FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

1) New respected and qualified coach who ...while he may not yet understand the Wabash Tradition and the Wabash Man and what WABASH ALWAYS FIGHTS (his learning curve will be essentially verticle) ... has an appreciation for tradition as a part of his makeup and an understanding of  self made specialness.

This is a great point.  To be fair, I don't think CC fully "got it' until that tipped ball fell into Casper's hands in the corner of the endzone and the red side of Blackstock exploded at the end of his first season.  Wabash is certainly a very unique place...and I think the College will put as much of a stamp on Coach Raeburn as Coach Raeburn will on the College. 

Actually, I bet he'd flip to face Rhodes, Austin and Colorado College (oh, and the new Birmingham Southern).

Maybe for a year or two but I think by 2010 Birmingham-Southern would be in the NCAC top four.

At least top four.  I think B-SC is going be a big deal not just in the SCAC very soon, but in the South Region. 

[D3_DPUFan]

The only thing better would be Centre and Sewanee, huh, Wes?

Actually, I bet he'd flip to face Rhodes, Austin and Colorado College (oh, and the new Birmingham Southern).

Interesting...I'll give you Sewanee, but Centre is not that bad of a ballclub and actually finished in the middle of the pack in the SCAC, which based on what I saw is about where I'd slot Wabash....behind Trinity, Millsaps and DePauw (and DePauw is the one game we have actual head to head results).

Defensively speaking, I'd even put Rhodes (who beat Trinity 27-13) ahead of the LG's....again, defensively only...and probably would put Colorado College's offense ahead of Wabash...great spread passing game and a much stronger run game.

And while I would agree with Pat that BSC, assuming they continue on the path they are on, will be making alot of noise, perhaps even next year, I also know teams are not going to be overlooking them anymore, either.

[BashBacker#16]

D3_DPUFan,

11 wins, #10 end of season national ranking (D3football.com), #8 AFCA end of season poll, Elite 8 finish but middle of the pack in the SCAC.  As you guys tell me often, please go back to your MIGHTY POWERFUL SCAC message board.

I bet you could beat the NY Giants too.

Gag.

[D3_DPUFan]

D3_DPUFan,

11 wins, #10 end of season national ranking (D3football.com), #8 AFCA end of season poll, Elite 8 finish but middle of the pack in the SCAC.  As you guys tell me often, please go back to your MIGHTY POWERFUL SCAC message board.

I bet you could beat the NY Giants too.

Gag.

I have no idea if that's where you would finish if you were actually in the conference. All I am saying is that based on seeing these teams in person and looking at personel in the three phases of the game, Trinity, Millsaps and DePauw had better teams---and the DPU assessment is based on a head to head matchup and scoreboard.  And that Rhodes had a better defense and perhaps CC had a better offense this season. Doesn't take anything away from your national rankings, just my opinion, again, based on seeing the teams play. 

[K-Mack]

Trust me - the athletics budget isn't grossly obscene. There'd be a lot of hue and cry if it were. At Wabash the money is spent on student experiences.

Please elaborate.

This next round of athletics facility upgrades are going to rock!  That has to factor in as well.  Have heard field turf is on its way...I believe for '09.  Hollett Little Giant Stadium can use the upgrades too which has been discussed...hoping for 2 scoreboards (each end) - much more modern, press box, and the turf.

What is the word on this?  New (gasp) capital campaign coming?  Is there any information available to the masses on this? 

FYI - Jim Amidon's post about Raeburn is up: http://www2.wabash.edu/blog/goodtogreat/
Keith - Amidon's blog may further answer your question about a why a good choach would want to leave Coe for Wabash:
At Coe, though, Coach Raeburn was limited in terms of resources to recruit players, yet he still won almost 70 percent of his games in eight seasons in Cedar Rapids. Because he had only two full-time assistants, Coach Raeburn brought in about 35 freshmen each year. In contrast, Wabash typically attracts about 55-60 new recruits.

Something like this is exactly what I'm looking for. Number of full-time assistants (although "only" two is about middle of the road in D3) and recruits brought in is something much more tangible, to me, than "tradition" or whateverwhatever.

Saw this post out of order, so it's not necessarily the only one that deserves a compliment.

I will go back and read them all right now.

[DPU3619]

I don't think Wabash is a middle of the pack team in the SCAC.  How can they not be an automatic contender in that conference?  That seems just silly.  They're certainly not behind DePauw.  Heck, they've split the last 4 Bell games.  Hard to say that one's definitively better than the other, isn't it?

Also, basing your whole opinion of Wabash on one afternoon where they played very poorly defensively and not that great offensively seems like a bad way to form an opinion.  Particularly when they went on to play well against two good football teams in the playoffs.

[K-Mack]

While I understand your point, Keith, just look at the last five or six years for Coe and Wabash respectively. 

Coe's best year was in 2005.  A 9-1 regular season with a first round loss to Concordia-Moorhead.  Wabash's best year was obviously last year with the run to the round of eight, but they also went 11-1 in 2005 and 12-1 in 2002. 

I mean heck, not only do you inherit a program farther along the one you were at, but you also play Witt and Gheny instead of Central and Wartburg. All of those reasons have to be bigtime positives for making such a move.

I (thought I) clearly stated the NCAC being a more "winnable" conference than the IIAC as one of my guesses, but that alone doesn't seem a real basis for a move of this magnitude.

I'm also well aware of the teams' respective records and playoff achievements. That wasn't the kind of insight I was looking for.

I guess the leap of faith I'm making here that some of you might not be following is that Coe, by virtue of its 2OT loss to Central in '06 and it's one-TD loss in '07, could very well have made the run Central made, which was also to the round of eight.

