Maybe Bethel's strategy was to run to simply end the game as quickly as possible?  Seriously, picking on the mascot?   

Very well said, Nike.  I think Wooster is a place with so much to offer kids from all types of backgrounds, the new pres should do more to reach out to students who can be successful in life with Wooster as their springboard.   Sounds like you raised one heck of kid, good work. 

Also, congrats to all the NCAC student-athletes who made the North Region squads!

Ypsi,

I agree. 

Short,

Have anything to back that statement up?  According to my research, clearly Oberlin, Keynon and Denison are a cut above, but not by much when comparing them to Wabash, Earlham and Wooster.  Admissions data for all of these schools are pretty damn similiar, with Oberlin on the whole being more selective.  I have to agree wtih Smed here.  Plus, I believe last time I took a look Woo, Bash, Gheny, Kenyon, Denison, Earlham and Hiram were all witin 30-35 spots of each other in the TOP TIER National LIberal Arts division in US News.  Oberlin was like 17.  Woo was higher than Gheny, Hiram and I think Earlham (or they were close), Bash, kenyon and Denison were ahead of them.  I might be wrong.

I would be very careful putting someone's alleged hs gpa and act on here as well.  I can't commnet on Cooper's scores or grades, but from what I hear, he has been a model student athlete at Wooster.  Even if his scores were that low, the school took a  chance on him and its turned out great. I seriously question the accuracy of Cooper's scores here.  It may or may not be true he was denied at Witt, but I don't think we want to strike up a conversation about which students were denied where and who subsequently accepted them.  That would be a long one that the MUC fans wouldn't care for.

As to why they are not letting football players in, I do not know if they are or aren't if other kids had similiar scores, but from what I've been told over the years, its been tough getting some "key" recruits in the door, which is particularly frustrating when other schools around the state welcome them with open arms.  As to why Woo may or may not have accepted a b-ball player with alleged low scores and yet aren't doing the same for the football team, I think it simply goes back to numbers.  You can take a shot on one or two kids and in b-ball, one or two impact players is enough whereas in football, it isn't enough to make  big difference.

  I think Ypsi's point of it being a cultural thing may be part of it.  I think Schmitz is the dynamic personality you need at the helm of this program.  He's proven he can win, but I think its frustrating in the recruiting department for him b/c the school does not work with him much on admitting key recruits (that's the word on the street) with borderline scores nor has the school invested anything into upgrading facilities.  We always hear rumblings of plans to do so, but none of us have seen anything public. 

  One thing I will say about Woo and I think this goes for most NCAC schools - you get NO free pass in the classroom just b/c you are an athlete.  None.  These kids graduate because they earned it.  So, despite your h.s. gpa or test scores, once you are enrolled, you need to roll up your sleeves at work at Wooster. 

Ypsi,

Point taken regarding the east coast schools examples.  Bad ones, but I was shooting from the hip.  However, as I stated earlier you simply cannot compare football to other sports as examples of when a private school wants to compete it can.  Football, for one, requires many more student athletes, hence the whole borderline admit issue.  Its well documented that some of the more "elite" DIII institutions are very successful in certain team sports, like the Kenyon swimming example, but again, you are talking about fewer student athletes who are competing in a sport that is generally not as available to high school students as football.  Same goes for lacrosse.  Very few high schools except the more affluent ones even offer the sport in Ohio, so again, you are talking about a different type of student athlete that participates.  Generally speaking, those kids come from large affluent suburban high schools and are typically easy admits for a school. 

Campus culture is an interesting factor, and I think I agree with you that some schools - a lot in the NCAC - could care less if they ever have a nationally competitive football team.  However, the question then becomes how do you change the culture?  I think its possible when you have a dynamic coach, as somebody pointed out earlier.  That is clearly the first step. 

Well aware  of the cost-differential of the actual out of pocket expense between publics and private schools.  However, you are fighting the PERCEPTION when recruiting kids to a school like Wooster with a $40,000 tuition (room and board included) as compared to state institution that is a quarter of that cost (room and board included).  Financial aid is very strong amongst most private schools, however, its the sticker shock that is very real.  For schools like UWW and others, don't think they do not use their relatively cheap tuition - regardless of the actual cost differential - on the recruiting trail.  In fact, privates use it against each other all the time, i.e. MUC vs. Woo/Ken, etc.. .  Believe me, its very, very hard perception to change even when you break it down.

