FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[bashbrother]

I am going to punt on 3rd down here and hopefully land the ball inside late Saturday morning......   It seems like a smart strategic move to me...  Plus,  my employees are starting to wonder why I am playing the theme from Benny Hill in my office.  Cheers!

Later Gentlemen!

WAF!

#monkeystomp

[jknezek]

You're cherry-picking, man.  There's so much more information that matters and you're flatly ignoring all of it.   And you keep talking about conference championships like they are relevant to your larger point- and they aren't.  This entire bit about in-conference results only matters if we're all in the same conference.  And we're not so it doesn't.  I need you to make a point that doesn't involve the assumption that an ODAC co-championship is relevant at all to anything other than what goes on in the ODAC.

I don't dispute most of what you say Wally, but you need to stop referring to things as "co-championships". The ODAC does not have co-championships anymore. HSC is the reigning ODAC champion. Full Stop. They have the rings for 3 of the last 4 years, regardless of how many other teams shared the records. You claim he has belittled some of Wabash's accomplishments, but you are trying to do the same thing. It doesn't speak well for your arguments that you continue on this rhetorical path despite being told several times you are wrong.

I think the larger point is that whether we call it a co-championship or an outright championship (and honestly, which one of those misrepresents the actual history more?) it doesn't matter in a conversation that has been about equating Hampden-Sydney and Wabash.   But I'll refrain from using the co-championship thing going forward.  It's clearly a sensitive area.

It's not sensitive. It's just wrong. There is a difference. I notice that Wabash's media guide lists the 2006 team that went 6-1 as NCAC champions, despite having the same record as Wittenberg and losing to Wittenberg. Not co-champions, which is how the NCAC labels them. Maybe your own school should properly recognize co-champions before you start applying the label to others who don't use it?

[Pat Coleman]

It's not sensitive. It's just wrong. There is a difference. I notice that Wabash's media guide lists the 2006 team that went 6-1 as NCAC champions, despite having the same record as Wittenberg and losing to Wittenberg. Not co-champions, which is how the NCAC labels them. Maybe your own school should properly recognize co-champions before you start applying the label to others who don't use it?

If I might just jump in and say here, it's hard to expect people to keep straight which conferences call all of their co-champions "co-champions" and which ones refer to them all as "champions" and which ones only refer to the tiebreaker winner as "champion." There's 29 football conferences and more than 40 in Division III and I can't keep track.

You think people are particular about it here, just look at basketball when there's a distinction between "champion" and "regular season champion" and "conference tournament champion."

I'd just say "automatic qualifier" and let you guys fight over the "c" word.

[wally_wabash]

You're cherry-picking, man.  There's so much more information that matters and you're flatly ignoring all of it.   And you keep talking about conference championships like they are relevant to your larger point- and they aren't.  This entire bit about in-conference results only matters if we're all in the same conference.  And we're not so it doesn't.  I need you to make a point that doesn't involve the assumption that an ODAC co-championship is relevant at all to anything other than what goes on in the ODAC.

I don't dispute most of what you say Wally, but you need to stop referring to things as "co-championships". The ODAC does not have co-championships anymore. HSC is the reigning ODAC champion. Full Stop. They have the rings for 3 of the last 4 years, regardless of how many other teams shared the records. You claim he has belittled some of Wabash's accomplishments, but you are trying to do the same thing. It doesn't speak well for your arguments that you continue on this rhetorical path despite being told several times you are wrong.

I think the larger point is that whether we call it a co-championship or an outright championship (and honestly, which one of those misrepresents the actual history more?) it doesn't matter in a conversation that has been about equating Hampden-Sydney and Wabash.   But I'll refrain from using the co-championship thing going forward.  It's clearly a sensitive area.

It's not sensitive. It's just wrong. There is a difference. I notice that Wabash's media guide lists the 2006 team that went 6-1 as NCAC champions, despite having the same record as Wittenberg and losing to Wittenberg. Not co-champions, which is how the NCAC labels them. Maybe your own school should properly recognize co-champions before you start applying the label to others who don't use it?

Noooo, not sensitive at all. 

