FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

re-post from the pick em's board (probably more appropriate for this board)

Hope @ Illinois Wesleyan (-14.5) - Why do games involving CCIW teams always seem to not be about team vs. team but converence vs. conference?  It only seems to happen with the CCIW.  I don't get it.  Anyway, Hope is playing good ball and IWU trailed Alma 3-0 at halftime.  That's the reddest of red flags.  I do think IWU wins, but Hope has enough offense to keep this one under the number. 
Waynesburg @ Thomas More (-5.5) - Thomas More has not given up a point this year.  Most impressive.  Respect the shutouts.  No shutout this week, but I think Thomas More handles business. 
Concordia-Moorhead @ St. John's (-4.5) - Upset special here.  I think the Cobbers win outright. 

Tiebreak: Pass yards allowed by Wabash - Oh boy...77 yards.  Maybe.

I agree you don't get it. I assume you are referring to my comments on the CCIW board about the Hope vs. IWU game. While I agree that there are exceptions like Franklin, Wabash/Witt, Trine from 2008/2010, etc, there IS a reason some conferences perform better against other conferences. You can choose to ignore it but it doesn't change the fact that there are conferences with better teams.

The Hope v IWU game isn't about conferences, but the relative performance of the top teams from those two conferences informs us about the potential outcomes. Doesn't mean it will happen.

I would be more interested in the analysis that shows why some conferences succeed and others don't. I know it has to do with geography, admission standards, demographics, and all that, but I think there is something more there. Is the OAC good because UMU has raised the bar for so long? What has been the impact of Witt/Wabash playoff experiences on the NCAC? It seems to me the level of play is on the rise throughout the conference. The CCIW hasn't always been good. Augie in the 80's set the standard for all those schools and every team but North Park has been to the playoffs since 2000. I don't have the answers but I think its an interesting question.

I shouldn't, but I'll bite. 

There are few conversations in college football that I find more pointless than the "my league is better than your league" conversation.  I think it's just pointless.  But even worse than that conversation is the one about any one particular game where we assume one team will beat another team because of what leagues they play in.  To the extent that that is an analysis at all, it is lazy. 

Last year I broke down the CCIW's non-league record since the start of 2009...important because the CCIW's gaudy reputation is built primarily on the belief that they win all of their non-league games.  To be fair, that's not a beilief, that's pretty factual.  The CCIW has a great non-league record.  But when you look at what's going on there, as I did, you find that that gaudy non-league record is built on a squishy, squishy foundation of really bad opponents and then when you look at the CCIW's record when playing against teams that are actually good (regardless of what league they might come from) they're really not any different than anybody else.  We've been condidtioned to believe that the CCIW just hammers away on everybody who isn't a purple power, and that's not true. 

So when there is a game analysis that includes something to the effect of "IWU is one of the best CCIW teams and Hope is in the MIAA so IWU should win by a boatload", it bugs me.  There's zero thought put into that and the whole statement is based on an assumption that isn't true.  Hope is playing good ball.  I don't know if they will win on Saturday or not (I'm apparently on the record as saying that they won't), but if they do lose it won't be because they play in the MIAA.  That's just not relevant. 

[waf56]

Fair enough, I guess it was rather lazy of me to pick IWU over Hope simply due to their respective conferences.

That being said, in my experience the top of the CCIW has always been very tough, and like wise the MIAA has not been. To try and get a semi-accurate historical perspective here are the number of teams from each conference in the final top-25 for the past 5 years:

         CCIW  MIAA
2012:   2         0
2011:   3         0
2010:   2         0
2009:   2         1
2008:   2         1

Though the past is the past and things change, there is a steady trend of CCIW teams ranked at the end of the year pointing to at least some success in the playoffs against quality opponents. So maybe somewhat lazy in automatically saying CCIW over MIAA, but my gut and historical data tell me that it is probably a safe bet. For reference, I would also pick the top of the OAC, WIAC, and NCAC over the MIAA.

Now, if Hope wins this or keeps it close my mirage of a weak MIAA will have to end, and I will no longer be able to talk trash to my high school buddy who chose Hope over Wabash.

[wally_wabash]

Fair enough, I guess it was rather lazy of me to pick IWU over Hope simply due to their respective conferences.

That being said, in my experience the top of the CCIW has always been very tough, and like wise the MIAA has not been. To try and get a semi-accurate historical perspective here are the number of teams from each conference in the final top-25 for the past 5 years:

         CCIW  MIAA
2012:   2         0
2011:   3         0
2010:   2         0
2009:   2         1
2008:   2         1

Though the past is the past and things change, there is a steady trend of CCIW teams ranked at the end of the year pointing to at least some success in the playoffs against quality opponents. So maybe somewhat lazy in automatically saying CCIW over MIAA, but my gut and historical data tell me that it is probably a safe bet. For reference, I would also pick the top of the OAC, WIAC, and NCAC over the MIAA.

