Top 25 rankings

[Jonny Utah]

gro I am going to say that offensive teams have a disavantage in bad weather.  They have to handle the ball, fake, throw, catch....much harder.

That is the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom on the matter. In fact, I'm pretty sure offenses run more misdirection and employ more fakes in poor conditions.

As they say, "the offense knows where it's going, the defense has to react."

Also, you know, the offense is running foward, even in a straight line ... that's a pretty big difference from a tackler coming in either way too fast and not being able to break down and drive through with your tackles, or trying to slow it down and keep your balance, and then being slow to the play.

I'm sure there are some offensive corollaries, like O-linemen pass blocking in the mud can't get their footing, but I'm pretty sure it's generally accepted in football circles that bad footing affects defenses more.

Now, overall, maybe the effect of rain might be equal, since wet balls are hard to throw and catch ... but with regard to the footing specifically, what I said above.

Ok, let me rephrase that and say that in "really" bad weather, the offensive is at a bad advantage. (blizzard, mud, ice) or at least the game isnt the same game that is played.  I just remember my thanksgiving day game in high school where it rained for two straight days and the field was literally a swamp and it was pouring. The final score was 6-0 (on a halfback pass) with probably 4 total first downs for each team and 30 punts. Horrible and not the way football was supposed to be played.

If RPI and Ithaca would have played on a dry turf field at RPI 2003, the score would have been 55-30 RPI. (opinion obviously)

RE: Springfield.

I guess Im down on them because some years because their defense is so bad that they just dont quailify as being a "good" team.  But even when they are bad, that offense can be explosive and catch better teams off guard.

[Jonny Utah]

Here's my 2 cents on the Springfield grass vs. turf debate:

If Springfield is happy with scoring a lot of points, looking pretty while they do it and then losing in the playoffs to a balanced team, then continue what they're doing right now.  Otherwise, they need some flexibility on offense and a real defense before they're a legitimate threat nationally.

Not sure who made the analogy (K-Mack?), but the comparison to Washington & Jefferson is accurate.  A great one dimensional offense and no defense is not a recipe for success in December. 

I agree about Springfield.  I think the difference between a team like them and a team like Nebraska is that Nebraska had those really good running backs that gave them more options than that striaght fullback behind the QB.  But they just havent changed anything there in the last 25 years. (except for the speed play. maybe)

[HScoach]

Also, I have a lot of problems with this paragraph. Not completely accurate.

Potentially mitigating the lack of returning depth is the quick fix of upper-classmen Division 1 transfers into the open "playmaker" positions.  This is an avenue of talent acquisition that Coach Collins has excelled at the last few years.  As evidence, one needs to look no further than Lewis Howes who only played at Capital for his senior year, yet was Capital's most explosive receiver in 2005.  As well as Derrick Alexander who is on campus for only the 2006 and 2007 seasons.  And this doesn't include the transfer of arguably the best player in the history of the school (Rocky Pentello from Toledo) and one of their best linebackers (Joel Sickmeier from Mount Union).

Care to elaborate?  No one in the OAC has benefited more than Capital recently when it comes to transfers.  What made me write that paragraph isn't that the transfers just end up there as local kids coming home to Columbus, it's that Collins is actively pursuing that route.

[frank uible]

Springfield uses sound theory and has excellent execution but does not have the talent to get it further in the playoffs than it has been getting irrespective of any changes it might make. In other words it is doing about as well as it can.

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

Ok I think this should end the Springfield debate.  I went and looked at all the games from 99-06.  Here are the numbers  49-22 on turf and 7-5 on grass.

7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582  career win percentage at Springfield.  So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.

Here is the breakdown of the five losses on grass.

3 of them against Ithaca. Maybe Springfield is one of those teams that have a problem traveling up to Ithaca.  It took CNU 3 years to beat Shenandoah at Shenandoah.

Ithaca, I might add is 37-6 at home since 99.  It is a very good record.  Not many teams can go up there and beat them.

One loss was a playoff game at Brockport St.  A team that year only allowed 9.4 points a game(They shut out 5 teams that year). It was 2002 that 10-3 independent team made it to the NCAA Quarter Finals that year.

The final loss was Plymouth St.  PS 7-3 and SC was 4-6.  That game was 9-7 L a game that clearly could have gone either way.

Thanks 'gro I will take your advice 


_{It's Science.}

[JT]

He needs a quicker release and a better move to first, too.

(As in, he was slow on the trigger and doesn't look off his primary target.)

Although Orihel sometimes locked on targets too, Rankin tended to look for Wr's that he threw to in JV and practice.  Since he runs the show this year, I hope that improves.  He'll be working with the whole bunch.

First four-year non transfer at QB since the 80's.  Warker only played two years. Hmmm... Ed Hesson (), Greg Lister (Univ of Maryland),  Gus Ornstein (ND, Mich St), Jeff Orihel (CW Post), Mike Warker (Rowan), Tony Racioppi (Tenn St), Mike Orihel (New Hampshire).

Still don't know if they'll be any surprises (transfers) at Wr, DB, DL.

['gro]

Ok I think this should end the Springfield debate.  I went and looked at all the games from 99-06.  Here are the numbers  49-22 on turf and 7-5 on grass.

nice research, but you forgot to end it with:


_{It's Science.}

Somebody will comeback and say, "12 games on grass in 8 seasons, they're not used to it."  To that I say, Dude... it's GRASS. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most of the players played on it in high school, or pop warner... or flag football.  Sometime in their lives they have walked on and grown accustomed to this alien surface called grass.


_{That's how you debate!!}

[Pat Coleman]

No doubt they have played on grass in their lives.

There seems to be some evidence above that they have not attempted to execute the unique Springfield offense on grass, however.