I would look back a little further for examples of the UW schools in postseason play.  Look through the early 90s and through the present and for examples of some of the other schools playing tough.  Anyway, my point with all this I think you hit on - in football, the institution must make an investment both financially and via its admissions office to build a successful football program.  Its a choice.  However, my point in singling out UWW as an example was to simply point out its easier for certain institutions to create a successful program than others.  Obviously, there is no guarantee that a DIII public school will do well just b/c it has an inherent advantage, the school still needs to cultivate that advantage into success.  Your examples of the NJAC and SUNYAC conferences indicate just that - lack of cultivation on the whole within the football programs. 

Ypsi,

You are right, bad example for football with the East Coast schools.  However, for rest, it rings true.   I don't like comparing football to basketball or for any other sport for that matter.  Too many differences, particulary in the numbers category.  One or two suspect borderline admits for a football team per year has a much less impact on the team than one or two borderline admits for basketball, baseball, track, swimming, lacrosse, soccer, etc... .   

Anyway, I'm off the topic now.  I guess my frustration at the roller coaster that has become fighting scot football is getting to me.  Anybody making the trip to Alliance Saturday?

Which age old debate are you referring too?  I'm simply making a comparison between schools in order to make a point that not only do UWW and MUC have much in common, UWW actually has a couple big institutional advantages on MUC and some other top-tier DIII programs at private schools.  Given your response, I assume the public vs. private debate has run its course many times on some other boards which was unbenowst to me. 

I know the academic card has been played a lot by the NCAC vs the OAC, in particular against MUC and ONU, but I think all of us have finally come to grips with it in our own way.  I wasn't being critical, just pointing out an advantage.  I've already stated here that I think the Woosters, Kenyons, Denisons and Oberlins should do more to admit "borderline" kids to give them the opportunity to succeed.  Not suggesting they lower their standards, but simply recognize kids who can provide a service to the college on the field of competition that other kids cannot provide and weight that as a big positive in admitting those kids.  We're not talking kids with a 2.5 and 17 ACT (and I am NOT suggesting MUC or UWW or ONU routinely admits kids with the NCAA minimum scores either), but kids that might just be below what the school usually admits.  I think its sometimes unfair to ding a kid on his admissions application simply based upon numbers, in particular test scores.  I know a lot of kids when I was at Wooster who were suspect admits (Woo once upon a time was much more cooperative with the football program) who ended upon blossoming intellectually at Woo, making Dean's List, etc.. . 

This reflects two things: 1) the kids were smarter and more motivated than their H.S. scores indicated and 2) the college does a great job in fostering an environment where these "borderline" kids recognize the importance of their opportunity at a fine institution like COW and motivates them to succeed in the classroom.  All these kids need is an opportunity and I applaud schools like UWW and MUC for providing that opportunity for kids like this.  As I said, I wish more schools would "selectively" admit more of these kids who can give something back to the college on the field of competition.  But, the reality is they do not, hence a situation is created - by choice - of inherent inequality within DIII recruiting between institutions.  I just think its important to recognize and not put our heads in the sand about the realities here. 

When is the last time we saw a school like Amherst, Williams, Oberlin, Kenyon, Swarthmore, etc...make a deep run into the DIII football playoffs?  I think when you look at it, as far as consistent competitive DIII teams go that are considered top-tier liberal arts institutions also, Wabash is about as balanced an institution as you are going to find consistently.  The only reason I raised this whole issue is that I found it funny that Wabash fans would so quickly jump on the UWW bandwagon when UWW epitomizes what traditionally the Wabash crew have been so critical of because of the obvious similarities between UWW and MUC and the advantages UWW actually has over MUC.

Now, I'm probably being too critical of something really stupid and I acknowledge that, but let me ask this of the Wabash folks - if you had traveled to MUC last week instead of UWW, got waxed 47-7 in the same conditions, but had the exact same positive experience with the MUC fans, etc..., would you be rooting for MUC to win the Stagg Bowl instead?

I have a good hunch, in particularly in Ohio, that if a small state school, like a Cleveland State or if the branch campuses at OSU, Kent, Akron, BG or any of the other state schools in Ohio, decided to invest public funds into creating a football team that would someday be sanctioned as NCAA DIII, every single private institution in the state would cringe. 

