FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

Some unhappy folks in Wooster this week.
Should senior players, even All Conference performers, no less, be put on the bench as the season winds down when said season doesn't go as planned, so that underclassmen can get game time experience in preparation for next season?

Mike Hollway rocked this plan  for most of the 2000s at OWU.  I'll let you sift through the results to see if this was a good idea. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Some unhappy folks in Wooster this week.
Should senior players, even All Conference performers, no less, be put on the bench as the season winds down when said season doesn't go as planned, so that underclassmen can get game time experience in preparation for next season?

An absolute joke; a grab by a desperate coach to retain young players. What it really does is divide the locker room and cause underclassmen to question whether their coach will have their back down the road.

Similar situations at Hiram in the past

I agree with this...about 85 percent.  I do think there are times when it is justified to insert a promising young player into the lineup over an underperforming upperclassman, if the upperclassman has been a sourpuss and/or if that promising young player has genuinely earned that chance.

I don't think most coaches take a one-size-fits-all philosophy here.  I was part of three seasons in which the team stood at 4-4 with two regular-season games to play.  In two of those years, the coaches did put several senior players on the bench toward the end of the season (although some of them brought it upon themselves with sour attitudes and less-than-stellar work ethic).  In one of them, the coaches kept playing all of the (healthy) starters from the very beginning of the season because all of the upperclassmen had solid attitudes and had earned the right to play out their final games.

If a coach is determined to get a promising young player some game reps, but truly likes and respects the senior player, I think the most diplomatic way to do this is allowing the senior to retain the starting position, but working the young players in for a few series in the second and third quarter.  How the game goes can dictate the choice in the 4th quarter.

[HCAlum86]

Mike Hollway rocked this plan  for most of the 2000s at OWU.  I'll let you sift through the results to see if this was a good idea.

And boom goes the proverbial dynamite

[HCAlum86]

Some unhappy folks in Wooster this week.
Should senior players, even All Conference performers, no less, be put on the bench as the season winds down when said season doesn't go as planned, so that underclassmen can get game time experience in preparation for next season?

An absolute joke; a grab by a desperate coach to retain young players. What it really does is divide the locker room and cause underclassmen to question whether their coach will have their back down the road.

Similar situations at Hiram in the past

I agree with this...about 85 percent.  I do think there are times when it is justified to insert a promising young player into the lineup over an underperforming upperclassman, if the upperclassman has been a sourpuss and/or if that promising young player has genuinely earned that chance.

I don't think most coaches take a one-size-fits-all philosophy here.  I was part of three seasons in which the team stood at 4-4 with two regular-season games to play.  In two of those years, the coaches did put several senior players on the bench toward the end of the season (although some of them brought it upon themselves with sour attitudes and less-than-stellar work ethic).  In one of them, the coaches kept playing all of the (healthy) starters from the very beginning of the season because all of the upperclassmen had solid attitudes and had earned the right to play out their final games.

If a coach is determined to get a promising young player some game reps, but truly likes and respects the senior player, I think the most diplomatic way to do this is allowing the senior to retain the starting position, but working the young players in for a few series in the second and third quarter.  How the game goes can dictate the choice in the 4th quarter.

Agreed, there is a difference between trying to pacify your restless underclassmen and sitting an underperforming senior.

This is America, after all. Capitalism, I say! Onward!

[formerd3db]

HCAlum and ETP:

Excellent comments and +k.  I have always agreed with that philosophy also i.e. of going with the upperclassman unless there are extremely extenuating circumstances as you both have outlined (in other words, to use today's terminology..."you don't throw the upperclassmen under the bus").  Thanks for the interesting, but relevant discussion because it is a situation that will always be present.

[wabashcpa]

I think if the player has busted his butt for 4 years and deserves to play he should play - the newbies will have their time.  This is assuming talent level isn't markedly different.

[USee]

A coaches viewpoint on this issue may very well be "If I am going to lose I would rather do so with younger players than seniors". If you are trying to transform a culture from losing to winning you have to balance this line. Respect for the seniors who paid their dues but playing time for the future stars is invaluable. I have seen examples of this being done poorly and well in different programs.

[smedindy]

You can do both. Sometimes I think the seniors who aren't 'their guys' get shafted sometimes but again, if the young kids have talent over the seniors they should play.

Good character kids will accept their roles. Good character coaches will talk to the seniors and explain it well - and probably should do that at the beginning of the year and not Week 8.

[nike]

Will be watching the Scots closely these last couple games. Coach has to be careful not to disrespect players that busted their tails for him. Winning and winning now is still the goal. Don't see how you sit an All Conference performer that gives you the best chance to win now.  Next year is not this year.

[HCAlum86]

Wooster's coach is not exactly a walking advertisement for class, let's call a spade a spade.

[wallyworld12]

Anyone staying in Springfield tomorrow night up to meet for dinner?

[BashDad]

"With a victory Saturday, Wittenberg would have its first three-game winning streak against Wabash since the Little Giants joined the NCAC in 2000."

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/sports/college-football/wittenbergs-victory-over-wabash-in-2009-paved-way-/nh2CD/

Um...

