FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[bluenote]

That's true...but that's a different topic. They were over rated in my opinion. I don't exactly agree with the OAC being rated that high. But that doesn't change the fact that they are rated second.

I think the CCIW should be up there.

Agree on that...NCC was a hell of a team. A top 10 team in my opinion. PLU was almost as good in other dimensions. Smaller along the lines, but skill players were equal.

[skunks_sidekick]

UWW having to go on the road two years ago was a crock of sh&^%T!  I respect ypsi, but in this case defending his conference was wrong.  I think the committee was trying to "shake things up", and not only did UWW spit in their face, the committee took much heat from most of D-III. 

My (what I thought) fun, sarcastic point was........Mount plays who is in front of them.  PERIOD.

They have no say.......other than going 10-0 for the last 7 seasons during the regular season, and only losing in the Stagg Bowl to UWW four times.  Bleed couldn't have stated my point any better.  I think teams like Linfield & UMHB get screwed most years due to geography.  That has been well documented, and very clear. 

Should Linfield have had to travel to Wesley last year?  I think that is toss-up, but the end result proved who was the better team.  If anyone thinks that Mount having to travel anywhere the last seven/ten/fifteen years would have made a difference, hasn't really watched much D-III football closely those last umpteen years. 

Hate all you want (and you know who you are), but other than a geography based bias (which has been clearly outlined many times), Mount has always played whoever that crazy NCAA committee puts in front of them. 

THAT....was my point.

[wildcat11]

See everyone later....too much Mount talk (could care less).  Good travels Oshkosh.  Should be a hell of a game between our squads.

[bleedpurple]

See everyone later....too much Mount talk (could care less).  Good travels Oshkosh.  Should be a hell of a game between our squads.

Good luck to the Cats, WC.  If you are fortunate, you may care more about Mount in a couple of weeks. 

[D O.C.]

I think the committee was trying to "shake things up",

(There I helped the pages move along.)

I thought that's what they were trying to do by letting LINFIELD go play somebody different (Wesley) in 2011.

LINFIELD gets to go to Case Western Reserve next year - again broadening our horizons. Then the ....midwest, is that what it's called? ... can see what the sqwaking is about.

[Pat Coleman]

I think the CCIW should be up there.

I don't know about No. 2 if North Central loses to UW-La Crosse and Wheaton loses to Albion. The MIAC or ASC may merit that No. 2 spot more than the OAC, depending on what happens the rest of the way. Maybe once Pacific matures and Puget Sound ... well, anyway ...

[Mr. Ypsi]

UWW having to go on the road two years ago was a crock of sh&^%T!  I respect ypsi, but in this case defending his conference was wrong.  I think the committee was trying to "shake things up", and not only did UWW spit in their face, the committee took much heat from most of D-III. 

Please reread my post.  I was not defending the decision subjectively (I pointed out that most of us, even the NCC partisans of which I am not one , agreed that UWW was probably the better team); I merely observed (correctly, I believe) that by the rules then in place, objectively it would have been an injustice if NCC had NOT hosted.

BTW, that rule change (allowing use of prior results in deciding amongst undefeated teams) just might have benefitted Linfield this year in hosting also-undefeated Oshkosh (though I'm sure their #4 SoS certainly helped the decision!).

And I agree with Pat that currently the CCIW is definitely not #2 - though I think they should be in the discussion for about 4 or 5).  Elmhurst was probably our third best team, but gave UST quite a scare; NCC could have beaten Linfield if they gave it to Kucoc more often (Linfield had no answer for him) and could hold on to the damn ball (you can't beat even the weak playoff teams with SEVEN turnovers, and Linfield was obviously not a weak playoff team).

[Pat Coleman]

Yes. The 7 or whatever we rated the league at in September/October was basically the league's low point: IWU had gone one and out at home last year, North Central had coughed up a big lead on the road in the playoffs and the non-conference losses I referenced earlier had just happened.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Yes. The 7 or whatever we rated the league at in September/October was basically the league's low point: IWU had gone one and out at home last year, North Central had coughed up a big lead on the road in the playoffs and the non-conference losses I referenced earlier had just happened.

I grant all that, and no problem with #7 at that time.  Just lobbying for better next time!

As to those playoff losses, I was totally shocked by both.  NCC simply failed to pressure the Wabash qb at all in the second half (inexplicable 'brain fart' by the generally excellent coaches at NCC), and Alex Tanney was a qb the likes of which Monmouth will NEVER see again.  Still, we should have won both games, so demerits to the CCIW.

[D O.C.]

Maybe once Pacific matures and Puget Sound... well, anyway ...

Good one PC!

Apple cores and orange peels, but our old schedule fill Southern Oregon made it to the NAIA quarterfinals losing to 12-0 Morningside (Iowa) 44-47 in OT. They are now coached by an ex-LINFIELD linebacker who had Tim Tebow in high school down in FLA.

