FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[emma17]

Unless things have changed greatly I would take the Warhawks and give 50 points....Pound the Rock....

It depends how you look at it I think.  10-0 is 10-0.  But the offense is much, much different these days.  UWW scrapped the No-Huddle and went to the Never-Huddle.  I know it's a pet peeve of mine, maybe you or others can tell me why it's a good thing (I'm serious about this as I realize I may have convinced myself it's bad without real cause).
Bleed's turnover stats seem to be the key to success.  I wish turnovers were as reliable as marching the ball down the field. 

UWW 3rd Down Conversion %:  2015-45%, 2014-45%, 2013-45%.  2016- 33%.

I don't have a preference for huddle or no huddle offenses but one thing about our use of it confuses me.  I've always heard that the an advantage of the no huddle is creating a pace of play in part to make it harder for opponents to substitute.  But we substitute so often that the rule which allows the defense time to substitute if the offense substitutes works against us.  Several times this year we've had one of the officials run up and stand over the ball allowing the defense to complete substitutions before the ball is snapped. 

I wish I knew what the problem was on third down.  For whatever reason this year it just isn't happening to the extent we're accustomed to.

Excellent point on the substitution rule BW.
At the risk of being old fashioned or ill-informed, I'll throw out what I believe are some advantages of the huddle:
-Players don't have to stand at the line of scrimmage with arms turned upward in a "what the heck formation and play are we running" look. This is only partly a joke.
-All 11 players hear the play detail called and repeated in a less frenzied environment.
-Prior to the play call, useful interaction between players can occur, including encouragement.
-A QB should resist breaking the huddle if uncertainty exists. Instruction can be given quickly.
-Players mentally rehearse the play between the huddle call and getting to the LOS.
-Multiple plays can be called.
-I won't go as far as to say the opponent gets intimidated, but there is something to be said about the visual of a big offensive line, w big tight ends, breaking the huddle with a loud clap and turning to walk/jog in unison toward the line of scrimmage.  I envision old NFL Films videos. 
-There is something (to me anyway) entirely degrading about having to turn to the OC on the sideline for him to tell the team what play to run.  Two points to this.  Shouldn't the team be learning enough over the course of a season to identify the D and make an adjustment at the line?  And, if looking to the OC for the play call based on alignment worked so great...
-Lastly.  Football is a team game, and it's about the players.  I believe there is a psychological and physical benefit to the huddle.  I think of it as a Re-Charge station. 

I imagine there are counters to all that, but it's how I look at it.   

[emma17]

Unless things have changed greatly I would take the Warhawks and give 50 points....Pound the Rock....

It depends how you look at it I think.  10-0 is 10-0.  But the offense is much, much different these days.  UWW scrapped the No-Huddle and went to the Never-Huddle.  I know it's a pet peeve of mine, maybe you or others can tell me why it's a good thing (I'm serious about this as I realize I may have convinced myself it's bad without real cause).
Bleed's turnover stats seem to be the key to success.  I wish turnovers were as reliable as marching the ball down the field. 

UWW 3rd Down Conversion %:  2015-45%, 2014-45%, 2013-45%.  2016- 33%.

I don't have a preference for huddle or no huddle offenses but one thing about our use of it confuses me.  I've always heard that the an advantage of the no huddle is creating a pace of play in part to make it harder for opponents to substitute.  But we substitute so often that the rule which allows the defense time to substitute if the offense substitutes works against us.  Several times this year we've had one of the officials run up and stand over the ball allowing the defense to complete substitutions before the ball is snapped. 

I wish I knew what the problem was on third down.  For whatever reason this year it just isn't happening to the extent we're accustomed to.

I think it is more of a failure on 1st and 2nd. Whereas in the past there were mostly 3rd and 4 or 5, this year it seems like most the time it's 3rd and 10 or 12.

Great point.  I did a quick look.  In the last two games, counting the third downs that did not convert to first down, there were 8 (4 each game) at third and five yards or less to go.  There were 17 total third down plays of 6 yards and longer to go that didn't convert, two ended in interceptions. 
Patience is needed to Pound a Rock. 
There are lots of lower percentage plays being run this year.

