FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[nike]

What was Partridge injury?

[HCAlum86]

What was Partridge injury?

Broken foot

[wally_wabash]

While I'm at it, I might as well put together my mid-season predictions:
1. Wabash (10-0)
2. Witt (8-2)
3. Denison (8-2)
4. OWU (7-3)
5. Kenyon (6-4)
6. Wooster (5-5)
7. Hiram (4-6)
8. Depauw (2-8)
9. Oberlin (1-9)
10. Allegheny (1-9)

And who thinks Witt gets in the post-season at 8-2?

I don't think so, but it isn't impossible.  The Butler game shouldn't count against them at all per the criteria, but I have a hard time thinking that in the regional rankings Wittenberg won't be shuffled to the back of a group of teams that include the loser of the North Central/Wheaton game and the winner of the JCU/Heidelberg game in large part because of the Butler result.  To get invited to the playoffs, you really, really have to be at the top of the at-large list in your region. 

[jknezek]

Just for fun I flipped through W&L's archives for games against current NCAC teams. What I found was not real interesting if you are a W&L fan. Lots of blowouts, but it should make you guys chuckle a bit.

Wabash (0-2)    
Nov. 3, 1956    Wabash                    L    0    34
Nov. 2, 1957    Lexington    L    13    34

Wittenberg (0 - 2)                   
Oct. 26, 1957    Lexington    L    26    61
Nov. 22, 1958    Wittenberg    L    0    51

Denison (0-4)    
Nov. 11, 1972    Lexington    L    22    52
Nov. 10, 1973    Denison                    L    29    49
Nov. 9, 1974    Lexington    L    6    35
Nov. 8, 1975    Denison                    L    0    35

Oberlin (2 - 0)    
Oct. 5, 1963    Lexington    W    29    13
Oct. 3, 1964    Oberlin                    W    21    0

Allegheny (1-1)    
Oct. 16, 1897                              W    30    0
Nov. 15, 1986    Allegheny    L    0    34


W&L's 1897 schedule included games against Allegheny, Centre, Columbia, George Washington, and West Virginia. The records from pre-1900 are very hit or miss depending on what student newspapers were preserved and what information was in them. When I was a student at W&L I was part of the group that did some of the archiving. Wasn't a lot of fun, but it's neat to see that information is posted in the series record section of W&L's website.

Just for some historical context, the 1956-1958 (Wabash and Witt) seasons were not stellar years for W&L football. The Generals posted 2 wins in those three seasons, going a combined 2-22. The Denison years were similarly bad, as W&L went a combined 7-29-2 over those 4 years.
   
   
   
   

[ExTartanPlayer]

While I'm at it, I might as well put together my mid-season predictions:
1. Wabash (10-0)
2. Witt (8-2)
3. Denison (8-2)
4. OWU (7-3)
5. Kenyon (6-4)
6. Wooster (5-5)
7. Hiram (4-6)
8. Depauw (2-8)
9. Oberlin (1-9)
10. Allegheny (1-9)

And who thinks Witt gets in the post-season at 8-2?

I don't think so, but it isn't impossible.  The Butler game shouldn't count against them at all per the criteria, but I have a hard time thinking that in the regional rankings Wittenberg won't be shuffled to the back of a group of teams that include the loser of the North Central/Wheaton game and the winner of the JCU/Heidelberg game in large part because of the Butler result.  To get invited to the playoffs, you really, really have to be at the top of the at-large list in your region.

Agreed.  Pool B is going to be insane this year (which I'm fine with - the regular season has to count for something, after all).  Barring any major upsets, the NCAC runnerup (Witt/Wabash), OAC runnerup (JCU/Berg or maybe even UMU if one of the aforementioned can knock off the Purple), and CCIW runnerup (NCC/Wheaton/IWU) all will be strong candidates but there's no way all three are getting in.  As wally alluded in the preseason, the Witt-Butler game now hurts not because of the loss per se, but because it was a lost opportunity to notch a quality win that would have counted in the criteria.

