FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

Ice cold!  I'll go on record as saying that if we had more #3 in 2004, 6-4 never would have happened.  CC did not have a banner year in 2004...outthought himself quite a bit I think.  Especially on the couple of occasions when it was windy and we had no discernible offensive plan (games vs. Allegheny and DePauw come to mind). 

[ExTartanPlayer]

CC did not have a banner year in 2004...outthought himself quite a bit I think.

Very broadly speaking, this got me thinking a bit about just how difficult it is to be "right" all the time as a coach.  I went to a game at Division II Clarion University last year (my cousin's boyfriend was a senior on the team) and was amused to hear a parent behind me repeatedly yelling at the offensive coordinator to "turn the page" (suggesting that he was running the same play too much...in a game they eventually won by 39 points).  No doubt, if the coach had been more adventurous with the play-calling, you'd have heard grumbles that he wasn't sticking with what worked, or that they should have been running the ball more.

I recall two specific instances from my playing career where I felt certain play calls were in the "over-thinking" category, specifically goal-line situations where a pass was called and I'd have preferred a run (I always preferred a run!).  More specific details for anyone that cares to read them below...I know that it's off-NCAC-topic, but perhaps they'll be fun hypothetical "What Would You Call?" situations for discussion.

Week 3, 2007, CMU @ Hobart:

Hobart leads 27-20 as time winds down in the 4th quarter.  CMU scores with 1:32 remaining to pull within 27-26.  The touchdown capped an 11-play, 63-yard scoring drive with 11 rushing plays and 0 passes.  For the game, CMU had rushed the ball 60 times for 310 yards, while completing 2 of 8 passes for 17 yards.  CMU elects to go for two points and the win (or at least the lead)...and calls a pass play.  Incomplete.  Game over.

(Yes, I'm still bitter)

Week 6, 2007, Case Western @ CMU:

Late 3rd quarter.  CMU leads 17-10.  CMU, about to run their 12th play of the current drive (the first 11, again, all rushing plays), has the ball in a 3rd-and-goal situation at the Case 3-yard line.  With a seven-point lead, in a low-scoring game, I am going the conservative route every time here: give it to the fullback (who, it should be mentioned, was a senior that scored 59 rushing touchdowns in his career and fumbled just twice in nearly 1,000 rushing attempts), let him try to blast it in, if he fails, kick a FG and make it a two-possession game (at home, with a defense that has only allowed 10 points in the first three quarters of the game).

Pass play.  QB fumble.  Case eventually ties the game and wins 20-17 in overtime.

(Yes, I'm still bitter about this one, too)

Just some food for discussion to get us through the last few weeks of the offseason.  Point of all that being that, in both of those cases, I really thought the play call was a terrible case of overthinking...and yet, if it had worked, the coach would have been a genius for throwing something at the opposition that they would never expect.  In many cases, the outcome is how we evaluate a decision, rather than the process that led to the decision (Bill Barnwell has been beating this drum for awhile at Grantland).

It's fair to critique a coaches' decision-making, to be sure, but I do always keep in mind how hard it is for them to always get it right. 

[wally_wabash]

I know that it's off-NCAC-topic, but perhaps they'll be fun hypothetical "What Would You Call?" situations for discussion.

Ooh fun. I'll play.

Week 3, 2007, CMU @ Hobart:

Hobart leads 27-20 as time winds down in the 4th quarter.  CMU scores with 1:32 remaining to pull within 27-26.  The touchdown capped an 11-play, 63-yard scoring drive with 11 rushing plays and 0 passes.  For the game, CMU had rushed the ball 60 times for 310 yards, while completing 2 of 8 passes for 17 yards.  CMU elects to go for two points and the win (or at least the lead)...and calls a pass play.  Incomplete.  Game over.

(Yes, I'm still bitter)

I'd kick and go to OT.  OTs really favor teams that have red zone friendly offenses...like CMU's. If I don't get that option because it sort of cheats the hypothetical, then I would call a run play in that offense. Especially since it had worked so well for 63 yards. And because that's what your offense does. Why get beat with something other than your strength?

Week 6, 2007, Case Western @ CMU:

Late 3rd quarter.  CMU leads 17-10.  CMU, about to run their 12th play of the current drive (the first 11, again, all rushing plays), has the ball in a 3rd-and-goal situation at the Case 3-yard line.  With a seven-point lead, in a low-scoring game, I am going the conservative route every time here: give it to the fullback (who, it should be mentioned, was a senior that scored 59 rushing touchdowns in his career and fumbled just twice in nearly 1,000 rushing attempts), let him try to blast it in, if he fails, kick a FG and make it a two-possession game (at home, with a defense that has only allowed 10 points in the first three quarters of the game).

