FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[WarhawkDad]

I think it will depend on how much before 10:00 pm you'd be able to get there.  I'm not aware of anywhere that is still serving after ten.  But if you were there say 9:30 ish you might try either Randy's (Milwaukee St) or Cozumel (Mexican on Main St).  Cozumel might serve a little later than Randy's but if you're looking for the classic Friday night fish fry you won't find it at Cozumel.  I'm not sure how late Culvers stays open.  If fried food is your thing that would be a place to stop. 

If you're driving to Chicago afterward you'd probably be close enough to Janesville that you might want to check there.  There are a lot of franchise type places (i.e. Applebees, Buffalo Wild Wings, Red Robin, etc.) that are probably still serving at 10 or later.

Rosa's Pizza is good!   At least I see alot of ATM card debits from there from #65! 

[WarhawkDad]

UWW gave the rest of D3 the blueprint.  The question is simple, is St. Thomas' line play at a championship level?   

It's a little more complex than that. UWW had elite line play, but they also had back to back elite RB's. UST's Oline may be every bit as good as Whitewater's championship lines, but they do not have a Beaver or Coppage toting the rock. And Mount doesn't have a Kmic either.

Complex?  I don't think so. Without great line play vs Mt - the talent of Beavers and Coppage is nowhere near enough for a victory. I'll take a great O (and D of course) line with a good RB over a good O Line and great RB. Get a 4 yard average per carry w 30+ carries and keep the Mt O off the field and you may find victory.
I wonder if an O Line w freshman will be able to do that vs Mt. I hope so.

Amen on a great line and good RB over a good O-line and great RB.   

[footballfan413]

Yep, that's exactly the point I'm making. Interestingly, neither Mount or UST has an elite RB. Still some good players, but no All-America caliber guys. Both claim exceptional line play on both sides. I think Mount has the edge at QB and WR. But UST is no slouch at those positions. Should be a blast to watch.

I think this is where Mount has a HUGE advantage. Mount's receivers are much more athletic, and Burke doesn't make the mistakes that O'Connell does.

Except last week  But yeah, as good as O'Connell is and will be, Burke seems to be already elite. And Collins is just another freak WR at Mount, ho hum. I do think UST's secondary is overlooked too often though, but they will definitely earn their 'scholarship' money on Friday 

I know this doesn't matter but Wara's ball didn't look right coming out of his hand last week.  He still had numbers but a few of his passes sailed on him where I didn't see that the week before (or what I saw on film).  Stinks he wasn't at 100%

Nate broke his pinky finger on his throwing hand playing your Wildcats.  For a QB to have that kind of an injury, not even close to 100%.  I was really upset for him and the team when I heard.  May not have changed the outcome but we'll never know how a healthy Wara could have played against the Tommies, unfortunately. 

[footballfan413]

413 - Your point about the hoopla surrounding the Stagg is great. Thanks for making it. I should have taken that into account when making my points about the quality of the MIAC, St Thomas, etc. There is more to such a game than the quality of the team.

Why thank you, Sir.    I hope the Tommies handle it like veterans but I don't see how it is possible.  When your opponent is the perennial Stagg Bowl participant, UMU Raiders, the pitfalls of being a, "first timer," are even more magnified.   

[emma17]

UWW gave the rest of D3 the blueprint.  The question is simple, is St. Thomas' line play at a championship level?   

It's a little more complex than that. UWW had elite line play, but they also had back to back elite RB's. UST's Oline may be every bit as good as Whitewater's championship lines, but they do not have a Beaver or Coppage toting the rock. And Mount doesn't have a Kmic either.

Complex?  I don't think so. Without great line play vs Mt - the talent of Beavers and Coppage is nowhere near enough for a victory. I'll take a great O (and D of course) line with a good RB over a good O Line and great RB. Get a 4 yard average per carry w 30+ carries and keep the Mt O off the field and you may find victory.
I wonder if an O Line w freshman will be able to do that vs Mt. I hope so.

17 is right!!    We had Beaver toting the rock in 05 an 06, wasn't enough until we won the LOS in 07.  The Raiders had Kmic in 07, wasn't enough because, we won the LOS.  We had Coppage toting the rock in 08, wasn't enough to win that year either! It all starts with the lines, boys!  It is what opens holes for the run game, and gives QB's time for the passing game. 

