FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Sakman 1111]

What is the deal with Anthony White he didn't play the second half and had his ankle wrapped on the sideline?....He would be a big loss for the defense.....

[bleedpurple]

I've been running the OAC pick-em's for the last 6 years and can guarantee that MUC hasn't been a that big of a dog over that span of time.   Can't remember a situation before that either.

Since Larry Kerhes became head coach in 1986, the MUC losses by more than 13 points are as follows:

1988:  41-27 loss to Denison
1989:  31-7 loss to John Carroll
2003:  24-6 loss to St. John's in Stagg

Which, on surface, would make MUC an EXTREMELY good pick with that point spread! Hard to imagine the motivation for making the point spread that high. Seems like it's been hard to get anywhere NEAR 50% of the participants to pick against Mount when they GIVE a ton of points. Hard to believe one player makes THAT much difference when you are talking about THE MACHINE.

[BoBo]

I've been running the OAC pick-em's for the last 6 years and can guarantee that MUC hasn't been a that big of a dog over that span of time.   Can't remember a situation before that either.

Since Larry Kerhes became head coach in 1986, the MUC losses by more than 13 points are as follows:

1988:  41-27 loss to Denison
1989:  31-7 loss to John Carroll
2003:  24-6 loss to St. John's in Stagg

Which, on surface, would make MUC an EXTREMELY good pick with that point spread! Hard to imagine the motivation for making the point spread that high. Seems like it's been hard to get anywhere NEAR 50% of the participants to pick against Mount when they GIVE a ton of points. Hard to believe one player makes THAT much difference when you are talking about THE MACHINE.

Which is why I was asking the question about the point spread in the first place. I know Rocco is a QB, but my next question was going to be : How can one player make that much difference?      

[rscl70]

I've been running the OAC pick-em's for the last 6 years and can guarantee that MUC hasn't been a that big of a dog over that span of time.   Can't remember a situation before that either.

Since Larry Kerhes became head coach in 1986, the MUC losses by more than 13 points are as follows:

1988:  41-27 loss to Denison
1989:  31-7 loss to John Carroll
2003:  24-6 loss to St. John's in Stagg

Which, on surface, would make MUC an EXTREMELY good pick with that point spread! Hard to imagine the motivation for making the point spread that high. Seems like it's been hard to get anywhere NEAR 50% of the participants to pick against Mount when they GIVE a ton of points. Hard to believe one player makes THAT much difference when you are talking about THE MACHINE.

Which is why I was asking the question about the point spread in the first place. I know Rocco is a QB, but my next question was going to be : How can one player make that much difference?    

Because Mount's strength on offense is Rocco's arm and the receiving corps.  The running game is not strong.  If you put Shorts at QB you improve the running game, but IMHO not enough to offset the loss in the passing game.  Seaman, the Fr. backup at QB did not impress last week.  He's the future for Mount, but I'm not sure he's ready to take over in the Stagg.

[runyr]

I've been running the OAC pick-em's for the last 6 years and can guarantee that MUC hasn't been a that big of a dog over that span of time.   Can't remember a situation before that either.

Since Larry Kerhes became head coach in 1986, the MUC losses by more than 13 points are as follows:

1988:  41-27 loss to Denison
1989:  31-7 loss to John Carroll
2003:  24-6 loss to St. John's in Stagg

Which, on surface, would make MUC an EXTREMELY good pick with that point spread! Hard to imagine the motivation for making the point spread that high. Seems like it's been hard to get anywhere NEAR 50% of the participants to pick against Mount when they GIVE a ton of points. Hard to believe one player makes THAT much difference when you are talking about THE MACHINE.

Which is why I was asking the question about the point spread in the first place. I know Rocco is a QB, but my next question was going to be : How can one player make that much difference?    

