FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[HSCTiger fan]

Tarten I surely don't expect anyone on Wabash to agree with any points I make on HSC.  I am just a big fan of HSC and the boards are the ONLY place you can poke fun, discuss, predict and argue at each other. It's not like I can go to my local bar and anyone care to talk about this game. I love the conversations even when people disagree. 

Wally you can dive into the box scores all you like. Having seniors matters.  There's nothing you'll find in a box score that will dispute that. 

Bash what's your deal?  You'd rather show up on the board every day and read how great Wabash is? Read posts in which everyone nods their head in agreement?  These are discussion boards.  Not agreement boards.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I am just a big fan of HSC and the boards are the ONLY place you can poke fun, discuss, predict and argue at each other. It's not like I can go to my local bar and anyone care to talk about this game. I love the conversations even when people disagree. 

Absolutely, true.

[wally_wabash]

Wally you can dive into the box scores all you like. Having seniors matters.   There's nothing you'll find in a box score that will dispute that. 

That's a different conversation.  We're trying to figure out whether one side or the other has a significant experience edge.  You counted up seniors and juniors and said yes.  I don't think there is any meat on those bones and I want to dig a little deeper.  My hunch is that, no, there really isn't a significant edge one way or another.  But I do want to find out. 

[wally_wabash]

I'm through with the Wabash side and through with 2013 Hampden-Sydney.  2012 and 2011 Hampden-Sydney is going to be a chore because I can't suss out a link to a cumulative season participation report and the few boxscores that I've looked at for 2012 have incomplete information.  I'll do my best.  But here's a little teaser...

Using the two deep (and I cut off the occasional third man that ER likes to drop in the two-deep to make it even) I tallied up starts and games played returning.  I left out the specials because we're not going to double count WRs (or linebackers!!) that return kicks.  So...returning from the 2013 offensive and defensive rosters we get:

Wabash- 258 games played, 128 starts
Hampden-Sydney - 295 games played, 142 starts

But of course, Hampden-Sydney would have more games and more starts returning.  They played two more games.  I actually expected this gap to be a little bigger.  Two more games equals 44 more opportunities for starts than Wabash had and the margin is only +14.  H-SC didn't lose a lot of guys, but they did lose a lot of starts.  We'll see how this goes once I compile 2012 and 2011 data.  Fair warning, we may end up with only a games played to games played concrete comparison here.  Again, the participation reports that I've found so far for H-SC in 2012 aren't complete. 

[HSCTiger fan]

Dang Wally that's a lot of data.  I stand by the argument regardless. Coaches preach senior leadership. They have for since the dawn of college football.  Seniors have had 3 springs too. Don't leave that out of your experience calculation. They've been there and done that. It's all ways in the back of the mind of a senior that this is it - their last chance to play. 

[wabco]

Wally ... head hurts.  Lets get to the tailgates and then go kick their buts.

[sigma one]

This game is creating more analysis that the Bell Game, and probably more than H-SC v. R-MC. 
     Tomorrow at 5 pm in the Wabash chapel there will be a Wabash/Hampden-Sydney convocation at which Mark Emmert will speak to the teams and others who can find a seat.
      I'm searching my mind, and can't find much more to debate:  seniors, experience, passing, rushing, defenses,  experience of kickers and punters, direction of the wind, who has the best cleats, who is taller, who is faster, who is getting enough sleep, who is emotionally ready,  who has the moxie,  who has seen action in the most games,  who is studying for the first round of exams, who had the best summer internships. . . . . . .All in good fun, mostly.  Thank goodness, if the creek don't rise, Saturday at 1 pm isn't that far away.  Finally.
     Safe travels to the Tigers and all fans on both sides.  Now, back to regular programming.
     

[Pat Coleman]

Old Pal please tell me you were not up til 2:18 am breaking down film in order to reply to a wisecrack remark I made about the HSC offense.

Wes is a DePauw grad. That would be like having a Macon grad come have your back in this conversation ...

[wally_wabash]

I doubt many of the Wabash seniors played much as freshmen - the last year they were in the playoffs.

Before I finish this off, I wanted to bring back this line because what I found is super.  Of course not many seniors played at freshmen.  In good programs, you have to be some kind of talent to step on campus and start on Saturdays.  That being said, Wabash's current senior class had seven players play in that 2011 season- 5 of them played in 10+ games, three of them were starters by the end of the year and started in the quarterfinal game.  On the flip side here, it looks like nine of H-SC's seniors played as freshmen, and only John Moore started any games.  Make of that what you will. 

Here's the breakdown: 

For Wabash:
returning from 2013 - 258 games played, 128 games started
returning from 2012 - 112 games played, 71 games started
returning from 2011 - 67 games played, 34 games started
Totals: 437 games played, 233 games started

For Hampden-Sydney:
returning from 2013 - 295 games played, 142 games started
returning from 2012 - 155 games played, 57 games started
returning from 2011 - 50 games played, 7 games started
Totals: 500 games played, 206 games started

Does either side have any significant experience edge there?  I'm going with no. 