Look, I'm sure the Bash and Warhawk fans had a great time last Saturday keeping each other warm in the cold.  I'm sure the UWW fans were classy too, which is great.  Visitors should be treated well when they travel to foreign lands in a blizzard, even if their team does get beat like a red headed step child.

However, despite the kinships developed during this experience, I'm a little surprised that the Bash faithful would so quickly support a team and institution like UWW.  Its one thing to say you had a great experience there, that the fans treated you well, and despite the arctic conditions, the atmosphere was great.  Its completely another to support a DIII institution, that in my opinion, has such a competitive advantage over most other DIII institutions - including Mt. Union - that I'm absolutely schocked they do not win more Stagg Bowls.  Let me explain.

UWW is a state institution with an enrollment of over 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students.  Its in-state tuition is right around $6000 PER YEAR and out of state is around $13000 per year.  Furthermore, the AVERAGE ACT score for incoming first-years is right around 22-23, just about the same for MUC if not a touch lower.  Essentially, this school is the public version of MUC.  It offers much, much cheaper tuition than MUC or any private school for that matter (Woo is over $40,000 tuition room and board right now), its admissions standards are in the same ball park, if not a touch lower,  and clearly it takes a lot of pride in its football program via facilities, recruiting, coaching (former offensive coordinate Zweifel is a guru on zone offensive schemes).  The fact that its a state institution is not a negative (I went to a state school for graduate school), but indicates that UWW has many built in advantages over its private school counterparts.  I would say the same thing for the other UW DIII state institutions as well, but its looks like UWW over the years has seperated itself on the gridiron from its sister schools.

My point is this - if we are going to consistently criticize MUC, its hard to root for UWW in the same breath without sounding a little bit hypocritcal.  The only things missing are the Stagg Bowl victories.  I believe even Kehres himself for years when asked who should be favored to win the Stagg would point out the UW DIII schools (Whitewater, Stout, LaCrosse) as being the favorites.  Their tuition is much cheaper, they are relatively easy schools to get into, and they have great facilites and traditions.  In essence, its easier to recruit A LOT of quality players with these types of advantages.

Just imagine if football hotbed states like Florida or Ohio had a few DIII public institutions with football teams.  With state funding for some facilities coupled with relatively dirt cheap tuition and state beneifts/salary for the coaching staffs, you would see juggernauts spring up in a matter of years. 

Just my thoughts.  I will still be rooting for MUC b/c they are an Ohio team and I truly do respect with the same amount of respect I give MUC, UWW.  Classy fans from what I gather, great tradition, smashmouth football, etc...which is awesome.  However, for me, its hard to get behind an out of state school with soooo many built in advantages compared to its private school counterparts.  In a lot of ways, MUC is an underdog to schools like UWW, which makes their consistent success even more remarkable.

I'll duck and cover now.   

Bash faithfull,

Go Warhawks???  Seriously???  I know MUC is the equivalent of the NY Yankees, or vice versa, but I have to stick with an Ohio team for the NCAA championship.  MUC is a LONG time rival of Wooster, though they have not played in awhile, but still, I have to root for the home state squad.

i guess UWW is just that good then.  should be a good game if they play MUC. 

In all seriousness, before it gets started, I'm not dogging Wabash or trying to downplay the great season they had.  I just think when you look at teams like MUC and UWW, you are dealing with different animals all around.  I believe the game with Bash would have been a little closer if the weather were decent, but as I stated earlier, you need to be able to win the battle up front in all types of weather.  i'm just amazed UWW could put up that many points actually knowing how slow things usually progress is weather like that. 

New topic - i've always been curious as to how Wabash targets its recruits.  Any insight?

wally,

I hear what you are saying.  You are right,  every game I ever played in high school and college or coached in, the weather always equalized the teams with one exception - spread, vertical passing teams generally cannot move the ball in rainy/muddy/snowy weather.  I didn't realize Wabash was that one dimensional this year that they couldn't run the ball effectively in rough weather.  I guess there is a lesson to be learned here .... to make a run in the playoffs at any leve, you need balance.  I see it all the time in high school ball here in ohio - spread offense teams (generally speaking) have trouble in November b/c of weather.  However, the great teams that run the spread also usually have a great running game that compliments the spread along with a stout defense.  You see, its the effectiveness of your run offense and defense that is exposed in inclement weather games.  Our guys up front against yours.  Sounds like UWW just simply dominated the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball, to be honest.  If this were the case, a 70 degree sunny day wouldn't have stopped UWW from hanging 40+ on Bash if their line was that dominating on both sides of the ball.  Bash probably, like you said, would have put up some more points than 7, but again, with a team that simply dominates the LOS, time of possession becomes critical leading to fewer opportunities for a fast paced vertical passing offense to score. 

