FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[USee]

I am not sure I would call NCC's pass defense a weakness. The Defensive player of the year in the CCIW was a DB on their team, Dierking, who leads the conference in INT. I think they are pretty good on pass defense. Wheaton ran the ball for over 200 yds against them and couldn't throw it to save their lives (or their season). A balanced attack, led by a strong running game, is a better recipe to go after NCC. Pure passing team? Too much speed and athleticism. Their 1st team all conference MLB was a starting safety last year.

If Spencer Stanek (NCC QB) puts up the numbers int he playoffs similar to what he did during the regular season, NCC will make a deep, deep run in these playoffs. You UWW fans will remember the game in Naperville in 2010 turned in the 4th quarter on the back of two Stanek turnovers (and INT and a fumble). His reputation has been to be great against average and bad teams and critical mistakes in the big games. Not this year! Last year against Wheaton he put it on the ground and threw it to the defense. This year, he shredded us with no turnovers. Vs Linfield last year, key play in the game was a 4th down and Stanek threw a pick 6 (bad decision) that blew the game open. He hasn't made any of those mistakes this year so far.

[emma17]

The CCIW board has a good conversation going on about AA QB candidates and one post shows stats for three top guys, Stanek, Florence and Burke.  Please, in no shape, way or form am I suggesting that Behrendt isn't doing well or that UWW must have a QB w AA numbers.  I find the numbers interesting and with limited data, they show a bit about why I feel Matt might want to take more shots down the field especially with the receivers he has.   Matt has the lowest yards per completion and also the most completions.  Additionally, the other guy with only one interception has the second lowest yards per completion. 

Matt Behrendt:
215-336 (64%), 2,355 yds, 29 TD's, 1 INT, 10.95 yds per completion. 

Spencer Stanek:
211-284 (74%), 2,774 yds, 36 TD's, 1 INT, 13.1 yds per completion, 

Reed Florence:
193-285 (68%), 3,039 yds, 36 TD's, 6 INT,15.7 yds per completion,

Kevin Burke:
164-259 (63.3%), 2,745 yds, 35 TD's, 6 INT, 16.7 yds per completion,

So is it your position that Stanek and NCC would be better served by throwing the ball down the field more? And if so, have you shared that on the CCIW board? 

He is a bit light on his yards per completion isn't he?

I'm not surprised to see Behrendt's lower yards per completion, but I am surprised to see he has thrown more passes than the three guys shown. Who woulda thunk it.

[badgerwarhawk]

Is there something wrong with a first down per completion? 

[ncc58]

Is there something wrong with a first down per completion?

It's been windy for the last 4 games. As we move along, the weather will become even more unpredictable. The teams with the crisp, short passing games may have an advantage over the teams that have been going downfield more.

[emma17]

Is there something wrong with a first down per completion?

It's been windy for the last 4 games. As we move along, the weather will become even more unpredictable. The teams with the crisp, short passing games may have an advantage over the teams that have been going downfield more.

The last 5 weeks have featured nothing but poor passing conditions- wind, wind and more wind.  Anything is possible of course, so it can always get worse, but it's been anything but good of late.

My theory, in reply to BW others that question this "throw it deeper" kick I'm on is this. 
-The deeper you go into the playoffs, the better the defenses- and that typically means faster and better tackling.  Short routes that used to result in YAC suddenly end up less than first down yardage.  We can all think of a bazillion examples of watching fast defenses shut down underneath stuff. 
-I'm not suggesting UWW stops throwing short stuff, I'm simply saying IMO it would be beneficial to add 5-6 intermediate and deeper throws per game than what they've been doing.  Intermediate in my book is 10-20 and deeper is 20+. 
-When a defense is playing the shorter stuff, they may have defenders closer to the line of scrimmage- this of course is not helpful to a running game. 
-Even if one or two get picked, back them dogs off and the field opens up. 
 
But this is just my opinion and I'm never happy. 

