FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[joepieters]

Well, I think we've got a pretty damned good coaching staff in C-ville right now, and if our Alumni Director comes calling seeking contributions to upgrade our facilities in order to improve our competitive advantage, I'll write the check tomorrow.

But I'd rather we go 0-10 every year for the next twenty years rather than let the academic standards begin to slide.

I suspect that in MUC you've got an overall stronger pool of talent than you do in Central Indiana.  You've got an extremely talented coach who comes to MUC, has success that attracts the attention of that talent, and as a result you create positive momentum that will last as long as that coach is willing and able to continue to work his magic.

[nike]

Realistically, even with perfect weather, those of you who were at the game, could Wabash have made a game of it under any cicumstances?  Was it mostly the turnovers?
The few games I have seen live in Alliance the past few years were almost comedic in terms of knowing the outcome after a few minutes into the game.  But the other teams played hard, they just were not as well coached and did not have nearly as many good players. MUC and Wabash, for that matter, simply have many more good players than a Wooster this year. Meaning good players at every position, instead of a good one at say running back and another one at linebacker.  So some combination of great coaching and a large number of good or very good players make for great teams.  Pretty rare.
How could a school like Wooster morph into a Wabash(consistently competing for league championship)?  Can a new president allocate more money to the program? I remember a couple months ago someone had dollar amounts per school per sport.  Be intersting to see numbers for MUC and other three schools in D3 semi-finals.

[Li'l Giant]

But I'd rather we go 0-10 every year for the next twenty years rather than let the academic standards begin to slide.

Luckily enough the two extremes aren't our only choices. They are not mutually exclusive.

[wooscot]

To clarify, I'm not suggesting Bash, Witt and Woo do not have good coaches and staff because they do have good ones.  I"m just suggesting there are a variety of factors in play here, with coaching in my opinion being a critical one.  A great staff can get a lot out of average players, however, when you combine a great staff with great players/depth, with great faciliites and/or great school support, you have the ideal mixture for long-term success.  The school supports the team through financial aid/admissions help, the alumni and boosters support the team via donations/fundraising for new facilities which hopefully the school would help match, creating the atmosphere that a highly motivated coach can take advantage of in recruiting not only quality student athletes, but a good number of quality student athletes. 

Regarding academics, all we are talking about here are admissions standards, NOT the quality of education offered by the institution.  I'm a big believer in giving borderline academic kids the opportunity to succeed at a good school.  If they can't hack the academics, then transfer out to "big-state u." and just be a regular student.  If they can, the school just helped create a student-athlete success story in that they are not only contributing in a positive way to the overall academic environment in the classroom, but are also helping make a bigger name for the institution on the athletic field.

[aueagle]

Like the allignment proposal by smedindy: W&J & DPU..(W&J was a preseason Top 20 team)
Coaching is paramount. Not only does he have to be a Field General, but a Top Flight Recruiter. The guy has to have passion for his job, school & student-athletes.
Nobody has mentioned this, but MUC has it. A developed JV program. Sure, it takes numbers and staff, but it can be done.
Pre-Season:
D3 had LG's at #22 - Street & Smith LG's at #7
Not bad Wabash...

[wabco]

Interesting string.

Can Wabash "get there"?  Two answers ... 1) Wabash is on track and 2) yes.

Factors (at least in my view) toward a successful D III football program:
1) Outstanding coaches (Wabash has this)
2) Good integration between Admissions and Coaches (Wabash did not have this a few years back ... as both tended to view the other with squinted eyes.  Today, Coaches and Admissions understand that their mission is intertwined:  students who can succeed at Wabash along with an appreciation that probably 1/3 + [might be a little off here but not much] of the students are/were attracted to enroll at Wabash due to their interest/desire to p[lay football)
3)  Administration appreciation for quality athletics as a primary ADD (not secondary but primary alongside a good library, good physics dept etc).  In that regard see # 2 above.
4)  Alumni interest in football success as a statement of Wabash and Wabash men.  It is there ... see turnout at Whitewater.
5)  First rank facilities which affect recruits and alumni, and others positively.  Wabash has decent facilities.  Whitewater has outstanding facilities.  Look for Wabash to upgrade as a part of the next plant inprovement play ... which by the way ... includes a baseball stadium and soccer upgrade.  Hopefully the time line is 2 years.