[BoBo]

Unless things have changed greatly I would take the Warhawks and give 50 points....Pound the Rock....

It depends how you look at it I think.  10-0 is 10-0.  But the offense is much, much different these days.  UWW scrapped the No-Huddle and went to the Never-Huddle.  I know it's a pet peeve of mine, maybe you or others can tell me why it's a good thing (I'm serious about this as I realize I may have convinced myself it's bad without real cause).
Bleed's turnover stats seem to be the key to success.  I wish turnovers were as reliable as marching the ball down the field. 

UWW 3rd Down Conversion %:  2015-45%, 2014-45%, 2013-45%.  2016- 33%.

I don't have a preference for huddle or no huddle offenses but one thing about our use of it confuses me.  I've always heard that the an advantage of the no huddle is creating a pace of play in part to make it harder for opponents to substitute.  But we substitute so often that the rule which allows the defense time to substitute if the offense substitutes works against us.  Several times this year we've had one of the officials run up and stand over the ball allowing the defense to complete substitutions before the ball is snapped. 

I wish I knew what the problem was on third down.  For whatever reason this year it just isn't happening to the extent we're accustomed to.

Excellent point on the substitution rule BW.
At the risk of being old fashioned or ill-informed, I'll throw out what I believe are some advantages of the huddle:
-Players don't have to stand at the line of scrimmage with arms turned upward in a "what the heck formation and play are we running" look. This is only partly a joke.
-All 11 players hear the play detail called and repeated in a less frenzied environment.
-Prior to the play call, useful interaction between players can occur, including encouragement.
-A QB should resist breaking the huddle if uncertainty exists. Instruction can be given quickly.
-Players mentally rehearse the play between the huddle call and getting to the LOS.
-Multiple plays can be called.
-I won't go as far as to say the opponent gets intimidated, but there is something to be said about the visual of a big offensive line, w big tight ends, breaking the huddle with a loud clap and turning to walk/jog in unison toward the line of scrimmage.  I envision old NFL Films videos. 
-There is something (to me anyway) entirely degrading about having to turn to the OC on the sideline for him to tell the team what play to run.  Two points to this.  Shouldn't the team be learning enough over the course of a season to identify the D and make an adjustment at the line?  And, if looking to the OC for the play call based on alignment worked so great...
-Lastly.  Football is a team game, and it's about the players.  I believe there is a psychological and physical benefit to the huddle.  I think of it as a Re-Charge station. 

I imagine there are counters to all that, but it's how I look at it.

While we're at it, why don't we return to wearing only black high top cleats and flat top hair cuts, ala, in honor of Louisville getting exposed as a pretender tonight, Johnny Unitas.

Thinking of your first point, I think the Warhawk TE's especially Gumina and Campbell are permanently stuck in that position you described. I, to, am only partly joking.

[DuffMan]

Safe travels to the UW-P team and fans.  Looks like the weather is getting ugly in west central MN today. 

[DuffMan]

SJU/UW-P Game Notes

[02 Warhawk]

Took a peak over at the NAIA and Morningside finished the regular season 9-1 (#5 in the polls).

Their first round game is Saturday as well.

[warhawkguard]

In regards to the no-huddle conversation, I have to agree with Emma on those points. Getting the play in clearly is paramount, and it does give everyone a second to assess what is going on with the defense as they walk up to the LOS. If they walk up and quickly start the play, the defense is ALWAYS going to be trying to react to something without any real time to do so. Maybe they have just the right defense scheme called, and that happens plenty, but the odds of achieving surprise is with the offense. The fast offensive style given to us by the likes of those Oregon Ducks was meant to get many more plays in per game, yet many teams have not increased the plays at all, just look at the Packer's attempt to do that in previous seasons. Now, the no-huddle or hurry-up style of offense has many merits, especially in the 2 minute O. You have a set of plays everyone knows to run and the QB makes the call on the LOS with no time for the D to figure it out fully. The advantage should always be with the Offense, and its up to them to execute. In the case of the Warhawk defense, stronger players and proper schemes with the players playing their roles as coached nullifies the offensive surprises in many cases.