Pass play.  QB fumble.  Case eventually ties the game and wins 20-17 in overtime.

(Yes, I'm still bitter about this one, too)

Right there I'm definitely running and I'm probably running twice (if necessary) to score. Definitely over my left tackle. I'd gamble those three points for a chance at 7 or leaving Whalen with 95+ yards of field to go if we didn't get it in.

In both instances, I'm inclined to try and get paid off with points by running (pun intended) plays that my offense is designed to run. For CMU, that's option football.

I'm also wrong for probably two dozen reasons, which is why I'm a fan and not a coach.   

[AUPepBand]

Pep is going on vacation and plans to poke around southwestern Indiana for some early info on the late (and legendary) Alfred Coach Alex Yunevich, a native of the former coal-mining town of Bicknell who rose to stardom as a fullback at Purdue on the strength of scoring three rushing TDs against Michigan in 1929 which led the Boilermakers under Coach Jimmy Phelan (one of Knute Rockne's boys) to the Western Conference title.

Pep plans to start in Bicknell at the public library, then travel to West Lafayette to hopefully find some more info on his playing and coaching career (freshman team one year). A look at the map shows US 231 will take me through Greencastle and Crawfordsville, respective homes of DePauw's Tigers and Wabash's Little Giants. Pep enjoys visiting the stadia of other D3 schools, has seen a good number over the years, and is excited to add a couple more to his list.

NCAC posters: any suggestions on what Pep "must see" in his travels in Indiana?

On Saxon Warriors!

[ExTartanPlayer]

I'm also wrong for probably two dozen reasons, which is why I'm a fan and not a coach.   

In some ways, that's what I was trying to get at: as fans, we can sometimes see "big picture" stuff that coaches miss because they have SO much to think about during games  (I've joked for years that NFL coaches should have a 14-year-old kid that plays copious amounts of Madden standing next to them during any two-minute situation to tell them when to call timeout, having seen countless professional coaches botch the two-minute drill with poor clock management; misuse of challenge flags is another, though that is specific to the NFL), and it's easy for us to point out some of those things in hindsight.

There's admittedly a difference in big-picture, measured critique (like pointing out that the offensive game plan, overall, left something to be desired, or pointing out that a coach didn't appear to be properly motivating his players) versus criticism of isolated decisions (like a single play call, which I've presented here, or a botched timeout).  Still, there are times when the big-picture thing seems SO obvious (like calling a pass at the goal line after 11 straight successful rushing plays) that it's hard to arrive at any other conclusion than "Coach outsmarted himself a bit there."

[bashbrother]

Ice cold!  I'll go on record as saying that if we had more #3 in 2004, 6-4 never would have happened.  CC did not have a banner year in 2004...outthought himself quite a bit I think.  Especially on the couple of occasions when it was windy and we had no discernible offensive plan (games vs. Allegheny and DePauw come to mind).

True dat...  Trying to get him out here posting... 

[DPU3619]

In some ways, that's what I was trying to get at: as fans, we can sometimes see "big picture" stuff that coaches miss because they have SO much to think about during games  (I've joked for years that NFL coaches should have a 14-year-old kid that plays copious amounts of Madden standing next to them during any two-minute situation to tell them when to call timeout, having seen countless professional coaches botch the two-minute drill with poor clock management; misuse of challenge flags is another, though that is specific to the NFL), and it's easy for us to point out some of those things in hindsight.

There's admittedly a difference in big-picture, measured critique (like pointing out that the offensive game plan, overall, left something to be desired, or pointing out that a coach didn't appear to be properly motivating his players) versus criticism of isolated decisions (like a single play call, which I've presented here, or a botched timeout).  Still, there are times when the big-picture thing seems SO obvious (like calling a pass at the goal line after 11 straight successful rushing plays) that it's hard to arrive at any other conclusion than "Coach outsmarted himself a bit there."

I think the biggest issue in the 2 minute situation is thinking ahead to play calls. I can run the same dang play down the field all day on a video game. Can't do that in a real game. I need a 7 or 8 play series in less than 2 minutes that will be successful. That's probably all of my best downfield pass plays. I might call one or two plays more than one time in that series, but I'll probably want to do them from different formations, which is also dependent on which hash you're on. Lots of information to process in a very, very short period of time.