Part of what makes this game so intriguing is that both teams bring back so many players in juicy positions on both sides of the ball that we get to see strength on strength, experience on experience.  There aren't super clear advantages (except for the one discussed at length yesterday) on either side. 

[BashDad]

So. I spent the morning coming up with incendiary titles for a Thursday post aggregating my various enthusiasms and expectations for Saturday. I emailed my favorite — "THROWING SHADE: Why Nash Nance Sucks" — to my smarter-than-me brother who promptly responded:

"I think they might beat us."

Oh.

Nance, despite the inspired list of digs accumulating in my iPhone's notepad ("A GUIDE TO ROOTING AGAINST HSC AND THEIR 30 MINUTE ALL AMERICAN!"), is much better than sucks. I knew this already, as anyone who watched the first half of Linfield last year knows this, as I imagine anyone who watched HSC at all last year knows this. But even after brother Barry's email I did a hefty bit of internet sifting, trying to confirm the conclusion I wanted badly to arrive at:

Hampden-Sydney's football team, and Nash in particular, won the 2013 last-game lottery and have spent the off-season ascending on the hot air of a two-quarter aberration.

Whoa. Sounds good, doesn't it? Snarky. Blustery. Internet approved.

The thing is, for every nitpick-ed stat I strained to make meaningful — Nash threw more picks than touchdowns in his first two games last year! Nash threw 72 times without a TD against Christopher Newport!— I became gassed by the overwhelming feeling of, like, "faulty premise, dude."

Even tongue-in-cheek, there's no way to argue that Nash Nance sucks. He doesn't. He's good. Does he throw a lot of picks? Yep. Did he look miserable against Linfield in the second half? Yep. But there's no way we watch the Gentleman's Classic on Saturday and come away thinking man, we really were all wrong about Nash Nance. Not gonna happen. As a single talent, that dude is legit. 4K yards and 44 TDs are legit.

But.

There is a bubble that might get burst on Saturday. Because there is still a question of just what to do with that Linfield game. The impact of that game on this season's outlook cannot be overstated. Pat Coleman picked HSC as a top-10 team in USA TODAY.  That's... impressive. Coleman isn't slotting HSC that high because they beat Randolph-Macon by a point, 'naw mean? This is a Tiger team that, prior to Linfield, lost twice (including a that-can't-happen loss to 4-6 Shenandoah), squeaked by Macon to make the playoffs and then almost lost in the first round to a multiple loss Maryville team that scored 12 more points than Linfield would a week later. What? What do you do with all that? We're positive HSC just, like, put it all together against Linfield permanently and forever, never to look back? We're certain that game wasn't an aberration?

And while I agree that both Wabash and Hampden-Sydney return enough players that we can, unusually, incorporate last year's results into our sorting out of 2014 expectations, I don't think we're actually looking at teams separated by a 3.5 point line, because I don't think we're actually incorporating anything outside of HSC's last game. And Wabash? This is a Wabash team that, without its All-American-caliber running back, destroyed everyone not named Wittenberg (a Wittenberg team that I would call—not only because it helps my case here—the best team they've ever had), and then got left on the table in week 11. Most of that Little Giant team is back. An elite--elite--defense is back. And that All-American-caliber running back is back. Does the Wittenberg game—the one and only game Wabash played against a good team—make me worried about Nash and co. on Saturday? Sure.

You know, when thinking only of Nash and co. versus Linfield.

But you know what? Wittenberg didn't lose to Shenandoah. They didn't lose to Christopher Newport. And neither did Wabash. Maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe the players back from a 9-3 HSC are, in fact, well-matched against the players that return from a 9-1 Wabash. Maybe the very first Gentleman's Classic will, in fact, prove correct the heaping of praise HSC spent the last 10 months enjoying.

I, for one, don't think so. And I don't think it'll be that close. Wabash wins 35-17.

Nash Nance sucks.

WAF.

[Dr. Acula]

^^^^ That's fantastic.  +k

As for Witt, I would agree 2013 was probably their best team of the D3 era.  The only team I saw that was close was the 2000 team which was built around a stud RB and a great D, but lacked a QB/WR combo anywhere near Florence/Cunningham level. 

[wally_wabash]

Applause.  I love the big game BashDad post. 

My commentary this week around special teams has been largely to say that I don't think special teams are the main bullet point this week (despite seven years of CC telling us that big games are determined by turnovers and special teams), but one of my favorite quirky things about this week is seeing Wabash LB Grant Klembara being one of our kick return guys.  I can't remember Wabash doing this before...or anybody else really.  How many D3 teams out there have LBs returning kicks?  It has to be under 10, right?  The only kind of related quirky thing that I remember Wabash doing way back in the day was when we had one of our o-linemen (one of the Wilhelms I believe) drop back and punt. 