Was Wabash really that much faster the UWW?  I'd be surprised if a team of that caliber didn't have some burners on both sides of the ball.  I know they pound the rock with their stud RB, but I'm certain they have played teams (like Capital) that have speed on both sides of the ball and handled them pretty well.  Plus, a passing offense in this type of weather actually does have one advantage - the WRs know where they are going with ther routes.  I've played in "snowbowls" before believe me, if teh WR is athletic enough and runs good routes, he is uncoverable with an accurate QB.  But again, that QB must be deadly accurate and have time through.  Plus, the WRs must be mentally tough enough not to think its too slipperly to run good routes.  Its tough and obviously the routes won't be as crisp or tight, but you can create seperation. 

Also, I'm not comparing the top tier NCAC teams to middle tier OAC teams.  I didn't say that.  I'm comparing the best of the NCAC to the best of the OAC and I think its a comparison you and mostly everybody else would agree with.  Clearly, over the last few years, top NCAC teams have beaten middle and low tier OAC teams consistently, with some exceptions.  However, again, its the top tier OAC teams that the NCAC has trouble handling.

nike,

i agree 100% that recruiting is directly related to a great coach's skill set.  you need to be able to sell your program, or in most cases, sell the dream or idea of what you see your program becoming to recruits (and it CANNOT be done withour their help of course ).

however, if you don't have an administration willing to allow a coach the freedom to recruit kids that will get admitted even if they are borderline for that institutions standards, it doesn't matter how bad a kid wants to come play for you or how great of a recruiter you are.  if the kid cannot get admitted, its end of story.  this then puts the coach in the situation of "selectively recruiting" which is difficult b/c now not only are you targeting kids with above average academics, you are also pitted against a greater number of institutions competing for this kid b/c he is an easy admit(as a result, you NEED more to offer this kid in regards to playing time, facilities, etc...because he has more options).  on the flip side, the kids you cannot get into your school are now left with a shorter list of institutions recruiting him and willing to admit him.  this shrinks the competition making the job easier for those coaches.  so when you combine a great coach who is a great recruiter with an institution that grants the coach this freedom, you end up with a great situation.  icing on the cake is when the institution i just described also has nice facilities, a winning tradition, and a decent academic reputation aside from some suspect student-athlete admits. 

of course, the eternal question is which comes first?  truly, its coaching/recruiting first, but to be the type of competitive program I think we're all talking about here, you need a little help from your school's admissions department unless your respective institution that sticks to its guns regarding admissions standards just does a phenomenal job "selectively recruiting" in beating out the sheer greater number of schools after your same kids.  I don't think we've seen this yet, at least when you look at the results on the football field.  Maybe I'm wrong b/c i don't know a whole lot about St. Johns, Pac Lute, Rowan, Mary Hardin, etc...

Aside from playing head to head, can you think of a more accurate indicator of how to compare teams that do not play?  I'm not suggesting its a science, but I think in this current discussion, its very relevent b/c over the course of the last 6-7 years, the comparisons btw common NCAC and OAC opponents are reflective of the overall strength and weaknesses of both respective conferences.  I'm not saying the Cap-Witt-Bash-UWW comparison proves my point, I'm just using it as an example of the bigger issue. 

Regarding the UWW games - isn't bad weather supposed to be an equalizer, creating low scoring, defensive struggles?  I suppose Bash should be lucky the game wasn't played in sunny skies with 60 degree weather.  UWW may have had 47 by halftime.  Cap lost by 20, Bash lost by FORTY POINTS!  I don't care who you are or what the weather is, that is getting crushed.  Perhaps with better conditions, the game would have been closer.  Who knows.