17, let me just pass along advice I got from my parents almost 32 years ago when I first became a parent.
   "Always remember, you're the parent!"   

You're both missing the point. I'm not arguing elite line play isn't important. I'm arguing the story goes beyond this. Do you really think you win in 07, 09-11 without Beaver and Coppage playing behind those great lines? I don't. I remember the run Beaver made in 07 to seal it. Great initial blocking, and then you saw an elite back do his thing at the second level.

So yeah, it is more complex than just elite line play (which was 17's original argument) or having only an elite back. I agree, I'd take the elite line over the elite back. But when Mount and Whitewater have been winning these they've had both, hence the complexity. It's also interesting that in 2003, when SJU beat Mount, Mount didn't have an elite back but had a great line (this is what was claimed anyway). But without a Moore, Pugh or Kmic they got beat by a team with a ridiculous front 7, very good Oline, and elite skill position player (Blake Elliot).

UWW gave the rest of D3 the blueprint.  The question is simple, is St. Thomas' line play at a championship level?   

It's a little more complex than that. UWW had elite line play, but they also had back to back elite RB's. UST's Oline may be every bit as good as Whitewater's championship lines, but they do not have a Beaver or Coppage toting the rock. And Mount doesn't have a Kmic either.

I was thinking the same thing.  When Coppage broke through the front line, he was a threat to take it to the house every play.  Same with Beaver, Kmic, and even Moore and Pugh.

Yep, that's exactly the point I'm making. Interestingly, neither Mount or UST has an elite RB. Still some good players, but no All-America caliber guys. Both claim exceptional line play on both sides. I think Mount has the edge at QB and WR. But UST is no slouch at those positions. Should be a blast to watch.

I'm sure we aren't too far off in our opinions here- probably lost a bit in translation. 
-I pick Beaver over Coppage for the record.
-Hazzben it is your opinion that UWW would not have won without Beaver or Coppage, I don't share that opinion.     
-If the St. T O-Line is "every bit as good" as the best UWW line in the championship run, St. T doesn't need a Coppage, Beaver or Kmick.  If St T can run the ball 30+ times from the RB position at a 4 yard average (assuming no turnovers)- the rest is up to the St. T defense and it should be a good game.     
-IMO, the most critical offensive position group when facing a team like Mt is the O-Line.  All offensive positions are important and by the time a team reaches the Stagg, all players should range between good-great.  Obviously a great defense is a must.   
-If a RB has true breakaway capability like Beaver or Coppage the defense may align deeper with safeties.  However, a decent-good passing game takes care of that.       
-Did you watch the video of 2010 Coppage that I provided?  What was it that Coppage did that was so special other than having speed?  A slow RB picks up the first down-and game is over.     
-Do I think UWW wins in 2007 without Beaver?  That is hard to answer as I don't want to disrespect a guy I think is one of the greatest Hawks of all time.  Beaver was great because he turned a good gain into a great gain.  The question really is, would UWW have won with a RB that was only capable of the good gain?  An arguement can be made that the answer is yes.  I don't know that UWW had that guy on the roster in 2007.     
-Do I think UWW wins 2009-2011 without Coppage?  Yes- Antwaan Anderson would have been just fine in 2009 and 2010- and he wasn't a breakaway threat.  2011 Coppage was hurt and held in check and a case can be made the O-Line wasn't quite as good as prior years.  The defense won the game.     
-I'm not sure Mt fans are claiming their O-Line to be great?       