[ExTartanPlayer]

xtp

I think you meant Pool C

Correct.  My bad.

[wally_wabash]

While I'm at it, I might as well put together my mid-season predictions:
1. Wabash (10-0)
2. Witt (8-2)
3. Denison (8-2)
4. OWU (7-3)
5. Kenyon (6-4)
6. Wooster (5-5)
7. Hiram (4-6)
8. Depauw (2-8)
9. Oberlin (1-9)
10. Allegheny (1-9)

And who thinks Witt gets in the post-season at 8-2?

I don't think so, but it isn't impossible.  The Butler game shouldn't count against them at all per the criteria, but I have a hard time thinking that in the regional rankings Wittenberg won't be shuffled to the back of a group of teams that include the loser of the North Central/Wheaton game and the winner of the JCU/Heidelberg game in large part because of the Butler result.  To get invited to the playoffs, you really, really have to be at the top of the at-large list in your region.

Agreed.  Pool B is going to be insane this year (which I'm fine with - the regular season has to count for something, after all).  Barring any major upsets, the NCAC runnerup (Witt/Wabash), OAC runnerup (JCU/Berg or maybe even UMU if one of the aforementioned can knock off the Purple), and CCIW runnerup (NCC/Wheaton/IWU) all will be strong candidates but there's no way all three are getting in.  As wally alluded in the preseason, the Witt-Butler game now hurts not because of the loss per se, but because it was a lost opportunity to notch a quality win that would have counted in the criteria.

Great point and very valid.  The angle I was taking above though was that the result of that Butler game altered the perception of what we thought Wittenberg was going to be this year.  It happened with our North region poll (started 3rd) and it's happened in the national polling as well (started in the top 10).  Probably not a stretch to think that a RAC might see Wittenberg differently relative to the rest of the region due in large part to the wipeout at Butler.  It KILLS Witt that Franklin hung around with that same team.  It's that point of comparison that really makes you rethink Wittenberg's place amongst the North region's teams, even if that result doesn't play into the objective criteria. 

[smedindy]

Wabash - STATUS QUO?

The only correction ...Wabash is quite a bit better in 2013.

But from where the program is regarded, it's regarded the same as it was nationally and in terms of the NCAC. Unlike Hiram and Kenyon, who were laughingstocks and are now getting a little respect and are no longer 'show up and lose' programs.

[smedindy]

Has the NCAC improved? Let's do a litmus test against what was the status quo a few years ago:

Allegheny - DOWN, SWIRLING
Denison - UP
DePauw - DOWN, REBUILDING
Hiram - UP
Kenyon - UP
Oberlin - DOWN, REBUILDING (They've been a bit chaotic this year - but the win over CWRU says they're not totally down and out)
OWU - UP
Wabash - STATUS QUO
Wittenberg - STATUS QUO
Wooster - DOWN, REBUILDING

All in all, despite the downgrade of the conference in the rankings, I think most programs are improved from where they were a few years ago.

I count four downs and four ups.

That word "most" that you keep using?  I do not think it means what you think it means.

I kid, but seriously...not to repeat myself...but it seems like the gains of Denison, Hiram, Kenyon, and OWU are offset by the decline of Allegheny, Wooster, and DePauw, IMO.  Oberlin is almost a separate issue because of the numbers problem.  But for "most" programs to have improved, that would have to be more than 4 of the 10, right?  Now, perhaps I'm willing to hear an argument that Wabash and Witt might even be better than before and thus maybe 6 of the 10 have improved...

It was degrees of down and up. Only one team tanking, and the down teams are course correcting instead of free falling, while the UP teams are still on a good path. Should have clarified.

