FB: Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference

[lem4094]

Great game Saturday....CUC had their chances early, but when it is the playoffs, close enough will not get you a win.  Dropped TD pass, a dropped INT for BU TD and 2 INTs in the beginning of the first proved costly, although, they did not quit or come close to wavering.  I do not believe there were too many people upset for going for 2 at the end.  I personnaly thought it was the right thing to do...BU was looking a bit shell-shocked and it seemed their back was upon the ropes at the time...Give it to that BU DB for making a play when it was his time to step up, whereas, the Cougs dropped their chances.

Great year, regardless.  It is also great to have the program doing so well when only about 15 years ago, the school contemplated shutting it down.

[RFMichigan]

     First of all, the confession: When CUC clinched their first ever playoff berth a couple weeks ago, I thought to myself, "I know coaches never say this . . . They never say, 'We're just glad to be here.' No, they say, 'We might be underdogs, but we believe in ourselves. We have every intention to win this game.' "
     Well I was thinking, "Are you kidding me? Not long ago, from 1993 through 2006, this program won an average of one game per season for a 14 year period! They were very close to shutting down the program! Are you kidding me? I'm just glad to be here!"
     Last Friday night as I was laying in bed, the thought that kept coming into my sleepless mind was, "Bethel? Ughh. This could get ugly. Please don't be embarrassed. Please make it respectable."

     At about 2:30 p.m. on a gorgeous November Saturday afternoon total strangers were coming up to each other in the post-game tailgate area in front of the pillars at Concordia-Chicago asking basically two questions: What do you think about the decision? Go for two or play for overtime? What about the play they called?

     All I could think was, "Are you kidding me? We had taken the best shots from one of the really quality DIII football programs in the country all afternoon and with 18 seconds I along with about 2000 other people were on our feet to watch the last piece of  a drama unfold in one of the most exciting college football games you could ever watch. (And I was n the University of Michigan Stadium the previous Saturday for the Michigan-Northwestern game, by the way.) Are you kidding me? We could have won that game! Oh me of little faith. In Lonnie we trust."

     I have never been as proud of a group of young men and their coaches as I have been this year of Concordia - River Forest's Cougars football team. Thank you to all of them and to Coach Pries and his staff.



     



     

[RFMichigan]

Now for the game recap. 

What a game. Bethel is a really good football team. As mentioned above, CUC had opportunities to increase their chances of winning the game, but football often comes down to three or four plays and how they are played out usually determines the outcomes of close games. CUC had some breaks or big plays go their way in some of their regular season games this year (vs. WLC, Chicago, and CUW come to mind) and the fumble through the endzone in the 4th quarter last Saturday certainly was important, but Bethel made most of the big plays and took home the win (not undeservedly).

- Big plays:

1) Without the benefit of replay or film, I wonder if Koehler's two interceptions in the first quarter weren't caused in part by the speed of the LB's and DB's of Bethel. They just don't have that overall team defensive speed in the NAC. In addition, while CUC's receivers were able to gain over 300 yards through the air, they never got a lot of YAC that they often got in the regular season. Once they caught the ball there wasn't much running room.

2) Both teams went for it on 4th and long in the red zones. Bethel scored a touchdown in a situation that I really felt that the CUC players thought Bethel was going to attempt a field goal. The DB's seemed a little "unset" at the snap, and it just didn't look good for them from the start. However when CUC went for it towards the end of the 3rd, the Bethel DB was just too quick to the ball. Hindsight is 20-20, and I can see why they went for it at the time (down by 14 with less than 20 minutes to play and Bethel moving the ball well.), but I was hoping CUC would try a field goal in that situation.

3) On the halfback pass for the touchdown, Concordia went from bad luck (CB came up for a split second on the original pass allowing the WR to get behind him a little) to good luck (ball slightly underthrown) to bad luck (ball tipped by the CB into the hands of the WR who goes into the endzone.)

4) I thought Concordia's defense did a pretty good really good job of limiting Bethel on offense all things considered. They were a bend-but-don't-break outfit and never (besides a long run TD run that was called back for a holding call) got burned for big plays.

5) As difficult as it was for Maddox to break running plays into the second level (darn LB and DB speed), Koehler gashed them pretty well with passes in the seams. I am curious if that was the most passing yardage Bethel has given up this year.

All in all, it was an exciting football game and my hat is off to the Cougars. There are no moral victories (they say) in football, but they had nothing to be ashamed of and represented the conference as well as any team has in the history of the conference or its predecessors.

As to the comments about next season, CUC is losing a LOT of talent. My count is five offensive (two linemen, two receivers, and the conference offensive POY at QB) and five defensive players (DE, two LB's, and two DB's). That is going to be tough to replace with players of equal quality, but such is the nature of football. Also, in this conference, you need to wait for training camps to be completed before you really know what you have for next year.

