FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

Does anyone know how many D3 football programs there were in 1999 when the AQ began? I would be interested to compare to today's number.

I can't give you that number for certain, but I can spitball at it.

D3football.com's FAQ page (http://d3football.com/interactive/faq/general#16) suggests that at least 31 schools have added Division III football from 1997-2014, 29 of them since 1999.  I know we've lost a handful of schools (Colorado College in the mid-00's, and McMurry jumped up a Division - although I think they're coming back - plus I'm sure another handful that I just don't know about because they're before my time), but still, there must have been a net gain of 20 or so schools.

Now, whether there are another 20 schools out there who will add in the next two decades, I don't know, we might be approaching the tail-end of a boom growth period.  I'm not qualified to comment there.

McMurry announced they were coming back. I know we lost Swarthmore. There were also a few that jumped football programs in the mid to late 90s like Georgetown and Davidson in order to keep D1 basketball programs.

[Li'l Giant]

I know we lost Swarthmore.

Not to be overly dramatic but that was a "I remember where I was" moment in my D3 fanhood. I'm still shocked about how that went down.

[wally_wabash]

One quote attributed to him:  "The quick kick is an offensive weapon." I believe he was saying that it could significantly change field position.

One last comment from me on the quick kick and then I'll punt (ha!)-

I view the quick kick in today's game- with the rules being tilted in favor of the offense to the extent that they are- the same way I view a "surrender" bet at a blackjack table.  Maybe sometimes it's "smart" to pull the plug and limit (and subsequently guarantee) your loss but you can't win if you don't play the hand.  And with H-SC's personnel, they should have played.  I think they could have only improved their situation by running an offensive play on that third down.  Or maybe a better way to say it is that I think the chances that things were going to get worse were very small compared to the chances that their situation would have remained the same or would have improved. 

[jknezek]

I think W&L was Swarthmore's last game, and they managed to beat us 16-6 helping keep alive W&L's "never won a game in NY state" that was bolstered by the playoff loss to Hobart a few years ago.

[wabndy]

Even if we added 20-30 new D3 football programs in the decades ahead along with 2-3 new Pool A spots, 36 32 would still be in the sweet spot for a tournament size.  Adding a sixth week to the playoff is not a good option for D3 student athletes, cost notwithstanding.  Pool C bids are gravy.  If you want to play in late November, win your conference.  Win all your games.  Period.  You are always going to have hand wringing the day after selection day (something Wabash fans know all too well) about whether all the worthy teams were selected.  If your goal is to give every conference and every team a fighting chance to play in the tournament, regardless of whether they play in a lightweight conference, regardless of whether they have a conference rival that wears purple, then you are going to get a system that pretty much looks like the one we have.
I don't realistically see such a dramatic increase happening.  Even if the NAIA imploded, D1-FCS and D2 would probably get all of those pieces.  I don't see a further breakup of D3 as a possibility, given how many schools already have a hard enough time filling the majority of their sports schedules with other D3 schools within driving distance.
Wabash did the best thing it could have done last Saturday to have a crack at Pool C if needed by scheduling and beating what is almost assuredly a quality in-division, in-region opponent.  Even with that, running the table is still the first, best, and probably only ticket to the postseason out of the NCAC.
Wait, its still September.  What am I doing?

[BashDad]

One quote attributed to him:  "The quick kick is an offensive weapon." I believe he was saying that it could significantly change field position.

One last comment from me on the quick kick and then I'll punt (ha!)-

I view the quick kick in today's game- with the rules being tilted in favor of the offense to the extent that they are- the same way I view a "surrender" bet at a blackjack table.  Maybe sometimes it's "smart" to pull the plug and limit (and subsequently guarantee) your loss but you can't win if you don't play the hand.  And with H-SC's personnel, they should have played.  I think they could have only improved their situation by running an offensive play on that third down.  Or maybe a better way to say it is that I think the chances that things were going to get worse were very small compared to the chances that their situation would have remained the same or would have improved.

Co-sign.

