Around the Nation board

[K-Mack]

So, a couple questions popping up:

• If St. Thomas and Wesley had to play Friday afternoon in a third-place game, who would win?


• Who wins the Gaglardi Trophy?


• Anything that stands out from this year that must be YIR'd? I've already brainstormed but can always add more.
  
  Especially interested in best overall improvements (i.e. mixing up the playoff bracket) and best big-time acknowledgements (Klosterman article on Amherst & Maine Maritime, Tim Layden on the missing jersey number from Williams), teams that outperformed expectations.
  
  Bad predictions, bad moments, etc. ... I have the best player/game/coach stuff under control.

[BoBo]

AO, why aren't you kvetching about Whitewater? The WIAC resembles some D-2 conferences with its state school population. However, they chose to be D-3 and we welcome them.

Face it, if Mt. Union was winning every playoff game by 20+ points and blowing out teams in the Stagg Bowl, then you may have a point. But Mt. Union, had the breaks fallen a different way, could have lost to B-W, Wabash and Wesley.

The kvetching about Whitewater will occur next week.  You'll see the public/private, big/small school discussion then. Pat and Keith will write their annual stories about the tiers in D3 and that their is a big difference between tiers 1 and 2. The poll will be whether UMU and UWW play in next year's Stagg Bowl.

UMU could have lost a couple games. UWW could have lost a couple games. But they didn't. It seems that the breaks always fall their way. UMU wins playoff games with third team QBs. UWW is so deep they never have a significant injury.

I don't agree with your comment UWW could have lost a couple games - that's not true.

However, the last line is very true!!

[K-Mack]

AO, why aren't you kvetching about Whitewater? The WIAC resembles some D-2 conferences with its state school population. However, they chose to be D-3 and we welcome them.

Face it, if Mt. Union was winning every playoff game by 20+ points and blowing out teams in the Stagg Bowl, then you may have a point. But Mt. Union, had the breaks fallen a different way, could have lost to B-W, Wabash and Wesley.

The kvetching about Whitewater will occur next week.  You'll see the public/private, big/small school discussion then. Pat and Keith will write their annual stories about the tiers in D3 and that their is a big difference between tiers 1 and 2. The poll will be whether UMU and UWW play in next year's Stagg Bowl.

UMU could have lost a couple games. UWW could have lost a couple games. But they didn't. It seems that the breaks always fall their way. UMU wins playoff games with third team QBs. UWW is so deep they never have a significant injury.

I don't agree with your comment UWW could have lost a couple games - that's not true.

However, the last line is very true!!

I'm not writing a damn thing after Friday night.

UW-W has been mostly dominant this season, but I count 22 games that they either lost or were one-score games in the fourth quarter since the run began. The Warhawks are beatable.

Haven't done the count for UMU. I guess I'll include it in the YIR or somewhere where folks can read it and argue about what it means.

[BoBo]

AO, why aren't you kvetching about Whitewater? The WIAC resembles some D-2 conferences with its state school population. However, they chose to be D-3 and we welcome them.

Face it, if Mt. Union was winning every playoff game by 20+ points and blowing out teams in the Stagg Bowl, then you may have a point. But Mt. Union, had the breaks fallen a different way, could have lost to B-W, Wabash and Wesley.

The kvetching about Whitewater will occur next week.  You'll see the public/private, big/small school discussion then. Pat and Keith will write their annual stories about the tiers in D3 and that their is a big difference between tiers 1 and 2. The poll will be whether UMU and UWW play in next year's Stagg Bowl.

UMU could have lost a couple games. UWW could have lost a couple games. But they didn't. It seems that the breaks always fall their way. UMU wins playoff games with third team QBs. UWW is so deep they never have a significant injury.

I don't agree with your comment UWW could have lost a couple games - that's not true.

However, the last line is very true!!

I'm not writing a damn thing after Friday night.

UW-W has been mostly dominant this season, but I count 22 games that they either lost or were one-score games in the fourth quarter since the run began. The Warhawks are beatable.

Haven't done the count for UMU. I guess I'll include it in the YIR or somewhere where folks can read it and argue about what it means.

I'm sorry - my interpretation of IlGator's comment was that UWW could've lost a couple games this year - other than Oshkosh, and looking beyond a simple final score, nothing was really in doubt. He may very well meant to say over the course of this streak, but I didn't read it that way. Smed's original comment about UMU was about this year's schedule:

could have lost to B-W, Wabash and Wesley

I figured IlGator was talking about the same thing with UWW. 

