did in the playoffs this year. I think we all know how poor the worst teams in the OAC are. Thus, in the OAC, you have a conference with horribly performing lower tiers, poor performing 2nd tiers and other than Mt, one and dones at the top tier. That's what the OAC is of late.
I realize the game between JCU and St. Norbert actually occurred, but why do you feel the result somehow lends credence to the strength of the OAC?
I've always been a proponent of your position that a conference should be judged by the second and lower tiers and, to my memory, have never suggested otherwise.
That's why I think the MIAC and WIAC and E8 and CCIW and perhaps the NWC are better conferences than the OAC.
You definitely gave that impression it was playoff or bust.
How about you just say "sorry, I didn't read your entire post before I responded? The same post your saying "I definately gave the impression" contains the following: "If the OAC is to be deserving of top conference recognition, the teams not named Mt should start beating better non-conf competition, either in the regular season or in the playoffs."
My words are right there for you.
@413
When I read 'I always contended that no team will...' I took that to mean you were arguing no team will - in the future - ever win a d3 title with a one dimensional offense.
I'm certainly not arguing whether one has actually done that since 2005. Obviously they have not. Zero disagreement there.
But I don't think it's at all unfair to read your initial statement to be a proclamation that (in your opinion/contention) it isn't possible, as opposed to a statement merely that it just hasn't happened. If it was the latter, you don't really need to 'contend' for anything. It's established fact that no one has. E.g no one has to contend that there will be a black president in the 21st century. There's no argument to be had. There already has been one. You can contend that there will be a female president...and then state your evidence in support of that opinion.
Again, zero disagreement that no one has since 2005. My assertion is simply that they have at multiple levels, including d3 in the past, and so it is not unreasonable to argue it's at least possible to do so in the future.
I just don't think it was clear in your initial statement that you were merely saying no ones done it for 8 years. I don't think it was an unfair (I.e. putting words in your mouth) interpretation to read that initial post as you arguing/contending no one will do so in the future.
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 26, 2013, 06:52:37 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 26, 2013, 06:09:21 PM
@413
Please explain how else to take this statement:
QuoteUWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off. And I have, also, always contended since then that no team will go deep into the play-offs without one, not even with a, "lights out defense, and/or superior special teams." Not by the 3/4th round, anyway. And UWW's defensive coordinator, Borland's #1 goal and philosophy, each and every game, is to, "make the opponent one dimensional! I'm sure he just loves it when a team starts out that way.
always contented...no team...without [a balanced offense]...not even with a lights out D
Again, how does one not read your initial post to mean anything but he fact that you have maintained since 2005 that no team can go deep or win a title w/o a balanced attack. Maybe you articulated your point poorly. But at first, second and third blush it is pretty clear you were making an absolute statement.
For that matter, explain what 'augustana in the 80's [wink]' means if not condescendingly implying that run dominant teams from the 80's can't be cited as evidence that running teams can win in the playoffs because that's ancient history. What else did you mean by throwing the Augie quote back at me with a wink. I'm all ears...(or eyes as it were)
Also, this is just pleasant back and forth, no need to get all overly intense (at least that's the tone I'm picking up)
A: By the fact that I started that comment with this line before. UWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off.
It is called, "context." In this case, UWW/D-3 playoffs since 05. And, I say again, "No team has won the D3 National Championship since 05 with a one dimensional offense so yes, when referring to D-3 championships since 05, I was making an absolute statement backed up by fact.
B: I already explained that but you aren't listening, apparently. It was not meant to be a dig at Augustana's championship teams like you asserted. Why would I do that? I was never referring in, my post, to what happened 30 years ago. I was always referring to the D-3 play-offs and one dimensional teams success since, "My connection with UWW started in 03 when we were just a very good WIAC team with a, "run first, run often," philosophy but UWL owned the conference."
C. Really? If you want this to be a, "pleasant back and forth," I am all in but forgive me for not appreciating a poster twisting my words and telling me what I meant to say and continuing to argue with me, not listening when I explain what I, actually, was saying. ::)
I'm trying to make sense of where the disconnect is between you both. I don't interpret 413's post to suggest no team in the history of championship play has ever won with a "run-only" style offense. I do interpret her post to say that since she has started watching D3 she hasn't felt it's possible for a "run only" offense to win the D3 championship.
