FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[HansenRatings]

     The computer position of the 2003 team has to have something to do with the way the computer measures strength of schedule and other factors.  Wabash did trounce Witt that year, 41-14; also DPU, 37-20.  So that is no doubt factored in by the computer.

My model sorts teams based on overall scoring margin, adjusted to strength of opponents & HFA. I've tinkered with other methods (wins only, wins+MoV, Pythagorean expectation instead of scoring margin), but the scoring margin version always comes back with the most accurate results. So +27 vs. Witt, +17 vs. DPU, with a one-point loss to the conference champ comes out better (by one point) than three 14-point wins.

Another consideration is that I don't discount scores from blowout games, so the 81-0 blowout against Hiram gives a big boost.

[sigma one]

HansenRatings, thanks for the explanation.  Indeed, 2003 was an up-and-down year for Little Giant football.  I mentioned in an earlier post that I was present for the 7-6 loss at Allegheny.  After two weeks of substantial rain and a game played on "the Swamp" the previous week (a 3-0 loss, so that's another indication of the condition of the field the week BEFORE the Wabash game), the footing was impossible for both teams.  Certainly, a 42-14 win over an 8-2 Witt team was impressive.  And DPU was 5-5 that year and had lost the two games before the Bell Game.  But the loss to Kalamazoo in the season opener presaged that the team would struggle from time to time.
     As you mention, the 81-0 win over Hiram also counts, and that win skews the computer calculations even more.  Hiram was just terrible and even trying to hold the score down strange things happened, like a third-string linebacker returning an-almost-blocked punt taken at close to the line of scrimmage for a TD late in the game. Things just got out of hand because Wabash is not the kind of team that runs up the score.  It was embarrassing, actually.   So circumstances that year in a number of games all figure in what the computer, well, computes.
     We can't really know, of course, what would have happened on a dry field in Meadville.  I'm sure Wabash was considered the better team going in, but Allegheny found ways to all its conference games that year.  They beat Witt and Woo by 6 points each.
     In retrospect, considering all I saw in 2003, I still believe that this was not one of Wabash's really good teams:  too inconsistent and fragile.  The  big-margin wins vs. Witt and DePauw saved what could have been a seriously subpar year. 
     From one observer's subjective point of view, I still believe, with the exception of 2004, the 2003 team was weaker than any of the teams from then to now, except for maybe the 2012 team that lost to Allegheny and Oberlin. 
     

[wally_wabash]

The 2003 team is really interesting now that you've had me thinking about it for a couple of days.  I'll say that the opening loss to Kalamazoo was the perfect tempest- young Wabash team now carrying the weight of the expectations that the 2002 team put on every Wabash team to follow playing on the road against an extremely seasoned Kalamazoo team (probably a best-ever situation there, honestly).  They were well coached (Tim Rogers was there at the time...good football coach).  All of the ingredients were there for the Hornets to spring an upset and they did. 

They did wind up 7-3, but look at some of the players on that 2003 team.  Chris Morris, Aaron Lafitte, Blair Hammer, Tamarco White, Darryl Kennon, Clifton, Summers, Stu Johnson, Dustin Deno, Russ Harbaugh...Mitch freaking Tanney in the bullpen.  That roster had some serious Dudes™. 

Sidebar - What's your tandem backfield of choice: 2003 Morris/Lafitte or 2014 Holmes/Zurek? 

[sigma one]

Like asking, "Do you prefer ribeye or New York strip?"  I would not be too wishy-washy if I said flip a coin.  Forced to choose in a close call based on just the one-year comparison, 2003/2014, I take Holmes and Zurek.  They were the two all-conference, first-team running backs.  They played in 12 games vs. the 10 of Morris and Lafitte.  They ran well in important situations and carried the offense.  While I believe that M/L scored more TDs than H/Z and they too performed well in some important games, they were not as dominant a part of the game plan.  Harbaugh was a young QB in 2003, but he was still a high-percentage completion guy.
     Too bad Lafittte had just that one good year; over a thousand yards as a freshmen and splitting time with a great running back in Morris.  Lafitte was hurt before the season started in 2004 and was limited the entire season.  He then transferred to Arizona State and was the leading rusher in their spring game the nest year.  He might have been Wabash's leading career rusher if he had stuck around and stayed healthy.  I can imagine him with Harbaugh down the road.  Later on, he surfaced at McPherson College with former a former Wabash assistant as his head coach.  He was highly effective there as well.  Lafittte was just a powerful, instinctive runner who was a freight train to stop.
In the end, the tandem of M/L was just as talented as the H/Z duo.  But for just the one year, I take Holmes and Zurek:  big, powerful backs with break-away ability.  What say you, Wally, and others?