Also, the timeout thing can get way over complicated on the headset. "Let's run 2 more plays and call timeout," or "let's get to the 35 and call timeout" are the easy ways to do it, but it doesn't always happen that way. Honestly, having a different guy make the play calls than the guy who calls timeout can be a big problem. Guys argue. The clock is running. The OC wants the timeout. The HC says no. Or the OC is in the box calling plays and the ball is moving. Then the HC calls a timeout for some stupid reason. Totally disrupts the whole drive. I like to run my own drive and call my own plays. I'll call timeout. I know when to call timeout. I don't want a second opinion. I don't want other voices in my head second guessing me. If you get that, you're pretty lucky because everybody usually wants a say in how the 2 minuter goes.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Excellent points, Wes. You're right that one guy really has to be calling the shots in the 2 minute situation - the thing that especially resonates there is your hypothetical "offense is moving, let's keep it rolling, we'll run another play and THEN maybe call timeout" only for the HC to call one because he thinks you want it now.

[Joe Wally]

CC did not have a banner year in 2004...outthought himself quite a bit I think.

Very broadly speaking, this got me thinking a bit about just how difficult it is to be "right" all the time as a coach.  I went to a game at Division II Clarion University last year (my cousin's boyfriend was a senior on the team) and was amused to hear a parent behind me repeatedly yelling at the offensive coordinator to "turn the page" (suggesting that he was running the same play too much...in a game they eventually won by 39 points).  No doubt, if the coach had been more adventurous with the play-calling, you'd have heard grumbles that he wasn't sticking with what worked, or that they should have been running the ball more.

I recall two specific instances from my playing career where I felt certain play calls were in the "over-thinking" category, specifically goal-line situations where a pass was called and I'd have preferred a run (I always preferred a run!).  More specific details for anyone that cares to read them below...I know that it's off-NCAC-topic, but perhaps they'll be fun hypothetical "What Would You Call?" situations for discussion.

Week 3, 2007, CMU @ Hobart:

Hobart leads 27-20 as time winds down in the 4th quarter.  CMU scores with 1:32 remaining to pull within 27-26.  The touchdown capped an 11-play, 63-yard scoring drive with 11 rushing plays and 0 passes.  For the game, CMU had rushed the ball 60 times for 310 yards, while completing 2 of 8 passes for 17 yards.  CMU elects to go for two points and the win (or at least the lead)...and calls a pass play.  Incomplete.  Game over.

(Yes, I'm still bitter)

Week 6, 2007, Case Western @ CMU:

Late 3rd quarter.  CMU leads 17-10.  CMU, about to run their 12th play of the current drive (the first 11, again, all rushing plays), has the ball in a 3rd-and-goal situation at the Case 3-yard line.  With a seven-point lead, in a low-scoring game, I am going the conservative route every time here: give it to the fullback (who, it should be mentioned, was a senior that scored 59 rushing touchdowns in his career and fumbled just twice in nearly 1,000 rushing attempts), let him try to blast it in, if he fails, kick a FG and make it a two-possession game (at home, with a defense that has only allowed 10 points in the first three quarters of the game).

Pass play.  QB fumble.  Case eventually ties the game and wins 20-17 in overtime.

(Yes, I'm still bitter about this one, too)

Just some food for discussion to get us through the last few weeks of the offseason.  Point of all that being that, in both of those cases, I really thought the play call was a terrible case of overthinking...and yet, if it had worked, the coach would have been a genius for throwing something at the opposition that they would never expect.  In many cases, the outcome is how we evaluate a decision, rather than the process that led to the decision (Bill Barnwell has been beating this drum for awhile at Grantland).

It's fair to critique a coaches' decision-making, to be sure, but I do always keep in mind how hard it is for them to always get it right.

Your post reminds me of my freshmen year in Crawfordsville when we groused about the fact that Carlson's playbook appeared to have only three plays: Kaiser Right, Kaiser Left, and Kaiser up the middle.

[cave2bens]

Your post reminds me of my freshmen year in Crawfordsville when we groused about the fact that Carlson's playbook appeared to have only three plays: Kaiser Right, Kaiser Left, and Kaiser up the middle.

Or Urick's playbook - from Wabash 71, pages 118-9.   

1st and 10: Vandy picks up three... 2nd and 7: Garby grabs three more... three yards and a cloud of dust (Chuck Johnston)... measurement...  PUNT! ! !

3-0-1 after 4 games to 3-3-2 with Monon loss. Oooof.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Your post reminds me of my freshmen year in Crawfordsville when we groused about the fact that Carlson's playbook appeared to have only three plays: Kaiser Right, Kaiser Left, and Kaiser up the middle.

In play-calling, there's a happy medium somewhere between "being too repetitive" and "being too creative" that's hard to strike.

There's a reasonable school of thought suggesting that you should keep it in the hands of your best players as much as possible and if you get beat, at least you got beat because the other team was better than your best guys, not because you beat yourself.  In both cases that I mentioned, we took the ball out of the hands of our two best players (senior RB's that ranked #1 and #3 on our career rushing lists) and put it in the hands of a struggling underclassmen QB in an extremely high-leverage situation.  If Kaiser was the best player on the team and the line was a strength, even that seemingly-limited approach might have been the one yielding the best chance of victory.

