Around the Nation board

[Ron Boerger]

Reposting from the ASC board because the folks who are die-hard enough to surf over to the ATN board like to discuss such things:

Good job getting that for us five hours early!

No doubt. Breaking news is one of the things that's hard for us to do a lot of since all the writers and staffers have other jobs or business. It usually takes connections, time and work to break stuff. Good one here.

I see I'm not the first to suggest it, and unless I'm forgetting what Trinity and Austin's plans are, seems like affiliate football membership with the ASC is automatic if they want it and the ASC wants to keep its AQ. The two schools regain playoff AQ access, and conference awards, etc. and the ASC gets an eighth school to protect from another defector costing the AQ. The ASC has enough core members that adding affilates for football only would mean the ASC wouldn't have to lose its bid and wait two years to gain it back (hope I'm wording that correctly).

Only roadblock I see to that is if the schools don't want it. Austin left the ASC once already, but we'll see if they would rather be in a football conference and swallow their pride, or try to get eight random games a year. Trinity I'm guessing would welcome it since it scheduled UMHB, TLU and HPU this year ... fear of associating with not-like institutions or competitive disadvantages wouldn't seem to factor in. Games against teams in Texas make sense. Trinity and Austin would actually probably have some non-con dates open up if they went ASC.

100% speculation on my part. Makes too much sense.

If this were D-I, Wesley would join the ASC as an affiliate member for football. Geography, schmeography.

Also repeating things I said over there:

(1) there will be four football-playing schools in the SCAC next year as Southwestern and Texas Lutheran come onboard.  Three of them left the ASC or the TIAA, the ASC's predecessor.
(2) Is football really important enough to the SCAC to align with the ASC just to get a bid?  None of the schools have shown the willingness to invest at the levels necessary to compete with the big gorilla, UMHB, and it seems unlikely that's going to change. 

I do wonder, though, if the ASC possibly losing its bid is enough to get Hardin-Simmons to THINK about a move to the SCAC.  They'd fit at least as well as the other recent additions to the conference and probably better.  Get a fifth football school and you might be able to get some of the other non-FB schools in the SCAC to think about it.

[Toby Taff]

(2) Is football really important enough to the SCAC to align with the ASC just to get a bid?  None of the schools have shown the willingness to invest at the levels necessary to compete with the big gorilla, UMHB, and it seems unlikely that's going to change. 

In an article i read where Nate Menkin was interviewed the interviewer made a comment about him not coming from a school known for football. Menkin corrected him and let him know UMHB is consistently a top 10 program. It was fantastic.

[middlerelief]

Very much disagree with putting WIAC and OAC as conference a and 2 -- I do agree with the rest though.  And I think what makes the other conferences good or better than WIAC and OAC is the rotation of leadership.  The MIAC for example has had runs by St. Johns, Bethel, and now St. Thomas.  Same can be said for the E8. 

I only took the time to go back the last 6 seasons but the question remains what is the WIAC and OAC other than the doormats for Mount Union and UWW?  There hasn't been a different conference winner, and there's only been three other teams that have made it to the NCAA and two of which were bounced in Round 1. 

In my opinion -- if there's no inter-conference competition, then it is not a great conference. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

I only took the time to go back the last 6 seasons but the question remains what is the WIAC and OAC other than the doormats for Mount Union and UWW?  There hasn't been a different conference winner, and there's only been three other teams that have made it to the NCAA and two of which were bounced in Round 1. 

Part of the reason for that is the decreasing number of available slots in Pool C and the emphasis on filling most of those slots with 9-1 teams regardless of conference strength - an attitude which, thankfully, seems to be changing.  In 2005 Ohio Northern beat Mount Union during the regular season (a season in which Mount Union was the defending national champion, I believe) and didn't get into the playoffs because they finished 8-2. Mount won the national title that year, by the way.

