FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[bleedpurple]

^^ emma17, I don't get your reasoning above. If your teams weakness was punting (or punt coverage team), would you intentionally fail to make first downs inorder to get your punter and/or the punt coverage team work? If your teams weakness was FG kicking, would you intentionally stall drives in the red zone inorder to get your FG kicker work when you could've scored TD's instead? I realize this is a simplistic way of looking at it, but I don't think I would - but from your answer to Raider 68, it sounds like you would at the expense of scoring TD's. To me that doesn't add up. Sounds like a good way to lose a game to an inferior opponent. It's possible (and desirable) to score points at the same time as working on improving weaknesses.  And you do that by just playing the game and getting experience. You can't script a regular season game to work on certain areas like you can during a scrimmage or in practice. IMO, scoring is an effective evaluation tool while working on improving weak areas of your team. If you have the capability of burying a team, you do it. Practice is the time to coach up and work on the weaknesses and turn them into a strength, not during a game with a competitive opponent trying to knock your hat off.

I know Emma17 is more than able to answer for himself, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't saying that he would give up points or try to intentionally set up situations. I read that more like, if UW-W has a 21 point lead in the second half, built largely upon the arm of Blanchard, he wouldn't be opposed to trying to establish the run the next couple of drives to try to work on that part of the game. And if the net result of that would be a 14 point win rather than a 35 point win, that works for him. Another example might be in terms of developing depth. Emma17 noted that UW-W rotated in a bunch of players early and often Saturday night. That strategy will pay off over the course of the season, even though it may have meant a 19 point win rather than a 26 or 33 point win. But I'm sure Emma17 will weigh in! 

[bleedpurple]

Raider, I'm uncomfortable enough just picking winners and losers when it comes to UWW- I will absolutely stay away from point spreads.  This early in the season, I'd rather see them win by two touchdowns while working on weaker parts of thier game, then to use their strength and put up big numbers.

Emma17,
Here's a hint for you to make it all easier on you. Pick UW-W to win every week. You will do just fine! 

[BoBo]

bp, I'm sure with your vast knowledge, you know plenty of examples of teams doing exactly what you so clearly described - you get a reasonable lead, then take your foot off the accelerator by trying to get too cute by going to things offensively or defensively that didn't get you the lead. The consequences of such actions have the potential to backfire in a hurry. Your opponent finds a little chink in your armor, exploits it - complete momentum shift - yada, yada, yada - and the next thing you know, you find yourself trailing by 4, 1st and ten on your own 17 yard line with a minute to go. You're so shell-shocked you end up losing a game you had in the bag. Baylor nearly did it this past weekend. A team like Franklin, who you know are going to put the ball up 50 to 60 times, if not more, is capable of doing just that. A 14 point lead to a team with quick strike potential could end up being a minefield - and in my view is just not worth the risk, especially on the road. Now, if the D is doing the job, like it was on Saturday in LaX, rotating bodies throughout the game like the Warhawks did makes a lot of sense. It helps when the team you're playing doesn't have a serious threat at the QB position like La Crosse at the moment. A lot of younger guys got some really meaningful action early in the game. And it will pay handsome dividends later on. I just don't think doing it on the road to an explosive team that is pass orientated is all the advisable.

[02 Warhawk]

I listened to Pat and Keith's Podcast, and Keith mentioned that Oshkosh's game wasn't close as the score may indicate. Central got a couple of late TDs to make it a three-point game.

Hopefully UWO can give Mount a game Saturday.

[oshfb]

I listened to Pat and Keith's Podcast, and Keith mentioned that Oshkosh's game wasn't close as the score may indicate. Central got a couple of late TDs to make it a three-point game.

Hopefully UWO can give Mount a game Saturday.

I believe the game was as close as the score indicated. UWO jumped out to a quick 14-0 lead but the score was 17-14 at halftime. UWO worked up to a 31-14 early in the 4th quarter anbefore giving up 14 unanswered points to
Central to make it 31-28. Central's D was able to hold UWO's offense in check very well in the 4th quarter. Following a 3 and out, Central was driving before the QB threw a bad deep ball that UWO picked off at around the UWO 30 yd line with just over 1:30 left in the game.

Side note: I only saw UWO line up in the duece formation (or whatever you prefer to call the former wishbone attack of River Falls) a few times in the first half and don't believe I saw it at all in the 2nd half.

Hoping for a tight game this coming week against the Mount!

[voice]

Follow-up on the KOOL 106.5 streaming difficulty leading into last Saturday night's UW-Whitewater game at UW-La Crosse.

I was just emailed a memo explaining the problem in extremely technical terms.

Quote: "I just talked to Clif and they had massive problems with the streaming computer.  Once they cold cocked it it was fine.  Stream started just into the first quarter."

Now I no why radio engineers make the big bucks!!!