Just look at the amount of passing yards the Warhawks have given up this year. Fast, accurate passing attacks like Morningside's torched us for gobs of yards, yet the defense made enough critical plays to prevent points when they had to. That was a nail biter. Who gives up 500 yards through the air and still wins?  Much credit to the players and coaches in what has been one onslaught after another this season. The WIAC teams are much better as a group than they were just 3 or 4 years ago. Mount Union puts up awesome stats and looks great every year against a conference that, until this year, lacked any competition. That's why stats are nice, but only within similar parameters like common opponents.

UWW 63, Lakeland 3

Pound that rock without mercy.

[HansenRatings]

Took a peak over at the NAIA and Morningside finished the regular season 9-1 (#5 in the polls).

Their first round game is Saturday as well.

If you guys haven't seen how Morningside won their conference race last weekend, it's definitely worth a watch:
http://nesn.com/2016/11/college-footballs-most-unbelievable-td-features-fumble-interception-on-same-play/

[02 Warhawk]

Took a peak over at the NAIA and Morningside finished the regular season 9-1 (#5 in the polls).

Their first round game is Saturday as well.

If you guys haven't seen how Morningside won their conference race last weekend, it's definitely worth a watch:
http://nesn.com/2016/11/college-footballs-most-unbelievable-td-features-fumble-interception-on-same-play/

Wow...that is unbelievable. They won 14-13, scoring all their 14 points off turnovers (pick 6 and a "fumble" return for a TD). Looks like Northwestern scored in the final minute, and elected to go for 2 (and the win)...but came up short. That would have been a wild one to watch. Plus it looks like Morningside clinched the conference the week before. That game wouldn't have mattered. But still...

Regarding that play, that might have been the dumbest decision I've ever seen made on a football field. That Northwestern player didn't even look to see where he was laterally it. Not only that, he had no reason to lateral it in the first place...it wasn't like it was the final play of the game (ala Cal/Stanford). He could have let himself be tackled, giving his offense the ball at Morningside's 40 yard line, only down by 7, with still 8 minutes left on the clock. Just wow!

As stupid as that was, I feel bad for the kid. He's going to be thinking about that play for a while.

[02 Warhawk]

The 2nd place team in Morningside's conference (GPAC) is Doan (9-1). They are ranked 5th in the country. So you'd think they have to be pretty good right?  Their only loss (of course) came to Morningside, 69-7. 69-7!!!!!

That's basically equivalent to UWW playing UWO. Never in anyone's wildest dreams would UWW win that matchup by 62 points. Never!! In fact, never would UWW win any WIAC game by 62 points.

I realize MHB beat up on Linfield pretty bad in a top 10 D3 matchup, winning by 39 points. But this was a 62 point win. Unreal!

[ExTartanPlayer]

Took a peak over at the NAIA and Morningside finished the regular season 9-1 (#5 in the polls).

Their first round game is Saturday as well.

If you guys haven't seen how Morningside won their conference race last weekend, it's definitely worth a watch:
http://nesn.com/2016/11/college-footballs-most-unbelievable-td-features-fumble-interception-on-same-play/

Wow...that is unbelievable. They won 14-13, scoring all their 14 points off turnovers (pick 6 and a "fumble" return for a TD). Looks like Northwestern scored in the final minute, and elected to go for 2 (and the win)...but came up short. That would have been a wild one to watch. Plus it looks like Morningside clinched the conference the week before. That game wouldn't have mattered. But still...

Regarding that play, that might have been the dumbest decision I've ever seen made on a football field. That Northwestern player didn't even look to see where he was laterally it. Not only that, he had no reason to lateral it in the first place...it wasn't like it was the final play of the game (ala Cal/Stanford). He could have let himself be tackled, giving his offense the ball at Morningside's 40 yard line, only down by 7, with still 8 minutes left on the clock. Just wow!