[jknezek]

Even if we added 20-30 new D3 football programs in the decades ahead along with 2-3 new Pool A spots, 36 would still be in the sweet spot for a tournament size.  Adding a sixth week to the playoff is not a good option for D3 student athletes, cost notwithstanding.  Pool C bids are gravy.  If you want to play in late November, win your conference.  Win all your games.  Period.  You are always going to have hand wringing the day after selection day (something Wabash fans know all too well) about whether all the worthy teams were selected.  If your goal is to give every conference and every team a fighting chance to play in the tournament, regardless of whether they play in a lightweight conference, regardless of whether they have a conference rival that wears purple, then you are going to get a system that pretty much looks like the one we have.
I don't realistically see such a dramatic increase happening.  Even if the NAIA imploded, D1-FCS and D2 would probably get all of those pieces.  I don't see a further breakup of D3 as a possibility, given how many schools already have a hard enough time filling the majority of their sports schedules with other D3 schools within driving distance.
Wabash did the best thing it could have done last Saturday to have a crack at Pool C if needed by scheduling and beating what is almost assuredly a quality in-division, in-region opponent.  Even with that, running the table is still the first, best, and probably only ticket to the postseason out of the NCAC.
Wait, its still September.  What am I doing?

You need to revisit the math. We have a 32 team tournament, not 36. If we add 20-30 teams that would be 2-4 additional A's at 7 team minimum conferences. You probably wouldn't get 4 new conferences out of 30 teams, but you could. We only have 6 C's right now. Taking 2-4 away is pretty dramatic. That being said, I agree with the win your conference. But it's not unheard of for a B or C team to go deep, so I'd much rather have the ability to include a few of those teams. 2 is pretty small in my mind, 4-6 I can live with.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I see what you're saying, wally, but holding a 14-7 lead, with 3rd-and-26 on your own 4-yard line, and the Wabash defense really starting to dominate (a pick-six followed by three straight plays going for negative yardage and two straight sacks)...I know it's guesswork, but I'll disagree with your hypothesis that the chances of things getting worse were very small compared to the chances the situation would have remained the same or improved. 

Potential negative outcomes: a sack resulting in a safety (very plausible considering that Nance had been sacked on the two previous plays), a pick-six (one of those happened just four plays prior), any turnover...I'd argue that even seemingly "neutral" outcomes (an incomplete pass, short gain on a rushing play) are worse than the quick kick option because they leave you punting from your own endzone against a team had two blocked-punt-touchdowns last year, giving them the option to come for the block or set up a return, and your punter is going to be standing all the way in the back of the endzone where a bad snap or false step means a safety.  The odds of any one of those negative outcomes are relatively small, but taken together let's say there's a 15% chance of a sack (FWIW, Nance was sacked 6 times in 43 dropbacks), 4% chance of interception (about the norm for interception rates), the most likely outcome being either an incomplete pass or a short gain, and what, a 10% chance of picking up the first down?  You're basically counting on Walker winning a jump ball or the officials bailing him out with a PI/contact flag.

The quick kick takes ALL of those negative possibilities out of the equation, and while it wasn't a guarantee that it would have gone for 49 yards, it ultimately resulted in Wabash starting on their own 47-yard line.  Getting a bit stat-dorky, the advanced football analytics win probability calculator pegs HSC's win probably at 67% with a 14-7 lead and the ball with 3rd-and-26 on the HSC 4 with 11 minutes remaining in the second quarter...and then pegs it at 69% with a 14-7 lead, Wabash ball 1st-and-10 on the Wabash 47 at the same time frame in the game.  Was giving up the small chance of making 3rd-and-26 (or even getting 15 yards) worth taking the risk of safety, blocked punt, interception, or

We can't measure factors like the ability of HSC's receivers, but I think those intangibles lean even more in Wabash's favor (again, the last four offensive plays had gone: pick-6, loss of 5 yards, sack, sack).  The Wabash defense was stoked.  The HSC offense was rattled.  Punt it, get them off the field, give your defense a chance to hold Wabash by giving them 50 yards to work with, and live to fight another series.  Sure, there's something to be said for playing to win rather than playing not to lose and setting an aggressive tone, or sending a signal to your players that you don't trust them to take chances to win the game.  But I'm buying the quick kick as a good call there.

