FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[badgerwarhawk]

Lance is probably safe given that his buyout is $1,000,000.  That's a lot of money for a school like Buffalo.   His coordinators possibly not so much so though I personally like both so I hope they'll see it through.  He's got the fourth youngest roster in D1 and just needs some time.  Football is football on the field the biggest difference between D1 and D111 are the Jimmy and Joes.  We know their offense and defense works because it did here and it will there if they are able to recruit the talent they need.  It's just too early to assess their success in that regard. 

[wally_wabash]

Unless the administration at Buffalo cuts him off at the knees, I suspect he'll do fine.  Chris Creighton at Eastern Michigan (also MAC) was 3-21 his first two years; this year he went 7-5 and EMU is going to its first bowl game in 29 years.

When you've been a doormat for forever, turnarounds don't come overnight.

Of course, for the school, success has its penalty.  EMU is probably safe for THIS year (CC's 3-year record is 10-26, and one good year could be a fluke), but if he repeats or does even better next year, some down-trodden but richer/higher profile school will come 'poaching' (when Jim Harkema led EMU to that bowl game 29 years ago, he promptly went off to UCal.  If and when LL does the same for Buffalo, I'd guess the same thing will happen.

Of course the same thing is going to happen.  You keep bringing this up like it's a bad thing.  Like winning is somehow bad for EMU.  When you're a G5 school, the position that you want to be in in the D1 ecosystem is the place where the next star goes for 3-4 years to cut his teeth before getting that P5 promotion.  The AD at Western Kentucky gets that, embraces it, and he's got a really good G5 program.  Houston might be angling in that same direction as long as they don't go do something dumb like hire Les Miles. 

Good coaches are going to leave good G5 teams to get that P5 money.  There's no way around that.  As a fan and/or administrator of a G5 football team, you can embrace it and leverage that success from one coaching staff to the next...or you can piss and moan about how horrible it is that your guy got "poached" and set fire to the whole thing for another 30 years.  It's all about self-awareness, really. 

[SaintsFAN]

Unless the administration at Buffalo cuts him off at the knees, I suspect he'll do fine.  Chris Creighton at Eastern Michigan (also MAC) was 3-21 his first two years; this year he went 7-5 and EMU is going to its first bowl game in 29 years.

When you've been a doormat for forever, turnarounds don't come overnight.

Of course, for the school, success has its penalty.  EMU is probably safe for THIS year (CC's 3-year record is 10-26, and one good year could be a fluke), but if he repeats or does even better next year, some down-trodden but richer/higher profile school will come 'poaching' (when Jim Harkema led EMU to that bowl game 29 years ago, he promptly went off to UCal.  If and when LL does the same for Buffalo, I'd guess the same thing will happen.

Of course the same thing is going to happen.  You keep bringing this up like it's a bad thing.  Like winning is somehow bad for EMU.  When you're a G5 school, the position that you want to be in in the D1 ecosystem is the place where the next star goes for 3-4 years to cut his teeth before getting that P5 promotion.  The AD at Western Kentucky gets that, embraces it, and he's got a really good G5 program.  Houston might be angling in that same direction as long as they don't go do something dumb like hire Les Miles. 

Good coaches are going to leave good G5 teams to get that P5 money.  There's no way around that.  As a fan and/or administrator of a G5 football team, you can embrace it and leverage that success from one coaching staff to the next...or you can piss and moan about how horrible it is that your guy got "poached" and set fire to the whole thing for another 30 years.  It's all about self-awareness, really.

Exactly.  Look at what happened after Cincinnati lost Butch Jones, after they lost Brian Kelly, who replaced Mark Dantonio.  After Jones left for Tennessee, the AD (Whit Babcock) got mad and decided to find a guy who will stay awhile.  Tommy T was the result of that search and now they are kicking themselves for doing it as Tommy T didn't have much fire in the belly and the program went backwards in his four years. 

TL/DR; you must find a coach with higher ambitions at the G5 level and hope to replace him with another up-and-comer when the big boys come calling.