[hazzben]

I'm sure we aren't too far off in our opinions here- probably lost a bit in translation. 
-I pick Beaver over Coppage for the record. I wouldn't argue that. You know them better than I do.
-Hazzben it is your opinion that UWW would not have won without Beaver or Coppage, I don't share that opinion. Agree to disagree. But I find it hard to believe that UWW wins all those titles without those two guys. AA was good, but he was not LC.   
-If the St. T O-Line is "every bit as good" as the best UWW line in the championship run, St. T doesn't need a Coppage, Beaver or Kmick.  If St T can run the ball 30+ times from the RB position at a 4 yard average (assuming no turnovers)- the rest is up to the St. T defense and it should be a good game. you forgot the first word of the quote 'may.' I'm not sure they are, at least not this year. We'll see in a year or two how they'd stack up. And you miss the point. Those UWW lines had those great backs, so we don't know if they'd win the Stagg without them. Maybe...maybe not.   
-IMO, the most critical offensive position group when facing a team like Mt is the O-Line.  All offensive positions are important and by the time a team reaches the Stagg, all players should range between good-great.  Obviously a great defense is a must. Agreed 
-If a RB has true breakaway capability like Beaver or Coppage the defense may align deeper with safeties.  However, a decent-good passing game takes care of that. Which only creates further matchup problems. You're really only helping my point. If a team has an elite RB, the offense has to account for him. If the same team can also throw the ball, the D's job has just gotten that much harder. UWW had all these elements on their Stagg teams.     
-Did you watch the video of 2010 Coppage that I provided?  What was it that Coppage did that was so special other than having speed?  A slow RB picks up the first down-and game is over.  I did. And I agree that the run is 90% Oline dominance and then a back with great speed. But you overlook the fact that LC had this for a stat line: 39 carries for 299 yds, 7.7 ypc, 3TD's. You're telling me having an elite back didn't matter that game? A merely 'good' RB gets the other 224 yds and 2 TD's that Coppage piled up? I'm not buying it. That Oline was phenomenal. And so was the RB. They both made each other better, but the whole is less, minus one of the parts.   
-Do I think UWW wins in 2007 without Beaver?  That is hard to answer as I don't want to disrespect a guy I think is one of the greatest Hawks of all time.  Beaver was great because he turned a good gain into a great gain.  The question really is, would UWW have won with a RB that was only capable of the good gain?  An arguement can be made that the answer is yes.  I don't know that UWW had that guy on the roster in 2007. You could definitely make the argument they win without Beaver. And you could make it that they don't. We don't know, but I'm guessing LL was pretty happy to have him in the lineup and LK would have been thrilled had Beaver not played.   
-Do I think UWW wins 2009-2011 without Coppage?  Yes- Antwaan Anderson would have been just fine in 2009 and 2010- and he wasn't a breakaway threat.  2011 Coppage was hurt and held in check and a case can be made the O-Line wasn't quite as good as prior years.  The defense won the game. Defense was crucial to the win. But you just admitted the O-Line wasn't as good and that you still won against Mt And injured or not, LC still carried the ball 32 times, scored your only TD and had almost half your offensive production. I'd say that's a RB who was pretty essential to you formula for victory, along with an awesome D and storng O-Line. But he's part of that 'complex' equation     
-I'm not sure Mt fans are claiming their O-Line to be great? I'm pretty sure they are. Read the feature. Another Mount poster on the ATN thread - I believe - talked about how the difference between this current Mount team and the ones from the 90's is the superior line play. But my point was, in 2003, Mount was talking about their great line. Specifically their stud transfer from tOSU at tackle.   

Again, if I had to pick, I'd take the elite O-Line. But I'd rather have them both. Which is exactly what UWW has had when they one each of their titles. So I still say the formula is more complex than you make it out to be. At least the proven formula. It's possible you could have beaten Mount without an elite RB. But you never did and never had to, so we don't know. And it certainly would have been more difficult. But I do appreciate the lively, respectful back and forth. Good stuff!

[HScoach]

Emma17 is right about the Mount O-line.  It's solid, but I wouldn't classify it as great.  Two of the starters were D-linemen last year that were moved to O this fall because of lack of production.  It's not a weak O-line, but I sure wouldn't say it's a strength of the team. 

Strengths:
1.  WR corps
2.  Overall defensive team speed
3.  QB

Solid:
1.  O-line play

Weaknesses/decent/wish it was better:
1.  RB's
2.  Defense lacks size up front

[Raider 68]

Emma17 is right about the Mount O-line.  It's solid, but I wouldn't classify it as great.  Two of the starters were D-linemen last year that were moved to O this fall because of lack of production.  It's not a weak O-line, but I sure wouldn't say it's a strength of the team. 