If the above is the gist of the difference of opinion then using GA Southern (7-4 in 2013) as an example because they beat FL last week, but last won a championship in 2000, probably isn't relevant. Nor is Nebraska in their glory days. Like HS Coach said - maybe a running team gets lucky one year with matchups, but defenses are just so good at game planning now. And as you know, running teams are disadvantaged when they play from behind, which means their defense probably has to be at least as good as their dominant run offense. Tough combination.
Hazzben has been a very knowledgeable poster on the D-III boards.
However, he is a bit "sensitive" when it comes to Bethel. Therefore, he has been hyper-vigilant when it comes to calling teams out for being "one dimensional", or "run heavy".
The two teams that came to Alliance from Bethel couldn't throw the ball if their life depended on it. And their play-off life DID depend on it. They rolled through lesser teams until they could play a team that could stop the run.
BOINK!!!! Done.......
What I was talking about, what 413 was affirming (and then better clarifying) was that to play the elite teams in the last few rounds (semi's/stagg) of the play-offs, you need to be BALANCED.
Defenses have escalated their games (mainly with the speed) greatly since even the late 90's/early 00's.
Quote from: hazzben on November 26, 2013, 09:58:20 PM
@413
When I read 'I always contended that no team will...' I took that to mean you were arguing no team will - in the future - ever win a d3 title with a one dimensional offense.
I'm certainly not arguing whether one has actually done that since 2005. Obviously they have not. Zero disagreement there.
But I don't think it's at all unfair to read your initial statement to be a proclamation that (in your opinion/contention) it isn't possible, as opposed to a statement merely that it just hasn't happened. If it was the latter, you don't really need to 'contend' for anything. It's established fact that no one has. E.g no one has to contend that there will be a black president in the 21st century. There's no argument to be had. There already has been one. You can contend that there will be a female president...and then state your evidence in support of that opinion.
Again, zero disagreement that no one has since 2005. My assertion is simply that they have at multiple levels, including d3 in the past, and so it is not unreasonable to argue it's at least possible to do so in the future.
I just don't think it was clear in your initial statement that you were merely saying no ones done it for 8 years. I don't think it was an unfair (I.e. putting words in your mouth) interpretation to read that initial post as you arguing/contending no one will do so in the future.
OK, lets try this one more time. You are right, I was contending that no one will win a D-3 championship, by having success in the semis/Stagg, without having a balanced offense,
in my opinion. One shared by many, it appears, based on what I have observed in the last 10 years but I may have been too absolute about it, in hindsight. Could it happen? Of course, it could. Is it likely? Very, very unlikely, IMHO, for the reason that Skunks pointed out, great improvements on the defensive side of the ball in the last decade and my experience that it took, becoming highly balanced, for the Hawks to win it all. Which is why all your examples, refuting my opinion, involving other levels and
dating back 30 years, didn't work for me. But, yes, we can agree, "it's at least possible to do it in the future."
Hope there is no hard feelings, Hazzben. Emma can tell you, I have no problem mixing it up with the boys, especially, when it comes to football. Best of luck to Bethel this weekend. Going undefeated in the MIAC and securing your own bracket is a huge accomplishment. 8-)
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 26, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
Hazzben has been a very knowledgeable poster on the D-III boards.
However, he is a bit "sensitive" when it comes to Bethel. Therefore, he has been hyper-vigilant when it comes to calling teams out for being "one dimensional", or "run heavy".
The two teams that came to Alliance from Bethel couldn't throw the ball if their life depended on it. And their play-off life DID depend on it. They rolled through lesser teams until they could play a team that could stop the run.
BOINK!!!! Done.......
What I was talking about, what 413 was affirming (and then better clarifying) was that to play the elite teams in the last few rounds (semi's/stagg) of the play-offs, you need to be BALANCED.
Defenses have escalated their games (mainly with the speed) greatly since even the late 90's/early 00's.
Ah....."my moment of Zen."
I thought his motivation may have been because he is a MIAC poster...........
or because I am a woman??? ;D
Just having a little fun, HB.
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 26, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
However, he is a bit "sensitive" when it comes to Bethel. Therefore, he has been hyper-vigilant when it comes to calling teams out for being "one dimensional", or "run heavy".
