FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[GoldandBlueBU]

I love the fact that you made a bar graph! 

I live Excel and provide finance support to an old school sales team...visuals are everything....they don't even need to be accurate, just so long as you can see the data displayed. (Ok, a little bit of accuracy helps)

[SagatagSam]

I love the fact that you made a bar graph! 

I live Excel and provide finance support to an old school sales team...visuals are everything....they don't even need to be accurate, just so long as you can see the data displayed. (Ok, a little bit of accuracy helps)

[Robert Zimmerman]

Not a lot of live chats with Frank left:

http://www.sctimesapps.com/conversations/page.php?id=133

[RoyalsFan]

What I am curious about is how in the heck did Bethel allow Augsburg to put up 60+ on them? I know the Bethel D has been hit with a lot of injuries, but they are a really good, athletic unit and very well coached. Was the footing such that the fast Augsburg receivers and backs were able to run through seams created by slipping and sliding defenders? From a physical standpoint, I would have thought the Bethel front 7 would have been able to mount a strong pass rush against Augsburg - did the footing negate this as well?

Contrary to what OldAuggie thinks, the footing was the major factor in the game as others have pointed out. Bad field conditions are always a big equalizer. Coming into this game I would say that the offenses were pretty even anyway with Augsburg having an advantage in the passing game and Bethel with the ground game and the results pretty much showed that. But on defense Bethel's was much better but the field conditions negated any advantage they had, which again, the results shows as each team only punted once - there really wasn't any defense in this game. Injuries did play a small role, but not nearly as much as the footing.

As far as Bethel's front 7 being able to mount a strong pass rush, the part that really puzzled me was that Bethel mostly rushed just their 3 down linemen most of the day and couldn't get any pressure on Scott. When they finally did start rushing more than 3 they were at least able make Scott hurry some throws for incompletions and hold them out of the end zone for a tying field goal and then a last second field goal attempt to win the game in regulation. I think if BU had put more pressure on Scott earlier it would have turned out differently. But it was a heck of a roller coaster game to watch. 

[AO]

What I am curious about is how in the heck did Bethel allow Augsburg to put up 60+ on them? I know the Bethel D has been hit with a lot of injuries, but they are a really good, athletic unit and very well coached. Was the footing such that the fast Augsburg receivers and backs were able to run through seams created by slipping and sliding defenders? From a physical standpoint, I would have thought the Bethel front 7 would have been able to mount a strong pass rush against Augsburg - did the footing negate this as well?

Contrary to what AO thinks, the footing was the major factor in the game as others have pointed out. Bad field conditions are always a big equalizer. Coming into this game I would say that the offenses were pretty even anyway with Augsburg having an advantage in the passing game and Bethel with the ground game and the results pretty much showed that. But on defense Bethel's was much better but the field conditions negated any advantage they had, which again, the results shows as each team only punted once - there really wasn't any defense in this game. Injuries did play a small role, but not nearly as much as the footing.

As far as Bethel's front 7 being able to mount a strong pass rush, the part that really puzzled me was that Bethel mostly rushed just their 3 down linemen most of the day and couldn't get any pressure on Scott. When they finally did start rushing more than 3 they were at least able make Scott hurry some throws for incompletions and hold them out of the end zone for a tying field goal and then a last second field goal attempt to win the game in regulation. I think if BU had put more pressure on Scott earlier it would have turned out differently. But it was a heck of a roller coaster game to watch.

I assume you mean OldAuggie,  OA, not me.  I watched much of the 1st half, the slippery field made a huge difference. 

[RoyalsFan]

What I am curious about is how in the heck did Bethel allow Augsburg to put up 60+ on them? I know the Bethel D has been hit with a lot of injuries, but they are a really good, athletic unit and very well coached. Was the footing such that the fast Augsburg receivers and backs were able to run through seams created by slipping and sliding defenders? From a physical standpoint, I would have thought the Bethel front 7 would have been able to mount a strong pass rush against Augsburg - did the footing negate this as well?

Contrary to what AO thinks, the footing was the major factor in the game as others have pointed out. Bad field conditions are always a big equalizer. Coming into this game I would say that the offenses were pretty even anyway with Augsburg having an advantage in the passing game and Bethel with the ground game and the results pretty much showed that. But on defense Bethel's was much better but the field conditions negated any advantage they had, which again, the results shows as each team only punted once - there really wasn't any defense in this game. Injuries did play a small role, but not nearly as much as the footing.