The NCAC has had multiple champions many times.  2006 was one.  2012 was another.  I would call them co-champions or a shared champions.  If the official language from the league is simply "champions" then so be it. It's atomic-level hair splitting, really.   The NCAC- and most leagues that I'm aware of (I'm going to have to research this now)- recognize multiple champions when ties occur.  The ODAC doesn't which is fine. 

[jknezek]

You're cherry-picking, man.  There's so much more information that matters and you're flatly ignoring all of it.   And you keep talking about conference championships like they are relevant to your larger point- and they aren't.  This entire bit about in-conference results only matters if we're all in the same conference.  And we're not so it doesn't.  I need you to make a point that doesn't involve the assumption that an ODAC co-championship is relevant at all to anything other than what goes on in the ODAC.

I don't dispute most of what you say Wally, but you need to stop referring to things as "co-championships". The ODAC does not have co-championships anymore. HSC is the reigning ODAC champion. Full Stop. They have the rings for 3 of the last 4 years, regardless of how many other teams shared the records. You claim he has belittled some of Wabash's accomplishments, but you are trying to do the same thing. It doesn't speak well for your arguments that you continue on this rhetorical path despite being told several times you are wrong.

I think the larger point is that whether we call it a co-championship or an outright championship (and honestly, which one of those misrepresents the actual history more?) it doesn't matter in a conversation that has been about equating Hampden-Sydney and Wabash.   But I'll refrain from using the co-championship thing going forward.  It's clearly a sensitive area.

It's not sensitive. It's just wrong. There is a difference. I notice that Wabash's media guide lists the 2006 team that went 6-1 as NCAC champions, despite having the same record as Wittenberg and losing to Wittenberg. Not co-champions, which is how the NCAC labels them. Maybe your own school should properly recognize co-champions before you start applying the label to others who don't use it?

Noooo, not sensitive at all. 

The NCAC has had multiple champions many times.  2006 was one.  2012 was another.  I would call them co-champions or a shared champions.  If the official language from the league is simply "champions" then so be it. It's atomic-level hair splitting, really.   The NCAC- and most leagues that I'm aware of (I'm going to have to research this now)- recognize multiple champions when ties occur.  The ODAC doesn't which is fine.

So I'm just trying to be clear here. You don't have a problem with the Wabash Media Guide listing the 2006 Wabash team as Champions despite sharing the championship with a team that beat them h2h, but you want HSC fans to refer to last year as a co-championship because it " misrepresents the actual history"?  Come on Wally, just admit you overstepped on this one and we can all laugh about it and wonder about how bad the final score will be Saturday. My guess? Wabash wins by 24...

[wally_wabash]

So I'm just trying to be clear here. You don't have a problem with the Wabash Media Guide listing the 2006 Wabash team as Champions despite sharing the championship with a team that beat them h2h, but you want HSC fans to refer to last year as a co-championship because it " misrepresents the actual history"?  Come on Wally, just admit you overstepped on this one and we can all laugh about it and wonder about how bad the final score will be Saturday. My guess? Wabash wins by 24...

I just checked the media guide and the media guide most definitely says "2006 8-2, 6-1 NCAC (Tie First)".  That seems like a pretty accurate account to me. 

Earlier in the guide there is a paragraph dedicated to the 2006 team which says:

Wabash repeated as NCAC champs in 2006, tying Wittenberg at the top of the league standings with a 6-1 record.

I don't see anything wrong with that either.  I guess I'm not sure where you're reading that Wabash's media guide is trying to obscure the history?

[jknezek]

So I'm just trying to be clear here. You don't have a problem with the Wabash Media Guide listing the 2006 Wabash team as Champions despite sharing the championship with a team that beat them h2h, but you want HSC fans to refer to last year as a co-championship because it " misrepresents the actual history"?  Come on Wally, just admit you overstepped on this one and we can all laugh about it and wonder about how bad the final score will be Saturday. My guess? Wabash wins by 24...

I just checked the media guide and the media guide most definitely says "2006 8-2, 6-1 NCAC (Tie First)".  That seems like a pretty accurate account to me. 