Pride -- I'm impressed that you know the history of each opponent's field they played at. You know when Union switched from grass to turf? (I'm not 100% sure myself, which is why I didn't try to calculate.) When did Kings Point go from grass to turf? What did you count the 1999 game at Cortland as, grass or turf? (Cortland played on grass in 1999.)

Try again. Not everything is that simple. More than one-third of Division III schools have a field-turf style playing surface now. I don't believe a single one did in 1999.

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

No doubt they have played on grass in their lives.

There seems to be some evidence above that they have not attempted to execute the unique Springfield offense on grass, however.

Pride -- I'm impressed that you know the history of each opponent's field they played at. You know when Union switched from grass to turf? (I'm not 100% sure myself, which is why I didn't try to calculate.) When did Kings Point go from grass to turf? What did you count the 1999 game at Cortland as, grass or turf? (Cortland played on grass in 1999.)

Try again. Not everything is that simple. More than one-third of Division III schools have a field-turf style playing surface now. I don't believe a single one did in 1999.

That should only help my numbers then.  I saw what your saying and questioned it myself in the research. I expected you to say it. So I was ready for a rebuttal. Springfield is a good team. Any of those teams that were playing on grass could be on turf today. As you pointed out but since 99 they are a combined 56-27.  So the worst they could have on the road is 16 losses. (I took out the 11 home losses) They have won 34 home games since 99 that leaves a possiblity of 22-16 on the road.  We know 7-6 (Cortland st. 1999 added) is already on grass, so it is 15-10 on the road that is unaccounted for. (Don't know if it is grass or turf.) I doubt all the losses are on grass.

[Pat Coleman]

No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.

7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582  career win percentage at Springfield.  So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.

When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.

[frank uible]

The Official 2006 NCAA Divisions II and III Football Records Book lists the type of home playing surface on which each team played. At some other source, the identity of which I can't recall, there is a list of year of installation for each artificial turf field.

[HScoach]

Here's an key point that I don't think has been brought up yet.  What surface do they have to practice on?  Is turf the ONLY surface they have available?  I would venture to guess that most schools with turf game fields still have a grass practice field they can get onto for a couple days work before going on the road. 

[PrideSportBBallGuy]

No, we don't, and I don't have the time to go through them all. I am content with my personal eyewitness testimony, backed up by others who have seem them play.

7-5 on grass that is a .583 win percentage on the road (of course on grass) Coach Delong as a .582  career win percentage at Springfield.  So a 7-5 record on grass is not enough to convince me they have a problem on grass.

When it's all done you better come up with a better reasoning than this where you compare 12 games to a coach's 20-some year career. That isn't college-level work.

Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people.  We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games.  It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies.  I also don't expect you to believe the numbers, as I don't with polls.  To say it isn't college work is absurd.  To say it isn't a good arguement I could agree with.

I already said 5 of those 6 losses were GOOD teams with winning records.  So Springfield wasn't the best team the day they played them.  (The cortland team did finish with a better record than Springfield in 99, so they could have also been a better team.)  The coach has a .583 lifetime record, (86-39 since joining d3 which is .688)  So the coach is 86-39 in d3.  If the coach goes .500 on the road.  That would mean he would have to be around .876 at home. Since '95 at the d3level Springfield was 40-17(.701) at home and 36-22 (.621) Clearly he does worse on the road, just like with any other team If you look at the numbers prior to 99 they were 15-6 (.714) at home and 12-7(.631) on the road, after 199 when teams started added turf fields the percentages are 35-11(.760) at home and 24-15(.615) on the road.  Why does that matter? Well when more and more turf fields are added it looks like they are losing more on the road.  Even with more and more turf fields added the winning percentage at home goes up by alot.

You could argue that well the time frames are competely different.  True you have 4 years and 8 years. No turf the first 4 years if that trend countinued the next 4 years that record would be 24-14. (Looks very similiar to the 8 years that follwed 24-15 when turf fields were added.)  This shows that grass fields and turf fields have no affect on how well they play on the road.  With Springfield having a Turf field their winning% has actually gone up at home.  (If teams are having more and more turf fields and are able to practice on them, then that means springfield's winning percentage should be going down at home).

[Pat Coleman]

Well if you want to use statistics, they do scientific election polls with only samples of 300 some people.  We are expected to believe those polls represent the people. I never do. I took 12 games out of 232 games.  It is not a scientific sample (not even saying it is), but a much bigger one in comparison. People use sample sizes much that are smaller compared to the sample size I used, so I can see where your arguement lies.

Spin! Spare me the spin!

People use samples in "scientific" polls because the real pool is too big to use. This 232 game pool is not too big to use at all.

[DutchFan2004]

This is a sample of the Central results for the last three years Grass VS Field Turf

2004  6-4 over all   1-0 on Field Turf 5-4 on grass

2005 9-1 over all regular season 0-1 playoffs  4-0 field turf 5-1 grass 0-1 grass in playoffs lost to UWW Stagg Bowl finalist

2006  10-0 regular season 6-0 field turf 4-0 grass  This was the first year of playing on Field Turf and Ron and Joyce Schipper field in Pella.  0-1 on field turf in playoffs lost to ST Johns regional finalist.  

I don't think the playing surface makes much difference.  2004 barely over 500 on grass and 1.000 on field turf a surface that had to be played on a visiting filed.  

2005 undefeated on field turf all away games and 5-1 on grass

2006 undefeated on both surfaces.  2 of the grass games were on mud more like than grass.  So good teams adapt and adjust to the surfaces no matter what they are.  

I sure don't see a difference in performance.  The IIAC is supposed to have 2 more fields this year going to field turf.  I think that Buena Vista, Luther, and Cornell are only going to have grass this year.