Now, if Hope wins this or keeps it close my mirage of a weak MIAA will have to end, and I will no longer be able to talk trash to my high school buddy who chose Hope over Wabash.

Hey now.  You can ALWAYS talk trash to your buddy who chose Hope instead of Wabash.    Although, if memory serves, Hope currently holds the hammer on Wabash as they won the last game the two teams played...I want to say it was 1996, maybe 1997.  I remember Hope had a really, really good RB that year.  Wabash did a good job of keeping him in check for the most part, but wound up losing the game something like 14-13 at Little Giant Stadium.  I'll have to pull up a media guide to double check all of that. 

Update: It was 1997, the final score was 14-13 for Hope, and the RB's name was Brandon Graham who is Hope's all time leading rusher.  By a long ways.  He was good. 

[BashDad]

Not sure Witt has fans who can "rite"

Considering the topic, the attention to detail in your post was less than stellar.

Apparently the Witt fans also struggle to interpret sarcasm.

The sarcasm did not evade me, nor did the punctuation. Period.

Hilarious. You should stick around.

[BashDad]

Wabash release is up: http://sports.wabash.edu/documents/2013/9/25/ReleaseSept252013.pdf?id=199

[ExTartanPlayer]

Fair enough, I guess it was rather lazy of me to pick IWU over Hope simply due to their respective conferences.

I think it's okay to include this as PART of your logic as long as you consider all of the relevant information.  I disagree with my friend wally, the conference atheist, in this regard.  I believe that we have so little information to go on about respective teams early in the season that considering the conference's recent history and a team's relative place in that conference is a useful piece of the puzzle, as long as you also consider the results of the individual team in that season.

For example, IWU is one of the better teams in the CCIW and Hope is one of the better teams in the MIAA, and the CCIW is generally a stronger conference than the MIAA so ipso facto IWU is better than Hope.

But now waitasecond.  Hope has played two CCIW teams this season (admittedly, two of the bottom-dwellars) and tossed up a 40-spot on both.  That may not tell us that Hope is better than the top of the CCIW, but it certainly does tell us that they shouldn't be dismissed just because they're from the MIAA and the CCIW always beats the MIAA.

[wabco]

Ahh .... but the question  really is:  Was the punctuation purposely left off to complete the effect?


Unmasked, the purpose was really - for fun - to draw a Wittster up to the surface.  It was meant in fun.  If the Old Tiger is somehow offended, I am sorry.

However, while on the subject (broad subject of Witt fan base), I understand from Butler University administrative people that Witt fans did not show well there.  Butler has a small set of stands on the visitor side (evidently visitor fans do not travel well in their conference so lots of visitor seating is not needed).  Butler places their band (a pretty good one I might add) in a section of these visitor stands to perform for the home crowd during the game and keep their pep going ... the instruments facing forward are louder and more easily heard. 

Evidently Witt had fans who felt the Butler Band should not sit on "their side" and, when the Band was performing at the half (the halftime score was very bad for Witt at that time), took the Butler Band seats and refused to move at the end of the performance or to give them up.  Loud, offensive, and acrimonious sounds were emitted by the Witt fans when the Butler Band asked to reclaim their Band seats.  Security (even Indy Police were called I am told) took the position that the Witt fans were either to move or to be arrested.  The Butler Band leadership and Butler administration, having the good sense not to want anyone arrested over something as silly as this, decided to be "the adult in the room", and the Band was placed in  other quarters.  It was however a nasty environment created by Witt fans. 

That is sad ..... but harks me back to when we (Wabash) visited Witt (Witt does not even have any visitor stands) ... we had to sit on the "Witt side" such as it was.  Similarly, throughout the game, we were treated by Witt fans to the same loud, offensive, and acrimonious Witt sounds.

So, I guess I should not be surprised that my somewhat inept attempt at light sarcasm or even humor ... would draw the response it did.

When I first heard this Butler story, I questioned the veracity of the tale ... so I inquired from several who would know ... the story apparently is basically accurate.  The good news for Witt fans on November 9 is that ... hey Witt fans ... you can come to Wabash this year, you will be treated with respect ... AND there are and will be plenty of available permanent stands on the visitors side for you to locate to your heart's content.

[nike]

Have always enjoyed my visits to Witt's field.  Love the stadium, the step down seating, even the food.  And I can't remember a bad weather day there, ever.
Some fans were certainly over the top, but we were never seated near them.
A couple of the best games we saw there did not even involve Wooster.  Classic NCAC games with conference titles on the line.  Were a number of Witt folks on here a few years ago when Tristan Murray(sic?) teams were playing.

[smedindy]

Fair enough, I guess it was rather lazy of me to pick IWU over Hope simply due to their respective conferences.

That being said, in my experience the top of the CCIW has always been very tough, and like wise the MIAA has not been. To try and get a semi-accurate historical perspective here are the number of teams from each conference in the final top-25 for the past 5 years:

     

Of course, there was the time Albion a Stagg Bowl...