[wabco]

Ex Tartan and Roatag

A few thoughts which might be helpful or not. 
1) The approach of Admissions (as set by the college) plays a big part in Div III recruiting. 
2) The NCAA regs (as I understand it) in financial aid funds permit a 4% variance on the outside for athletes verses population as a whole. So cost is always a factor.  (This restriction does not apply to merit aid as I understand it ... so recruiting smart athletes who also qualify for the college merit aid is always a good thing for both the team and the college.)
3) There is a natural tension that exists in meeting college criteria, NCAA criteria and also getting perceived "good" guys who are being chased by a number of schools not restrained as your college might be. 
4) Then there is the academic criteria the college places on itself in finding its students ... I would assume it should be the same for all applicants (although I have heard that sometimes some schools look the other way" on this for certain athletes. 
5) Then there is the process issue of Admissions and Athletics offices working together and coordinating in achieving the success of both.  (In Div III, I believe successful athletics help in recruiting not only student varsity athletes to the school but also students who do not plan to be a part of the varsity athletic aspect.)
6) There is the overall restriction of limited funds, as institutions become challenged in that area, which impacts all the well laid athletic department recruitment plans.  (Some schools are better run and planned and deal with this before it becomes chronic.  But ... many schools do not deal with it until it is smacking them in the face ... costs too high, not enough in donations, tuition rising ... less students applying, etc. etc. etc. Some schools react by laying off professors and cutting operations budgets ... even in the NCAC ... check it out).
7) In the short term, some schools with challenges to their economies, can lose sight of the longer and greater value of successful athletics as a part of the overall success of the school. 

I know at Wabash, we have been careful in this area to recognize the value of good athletics and good support by Admissions and Administration and by the Athletic Department back... all as a part of the team.  Athletics affects student life, traditions, alumni happiness and support, and funds to the school ... in tandem with excellent academics, good administration with vision and planning, and an overall awareness in a strategic plan of who we are, what we want to achieve, and willingness to stay the course to achieve long range success as well as short range success.  It has gotten much more complex than just a coach or an athletic director or even a college president to "get this right".  I personally wish all our institutions the greatest success in tackling this complicated puzzle and in not going the way of one pressure group or another ... but analyzing the best route and staying the course which is best for them.  With that said .... WAF ... and guys ... give to the annual fund.

[wabco]

I forgot also to add ... help your college and Admissions and Athletics find and land golod students by recommending them and by following up as Admissions/coaches may ask.

[Rotag]

Appreciate both of your views, and admit that my opinions are drawn from gut feelings as much as empirical observations, but consider the following:

1)    "5-5 is no good."  Perhaps, but in the context of a 25 year run, those were the down years (with 1 exception).  From 1990 – 1999, the Gators had a 93-16 record, the NC and 6 playoff appearances.  OK, glory years gone by, history.  From 2000-2009, they were 56-45, with 1 playoff appearance and five 5-5 seasons.  But their non-league schedule for the first six of those years included games against Mount Union (2), Baldwin-Wallace (4),  W&J (6), Westminster (5) in addition to Wabash and Wittenberg (3-7 against each for the decade).  Which means, for the most part, they didn't lose a whole lot of games to NCAC foes other than the big 2 (and even won a few against each of them).  That is a competitive program, and if they slipped to 5-5 half the time it was because they dared to play up in their non-league schedule.  And they generally played tough in their losses to the good teams.  I will say that those 5-5 seasons are qualitatively different than the recent 5-5 seasons, but that only underscores my point.  We stopped playing top tier non-conference teams around 2008, which I believe to be the time that football moved back in the list of priorities for the school.  (Yes, I know, the AD got here last year, I've already acknowledged she didn't start this process). 

2)   I do not know enough about the kids to comment on poor work ethic suggestions, nor did I have any information about the work ethic of the kids on the good teams.  I do know that coaches look for work ethic as part of the recruitment process.  MM is the same guy who won the league and went to the playoffs in 2003; I have to believe that on his own he would look for the same kind of characteristics in his recruits.  If he is not, it is for reasons beyond his control.  Absolutely, I am drawing an inference from these facts, though I would not agree that it constitutes a blind accusation.  The decline in our overall level of success, the decline in the quality of our non-league competition, the decline of our competitiveness within the conference, blowout losses on our home field in what very well could be a winless season; all of it, given the constant of a head coach who has been there for 12 years, leads me to this conclusion.  I could be wrong, but I also haven't heard another plausible explanation.

