Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on December 18, 2016, 08:42:27 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on December 18, 2016, 07:48:52 PM

Quote from: edward de vere on December 18, 2016, 07:27:25 PM
Mount Union was just so unbelievably fortunate that Larry Kehres never went elsewhere.

Just a totally different era now than when LK started.  The economics are such that D3's just aren't going to be able to keep mega-talented coaches forever.

Largely true, but there will always be SOME who simply prefer the D3 lifestyle.  They won't get filthy rich, but they will still live quite comfortably.

Great point Ypsi, VK is probably a good example of this (fingers crossed)

Quote from: HScoach on December 04, 2016, 06:17:31 PM
I don't think the OAC as a whole has been good for years, but I'm not sure how to rank the others beyond the WIAC and MIAC.   The CCIW has been historically better than the OAC too.  The E8 has been a very solid conference, but Alfred just won it as the first 10-0 champ in forever and they gave up 70 to the least talented Mount team since the late 80's.   So how good is the E8 this season?  Previously pretty good, but this year?   Not so much.

Really interested in seeing if JCU can repeat that effort against UWO or whether last week points to this being the 2nd season of UWW being good, but not explosive enough to be a legit title threat.   And if Mount can put up a 4 quarter fight against MHB.   I fear this will be reminiscent of the ugly 2013 Stagg when Mount had completely out classed by UWW.

I would have agreed with that label 3 weeks ago,but after seeing how good JCU is and watching Mount respond well to adversity the last couple weeks, isn't it a little unfair to judge the 2016 raiders while they still have a chance to win it all?

I just don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they could win a close game against UMHB in belton and win the rematch against JCU in Salem.

Quote from: Toph on November 27, 2016, 10:17:55 AM
David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone, hurled it with the sling, and struck the Philistine on the forehead.  The stone embedded itself in his brow, and he fell prostrate on the ground.

UWW is definitely beatable this year. They've looked good the last couple playoff games but their offense really showed inconsistency against weaker conference  opponents. Usually UWWs oline wears down opponents who just can't play with them,  but I think JCU has an elite D line that should match up well.

Should be a good game.

I usually don't take much stock in these, but found I found it  interesting that two of the more popular algorithm based football sites predicted the Mount Union Hobart game outcome pretty accurately.Massey Ratings predicted a Mount Union 40 Hobart 20 final (only 3 total points off of reality) and Atomic Football predicted Mount Union to win 45-14, one more Mount Union TD and one less Hobart TD than actually happened.

Both sites have yet to post their predictions for next week, but Massey gives UMU a 13% chance to win the championship.

Quote from: Dr. Acula on November 20, 2016, 10:47:03 AM

Quote from: HScoach on November 19, 2016, 07:41:30 PM

Quote from: purpled on November 19, 2016, 06:26:13 PM
I don't think I've read so many negative comments after a Mount WIN. W-I-N!!!! Victory! Don't care how or by how many. One game closer to the prize!

If you're happy with today's 60 minute tussle with Hobart, there's nothing to say.   A team worthy of "the prize" would have rolled them.

After watching that game I kind of settled on thinking a "typical" Mount team would have won that game 56-7? 63-7?  They would have pretty much scored at will.

p.s. I liked the Hobart guy saying Davis had probably thrown more than a Mount QB had in years because they normally only throw 10-12 passes a game.

YES! That was driving me crazy. Maybe he was confusing Mount with UWW.

Quote from: HScoach on November 19, 2016, 12:52:08 PM
Hey,  at least I as the color guy I had a touch more energy than the Hobart guy.   Got to wonder if he's breathing.

There's a color guy???

Quote from: desertraider on November 18, 2016, 09:44:07 PM
And now for some "Onion" type banter for the game tomorrow (please don't take these as insults people!):

Cheers from the Raider Cheerleaders!
We've got spirit yes we do - we've got 91 playoff wins - how bout you?

or

We've got spirit yes we do - we've got 12 National Championships - how bout you?

or

We've got spirit yes we do - we've got 25 consecutive playoff bids  - how bout you?

kidding aside - should be a great game (hopefully not a close one and the Raiders win - I am a bit biased) and no matter what no injuries and safe travels.

I'd like to imagine the Hobart cheerleading squad retort as simply: "We've got a home playoff game this year, how about you?"

But in all seriousness, let's go Raiders! Can't wait to see how this team responds after last week.

Quote from: JCUStreaks70 on November 18, 2016, 12:52:59 PM

Quote from: desertraider on November 17, 2016, 07:24:27 PM

Quote from: wally_wabash on November 17, 2016, 03:51:07 PM
I think ESPN's Stagg Bowl crews are generally pretty good (yes, even Pam Ward).  It's pretty unfair to judge them too harshly given that they can't possibly be as familiar with the subject material as we are.  If I've got any criticism of the ESPN Stagg Bowl broadscasts, it's only that they have a tendency to grab one or two story lines and beat them into the ground over the course of the game.  They went wild with Jordan Roberts's story (did you know he played against NDSU?!?!?) last year and it got to be a bit much.  But generally they're fine.