Because Mount's strength on offense is Rocco's arm and the receiving corps.  The running game is not strong.  If you put Shorts at QB you improve the running game, but IMHO not enough to offset the loss in the passing game.  Seaman, the Fr. backup at QB did not impress last week.  He's the future for Mount, but I'm not sure he's ready to take over in the Stagg.

Makes total sense to me.  Excellent point.  Mount Union is not as strong without an experienced QB.

[Dr. Acula]

No one asked Kmic to sit down last year when Coppage was down ....

Isn't my problem that you weren't smart enough to ask 

Actually, it wasn't that we weren't smart enough to ask, but rather, just the exact opposite!!    (now who's being Ed McMahon?)

BTW, hscoach, on a more serious note, I was wondering, when was the last time, if ever, have you had a spread with Mount the dog by so many points (+13.5) in the OAC pickem? Would this be a record # of points? I'm too lazy to go back and check. 

I've been running the OAC pick-em's for the last 6 years and can guarantee that MUC hasn't been a that big of a dog over that span of time.   Can't remember a situation before that either.

Since Larry Kerhes became head coach in 1986, the MUC losses by more than 13 points are as follows:

1988:  41-27 loss to Denison
1989:  31-7 loss to John Carroll
2003:  24-6 loss to St. John's in Stagg

Still cringe at that one.  Down 17-6 about to make it 17-13 (or 14), stuffed on 1st and 2nd and goal from the 1 then that 100 yard pick 6 on 3rd down.  The ultimate nail in the coffin.  SJ was just a better team though. 

If UWW wins Saturday I will have no problem saying the same thing.  They have more than earned my respect over the last few years.  Top notch program without question.  Safe travels to everyone heading to Salem.     

[MasterJedi]

One thing I can say about the game against Linfield was the crowd was the loudest I have ever heard them. We got Linfield to burn timeouts on third down about 3-4 times and had them false start a few times as well as some delay of games. Haven't seen anything like it before, but it sure made me happy.

[Pat Coleman]

Some were asking about the archived broadcast from Saturday. It's here:
http://all-access.cbssports.com/player.html?code=ncaa&media=157762

[skunks_sidekick]

BP - I would honestly say if Mount was at full strength (Rocco & Millings), they would be a solid 4-6 point underdog in this game.  If that were the case, I believe LK could/would make a difference, and we would be in for one HECK of a game. 

Knowing that Millings is definitely out, and Rocco is "iffy" at best, I think it makes Mount a two digit underdog for sure.  Now I guess the question will be can LK make up THAT much difference, and how incredible of a performance can Shorts actually turn in when everyone in the stadium will know it's all Shorts, all the time. 

Of course......I could just be enjoying being an underdog for the first time in a VERY long time.   

[T_Unit14]

as a Warhawk fan I'm going to always consider us the underdog until we can get "over the hump" and beat the reigning champs more then once and prove that it can be done more then once...MUC has had WW's number since day 1 whether it was mental or physical but in the past few years the teams that WW fielded that we were expecting or thought would win the games just came up short...as a fan I'll never go into a MUC game thinking we are the favorite...at least not within the next 5 years or so...if WW can keep up this continued success for that long and get a few wins against MUC and other top teams...then maybe I will feel a little more at ease saying yeah we can beat MUC but right now they sit on the top and have been all year...I see us ranked #2 still so that would make MUC the favorite in my book

[bleedpurple]

BP - I would honestly say if Mount was at full strength (Rocco & Millings), they would be a solid 4-6 point underdog in this game.  If that were the case, I believe LK could/would make a difference, and we would be in for one HECK of a game. 

Knowing that Millings is definitely out, and Rocco is "iffy" at best, I think it makes Mount a two digit underdog for sure.  Now I guess the question will be can LK make up THAT much difference, and how incredible of a performance can Shorts actually turn in when everyone in the stadium will know it's all Shorts, all the time. 

Of course......I could just be enjoying being an underdog for the first time in a VERY long time.   

