FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[ExTartanPlayer]

seinfeld, I honestly don't know if you've been a player or coach.  If you have, please feel free to express your own opinion on this.  However, as someone that spent plenty of time in Division III locker rooms...

Did we carry motivation and grudges into some games?  Of course.  Did it really make a difference in our gameplay on a particular day?  Not a chance!  You really think Oberlin's upset of Wooster in 2003 happened because of that non-incident in 2001, or Kenyon's upset in 2005 happened because they felt like Wooster ran up the score the year before?

You certainly can argue that Schmitz's poor coaching led to those losses against inferior teams, but the "insulting the opposition" from the previous year (while it may have motivated the opponents) is not the reason a team loses ANY game, it's poor coaching and/or play ON THAT DAY!

I would like you to ask the players from the 1969 University of Michigan football team if your assessment is completely true.  I'm sure OSU's 50-14 drubbing of Michigan the year before including watching Woody Hayes go for a successful 2-point conversion to rub salt in the wounds late in that game because he, "...couldn't go for 3."  didn't serve as any motivation for Michigan to then come out the following year and beat, what was said to be the greatest team in college football history... 

You really think the upset occurred because of that quote?  No, it happened because the 1969 University of Michigan football team outplayed the 1969 Ohio State football team in their game in 1969.

Is it possible that the 1969 Michigan team was motivated by something that was said?  Sure.  But regardless of all the cliches about how it's a "game of emotion" and all that wonderful stuff, "motivation" only carries you so far in football.  Either you're good enough to beat your opponent on a particular day, or you're not.  Motivation can push you up just a notch, and you might be able to defeat a more talented but flat opponent, but it really isn't going to do much unless your team also possess the talent to defeat your opponent OR your opponent is flat and/or poorly coached ON GAME DAY.

[wally_wabash]

I think the common factor that really matters in those games against Oberlin and Kenyon that Wooster lost is that #7 didn't play in those games.  That, more than anything else by an enormous margin, mattered to the eventual results. 

[formerd3db]

seinfeld, I honestly don't know if you've been a player or coach.  If you have, please feel free to express your own opinion on this.  However, as someone that spent plenty of time in Division III locker rooms...

Did we carry motivation and grudges into some games?  Of course.  Did it really make a difference in our gameplay on a particular day?  Not a chance!  You really think Oberlin's upset of Wooster in 2003 happened because of that non-incident in 2001, or Kenyon's upset in 2005 happened because they felt like Wooster ran up the score the year before?

You certainly can argue that Schmitz's poor coaching led to those losses against inferior teams, but the "insulting the opposition" from the previous year (while it may have motivated the opponents) is not the reason a team loses ANY game, it's poor coaching and/or play ON THAT DAY!

I would like you to ask the players from the 1969 University of Michigan football team if your assessment is completely true.  I'm sure OSU's 50-14 drubbing of Michigan the year before including watching Woody Hayes go for a successful 2-point conversion to rub salt in the wounds late in that game because he, "...couldn't go for 3."  didn't serve as any motivation for Michigan to then come out the following year and beat, what was said to be the greatest team in college football history... 

You really think the upset occurred because of that quote?  No, it happened because the 1969 University of Michigan football team outplayed the 1969 Ohio State football team in their game in 1969.

Is it possible that the 1969 Michigan team was motivated by something that was said?  Sure.  But regardless of all the cliches about how it's a "game of emotion" and all that wonderful stuff, "motivation" only carries you so far in football.  Either you're good enough to beat your opponent on a particular day, or you're not.  Motivation can push you up just a notch, and you might be able to defeat a more talented but flat opponent, but it really isn't going to do much unless your team also possess the talent to defeat your opponent OR your opponent is flat and/or poorly coached ON GAME DAY.

Extartan and ScotsFan:

With all due respect, I have to disagree with you slightly on the above, my friends, although I think from what Extartan has written, we are all pretty much on the same page with this in reality .  I agree with you that the U of M team beat Ohio State that year because they outplayed them.  Both were great teams.  However, that quote indeed had everything and as much to do with the victory as everything else.  Indeed, some of those Michigan players (and team officials) will tell you this. If you have talked with some of those who were involved with that team back then (and I have - I've been a Michigan fan all my life, my dad was an alum and knew some of the people "down there" involved), that quote indeed was a huge motivating factor and what "put them over the edge" for doing so.  I am one to believe that motivation can take you extremely much more than "pushing you up just a notch".  It can't do it along - obviously you have to have the talent, but talent can also lose games if they are not motivated enough for a particular game even when the team should be and that happens periodically for some teams for a variety of reasons.  When it does, that is unfortunate for those teams and they deserve to lose if they can't be motivated enough to win-yet again sometimes other factors can be involved (overconfidence, complacency, etc., and/or just simply a couple of bad luck situations during a game).