[bleedpurple]

I know this will irritate Retagent, but I believe the WIAC does prepare teams well for the playoffs. Battling the defenses of Oshkosh and Point. Matching up against Platteville's passing game and the balance of UW-O's offense. I think all those things prepare UW-W well for the nation's best.  I don't believe teams will have adequate preparation for the UW-W defense.  I believe they will be drawn into a battle that UW-W is used to fighting. We'll see what happens, but I believe this team hasn't shown us all it's got yet.

My irritation does not come from that. It is mostly directed at an implicit denegration of other teams/conferences. Maybe I read to much into some posts ( it is a human trait to be defensive about slights, or perceived slights from others), but that's another story. Also, logic has taught me that you cannot take a specific from a general, or a general from a specific. For example, let's agre that the WIAC is, if not the best, one of the best D-III conferences around. I believe the MIAC went 3-0 against the WIAC this year. That does not lead me to declare that the MIAC is better than the WIAC, for obvious reasons. I'm not going back over the entire history of the D-III PLayoffs, but I would guess that the MIAC has a pretty good record in those playoffs. I remember seeing those stats somewhere, and as I recall, those bear out my contenetion. The WIAC probably is in the same arera as far as that is concerned. You could look at the OAC, and without knowing that Mount skews their figure, assume facts not in evidence.
[/quote]

I see. Maybe we should address it directly. I don't know how many UW-W posters would give a sincere answer (for fear of giving up the right to give you a hard time), but I would invite them to give their thoughts. UW-W, what are your thoughts on the MIAC and why?

In my biased view, I feel like most years the bottom of the WIAC is somewhat stronger than the bottom of the MIAC. However, I think the top half may differ on a year to year basis. In no way do I feel the WIAC is WAY better or anything like that. I think the MIAC is a very good conference. I don't get to see them play all that much, but it seems like there is a pretty good depth of 5 or 6 teams that are pretty capable. The MIAC has a stellar history, no doubt about it. The relatively recent rise of UW-W certainly adds to the WIAC's strength.  There are rankings of the current year and then there are rankings that take into account long history.  I think the MIAC has held up as a strong conference over time. So, however my posts read (especially when I am trying to give you a hard time  ), those are my broad brush thoughts on the MIAC.

[bleedpurple]

Is there something wrong with a first down per completion?

It's been windy for the last 4 games. As we move along, the weather will become even more unpredictable. The teams with the crisp, short passing games may have an advantage over the teams that have been going downfield more.

The last 5 weeks have featured nothing but poor passing conditions- wind, wind and more wind.  Anything is possible of course, so it can always get worse, but it's been anything but good of late.

My theory, in reply to BW others that question this "throw it deeper" kick I'm on is this. 
-The deeper you go into the playoffs, the better the defenses- and that typically means faster and better tackling.  Short routes that used to result in YAC suddenly end up less than first down yardage.  We can all think of a bazillion examples of watching fast defenses shut down underneath stuff. 
-I'm not suggesting UWW stops throwing short stuff, I'm simply saying IMO it would be beneficial to add 5-6 intermediate and deeper throws per game than what they've been doing.  Intermediate in my book is 10-20 and deeper is 20+. 
-When a defense is playing the shorter stuff, they may have defenders closer to the line of scrimmage- this of course is not helpful to a running game. 
-Even if one or two get picked, back them dogs off and the field opens up. 
 
But this is just my opinion and I'm never happy.

As of now, weather.com has Saturday looking like this: 39 degrees, no precip., and wind of only 12 mph out of the south. That would be the best weather UW-W has played in since Platteville, I think.

[footballfan413]

At halftime I finally resigned myself to stop with the expectations of a consistent and productive offense and to just get comfortable with the team for what it is. This is a team, IMO, that has the "athletes" on offense to score a couple touchdowns on any team they play, which is different than having a consistent and productive "offense".  Some days, no matter who the oppenent, the offense will struggle and will need to be carried.  Other days, no matter who the opponent, the athletes may just make plays. 