[Desertraider]

Unless the administration at Buffalo cuts him off at the knees, I suspect he'll do fine.  Chris Creighton at Eastern Michigan (also MAC) was 3-21 his first two years; this year he went 7-5 and EMU is going to its first bowl game in 29 years.

When you've been a doormat for forever, turnarounds don't come overnight.

Of course, for the school, success has its penalty.  EMU is probably safe for THIS year (CC's 3-year record is 10-26, and one good year could be a fluke), but if he repeats or does even better next year, some down-trodden but richer/higher profile school will come 'poaching' (when Jim Harkema led EMU to that bowl game 29 years ago, he promptly went off to UCal.  If and when LL does the same for Buffalo, I'd guess the same thing will happen.

Of course the same thing is going to happen.  You keep bringing this up like it's a bad thing.  Like winning is somehow bad for EMU.  When you're a G5 school, the position that you want to be in in the D1 ecosystem is the place where the next star goes for 3-4 years to cut his teeth before getting that P5 promotion.  The AD at Western Kentucky gets that, embraces it, and he's got a really good G5 program.  Houston might be angling in that same direction as long as they don't go do something dumb like hire Les Miles. 

Good coaches are going to leave good G5 teams to get that P5 money.  There's no way around that.  As a fan and/or administrator of a G5 football team, you can embrace it and leverage that success from one coaching staff to the next...or you can piss and moan about how horrible it is that your guy got "poached" and set fire to the whole thing for another 30 years.  It's all about self-awareness, really.

Exactly.  Look at what happened after Cincinnati lost Butch Jones, after they lost Brian Kelly, who replaced Mark Dantonio.  After Jones left for Tennessee, the AD (Whit Babcock) got mad and decided to find a guy who will stay awhile.  Tommy T was the result of that search and now they are kicking themselves for doing it as Tommy T didn't have much fire in the belly and the program went backwards in his four years. 

TL/DR; you must find a coach with higher ambitions at the G5 level and hope to replace him with another up-and-comer when the big boys come calling.

My take on Tommy T - he was willing to stay a while because no one else was offering. Cincinnati and schools like them (MAC schools) need to accept that they are the first or second step on a coaches ladder in most, if not all cases. MAC schools like Toldeo, Central and Western seem to embrace that. They know they hired the right guy when he leaves within a few years headed somewhere else.

[SaintsFAN]

Unless the administration at Buffalo cuts him off at the knees, I suspect he'll do fine.  Chris Creighton at Eastern Michigan (also MAC) was 3-21 his first two years; this year he went 7-5 and EMU is going to its first bowl game in 29 years.

When you've been a doormat for forever, turnarounds don't come overnight.

Of course, for the school, success has its penalty.  EMU is probably safe for THIS year (CC's 3-year record is 10-26, and one good year could be a fluke), but if he repeats or does even better next year, some down-trodden but richer/higher profile school will come 'poaching' (when Jim Harkema led EMU to that bowl game 29 years ago, he promptly went off to UCal.  If and when LL does the same for Buffalo, I'd guess the same thing will happen.

Of course the same thing is going to happen.  You keep bringing this up like it's a bad thing.  Like winning is somehow bad for EMU.  When you're a G5 school, the position that you want to be in in the D1 ecosystem is the place where the next star goes for 3-4 years to cut his teeth before getting that P5 promotion.  The AD at Western Kentucky gets that, embraces it, and he's got a really good G5 program.  Houston might be angling in that same direction as long as they don't go do something dumb like hire Les Miles. 

Good coaches are going to leave good G5 teams to get that P5 money.  There's no way around that.  As a fan and/or administrator of a G5 football team, you can embrace it and leverage that success from one coaching staff to the next...or you can piss and moan about how horrible it is that your guy got "poached" and set fire to the whole thing for another 30 years.  It's all about self-awareness, really.

Exactly.  Look at what happened after Cincinnati lost Butch Jones, after they lost Brian Kelly, who replaced Mark Dantonio.  After Jones left for Tennessee, the AD (Whit Babcock) got mad and decided to find a guy who will stay awhile.  Tommy T was the result of that search and now they are kicking themselves for doing it as Tommy T didn't have much fire in the belly and the program went backwards in his four years. 