So all that said, I will never not believe that that famed quote didn't have a MAJOR impact in being responsible for that Michigan upset of Ohio State that year.  It had everything to do with it (again, some of those people have said it did), just as much as the talent level and that Michigan outplayed Ohio State for that particular game.    

[ExTartanPlayer]

seinfeld, I honestly don't know if you've been a player or coach.  If you have, please feel free to express your own opinion on this.  However, as someone that spent plenty of time in Division III locker rooms...

Did we carry motivation and grudges into some games?  Of course.  Did it really make a difference in our gameplay on a particular day?  Not a chance!  You really think Oberlin's upset of Wooster in 2003 happened because of that non-incident in 2001, or Kenyon's upset in 2005 happened because they felt like Wooster ran up the score the year before?

You certainly can argue that Schmitz's poor coaching led to those losses against inferior teams, but the "insulting the opposition" from the previous year (while it may have motivated the opponents) is not the reason a team loses ANY game, it's poor coaching and/or play ON THAT DAY!

I would like you to ask the players from the 1969 University of Michigan football team if your assessment is completely true.  I'm sure OSU's 50-14 drubbing of Michigan the year before including watching Woody Hayes go for a successful 2-point conversion to rub salt in the wounds late in that game because he, "...couldn't go for 3."  didn't serve as any motivation for Michigan to then come out the following year and beat, what was said to be the greatest team in college football history... 

You really think the upset occurred because of that quote?  No, it happened because the 1969 University of Michigan football team outplayed the 1969 Ohio State football team in their game in 1969.

Is it possible that the 1969 Michigan team was motivated by something that was said?  Sure.  But regardless of all the cliches about how it's a "game of emotion" and all that wonderful stuff, "motivation" only carries you so far in football.  Either you're good enough to beat your opponent on a particular day, or you're not.  Motivation can push you up just a notch, and you might be able to defeat a more talented but flat opponent, but it really isn't going to do much unless your team also possess the talent to defeat your opponent OR your opponent is flat and/or poorly coached ON GAME DAY.

Extartan and ScotsFan:

With all due respect, I have to disagree with you slightly on the above, my friends, although I think from what Extartan has written, we are all pretty much on the same page with this in reality .  I agree with you that the U of M team beat Ohio State that year because they outplayed them.  Both were great teams.  However, that quote indeed had everything and as much to do with the victory as everything else.  Indeed, some of those Michigan players (and team officials) will tell you this. If you have talked with some of those who were involved with that team back then (and I have - I've been a Michigan fan all my life, my dad was an alum and knew some of the people "down there" involved), that quote indeed was a huge motivating factor and what "put them over the edge" for doing so.  I am one to believe that motivation can take you extremely much more than "pushing you up just a notch".  It can't do it along - obviously you have to have the talent, but talent can also lose games if they are not motivated enough for a particular game even when the team should be and that happens periodically for some teams for a variety of reasons.  When it does, that is unfortunate for those teams and they deserve to lose if they can't be motivated enough to win-yet again sometimes other factors can be involved (overconfidence, complacency, etc., and/or just simply a couple of bad luck situations during a game).

So all that said, I will never not believe that that famed quote didn't have a MAJOR impact in being responsible for that Michigan upset of Ohio State that year.  It had everything to do with it (again, some of those people have said it did), just as much as the talent level and that Michigan outplayed Ohio State for that particular game.    

Disagreement is permitted, in fact even encouraged!  As you said, our opinions are only a few notches apart in reality, rather than 180 degrees different.

I forget that these boards have old fogies like you who were actually around for games played in 1969.  My father was in junior high at the time

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ooh, ExTartan, that was low!  I'm about two decades older than formerd3db!

Alas, I didn't start watching UM football until 1970 (when I arrived for grad school), but I remember the 1968 and 1969 games well.  Woody's 'rubbing it in' had two important effects (aside from any extra motivation on game day):

1.  While it might have happened anyway, it is generally believed to have directly led to the resignation of Bump Elliott and the hiring of Woody-protege Bo Schembechler.

2.  For those who didn't quit soon after Bo arrived (and there were quite a few who DID quit), the entire year between OSU games saw greater dedication to improvement than probably would have otherwise occurred.

[formerd3db]

Mr. Ypsi and Extartan:

Thank you, Mr. Ypsi!   Seriously, though, no big deal Extartan!  Yet, in reality, I am the same age as your father because I was in junior high at the time also! So now that you've blown my cover as I thought I had some of these guys of our colleagues and friends here fooled as to my age, I guess I have to 'fess up now! But I can still hang with a few of you young guys still - just ask SaintsFAN!  I must say that I am still in much better shape than many of former Hope teammates!). 