Strengths:
1.  WR corps
2.  Overall defensive team speed
3.  QB

Solid:
1.  O-line play

Weaknesses/decent/wish it was better:
1.  RB's
2.  Defense lacks size up front

HSCoach is exactly correct! I see a real difference that the Raiders have this year to combat
the strong offensive lines is the blinding speed of the defense. MHB had a big, strong OL, but could not handle the Raider D especially in the second half. As 02 pointed out in his article on Talent in D3 a few days ago, the speed of Mount Union is exceptional.

[footballfan413]

NCC
UW-Oshkosh
Hobart
St. Thomas
MHB
Wesley
Widener
Mount Union

Hey 02, I got bad news for you.  It has just come to my attention that I made a mistake with this pick em's week.  Gave you 16 points and it should have been 14.  You did pick NCC over Linfield.  I have kept a week to week as well as a running total for everyone throughout so it is easy for me to go back and verify my math whenever necessary.  Lowering your total from 50 to 48.  Shouldn't affect anything, really, unless someone picks the Tommies and upsets the favorite, Raiders and you.    Really sorry about that but right is right and I'd rather correct and apologize than let it slide.  That's what you get for picking NCC over the Cats anyway!   

[02 Warhawk]

NCC
UW-Oshkosh
Hobart
St. Thomas
MHB
Wesley
Widener
Mount Union

Hey 02, I got bad news for you.  It has just come to my attention that I made a mistake with this pick em's week.  Gave you 16 points and it should have been 14. You did pick NCC over Linfield.  I have kept a week to week as well as a running total for everyone throughout so it is easy for me to go back and verify my math whenever necessary.  Lowering your total from 50 to 48.  Shouldn't affect anything, really, unless someone picks the Tommies and upsets the favorite, Raiders and you.    Really sorry about that but right is right and I'd rather correct and apologize than let it slide.  That's what you get for picking NCC over the Cats anyway!   

Is Bobo back??     

[footballfan413]

NCC
UW-Oshkosh
Hobart
St. Thomas
MHB
Wesley
Widener
Mount Union

Hey 02, I got bad news for you.  It has just come to my attention that I made a mistake with this pick em's week.  Gave you 16 points and it should have been 14. You did pick NCC over Linfield.  I have kept a week to week as well as a running total for everyone throughout so it is easy for me to go back and verify my math whenever necessary.  Lowering your total from 50 to 48.  Shouldn't affect anything, really, unless someone picks the Tommies and upsets the favorite, Raiders and you.    Really sorry about that but right is right and I'd rather correct and apologize than let it slide.  That's what you get for picking NCC over the Cats anyway!   

Is Bobo back?     

LOL,sadly nope!  I still miss the guy and worry about him.   I try to check and re-check my math but still messed up.  Damn this aging brain................. 

[02 Warhawk]

NCC
UW-Oshkosh
Hobart
St. Thomas
MHB
Wesley
Widener
Mount Union

Hey 02, I got bad news for you.  It has just come to my attention that I made a mistake with this pick em's week.  Gave you 16 points and it should have been 14. You did pick NCC over Linfield.  I have kept a week to week as well as a running total for everyone throughout so it is easy for me to go back and verify my math whenever necessary.  Lowering your total from 50 to 48.  Shouldn't affect anything, really, unless someone picks the Tommies and upsets the favorite, Raiders and you.    Really sorry about that but right is right and I'd rather correct and apologize than let it slide.  That's what you get for picking NCC over the Cats anyway!   

Is Bobo back?     

LOL,sadly nope!  I still miss the guy and worry about him.   I try to check and re-check my math but still messed up.  Damn this aging brain................. 

No worries..I think it was Bobo that constantly pointed out my mistakes while running it last season.