As far as Bethel's front 7 being able to mount a strong pass rush, the part that really puzzled me was that Bethel mostly rushed just their 3 down linemen most of the day and couldn't get any pressure on Scott. When they finally did start rushing more than 3 they were at least able make Scott hurry some throws for incompletions and hold them out of the end zone for a tying field goal and then a last second field goal attempt to win the game in regulation. I think if BU had put more pressure on Scott earlier it would have turned out differently. But it was a heck of a roller coaster game to watch.

I assume you mean OldAuggie,  OA, not me.  I watched much of the 1st half, the slippery field made a huge difference.

Yes, sorry, it should have been OA (OldAuggie), not AO (you) I was referring to. 

[sjusection105]

WOW!  too much scotch yesterday ended up at Dikas'...like that was necessary after tailgating at the Bears game, man I hurt today!  I was very very surprised that UST got in!!! and that the Bears actually won!  The funny thing is that I thought I was on the normal board for my drunken posts! well the playoffs will be interesting it will be nice beat Wartburg and then possibly see the Johnnies! Wow who would have expected that possibility!

GO TOMMIES!

First, there's no such thing as too much Scotch, unless it's blended crap!
More Scotch = Better Grammar & Spelling. Well,there you have it I guess you're going to have post drunk more frequently 

[DBQ1965]

Has "monkey stomp" out lived it usefulness?

[Retired Old Rat]

Has "monkey stomp" out lived it usefulness?

Never.

[DBQ1965]

Has "monkey stomp" out lived it usefulness?

Never.

I guess I'm too old.

[DuffMan]

Yeah, it's reserved for those whipper snappers like ROR!

[57Johnnie]

Has "monkey stomp" out lived it usefulness?

Never.

I guess I'm too old.

Don't say that

[RoyalsFan]

Since St. Thomas got into the playoffs, I wonder if that will change who Bethel schedules for non conference games in the future. Obviously overall record carries more weight for a Pool C bid than SOS since Bethel not only beat St. Thomas head to head their SOS was about 100 points more. I'm sure if Bethel had scheduled an easier non conference opponent than Wartburg and won that game then Bethel would have been the Pool C bid and not St. Thomas.

[tommiegun]

Tommies got in?
A Johnnie said that MAC sucks more than UST?

What is going on?!

This is a serious question: how many points does UWW want to score this weekend?  Is there a line out yet? I'd put it at 63 1/2.

[hazzben]

Is Wartburg that good or is the IIAC down a bit this year? 

Yes and yes.

Wartburg is good. They brought a ton back from the team that played Bethel tough in the playoffs last year. They have some good WR's, a very good QB and a solid Oline (1 preseason AA).

Their D is fast. Their front 4 are really quick and explosive. No one as good as Vince King (DT from 2003). But he was all world and maybe the best interior D-lineman I've seen in person at the D3 level.

I think it's an intriguing matchup. UST with Kaiser and Gould should be able to move the ball. But they'll need to play well on D against Warburg's offense. They've got some good, long wideouts who can stretch the field.

The other piece is, Warburg knows how to play and win in the playoffs (from their coaches to their players). UST obviously does as well, but this isn't like some good teams that you might face who aren't accustomed to playoff atmosphere.

I love the fact that you made a bar graph! 

ChicagoTommie: Bar?!?  Did someone say bar?

Gold, pure gold! Have we ever had someone on these boards more prone to the drunk post? Or better yet, the drunk multi-post?

I think we need to come up with some 'monkey stomp' labels for drunk posts.

Hammered Grammared = the alcohol induced grammar train wreck

I hope we meet up the johnnies and kick their asss!!!! it about time for some retribution

OR

Yah baby let's go! Tonmies in

Plastered Profanity = filterr...watz ah filther:

I hope we meet up the johnnies and kick their asss!!!! it about time for some retribution

Inebriated Inscrutability = so drunk we have no idea what you're trying to say

Won my bet again Danm Cutler made me whole!!?

OR

Hey a$$ chezz  we have hope like Obama!!!!!

Tanked Truthfulness = alcohol induced honesty

Yah I know I Am an ass can't help my self