     Going back:  we should not have doubted you BashDad.  On reflection, I should have known that it was a missed key stroke (though it crossed my mind that you might have either been being modest, testing our knowledge, or just messing with us).   
       

[BashDad]

OMG. Please stick around, Hansen.

     The computer position of the 2003 team has to have something to do with the way the computer measures strength of schedule and other factors.  Wabash did trounce Witt that year, 41-14; also DPU, 37-20.  So that is no doubt factored in by the computer.

My model sorts teams based on overall scoring margin, adjusted to strength of opponents & HFA. I've tinkered with other methods (wins only, wins+MoV, Pythagorean expectation instead of scoring margin), but the scoring margin version always comes back with the most accurate results. So +27 vs. Witt, +17 vs. DPU, with a one-point loss to the conference champ comes out better (by one point) than three 14-point wins.

Another consideration is that I don't discount scores from blowout games, so the 81-0 blowout against Hiram gives a big boost.

[BashDad]

I totally sucked for two years. It's cool.

[BashDad]

And also: H/Z > ML . By a lot.

[sigma one]

Being too hard on yourself.  And then there was 2005.

[wally_wabash]

It's such a hard question because the two pairs of backs played in different systems under different coaches.  I'd love to see that 2003 Morris/Lafitte duo play in the 2014/15 Erik Raeburn offense. 

But to answer my own question, I actually think I'd lean toward 2003 Morris/Lafitte.  Morris ended that year as the all-time leading rusher.  Lafitte is probably the most gifted back I've seen at Wabash (probably second best I've seen in the NCAC after Sutton).  They averaged more ypc and scored more (in fewer games) than H/Z in 2014.  It's razor thin, but I think Morris/Lafitte wins by a hair.  Super close though.  I could probably talk myself into the other side when I'm feeling a little less nostalgic.   

[HansenRatings]

OMG. Please stick around, Hansen.

I'll do what I can.

[BashDad]

After a night's sleep, I think maybe you're right. Fun argument.

It's such a hard question because the two pairs of backs played in different systems under different coaches.  I'd love to see that 2003 Morris/Lafitte duo play in the 2014/15 Erik Raeburn offense. 

But to answer my own question, I actually think I'd lean toward 2003 Morris/Lafitte.  Morris ended that year as the all-time leading rusher.  Lafitte is probably the most gifted back I've seen at Wabash (probably second best I've seen in the NCAC after Sutton).  They averaged more ypc and scored more (in fewer games) than H/Z in 2014.  It's razor thin, but I think Morris/Lafitte wins by a hair.  Super close though.  I could probably talk myself into the other side when I'm feeling a little less nostalgic.   

[BashDad]

Post-2001

1. Chamblee / Short
2. Summers
3. Lemond
4. Horn / Bronough
5. Russell / Clifton

[sigma one]

Good list.  Hard to argue against, though I am a bit surprised that you have Chamblee that high as a receiver.  No doubt he is the best return man, maybe ever, at Wabash.  He was dangerous whenever he caught the ball--pass, punt, kickoff-- and made some dazzling crucial catches, so your case is a good one.  By starting post-2001, you eliminate Casper, who would be on my list for the entire NCAC era (beginning 2000).  I would have to consider seriously putting Lemond higher if he had not been injured and missed his senior season.
     Bronaugh, Horn, Clifton, Russell make quite a cluster.  Bronaugh also a terrific return man.  I think at one time I underrated Summers as a receiver.  I've come to appreciate him more over time.  You know him well, so I trust your eye on him vs. the others. 

[old wabash]

TWO whole days...and no comments on preseason rankings?!?

[bashbrother]

I'll break the radio silence....here is My initial NCAC Championship Race Projection

1. Wabash 9-0 (10-0 overall)
2. Depauw 8-1 (Loss to Wabash) (9-1 overall)
3. Witt  7-2 (Wabash, Depauw)  (7-3 overall)
4. OWU - 6-3 (Wabash, Depauw and Witt) (6-4 overall)

Wabash gets AQ
Depauw in the Pool C conversation

Game(s) of the Year - 

9/24 -  Wabash at Witt
10/08 -  Depauw at Witt
11/12- Depauw at Wabash
( at game time, Wabash ranked #7, Depauw #15 )