As stupid as that was, I feel bad for the kid. He's going to be thinking about that play for a while.

Yeah, that was pretty baffling.  The turnover by itself was already a game-changing play.  I understand that sometimes you'll try to make a little higher-risk play (i.e. trying to pick up and run with a fumble instead of just falling on it) because there's a potential big reward (going all the way), but to lateral there...I mean, what was he thinking?

[ExTartanPlayer]

The 2nd place team in Morningside's conference (GPAC) is Doan (9-1). They are ranked 5th in the country. So you'd think they have to be pretty good right?  Their only loss (of course) came to Morningside, 69-7. 69-7!!!!!

That's basically equivalent to UWW playing UWO. Never in anyone's wildest dreams would UWW win that matchup by 62 points. Never!! In fact, never would UWW win any WIAC game by 62 points.

I realize MHB beat up on Linfield pretty bad in a top 10 D3 matchup, winning by 39 points. But this was a 62 point win. Unreal!

Not only that...it was 62-0 at halftime, and Doane's lone touchdown came with 2 seconds remaining.  Morningside's first-team QB threw for five touchdowns in just over 20 minutes; Morningside's second-team QB came in halfway through the 2nd quarter (with Morningside already ahead 48-0) and he threw two more TD passes before halftime.  I thought Morningside had a rep for running up the score, but that game wasn't really running up the score, that was just an old-fashioned whupping.

To be fair, it looks like Doane's starting QB missed the game, possibly accounting for some of the offensive struggles, but still...that's a staggeringly lopsided game.  A quick glance through the rest of the season shows that Doane was much less dominant vs. comparable opponents than Morningside, so IDK if it's quite like UWW-UWO, but still...it's pretty shocking that they could run up that kind of margin on the second-best team in their own league.

I was curious, so I decided to look through Mount Union's last few seasons and see their typical MOV-against-league-runner-up(s).  Last year they beat ONU 51-7 and JCU 36-3; in both 2014 and 2013 they were pushed hard by JCU (one-score games); in 2012 they beat Heidelberg 33-14; in 2011 they had a close one with Baldwin-Wallace; in 2010 they beat ONU 27-0; in 2009 they beat ONU 30-10 and Otterbein 58-7; in 2008 they beat Otterbein 49-20; in 2007 they beat Capital 37-0.

Basically, what I'm saying is that even as dominant as Mount Union was/is in the OAC, even they usually don't beat run up a 62-spot by halftime against their league silver medalist.  They're good for an occasional monkey-stomp of the second-place team, but it's usually a mere four- or five-touchdown margin.

[HansenRatings]

The 2nd place team in Morningside's conference (GPAC) is Doan (9-1). They are ranked 5th in the country. So you'd think they have to be pretty good right?  Their only loss (of course) came to Morningside, 69-7. 69-7!!!!!

That's basically equivalent to UWW playing UWO. Never in anyone's wildest dreams would UWW win that matchup by 62 points. Never!! In fact, never would UWW win any WIAC game by 62 points.

I realize MHB beat up on Linfield pretty bad in a top 10 D3 matchup, winning by 39 points. But this was a 62 point win. Unreal!

Not only that...it was 62-0 at halftime, and Doane's lone touchdown came with 2 seconds remaining.  Morningside's first-team QB threw for five touchdowns in just over 20 minutes; Morningside's second-team QB came in halfway through the 2nd quarter (with Morningside already ahead 48-0) and he threw two more TD passes before halftime.  I thought Morningside had a rep for running up the score, but that game wasn't really running up the score, that was just an old-fashioned whupping.

To be fair, it looks like Doane's starting QB missed the game, possibly accounting for some of the offensive struggles, but still...that's a staggeringly lopsided game.  A quick glance through the rest of the season shows that Doane was much less dominant vs. comparable opponents than Morningside, so IDK if it's quite like UWW-UWO, but still...it's pretty shocking that they could run up that kind of margin on the second-best team in their own league.