[wally_wabash]

I see what you're saying, wally, but holding a 14-7 lead, with 3rd-and-26 on your own 4-yard line, and the Wabash defense really starting to dominate (a pick-six followed by three straight plays going for negative yardage and two straight sacks)...I know it's guesswork, but I'll disagree with your hypothesis that the chances of things getting worse were very small compared to the chances the situation would have remained the same or improved. 

Potential negative outcomes: a sack resulting in a safety (very plausible considering that Nance had been sacked on the two previous plays), a pick-six (one of those happened just four plays prior), any turnover...I'd argue that even seemingly "neutral" outcomes (an incomplete pass, short gain on a rushing play) are worse than the quick kick option because they leave you punting from your own endzone against a team had two blocked-punt-touchdowns last year, giving them the option to come for the block or set up a return, and your punter is going to be standing all the way in the back of the endzone where a bad snap or false step means a safety.  The odds of any one of those negative outcomes are relatively small, but taken together let's say there's a 15% chance of a sack (FWIW, Nance was sacked 6 times in 43 dropbacks), 4% chance of interception (about the norm for interception rates), the most likely outcome being either an incomplete pass or a short gain, and what, a 10% chance of picking up the first down?  You're basically counting on Walker winning a jump ball or the officials bailing him out with a PI/contact flag.

The quick kick takes ALL of those negative possibilities out of the equation, and while it wasn't a guarantee that it would have gone for 49 yards, it ultimately resulted in Wabash starting on their own 47-yard line.  Getting a bit stat-dorky, the advanced football analytics win probability calculator pegs HSC's win probably at 67% with a 14-7 lead and the ball with 3rd-and-26 on the HSC 4 with 11 minutes remaining in the second quarter...and then pegs it at 69% with a 14-7 lead, Wabash ball 1st-and-10 on the Wabash 47 at the same time frame in the game.  Was giving up the small chance of making 3rd-and-26 (or even getting 15 yards) worth taking the risk of safety, blocked punt, interception, or

We can't measure factors like the ability of HSC's receivers, but I think those intangibles lean even more in Wabash's favor (again, the last four offensive plays had gone: pick-6, loss of 5 yards, sack, sack).  The Wabash defense was stoked.  The HSC offense was rattled.  Punt it, get them off the field, give your defense a chance to hold Wabash by giving them 50 yards to work with, and live to fight another series.  Sure, there's something to be said for playing to win rather than playing not to lose and setting an aggressive tone, or sending a signal to your players that you don't trust them to take chances to win the game.  But I'm buying the quick kick as a good call there.

I think a point that I've been taking as understood but hasn't been stated explicitly is that Nance is a 5th year senior (equipped with all of the knowledge and experience that comes along with that) with off the charts talent by D3 standards.  I've been taking it as a given that in THAT exact situation, Nance is smart enough and talented enough to not take a sack and not put the possession of the football up for grabs (unless it is way down the field to Walker in a jump ball scenario- a de facto punt).  Isn't part of the luxury of having a senior with that kind of talent being able to not forfeit your possession on third down because you're afraid of catastrophe?  Maybe you aren't 100% sure that your AA QB can miracle up a play that is going to convert 3rd and 26, but can't you at least trust him to avoid the catastrophe? 

[USee]

I may be late to the game and apologize if all these points have been covered. I see you point Wally, but I don't think the quick kick is a "catasrophe avoidance" strategy. I think its just smart odds. In a tie game you want to play the field position game. The highest probability in that situation was going to result in a punt with the Bash's full punt return team in the game. The percentages of converting the 3rd and 26 were extremely low and considering the HSC punt unit averaged 38 yds per punt in the game and Wabash averaged 9 yds per return meant there was a highly reasonable chance Wabash would have ended HSC's drive and started their own inside the HSC 35 yd line. The subsequent Bash drive was 31 yds resulting in a FG (if Bash had gotten the ball at the HSC 31 maybe its a TD). The surprise element to the quick kick, negated any return and gave HSC a chance to change field position with a 49 yd punt, no return. In a 14-14 game that's a big deal. I think it was a good strategy.