NOW ... the Whitewater beat down.  I was there.  Wabash had the flu and suffered injuries.  Then there was the weather the likes of which most people never "play in" in their lifetime.  Whitewater ... a power running O.  Wabash a passing O with a speed D.  Add weather ... advantage Whitewater.  Add flu ... advantage Whitewater.  Add injuries ... advantage Whitewater.  Home field ... advantage Whitewater.  NOW ... watching through the snow and sleet ... it was apparent that Whitewater had the superior team.  I do not believe Wabash would have beaten then (without some extroadinary good fortune turn of events).  I do believe Wabash grit would have made a game of it ... given a clean field, Wabash in white able to see its players, Wabash not sick.   So, I do not dwell on the game as some sad barometer but rather an unfortunate concurence of factors which simply did not work in Wabash favor.  AGAIN ... I am not saying Wabash would have won ... in neutral conditions ... just that it would have been much closer that the score and perhaps, just perhaps, with a pointed ball bouncing favorably ...

If you want to play for conference championships and playoff opportunities (with the perhaps ... perhaps ...) and receive a great education opportunity with outstanding coaching and College and fan support in a good facility with quality adds ... choose Wabash.   If you want to have a lifetime imprint of generations of lifetime friends ... personal and business connections ... choose Wabash.  If you understand ... truly understand ... the meaning of Wabash Always Fights and what it imparts to you the rest of your life ... choose Wabash.

Will Wabash get to the "next level"?  I believe it is there ... just needs more of the "same-o same-o" along with not losing track of the need to ever improve on items 1 through 5 above.

now ... THIS FORMULA IS NOT A SECRET.  Other NCACers can and should get there ... each understanding and utilizing its own unique internal strengths.  However, without the triangle of support and working together by/of alumni, College, coaches ... which - by the way - benefits all three ... I do not believe the "next level" is attainable.

[wooscot]

wabco,

actually, and this should be no surprise, i'm more concerned with Wooster than Bash.  I think its great to have a lot of competition within the conference, i.e. OAC, but based upon recent history the best of the N
NCAC as it currently stands would probably finish no higher than 4th in the OAC.  We are way behind right now.  I agree, however, that the formula for success is not rocket science on paper, but that's the problem...how many NCAC institutions give lip service about their dedication to producing consistent winning football teams, yet when it comes time to actual take the giant leap of offering the needed support (finanical aid, facilities, recruiting support, etc...) do these instititutions hide behind their "preservation of the DIII philosophy" etc...which is really code for "we don't want to spend the time and money on high dollar expense programs like football."  Sports like baseball and basketball do not cost no where near the amount of money to operate and support like football. 

Honestly, I have to laugh when schools like Wooster orchestrate extremely effective fundraising campaigns for their already nice and in many ways superior academic, residential, and common buildings in order to creat the "wow" factor, yet they have ignored for decades the need for upgraded athletic facilities just to make them somewhat comparable to their counterparts in the OAC.  Its obvious in my mind, the administration at Wooster simply decided to ignore the need for a renovated Papp Stadium, upgraded locker room facilities, expanded weight room, fieldhouse, etc... .  In my view, they do not in any place these facilities on the same plateau as their other facilities even though the value add is comparable to the overall attractiveness of the campus.

Seriously, Wooster alums, contact me at my email address listed and lets see if we can't get something growing from the roots here.  I'm sick of complaining about it and i'm sure coach schmitz and staff could use the support after the year they had.

[wally_wabash]

...but based upon recent history the best of the NCAC as it currently stands would probably finish no higher than 4th in the OAC. 

Statements like this bug me...based on what exactly wooscot?  I really don't think there is nearly enough empirical evidence here to support this statement.  I would argue that this statement is based on the perception that the OAC is all-powerful (an overestimation due largely to the shadow cast by MUC's domination of all things D-III football) and the undeniable weakness of the bottom half of the NCAC (which I think drags down the overall impression of the NCAC's better teams). 

I'm not saying that the OAC isn't an outstanding conference.  It is.  But you can't say that the top teams in the NCAC would be middle of the road OAC teams.  There just isn't enough evidence to support that. 

[smedindy]

The best team in the NCAC would probably be #2 in the OAC, maybe #3 if the OAC has a good year and the NCAC is down.

The middle tier of the NCAC is well behind the middle tier of the OAC, and that's where the issue lies.

[bashbrother]

more reflections of Saturday in Whitewater:

It seems every single Wabash football game I have ever attended has taught me something new about Wabash football pride and the Wabash Family.   I am sure to an outsider watching from across the field, they were extremely puzzled as to why the large Wabash crowd was still being crazy and very loud in support of our Little Giants even though the scoreboard read 35-0... 35-7...41-7....47-7.  It just didn't matter.

