FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[smedindy]

Yeesh. The whiteboard would get a workout. Do we know if that's changed from when ScotLass posted that?

I was happy with Miracle's line Saturday. I mean, do you see what Kerry Collins did at NE?

2-12 1 int, -7 yards passing. Yes. -7.

[zed07]

Bash fell to #18 in the most recent D3football poll.

[Li'l Giant]

And what's worse is that creaky old Collins is getting trotted out there to fail miserably because they have zero faith in their backup. Can VY possibly be any worse than that?

[Black n Gold]

The Scots played a nail biter this past Saturday in St. Louis......I'm glad they came together in the final minutes, but even if Hudson is out this week the Scot D will have to play their best game of the year. It's going to be an exciting atmosphere and should be a dandy in Wooster this Saturday.

http://www.wooster.edu/en/Athletics/Athletics-News/2009/October/Football-Recap-2009-WashU.aspx

http://www.northcoast.org/fo/fopow.html

[altor]

• "2. Result(s) versus individual opponents examined in descending order, individually, until tie is broken. The tied teams must have a common opponent in order for the result to be considered; if not a common opponent, move to the next team in the standings. The first team to have beaten a higher-ranked team that is a common opponent wins the tiebreaker.

"If the tie is not broken in the descending order review, start from the bottom of the standings and examine opponents in ascending order. The first team to have lost to a lower-ranked team loses the tiebreaker (no common opponent provision in ascending review)."

Almost as bad as the HCAC tie-breaking procedures.  If the tie isn't broken in descending order, how will it be broken in ascending order?  Somebody needs to give these college people a lesson in logic and/or critical thinking.

[wally_wabash]

I just noticed that the link to the 2010 schedule at northcoast.org has been yanked with a message saying that a schedule is coming soon.  I haven't looked at that particular page in a while so I don't know how long ago that link was removed, but I'm wondering if the schedules for 2010 and 2011 are getting redone to account for Earlham's absence.  I don't believe Earlham was on Wabash's schedule, so I don't expect any changes there....I will be interested to see what changes are coming. 

[zed07]

At the office of Dean Jeff Fisher at Faber University-Nashville:

Mr. Kerry Collins, 2 for 12, for (-7) yards; your passer rating for this game was 4.9.  Congratulations, Kerry. You're at the top of the Titans pledge class.  Vince Young, zero point zero.  You had no passer rating.  All passes incomplete.

[ADL70]

Wally

It was still up the day of the HCAC announcement.

A few schools had a game with another NCAC team in week 1 or 2 that was not going to be counted as a conference game.  Those could become conference games, but if they lose an Earlham game later in the season it could be hard to fill the date for 2010.  Wabash was not scheduled to play Earlham, but could possibly see its schedule change to accomodate other changes.  

If HCAC dosn't go to a complete round-robin Earlham could keep three NCAC opponents meaning only four would need to find other games.  It would also make the NCAC schedule revision easier if Earlham kept its first three games with HCAC teams as it was this season.  Given the timing I would hope that Earlham would do everything it could to help the NCAC.

I don't know that the NCAC needs to be in any hurry to find a replacement before 2012.
 

[wally_wabash]

I would hope that the league is taking their time with this and reconfiguring that schedule such that teams can best find a 10th opponent (that also doesn't exist in the same league...I really really dislike the idea of conference teams playing one another in non conference games).  That means taking those early season games and moving them back to the middle/end of the season and opening up those early weeks.  

And there's also not a big reason to have this done in the next two weeks.  Take your time...if they are having discussions with other institutions about filling the gap left by Earlham, let's leave it open to let them play and compete for the championship in 2010.  

Will Earlham stick around and play some of that schedule?  They might.  They aren't going to have anything to do with those Witt and Woo games though. I believe they are scheduled to travel to Witt and Wooster and I can't believe that EC is going to honor those games.  They are also due to travel to Allegheny in 2010 and that won't be happening either.  I doubt that finding an alternative to Earlham is a problem that any of those teams mind having.  

[smedindy]

And what's worse is that creaky old Collins is getting trotted out there to fail miserably because they have zero faith in their backup. Can VY possibly be any worse than that?

Well, yeah. Young is 0-5 with 1 INT. They don't have a 3rd string QB as I scan the gamebook.

And how would you feel if you were Troy Kropog or Stanford Keglar. They dressed for Tennessee but didn't play.

I don't think the Vikings need Sage Rosenfels now. He probably could be had for a song.

BTW, I would assume that Kerry Collins is out as starter. But I think Todd Collins will now start for Washington after Campbell got yanked. Unless they decide Colt Brennan is ready.

Can you believe both Collins' are STILL in the NFL? I'd assume one would be an insurance salesman by now.

Hey, Jake Knott, can you get your arm ready? Russ Harbaugh, get loose! There are NFL teams that need you.

[wally_wabash]

If playing in that game in New England meant having to take off one of those oversized coats, I'd probably go ahead and pass.  Losing by 60 is probably bad enough without freezing your arse off.   