Actually, the strength and depth of the two conferences in question works AGAINST many of those teams because it is so hard to get through conference play without two losses (Purple Power & whoever else). UW-Oshkosh last year was a very, very strong team that was undone by this very problem. So was Baldwind-Wallace, who led Mount Union in the fourth quarter AT MOUNT UNION and gave the Purple Raiders their toughest game until the national finals. You don't think that BW might have done some damage in the playoffs if they'd gotten in?

Go back a little further and you'll see a stretch of several seasons where the OAC runner up made the playoffs and won two-three games before running into Mount Union - I'm typing on my phone, or else I'd go look it up myself, but I'm sure that twice Capital and perhaps once John Carroll won several playoff games and NEVER lost to a team OTHER than Mount Union.

Re: your comment "what are the WIAC and OAC except doormats for UWW and Mount Union - if you lined up those teams top to bottom against any other Division III conference, they'll win more than they lose. I'd bet a whole lot of money on it. The middle of the pack teams from those conferences play tough non conference opponents and often win - even when they don't, they're often impressive. UW-LaCrosse, who has finished near the bottom of the WIAC for the past two seasons, won AT CCIW power North Central to open this season. Heck, last year they lot by a touchdown at Mary Hardin Baylor...and they went 2-5 in the WIAC!!! You're telling me that other WIAC teams wouldn't compete in the playoffs if they could actually just get a second team in?

[SUADC]

I only took the time to go back the last 6 seasons but the question remains what is the WIAC and OAC other than the doormats for Mount Union and UWW?  There hasn't been a different conference winner, and there's only been three other teams that have made it to the NCAA and two of which were bounced in Round 1. 

Part of the reason for that is the decreasing number of available slots in Pool C and the emphasis on filling most of those slots with 9-1 teams regardless of conference strength - an attitude which, thankfully, seems to be changing.  In 2005 Ohio Northern beat Mount Union during the regular season (a season in which Mount Union was the defending national champion, I believe) and didn't get into the playoffs because they finished 8-2. Mount won the national title that year, by the way.

Actually, the strength and depth of the two conferences in question works AGAINST many of those teams because it is so hard to get through conference play without two losses (Purple Power & whoever else). UW-Oshkosh last year was a very, very strong team that was undone by this very problem. So was Baldwind-Wallace, who led Mount Union in the fourth quarter AT MOUNT UNION and gave the Purple Raiders their toughest game until the national finals. You don't think that BW might have done some damage in the playoffs if they'd gotten in?

Go back a little further and you'll see a stretch of several seasons where the OAC runner up made the playoffs and won two-three games before running into Mount Union - I'm typing on my phone, or else I'd go look it up myself, but I'm sure that twice Capital and perhaps once John Carroll won several playoff games and NEVER lost to a team OTHER than Mount Union.

Re: your comment "what are the WIAC and OAC except doormats for UWW and Mount Union - if you lined up those teams top to bottom against any other Division III conference, they'll win more than they lose. I'd bet a whole lot of money on it. The middle of the pack teams from those conferences play tough non conference opponents and often win - even when they don't, they're often impressive. UW-LaCrosse, who has finished near the bottom of the WIAC for the past two seasons, won AT CCIW power North Central to open this season. Heck, last year they lot by a touchdown at Mary Hardin Baylor...and they went 2-5 in the WIAC!!! You're telling me that other WIAC teams wouldn't compete in the playoffs if they could actually just get a second team in?

If I was looking at this season alone, I would agree with middlerelief. I think looking at the top conferences currently and this season thus far, I definitely would not put the WIAC at 1, definitely top five. The OAC, not so much. Nevertheless, with UWW and Mount Union dominating their perspective conferences and the conference (OAC especially) lack of OOC games, you can only go by how they played against UWW and Mount Union.

[middlerelief]

ExTartan -- ultimately, there's really no way to "prove" the argument (which makes this a great chat board argument!) -- with the exception of teams scheduling out of conference games.

The most recent history which I will unfairly use would be Buff State, a .500 team in the east (NJAC and now E8) doing something that no one in the OAC, WIAC or MIAC could do, which is beat UWW. Further, the MIAC I believe is 4-0 against WIAC teams this year as well.