The two teams that came to Alliance from Bethel couldn't throw the ball if their life depended on it. And their play-off life DID depend on it. They rolled through lesser teams until they could play a team that could stop the run.
BOINK!!!! Done.......
What I was talking about, what 413 was affirming (and then better clarifying) was that to play the elite teams in the last few rounds (semi's/stagg) of the play-offs, you need to be BALANCED.
Defenses have escalated their games (mainly with the speed) greatly since even the late 90's/early 00's.
There's actually zero 'Bethel sensitivity' here. Bethel is very balanced this year and actually probably a little more pass than run oriented.
I coached on the first Bethel team that lost to Mount in the semis (inside backers). I will definitely concede we didn't have the horses to beat that Mount team. But it wasn't just on the Oline and backfield. It was in the secondary against Garcon and Shorts, et al. It does often get overlooked that Wetzell, MIAC MVP quartback and the guy that our offense and zone read scheme ran through wasn't on the field. He blew out his throwing shoulder v. Central in the 4th quarter. He tried to make a go, but was a shell of himself and got pulled after the first possession. Do we win if he plays...
not a chance! But you can ask the Johnnie and Tommie boys (Caruso is actually a big Wetzel fan I hear, seriously) about Wetzel, he was a beast and actually had a canon for an arm. His limitation was touch. Game is a respectable loss if he plays. It completely unhinged what we could do offensively. The team Mount saw was even less balanced than our typically unbalanced scheme :o :D
So you'll hear no argument from me that those run dominant Bethel teams couldn't win the deep playoff games. They didn't & couldn't.
The bolded section is where I take issue. There's just a bit of chronological snobbery (head nod to C.S. Lewis here) involved in this statement.
Are defenses faster today? Yes, I think so. But this overlooks the real issue: are D3 defenses faster than those defenses Nebraska was dominating in the 90's/early 00's and Georgia Southern (yes, Emma, their last Title was 00...but they went away from the option the next year, sucked royally, just got back to it a few years back and have made two deep runs before running into the NDSU buzz saw - ask KState how good NDSU is)? No chance. So if those teams could do it against faster, stronger, bigger and more athletic defenses, it bears out that it's possible a team could do it at the d3 level today. I'm sorry, but there are no Ray Lewis' on the field like Nebraska was beating in '94.
To Emma's point that today's D's are simply better prepared. I don't buy this at all. Those Nebraska teams were facing Miami, Florida, FSU & Tennessee teams that had a
month to prepare to stop those option attacks. No amount of preparation was going to unhinge what they were trying to do.
I think the bigger point is that you have to have
perfect balance in all phases to win this way. You have to have an elite D (this is how Osborne teams got over the hump...not offensive changes, but infusing more team speed on D v. the Florida teams). Because you're right, if you get behind big, a running team is in trouble. You've got to have great special teams. (Bethel in 06 had zero - shaking my head in shame - kicking game...like couldn't make an Xpoint bad :-[).
I'm not saying it's easy or the traditional route to win this way. Not...at...all. You have to be
incredibly good at what you're trying to do. But it's possible, even if not the easiest or most conventional route. That's all I'm saying and I'll push back when it seems like people make it out to be impossible. On the flip side is Peyton Manning and the Colts. It's not easy, conventional or likely you can win in the NFL with a pass dominant team. But hey, he got it to work once ! :P (cards on the table...I'm a Brady guy through and through)
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 27, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
Hope there is no hard feelings, Hazzben. Emma can tell you, I have no problem mixing it up with the boys, especially, when it comes to football.
ZERO hard feelings. I like a little back and forth. And I'm glad we've got some female voices in the mix. Especially a proud mama like yourself. It brings a different flavor to things.
Quote from: hazzben on November 27, 2013, 11:26:39 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 26, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
However, he is a bit "sensitive" when it comes to Bethel. Therefore, he has been hyper-vigilant when it comes to calling teams out for being "one dimensional", or "run heavy".
The two teams that came to Alliance from Bethel couldn't throw the ball if their life depended on it. And their play-off life DID depend on it. They rolled through lesser teams until they could play a team that could stop the run.
BOINK!!!! Done.......