[emma17]

I'm sure we aren't too far off in our opinions here- probably lost a bit in translation. 
-I pick Beaver over Coppage for the record. I wouldn't argue that. You know them better than I do.
-Hazzben it is your opinion that UWW would not have won without Beaver or Coppage, I don't share that opinion. Agree to disagree. But I find it hard to believe that UWW wins all those titles without those two guys. AA was good, but he was not LC.   
-If the St. T O-Line is "every bit as good" as the best UWW line in the championship run, St. T doesn't need a Coppage, Beaver or Kmick.  If St T can run the ball 30+ times from the RB position at a 4 yard average (assuming no turnovers)- the rest is up to the St. T defense and it should be a good game. you forgot the first word of the quote 'may.' I'm not sure they are, at least not this year. We'll see in a year or two how they'd stack up. And you miss the point. Those UWW lines had those great backs, so we don't know if they'd win the Stagg without them. Maybe...maybe not.   
-IMO, the most critical offensive position group when facing a team like Mt is the O-Line.  All offensive positions are important and by the time a team reaches the Stagg, all players should range between good-great.  Obviously a great defense is a must. Agreed 
-If a RB has true breakaway capability like Beaver or Coppage the defense may align deeper with safeties.  However, a decent-good passing game takes care of that. Which only creates further matchup problems. You're really only helping my point. If a team has an elite RB, the offense has to account for him. If the same team can also throw the ball, the D's job has just gotten that much harder. UWW had all these elements on their Stagg teams.     
-Did you watch the video of 2010 Coppage that I provided?  What was it that Coppage did that was so special other than having speed?  A slow RB picks up the first down-and game is over.  I did. And I agree that the run is 90% Oline dominance and then a back with great speed. But you overlook the fact that LC had this for a stat line: 39 carries for 299 yds, 7.7 ypc, 3TD's. You're telling me having an elite back didn't matter that game? A merely 'good' RB gets the other 224 yds and 2 TD's that Coppage piled up? I'm not buying it. That Oline was phenomenal. And so was the RB. They both made each other better, but the whole is less, minus one of the parts.   
-Do I think UWW wins in 2007 without Beaver?  That is hard to answer as I don't want to disrespect a guy I think is one of the greatest Hawks of all time.  Beaver was great because he turned a good gain into a great gain.  The question really is, would UWW have won with a RB that was only capable of the good gain?  An arguement can be made that the answer is yes.  I don't know that UWW had that guy on the roster in 2007. You could definitely make the argument they win without Beaver. And you could make it that they don't. We don't know, but I'm guessing LL was pretty happy to have him in the lineup and LK would have been thrilled had Beaver not played.   
-Do I think UWW wins 2009-2011 without Coppage?  Yes- Antwaan Anderson would have been just fine in 2009 and 2010- and he wasn't a breakaway threat.  2011 Coppage was hurt and held in check and a case can be made the O-Line wasn't quite as good as prior years.  The defense won the game. Defense was crucial to the win. But you just admitted the O-Line wasn't as good and that you still won against Mt And injured or not, LC still carried the ball 32 times, scored your only TD and had almost half your offensive production. I'd say that's a RB who was pretty essential to you formula for victory, along with an awesome D and storng O-Line. But he's part of that 'complex' equation     
-I'm not sure Mt fans are claiming their O-Line to be great? I'm pretty sure they are. Read the feature. Another Mount poster on the ATN thread - I believe - talked about how the difference between this current Mount team and the ones from the 90's is the superior line play. But my point was, in 2003, Mount was talking about their great line. Specifically their stud transfer from tOSU at tackle.   

Again, if I had to pick, I'd take the elite O-Line. But I'd rather have them both. Which is exactly what UWW has had when they one each of their titles. So I still say the formula is more complex than you make it out to be. At least the proven formula. It's possible you could have beaten Mount without an elite RB. But you never did and never had to, so we don't know. And it certainly would have been more difficult. But I do appreciate the lively, respectful back and forth. Good stuff!

