FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[02 Warhawk]

La Crosse's Joel Dettwiler suspended his QB before Saturday's game. He'll also be sitting out the UWW game.

Mike Butterfield

[badgerwarhawk]

Voice, the wallet saga had me LMAO.

[voice]

Voice, the wallet saga had me LMAO.

BW
it just shows once again that I really have no life!

[02 Warhawk]

I can't believe the DIII football selection show is this Sunday already.

Too bad it's only watchable on the interweb this year.

[oshfb]

We've tried to schedule CCIW programs without any success.  Elmhurst even backed out of our scrimmage arrangement with them a few years ago.

Not sure this has any relevance but UWO traveled to Elmurst College in 2004, I believe, during Training Camp for a scrimmage. We were coming off of a 4-6 record which probably made the Elmhurst coaching staff less worried about scrimmaging a WIAC opponent. I'm pretty sure we dominated all facets of the scrimmage.

We also made a stop at Miller Park as a team on the drive back to Oshkosh to catch a Brewers game (as the scrimmage was held the last day of camp).

[bleedpurple]

"The whole concept of a conference mandating a game and then saying the game "doesn't count" within their jurisdiction (conference standings) is conflicted and open to debate no matter how they choose to implement it.  I think almost everyone would agree that if anything were mandated, a "WIAC/CCIW Challenge" would be far preferable.  I know for the northern-most teams, it would involve more travel, which may or may not negate the purpose.  And then there is the small issue of the institutions buying into the idea.  But from a fan's perspective, it would be awesome!"

Bleed this would be great. Pretending this could happen and travel wasn't part of the equation- how are matchups decided?  Maybe seed each conf 1-8. Then to keep competitive balance, the top 4 of each conf could have a 1 v 4, 2 v 3 format and the bottom 4 could go 5 v 5, 6 v 6, etc 
It sure would be fan friendly and I imagine the players would love it too.

I think seeding based match-ups would be great.  I would think even 1 v 1, 2 v 2, right on down the line would be great with each conference determining their own seeds (maybe a vote of the coaches?). Adjustments could be made to prevent teams meeting the same team two or three years in a row to provide experiencing games against different programs. Or rivalries could develop if they played the seeds as drawn regardless of variety.

[WarhawkDad]

A question from a casual fan in regards to the WIAC's popular "in-conference/non-conference" games this season.

Why was the first game played designated as the non-conference game with the second go-around designated as the conference game?

Shouldn't the first game have been designated the "conference" game.  I know that was the the way Whitewater's 2008 games with Eau Claire were set up - 1st game conference (UWW 16, UWEC 14 at EC) - second game later in the season at UWW (Hawks 45, EC 10) was the non-conference game.

I don't understand the logic but then again I'm really not that smart!

I think you can make an arguement either way.  From the perspective of treating the non con games as "pre-season" it does allow a team to experiment more with personnel early in the season without impacting the conference race, which is exactly what UWW did.  As a coach, I would worry about playing a conference opponent in the season's first game if it had conference standing implications- there is just so much unknown yet coming out of camp.

The whole concept of a conference mandating a game and then saying the game "doesn't count" within their jurisdiction (conference standings) is conflicted and open to debate no matter how they choose to implement it.  I think almost everyone would agree that if anything were mandated, a "WIAC/CCIW Challenge" would be far preferable.  I know for the northern-most teams, it would involve more travel, which may or may not negate the purpose.  And then there is the small issue of the institutions buying into the idea.  But from a fan's perspective, it would be awesome!

Excellent post BP.   It is an automatically conflicted policy of having two conference teams play each other twice a year.  Regardless of the argument, it would be preferable to avoid the policy altogether andf find that "Challenge".  In reality, having to travel a little farther for a couple games a year is really not that much more.  Geez, I bet the increase in parking at the Stadium Lot alone would pay for the travel.   The time to get this type of Conference to Conference challenge created is now.  The WIAC already has the reputation.  Some Conference A.D. just needs to accept the challenge.