[wally_wabash]

When I broke this game down last year, essentially what I boiled the thing down to was trends- who would break trends.  The teams were fairly even, one with an edge here and there, the other with an edge here and there; the net result was two pretty even teams with one glaring difference: Wittenberg had a negative turnover ratio, Wabash had the best turnover ratio in the nation.  The trend was broken (Wabash forced zero turnovers while committing one of their own), Wittenberg won the game handily.  That wasn't the only trend that was broken.  Wabash had enjoyed incredible field position all season.  The luxury of short fields and a defense that often just scored their own points led to a slightly deceptive scoring "offense" rank for Wabash- one that didn't quite jive with the offensive yardage numbers that 2013 Wabash put up.  Those points by the defense disguised an offense that was, at times, inefficient.  Wabash wasn't great on third down last year.  Wabash didn't sustain a lot of long drives last year.  Cam Sobleski, in all of his steel-toed greatness, got way too much playing time.  And in all honesty, there were some red flags and we ignored them...and they all came home to roost in Game 9. 

So here we are in 2014.  What's different?  Wittenberg has a new offensive coordinator that has been allergic to the run game (very un-Witt really).  They have a new quarterback and new WRs, all of whom are having very good seasons- none of whom are Reed Florence or Brandon Cunningham, however.  I'm sure the scheme is a little different, but these Tigers remind me a lot of the 2011 Tigers that were content to let Zoeller throw mid-to-deep passes to McKee and Cunningham all day long.  That approach got them torched by an aggressive Wabash defense.  And it will again on Saturday if that's how they play it.  Witt will have to find a running game that hasn't been there all year to keep pressure off of Jenkins.  Sean Gary emerged as a beast last year in Crawfordsville- he'll need to do the same on Saturday to provide necessary balance for Wittenberg's offense. 

In 2013, Wittenberg dominated the LOS- both sides.  They blocked Wabash's front well, kept Florence clean, gave Sean Gary room to run.  On the other side Wabash's OL didn't block well enough to get into their zone running stuff.  I know last year we lamented about being so far down the depth chart at RB for this game, but if we're being honest I don't know how much better Wabash would have done with Holmes or Zurek carrying the ball; nothing was blocked well.  Both lines for Wabash will have to be better this time around. 

I really like what Wabash has been doing offensively in the last month.  I think the play calling has really gotten in phase with Putko's strengths (part of why we've seen him take off a little bit here in the last month).  The offense hasn't been hurting itself with penalties (much...two holds took two scores off the board last week and may have been a good thing to have happened right before this game), and this unit is killing people with long, sustained drives...the damage coming from running and passing (as soon as you over-commit to the LOS- boom.  There's Drake Christen burning your safety.).  The warts that were there last year, are by and large gone.  Wabash's offensive yardage production is more in line with the points they've scored.  I wish the Little Giants were a little better on third down, but now I'm just getting greedy.  For as much as we sometimes nitpick this offense, they've really been very good this year. 

Oh- one more thing here...Connor Rice.  I like how Rice has been worked into games over the last month.  He's gotten a lot of confidence and he can do some really wicked stuff (see that 2nd Quarter TD pass to Hodges two weeks ago).  He might be a fun little wrinkle to toss in there in certain situations- not unlike how Witt used Reed Florence in 2011. 

So let's get to the getting here.  Wittenberg is +2 turnovers per game on the season.  IF they get +2 on Saturday, they are in business.  But that turnover stat is tricky...one game can really skew that thing in a way that other stats with larger absolute numbers just don't get skewed.  Even 8 games in, that's the stat that can be misleading if you look at it on a per game basis.  Wittenberg was +6 in turnovers in one game this year.  +5 in another.  +4 in another.  And in their other five games they are +1 total.  It's easy to be scared off by that TO margin stat, but it can be very misleading.  I am in no way saying that it isn't real- it is very real.  Witt's defense can take the ball away from anybody, Wabash included.  But we shouldn't look at this game thinking Wabash is going to have to dig themselves out of a two turnover hole.   It doesn't work that way.  It might play out that way, but that's not a given.   Wabash gives the ball away less frequently than anybody in the league (although there have been some fumble issues in the last few weeks). 

That's a lot of rambling.  I'll get to the point.  I think Wabash has the experience edge (BashDad's post about quarterback experience in this game was money) that they didn't have last year.  I think that matters a lot.  Holmes are Zurek are ready to go and that's a big deal this weekend.  But the bigger deal is the line play- Wabash can't get beat up at the LOS like they did last year.  And I don't think they will.  But they're going to have to fight for it.  There's some really good players on the other side of the ball. 

I think Wittenberg can't just have Jenkins sit back and throw all day.  Sean Gary has to find whatever it is that he had last year and be that dude again.  Wittenberg's offensive line has to play as well as they did a year ago.  Wabash can't let Culvahouse beat up their secondary like Cunningham did last year.  And Wabash can't try to literally beat up Culvahouse if he gets loose once or twice (POISE, gentlemen). 

My call- I really believe Wabash is locked in for this week.  I don't see Wabash getting pushed around like they did last year.  Little Giants 28, Wittenberg 10. 

[wally_wabash]

"With a victory Saturday, Wittenberg would have its first three-game winning streak against Wabash since the Little Giants joined the NCAC in 2000."

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/sports/college-football/wittenbergs-victory-over-wabash-in-2009-paved-way-/nh2CD/

Um...

What's funny about that is that the article references the 2012 game and those soul-sucking 9 minutes and 32 seconds to close that one out for Wabash. 

[bashgiant]

"With a victory Saturday, Wittenberg would have its first three-game winning streak against Wabash since the Little Giants joined the NCAC in 2000."

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/sports/college-football/wittenbergs-victory-over-wabash-in-2009-paved-way-/nh2CD/

Um...

What's funny about that is that the article references the 2012 game and those soul-sucking 9 minutes and 32 seconds to close that one out for Wabash.

That was pretty amazing! I do not remember seeing a drive eat that much clock in the last 10 years in any form of football.