3)   MM- see above

4)   I believe the administration is not – and has not been for several years - supportive of the football recruitment efforts as many, if not most, of the other NCAC schools are.  We would not be the first school to de-emphasize football; some schools have actually done away with their programs (Swarthmore, Hofstra).  I'm not sure that Allegheny is ready to drop football, but it seems that neither are they ready to commit to being competitive.   

Yes, the pain of this season has got my dander up.  It's a great school with great people and I've always been proud of both the school and its football heritage.  And I do send  money.  I would give an arm to see them beat Oberlin this Saturday (well, maybe not literally but you get the point).  And maybe there are some Freshmen and Sophomores there who will get some experience and lift the program.  But watching them this year is traumatic, as I'm sure it is to everyone associated with the team, if not totally unexpected.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Appreciate both of your views, and admit that my opinions are drawn from gut feelings as much as empirical observations, but consider the following:

1)    "5-5 is no good."  Perhaps, but in the context of a 25 year run, those were the down years (with 1 exception).  From 1990 – 1999, the Gators had a 93-16 record, the NC and 6 playoff appearances.  OK, glory years gone by, history.  From 2000-2009, they were 56-45, with 1 playoff appearance and five 5-5 seasons.  But their non-league schedule for the first six of those years included games against Mount Union (2), Baldwin-Wallace (4),  W&J (6), Westminster (5) in addition to Wabash and Wittenberg (3-7 against each for the decade).  Which means, for the most part, they didn't lose a whole lot of games to NCAC foes other than the big 2 (and even won a few against each of them).  That is a competitive program, and if they slipped to 5-5 half the time it was because they dared to play up in their non-league schedule.  And they generally played tough in their losses to the good teams.  I will say that those 5-5 seasons are qualitatively different than the recent 5-5 seasons, but that only underscores my point.  We stopped playing top tier non-conference teams around 2008, which I believe to be the time that football moved back in the list of priorities for the school.  (Yes, I know, the AD got here last year, I've already acknowledged she didn't start this process). 

2)   I do not know enough about the kids to comment on poor work ethic suggestions, nor did I have any information about the work ethic of the kids on the good teams.  I do know that coaches look for work ethic as part of the recruitment process.  MM is the same guy who won the league and went to the playoffs in 2003; I have to believe that on his own he would look for the same kind of characteristics in his recruits.  If he is not, it is for reasons beyond his control.  Absolutely, I am drawing an inference from these facts, though I would not agree that it constitutes a blind accusation.  The decline in our overall level of success, the decline in the quality of our non-league competition, the decline of our competitiveness within the conference, blowout losses on our home field in what very well could be a winless season; all of it, given the constant of a head coach who has been there for 12 years, leads me to this conclusion.  I could be wrong, but I also haven't heard another plausible explanation.

3)   MM- see above

4)   I believe the administration is not – and has not been for several years - supportive of the football recruitment efforts as many, if not most, of the other NCAC schools are.  We would not be the first school to de-emphasize football; some schools have actually done away with their programs (Swarthmore, Hofstra).  I'm not sure that Allegheny is ready to drop football, but it seems that neither are they ready to commit to being competitive.   

Yes, the pain of this season has got my dander up.  It's a great school with great people and I've always been proud of both the school and its football heritage.  And I do send  money.  I would give an arm to see them beat Oberlin this Saturday (well, maybe not literally but you get the point).  And maybe there are some Freshmen and Sophomores there who will get some experience and lift the program.  But watching them this year is traumatic, as I'm sure it is to everyone associated with the team, if not totally unexpected.

Excellent, well-reasoned reply.  wabco, kudos also to you for explaining how you feel the administration can influence a college's football/athletic fortunes. 