Rather than letting myself get all worked up about offensive struggles, I'm going to do my best, as I did in the second half, to just enjoy watching the defense and the special teams keep UWW in the game, and, every now and again, watch one of the ahtletes on offense make a play. 

Keep the injured Warhawks in your prayers.   

First, let me start by saying how awesome it was to be back in the Perk for the first time this season!  Felt like coming home and I have sooo missed it this season while we focused on supporting Coach Raebel's CU Pioneers. Loved seeing you gentlemen, and so sorry we missed you, Badgerwarhawk!   
    Second, I need to just say that, after 10 years of WARHAWK tailgating in all kinds of weather..........that cold was an, absolute, B#$%^!!!!    I have never been that cold in the Perk.  So thankful for toe and hand warmers, long johns, fire pits and peppermint schnapps! 
   Thirdly, I don't think I have ever agreed more with 17 and 02.  Maybe it is unfair of me to make an assessment based on this first, up close and personal, observation of the team, and a few Saturdays on the computer but I see a good, sometimes very good, sometimes  inconsistent, but VERY, young team.  But Ret is also correct, they don't have to be better than previous teams, just better than their competition on any given Saturday.  The mere fact that they can, for example, "look past an opponent," is telling for me.  Can we win it all?  Of course, but WIWA?  I don't see it. Sorry, BP.  But I do think we are getting there.  We do not have a "consistent and productive offense," of past championship teams.  But having said that, win and advance!  That, I believe we can do.
    Congrats to SNC!  they fought a hell of a battle and made the MWC proud!    

[retagent]

Gotch bleed. Well stated and I have no problem with that. I know we are all a bit parochial, and as long as the WIAC and MIAC stay in the top echelon, small variances in strength, either just considering the top teams in each conference, as well as from top to bottom are going to occur. The problem is that their gographic proximity will limit a head to head in the Stagg, barring odd circumstances, though that could well happen this year. In the second week look-ahead by Pat, et al, the numbers tell the story.

[emma17]

Is there something wrong with a first down per completion?

It's been windy for the last 4 games. As we move along, the weather will become even more unpredictable. The teams with the crisp, short passing games may have an advantage over the teams that have been going downfield more.

The last 5 weeks have featured nothing but poor passing conditions- wind, wind and more wind.  Anything is possible of course, so it can always get worse, but it's been anything but good of late.

My theory, in reply to BW others that question this "throw it deeper" kick I'm on is this. 
-The deeper you go into the playoffs, the better the defenses- and that typically means faster and better tackling.  Short routes that used to result in YAC suddenly end up less than first down yardage.  We can all think of a bazillion examples of watching fast defenses shut down underneath stuff. 
-I'm not suggesting UWW stops throwing short stuff, I'm simply saying IMO it would be beneficial to add 5-6 intermediate and deeper throws per game than what they've been doing.  Intermediate in my book is 10-20 and deeper is 20+. 
-When a defense is playing the shorter stuff, they may have defenders closer to the line of scrimmage- this of course is not helpful to a running game. 
-Even if one or two get picked, back them dogs off and the field opens up. 
 
But this is just my opinion and I'm never happy.

As of now, weather.com has Saturday looking like this: 39 degrees, no precip., and wind of only 12 mph out of the south. That would be the best weather UW-W has played in since Platteville, I think.

It was windy for the Oshkosh game too.  I remember the huge difference in comfort from sitting up high and protected to getting close to the field. 
39 and 12 is balmy.

[emma17]

At halftime I finally resigned myself to stop with the expectations of a consistent and productive offense and to just get comfortable with the team for what it is. This is a team, IMO, that has the "athletes" on offense to score a couple touchdowns on any team they play, which is different than having a consistent and productive "offense".  Some days, no matter who the oppenent, the offense will struggle and will need to be carried.  Other days, no matter who the opponent, the athletes may just make plays. 