Earlier in the guide there is a paragraph dedicated to the 2006 team which says:

Wabash repeated as NCAC champs in 2006, tying Wittenberg at the top of the league standings with a 6-1 record.

I don't see anything wrong with that either.  I guess I'm not sure where you're reading that Wabash's media guide is trying to obscure the history?

Kindly check the GIANT GRAPHIC that takes up the entire back COVER. And wow I don't think I've ever lost Karma this fast before. Prickly Little Giants, aren't you?

[HSCTiger fan]

I'll stand by the argument that winning championships matter more than having inflated stats against lousy teams.  Your "conference doesn't matter" argument is an excuse of convenience.   Your look at out stats argument is a fraud.  On one  hand conference does not matter on the other its look how badly we beat the teams in our conference.  Look at your stats against teams with 500 records and above.  Not that great.  I would not expect them to be.  But don't build your "we have accomplished more" argument based on stats inflated against 5 teams ranked in the bottom 10% of DIII.

I'm cherry picking?  Ok then pick the great accomplishments you want to pick Wally. 

JK I know obnoxious.  I exude it.  You don't.  But on this board unless you kiss up to the LGs you'll see a karma nose dive.

[BashDad]

Look at your stats against teams with 500 records and above.  Not that great.

Last year, against Wabash, HSC literally rushed for -5 yards.

[BashDad]

Of the best teams we played last year (HSC, Witt, Depauw, Franklin, and UWW) only ONE team rushed for over 50 yards.

Again -- you're wrong.

[sigma one]

I will miss the Wabash opener, home or away, for the first time in 18 years.  Dang.

I really ramped up on DIII football while recovering from brain surgery--thankfully benign, but scary; they didn't know my status until they examined the tumor.  So, Tiger Fan, hang in there through your travails.  This board, however frustrating and contentious at times, can also be a good form of therapy.

       As for Saturday, my attempt at analysis.
       For the Tigers to win:  control the ball and shorten the game; score first, get a good jump and make the visitors play from behind; win the turnover battle by at least +2.  Get a good game out your inexperienced QB, at least to the extent that he does not commit turnovers at critical times.  Slow down the Wabash running game.  None of this is rocket science, just good football.  But necessary.
       For the Little Giants to win:  Pound the rock with Zurek and Johnson behind an experienced offensive line; limit mistakes on the road.  Aggressively pursue the QB with the usual combination of blitzes and surprises.  Use what I think will be a significant difference in team speed in the Wabash defense.  Again, not rocket science.   A note on the Wabash O-line. Five starters are back from last year, and two of them may not start on Saturday, having been "beaten out" by other players even though the returners are healthy..  This gives Wabash significant line depth.  Those guys who may have lost their jobs are good players who helped Wabash wrack up impressive rushing stats, and who protected the QB pretty well.  Jump in with your own thoughs, posters, as we look forward instead of at the past, at reputations, at whatever.
       I'm getting sorrier and sorrier that I can't be there to see what everyone describes as a terrific game-day atmosphere. 

       Travel safely Wabash fans.   
 

[wabashcpa]

I am going to punt on 3rd down here and hopefully land the ball inside late Saturday morning......   It seems like a smart strategic move to me...  Plus,  my employees are starting to wonder why I am playing the theme from Benny Hill in my office.  Cheers!

Later Gentlemen!

WAF!

#monkeystomp

Love me some Benny Hill!  And the last few pages of discussion has certainly warranted it.  All rhetoric aside, HSC will be one of our tougher opponents this season so Wabash will need to be ready from the outset. 

[DadofBashWarrior..]

Hittin the road tomorrow about 11 am from Chicago...Excited

[Pat Coleman]

But on this board unless you kiss up to the LGs you'll see a karma nose dive.

From the looks of it, it's not just Wabash fans dinging karma on your never-ending circular argument. And the Wabash fan base isn't the first one you've targeted for pot-stirring and gotten dinged because of it, right? Gotta be able to take it if you're going to dish it out.

[BashDad]

Love me some Benny Hill!  And the last few pages of discussion has certainly warranted it.  All rhetoric aside, HSC will be one of our tougher opponents this season so Wabash will need to be ready from the outset.

I forgot they were playing.