Hazz, if you want to maintain a respectful dialogue, drop the emoticons- they ooze sarcasm.
I think our original disagreement started over your point that "it's more complex than that".  My objection to that statement revolves around the word complex.  When I think of complex in football terms, I think along the lines of creative formations, game plans, ways to use space, etc.  To me, it's Not complex to say a championship team needs to have a good offensive line, good running game and good passing game- that's actually Basic and not complex.  So if I say a decent to good passing game helps keep the safeties back, which in turn helps the running game, that's really not complex- it's basic.     
I feel some of the points you feel support your point of view are the result of not having watched UWW play as much since you're a MIAC guy.
For instance,
-I don't overlook LC's 299 yard stat line.  I simply look at it with greater focus.  75 yards of it came on the play I linked- that was great blocking.  The other 224 was a mix of some really nice runs and some tough runs.  Does AA get all 224 of those yards?  Probably not.  Does he get a boat load? Absolutely and without a shred of doubt.
-You believe Coppage was "essential" to UWW's Stagg 13-10 Stagg victory last year- I do not.  My point about the O-Line being a bit weaker last year is that it showed both in Coppage's performance (less than 100 yards and under a 3 yard average) and the passing game performance.  In fact, if it wasn't for an incredible defensive effort, the O-Line could have been the main reason UWW lost the 2011 Stagg.
-I'm not making the arguement that I don't want a great RB, of course LL and LK would love to have Beaver, Kmick, Coppage as well as Garcon, Shorts, Donovan, Micheli and the rest.  The point is, give me a Great O-Line and good all the rest, and I'll have a better chance of winning the Stagg vs Mt Union.
-Having a strong defense isn't complex.  It's basic.
   

[WarhawkDad]

Emma17 is right about the Mount O-line.  It's solid, but I wouldn't classify it as great.  Two of the starters were D-linemen last year that were moved to O this fall because of lack of production.  It's not a weak O-line, but I sure wouldn't say it's a strength of the team. 

Strengths:
1.  WR corps
2.  Overall defensive team speed
3.  QB

Solid:
1.  O-line play

Weaknesses/decent/wish it was better:
1.  RB's
2.  Defense lacks size up front

And the bolded reason is why UWW had success, especially in 2009 - 2011.   The UWW offensive lines were significantly better than the UMU defensive lines.   I would rank the UWW offensive lines from those years in this order 2010, 2009, 2011.   UWW also had excellent defense in those years.  I agree with the argument that with those lines that without Coppage that Antwan Anderson or another of the backs, because we were loaded at back in 2009 and 2010 would have done very well.   

[WarhawkDad]

I'm sure we aren't too far off in our opinions here- probably lost a bit in translation. 
-I pick Beaver over Coppage for the record. I wouldn't argue that. You know them better than I do.
-Hazzben it is your opinion that UWW would not have won without Beaver or Coppage, I don't share that opinion. Agree to disagree. But I find it hard to believe that UWW wins all those titles without those two guys. AA was good, but he was not LC.   
-If the St. T O-Line is "every bit as good" as the best UWW line in the championship run, St. T doesn't need a Coppage, Beaver or Kmick.  If St T can run the ball 30+ times from the RB position at a 4 yard average (assuming no turnovers)- the rest is up to the St. T defense and it should be a good game. you forgot the first word of the quote 'may.' I'm not sure they are, at least not this year. We'll see in a year or two how they'd stack up. And you miss the point. Those UWW lines had those great backs, so we don't know if they'd win the Stagg without them. Maybe...maybe not.   
-IMO, the most critical offensive position group when facing a team like Mt is the O-Line.  All offensive positions are important and by the time a team reaches the Stagg, all players should range between good-great.  Obviously a great defense is a must. Agreed 
-If a RB has true breakaway capability like Beaver or Coppage the defense may align deeper with safeties.  However, a decent-good passing game takes care of that. Which only creates further matchup problems. You're really only helping my point. If a team has an elite RB, the offense has to account for him. If the same team can also throw the ball, the D's job has just gotten that much harder. UWW had all these elements on their Stagg teams.     
-Did you watch the video of 2010 Coppage that I provided?  What was it that Coppage did that was so special other than having speed?  A slow RB picks up the first down-and game is over.  I did. And I agree that the run is 90% Oline dominance and then a back with great speed. But you overlook the fact that LC had this for a stat line: 39 carries for 299 yds, 7.7 ypc, 3TD's. You're telling me having an elite back didn't matter that game? A merely 'good' RB gets the other 224 yds and 2 TD's that Coppage piled up? I'm not buying it. That Oline was phenomenal. And so was the RB. They both made each other better, but the whole is less, minus one of the parts.   
-Do I think UWW wins in 2007 without Beaver?  That is hard to answer as I don't want to disrespect a guy I think is one of the greatest Hawks of all time.  Beaver was great because he turned a good gain into a great gain.  The question really is, would UWW have won with a RB that was only capable of the good gain?  An arguement can be made that the answer is yes.  I don't know that UWW had that guy on the roster in 2007. You could definitely make the argument they win without Beaver. And you could make it that they don't. We don't know, but I'm guessing LL was pretty happy to have him in the lineup and LK would have been thrilled had Beaver not played.   
-Do I think UWW wins 2009-2011 without Coppage?  Yes- Antwaan Anderson would have been just fine in 2009 and 2010- and he wasn't a breakaway threat.  2011 Coppage was hurt and held in check and a case can be made the O-Line wasn't quite as good as prior years.  The defense won the game. Defense was crucial to the win. But you just admitted the O-Line wasn't as good and that you still won against Mt And injured or not, LC still carried the ball 32 times, scored your only TD and had almost half your offensive production. I'd say that's a RB who was pretty essential to you formula for victory, along with an awesome D and storng O-Line. But he's part of that 'complex' equation     
-I'm not sure Mt fans are claiming their O-Line to be great? I'm pretty sure they are. Read the feature. Another Mount poster on the ATN thread - I believe - talked about how the difference between this current Mount team and the ones from the 90's is the superior line play. But my point was, in 2003, Mount was talking about their great line. Specifically their stud transfer from tOSU at tackle.   