Wally - you are spot on about 99% of the time (nobody is perfect...well except perhaps the "Guru" ) but we are going to have to agree to disagree on Pam. She re-introduced me to the mute button and was the reason for listening to the radio broadcast while watching the game (even with the 3-5 second delay - it was better).

The story line I get tired of hearing about during the Stagg Bowl is (drumroll) - "in Division III there are no scholarships like in Divisions I and II....yada yada yada". Yes - it is true, but for god's sake when you say it every 30 seconds. ('Nemeth breaks a tackle and rambles for 26 yards - did you know in Division III they don't have scholarships like in Divisions I and II?') Oy. BTW: did you know Jordan Roberts wants to be a priest? Hmmm - I heard that somewhere

BTW/BTW: Not a knock on Jordan Roberts! Kids awesome. However, a knock on ESPN and their unwillingness to simply call the game like they would call an Alabama or OSU game. It feels like they are sort of 'patting DIII on the head' during the game (way to go young fellas - you're special!).

Yes!! Thought that for years, DIII is treated like the "look how cute, they play for love of the game, even though they're not talented"

While that is true for a lot of programs, when you get to the top rungs of DIII, the players a lot of times, have the talent of DI players (maybe not your Alabama talent) but may be just a little smaller than those at the top level.

A good example is When Wesley (when they had Joe Callahan) beat an FCS school a few years ago. The size difference was very evident, but size does not equal talent.

Also just realizing that recruiting is such an imprecise science at all levels, there are plenty of d3 guys who could  be on scholarship at a bigger program, and plenty of mediocre d1 scholarship guys who probably would not be standouts in d3 . It's just so hard to predict how a high school kid will adapt to college football.

Oh okay, I remember fulfords injury but not poorman. Thanks

Sorry if I'm out of the loop regarding Mounts QB depth chart, but what exactly happened to Poorman, did he get hurt?

Quote from: bman on February 09, 2015, 11:09:08 PM

Quote from: Go Thunder on February 09, 2015, 10:44:47 PM

Quote from: reality check on February 09, 2015, 01:24:27 PM

Quote from: Go Thunder on February 09, 2015, 12:29:14 AM

Quote from: Craft_Beermeister on February 06, 2015, 08:11:25 PM
Mount Union got new helmets.  Nice.

http://bottlegate.com/2015/02/06/mount-unions-new-helmets-are-the-sexiest-thing-this-side-of-the-mississippi/

Having all those ridges and oval holes in a flatter style Helmet will not allow injuries.  Using Physics the old rounder shaped helmets with only a little hole is a safer shape for a helmet.  Also current helmets are shorter the 70's 80's models were long enough to push down on the shoulder pads on big hits for some people.  Mine did.  I'm sure the padding is much better but I believe the shape of the helmets is more towards cool looking vs safety.  Which can be said for the rest of the uniform padding which is now much thinner so you dont see the pads in the uniform anymore.  This has also extended to players at skill positions wearing ridiculously small pants that either just touch the top of the knee or higher.  Heck our qb at Wheaton is one of them.   Some school is going to get sued when a player gets a knee injury being allowed to go on the field with misfitting pants.  Add to that they are also wearing the very thin knee pad that doesn't fill half of the pocket it goes in.  We all know that the skill positions have always worn smaller shoulder pads etc but now its as if they are out there unprotected. 

That's my two cents on today's uniform.

If you truly think the newer helmets are designed with "coolness" in mind before "safety", then we can end the discussion here.  These helmets are designed first and foremost to prevent head injuries.  The guts of a modern helmet are light years better than what was used in the 90's and early 00's let alone the 70's and 80's.

Your wrong the physics and math say so.
These helmets have bigger levers when you consider the coefficient of friction on a flatter helmet vs a round helmet.  Even if the round helmet has the same radius the coefficient of friction cancels it out so you get a working lever of a much smaller radius.
The round helmet has a smaller lever vs the bigger lever of the flatter helmet.
You may not be able to understand the math and physics but I am very extremely confident I am correct!!!!!!!!!
Yes I do have 2 degrees in electronics both 4.0/4,0 with extensive math and physics classes.

If you were that smart you would understand that you tried to prove your point by disproving 1 factor out of about 10...
The shape is 1 element of the design out of the 10 or so, in which the safety of the helmet is improved.
Since you're so smart, I'm sure you understand the evolution of materials and design that also factor in...
Given your superior intelligence, I'm also sure that you understand what's at stake in selling these devices...the financial factors,(design vs liability) that go into the manufacture of these helmets, ensures these manufacturers hire engineers and chemists that are (gasp!) even breaching your astronomical intelligence level....
I don't have a math or physics degree, but I know this.... smugness+being clueless+being opinionated on something you know nothing about= stupid posts

I'm going to assume these helmets are safer, simply because helmet designers have a much bigger economic incentive to come up with a helmet proven to reduce injury rather than one that simply looks cool! Universities want to buy the safest equipment they can and avoid potential lawsuits down the road, looks are an after thought. Follow the money my friends.