LINFIELD beat SOU in 2009, - 2008, 2007, 2006 - (the supposed years we were not a DIII force ),2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000, and 1999. We got shut out 0-29 in 2001.

[Tuxguy]

UWW having to go on the road two years ago was a crock of sh&^%T!  I respect ypsi, but in this case defending his conference was wrong.  I think the committee was trying to "shake things up", and not only did UWW spit in their face, the committee took much heat from most of D-III. 

Please reread my post.  I was not defending the decision subjectively (I pointed out that most of us, even the NCC partisans of which I am not one , agreed that UWW was probably the better team); I merely observed (correctly, I believe) that by the rules then in place, objectively it would have been an injustice if NCC had NOT hosted.

BTW, that rule change (allowing use of prior results in deciding amongst undefeated teams) just might have benefitted Linfield this year in hosting also-undefeated Oshkosh (though I'm sure their #4 SoS certainly helped the decision!).

And I agree with Pat that currently the CCIW is definitely not #2 - though I think they should be in the discussion for about 4 or 5).  Elmhurst was probably our third best team, but gave UST quite a scare; NCC could have beaten Linfield if they gave it to Kucoc more often (Linfield had no answer for him) and could hold on to the damn ball (you can't beat even the weak playoff teams with SEVEN turnovers, and Linfield was obviously not a weak playoff team).

Really? Should a, Could a, But didn't, and have now turned in the gear for another year. Kukuc was good, scary good, but how many times can you give him the ball? I'm guessing he was low on gas, 25 att. was the most all year.  his previous games of 21- CLU, 21- Augustana and 9 vs. Wheaton.
Anyway, I wanted to tip my Top-Hat to NCC on a good entertaining game. Even with the turnovers I didn't feel safe until the clock ran to 00.
GO CATS!

[footballfan413]

Hey 02, 
What do you think about the point spread on the Pick'em OAC  for MT.U & UMHB?   IT's pretty hard to beat the same team twice By 10 + , but if anyone can do it UMHB can.. Now the 24 for Widener.. AT the Quarters is that saying We still have a cup-cake or MT U is that good ?  (BALANCED )    ?

I don't have a problem with the spreads that mr_mom created. They seem about right I suppose.

Mount Union will always have a cupcake in their region as long as they stay in the East each year. They never get tested till the semi's

I seemed to have missed a lot after shutting down the computer last night but I was definitely here at the beginning, (and helped stir the pot,) but let us just return, for a moment, to the two posts that got the ball rolling regarding UMU and the play-offs in the first place.  Was quite simple and harmless, actually, and it blew up from there.  I then jumped in pretty quickly regarding the East region's, "difficult road," since Mount got moved there several years ago. Honestly, looking back at the comments above, I don't think any one of us involved in the discussion can question the truth in what was said.  Look, we are all seasoned posters and all understand exactly why the playoffs are run the way they are.  It was not, UWW posters, wanting to bring up old news or everyone just. "hating," on UMU.  It was what it was, a board discussion/debate, (that gets a little aggressive at times,) that fills our spare time with football talk, one of my favorite past times ever.  We all agree more than we disagree most of the time and I, for one, enjoyed the banter and never intended to, "win," just to engage.    Hope everyone is good with that. 


Hi Tuxguy!  You can stop by any time.  You always know where to find me.    

And D.O.C., I never quote another poster to run up the pages, just to keep my posts on topic.    Is that a PP competition that I am not aware of, because I love a good competition.   

[dlippiel]

dlip was a bit of a diack with his earlier post, his apology fellas he is just a sensitive one at times . His relaxed point is that no one but U-Dub should question MUC's road to the playoffs because they are the only team to defeat MUC since Chirst's time. Second the East has played MUC relatively equal or better than other in and out of region opponents since 2006 (hence the SJF refernece). WHo is to say anyone would play them any better? No one has? ****, look again at Rowan of 2005? The East brings it as good as any other with the admitted exception of having that 1 or 2 top teams that consistently float in the top tier of D1.

[retagent]

Not to start in again, but the idea that no one can question something because they don't have the required "cedentials" is ludicrous. A valid point is a valid point, no matter who the "pointer" is. Same for invalid points. Arguements should be held on the message, not the messenger. Ad Hominum attacks are invalid, no matter the validity of the argument. Period, end of discussion.

[WarhawkDad]

Not to start in again, but the idea that no one can question something because they don't have the required "cedentials" is ludicrous. A valid point is a valid point, no matter who the "pointer" is. Same for invalid points. Arguements should be held on the message, not the messenger. Ad Hominum attacks are invalid, no matter the validity of the argument. Period, end of discussion.

Well said retagent +K.