Then I got it;  It wasn't just about a football game; every fan from all-over the country and from different generations converged on Siberia (Whitewater, WI) for one thing and one thing only.  To celebrate Wabash.

Even though we got our hats handed to us, it was a day I will not soon forget.

[wooscot]

Statements like that bother me as well b/c quite frankly I believe them to be true in most years.  Take a quick look at the top NCAC teams vs the top OAC teams the last 6-7 years and point out to me just ONE quality win.  I'm talking regular season and playoffs and what I mean by a quality win is one over one of the top 3 teams in the OAC each year by an NCAC team.  Obviously, MUC has not been beaten by an NCAC team, but neither has ANY OAC team in the playoffs or regular season in recent memory.  Some close games, but comparatively speaking the #1 NCAC team loses to the #2 OAC team annually in the playoffs when matched up.  Lets look at the regular season.  Capital has clearly owned Witt in recent memory.  Look at some common opponents, for example.  Take the playoffs this year...Cap hung tough with UWW while Bash was absolutely crushed.  Bash had a very, very good team this year too.  This is just one example, but historically, look at how the NCAC championed has fared. 

Plus, when you look at the number #3 team in the OAC, which fluctuates typically between Cap, ONU, and sometimes a JCU when they are up, the games between these schools are close and often times the OAC runner up has a loss or two within the conference.  My point being when you compare the results between the top 3 OAC schools vs the top 3 NCAC schools and then look at how the OAC schools compete with each other and common opponents of the NCAC schools, I think its crystal clear than the NCAC champion would have a very difficult time year in and year out finishing 3rd in the OAC, let alone runner-up or champion. 

Now, I have my complaints against the OAC as well, however, if we are just talking football here, the upper echelon of the OAC has distanced themselves from the upper echelon of the NCAC.  The records and results don't lie.  Until Bash, Witt or Woo/OWU start beating the top dogs in the OAC either in the regular season or playoffs, there is no argument here and quite frankly, its frustrating b/c the conference was once soooo close to point where its champion had legitimate shots at beating MUC year in and year out. 

I hate complimenting the OAC, but if the goal here is to be as good or better then their best teams, I think the first step is to at least acknowledge there is a gap. 

[wally_wabash]

Seriously with the comparative score nonsense with the Whitewater games?  Did you see the photos from that game?  Are you seriously going to compare this to this?  UW-W turned both teams over 5 times and dominated both games.  Capital may have "hung" for a little while, but the game wasn't close. 

[smedindy]

Again, comparative results really don't get a handle on how good a team is.

[nike]

Has Wabash always had good teams,  or did Creighton bring success?  If you include superior recruiting as one of the characteristics of great great coaching, then great coaching trumps everything else that has been mentioned.  Do not think you win without very good players-a lot of them.  That is the starting point.  Regardless of administration, stadium, campus, etc., have to get the players. Some coaches do.  And they win.
Will most Wabash people be rooting for Whitewater this weekend and next?

[wooscot]

Aside from playing head to head, can you think of a more accurate indicator of how to compare teams that do not play?  I'm not suggesting its a science, but I think in this current discussion, its very relevent b/c over the course of the last 6-7 years, the comparisons btw common NCAC and OAC opponents are reflective of the overall strength and weaknesses of both respective conferences.  I'm not saying the Cap-Witt-Bash-UWW comparison proves my point, I'm just using it as an example of the bigger issue. 

Regarding the UWW games - isn't bad weather supposed to be an equalizer, creating low scoring, defensive struggles?  I suppose Bash should be lucky the game wasn't played in sunny skies with 60 degree weather.  UWW may have had 47 by halftime.  Cap lost by 20, Bash lost by FORTY POINTS!  I don't care who you are or what the weather is, that is getting crushed.  Perhaps with better conditions, the game would have been closer.  Who knows.

How about another comparison - Cap beats Witt out the gate 13-0 at Witt.  Witt travels to Bash mid season and loses 24-17 on the road.  UWW plays both Cap and Bash - beats Cap by 20, beats Bash by 40 in terrible weather.  What does this suggest?

Now, I agree to a point that comparative scores do not tell the whole story and sometimes, game results are anamolies.  However, when you look at the results vs two common oppononets as noted above, I think its safe to say Cap is likely two touchdowns better than Bash.  This is the NCAC champion who rolled through the conference against the OAC runner up who lost TWO conference games , one to MUC and one to cross town rival Otterbein at Otterbein.  For arguments sake, Bash would have finished no higher than 3rd this season if it played in the OAC and in all liklihood, probably would have lost at least one more conference game somewhere on the road.  And this, my friends, is why this comparison is so upsetting.