I was curious, so I decided to look through Mount Union's last few seasons and see their typical MOV-against-league-runner-up(s).  Last year they beat ONU 51-7 and JCU 36-3; in both 2014 and 2013 they were pushed hard by JCU (one-score games); in 2012 they beat Heidelberg 33-14; in 2011 they had a close one with Baldwin-Wallace; in 2010 they beat ONU 27-0; in 2009 they beat ONU 30-10 and Otterbein 58-7; in 2008 they beat Otterbein 49-20; in 2007 they beat Capital 37-0.

Basically, what I'm saying is that even as dominant as Mount Union was/is in the OAC, even they usually don't beat run up a 62-spot by halftime against their league silver medalist.  They're good for an occasional monkey-stomp of the second-place team, but it's usually a mere four- or five-touchdown margin.

48-0 in the 1st quarter? Yeah, that's not running up the score, and I don't think the opposing QB could do much to slow that train down.

[hazzben]

The 2nd place team in Morningside's conference (GPAC) is Doan (9-1). They are ranked 5th in the country. So you'd think they have to be pretty good right?  Their only loss (of course) came to Morningside, 69-7. 69-7!!!!!

That's basically equivalent to UWW playing UWO. Never in anyone's wildest dreams would UWW win that matchup by 62 points. Never!! In fact, never would UWW win any WIAC game by 62 points.

I realize MHB beat up on Linfield pretty bad in a top 10 D3 matchup, winning by 39 points. But this was a 62 point win. Unreal!

Not only that...it was 62-0 at halftime, and Doane's lone touchdown came with 2 seconds remaining.  Morningside's first-team QB threw for five touchdowns in just over 20 minutes; Morningside's second-team QB came in halfway through the 2nd quarter (with Morningside already ahead 48-0) and he threw two more TD passes before halftime.  I thought Morningside had a rep for running up the score, but that game wasn't really running up the score, that was just an old-fashioned whupping.

To be fair, it looks like Doane's starting QB missed the game, possibly accounting for some of the offensive struggles, but still...that's a staggeringly lopsided game.  A quick glance through the rest of the season shows that Doane was much less dominant vs. comparable opponents than Morningside, so IDK if it's quite like UWW-UWO, but still...it's pretty shocking that they could run up that kind of margin on the second-best team in their own league.

I was curious, so I decided to look through Mount Union's last few seasons and see their typical MOV-against-league-runner-up(s).  Last year they beat ONU 51-7 and JCU 36-3; in both 2014 and 2013 they were pushed hard by JCU (one-score games); in 2012 they beat Heidelberg 33-14; in 2011 they had a close one with Baldwin-Wallace; in 2010 they beat ONU 27-0; in 2009 they beat ONU 30-10 and Otterbein 58-7; in 2008 they beat Otterbein 49-20; in 2007 they beat Capital 37-0.

Basically, what I'm saying is that even as dominant as Mount Union was/is in the OAC, even they usually don't beat run up a 62-spot by halftime against their league silver medalist.  They're good for an occasional monkey-stomp of the second-place team, but it's usually a mere four- or five-touchdown margin.

The GPAC is more like the OAC if we were going to find a D3 comparison.

Back before the University of Sioux Falls bumped up to D2, you had some great battles between them and Morningside. And historically Northwestern (IA) has had some great teams. But it's regarded as a one horse league since USF moved up. The runner up is a threat to win a game or two in the post-season, but Morningside is the only national contender.

From what I heard there were a few other key injuries on D for Doane that game. It was a bit of a perfect storm. UWW fans can attest what it'd be like trying to stop the Morningside arial attack with a hobbled secondary. If my foggy memory serves, I think they had two (definitely one) WR's go for 200+ yds against them.

[emma17]

UWW's been pretty generous this year to many receivers.
3 went for 100+ for Belhaven
1 for 270 and 1 for 100 for Morningside
2 for 100+ (and 184 for one) for UWP
2 for about 150 each for UWL
1 for 130 for UWRF
1 for 100 for UWS

I expect the Lakeland guys are pretty excited.