The flip side, of course, is that if those "surprise" plays worked, Coach is a genius for dialing up something they never expected on the goal line.  So it's a very fine line.

Also, a specific note that I think most folks on here understand, but still worth pointing out: many fans a little lower on the football-IQ spectrum seem to think that every running play is the same play, not really understanding that if coach calls a few runs in a row and they all get stuffed, it's because they "ran the same play" three times in a row, missing the subtle differences in alignment & blocking scheme that are part of a coach trying to find the right soft spot in the defense.  I'm guessing most fans on here get that, but in the larger world of Internet commenters on ESPN, plenty don't get that.

[sigma one]

Joy Wally--and for the uninitiated:  in 1985 Bill Kaiser ran the ball 58X in a single game (and 47X in another game).  At the time the 58 carries was an NCAA record, since broken.  He also carried the ball 23 straight times (!) v. DePauw in a 28-8 Wabash win.  He totaled 335 carries that season for 1465 yards, and 3X rushed for 200+ yards in a game.
     Carlson rode that horse to a 7-2-1 record in '85.

[Li'l Giant]

I know it came up during the Top 25 discussion earlier as to which NCAC teams had been ranked in the D3football.com Poll Era. Another good way to kill time before the season starts would be to discuss (argue?) which season was each NCAC teams "best" during that same period.

For instance, I know 2012 OWU got votes and never cracked the Top 25 but that was (pretty easily) their best team in that period. Some will be harder than that (Wabash, Witt, Depauw come to mind as having more than 1 or 2 possible seasons to choose from)

[sigma one]

I'll play by dividing 2003 to the present into two posts.  This first one addresses the three W's.  I will be interested to see who else bites and other opinions, particularly from fans of the other teams.  OK, beginning in 2003-----------best season for each team---------

     WABASH:  2011, 12-1 record, with two playoff wins including the dramatic 29-28 upset of North Central in the second round  of the playoffs on a tipped and caught two-point conversion deep in the 4th quarter.   Loss to Mt Union, 20-8, in quarter finals.   (Runner-up:  11-1 in 2005; 14-11 loss to Capital on an interception in the end zone very late in the game.)
      WITTENBERG:  2009, 12-1 record, with loss to UW Whitewater.  Nine games with opponents scoring 7 or fewer points.  Beat Wabash 10-7.  (Runner-up:  While the 10-1 2010 season was a one-loss season--the loss in the first round of the playoffs, my money is on 2013, 9-0 in the NCAC, a 35-17 defeat of Wabash, a playoff win,     and a 10-2 result, scoring 45+ points in eight games.  The second loss was to Butler.)
      WOOSTER:  2004, 11-1, with Tony Sutton.  Beat Wabash 33-30 and Wittenberg 64-58.  Playoff win v. Aurora and loss in 2nd round v. Carthage.  Scored 49+ 5X.  (Runner-up:  there are two 8-2 seasons, '06 and '08.  I like '06 when the Scots lost to the other two W's in close games, and held five teams to 10 or fewer points.  The '08 team lost to Case Western Reserve and Wabash, but they beat Witt in the season final, 27-6.)

[sigma one]

The rest of the teams, 2003 through 2013.  Best season-------

     ALLEGHENY:  2009, 8-2, with losses to Wabash and Wittenberg.  5-2 in the NCAC.

     DENISON: 2013, 7-3, with a superior offense.

      DEPAUW:  I'm looking at the SCAC and NCAC seasons.  My choice is 2010, 9-2, with a playoff loss to Trine, 45-35, after a rocky first half.  There are three seasons of 8-2 and one of 7-2 (the game v. Trinity cancelled).  Of these as runner-up, I like 2008, with a 36-14 win v. Wabash, and losses to Millsaps and Trinity. 

      HIRAM:  2008, 3-7, 2-0 to start the season.  Scored 40+ twice.

      KENYON:  Two 6-4 seasons, in my view 2005 the better of these.  That year the Lords won their final three games, all 3-pt victories, and won the six games by a total of 20 points.  Runner-up, 2012 after an 0-2 start.

      OBERLIN:  Three 5-5 seasons, and 4-6 in 2012 with a huge upset of Wabash on the road.  That 2012 season is tempting, but I'm going with 2007 when the Yoemen were 5-2 in the conference. 

       OHIO WESLEYAN:  Has to be 2012, at 9-1.  The loss was a shutout by Wabash, and they did not play Wittenberg, but nine wins is by far their best since 2003.  (Runner-up:  7-3 in '05.)

Anyone else?