[K-Mack]

I understood it the way you understood it and acknowledged that. But since I had done the research last night in response to a different question, I thought I would share it here.

Sorry if it threw you off. UW-W has been mostly dominant this season, outside of UW-O and maybe the second UW-L game. Hard to say the 17-3 and 20-0 games weren't domination, though, just by defense not overwhelming offense.

[WarhawkDad]

I understood it the way you understood it and acknowledged that. But since I had done the research last night in response to a different question, I thought I would share it here.

Sorry if it threw you off. UW-W has been mostly dominant this season, outside of UW-O and maybe the second UW-L game. Hard to say the 17-3 and 20-0 games weren't domination, though, just by defense not overwhelming offense.

With the lead against St. Thomas and after the clock eating opening drive of the third quarter, the play calling changed to ball control, grind it out, field position football. No need to have dominating offense in that game at that time. 

WarhawkDad

[BoBo]

I understood it the way you understood it and acknowledged that. But since I had done the research last night in response to a different question, I thought I would share it here.

Sorry if it threw you off. UW-W has been mostly dominant this season, outside of UW-O and maybe the second UW-L game. Hard to say the 17-3 and 20-0 games weren't domination, though, just by defense not overwhelming offense.

With the lead against St. Thomas and after the clock eating opening drive of the third quarter, the play calling changed to ball control, grind it out, field position football. No need to have dominating offense in that game at that time. 

WarhawkDad

Good point WarhawkDad...and many of those other 22 games over the last 7 years were finished off the same way.

[smedindy]

I just wanted to leave this here.

Right now, Cal Tech is 4-2 in hoops. Yes, Cal Tech has already won four basketball games.

If Cal Tech can have a winning record (yes, just six games, but still...) in hoops, then some team will beat Mt. Union and Whitewater.

Sometimes cycles are short, sometimes cycles are long, but everything is a cycle in life...

And I still can't believe Cal Tech is 4-2 in hoops.

[Ron Boerger]

And I still can't believe Cal Tech is 4-2 in hoops.

Hey, they won five games last year after winning one the previous two seasons combined.  Program is definitely on the way up (seriously, that coach deserves a lot of credit for what he's done there). 

[K-Mack]

I understood it the way you understood it and acknowledged that. But since I had done the research last night in response to a different question, I thought I would share it here.

Sorry if it threw you off. UW-W has been mostly dominant this season, outside of UW-O and maybe the second UW-L game. Hard to say the 17-3 and 20-0 games weren't domination, though, just by defense not overwhelming offense.

With the lead against St. Thomas and after the clock eating opening drive of the third quarter, the play calling changed to ball control, grind it out, field position football. No need to have dominating offense in that game at that time. 

WarhawkDad

I said basically the same thing in the podcast.

Above I was saying that UW-W is dominating the other team, just not by gaudy scores. With ball control, by not making any mistakes that let teams back into the game, and by grinding the opponent to a pulp generally.

[K-Mack]

I remember the thread.

UMU could not move up because:

1) they sponsor more sports in D-III than they could support in D-II.
2) the entire program does not perform at the football level in other sports.
3) the funding for moving to D-II without cutting sports would be prohibitive.
4) the dynamics of the number of athletes that will be participating in football, with 36 full scholarship equivalents in D-II, changes from the 150 participants in the D-III model.  The financial impact to the school would be incredible, especially as a private school in the GLIAC with its large number of public schools.
5) If they join the GLIAC which covers all of the other UMU sports, where do (M&W) Lacrosse compete?

Ralph, I don't know why this randomly came to me yesterday as I was driving, but UMU in this fictional-and-highly-unlikely-scenario would perhaps be a better fit in the PSAC, travel-wise.

I don't think UMU would ever go anywhere unless the entire OAC did, and the OAC is very D-III. The WIAC I could envision moving, and I could only see UW-W going where the rest of the WIAC goes. But I've never heard any indication the WIAC is interested in moving, which brings me back to one of my original points:

I've never heard anyone articulate a good reason why it would be in UMU or UWW's best interests to move. Nor have I heard anyone from either school even hint that they're not completely comfortable where they are.