WIAC is not a great conference - it is a conference that has had one of the best All-Time Programs in UWW the last 7 years.  And the same can be said of Mount Union's conference (yes, it is Mount Union's Conference, not Ohio's)

If you want me to believe that the WIAC or OAC are great conferences, then show a different conference champ, and show better the next half decade in the tourney with other programs.  If you think WIAC and MUC are great conferences then you are also saying that ASC and the ACFC are as well . . . and they are not they just have 1 good program (MHB and Wesley)

I am not a "fan" of the MIAC (mostly because of St. Thomas but that's a different thread), but you can make the most well rounded argument for that conference being the best today than you can WIAC or OAC in my opine.

[Ralph Turner]

Very much disagree with putting WIAC and OAC as conference a and 2 -- I do agree with the rest though.  And I think what makes the other conferences good or better than WIAC and OAC is the rotation of leadership.  The MIAC for example has had runs by St. Johns, Bethel, and now St. Thomas.  Same can be said for the E8. 

I only took the time to go back the last 6 seasons but the question remains what is the WIAC and OAC other than the doormats for Mount Union and UWW?  There hasn't been a different conference winner, and there's only been three other teams that have made it to the NCAA and two of which were bounced in Round 1. 

In my opinion -- if there's no inter-conference competition, then it is not a great conference.

Respectfully, "inter-"  or "intra-" conference?

[HSCTiger74]

Very much disagree with putting WIAC and OAC as conference a and 2 -- I do agree with the rest though.  And I think what makes the other conferences good or better than WIAC and OAC is the rotation of leadership.  The MIAC for example has had runs by St. Johns, Bethel, and now St. Thomas.  Same can be said for the E8. 

I only took the time to go back the last 6 seasons but the question remains what is the WIAC and OAC other than the doormats for Mount Union and UWW?  There hasn't been a different conference winner, and there's only been three other teams that have made it to the NCAA and two of which were bounced in Round 1. 

In my opinion -- if there's no inter-conference competition, then it is not a great conference.

Respectfully, "inter-"  or "intra-" conference?

Good question Ralph, but at this point I think you're trying to hold back the tide.

[K-Mack]

(2) Is football really important enough to the SCAC to align with the ASC just to get a bid?  None of the schools have shown the willingness to invest at the levels necessary to compete with the big gorilla, UMHB, and it seems unlikely that's going to change. 

In an article i read where Nate Menkin was interviewed the interviewer made a comment about him not coming from a school known for football. Menkin corrected him and let him know UMHB is consistently a top 10 program. It was fantastic.

(B-boy stance)

Not Division I =/= Not Known for Football

[K-Mack]

ExTartan -- ultimately, there's really no way to "prove" the argument (which makes this a great chat board argument!) -- with the exception of teams scheduling out of conference games.

Truest point that can possibly be made here.

I only took the time to go back the last 6 seasons but the question remains what is the WIAC and OAC other than the doormats for Mount Union and UWW?  There hasn't been a different conference winner, and there's only been three other teams that have made it to the NCAA and two of which were bounced in Round 1. 

I can think of two off top, without looking, that advanced, ONU in '10 and UW-SP in '08. It happened more in the mid-2000s, when No. 2 OAC teams would get in and make runs, but they have beat up on each other more in recent seasons and haven't had as many playoff bids. However, for a long time, that was a major factor in ranking the OAC where it is, that its No. 2 team always won in the playoffs until it faced Mount. (See John Carroll 2002 semis, Capital 05-06). BW went to the round of eight I believe, in 03 and lost to Wheaton. Otterbein was bounced vs. Franklin one year in an epic shootout ... I have all this data accessible if I want to research this, this is just me off top here.