Rotag, the reason I initially used the term 'blind accusation' is that you implied that the administration/AD (which you have since backed off on) are somehow responsible for this season's atrocity without any specifics to back that up.  I know this is just my opinion, but I don't like the "well it's not Matlak because he's generally been a good coach, and it's not the kids because Mark Matlak has always recruited good kids that work hard, so it must be the administration's fault" train of thought.  It just strikes me as a bit of a lazy excuse that tries to shift blame away from the coaching staff and the players.  As I said before, Matlak wouldn't be the first good coach who stopped getting through to his kids for some reason.  I do thank you for the points raised in #4, specifying that you believe that the administration has not been supportive of football recruiting over the years; now we're getting away from the aforementioned 'blind accusation' and talking actual THINGS that the administration may have done that would influence the program.

I also do want to keep in mind that someone has to come in last place every year.  I have previously argued that people tend to underappreciate the overall quality of play and recognize that even 2-8 and 3-7 teams have some very good players; it's not easy to win games every Saturday, every year.  What's especially jarring about Allegheny's decline this year, as we have said several times, is their utter incompetence in every phase of the game.  They aren't losing competitive ballgames (or weren't, until this past week); they have gotten completely handled by teams that are often near the bottom of the league (Hiram, Kenyon) and against the two best teams they've played, it was over by the end of the first quarter.  In the one game I saw them live, they really just didn't have any kids that stood out as particularly good-looking D3 football players.  I don't necessarily think Matlak has suddenly lost his coaching ability; frankly, I just don't think the team has much talent, and that comes back to our recruiting discussion.

Also, I just figured out that Rotag is Gator backwards.  Maybe I should get my head checked...too many collisions in the trenches.

[sigma one]

     I'm trying to be analytical here, Rotag, and as fair/impartial as I can be.  Please excuse any small errors that do not detract from the overall pricture.  When I looked at potential returning starters on offense still on the roster (if the roster is up to date) some are not playing much, if at all.  So, what to conclude:  perhaps they were beaten out for the starting job; maybe they are injured.  I'm counting offense players like last year's contributors during the Wabash game--remember Allegheny won.  Most noticeable to me are Emigh, a very fine player, and several others at skill positions. I have counted as many as nine offensive starters expected to return.  Several are not evident.   On defense, the picture was expected to be different with only 4/5/6 starters expected back.  Obviously, they have not been adequately replaced. 
   
     Taking a different approach,  I looked at this year's Allegheny coaching staff.  I've heard that two good recruiters left recently.  It's the job of the head coach and administration working together (has that disappeared, and if we think so, why/how) to replace those people.  I know that's hard, but that's the way it has to be looked at. 
     Anyway, Allegheny lists 10 coaches.  It apppears that as many as nine of them may be full time (hard to tell).  In addition to the HC, now in his 12th year, other coaches have been at Allegheny for 9 (and in his 3rd as OC), 6, 4, 2 years.  Another was a highly successful coach at Meadville who has returned for his 3rd time around.  Four coaches are new, including one who is listed as  recruiting coordinator and who played a Allegheny a decade ago. All four have coaching experience elsewhere at the collegiate level..  You might say that this is a big number of new coaches; Maybe it is.  Does that have something to do with the record this year?  Don't know, likely not.  Most programs have turnover among young coaches, although it's obvious that the more coaches who have been with the HC for a long time have the advantage.   I'm not saying this is coaches' fault.  But when you examine something hoping to improve it, you examine all its parts.
     To sum up:  Not assertions.  But Questions.   Is there really a problem between the administration, including Admissions, and the football team, or for that matter the entire Athletic Department?  And if there is, does it show up in other teams' athletic records, or will it soon show?  I've never been an advocate of the they're only "out to get football" theory. . . . (Sadly, years ago, I did know a college president who was.)   In addition to significant losses on defense, what has happened to players whose names appear as returning on offense?  Is there a major injury problem--and if so, it appears that there is not enough depth to fill in adequately. Are the players discouraged because of . . .take your pick--or is this just a group of players who aren't enough invested?  Are the new coaches not yet up to speed?  Were they good hires?  There is still a significant core of coaches with Allegheny experience.  And then, have the HC and the assistants for some reason lost their control? That's a question to which the answer might be an emphatic No, but it's a question to ask.
   Team culture, spirit, morale, coaching know how go a long way.  They matter, but they matter less if the talent is absent.  Let's hope this is one of those terrible years.  Last thought:  it's not as though Allegheny won the NCAC last year.  The program has been average, but occasionally dangerous for years (yes, with a couple of above-average seasons but no sustained power).  Memory, and particularly the memory of fans who recall the lost past, plays tricks.  From average to what Allegheny is this year is not so big a drop.  Neither is improvement back to average.  Getting to the top is far more difficult.         

