FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[DarkSide-D]

I agree.

[Triple D #6]

Operation "Trojan Horse"...I think I might know a few things about that.  I'll see ya in Greencastle BashBacker#16!! 

[BashBacker#16]

Duster72,

Operation Trojan Horse (quick version) = Monon Bell 2003, sick of being poorly treated by DPU security and being told to park blocks and blocks away (because we were Wabash fans)...we dressed (all 18 of us) dressed in black Ts with "Coach Nick Rocks" on the front (that was his last game) and had fake DPU signs all over the RV in the windows saying "cool" things like, DPU Tigers are tough, We love the Tigers, Please don't go Nick, DPU is awesome...etc.  It was pretty darn funny!

Needless to say we did not make the South lot but landed the best spot in the RV lot.  Once it was secured, the shirts changed to RED, the signs came down, and the DePauw Swallows flag was flying high...

[bashbrother]

BB16 -

Classic stuff

[oldguy]

usee,

Again, you bring up championships in the 80's.  I agree, that style of offense worked in those days.  It was much more widely used then.  I'm just trying to get across that in the present, its a dying offense, and rightfully so.  Yes Augie has success with it, but there are like 200 other d-3 teams.  How many of them who run it are that successful?  I understand that it is personnel driven, but it is very focused on getting the right QB.  Thats a big concern when your offensive success is based mainly on one player. 

I understand the line is important, as it is with most offenses.  But if your QB is junk, the wing-t goes nowhere. 

This is an interesting argument, but I think we are just spinning our wheels at the moment.  Those of us who are arguing all dislike the offense.  So, we can move on. 

Go Witt!

Tiger Up!!!

[Triple D #6]

With new defensive schemes and more atheletic linebackers the wing T makes MOST teams one dimensional.  Now a days, one dimensional is very bad, even if you are very good at that one thing.

[oldguy]

Solid point

[Vince McMahon]

Coaches can only teach what they know.  If all of a particular coach's experience happens to be with the Wing-T, then that's what they're going to run. 

If we're talking terms of one-dimensionality limiting a team's success, didn't Georgia Southern win a couple of  I-AA championships in the late 90's with an option style offense?  Don't know many option teams that throw for much. 

And on that same subject, Southern's coach, Paul Johnson, went on to Navy where I don't think anyone would argue against the job he's done there in a short period of time.  Air Force has also long succeeded with an option offense.  Just think how good those programs might be if they were on an equal footing in recruiting?

[wally_wabash]

The academies run the wing largely because it helps them shorten the game, play keep away from far more talented teams, and help to equalize the massive talent differential between themselves and most of their opponents.  If the academies had the talent that Football U's around the country have, they'd be running more conventional offenses.

[evacuee]

GSU had a great, great player at RB named Peterson and they ran a double slot, not a wing.  They haven't been the same since he graduated.  Plus, that offense was definitely an attack offense whereas the wing-t is all about deception and misdirection.  But back to OWU, aueagle mentioned yesterday that the new AD was going to have some impact on Coach H.  I think that Hollway has a little too much dignity to change coaching strategies based on what the AD wants.  That would be horribly inappropriate and I doubt he would tolerate it.  He knows enough people to get on somewhere else and though he has few championships, he is effective enough of a coach that he could revive some struggling program somewhere.  If the wing-t leaves Delaware, OH, I think the coach leaves too. 

[kcreds]

Wow Wally, I didn't realize you are so close to the academy coaches to be able to get that information and speak for them. Do you think that it may be because other colleges, especially DI, are running different offenses so that they can recruit the players that want to have a shot at the pros and run pro type offenses. The academies don't care about that. DII and DIII colleges may be getting away from it so that they can recruit a so called superstar. The wing-t is more of a team offense and it is hard for anyone to get the stats some of you all love so much. Like it has been said before, to win a championship you have to have the whole package. OWU in 2001 was 2nd in the nation in rushing offense and 4th in total offense and still did not win the NCAC. Are you all blaming the wing-t for not being good enough to win it that year? There have been some good points made by both sides but as long as OWU runs the wing-t, I am supporting it. I think it is funny that the wing-t issue is getting old for some but it has stirred up alot of good posts on both sides. Go Bishops!

[WallyFS4]

BB16

Are we going to see you this weekend?  We have some young men from the Sweden National Championship team here.  They are excited to be involved in all of the pre-game, game, and post game festivities.  As always.

WABASH ALWAYS FIGHTS![/size][/font]

[wally_wabash]

Enough with the academies and D-IA stuff.  Where this started was about OWU and their inability to run the NCAC gauntlet with their style of offense.  Here are the facts:

- OWU has NEVER won an outright NCAC championship under Hollway.  They have shared only one. 
- Since Capone graduated, OWU is scoring 11 points per game against Wooster, Wittenberg, Allegheny, and Wabash (a 15-game sample to date which is plenty to make for a statistically significant argument). 
- 11 points per game doesn't win many games.

The bottom line here is that OWU's major NCAC competition has this thing figured out.  They got close in '01, but got shellacked against Witt and they didn't have to play Wabash (which would have been a great game I think).  The track record over a long period of time here tells us that OWU isn't a championship caliber team.  I've seen OWU in each of the past four seasons vs. Wabash.  Everything I've seen tells me that OWU plays defense well enough to win this conference.  The offense just doesn't generate enough points to win.  I want OWU to be a strong challenger in the conference.  The more the merrier.  But history tells me that it isn't going to happen so long as OWU runs that offense, which by all accounts, has been solved by the top teams in the conference. 

[DarkSide-D]

And dont forget wally, WOO lost in 01 by a yard.     Had that yard been gained on the last play of the game, OWU would have lost, Capone and all.

Just saying, When OWU manned their best team recently, it wasn't as good as it looked on paper.

[Vince McMahon]

Valid point, Wally, but I think it's only part of the equation.  One other intangible I'd throw in for Air Force and Navy is their discipline.  These guys basically eat, sleep, and breathe discipline and it shows in their toughness on the field.  Of course if you throw Army into the mix, that point is immediately flawed. But 2 out of 3 ain't bad is it?  

If some are tiring of this discussion I apologize and I'll try to wrap up my point.  To say that a certain offense CAN'T win championships is plain wrong.  Nebraska proved in the 90's that you don't have to throw the ball to beat the best.  On the other hand, I will admit that one-dimensional offenses are highly UNLIKELY to win championships because it's rare that in a championship situation, one team's players are going to be that much better than the other's.  On the flip side, pass happy offenses usually don't win it all either (see Texas Tech).  Mount threw for a lot of yards, but they always used their passing game to set up their run, which was also very effective.  I agree with OldGuy that a more balanced style can keep defenses off balance, but I'll never buy the argument that a particular offense is plain out-dated.  If OWU managed to recruit a couple of burners and a strong-armed qb, defenses would have a much harder time shutting down the running game that they thrive on.