[Pat Coleman]

     First of all, the confession: When CUC clinched their first ever playoff berth a couple weeks ago, I thought to myself, "I know coaches never say this . . . They never say, 'We're just glad to be here.' No, they say, 'We might be underdogs, but we believe in ourselves. We have every intention to win this game.' "
     Well I was thinking, "Are you kidding me? Not long ago, from 1993 through 2006, this program won an average of one game per season for a 14 year period! They were very close to shutting down the program! Are you kidding me? I'm just glad to be here!"
     Last Friday night as I was laying in bed, the thought that kept coming into my sleepless mind was, "Bethel? Ughh. This could get ugly. Please don't be embarrassed. Please make it respectable."

     At about 2:30 p.m. on a gorgeous November Saturday afternoon total strangers were coming up to each other in the post-game tailgate area in front of the pillars at Concordia-Chicago asking basically two questions: What do you think about the decision? Go for two or play for overtime? What about the play they called?

     All I could think was, "Are you kidding me? We had taken the best shots from one of the really quality DIII football programs in the country all afternoon and with 18 seconds I along with about 2000 other people were on our feet to watch the last piece of  a drama unfold in one of the most exciting college football games you could ever watch. (And I was n the University of Michigan Stadium the previous Saturday for the Michigan-Northwestern game, by the way.) Are you kidding me? We could have won that game! Oh me of little faith. In Lonnie we trust."

     I have never been as proud of a group of young men and their coaches as I have been this year of Concordia - River Forest's Cougars football team. Thank you to all of them and to Coach Pries and his staff.

+1

[lem4094]

Question to Pat,

Do you believe CUC earned any substancial credability (for themselves or the NATHC) with the game this past Saturday?  If CUC is able to replace the line and skill players lost after this year and make another run this or next year, will they possibly break into the D3football.com top 25 barrier?

Just wondering

[Pat Coleman]

Question to Pat,

Do you believe CUC earned any substancial credability (for themselves or the NATHC) with the game this past Saturday?  If CUC is able to replace the line and skill players lost after this year and make another run this or next year, will they possibly break into the D3football.com top 25 barrier?

Just wondering

Lem -- sounds like something we discussed on the Around the Nation podcast this morning.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2012/11/19/atn-podcast-when-surprise-isnt-surprise/

[lem4094]

Question to Pat,

Do you believe CUC earned any substancial credability (for themselves or the NATHC) with the game this past Saturday?  If CUC is able to replace the line and skill players lost after this year and make another run this or next year, will they possibly break into the D3football.com top 25 barrier?

Just wondering

Lem -- sounds like something we discussed on the Around the Nation podcast this morning.

http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/2012/11/19/atn-podcast-when-surprise-isnt-surprise/

Thank you.  Great show.

[baseman201]

Yes I agree, excellent podcast, well done,

Pat, though I do want your opinion on Mount Union, and if this is a question for another board tell me.

University of Sioux Falls was the "Mount Union" of the NAIA, they won a ton of national championships, always in the playoffs and rarely lost.  And it seems looking at the scores and how Mount Union played in the first round, they are on their way to another D-III championship.

Anyhow, Sioux Falls made the move to NCAA D-II and were 9-2 this year, so they held their own.

Any reason why Mount Union hasn't moved up to NCAA D-II?  Or even the FCS, it seems they could do well even at that level.  I mean, just looking at the scores from Mount Union this year it didn't even look fair.  Not saying there is anything wrong with that.  But as a school, wouldn't you want your dominate football team to move up and get even better and more national recognition?

Just curious,

[SaintsFAN]

Yes I agree, excellent podcast, well done,

Pat, though I do want your opinion on Mount Union, and if this is a question for another board tell me.

University of Sioux Falls was the "Mount Union" of the NAIA, they won a ton of national championships, always in the playoffs and rarely lost.  And it seems looking at the scores and how Mount Union played in the first round, they are on their way to another D-III championship.

Anyhow, Sioux Falls made the move to NCAA D-II and were 9-2 this year, so they held their own.

Any reason why Mount Union hasn't moved up to NCAA D-II?  Or even the FCS, it seems they could do well even at that level.  I mean, just looking at the scores from Mount Union this year it didn't even look fair.  Not saying there is anything wrong with that.  But as a school, wouldn't you want your dominate football team to move up and get even better and more national recognition?

Just curious,

uh oh

[New Tradition]

Yes I agree, excellent podcast, well done,

Pat, though I do want your opinion on Mount Union, and if this is a question for another board tell me.

University of Sioux Falls was the "Mount Union" of the NAIA, they won a ton of national championships, always in the playoffs and rarely lost.  And it seems looking at the scores and how Mount Union played in the first round, they are on their way to another D-III championship.

Anyhow, Sioux Falls made the move to NCAA D-II and were 9-2 this year, so they held their own.

Any reason why Mount Union hasn't moved up to NCAA D-II?  Or even the FCS, it seems they could do well even at that level.  I mean, just looking at the scores from Mount Union this year it didn't even look fair.  Not saying there is anything wrong with that.  But as a school, wouldn't you want your dominate football team to move up and get even better and more national recognition?