[AlleghenyAlum]

Appreciate both of your views, and admit that my opinions are drawn from gut feelings as much as empirical observations, but consider the following:

1)    "5-5 is no good."  Perhaps, but in the context of a 25 year run, those were the down years (with 1 exception).  From 1990 – 1999, the Gators had a 93-16 record, the NC and 6 playoff appearances.  OK, glory years gone by, history.  From 2000-2009, they were 56-45, with 1 playoff appearance and five 5-5 seasons.  But their non-league schedule for the first six of those years included games against Mount Union (2), Baldwin-Wallace (4),  W&J (6), Westminster (5) in addition to Wabash and Wittenberg (3-7 against each for the decade).  Which means, for the most part, they didn't lose a whole lot of games to NCAC foes other than the big 2 (and even won a few against each of them).  That is a competitive program, and if they slipped to 5-5 half the time it was because they dared to play up in their non-league schedule.  And they generally played tough in their losses to the good teams.  I will say that those 5-5 seasons are qualitatively different than the recent 5-5 seasons, but that only underscores my point.  We stopped playing top tier non-conference teams around 2008, which I believe to be the time that football moved back in the list of priorities for the school.  (Yes, I know, the AD got here last year, I've already acknowledged she didn't start this process). 

2)   I do not know enough about the kids to comment on poor work ethic suggestions, nor did I have any information about the work ethic of the kids on the good teams.  I do know that coaches look for work ethic as part of the recruitment process.  MM is the same guy who won the league and went to the playoffs in 2003; I have to believe that on his own he would look for the same kind of characteristics in his recruits.  If he is not, it is for reasons beyond his control.  Absolutely, I am drawing an inference from these facts, though I would not agree that it constitutes a blind accusation.  The decline in our overall level of success, the decline in the quality of our non-league competition, the decline of our competitiveness within the conference, blowout losses on our home field in what very well could be a winless season; all of it, given the constant of a head coach who has been there for 12 years, leads me to this conclusion.  I could be wrong, but I also haven't heard another plausible explanation.

3)   MM- see above

4)   I believe the administration is not – and has not been for several years - supportive of the football recruitment efforts as many, if not most, of the other NCAC schools are.  We would not be the first school to de-emphasize football; some schools have actually done away with their programs (Swarthmore, Hofstra).  I'm not sure that Allegheny is ready to drop football, but it seems that neither are they ready to commit to being competitive.   

Yes, the pain of this season has got my dander up.  It's a great school with great people and I've always been proud of both the school and its football heritage.  And I do send  money.  I would give an arm to see them beat Oberlin this Saturday (well, maybe not literally but you get the point).  And maybe there are some Freshmen and Sophomores there who will get some experience and lift the program.  But watching them this year is traumatic, as I'm sure it is to everyone associated with the team, if not totally unexpected.

Alright, I think it's time I say it.  Let's stop trying to dig, it's one year out of all of these years.  I truly don't care if Allegheny never wins another football game Mark Matlak changed more lives than anyone on that campus. He puts kids in the right direction and ensures that they stay on the right path, to not only stay out of trouble, but graduate on time ( not that it's a feat for most, but for some that I saw graduate it certainly was). 

And BTW sigma- your boy Emigh is playing again and to the others saying there isn't much talent, I would say I agree, but the Nichlaus kid is pretty good.

Also just a note, I don't know why anyone thinks Allegheny would drop football? Did I miss a huge bomb?