And while I'm in the mood to stop dancing around the special teams for a moment, it's probably worth mentioning that H-SC does a weird thing in some 4th down spots where they'll leave Nance in to punt.  I'm sure Wabash will get this look.  What that's going to do is effectively prevent Wabash from putting any kind of block or return on which shouldn't be dismissed- punt block/return is a big part of Wabash's game.  I don't know how smart it is to have your AA quarterback messing around on special teams (check that, I do know and it's not smart), but that's a thing they'll do. 

[sigma one]

Worth mentioning is that in 2013 (and make what you will about strength of schedule) the Wabash defense gave up a total of 52 points in the first half (28 of them to Wittenberg, which finished with 35 for the game).  Aside from Witt, in second quarters Wabash surrendered a total of 21 points; they did not give up a score of any kind  in the second quarter in their first eight games of the season.  In the final two games, Witt got 14 in the second quarter; DePauw got 7.  Cumulative half time scores for the season:  Wabash 317, Opponents 52.  Put simply, the first Wabash defense was rarely on the field in the fourth quarter on the way to being at the top of NCAA stats.  Wabash led 38-0, 30-0, 45-0, 38-7, 28-7, 24-0, 24-3, 52-0, and 35-7 at half time.  They trailed Witt 28-3.
     Hampden-Sydney outscored opponents 225-82 in the first half during the regular 10-game season.  They led at half time 21-6, 43-0, 18-13, 21-0, 19-12, 19-7 (v. Shenandoah in a 36-35 loss), 35-0, 28-7, and 21-20.  They trailed Christopher Newport 17-0 at half time, eventually losing 17-7.   It's safe to assume that in some games at least the first HSC defense sat out late in games in which the Tigers were comfortably ahead by the fourth quarter.
     I don't know what to make of these numbers except to say that at least against the teams Wabash faced its defense was arguably better than the final numbers show.
     I leave it to others to debate how much stronger the ODAC is than the NCAC.   
     

[ExTartanPlayer]

My commentary this week around special teams has been largely to say that I don't think special teams are the main bullet point this week (despite seven years of CC telling us that big games are determined by turnovers and special teams), but one of my favorite quirky things about this week is seeing Wabash LB Grant Klembara being one of our kick return guys.  I can't remember Wabash doing this before...or anybody else really.  How many D3 teams out there have LBs returning kicks?  It has to be under 10, right?  The only kind of related quirky thing that I remember Wabash doing way back in the day was when we had one of our o-linemen (one of the Wilhelms I believe) drop back and punt. 

And while I'm in the mood to stop dancing around the special teams for a moment, it's probably worth mentioning that H-SC does a weird thing in some 4th down spots where they'll leave Nance in to punt.  I'm sure Wabash will get this look.  What that's going to do is effectively prevent Wabash from putting any kind of block or return on which shouldn't be dismissed- punt block/return is a big part of Wabash's game.  I don't know how smart it is to have your AA quarterback messing around on special teams (check that, I do know and it's not smart), but that's a thing they'll do.

Two fun things related to this post:

1) When I was a kid, a local Division II school, Kutztown University, had a stud linebacker named John Mobley returning kicks.  He was just the best athlete on the team, so that was the deal.  In a related story, John Mobley went on to start 102 NFL games, including two Super Bowls, for the Broncos.

(Fun fact: even with 102 NFL starts and two Super Bowls, Mobley wasn't the best NFL player ever from the D2 school; that would be Andre Reed)

2) The University of California (the big one, that plays in the PAC-12, not any of those wacky branch campuses or California (PA) University) did Ohio State a dirty deed last year, which might have spurred an NCAA rule change (I'm not sure).  Their QB and punter both wore #16 (which seems like it oughta be illegal).  They pulled off a fake punt where the QB pretended to run off with the offense, then came back on with the punt team, and threw a strike for a first down.

I don't love the idea of using the starting QB as the real punter, but I do see the merit in deterring a punt block attempt by putting your QB back there and basically forcing you to play every fourth down in some sort of "safe" punt defense.  Pros and cons.  Bring it out for the big games, I guess.

[wally_wabash]

I don't love the idea of using the starting QB as the real punter, but I do see the merit in deterring a punt block attempt by putting your QB back there and basically forcing you to play every fourth down in some sort of "safe" punt defense.  Pros and cons.  Bring it out for the big games, I guess.

It's risk/reward.  If you're in 4th and 7 at midfield, maybe you can catch the defense in the wrong look and get yourself a first down.  But if not, and you kick, and a return does happen, and now your AA quarterback is a defender without the usual protections and niceties typically afforded quarterbacks...well, now anything can happen.  Is it worth maybe possibly torpedoing your season-THIS season with all kinds of potential- for a cheap first down?  It's a remote possibility, sure.  But that's not even on the table if you take your medicine and just punt the thing away.