I'm suspecting there's some of this going on. And this whole "underdog status" seems to be generated out of Alliance, anyhow. When a team goes 139-4 in the decade, they get well deserved accolades and their fans have to be given certain leeway as they beat their chests (although in some cases not QUITE the liberty some have taken over the years). But when they aren't playing at full strength (as MAY be the case in the Stagg), there certainly isn't going to be sympathy for the Purple Raiders too far beyond the borders of Purple Raider Nation. (sympathy for the kids who are not playing, yes. Sympathy for the team and their fans, no).

After all, we have seen way too many posts remind us:

1. It's hard, if not impossible to climb "The Mount".
2. Mount doesn't rebuild, it reloads.
3. Mount is THE MACHINE.
4. There is no situation is which an LK coached team could ever be an underdog.
5. Mount is the most successful program in the history of college football.
6. There's no value in whining about how good Mount is, "If you don't like it, get better".

And I've just listed the ones that are actually REASONABLE! It gets to be tiresome reading at times, but with what happens on the field, it's hard to find plausible responses. But one thing even the most clever poster does NOT have the power to do (Even HSCoach), is to remove the target from the Purple Raiders back. For all the success UWW has had over the years, almost none of it has come at the expense of the Purple Raiders. Therefore, the Raiders remain the hunted.

And besides, not having an equipped backup quarterback would actually show a weakness in the great Mount Union program. And I don't think I'm buying it....

[Barber Greene]

One thing I can say about the game against Linfield was the crowd was the loudest I have ever heard them. We got Linfield to burn timeouts on third down about 3-4 times and had them false start a few times as well as some delay of games. Haven't seen anything like it before, but it sure made me happy.

We need to be just as loud this Saturday. In 2007, you could clearly hear the "U Dub Dub" chant on the ESPN broadcast. We'll be on the home side. Let's get the locals that sit there pulling for us.

[footballfan413]

And besides, not having an equipped backup quarterback would actually show a weakness in the great Mount Union program. And I don't think I'm buying it....

BINGO................


Besides at this point, the whole, "up in the air," offense has to be a pain in Borland's butt whose trying to prepare his defense for all the different possiblities in a terribly short and distracting week. 

[Shark]

I'm suspecting there's some of this going on. And this whole "underdog status" seems to be generated out of Alliance, anyhow. When a team goes 139-4 in the decade, they get well deserved accolades and their fans have to be given certain leeway as they beat their chests (although in some cases not QUITE the liberty some have taken over the years). But when they aren't playing at full strength (as MAY be the case in the Stagg), there certainly isn't going to be sympathy for the Purple Raiders too far beyond the borders of Purple Raider Nation. (sympathy for the kids who are not playing, yes. Sympathy for the team and their fans, no).

After all, we have seen way too many posts remind us:

1. It's hard, if not impossible to climb "The Mount".
2. Mount doesn't rebuild, it reloads.
3. Mount is THE MACHINE.
4. There is no situation is which an LK coached team could ever be an underdog.
5. Mount is the most successful program in the history of college football.
6. There's no value in whining about how good Mount is, "If you don't like it, get better".

And I've just listed the ones that are actually REASONABLE! It gets to be tiresome reading at times, but with what happens on the field, it's hard to find plausible responses. But one thing even the most clever poster does NOT have the power to do (Even HSCoach), is to remove the target from the Purple Raiders back. For all the success UWW has had over the years, almost none of it has come at the expense of the Purple Raiders. Therefore, the Raiders remain the hunted.

And besides, not having an equipped backup quarterback would actually show a weakness in the great Mount Union program. And I don't think I'm buying it....

BP

The concern for Mount Fans comes from 2 main areas.

1) The injuries and suspension occurred over the past week or so and simply does not allow adequate time to completely prepare. If C. Shorts QBs this week, I'm sure we will not be able to utilize our entire playbook. Had Cecil played quite a bit of QB this year, I may feel differently. Not overly concerned with the DE situation. There is quality depth there. The RB issue is tough since our running game is suspect and only puts additional pressure on the QB position.