What I was talking about, what 413 was affirming (and then better clarifying) was that to play the elite teams in the last few rounds (semi's/stagg) of the play-offs, you need to be BALANCED.
Defenses have escalated their games (mainly with the speed) greatly since even the late 90's/early 00's.
There's actually zero 'Bethel sensitivity' here. Bethel is very balanced this year and actually probably a little more pass than run oriented.
I coached on the first Bethel team that lost to Mount in the semis (inside backers). I will definitely concede we didn't have the horses to beat that Mount team. But it wasn't just on the Oline and backfield. It was in the secondary against Garcon and Shorts, et al. It does often get overlooked that Wetzell, MIAC MVP quartback and the guy that our offense and zone read scheme ran through wasn't on the field. He blew out his throwing shoulder v. Central in the 4th quarter. He tried to make a go, but was a shell of himself and got pulled after the first possession. Do we win if he plays...not a chance! But you can ask the Johnnie and Tommie boys (Caruso is actually a big Wetzel fan I hear, seriously) about Wetzel, he was a beast and actually had a canon for an arm. His limitation was touch. Game is a respectable loss if he plays. It completely unhinged what we could do offensively. The team Mount saw was even less balanced than our typically unbalanced scheme :o :D
So you'll hear no argument from me that those run dominant Bethel teams couldn't win the deep playoff games. They didn't & couldn't.
The bolded section is where I take issue. There's just a bit of chronological snobbery (head nod to C.S. Lewis here) involved in this statement.
Are defenses faster today? Yes, I think so. But this overlooks the real issue: are D3 defenses faster than those defenses Nebraska was dominating in the 90's/early 00's and Georgia Southern (yes, Emma, their last Title was 00...but they went away from the option the next year, sucked royally, just got back to it a few years back and have made two deep runs before running into the NDSU buzz saw - ask KState how good NDSU is)? No chance. So if those teams could do it against faster, stronger, bigger and more athletic defenses, it bears out that it's possible a team could do it at the d3 level today. I'm sorry, but there are no Ray Lewis' on the field like Nebraska was beating in '94.
To Emma's point that today's D's are simply better prepared. I don't buy this at all. Those Nebraska teams were facing Miami, Florida, FSU & Tennessee teams that had a month to prepare to stop those option attacks. No amount of preparation was going to unhinge what they were trying to do.
I think the bigger point is that you have to have perfect balance in all phases to win this way. You have to have an elite D (this is how Osborne teams got over the hump...not offensive changes, but infusing more team speed on D v. the Florida teams). Because you're right, if you get behind big, a running team is in trouble. You've got to have great special teams. (Bethel in 06 had zero - shaking my head in shame - kicking game...like couldn't make an Xpoint bad :-[).
I'm not saying it's easy or the traditional route to win this way. Not...at...all. You have to be incredibly good at what you're trying to do. But it's possible, even if not the easiest or most conventional route. That's all I'm saying and I'll push back when it seems like people make it out to be impossible. On the flip side is Peyton Manning and the Colts. It's not easy, conventional or likely you can win in the NFL with a pass dominant team. But hey, he got it to work once ! :P (cards on the table...I'm a Brady guy through and through)
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 27, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
Hope there is no hard feelings, Hazzben. Emma can tell you, I have no problem mixing it up with the boys, especially, when it comes to football.
ZERO hard feelings. I like a little back and forth. And I'm glad we've got some female voices in the mix. Especially a proud mama like yourself. It brings a different flavor to things.
HB, I won't hold that against you! ;D
Quote from: hazzben on November 27, 2013, 11:26:39 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 26, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
However, he is a bit "sensitive" when it comes to Bethel. Therefore, he has been hyper-vigilant when it comes to calling teams out for being "one dimensional", or "run heavy".
The two teams that came to Alliance from Bethel couldn't throw the ball if their life depended on it. And their play-off life DID depend on it. They rolled through lesser teams until they could play a team that could stop the run.
BOINK!!!! Done.......
What I was talking about, what 413 was affirming (and then better clarifying) was that to play the elite teams in the last few rounds (semi's/stagg) of the play-offs, you need to be BALANCED.
Defenses have escalated their games (mainly with the speed) greatly since even the late 90's/early 00's.