Rather than letting myself get all worked up about offensive struggles, I'm going to do my best, as I did in the second half, to just enjoy watching the defense and the special teams keep UWW in the game, and, every now and again, watch one of the ahtletes on offense make a play. 

Keep the injured Warhawks in your prayers.   

First, let me start by saying how awesome it was to be back in the Perk for the first time this season!  Felt like coming home and I have sooo missed it this season while we focused on supporting Coach Raebel's CU Pioneers. Loved seeing you gentlemen, and so sorry we missed you, Badgerwarhawk!   
    Second, I need to just say that, after 10 years of WARHAWK tailgating in all kinds of weather..........that cold was an, absolute, B#$%^!!!!    I have never been that cold in the Perk.  So thankful for toe and hand warmers, long johns, fire pits and peppermint schnapps! 
   Thirdly, I don't think I have ever agreed more with 17 and 02.  Maybe it is unfair of me to make an assessment based on this first, up close and personal, observation of the team, and a few Saturdays on the computer but I see a good, sometimes very good, sometimes  inconsistent, but VERY, young team.  But Ret is also correct, they don't have to be better than previous teams, just better than their competition on any given Saturday.  The mere fact that they can, for example, "look past an opponent," is telling for me.  Can we win it all?  Of course, but WIWA?  I don't see it. Sorry, BP.  But I do think we are getting there.  We do not have a "consistent and productive offense," of past championship teams.  But having said that, win and advance!  That, I believe we can do.
    Congrats to SNC!  they fought a hell of a battle and made the MWC proud!   

Win and Advance is right 413.  As much as I'd prefer to be more entertained by the offense (similar to the 2011 Stagg Bowl), I'll take the win and advance part. 

[bleedpurple]

At halftime I finally resigned myself to stop with the expectations of a consistent and productive offense and to just get comfortable with the team for what it is. This is a team, IMO, that has the "athletes" on offense to score a couple touchdowns on any team they play, which is different than having a consistent and productive "offense".  Some days, no matter who the oppenent, the offense will struggle and will need to be carried.  Other days, no matter who the opponent, the athletes may just make plays. 

Rather than letting myself get all worked up about offensive struggles, I'm going to do my best, as I did in the second half, to just enjoy watching the defense and the special teams keep UWW in the game, and, every now and again, watch one of the ahtletes on offense make a play. 

Keep the injured Warhawks in your prayers.   

First, let me start by saying how awesome it was to be back in the Perk for the first time this season!  Felt like coming home and I have sooo missed it this season while we focused on supporting Coach Raebel's CU Pioneers. Loved seeing you gentlemen, and so sorry we missed you, Badgerwarhawk!   
    Second, I need to just say that, after 10 years of WARHAWK tailgating in all kinds of weather..........that cold was an, absolute, B#$%^!!!!    I have never been that cold in the Perk.  So thankful for toe and hand warmers, long johns, fire pits and peppermint schnapps! 
   Thirdly, I don't think I have ever agreed more with 17 and 02.  Maybe it is unfair of me to make an assessment based on this first, up close and personal, observation of the team, and a few Saturdays on the computer but I see a good, sometimes very good, sometimes  inconsistent, but VERY, young team.  But Ret is also correct, they don't have to be better than previous teams, just better than their competition on any given Saturday.  The mere fact that they can, for example, "look past an opponent," is telling for me.  Can we win it all?  Of course, but WIWA?  I don't see it. Sorry, BP.  But I do think we are getting there.  We do not have a "consistent and productive offense," of past championship teams.  But having said that, win and advance!  That, I believe we can do.
    Congrats to SNC!  they fought a hell of a battle and made the MWC proud!   

It was great to see you again 413! Great to see that husband and son of yours too! I DID eat the chile on the way in and it was awesome! I have to say that if this is the only game I saw UW-W up close and personal, no way I would say WIWA either. I think even 02 would admit the offense has looked a LITTLE better than they did Saturday at times! That was pretty rough. Although the 99 yard drive and the 28 points in 31 minutes eased the pain of the painstaking start a bit.