But it's also fair to look beyond just the postseason, at in-season interconference competition. And because the OAC only schedules one non-con game, you get a better feel for the WIAC by who they play. And in the blurb both this year and last (or in '10), there's a reference to WHO WIAC teams play ... when their teams, top to bottom, are scheduling North Central, UMHB, St. Thomas, St. John's et. al. and going .500, that's impressive.

That said, I'm willing to allow that I put the WIAC 1st and OAC first because that's what I've always done. But you still have to consider the accomplishments of Whitewater and Mount. So when the standard is "well what have your other teams done?" ... then which other conference, once you take away its top team, regular sends a second team deep into the playoffs, where it wins? The CCIW? The MIAC? Maybe the E8.

In this five-conference discussion, I'd acknowledge that the CCIW and MIAC are top-to-bottom tougher than OAC. As acknolwedged in ATN, the OAC is carrying three teams at the bottom that have no history of recent success.

If the sole anti-OAC argument is depth, I'm willing to hear it, but I think you have to give UMU credit for beating whoever those other conferences throws at them (CCIW, MIAC champs) when those rotating No. 1s face off with them. And I think you have to take a closer look at the history of Ohio Northern, Baldwin Wallace, John Carroll, Capital and more recently Otterbein and Heidelberg.

In other words, as many times as we've given consideration to other conferences moving into the No. 2 spot, it hasn't happened since the NWC in '05 (I think) because we can never find enough reason to set aside the OAC's trump card.

The OAC has the rotation of success, among the schools mentioned above, and they are competitive with Mount Union. So basically the best argument we can come up with in favor of the CCIW or MIAC most years is that it's like an OAC but without the championship team at the top. Which means we score one for the OAC.

That's an oversimplification, as again, both conferences are deeper and have better middle or back-end strength. And I'm a huge proponent of that in the rankings, its why the WIAC is first and why the MIAC and CCIW always end up so high. But I can never reconcile it with the fact that the OAC, in any given year, has one of the two best teams in the country, plus a handful of strong teams behind it.

It's definitely something that comes up in discussion and analysis, and I don't think there's a perfect answer.

The discussion is good.

The most recent history which I will unfairly use would be Buff State, a .500 team in the east (NJAC and now E8) doing something that no one in the OAC, WIAC or MIAC could do, which is beat UWW. Further, the MIAC I believe is 4-0 against WIAC teams this year as well.

Sure, but you have to look at context. St. Thomas and St. John's beating UW-EC and River Falls is not the same as the MIAC's best beating the WIAC's best. So whenever I write that column, I look at and present the numbers, but I have to interpret the context of those numbers too.

[jknezek]

Personally I think you over-ranked the SAA this year. B-SC is probably a top 5 south team, and Millsaps might be a top 10 team, although they did no better against Centre than W&L. But Centre is not last year's team. W&L handled them easily. Sewanee is still a building program, again one that W&L handled easily even given the almost identical playbooks, and the verdict is still out on Rhodes, although they could do nothing against B-SC offensively. Personally, I think they are mildly stronger than the ODAC this year, and that's only on the strength of B-SC. The ODAC's top 4 teams can play with Millsaps and Rhodes and would be .500 or better against Centre. Sewanee might go 1-3, but I think 0-4 is more likely. If you put Centre or Sewanee against the middle and bottom of the ODAC respectively, I think you'd go .500. Ranking them 8th is completely based on B-SC and one team is hard to make a conference.

[K-Mack]

Personally I think you over-ranked the SAA this year. B-SC is probably a top 5 south team, and Millsaps might be a top 10 team, although they did no better against Centre than W&L. But Centre is not last year's team. W&L handled them easily. Sewanee is still a building program, again one that W&L handled easily even given the almost identical playbooks, and the verdict is still out on Rhodes, although they could do nothing against B-SC offensively. Personally, I think they are mildly stronger than the ODAC this year, and that's only on the strength of B-SC. The ODAC's top 4 teams can play with Millsaps and Rhodes and would be .500 or better against Centre. Sewanee might go 1-3, but I think 0-4 is more likely. If you put Centre or Sewanee against the middle and bottom of the ODAC respectively, I think you'd go .500. Ranking them 8th is completely based on B-SC and one team is hard to make a conference.