TL/DR; you must find a coach with higher ambitions at the G5 level and hope to replace him with another up-and-comer when the big boys come calling.

My take on Tommy T - he was willing to stay a while because no one else was offering. Cincinnati and schools like them (MAC schools) need to accept that they are the first or second step on a coaches ladder in most, if not all cases. MAC schools like Toldeo, Central and Western seem to embrace that. They know they hired the right guy when he leaves within a few years headed somewhere else.

He was being run out of Texas Tech and needed a place to land.  His wife wanted and needed a fresh start elsewhere because of a legal situation.  His wife is from the town where I resided in Southeast Indiana and when he heard Babcock say he was looking for a coach, TT's ears perked up.  Some of the things which happened at Tech are going to follow him.  I believe he's done in Division 1. 

[KitchenSink]

I'm really looking forward to the games this weekend.
Aside from the impact of weather and injury, I'm really leaning toward UWO.  As solid a team as JCU is, it's hard to believe they'll accomplish against UWO what they did against the UWW offense.  Imo JCU took UWW's O behind the woodshed Saturday (making it two consecutive OAC teams doing this to UWW).  For all the emphasis we (I) put on the benefit of the strength of UWW's schedule, it was just as meaningless Saturday as it was in Alliance last year.
I'm sure the JCU D will make it very tough on UWO, but I will be very surprised if the UWO coaching staff and players look unprepared and incapable. 
           

This intrigues me.   From a longer range perspective, why do you think this has been? 

Looking at 2015, I think UWW's line was below their normal level.   It was still a very, very good D3 offensive line, but it wasn't other worldly like the previous teams have had.   I went into last year's semi-final figuring that Mount's D-line was improved enough to cause a stalemate up front to hopefully allow athletic QB and receivers win the game.   Never did I expect Mount to clearly win the line of scrimmage and either side of the ball.  The 2013 match-up was so lopsided in UWW's favor along the lines that Mount had no chance in the that game, but in 2015 the script flipped.   On a side note, the 2016 version of Mount is very much like the 2013 team except with the 3rd freshman instead of a Gagliardi award winner at QB.   In all the Stagg match-ups between Mount and UWW, I've never thought Mount dominated up front.   At best, they played UWW even and let their skill people make the difference.   Granted UWW had some other great players on those teams like Kumerow and Beaver, but the domination upfront made those skill guys icing on the cake.

Looking at the UWW/JCU game last week I felt the same way as 2015 against Mount.   UWW lost the battle along the line of scrimmage which really surprised me.   I knew JCU had a very fundamentally and talented defense, but I expected them to get pushed around physically up front.

From the UWW perspective, have the last 2 O-lines been sub-par or were these results outliers?

I believe the sub-par nature of the passing game in UWW's offense this year crippled the offense.  Teams schemed to try and take away the run, and the better teams had some success.  When Ware and Patterson were healthy (and together), the running game could still produce good numbers.  Once that was no longer the case, more contribution was needed from the passing side.  But the results were inconsistent.

Hudson is a fine receiver, but let's face it he didn't have a great year.  First a suspension, then way too many drops.  I still wonder if he had caught that early ball against John Carroll and walked into the end zone - would that have changed the complexion of the game?

All of the other WR's were way too invisible all season.  Was that due to QB play?  Play calling?  Or just a poor corps of receivers?  It seems the coaching staff goes after a lot of receivers with the size to block - but that results in receivers who are not always very dynamic.  Aren't there any quicker, speedier guys out there?

The comment was made about 2015 - "not a bad offense, just not a good offense".  I'd make a similar comment about 2016.  And you couple that with the last in the conference pass defense ....