I still contend WIWA. We are young, but we are Whitewater. My point has never been that UW-W is a shoe in for anything, even winning this week. My point is that whatever last year was is gone.  There was something in the mix last year and I think most involved in the program would admit, they were not themselves. I think it showed in team chemistry and attitude and a loss of swag.

Now, 2013 is a year we are exceptionally young on offense. But that doesn't mean we aren't Whitewater. We are just young and suffering the inconsistency that goes with it. I see a ton of talent. I see a team playing for each other and LIKING each other. I see a team that believes in itself. They don't have a Beaver or a Coppage or a Blanchard.  But being Whitewater doesn't depend on having THAT level of studs any more than Mount Union is not Mount Union because they don't have a Shorts or Garcon. 

This season isn't over yet and that is a very good thing. We don't know what this team will accomplish.It seems to me I remember some people doubting whether UW-W would go to the Stagg when we had to go through NCC in 2010 (although people were so upset with the seed, I'm not sure they even remember their doubts). I also remember people not being sure of the 2011 heading into the St. Thomas game.  My point in not declaring this team "inferior" to previous teams is that those games are still ahead of this team.  The games that lie ahead are the games this team will have the opportunity to make a name for themselves. I think they will. And if they hoist the Walnut and Bronze, I'm doubting anyone will say, "Well that was fun. I just can't wait until we are back to being Whitewater again." 

[D O.C.]

WIMUA = Whitewater is Mount Union Again?

[bleedpurple]

Gotch bleed. Well stated and I have no problem with that. I know we are all a bit parochial, and as long as the WIAC and MIAC stay in the top echelon, small variances in strength, either just considering the top teams in each conference, as well as from top to bottom are going to occur. The problem is that their gographic proximity will limit a head to head in the Stagg, barring odd circumstances, though that could well happen this year. In the second week look-ahead by Pat, et al, the numbers tell the story.

Massey projects UW-W over Bethel in the Stagg Bowl this year.  Here is a look at how their bracket plays out. Future projected winners have the numbers highlighted in green:

http://www.masseyratings.com/tourn.php?t=28

Massey's "odds" of winning the Stagg Bowl:

UW-W 36.48%
Bethel  15.74%
North Central 15.67 %
Linfield  13.37%
UMHB  7.72%
Mount Union 5.86%
UW-Platteville 1.79%
Wittenberg 1.51%
Hobart  0.77%
St. John Fisher 0.51%
Wesley 0.48%
Ithaca 0.07%
Wartburg 0.03%
Hampden-Sydney  0.01%
Franklin 0.0%
Rowan  0.0%

[robertgoulet]

Gotch bleed. Well stated and I have no problem with that. I know we are all a bit parochial, and as long as the WIAC and MIAC stay in the top echelon, small variances in strength, either just considering the top teams in each conference, as well as from top to bottom are going to occur. The problem is that their gographic proximity will limit a head to head in the Stagg, barring odd circumstances, though that could well happen this year. In the second week look-ahead by Pat, et al, the numbers tell the story.

Massey projects UW-W over Bethel in the Stagg Bowl this year.  Here is a look at how their bracket plays out. Future projected winners have the numbers highlighted in green:

http://www.masseyratings.com/tourn.php?t=28

Massey's "odds" of winning the Stagg Bowl:

UW-W 36.48%
Bethel  15.74%
North Central 15.67 %
Linfield  13.37%
UMHB  7.72%
Mount Union 5.86%
UW-Platteville 1.79%
Wittenberg 1.51%
Hobart  0.77%
St. John Fisher 0.51%
Wesley 0.48%
Ithaca 0.07%
Wartburg 0.03%
Hampden-Sydney  0.01%
Franklin 0.0%
Rowan  0.0%

Interesting that they show NCC and Hobart as the #1 seeds in their respective regions, with UMHB and Bethel as #2s. I don't believe that's correct....but I would be happy if it were