Actually ranking them eighth was almost entirely based on their 13-3 non-conference mark, when the NJAC was 5-10, the IIAC 10-14 and the MAC 4-6. Your assumption is pretty far off, but I actually agree with the conclusion.

I didn't expect the SAA to end up so high, but one thing I did differently than in past years was instead of putting one on the board, writing it, putting the next on the board, and instead of doing the entire ranking ... I wrote all the blurbs, did all the research, the spreadsheet and finished the column. Then the last thing I did was go back through and put numbers on the rankings, rearranging some as I saw fit.

I definitely don't think the SAA will hold that ranking over the years, but I also didn't think based on their starts to this season that the NJAC, MAC or IIAC was better. The ODAC, CC and SCAC over the years tended to be about the same, and the W&L/Centre result could favor the ODAC, but the week of the column, H-SC had come off a loss to Huntingdon, which lost to B-SC, which favors the SAA>ODAC and JHU had smashed my alma mater in Week 1, which meant CC > ODAC.

So you and I agree on "Personally, I think they are mildly stronger than the ODAC this year" but that also meant the SAA artificially jumped to the top of a pile where everybody is about the same.

The SAA could very easily be 16th or something next time we do these. That's why the average-over-time was a cool stat to include, IMO.

Was looking forward to your reaction though.

One thing

[jknezek]

Interesting. I only chose the ODAC as a comparison because it's what I know and I saw the 2 W&L crossover games, one over the computer and one live. I still don't think SAA should have been 8th. And you'll notice I'm not saying you misranked the ODAC because, if anything, the ODAC might be a level or 2 high as well in my opinion. E&H and Bridgewater went undefeated out of conference, but not against stiff competition. W&L flubbed a winnable game as happens too often. R-MC just got killed in their one quality opponent, and H-SC, well after tonight I'm not even going to comment. I just think the SAA was only 2 notches, maybe 3, above the ODAC based on what I've seen, mainly on B-SC probably winning the ODAC. These rankings are all for fun of course, and I just wanted to provide some feedback.

Short of B-SC though, I just don't see it for the SAA this year. I think a down year Trinity team takes all of them but B-SC, who I think will come up short against Wesley on the road (nothing to be ashamed of there and kudos for the schedule!). I'm hoping to get to the Trinity at B-SC game, so hopefully I'll put eyes on two good South Region teams, even given Trinity's troubles. I'll say this for the SAA, they did get off to a nice start and at I do have two of them in my South Region poll (although I don't expect Millsaps to be there at season end) and until this week was still keeping a close eye on a third (Rhodes).

[K-Mack]

I still don't think SAA should have been 8th.

Let me stop right here. Who do you think should have been ahead of the SAA?

Because this happens all the time with polls, Pat and I discuss it all the time. I rank the eight most powerful teams in the country and then I go "ehh, I don't think Wabash is a top-ten team per se, but I can only think of eight team I would rank ahead of them, so I reluctantly put them here at No. 9."

The SAA doesn't seem like the eighth-best conference to me either, anecdotally. But when evaluated against the credentials of the other conferences to date this season, that's where they landed.

I'm willing to not be right on this, I just want to hear a good case for who is preferred ahead of them and why.

[K-Mack]

Last week I abandoned the ATN top 50 because the rankings column took fooorreevverrr ... at it always does.

Anyway these blurbs will be out of date by next Thursday, but the factoids are still interesting.

Week 4 vote, ATN 50 comment
UMU ..... Allowed only 7 points; doesn't play a team with winning record until Oct. 20
UMHB   .... First three opponents made 2011 playoffs; outscored 115-60.
Linfield .. Gave up 65 points past two games; Next 4 opponents are 11-1.
Wesley ... Different offense without Shane McSweeny, but QB Justin Sotillare led winning FG drive

Yeah that's as far as I got with the blurbs but still ...