[WarhawkDad]

I'm really looking forward to the games this weekend.
Aside from the impact of weather and injury, I'm really leaning toward UWO.  As solid a team as JCU is, it's hard to believe they'll accomplish against UWO what they did against the UWW offense.  Imo JCU took UWW's O behind the woodshed Saturday (making it two consecutive OAC teams doing this to UWW).  For all the emphasis we (I) put on the benefit of the strength of UWW's schedule, it was just as meaningless Saturday as it was in Alliance last year.
I'm sure the JCU D will make it very tough on UWO, but I will be very surprised if the UWO coaching staff and players look unprepared and incapable. 
           

This intrigues me.   From a longer range perspective, why do you think this has been? 

Looking at 2015, I think UWW's line was below their normal level.   It was still a very, very good D3 offensive line, but it wasn't other worldly like the previous teams have had.   I went into last year's semi-final figuring that Mount's D-line was improved enough to cause a stalemate up front to hopefully allow athletic QB and receivers win the game.   Never did I expect Mount to clearly win the line of scrimmage and either side of the ball.  The 2013 match-up was so lopsided in UWW's favor along the lines that Mount had no chance in the that game, but in 2015 the script flipped.   On a side note, the 2016 version of Mount is very much like the 2013 team except with the 3rd freshman instead of a Gagliardi award winner at QB.   In all the Stagg match-ups between Mount and UWW, I've never thought Mount dominated up front.   At best, they played UWW even and let their skill people make the difference.   Granted UWW had some other great players on those teams like Kumerow and Beaver, but the domination upfront made those skill guys icing on the cake.

Looking at the UWW/JCU game last week I felt the same way as 2015 against Mount.   UWW lost the battle along the line of scrimmage which really surprised me.   I knew JCU had a very fundamentally and talented defense, but I expected them to get pushed around physically up front.

From the UWW perspective, have the last 2 O-lines been sub-par or were these results outliers?

I believe the sub-par nature of the passing game in UWW's offense this year crippled the offense.  Teams schemed to try and take away the run, and the better teams had some success.  When Ware and Patterson were healthy (and together), the running game could still produce good numbers.  Once that was no longer the case, more contribution was needed from the passing side.  But the results were inconsistent.

Hudson is a fine receiver, but let's face it he didn't have a great year.  First a suspension, then way too many drops.  I still wonder if he had caught that early ball against John Carroll and walked into the end zone - would that have changed the complexion of the game?

All of the other WR's were way too invisible all season.  Was that due to QB play?  Play calling?  Or just a poor corps of receivers?  It seems the coaching staff goes after a lot of receivers with the size to block - but that results in receivers who are not always very dynamic.  Aren't there any quicker, speedier guys out there?

The comment was made about 2015 - "not a bad offense, just not a good offense".  I'd make a similar comment about 2016.  And you couple that with the last in the conference pass defense ....

Kitchen Sink

I agree with everything you said.....but wouldn't you agree than an experienced coach, who had to know he had a less than dynamic receiving corp, should adjust the game plan?    In UWW's most successful years, you really could not tell if the run set up the pass or if the pass set up the run and I will agree with Emma that we had motion on every play that was meant to disguise what was coming not get another blocker into the area we were running.   We tried for too many home runs and not enough mid-range passes.   We became very predictable.

[emma17]

Two words: 

Lance

Leipold.

(Though I'll admit his extraordinary LACK of success at Buffalo to this point is surprising. . . . Maybe he just needs more time.  Or maybe he's one of those guys - like Charlie Strong? - who does well at one level but not at another.)

Charlie Strong was 37-15 at Louisville in the Big East before Texas, including 3 First Place years and one Runner up.  He just couldn't get over the hump in Austin because they weren't patient enough to give him one more year.  That team has young talent all over the field and Tom Hermann is going to get the credit in 2017.

Strong is a very good man, by all accounts. He did a very good job cleaning up the silver spoon mentality in Austin. He did a good job restoring recruiting. But he was out of his depth running that program. That Texas team regressed. The difference in talent between Texas and Kansas is staggering. That is one game, but it was really a snap shot of the season. The Big12 was down this year, and they stumbled to a sub-500 finish. He fired his OC last year, his DC mid-season this year. When you're firing coordinators in back to back years and then taking over play calling (only to see zero improvement in your area of expertise), it speaks to a coach who isn't a strong enough executive-type leader. And you need to be that at UT. The demands are different there. He wasn't a good fit. Still a good coach who I think could do very well at a school like USF, but UT was getting away from him fast.