But, Mr. Ypsi is correct in what he has related - all of that is fact and if you, again, ask anyone from that era, they will confirm that.  Regardless, it was, indeed, one of the greatest college games and perhaps one of the top 2-3 in the Ohio State/Michigan all-time series (aside from the famous Snow Bowl back in the 1950's - now don't think I know much about that one because I don't nor was I even around  then - although my late father attended that game as I recall as he was at U of M at the time! 

I must say also, Mr. Ypsi still gets around a lot for a former professor and...he does know his college football!!

As always, I enjoy our discussions.  You both always have some good insight and contributions to these boards.

[ScotsFan]

You really think the upset occurred because of that quote? 

As formerd3lb and Mr. Ypsi have already stated, yes I do really think that upset occurred because of that quote and the final score as well.  Granted, Michigan had to go out and execute come GAMEDAY as you point out, but they had 365 days in between games to be reminded of not only that quote, but the final score of that '68 game.  Bo even had the practice team players all tape the number 50 on their helmets for every practice to keep that memory fresh in the minds of every UofM player.  You don't think that was a motivator to have to see that number 50 staring at you each and every practice?

I guess in the end, you could say it comes down to good coaching.  Had Bump Elliot remained as Michigan head coach, would he have been able to use that OSU drubbing and that Woody quote to motivate his players for an epic upset?  I doubt it.  That is why Bo is so highly regarded as a coach.  He DID use that as fuel to motivate his team so they would work their asses off every day so they could erase the memory of that 1968 game which they did!

[smedindy]

But conversely, you could be TOO amped up and motivated and fall flat on gameday. It's a puzzle, a riddle, an enigma.

[smedindy]

Meanwhile, back at the NCAC...

If DPU brings back Bill Lynch, are the last few seasons just a dream?

[formerd3db]

Well said ScotsFan.

Also, smedindy, I agree.  Indeed, that can happen too.  BTW, do you think there is a chance DPU would bring back Lynch and if there was/is, in your opinion, would he do it?  An interesting "what if", isn't it?

[smedindy]

While Lynch probably didn't intend to be a one-and-done, and had the best intentions of staying, that still may be a black mark against him. He certainly can coach, but I think other schools would use the one-and-out history against him because kids don't or won't remember.

[Duster72]

Meanwhile, back at the NCAC...

If DPU brings back Bill Lynch, are the last few seasons just a dream?

I personally am hoping they hire Lynch, because it would make for excellent Stag fodder.  I also think he's a bit of a proven loser and I think he would have a hard time recruiting based on his history with the school.  Bell seems to have the most impressive credentials.  If I were a DPU fan, that's who I would be most excited about.

[wally_wabash]

Meanwhile, back at the NCAC...

If DPU brings back Bill Lynch, are the last few seasons just a dream?

I personally am hoping they hire Lynch, because it would make for excellent Stag fodder.  I also think he's a bit of a proven loser and I think he would have a hard time recruiting based on his history with the school.  Bell seems to have the most impressive credentials.  If I were a DPU fan, that's who I would be most excited about.

Like when he took a team that had no business being 8-2 and made them 8-2 and won the Monon Bell?  Have to disagree with you on this one.  Bill Lynch would be a great hire there.  I think we were a little skeptical the first time around with Lynch and how long he would stick around (rightly so), but now he's 58 and far less likely to get back into the FBS rat race.  I think it takes a pretty sweet offer to pull him away from his gig at Butler though, and probably a little more laissez faire from the AD than the last couple of HCs have experienced. 

Steve Bell would be a good add also, although his W/L record without a Tanney isn't quite as impressive as the overall record.  I know squat about the other two candidates, but I'm sure they are good choices as well.  Reluctantly, I have to doff the cap to DPU for what their search has turned up.  I wasn't sure they could drum up that kind of interest from well established coaches. 

[smedindy]

It's perspective. To the D-1A fan, Stan Parrish oversaw the rock bottom of Kansas State and the decline of Ball State after Brady Hoke left. For us Wabash fans of a certain age, he's the best or damn near close to it. (42-3-1)

[formerd3db]

It's perspective. To the D-1A fan, Stan Parrish oversaw the rock bottom of Kansas State and the decline of Ball State after Brady Hoke left. For us Wabash fans of a certain age, he's the best or damn near close to it. (42-3-1)

Very true.  Also, at the same time, he really didn't do that bad as QB coach at Rutgers and U of Michigan either.