[bashbrother]

Were there any sacks in the 2nd half?  My point..  The offense figured out how to call plays that sacks were much tougher on.   Also.. With the rate at which yellow flags were flying from zebras,  a defensive hold or pass interference against a very talented WR was a real possibility.

Call a timeout.. Get your offense together ...and run a play.  I would loved to have played on a defense that had an opposing offense wave a white flag like this.. 

I can see the point of those that thought it was smart.. Although, I personally would never have called it.  It is a bunch of what If's on both sides.   It could have been a shanked punt that went 15 yards...

[USee]

Its about percentages, plain and simple. Like Moneyball. That quick kick changed the percentages from against HSC to neutral at worst and possibly in HSC's favor, though they didn't ultimately win the game. If I look at it with perfect hindsight, I think the quick kick saved 4 pts for HSC and had a chance to save them 7.

[USee]

Were there any sacks in the 2nd half?  My point..  The offense figured out how to call plays that sacks were much tougher on.   Also.. With the rate at which yellow flags were flying from zebras,  a defensive hold or pass interference against a very talented WR was a real possibility.

Call a timeout.. Get your offense together ...and run a play.  I would loved to have played on a defense that had an opposing offense wave a white flag like this.. 

I can see the point of those that thought it was smart.. Although, I personally would never have called it.  It is a bunch of what If's on both sides.   It could have been a shanked punt that went 15 yards...

Using your strategy and taking it to a ridiculous extreme,  why would a team like HSC ever punt? On 3rd and 26 they could have run a play that got them 10-12 and then gone for it on 4th and 14 from their own 15. Why wouldn't they do that with Nance and Walker? I think you have to do whatever gives your team the very best chance to win. And the percentages in the 2nd quarter were all about field position. Give my studs better field position and we can make something happen. I think the quick kick saved them points and gave them a better opportunity. So thats a good call in my view.

[bashbrother]

We could /have beat this one up pretty good...  Good thoughts from all sides and ultimately comes down to coaching philosophy/risk. Good stuff and why I brought the original question up in the first place.

[wally_wabash]

Using your strategy and taking it to a ridiculous extreme,  why would a team like HSC ever punt? On 3rd and 26 they could have run a play that got them 10-12 and then gone for it on 4th and 14 from their own 15. Why wouldn't they do that with Nance and Walker? I think you have to do whatever gives your team the very best chance to win. And the percentages in the 2nd quarter were all about field position. Give my studs better field position and we can make something happen. I think the quick kick saved them points and gave them a better opportunity. So thats a good call in my view.

No because taking a shot on 4th down and missing turns the ball over at the LOS which is a far worse outcome than taking a shot on 3rd down where you count on your senior All-American quarterback to not take a sack and to not throw it short- and if you don't get a call or don't get a big play, you can still punt.  On the third down play, the options are throw it away or throw a jump ball 50 yards down the field.  And if you're telling me that you can't count on THAT guy to do either of those things, then I've been duped by the Legend of Nash Nance. 

And now I'm starting to creep down the path of Throwing Shade, and I don't want to do that because I don't think Nance is average in any way.  He's really, really good.  I think Favret made an ultra-conservative choice and I happen to disagree.  If I'm in that spot with a shaky offensive line AND a sophomore quarterback making his first start, I'm probably cutting my losses and kicking it away also.  But if I'm in that spot with a senior quarterback and a guy that I've already seen can outjump the defense, then I'll roll the dice with a deep ball and see if I get lucky.  Getting picked off underneath or taking a sack doesn't even enter into my thought process there because I trust Nash Nance to not let either of those things happen.