There's actually zero 'Bethel sensitivity' here. Bethel is very balanced this year and actually probably a little more pass than run oriented.
I coached on the first Bethel team that lost to Mount in the semis (inside backers). I will definitely concede we didn't have the horses to beat that Mount team. But it wasn't just on the Oline and backfield. It was in the secondary against Garcon and Shorts, et al. It does often get overlooked that Wetzell, MIAC MVP quartback and the guy that our offense and zone read scheme ran through wasn't on the field. He blew out his throwing shoulder v. Central in the 4th quarter. He tried to make a go, but was a shell of himself and got pulled after the first possession. Do we win if he plays...not a chance! But you can ask the Johnnie and Tommie boys (Caruso is actually a big Wetzel fan I hear, seriously) about Wetzel, he was a beast and actually had a canon for an arm. His limitation was touch. Game is a respectable loss if he plays. It completely unhinged what we could do offensively. The team Mount saw was even less balanced than our typically unbalanced scheme :o :D
So you'll hear no argument from me that those run dominant Bethel teams couldn't win the deep playoff games. They didn't & couldn't.
The bolded section is where I take issue. There's just a bit of chronological snobbery (head nod to C.S. Lewis here) involved in this statement.
Are defenses faster today? Yes, I think so. But this overlooks the real issue: are D3 defenses faster than those defenses Nebraska was dominating in the 90's/early 00's and Georgia Southern (yes, Emma, their last Title was 00...but they went away from the option the next year, sucked royally, just got back to it a few years back and have made two deep runs before running into the NDSU buzz saw - ask KState how good NDSU is)? No chance. So if those teams could do it against faster, stronger, bigger and more athletic defenses, it bears out that it's possible a team could do it at the d3 level today. I'm sorry, but there are no Ray Lewis' on the field like Nebraska was beating in '94.
To Emma's point that today's D's are simply better prepared. I don't buy this at all. Those Nebraska teams were facing Miami, Florida, FSU & Tennessee teams that had a month to prepare to stop those option attacks. No amount of preparation was going to unhinge what they were trying to do.
I think the bigger point is that you have to have perfect balance in all phases to win this way. You have to have an elite D (this is how Osborne teams got over the hump...not offensive changes, but infusing more team speed on D v. the Florida teams). Because you're right, if you get behind big, a running team is in trouble. You've got to have great special teams. (Bethel in 06 had zero - shaking my head in shame - kicking game...like couldn't make an Xpoint bad :-[).
I'm not saying it's easy or the traditional route to win this way. Not...at...all. You have to be incredibly good at what you're trying to do. But it's possible, even if not the easiest or most conventional route. That's all I'm saying and I'll push back when it seems like people make it out to be impossible. On the flip side is Peyton Manning and the Colts. It's not easy, conventional or likely you can win in the NFL with a pass dominant team. But hey, he got it to work once ! :P (cards on the table...I'm a Brady guy through and through)
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 27, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
Hope there is no hard feelings, Hazzben. Emma can tell you, I have no problem mixing it up with the boys, especially, when it comes to football.
ZERO hard feelings. I like a little back and forth. And I'm glad we've got some female voices in the mix. Especially a proud mama like yourself. It brings a different flavor to things.
Linebacker coach, huh? You are a man after my own heart. :-* Yes, a proud mama of a former Warhawk defensive player. I don't know why we have wasted all this time talking about whether it is possible to win championships with or without a balanced offense. Everybody knows..........
DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!! ;D
Wishing all a wonderful Thanksgiving. Safe travels!
Quote from: wartknight on November 27, 2013, 05:16:57 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 27, 2013, 11:26:39 AM
(cards on the table...I'm a Brady guy through and through)
HB, I won't hold that against you! ;D
Ha! It doesn't mean I wear UGGs...I swear, it doesn't!
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn1.bostonmagazine.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FBrady-600.jpg&hash=07a77b74a3293afe19c2680b49d7dcb7bd2d7979)
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 27, 2013, 09:44:04 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 26, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
Hazzben has been a very knowledgeable poster on the D-III boards.
However, he is a bit "sensitive" when it comes to Bethel. Therefore, he has been hyper-vigilant when it comes to calling teams out for being "one dimensional", or "run heavy".
