Quote from: RFMichigan on October 23, 2009, 11:52:23 AM
What is the background of the CUW-WLC game being played on a Thursday night? Is that a long-standing tradition or a one-time event? And forgive me for not looking this up on my own, but do either WLC or CUW have lights or did they play at a neutral venue that has lights?

This game has been dubbed the Lutheran Bowl as of late, between cross town Lutheran Colleges.  It hasn't been a big deal until last year.  This year's game was also televised by the local cable sports network.  I'm sure that had something to do with it so that they both could gain some Milwaukee area exposure.  Milwaukee Lutheran has a beautiful field with lights.

"Your question makes much more sense in that context. Since I was just following on live stats and didn't get to see it, I'm not sure what to think about the reaction on the Wheaton sideline, but they were probably just excited that the play worked and it is natural to be pumped up about scoring a touchdown. I would be very surprised if they were trying to rub it in to North Park in any way. As for why they did it, it was probably just a good opportunity for them to practice that play in a game situation, when they may very well need to use it in a close game later in the year. I don't think Wheaton would ever do something like that just to show up an opponent."

Are you kidding?!

Statistically, the Carthage / Lakeland game wasn't as close as it appeared from the stands.  Lakeland ran the opening kickoff back for a TD and Carthage then scored quickly on their first possesion making it 7-7 before 2 minutes had been played.  Lakeland later ran an interception back for a TD and mistakes by Carthage and special teams play set up some of their other points.  So even though the score was close for most of the game (in fact Lakeland led much of the time) you can see it wasn't necessarily their offensive production that generated their 34 points.

Lakeland is (as usual) an emotional team.  Which is good when things are going your way but unfortunately also affects you negatively when the chips are down.  Carthage IMHO has a great QB but he is a bit of a gun slinger (reminded me of Farve, high risk/high reward). He threw into double coverage (often successfully) and often haphazardly threw it up for grabs when scrambling which LC took advantage of at times.  I also think that CC just does some goofy stuff that they just don't need to do.  They have some excellent potential (particularly in the passing game) but need to develop their run game and get back to basic fundamental football.

I don't think that either team has a particularly good defense but both showed some potential, just not consistantly.  The line play was equal between the teams but both need some work.  I wasn't impressed with the run game for either team.

I really enjoyed the game because it was competitive and close until CC pulled away at the end.  It was good to see a NAC team hang with a CCIW school after hearing some of the scores from other games between the conferences.

While I agree CUW is young and made too many mistakes this past weekend, I'm not so sure that playing 3 non-conference teams of this caliber is doing them any good.  One game - yes, it will show your team what you need to aspire to.  But, Bethel was probably the "easy" game of the three!  They still have Valpo (DI) and then travel to Wheaton.  I know Coach Etter walked into this schedule but, I hope he can make some changes starting next year.  Last year these three games took a physical toll on the team.  Let's hope that doesn't happen this year.  Hang tough!  I'm sure the coaches and Seniors will pull them through.  Go Falcons!

Very good points Old 40:

The WIAC is another example.  I was told by a UWW coach that since they cannot offer scholarships to athletes they spend their money on the very best facilities, equipment, uniforms, etc. as a means of attracting top prospects.

I would add that $ is very important but not enough.  Your administration has to make the building of athletic programs, Football in particular, a priority.  I don't feel there are many, if in fact any, schools in the conference with that attitude.

The other factor is time.  These changes don't happen overnight.

Regarding the playoffs, IMHO:

The NCAA does not care who wins a first round game.  They do not care who advances week after week.  They don't care who the semifinalists are.  They don't even care who gets second.  Their goal (purpose) is to crown a champion in DIII.  The fans care, the players care, the schools and coaching staffs certainly care, but the NCAA (with the exception of keeping travel expenses down), does not care!

That being said, parings are (with few execptions) designed to get the four best teams (by region) separated in the brackets.  Thus any qualifier from the NAC in any year will not get a favorable first round draw and it will be very hard to break that cycle.

I see it as a "rich get richer" scenario.  To get ranking consideration you have to win games against opponents outside of your conference during the season and in the playoffs.  So, any team from the NAC (or looking back to the IBFC for that matter) with no wins in the post season will not get any respect from the ranking committee.  This leads to a first round draw against one of, if not the best, team in the region.  It will take an upset by a NAC team to get any consideration for the next year and more likely several years of upsets before they get any ranking consideration.

Many would argue this is perfectly fair and logical and I, for the most part, agree. You may not like it but it does help to explain why the rich get richer.  By winning playoff games you not only get a more favorable consideration next year you also draw positive attention to your program and thus attract more quality recruits, more college and community support, etc.  And the beat goes on. . .

As I understand it; since the NAC has been in existence for more than 2 years for other sports, they were awarded a AQ for football even though this is the first year of conference play in that sport.

Aurora is currently leading the NAC which has an AQ.

Your source is close.  Three penalties for Unsportsmanlike Conduct (41 yards).  I know the first UC penalty was for something said after a scramble for a loose ball that CUW came up with but was awarded to AU.  The flag was not thrown until after all the action had stopped, I'm sure the CUW player must have said something questioning the call but not for dirty play.  The other two I'm not sure about but you know what they say:  the ref always catches the second guy.     I feel both teams played a clean hard fought contest.  I am not questioning AU's quality or the win that they deserve.  I am just disappointed with the inconsistant officiating.

In defense of iitwi88, I too was at the game and noticed the questionable officiating.  That afternoon I checked the NAC website to confirm what I suspected.  In the first 5 games this season CUW had 188 total yards in penalties ( 37.6 per game ).  Saturday they were assessed 124 yards of penalties.

That being said, I also think that AU is a good football team and may still have won the game.  This past Saturday was not CUW's best showing and if these teams were to play 10 times they may well split 5-5.

Good luck to both teams for the remainder of the season.

If you have questions about this poll - go check out Don Hansen's DIII poll.

Even though I appear to be just a beginner, I have been reading this site and the posts for the last six years, I have simply not posted until now.  Thanks for the warm welcome.

My allegations are based on what based on what a UW Whitewater coach told my son and I on a visit to the college. 

I did not mean to question you, Pat.  Based on what you have said in the past, I have great respect for your opinion.  With regard this debate it simply does not match mine.   We will have to agree to disagree on this matter because you will not change my opinion regarding the WIAC.

By the way Goal Line Stand, I was quite happy to see Augie lose again regardless of who beats them.

To the best of my knowledge there are only 2 states that have STATE sponsored DIII Schools - New Jersey and Wisconsin.  (UW Parkside competes in DII, which is where they all belong IMHO).

And as far as scholarships go - well, we all know how that works.  The Wisconsin State sponsored schools have tremendous resources for financial aid, grants, work study, etc. not to mention money to spend on facilities, equipment, and all the frills money can buy.  Very attractive to recruits.  Not all of the "inducements" used to attract athletes are called scholarships. 

The kids from these programs work just as hard as the other DIII athletes and deserve their due.  All I'm saying is the WIAC programs are playing by a different set of rules.  They should be ashamed to compete at this level.

Pat,

I agree with you 100% that the WIAC is the best conference in DIII.  The question is do they belong in DIII?!