How about another comparison - Cap beats Witt out the gate 13-0 at Witt.  Witt travels to Bash mid season and loses 24-17 on the road.  UWW plays both Cap and Bash - beats Cap by 20, beats Bash by 40 in terrible weather.  What does this suggest?

Now, I agree to a point that comparative scores do not tell the whole story and sometimes, game results are anamolies.  However, when you look at the results vs two common oppononets as noted above, I think its safe to say Cap is likely two touchdowns better than Bash.  This is the NCAC champion who rolled through the conference against the OAC runner up who lost TWO conference games , one to MUC and one to cross town rival Otterbein at Otterbein.  For arguments sake, Bash would have finished no higher than 3rd this season if it played in the OAC and in all liklihood, probably would have lost at least one more conference game somewhere on the road.  And this, my friends, is why this comparison is so upsetting.

Statements like that bother me as well b/c quite frankly I believe them to be true in most years.  Take a quick look at the top NCAC teams vs the top OAC teams the last 6-7 years and point out to me just ONE quality win.  I'm talking regular season and playoffs and what I mean by a quality win is one over one of the top 3 teams in the OAC each year by an NCAC team.  Obviously, MUC has not been beaten by an NCAC team, but neither has ANY OAC team in the playoffs or regular season in recent memory.  Some close games, but comparatively speaking the #1 NCAC team loses to the #2 OAC team annually in the playoffs when matched up.  Lets look at the regular season.  Capital has clearly owned Witt in recent memory.  Look at some common opponents, for example.  Take the playoffs this year...Cap hung tough with UWW while Bash was absolutely crushed.  Bash had a very, very good team this year too.  This is just one example, but historically, look at how the NCAC championed has fared. 

Plus, when you look at the number #3 team in the OAC, which fluctuates typically between Cap, ONU, and sometimes a JCU when they are up, the games between these schools are close and often times the OAC runner up has a loss or two within the conference.  My point being when you compare the results between the top 3 OAC schools vs the top 3 NCAC schools and then look at how the OAC schools compete with each other and common opponents of the NCAC schools, I think its crystal clear than the NCAC champion would have a very difficult time year in and year out finishing 3rd in the OAC, let alone runner-up or champion. 

Now, I have my complaints against the OAC as well, however, if we are just talking football here, the upper echelon of the OAC has distanced themselves from the upper echelon of the NCAC.  The records and results don't lie.  Until Bash, Witt or Woo/OWU start beating the top dogs in the OAC either in the regular season or playoffs, there is no argument here and quite frankly, its frustrating b/c the conference was once soooo close to point where its champion had legitimate shots at beating MUC year in and year out. 

I hate complimenting the OAC, but if the goal here is to be as good or better then their best teams, I think the first step is to at least acknowledge there is a gap. 

wabco,

actually, and this should be no surprise, i'm more concerned with Wooster than Bash.  I think its great to have a lot of competition within the conference, i.e. OAC, but based upon recent history the best of the N
NCAC as it currently stands would probably finish no higher than 4th in the OAC.  We are way behind right now.  I agree, however, that the formula for success is not rocket science on paper, but that's the problem...how many NCAC institutions give lip service about their dedication to producing consistent winning football teams, yet when it comes time to actual take the giant leap of offering the needed support (finanical aid, facilities, recruiting support, etc...) do these instititutions hide behind their "preservation of the DIII philosophy" etc...which is really code for "we don't want to spend the time and money on high dollar expense programs like football."  Sports like baseball and basketball do not cost no where near the amount of money to operate and support like football. 

Honestly, I have to laugh when schools like Wooster orchestrate extremely effective fundraising campaigns for their already nice and in many ways superior academic, residential, and common buildings in order to creat the "wow" factor, yet they have ignored for decades the need for upgraded athletic facilities just to make them somewhat comparable to their counterparts in the OAC.  Its obvious in my mind, the administration at Wooster simply decided to ignore the need for a renovated Papp Stadium, upgraded locker room facilities, expanded weight room, fieldhouse, etc... .  In my view, they do not in any place these facilities on the same plateau as their other facilities even though the value add is comparable to the overall attractiveness of the campus.

Seriously, Wooster alums, contact me at my email address listed and lets see if we can't get something growing from the roots here.  I'm sick of complaining about it and i'm sure coach schmitz and staff could use the support after the year they had.