Just curious,

The level that a school chooses to compete at in the NCAA has more to do with the athletic philosophy of the school.  If a school wants to play the purest form of football in America with athletes that want nothing more than an opportunity to play, and can abide by the no scholarship rules, they are welcome to do so.  And I don't think DII gets any more or less recognition than DIII, though that may be a by-product of living in the Chicagoland area. 

[skunks_sidekick]

Yes I agree, excellent podcast, well done,

Pat, though I do want your opinion on Mount Union, and if this is a question for another board tell me.

University of Sioux Falls was the "Mount Union" of the NAIA, they won a ton of national championships, always in the playoffs and rarely lost.  And it seems looking at the scores and how Mount Union played in the first round, they are on their way to another D-III championship.

Anyhow, Sioux Falls made the move to NCAA D-II and were 9-2 this year, so they held their own.

Any reason why Mount Union hasn't moved up to NCAA D-II?  Or even the FCS, it seems they could do well even at that level.  I mean, just looking at the scores from Mount Union this year it didn't even look fair.  Not saying there is anything wrong with that.  But as a school, wouldn't you want your dominate football team to move up and get even better and more national recognition?

Just curious,

uh oh

Oh boy.............ummmmm.....uhhhhh.....(got to remember this was asked politely, and seems sincere)......

Over the past 10-15 years, this question/challenge has been posed many, many, many times.

Mount is a D-III school in every regard.  Moving from NAIA (who offer athletic scholarships), to NCAA II is a move that makes sense if an institution of higher learning wishes to take their program/ideology/direction to a higher level.

Mount is a D-III school in every sense of the description.  That their football team has had extraordinary success over the past twenty years does not take away from what Mount is, and wants to be as a university.  And......if you look at all the other sports at Mount (which would have to move up as well), you will see it makes no sense in any way, shape, or form.

Thank you, and may the football gods bless you! 

[Pat Coleman]

So many teams have left the NAIA, baseman, that schools seriously have to consider it in order to maintain their rivalries. And while some have certainly chosen Division III as a destination, not every school (or alumni base, or board of trustees) understands it can do without the crutch of athletic scholarships to support an athletic program. For many, switching from the NAIA to Division II is just a matter of adding two basketball scholarships and 12 football scholarships -- it is not a change of identity.

Moving from Division III to Division II is. This is not about competitiveness, and certainly *not* about competitiveness in one sport. You can't just pick up and move football to another level -- you have to move all 20-some sports. And that's not easy, and it's not cheap. You have to lay out at least a million dollars in scholarship monies to meet Division II standards, and honestly, not only does not every school have that money, most schools don't want to. It's not their primary mission.

Size isn't a factor.
Competitiveness isn't a factor.
The school's overarching philosophy is a factor.

Division II may be the ones who took the slogan "I chose Division II" but in fact, it's the Division III schools who chose their philosophy. This is the highest form of purely amateur athletics on the planet. And it's the way college athletics was meant to be.

[baseman201]

Oh boy.............ummmmm.....uhhhhh.....(got to remember this was asked politely, and seems sincere)...

Yes, I did ask this sincerely, like I said, just a curiosity question, nothing more.

The reason I asked is because I have seen a couple really good schools the past few years in NAIA jump to D-II, Lindenwood in MO being the other.

Skunks, I know you said that all the other sports would have to follow suit, but what about NCAA hockey?  or Lacrosse?  Johns Hopkins is usually one of the top lacrosse teams in the nation for NCAA D-I yet all other sports including football are D-III.  Colorado College plays at a high level of D-I hockey, yet all other sports are D-III.  There are also a ton of D-II schools who have just hockey at the D-I level.  I am just saying why couldn't a football team be at a higher division but still have the rest of the sports lower?  Unless there are rules against that.

Again, just thinking out loud,

[Mr. Ypsi]

Oh boy.............ummmmm.....uhhhhh.....(got to remember this was asked politely, and seems sincere)...

Yes, I did ask this sincerely, like I said, just a curiosity question, nothing more.

The reason I asked is because I have seen a couple really good schools the past few years in NAIA jump to D-II, Lindenwood in MO being the other.

Skunks, I know you said that all the other sports would have to follow suit, but what about NCAA hockey?  or Lacrosse?  Johns Hopkins is usually one of the top lacrosse teams in the nation for NCAA D-I yet all other sports including football are D-III.  Colorado College plays at a high level of D-I hockey, yet all other sports are D-III.  There are also a ton of D-II schools who have just hockey at the D-I level.  I am just saying why couldn't a football team be at a higher division but still have the rest of the sports lower?  Unless there are rules against that.

Again, just thinking out loud,

These teams were 'grandfathered' in; it is no longer permissible for d3 schools to have individual teams at different levels (with the exception of 'minor' sports that d3 doesn't have competitions for [skiing I think is one example]).

[Pat Coleman]

I am just saying why couldn't a football team be at a higher division but still have the rest of the sports lower?  Unless there are rules against that.

There are rules against that.

You can't just pick up and move football to another level -- you have to move all 20-some sports.