Again, if I had to pick, I'd take the elite O-Line. But I'd rather have them both. Which is exactly what UWW has had when they one each of their titles. So I still say the formula is more complex than you make it out to be. At least the proven formula. It's possible you could have beaten Mount without an elite RB. But you never did and never had to, so we don't know. And it certainly would have been more difficult. But I do appreciate the lively, respectful back and forth. Good stuff!

Hazz, if you want to maintain a respectful dialogue, drop the emoticons- they ooze sarcasm.
I think our original disagreement started over your point that "it's more complex than that".  My objection to that statement revolves around the word complex.  When I think of complex in football terms, I think along the lines of creative formations, game plans, ways to use space, etc.  To me, it's Not complex to say a championship team needs to have a good offensive line, good running game and good passing game- that's actually Basic and not complex.  So if I say a decent to good passing game helps keep the safeties back, which in turn helps the running game, that's really not complex- it's basic.     
I feel some of the points you feel support your point of view are the result of not having watched UWW play as much since you're a MIAC guy.
For instance,
-I don't overlook LC's 299 yard stat line.  I simply look at it with greater focus.  75 yards of it came on the play I linked- that was great blocking.  The other 224 was a mix of some really nice runs and some tough runs.  Does AA get all 224 of those yards?  Probably not.  Does he get a boat load? Absolutely and without a shred of doubt.
-You believe Coppage was "essential" to UWW's Stagg 13-10 Stagg victory last year- I do not.  My point about the O-Line being a bit weaker last year is that it showed both in Coppage's performance (less than 100 yards and under a 3 yard average) and the passing game performance.  In fact, if it wasn't for an incredible defensive effort, the O-Line could have been the main reason UWW lost the 2011 Stagg.
-I'm not making the arguement that I don't want a great RB, of course LL and LK would love to have Beaver, Kmick, Coppage as well as Garcon, Shorts, Donovan, Micheli and the rest.  The point is, give me a Great O-Line and good all the rest, and I'll have a better chance of winning the Stagg vs Mt Union.
-Having a strong defense isn't complex.  It's basic.
   

Absolutely not in my opinion.   Coppage got hurt on like the third series of the game so he did not have the burst, it was more power and look at the play calling mix......45 runs and 13 passes, not exactly agressive.   In my opinion the coaches decided due to the wet field conditions, the almost fumbles in the first half and the interception to become way more conservative and to win the game with defense.   It worked.   For UWW something changed between the quarterfinal and the semifinal game last year, because Blanchard started running more and they were called runs.  Maybe the O.C. thought it added a dimension to the attack that was hard to defend, in essence a three pronged attack, Coppage, Blanchard and then the passing game.  You don't decide to run the QB more with a weak offensive line, one that gave up less than a sack a game on the year and was 9th best in the nation.