So for the rest of us, back to Plan A: Someone's gonna have to beat them fair and square.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

The biggest key... move it all or don't move at all. Can't get a deal like Johns Hopkins (lacrosse), Hartwick (soccer), etc. since they are now grandfathered into a rule the prohibits just one sport moving.

And there is NO reason, especially in these very difficult times economically and budget wise to move an entire department up into scholarship divisions... that money has to go into the athletic budget and when schools like the University of Maryland are still cutting programs (rightly, but mainly wrongly), that isn't a realistic expectation.

The same argument has been made for years with Salisbury University in lacrosse... it isn't going to happen.

[Ralph Turner]

I remember the thread.

UMU could not move up because:

1) they sponsor more sports in D-III than they could support in D-II.
2) the entire program does not perform at the football level in other sports.
3) the funding for moving to D-II without cutting sports would be prohibitive.
4) the dynamics of the number of athletes that will be participating in football, with 36 full scholarship equivalents in D-II, changes from the 150 participants in the D-III model.  The financial impact to the school would be incredible, especially as a private school in the GLIAC with its large number of public schools.
5) If they join the GLIAC which covers all of the other UMU sports, where do (M&W) Lacrosse compete?

Ralph, I don't know why this randomly came to me yesterday as I was driving, but UMU in this fictional-and-highly-unlikely-scenario would perhaps be a better fit in the PSAC, travel-wise.

I don't think UMU would ever go anywhere unless the entire OAC did, and the OAC is very D-III. The WIAC I could envision moving, and I could only see UW-W going where the rest of the WIAC goes. But I've never heard any indication the WIAC is interested in moving, which brings me back to one of my original points:

I've never heard anyone articulate a good reason why it would be in UMU or UWW's best interests to move. Nor have I heard anyone from either school even hint that they're not completely comfortable where they are.

So for the rest of us, back to Plan A: Someone's gonna have to beat them fair and square.

Thanks K-Mack.

I agree that it is not in the best interests of either one to move to D-II.

The WIAC excels at the highest level of D-III as a public school conference.  Only the NJAC can come close to that level in my humble opinion.  The WIAC has a lock on the state with an excellent product for student-athletes.

Remember the D-IV discussion.  (See David Collinge's post here.)  See which conference is the D-IV.
http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=3880.829

[AO]

The biggest key... move it all or don't move at all. Can't get a deal like Johns Hopkins (lacrosse), Hartwick (soccer), etc. since they are now grandfathered into a rule the prohibits just one sport moving.

And there is NO reason, especially in these very difficult times economically and budget wise to move an entire department up into scholarship divisions... that money has to go into the athletic budget and when schools like the University of Maryland are still cutting programs (rightly, but mainly wrongly), that isn't a realistic expectation.

The same argument has been made for years with Salisbury University in lacrosse... it isn't going to happen.

Can we take a look back now on the contentious vote that allowed programs like Johns Hopkins to have their program grandfathered in?  Did it really give an unfair advantage to their football team?  It flies in the face of reality to suggest that all teams at a particular institution are all at the same competitive level.  We have D3 teams such as St. Thomas building ridiculous facilities with an everlasting money pot without having a D1 program to rely on. 

[K-Mack]

Ralph, I'm gonna miss you if you head off to the D2football.com boards.

The OAC is very competitive and very balanced!  One can make the case that the weekly gauntlet that the OAC teams run prepares them for the post-season.

The OAC runner-up usually laments the blown game that knocked them out of Pool C.

In 2011, the BWC stumbled against Capital to fall from Pool C.
In 2010, ONU won a Pool C and beat Wittenburg in the first round before losing to NCC in the second round.
In 2009, Otterbein stumbled against Marietta to fall from Pool C.
In 2008, Otterbein got the Pool C bid and lost to Franklin in a blowout 62-45 in the first round.
In 2007, Capital got the Pool C bid and lost at National Champion UW-Whitewater 34-14 in the first round. (The 20-point margin was the third lowest that season.)
In 2006, Capital got the Pool C bid and lost to UMU in the Elite 8, 17-14.

While you're making this point, Capital finished ranked No. 5 in 2005 and No. 3 in 2006, with a three-point loss at Mount Union in the playoffs both years. They were definitely one play away from breaking through (although both Ls were in the quarterfinals).