2) UWW has become an established powerhouse. 5 straight Stagg Bowls is an amazing accomplishment and looks to be a trend for quite some time. Mount knows UWW is very tough opponent and anything short of their "A" game, will not be enough. Given the numbers of returning starters the Warhawks have back, coupled with a dominant 2009 season against quality opponents, reaffirms what Mount fans already knew about the 2009 edition of Warhawk football. UWW is a force to be reckoned with and we may have been an underdog with or without the injuries. It is simply a tribute to the strength of the Warhawk program as much as anything else.

As I posted on the North site, I will not make excuses. Injuries are part of the game and I still I still have a great amount of faith in Mount's class of seniors as well as LK's ability to get the job done despite the adversity. Every Stagg Bowl with UWW has been close and I expect nothing different this Saturday.

[HScoach]

I've been running the OAC pick-em's for the last 6 years and can guarantee that MUC hasn't been a that big of a dog over that span of time.   Can't remember a situation before that either.

Since Larry Kerhes became head coach in 1986, the MUC losses by more than 13 points are as follows:

1988:  41-27 loss to Denison
1989:  31-7 loss to John Carroll
2003:  24-6 loss to St. John's in Stagg

Which, on surface, would make MUC an EXTREMELY good pick with that point spread! Hard to imagine the motivation for making the point spread that high. Seems like it's been hard to get anywhere NEAR 50% of the participants to pick against Mount when they GIVE a ton of points. Hard to believe one player makes THAT much difference when you are talking about THE MACHINE.

Which is why I was asking the question about the point spread in the first place. I know Rocco is a QB, but my next question was going to be : How can one player make that much difference?      

An individual player can make that much differnce when he's the key to your offense.  What would you think UWW's chances would have been without Justin Beaver heading into the '07 Stagg?  It's still a very good team, but it's not the same team without that The Guy.

Where the QB means so much for Mount is the true strength of this offense is the receiving corps.  The 3 receivers (Shorts, Petruziello and Claycomb) and the 2 tightends (Miller and Harrold)  as a group are as talented and versatile as any group they've had in a long, long time.  With the growth of Rocco into a very good QB, the passing offense is something special.  

The 2nd most talented QB on the roster is probably Shorts but he's been a WR for the last 3 years.  The freshman Neal Seaman has potential but not the experienceor timing and nowhere near the arm strength of Rocco.  Not to mention the team's confidence like they have in Rocco.

The Mount running game without Scott Panchik (lost to ACL) is very pedestrian.  Terrance Morring is a hard runner but he's a fullback playing tailback.  He had decent speed as a youngster but 3 knee surgeries have taken its toll.



Here's my thoughts in terms of setting the spread.  Mount won a very competitive, close game last year with the best QB/RB tandem in D3 football that are now gone.  MUC now faces the same team again without a legit threat at RB when the opponent returns many more key playmakers than Mount plus the mental advantage of revenge to drive them.  Because of the running game, Mount isn't nearly as consistent offensively as they'v been in years past.  All things being equal and everyone healthy, UWW is probably a 3 or 4 point favorite.  But being on the OAC page, I have to slant the spreads a little or no one will pick against them.  Hence the game with a healthy Rocco being a pick-em even though I think MUC is really a slight underdog.  Especially without their best D-lineman.

Take out Rocco and the offense is a HUGE question mark.  Shorts is an athlete, but you aren't going to run successfully a peewee football single wing offense against a defense the cailber of Whitewater.  Especially when they have seen it on film and can prepare for it.  It might have worked as a change of pace to the regular offense a couple times, but not as the primary set.  And even if Shorts finds his arm and can throw it again, you've lost your All-American WR and replaced him with another untested freshman and have no ZERO timing between the QB and all the receivers.  The lack of timing severly limits the type of routes that can be successfully run.