I think the white face masks are classic. I'd rather see updated purple helmets with a white mask, but have these white helmets as alternates. An all white storm trooper look would be pretty nice, especially because the marketing office could do a "white out" thing.

Maybe Cecil, or Pierre will donate and make mount the Oregon of Ohio in terms of uniforms haha, we already use OUs offense.

Not gonna lie though, in terms of concept helmets they could have been a little more creative,  not necessarily the most imaginative choices.

Quote from: bleedpurple on December 17, 2014, 11:07:52 PM
Congratulations to Kevin Burke.  Obviously, Kevin is as exemplary off the field as he is on it. Congratulations, Kevin, on an outstanding career.

Heard from a mount Union faculty member that the kid is everything you'd want in a student, hard worker, gets his stuff in on time, never misses class. Very reassuring to have someone outside the d3fb community vouche for his character. Congrats again to KB!

In the interest of moving on to a more relevant subject. Thoughts on how mount is going to contain UWWs rushing attack? Mount looked especially vulnerable to the between the tackles runs Wesley through at them.

I'm assuming VK will load the box a bit and hope that the  secondary can contain Kumerow and company. For the most part they've been pretty good against the run this year and have game planned (fairly) well for the run against UWW in the past, just curious if anyone has any interesting ideas or things Im overlooking.

Quote from: BoBo on December 14, 2014, 08:23:34 PM

Quote from: Raiderplaybyplay on December 14, 2014, 07:07:49 PM

Quote from: BoBo on December 14, 2014, 06:53:01 PM

Quote from: Craft_Beermeister on December 14, 2014, 05:32:19 PM
I think you were up too long.  You said earlier you went back to bed and missed the second half of the Mount Union Wesley game so I'll help you out a little.  Burke completed 7 passes in the second half before VK pulled him with over 4 minutes to go in 3rd quarter.  Give Wesley some respect here.  The Wolverenes have a reputation of a high scoring team that when they get hot they can put up a lot of points in bunches.  The Wolverines put up 59 on Mount Union last year when Mount failed to deliver the knockout punch.  Multiple Wolverenes offense players have been racking up various D3 honors.  So it was good coaching to try to run time off of the clock and passing is a big part of their offensive package. 

After the last Bruke pass Mount Union pulled their starters and didn't pass another time in the game.  Not one attempt.  Wesley's offense was frustrated and almost score twice in the 3rd quarter, but Mount held them out of the end zone.  In the 4th quarter Wesley kept their starters in an got some satisfaction against Mount's backups by scoring 3 touchdowns.

I did go back to bed at half, but I did record the video during the second half and watched it later. Burke threw a TD pass with 4:10 to go in the third, so I guess threw his last pass with over 4 min left in 3rd is technically correct. But, it doesn't change the matter that the game was over at 56-0 at the half...any reasonable person could have seen that. There was no purpose to keep Burke in the game exposing your franchise player to possible injury. But, if Mount coaches and their fans can't see that and feel their defense can't hold that kind of lead against a beaten opponent, so be it. Congrats for the win, see you Friday.

OK, 4 overlooked factors in the "Mount running up the score" discussion

1) It was the last game at Mount Union stadium for Mount's seniors including Burke - I guarantee it'd be pretty hard to tell those guys they're done at half.
2) you never know what can happen at half time, Yes they should have been comfortable with a 56-0 lead, but at the same time, If I'm Wesley's coach I'm telling my guys, they put up 56 in a half, so can we.
3) Teams like Mount don't get the opportunity to play their full speed offense against a great defense, It was probably their best chance to prepare for the next game.
4) If UWW could have run up the score on Linfield or Wartburg they would have.

We should agree to disagree...because this needs to end already.  I think those four things are a crock of ****, just as you and other think my argument is a crock of **** based on all the -K I've received since yesterday. BTW #3 is the funniest: i.e. great defense? laughable at best.  Going against that defense on Saturday would only prepare you for eating a swiss cheese sandwich...but if it makes you feel good to believe it...whatever....

Well, it was a defense that had only given up 20 points in 3 playoff games until that point. They were fast, physical and experienced. Maybe not as good as JCU, but probably the best Mount had seen in the playoffs besides the blue streaks.

But clearly you're not gonna accept any defense of Mount Union's "poor sportsmanship." Fine. The bottom line is nobody needs to apologize for any margin of victory in the playoffs, it's big boy football time. No team has the responsibility to ease off the gas at this point.