I am very optimistic when it comes to both lance Leipold at Buffalo and Matt Campbell at Iowa State. Both inherited bad programs. Next season will be much better for Buffalo and LL - as for Iowa State and Matt, maybe 2 years. Both coaches came in and had to install the "mentality" needed for a winning program. Putting in a offense or defense is one thing - changing the belief in the program is much harder and takes more time. I don't think either will get cut off at the knees.

I hope you're right for both. Last year at UB there was some returning talent but the discipline was really poor - especially on the O line.  A little thing but third and five is a whole lot better than third and ten. This year I hope the issue was youth.
By the way BW- UB (Kotelnicki) didn't run the same offense as he did at UWW. I'm sure he had to adjust it to his players.

[WarhawkDad]

Two words: 

Lance

Leipold.

(Though I'll admit his extraordinary LACK of success at Buffalo to this point is surprising. . . . Maybe he just needs more time.  Or maybe he's one of those guys - like Charlie Strong? - who does well at one level but not at another.)

Charlie Strong was 37-15 at Louisville in the Big East before Texas, including 3 First Place years and one Runner up.  He just couldn't get over the hump in Austin because they weren't patient enough to give him one more year.  That team has young talent all over the field and Tom Hermann is going to get the credit in 2017.

Strong is a very good man, by all accounts. He did a very good job cleaning up the silver spoon mentality in Austin. He did a good job restoring recruiting. But he was out of his depth running that program. That Texas team regressed. The difference in talent between Texas and Kansas is staggering. That is one game, but it was really a snap shot of the season. The Big12 was down this year, and they stumbled to a sub-500 finish. He fired his OC last year, his DC mid-season this year. When you're firing coordinators in back to back years and then taking over play calling (only to see zero improvement in your area of expertise), it speaks to a coach who isn't a strong enough executive-type leader. And you need to be that at UT. The demands are different there. He wasn't a good fit. Still a good coach who I think could do very well at a school like USF, but UT was getting away from him fast.

I am very optimistic when it comes to both lance Leipold at Buffalo and Matt Campbell at Iowa State. Both inherited bad programs. Next season will be much better for Buffalo and LL - as for Iowa State and Matt, maybe 2 years. Both coaches came in and had to install the "mentality" needed for a winning program. Putting in a offense or defense is one thing - changing the belief in the program is much harder and takes more time. I don't think either will get cut off at the knees.

I hope you're right for both. Last year at UB there was some returning talent but the discipline was really poor - especially on the O line.  A little thing but third and five is a whole lot better than third and ten. This year I hope the issue was youth.
By the way BW- UB (Kotelnicki) didn't run the same offense as he did at UWW. I'm sure he had to adjust it to his players.

Novel concept 

[wally_wabash]

The game is a little more difficult when you don't have Blanchards and Beavers and Coppages and Kumerows and Grayvolds, isn't it?  It shouldn't be a huge surprise that a team will look a little more ordinary when you take away all of the extraordinary players.  It's a cop out to stick it all on the coaches, tbh. 

The same thing is happening this year at Mount Union this year, btw.  They just don't have the same dudes this year that they did last year or the year before.  I think they're going to get wiped out tomorrow in a pretty significant way.  Do their coaches stink?  Nah.  They just don't have all of the best players this year. 

[wildcat11]

I think they're going to get wiped out tomorrow in a pretty significant way. 

I'm with you Wabash.....I think it could be a steamrolling.

[HScoach]

I think they're going to get wiped out tomorrow in a pretty significant way. 

I'm with you Wabash.....I think it could be a steamrolling.

I'm a Mount guy and I feel the same way.   I don't think this team is ready to face a truly elite opponent.    MHB by a lot

[SaintsFAN]

I think they're going to get wiped out tomorrow in a pretty significant way. 

I'm with you Wabash.....I think it could be a steamrolling.