[WarhawkDad]

Voice, the wallet saga had me LMAO.

BW
it just shows once again that I really have no life!

Voice,

No worries, I did almost the exact same thing with my cell phone once.  Lost it for almost two full days, thought I was going to have to go buy another one, then found it.    Although, come to think of it, I did not miss it as nearly as much as I thought I would!   

WarhawkDad

[02 Warhawk]

A question from a casual fan in regards to the WIAC's popular "in-conference/non-conference" games this season.

Why was the first game played designated as the non-conference game with the second go-around designated as the conference game?

Shouldn't the first game have been designated the "conference" game.  I know that was the the way Whitewater's 2008 games with Eau Claire were set up - 1st game conference (UWW 16, UWEC 14 at EC) - second game later in the season at UWW (Hawks 45, EC 10) was the non-conference game.

I don't understand the logic but then again I'm really not that smart!

I think you can make an arguement either way.  From the perspective of treating the non con games as "pre-season" it does allow a team to experiment more with personnel early in the season without impacting the conference race, which is exactly what UWW did.  As a coach, I would worry about playing a conference opponent in the season's first game if it had conference standing implications- there is just so much unknown yet coming out of camp.

The whole concept of a conference mandating a game and then saying the game "doesn't count" within their jurisdiction (conference standings) is conflicted and open to debate no matter how they choose to implement it.  I think almost everyone would agree that if anything were mandated, a "WIAC/CCIW Challenge" would be far preferable.  I know for the northern-most teams, it would involve more travel, which may or may not negate the purpose.  And then there is the small issue of the institutions buying into the idea.  But from a fan's perspective, it would be awesome!

Excellent post BP.   It is an automatically conflicted policy of having two conference teams play each other twice a year.  Regardless of the argument, it would be preferable to avoid the policy altogether andf find that "Challenge".  In reality, having to travel a little farther for a couple games a year is really not that much more.  Geez, I bet the increase in parking at the Stadium Lot alone would pay for the travel.   The time to get this type of Conference to Conference challenge created is now.  The WIAC already has the reputation. Some Conference A.D. just needs to accept the challenge.

I imagine some AD's think that scheduling a game against the WIAC may compromise their program from getting a pool C bid. They would much rather schedule a game against a North region team, like someone in the NATHC or MIAA where a win is more probable. Plus, it looks better on their SOS/Regional rankings if they play a team from the North.

From a fan standpoint, it would be great to see games like Whitewater face a NCC; Oshkosh play Ill. Wesleyan, and maybe Platteville play Wheaton (oh wait.....). Especially this season.

However, I don't think it would be much of a game if River Falls, La Crosse, Stevens Point and Eau Claire matchup against North Park, Augustana, Milikin, and Carthage.

[02 Warhawk]

Ha!!! I got a kick out of seeing the WIAC's Player of the Week for Special Teams.

Chad Blair, for kicking four extra points.   

[desertcat1]

hey  warhawk  ,
the rats would  love to have made 4 extra points that would  have giving them a chance at OT with the cats..    the cats blocked them... talk about special teams play .. 

Go Cats
Go Big D

[badgerwarhawk]

Ha!!! I got a kick out of seeing the WIAC's Player of the Week for Special Teams.

Chad Blair, for kicking four extra points.   

It looks like the conference commissioner's office was impressed by River Falls' first win.  Falcons filled all three of the selections.  Good for them it's nice that they got recognized for finally winning.  It has to have been a long season up there.   

[Assassin14]

Congrats to the Falcons for defeating UWL on Saturday.  Let's hope they can keep the positivity going up there and end the season (again) on a good note versus the golds!  Go Falcons

[bleedpurple]

hey  warhawk  ,
the rats would  love to have made 4 extra points that would  have giving them a chance at OT with the cats..    the cats blocked them... talk about special teams play .. 

Go Cats
Go Big D

The fact that the Pirates even had an opportunity for that many extra points against the Cats should be cause for concern.

[02 Warhawk]

I have my final WIAC Weekly Matchups writeup available on my blog.