The two teams that came to Alliance from Bethel couldn't throw the ball if their life depended on it. And their play-off life DID depend on it. They rolled through lesser teams until they could play a team that could stop the run.
BOINK!!!! Done.......
What I was talking about, what 413 was affirming (and then better clarifying) was that to play the elite teams in the last few rounds (semi's/stagg) of the play-offs, you need to be BALANCED.
Defenses have escalated their games (mainly with the speed) greatly since even the late 90's/early 00's.
Ah....."my moment of Zen."
I thought his motivation may have been because he is a MIAC poster...........
or because I am a woman??? ;D
Just having a little fun, HB.
You're a Woman???? :o :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D
LOL, while I knew that, so many don't because of your great knowledge and overall grasp of D3 football.
WHD
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 27, 2013, 06:19:26 PM
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 27, 2013, 09:44:04 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 26, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
Hazzben has been a very knowledgeable poster on the D-III boards.
However, he is a bit "sensitive" when it comes to Bethel. Therefore, he has been hyper-vigilant when it comes to calling teams out for being "one dimensional", or "run heavy".
The two teams that came to Alliance from Bethel couldn't throw the ball if their life depended on it. And their play-off life DID depend on it. They rolled through lesser teams until they could play a team that could stop the run.
BOINK!!!! Done.......
What I was talking about, what 413 was affirming (and then better clarifying) was that to play the elite teams in the last few rounds (semi's/stagg) of the play-offs, you need to be BALANCED.
Defenses have escalated their games (mainly with the speed) greatly since even the late 90's/early 00's.
Ah....."my moment of Zen."
I thought his motivation may have been because he is a MIAC poster...........
or because I am a woman??? ;D
Just having a little fun, HB.
You're a Woman???? :o :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D
LOL, while I knew that, so many don't because of your great knowledge and overall grasp of D3 football.
WHD
Now THAT made me laugh out loud. I think you just dissed women everywhere (except 413) without even trying to! ;D
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 27, 2013, 05:39:14 PM
Quote from: hazzben on November 27, 2013, 11:26:39 AM
I coached on the first Bethel team that lost to Mount in the semis (inside backers).
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 27, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
Hope there is no hard feelings, Hazzben. Emma can tell you, I have no problem mixing it up with the boys, especially, when it comes to football.
ZERO hard feelings. I like a little back and forth. And I'm glad we've got some female voices in the mix. Especially a proud mama like yourself. It brings a different flavor to things.
Linebacker coach, huh? You are a man after my own heart.
He's too modest to admit it, but HB played a little linebacker in his day, too. Even made a few tackles now and then. I think the RB's tripped and fell over his body in the pile.
Quote from: bleedpurple on November 28, 2013, 12:00:31 AM
Quote from: WarhawkDad on November 27, 2013, 06:19:26 PM
Quote from: footballfan413 on November 27, 2013, 09:44:04 AM
Quote from: skunks_sidekick on November 26, 2013, 11:36:42 PM
Hazzben has been a very knowledgeable poster on the D-III boards.
However, he is a bit "sensitive" when it comes to Bethel. Therefore, he has been hyper-vigilant when it comes to calling teams out for being "one dimensional", or "run heavy".
The two teams that came to Alliance from Bethel couldn't throw the ball if their life depended on it. And their play-off life DID depend on it. They rolled through lesser teams until they could play a team that could stop the run.
BOINK!!!! Done.......
What I was talking about, what 413 was affirming (and then better clarifying) was that to play the elite teams in the last few rounds (semi's/stagg) of the play-offs, you need to be BALANCED.
Defenses have escalated their games (mainly with the speed) greatly since even the late 90's/early 00's.
Ah....."my moment of Zen."
I thought his motivation may have been because he is a MIAC poster...........
or because I am a woman??? ;D
Just having a little fun, HB.
You're a Woman???? :o :o :o :o ;D ;D ;D
LOL, while I knew that, so many don't because of your great knowledge and overall grasp of D3 football.
WHD
Now THAT made me laugh out loud. I think you just dissed women everywhere (except 413) without even trying to! ;D
Thanks, WHD! :-*
Bleed, we all know how, "special," and rare a woman who loves football, as much as I do, is. :D ;D
Now enough of this, "I am woman," crap. I need to go check my fantasy football line up this morning and bake a pie! 8-)
You boys and your families have a great Turkey Day and
GO WARHAWKS!