I'm a Mount guy and I feel the same way.   I don't think this team is ready to face a truly elite opponent.    MHB by a lot

Agree as well, but I feel like tomorrow's monkey stomp will plant some very successful seeds for the future as those UMU staffers are going to learn if the young guys continue to play through strong adversity.  JCU merely beat Mount; tomorrow will be a different deal.

[emma17]

The game is a little more difficult when you don't have Blanchards and Beavers and Coppages and Kumerows and Grayvolds, isn't it?  It shouldn't be a huge surprise that a team will look a little more ordinary when you take away all of the extraordinary players.  It's a cop out to stick it all on the coaches, tbh. 

The same thing is happening this year at Mount Union this year, btw.  They just don't have the same dudes this year that they did last year or the year before.  I think they're going to get wiped out tomorrow in a pretty significant way.  Do their coaches stink?  Nah.  They just don't have all of the best players this year.

I think those that follow the UWW program closely probably have a pretty good idea of the talent level that exists.  There is no doubt that players of the caliber you mentioned would have helped.  That said, let us not forget Marcus Hudson was a D3 pre-season AA at receiver, and UWW ended up with 5 offensive players on the All Region teams- 4 of them did the blocking.  4 others were on defense. 

As it relates to Mt, no, the same thing isn't happening there.  At Mt, the coaching staff is taking a lesser talented/experienced team to the semis.  Although like everybody else, I assume UMHB has too much for Mt, but I will not be surprised at all if Mt wins.  I will be surprised if Mt gets taken behind the woodshed. 

It may be hard to believe, but I'm not a Stagg Bowl or bust fan.  I'm a "Are the coaches getting the most out of the players they recruited (most of whom I'm sure have expectations of national championships as opposed to this obsession with WIAC championships) and putting them in the best position to be successful" guy. 

Talent wise this team was not better than Mt last year, but it wasn't 36-6 worse.
This year, I'm not exactly sure how the skill positions compare to last year (most were returners), but I surely, certainly, absolutely expected the offense to look more effective in this staff's second year.  The offense looked worse and performed worse in nearly every category.  There is no hiding from that.

[wally_wabash]

The game is a little more difficult when you don't have Blanchards and Beavers and Coppages and Kumerows and Grayvolds, isn't it?  It shouldn't be a huge surprise that a team will look a little more ordinary when you take away all of the extraordinary players.  It's a cop out to stick it all on the coaches, tbh. 

The same thing is happening this year at Mount Union this year, btw.  They just don't have the same dudes this year that they did last year or the year before.  I think they're going to get wiped out tomorrow in a pretty significant way.  Do their coaches stink?  Nah.  They just don't have all of the best players this year.

As it relates to Mt, no, the same thing isn't happening there.  At Mt, the coaching staff is taking a lesser talented/experienced team to the semis.  Although like everybody else, I assume UMHB has too much for Mt, but I will not be surprised at all if Mt wins.  I will be surprised if Mt gets taken behind the woodshed. 

This is probably a good time to point out that every road to the semifinal isn't the same.  Placed in another quadrant of the bracket, I think Mount Union would have run into a loss in the 2nd or 3rd round.  I'm not saying that Mount Union's path has been "easy", but I am saying that if they swapped places with Whitewater, Mount Union would be out and Whitewater would still be playing (and I think UWW would get wiped out by UMHB also...they're really good). 

I think what rankles me about the whole "the coaches stink" angle is that it has become so pervasive in the culture of watching college football.  Have a three and out series?  The play calling sucks.  Give up a 3rd and 7?  The DC sucks.  Punt on 4th and 2?  Coach is a coward.  This stuff just saps the fun out of the experience and I wish we could get away from it.  Maybe UWW's offense looked worse this year because other teams got better?  It doesn't have to be that the coaches are bad.  Those guys wouldn't be at that program if they were bad, right? 

I mean, you all literally had your choice of just about any dude you wanted two years ago and you picked Bullis.  That was THE guy that could keep it rolling.  I'm seeing a lot of second guessing and head scratching here just two seasons into this thing.