(Five of Coe's six losses the past two years were by a TD or less; Maybe that's a whole new discussion altogether)

I guess as far as team caliber, I saw it as only a slight upgrade in the "farther along" dept., meaning, to me, there had to be some other factors. It's not like Coe was a place you just couldn't win.

Do Indiana teams frequently get to recruit Ohio (as well as, obviously, Indiana)? That'd be another factor.

[K-Mack]

I'll throw out my two cents.

1. Location, Location, Location  - I think this was probably huge.  The NCAC is primarily an Ohio based conference.

2.  Alumni/Fan Support - All you have to do is look at the average home attendance for the Little Giants to see a real example of this.   

3.  Winning tradition -  Short term - He is inheriting a team that made it to the Elite 8 and has a ton of starters returning.  Long Term - IMO, at the end of the day, Wabash is in a better spot from a recruiting stand point.   Coach R could be able to recruit players from his network of Ohio contacts.   Using this network to get kids to go all the way to Iowa probably didn't pan out to well, if at all.

4.  Applebees in C-Ville cooks up a mean sirloin.

Bottom line,  It is somewhat rare in D3 to find a school that has as much student/fan passion and administration support for their football program.  Coe is an excellent institution, but I suspect, just a little far away from his roots.

Those are all valid reasons, and except for the Applebee's, stuff I considered when I wrote something like "the sum of the slight upgrades could add up to a big upgrade."

Appreciate the explanations.

Also thanks for answering my Ohio question before I asked it.

[DPU3619]

I (thought I) clearly stated the NCAC being a more "winnable" conference than the IIAC as one of my guesses, but that alone doesn't seem a real basis for a move of this magnitude.

Yeah, you did.  And I guess I just didn't read it.

[K-Mack]

Keith.  Please repeat after me.  DePauw is not Randolph-Macon.  Wabash is not Hampden-Sydney.  DePauw is not Randolph-Macon.  Wabash is not Hampden-Sydney.  DePauw is not. . ..   

You gotta admit though, the co-ed status and the team colors are some uncanny comparisons.

Do you think I have a subconcsious anti-Wabash bias? 

P.S. Point taken on 3,318. Although I trust D3 attendance numbers about as much as I trust ... Um ...

[K-Mack]

I (thought I) clearly stated the NCAC being a more "winnable" conference than the IIAC as one of my guesses, but that alone doesn't seem a real basis for a move of this magnitude.

Yeah, you did.  And I guess I just didn't read it.

Good, I wasn't trying to be a pee-pee face about it.

(has toddlers)

As far as not reading, it happens to the best of us. It's practically what good message-board back-and-forth are founded on.

[wally_wabash]

I don't think Wabash is a middle of the pack team in the SCAC.  How can they not be an automatic contender in that conference?  That seems just silly.  They're certainly not behind DePauw.  Heck, they've split the last 4 Bell games.  Hard to say that one's definitively better than the other, isn't it?

Also, basing your whole opinion of Wabash on one afternoon where they played very poorly defensively and not that great offensively seems like a bad way to form an opinion.  Particularly when they went on to play well against two good football teams in the playoffs.

Well said, Wes. 

[D3_DPUFan]

I don't think Wabash is a middle of the pack team in the SCAC.  How can they not be an automatic contender in that conference?  That seems just silly.  They're certainly not behind DePauw.  Heck, they've split the last 4 Bell games.  Hard to say that one's definitively better than the other, isn't it?

Also, basing your whole opinion of Wabash on one afternoon where they played very poorly defensively and not that great offensively seems like a bad way to form an opinion.  Particularly when they went on to play well against two good football teams in the playoffs.

I'm not talking about the last 4 years or the next four years.  I am just basing my opinion, and that's all it is, on what I saw this season. Based on what I saw on offense, defense and special teams, Trinity was better, Millsaps was better and based on the head to head match up, the best indicator of all, DePauw was better. And your comment about basing opinion on a day when Wabash played very poorly defensively and not that great offensively is what seems "just silly"...would seem to me the other team just may have had something to do with that.  Plus, it just seemed to me that DePauw had better overall talent on the field. Just my opinion.

[usee]

I don't think Wabash is a middle of the pack team in the SCAC.  How can they not be an automatic contender in that conference?  That seems just silly.  They're certainly not behind DePauw.  Heck, they've split the last 4 Bell games.  Hard to say that one's definitively better than the other, isn't it?

Also, basing your whole opinion of Wabash on one afternoon where they played very poorly defensively and not that great offensively seems like a bad way to form an opinion.  Particularly when they went on to play well against two good football teams in the playoffs.

I'm not talking about the last 4 years or the next four years.  I am just basing my opinion, and that's all it is, on what I saw this season. Based on what I saw on offense, defense and special teams, Trinity was better, Millsaps was better and based on the head to head match up, the best indicator of all, DePauw was better. And your comment about basing opinion on a day when Wabash played very poorly defensively and not that great offensively is what seems "just silly"...would seem to me the other team just may have had something to do with that.  Plus, it just seemed to me that DePauw had better overall talent on the field. Just my opinion.

seems like a bit of stretch to say 3 teams were better in all phases of the game based on a wabash v depauw game that was won on a last second field goal after a pretty evenly matched game in Greencastle. Its not like Depauw dominated Wabash. I don't see how you can come close to saying 3 teams are better than wabash based on what you saw.

[D3_DPUFan]

seems like a bit of stretch to say 3 teams were better in all phases of the game based on a wabash v depauw game that was won on a last second field goal after a pretty evenly matched game in Greencastle. Its not like Depauw dominated Wabash. I don't see how you can come close to saying 3 teams are better than wabash based on what you saw.

i'm basing it on watching the bell game as well as the other games on DePauw's schedule.