[seinfeld]

Quick comment on the conference-championship tie-breaker – unless the coaches voted to change the tiebreaker rules within the last couple of years, the tie-breaker order listed a few posts back is correct. So if Wooster loses to Wabash but beats Wittenberg, then Wabash would get the AQ because they have the best "power ranking" based on their conference finish over the past few years (or whatever time range the conference uses for determining the "power ranking"). But I put the odds of Wittenberg not running the table at around 5%. Not only are they playing lights-out defense, but the Tigers haven't lost to Wooster in Springfield since 1949. And there is nothing that has happened so far to make me feel that the 60-year drought is coming to an end.

Allegheny is actually in the same boat as Wooster. If they were to somehow beat Wittenberg (and beat Wooster), then they would finish in a three-way tie. If Kenyon ends the season with just one conference loss, I'm not completely sure how they handle this. Kenyon definitely doesn't get the AQ, as they were 0-1 in the only head-to-head matchup, and their one loss will be on the road, which is criteria #3. Does this clear the criteria so that Wabash-Wittenberg is broken by head-to-head?

Back to Wooster, while I'm feeling better about the Scots now than I did in the middle of the fourth quarter Saturday, there's still very little to hang your hat on as a Wooster fan. I would love to find a reason to believe they can at least scratch out a tie or even win the conference title, but I just don't see it.

Wooster was a better team six games through last season than they are now. Last season the Scots had only lost to Case, and that was on the road, and they had actually outgained the Spartans. This year, they got routed late by Case, lost to Waynesburg while getting blitzed on defense, and nearly lost to Washington, a team Wooster beat 38-13 last year. This despite Wooster returning most of its key players from last year, and the coaching staff was giving off signals that they would be on nearly equal footing with Wabash and Wittenberg.

I don't want to be negative, but my expectations of Wooster are based strictly on how the coaching staff pitched this team before the season. When you openly talk about making a championship run, then I expect them to play like a championship team. I didn't have those expectations last season, coming off of a 4-6 showing in 2007, so I was extremely pleased by what happened last year.

What I don't understand is how six games into this season, we are still making the same mistakes over and over. Even Schmitz described the game against Washington as "sloppy". Not scoring touchdowns in the red zone (or like Saturday, not scoring at all); continue to give up long kickoff returns; committing too many penalities; and not involving the wide receivers in the offense.

Nothing would make me happier than to post this coming Saturday night and say how I was wrong about everything I said. But I just don't see it.

And a final note. Not that anyone cares what I say, but can the coaching staff actually coach this game against Wabash like you are trying to win, not guard against losing? Against Waynesburg, Wooster never adjusted its defense, neglecting to bring blitzes as Waynesburg walked down the field with the quarterback being untouched. Then when Wooster grabs the lead late, they kick a squib kick, which played a role in giving the game away.

Then against Case, the Scots again rarely blitzed, despite the fact that a bunch of blitz packages had been added to the defense just for this game. Then on offense, after moving up and down the field at will, Wooster suddenly just tightens up on offense, going 3-and-out on four of its last five possessions and gaining only 30 yards on its last 16 offensive plays. Part of that was poor execution, but a large part of it was conservative play calling and a lack of recognition that Case had adjusted to Wooster's short passing game.

[Pat Coleman]

Usually in a three-way tie situation, once one team drops out of the tie by virtue of a tiebreaker, you go back to the top of the list with the remaining two teams and use the head-to-head result.

[WABCOL86]

Well, this weekend's game against Wittenberg was the third Wabash home game I saw this season.  When I saw Matt Hudson come out in street clothes, my stomach sank.  It was proven to be a prophetic feeling.  Our quarterback play was very ineffective.  Our purportedly powerful and expereinced o-line was unable to generate anything for the ground game.  Our defense was pretty doggone good with the exception of not keeping a spy on Huffman (a QB know to run) and he burned us good several times.  The officiating was not the best (the ball that supposedly bounced for a touchback never came within a foot of the goal lie, I know because I was standing there watching it from the sideline right on the line, both zebras somehow missed that) but the offensive implosion was extremely puzzling.  In watching Wittenberg, I was somewhat impressed by the their defense, particularly against the run.  That said, though, in watching them in passing situations they were often out of position and slow to respond.  We could not capitalize because we were not 1) accurate on our throws and 2) were often rushed into something we didn't want, mostly due to inexperience.  Josh missed some wide open receivers.  The ultimate nail though was allowing that return near the end.  Our special teams had been so reliable but they let us down some on Saturday.  Some poor punts, some missed coverages and the the missed field goal hurt.

Previous games, we showed a resilience that I didn't see on Saturday.  There was much evident frustration and even  some bickering among players on the sideline in the offensive group.  I was surprised by that because I hadn't seen that before, not even in last year's Bell Game.  Oh well, that's just my take.   Perhaps others saw it differently.


Sherm

[zed07]

I saw a resilient bunch of Little Giants, who played their heart out against a good team, and gave themselves a chance to win, in spite of the loss of one of their main offensive leaders.  Sure there was frustration.  I would be disappointed were there not.