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 28, 2013, 06:13:19 AM
I think the RB's tripped and fell over his body in the pile.
Yep...I jumped on the pile a few times as well ;D It's amazing how many tackles you get when you make sure you're the last one to get up from the ground ;) 8-)
Quote from: hazzben on November 28, 2013, 10:22:12 AM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 28, 2013, 06:13:19 AM
I think the RB's tripped and fell over his body in the pile.
Yep...I jumped on the pile a few times as well ;D It's amazing how many tackles you get when you make sure you're the last one to get up from the ground ;) 8-)
And if you have an in with the stat guy!
Quote from: HScoach on November 26, 2013, 05:55:23 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 26, 2013, 04:05:44 PM
Quote from: 02 Warhawk on November 23, 2013, 04:28:55 PM
How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.
second best conference in the nation...nope.
That argument works if you limit it to the past 2 years.
If you expand it to the fact that between 1999 and last year, an OAC team had been eliminated from the playoffs by a team other than Mount Union only once (B-W in a 16-12 loss to Wheaton 2003, IIRC), then you get where the reputation comes from.
It's fine if you want to argue that previous great runs by Capital, etc. are ancient history, but then you'd also have to note that the OAC was not No. 2 in the most recent conference rankings.
http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings
They're No. 4.
8-)
I completely understand, and agree, that the the OAC hasn't been a great conference the last couple years. However their reputation is built on LONG history of competing on a national stage. I 100% get that the most recent showings have been poor, but those of us in the OAC have openly acknowledged that the conference has been down the last couple of seasons.
OAC losses to Mount in the playoffs:
2006 - Capital lost to Mount in Round 3 (2 wins)
2005 - Capital lost to Mount in the Round 3 (2 wins)
2002 - John Carroll lost to Mount in the semi-finals (3 wins)
2000 - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 1 (0 wins)
1999 - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 2 (1 win)
1997 – John Carroll lost to Mount in Round 2 (1 win)
The '05 and '06 Capital teams lost to Mount in the playoffs by 3 points each time and were in many people's eyes the best team Mount played all year. Including UWW in the Stagg.
OAC losses against someone else:
Baldwin Wallace to Wheaton in 2nd round of 2003 (1 win)
Capital at Whitewater in Round 1 of 2007 (UWW was Nat Champs) (0 wins)
Otterbein to Franklin in 2008 round 1 (Franklin beat NCC in 2nd round, lost to Wheaton in regional final) (0 wins)
Heidelberg to Wittenberg in 2012 (easily the worst of the OAC losses) (0 wins)
John Carroll to St John Fisher in 2013 (0 wins)
Overall, the 2nd place OAC team is a respectable 9-11 in the playoffs. Remove their losses to Mount, they're a very respectable 9-5. Not stellar, but not too shabby either.
I fully realize we're not the WIAC, CCIW, NWC or E-8 when it comes to depth and/or parity, and I know it's hard for the rest of the nation to realize, but the OAC is has been HISTORICALLY a little bit more than just Mount Union and a bunch of crap teams.
Catching up on this a couple of days later...
It doesn't really change the arguments for-versus-against, but unless I am missing something, there is one other OAC defeat-versus-other. In 2010, Ohio Northern beat Witt in the first round and lost to North Central in the second.
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2013, 07:59:30 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 26, 2013, 06:58:03 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 26, 2013, 04:40:51 PM
When you factor in the top of a conference (Wesley would change the UMAC's rank) plus the middle and the bottom, plus other ways to assess strength or level of competition, you get what we've put out.
See, I don't think it would intrinsically, taking the entire D-3 universe and the UMAC data set as a whole. Move it up a skosh - yeah - but it wouldn't change it in a profound and meaningful way. But I don't think we'll ever have a test case unless UMHB continues to diverge from the rest of the ASC.
Agreed. Adding Wesley to the UMAC would move the conference up a few spots, but probably not above the HCAC. While Wesley is better than Franklin, the rest of the UMAC is worse than the rest of the HCAC.
I'm okay with a skosh. I just didn't want to imply it would have no impact.