[emma17]

^^ emma17, I don't get your reasoning above. If your teams weakness was punting (or punt coverage team), would you intentionally fail to make first downs inorder to get your punter and/or the punt coverage team work? If your teams weakness was FG kicking, would you intentionally stall drives in the red zone inorder to get your FG kicker work when you could've scored TD's instead? I realize this is a simplistic way of looking at it, but I don't think I would - but from your answer to Raider 68, it sounds like you would at the expense of scoring TD's. To me that doesn't add up. Sounds like a good way to lose a game to an inferior opponent. It's possible (and desirable) to score points at the same time as working on improving weaknesses.  And you do that by just playing the game and getting experience. You can't script a regular season game to work on certain areas like you can during a scrimmage or in practice. IMO, scoring is an effective evaluation tool while working on improving weak areas of your team. If you have the capability of burying a team, you do it. Practice is the time to coach up and work on the weaknesses and turn them into a strength, not during a game with a competitive opponent trying to knock your hat off.

Good discussion Bobo and Bleed. Bobo, I have seen games where a superior team was beaten by an inferior team because it looked like they took their foot off the gas- or let them hang around for longer than they should.  Heck, it almost happened in UWW's game vs. Trine last year.  I felt UWW owned the line of scrimmage and could run the ball at will- but didn't decide to do it until the 4th quarter.
Specific to your post, I wouldn't "intentionally" stall a drive to practice punting or kicking- however, I would absolutely run certain plays based on the goal I had coming into the game and I would test different players that I wanted to see perform in certain situations.  This isn't an approach I would necessarily take in a playoff game of course- but in the early part of the season and depending on game situation- yes.  Other examples may be the decision to kick (either punt or field goal) in certain 4th down situations.  Against Lacrosse, as much as I'm sure the coaches like touchdowns, I have to believe they loved the fact that UWW could attempt 4 field goals.  In a different situation, perhaps Coach LL goes for it on 4th and short- or perhaps on third and 4, they call a bootleg for Blanchard with a run/pass option instead of a straight hand off. 
The rotation of players is also indicative of the gameplan taking precedence over total score or number of touchdowns.  I don't imagine Coach LL would be comfortable with Levell carrying the ball 30-40 times early in the season.  The backups aren't slouches, but they aren't Levell- and they need lots of work.  Ward got his first carry late in the first quarter.  We had significant rotation on defense- from the first quarter on.   
All of the decisions above, in my opinion, are better for the long-run of the team than worrying too much about scoring a touchdown or preventing a touchdown early in the season.               

[WarhawkDad]

^^ emma17, I don't get your reasoning above. If your teams weakness was punting (or punt coverage team), would you intentionally fail to make first downs inorder to get your punter and/or the punt coverage team work? If your teams weakness was FG kicking, would you intentionally stall drives in the red zone inorder to get your FG kicker work when you could've scored TD's instead? I realize this is a simplistic way of looking at it, but I don't think I would - but from your answer to Raider 68, it sounds like you would at the expense of scoring TD's. To me that doesn't add up. Sounds like a good way to lose a game to an inferior opponent. It's possible (and desirable) to score points at the same time as working on improving weaknesses.  And you do that by just playing the game and getting experience. You can't script a regular season game to work on certain areas like you can during a scrimmage or in practice. IMO, scoring is an effective evaluation tool while working on improving weak areas of your team. If you have the capability of burying a team, you do it. Practice is the time to coach up and work on the weaknesses and turn them into a strength, not during a game with a competitive opponent trying to knock your hat off.

Good discussion Bobo and Bleed. Bobo, I have seen games where a superior team was beaten by an inferior team because it looked like they took their foot off the gas- or let them hang around for longer than they should.  Heck, it almost happened in UWW's game vs. Trine last year.  I felt UWW owned the line of scrimmage and could run the ball at will- but didn't decide to do it until the 4th quarter.
Specific to your post, I wouldn't "intentionally" stall a drive to practice punting or kicking- however, I would absolutely run certain plays based on the goal I had coming into the game and I would test different players that I wanted to see perform in certain situations.  This isn't an approach I would necessarily take in a playoff game of course- but in the early part of the season and depending on game situation- yes.  Other examples may be the decision to kick (either punt or field goal) in certain 4th down situations.  Against Lacrosse, as much as I'm sure the coaches like touchdowns, I have to believe they loved the fact that UWW could attempt 4 field goals.  In a different situation, perhaps Coach LL goes for it on 4th and short- or perhaps on third and 4, they call a bootleg for Blanchard with a run/pass option instead of a straight hand off. 
The rotation of players is also indicative of the gameplan taking precedence over total score or number of touchdowns.  I don't imagine Coach LL would be comfortable with Levell carrying the ball 30-40 times early in the season.  The backups aren't slouches, but they aren't Levell- and they need lots of work.  Ward got his first carry late in the first quarter.  We had significant rotation on defense- from the first quarter on.   
All of the decisions above, in my opinion, are better for the long-run of the team than worrying too much about scoring a touchdown or preventing a touchdown early in the season.             