[oldtiger]

Ahh .... but the question  really is:  Was the punctuation purposely left off to complete the effect?


Unmasked, the purpose was really - for fun - to draw a Wittster up to the surface.  It was meant in fun.  If the Old Tiger is somehow offended, I am sorry.

Wabco,

In my best impression of "The Duke", and displaying "True Grit", regarding offense: None Taken.

With the evolution of the NCAC and references on this board, I'm just happy "newtiger" would not be an applicable moniker for me.

[waf56]

Fair enough, I guess it was rather lazy of me to pick IWU over Hope simply due to their respective conferences.

That being said, in my experience the top of the CCIW has always been very tough, and like wise the MIAA has not been. To try and get a semi-accurate historical perspective here are the number of teams from each conference in the final top-25 for the past 5 years:

     

Of course, there was the time Albion a Stagg Bowl...

Well seeing as how I was toddling around in '94 and not caring to much about DIII football these statements are not incongruent

[wally_wabash]

Ahh .... but the question  really is:  Was the punctuation purposely left off to complete the effect?


Unmasked, the purpose was really - for fun - to draw a Wittster up to the surface.  It was meant in fun.  If the Old Tiger is somehow offended, I am sorry.

Wabco,

In my best impression of "The Duke", and displaying "True Grit", regarding offense: None Taken.

With the evolution of the NCAC and references on this board, I'm just happy "newtiger" would not be an applicable moniker for me.

More DePauw smack!  This is fantastic.  We've got people coming out of the woodwork to take shots at DPU this week.  Oberlin lurkers?  Anybody from Yeo country want to jump in here? 

[WittFan]

However, while on the subject (broad subject of Witt fan base), I understand from Butler University administrative people that Witt fans did not show well there.

Not gonna take the bait, except to point out that you forgot to mention the part where we whipped out that box of puppies and started punting them around like footballs.

[USee]

Fair enough, I guess it was rather lazy of me to pick IWU over Hope simply due to their respective conferences.

I think it's okay to include this as PART of your logic as long as you consider all of the relevant information.  I disagree with my friend wally, the conference atheist, in this regard.  I believe that we have so little information to go on about respective teams early in the season that considering the conference's recent history and a team's relative place in that conference is a useful piece of the puzzle, as long as you also consider the results of the individual team in that season.

For example, IWU is one of the better teams in the CCIW and Hope is one of the better teams in the MIAA, and the CCIW is generally a stronger conference than the MIAA so ipso facto IWU is better than Hope.

But now waitasecond.  Hope has played two CCIW teams this season (admittedly, two of the bottom-dwellars) and tossed up a 40-spot on both.  That may not tell us that Hope is better than the top of the CCIW, but it certainly does tell us that they shouldn't be dismissed just because they're from the MIAA and the CCIW always beats the MIAA.

This is a great post and I agree with it 100%. It really captures what I was trying to articulate. My analysis of that game is anything but lazy. I don't think Hope beating NPU and Millikin tells us anything. Just like NPU going 3-0 in non-conference games a couple of times over the past 10 years did not indicate they would win a conference game (they haven't since 2000). That is my point about Hope.  I have seen enough to know how good IWU is likely going to be (similar thing I think I said about Wabash after the Wheaton scrimmage) and I have seen the best Hope teams (and the worst) over the past 20+ years. I am pretty confident in the caliber of play Hope will have to bring to Bloomington Saturday to compete and I am highly suspect they are capable of it. If they do, it could be close but it will have to a Hope team better than anything I have seen in the past 10 years. Their 3-0 record doesn't tell me anything about whether they can or not.

It's also interesting to me, Wally, that when it comes to Wabash you say things like "next level defense" and "great defense beats good offense" but then you say "Hope has enough offense to keep this under the number"? By your definition, could that be characterized as "lazy analysis"?

[wally_wabash]

It's also interesting to me, Wally, that when it comes to Wabash you say things like "next level defense" and "great defense beats good offense" but then you say "Hope has enough offense to keep this under the number"? By your definition, could that be characterized as "lazy analysis"?

Hope isn't playing Wabash this week so I hadn't considered 1) a point spread on a Hope/Wabash game and 2) how well (or not well) Wabash could defend Hope. 

Great defense does beat great offense.  We see it over and over and over again in late November and December.  How many times do we have to see North Central, who has been annointed as the next great dynasty despite never having actually won anything, get into the second or third round of the playoffs with all of their offensive prowess and get stifled and shut down and turned over by a great defense and lose before we learn?  We're on three years in a row now.  Can we get four?  I think we can get four. 

As it pertains to Hope/IWU, when I say that Hope has enough offense to keep the final margin within two touchdowns, what I'm saying is that 1) I don't think IWU has a defense that can completely shut the Dutchmen down and 2) Hope's offense is good enough to get a score (or two) late in the game when IWU may have gone to the bench.  I'm thinking the final margin winds up around 10-ish.  Which happens to be pretty much how this game went down last year, so I'm not that crazy.