Emma,

You are absolutely right and that is why I was flabbergasted with some of our UWW fans in the stands at UWL last Saturday who were mad that we were not throwing the long ball everytime Blanchard dropped back and why Levelle did not stay in the entire game.   Some don't understand that depth just does not show up automatically and it has to be developed.  Many or you were concerned about the offensive line.   I thought they performed well overall at LAX.  With the exception of two holding penalties late in the game and the one sack, they did great against a team that blitzed on almost every play.  That came from many of those players getting playing time over the last two years during early season games.   Some in the stands did not realize that it was a non-conference game.   

I am really looking forward to this week.  I was very impressed with the defense and look forward to seein them match up against Franklin.

WarhawkDad

[BoBo]

Well said emma17.  However, I'll leave you with this last bit.  I'm sure, at the time, LL was a little annoyed that the drives stalled and they had to settle for FG's instead of piling up TD's. But, in hindsight, considering how the score ended up, was probably happy to get through the first game of the year (unlike last year) with his #1 kicker getting the job done. Those first 2 games last year were a nightmare.

warhawkDad, it's amazing how the expectations for the hawks has changed in the last 1/2 decade. Playing La Crosse brings out the beast-mode in everyone, including the fans. I think running up the score is on everyone's mind, even the most level-headed fans - just because it's La Crosse.

BTW, did you get your grill space?

[emma17]

I agree Bobo that Coach would have preferred touchdowns on the plays that were called, which is why I think this game against Franklin will tell us a lot- as Warhawk Dad intimates.  I would think that the game will be tighter and execution will be more critical. 

What do you folks think about Lacrosse vs. MHB?  I see on pick-ems that many are calling for a blowout.  I'm not of that mindset.  I think Lacrosse can play defense, and I'm not convinced MHB has a diversified enough attack to pile up points on them.  I don't see Lacrosse winning because of their offense, but I do see them keeping the game respectable. 

Besides Oshkosh vs. Mt, I'm also really interested in NCC vs Bethel TN.  NCC is playing close to having to play "must win" games from here on out and I don't imagine Bethel will be an easy game. 

[BoBo]

^^ emma17 - so you think the Franklin game will be tighter than 19 points? If I may ask, what makes you feel that way? IMO, UWW wins w/o any dramatics. I think they cover the 24.5 spread of the OAC pick'ems.

La X vs UMHB? Interesting dynamics at work here. It's the Cru's first game, UWL's 2nd. We hear all the time that a team makes the most progress between it's first and second game. Have the Eagles settled their QB problem? Has the injury to Sires made that decision easy? I think they'll have trouble putting any points on the board with either one. It may be a long year offensively for the Eagles unless one of those two take the bulls by the horns. The fact that they are going down to Texas makes it that much more imperative someone takes charge. Lauters is a pretty good back, but the Eagles didn't really show anybody to spell him. That offense is definately a work in progress. The Cru has always been able to put mega-points on the scoreboard, except against the strongest of defenses they face. La Crosse did play pretty decent last week, but I'm not as convinced as you are emma that they can do it again on a long trip, deep in the heart of Texas. I'm sure it'll be a nice warm afternoon to greet the visitors from the north. I see UMHB winning quite comfortably . However, I thought the same a few years ago when LaX went down to Texas to play HSU, but the Eagles hit the Cowboys early and often and won pretty easily. But, this Eagle team is nowhere close to the team back then.

Bethel is an NAIA school, so it really doesn't matter if NCC wins or loses. NCC can lose to Bethel, but they still can win the CCIW to guarantee a playoff berth. A single loss in conference with a second place finish and it's "boom boom out go the lights" for the Cardinals playoff chances. So, yes, their remaining D3 games are pretty much "must win."

[retagent]

Before we get into the real meat of the season, and reason starts to take a back seat, Props to the WIAC for having games against tough opponents. Props also to those teams scheduling the WIAC teams. I think it not only makes for good games, it helps to evaluate teams who play those teams who are invloved in such games.

[02 Warhawk]

A rare WIAC compliment from retagent.

[BoBo]

A rare WIAC compliment from retagent.

Hey 02 Warhawk, does that Coppage official WIAC rushing countdown number get reduce for all games played, including NC & playoff games or only conference games?  Maybe you should start a contest to see who can come the closest to the game, quarter, and minute and seconds on the clock that he sets the record.  I would guess Oct 8 vs River Falls, 3rd quarter 9:42 remaining, in case you were wondering!! 

[hazzben]

A rare WIAC compliment from retagent.

Hey 02 Warhawk, does that Coppage official WIAC rushing countdown number get reduce for all games played, including NC & playoff games or only conference games?  Maybe you should start a contest to see who can come the closest to the game, quarter, and minute and seconds on the clock that he sets the record.  I would guess Oct 8 vs River Falls, 3rd quarter 9:42 remaining, in case you were wondering!! 

I thought, if memory serves, that when Flannery broke Porta's MIAC career rushing record it only involved conference games last year. He also broke Porta's career Bethel mark, which obviously included all games. But I'd guess the conference rushing record would only include conference games. But I could be misremembering, and it could work differently in the WIAC.