FB: American Southwest Conference

[archgemini24]

I think we can expect both and frequently we do have both, I think lately though that our defense has been so good that any offense would struggle to keep up.

I did some quick math to compare us to Mount Union, a team that has never been judged to lack offense, comparing the playoff runs for 16, 17 and 18.

All total Mount Union scored 532 point and let up 283 for an average of 38-20. UMHB scored 439 points and let up 164 for an average of a 29-11 score.

So we both won by an average of 18 and I feel like I have to mention that few would argue that we have faced tougher competition in those 3 years.

Also should mention it is really hard to find 30 guys (22 starters + 8 rotational guys like extra RBs and WRs on offense, or all 3 levels on defense) whose skillsets are good and complementary enough to have a great offense and a great defense. Even most title-winning teams have one side of the ball that is great and the other that is "just" really good. And, given the records, it looks to be better to have a great defense and a good offense than the reverse. Going back to the last 10 champions, in my opinion:

Defense > Offense:
2018 - UMHB (I want to put this team in the last set, but the CRU folks on here don't seem to share that opinion.)
2017 - UMU
2016 - UMHB
2011 - UWW
2010 - UWW

Offense > Defense:
2015 - UMU (Maybe they go in the last set? Only St. Thomas honestly stressed them, and they put up at least 36 on everybody they played.)
2009 - UWW (The Raiders outgained them and the QB had a great game, but they put the ball on the ground 5 times and lost 3 of them).

The years where arguably both were great:
2014 - UWW
2013 - UWW
2012 - UMU

To me, this whole list suggests, "give me a defense that can stop anyone's/Mount Union's offense, and I have a better shot at a title than an offense that can score on their defense." I am referencing the Raiders a lot because they seem like a fair point of comparison. They held some influence on the champion every year I mentioned.

[Etchglow]

I think we can expect both and frequently we do have both, I think lately though that our defense has been so good that any offense would struggle to keep up.

I did some quick math to compare us to Mount Union, a team that has never been judged to lack offense, comparing the playoff runs for 16, 17 and 18.

All total Mount Union scored 532 point and let up 283 for an average of 38-20. UMHB scored 439 points and let up 164 for an average of a 29-11 score.

So we both won by an average of 18 and I feel like I have to mention that few would argue that we have faced tougher competition in those 3 years.

Also should mention it is really hard to find 30 guys (22 starters + 8 rotational guys like extra RBs and WRs on offense, or all 3 levels on defense) whose skillsets are good and complementary enough to have a great offense and a great defense. Even most title-winning teams have one side of the ball that is great and the other that is "just" really good. And, given the records, it looks to be better to have a great defense and a good offense than the reverse. Going back to the last 10 champions, in my opinion:

Defense > Offense:
2018 - UMHB (I want to put this team in the last set, but the CRU folks on here don't seem to share that opinion.)
2017 - UMU
2016 - UMHB
2011 - UWW
2010 - UWW

Offense > Defense:
2015 - UMU (Maybe they go in the last set? Only St. Thomas honestly stressed them, and they put up at least 36 on everybody they played.)
2009 - UWW (The Raiders outgained them and the QB had a great game, but they put the ball on the ground 5 times and lost 3 of them).

The years where arguably both were great:
2014 - UWW
2013 - UWW
2012 - UMU

To me, this whole list suggests, "give me a defense that can stop anyone's/Mount Union's offense, and I have a better shot at a title than an offense that can score on their defense." I am referencing the Raiders a lot because they seem like a fair point of comparison. They held some influence on the champion every year I mentioned.

The 2018 offense was pretty dang good with Josey and Reed at wide out and then Sims and KJ Miller in the slot. Add in the stud that Markeith Miller was I'd say they were pretty dang close to if not elite. What really stood out last year is how good Sims and Miller were on special teams. They had 10+ punt returns for touchdown combined (for some reason I want to say 12, but don't have the stat handy).

[SW66]

I think we can expect both and frequently we do have both, I think lately though that our defense has been so good that any offense would struggle to keep up.

I did some quick math to compare us to Mount Union, a team that has never been judged to lack offense, comparing the playoff runs for 16, 17 and 18.

All total Mount Union scored 532 point and let up 283 for an average of 38-20. UMHB scored 439 points and let up 164 for an average of a 29-11 score.

So we both won by an average of 18 and I feel like I have to mention that few would argue that we have faced tougher competition in those 3 years.

Also should mention it is really hard to find 30 guys (22 starters + 8 rotational guys like extra RBs and WRs on offense, or all 3 levels on defense) whose skillsets are good and complementary enough to have a great offense and a great defense. Even most title-winning teams have one side of the ball that is great and the other that is "just" really good. And, given the records, it looks to be better to have a great defense and a good offense than the reverse. Going back to the last 10 champions, in my opinion:

Defense > Offense:
2018 - UMHB (I want to put this team in the last set, but the CRU folks on here don't seem to share that opinion.)
2017 - UMU
2016 - UMHB
2011 - UWW
2010 - UWW

Offense > Defense:
2015 - UMU (Maybe they go in the last set? Only St. Thomas honestly stressed them, and they put up at least 36 on everybody they played.)
2009 - UWW (The Raiders outgained them and the QB had a great game, but they put the ball on the ground 5 times and lost 3 of them).

The years where arguably both were great:
2014 - UWW
2013 - UWW
2012 - UMU

To me, this whole list suggests, "give me a defense that can stop anyone's/Mount Union's offense, and I have a better shot at a title than an offense that can score on their defense." I am referencing the Raiders a lot because they seem like a fair point of comparison. They held some influence on the champion every year I mentioned.

There is a difference in being a good offense and doing everthing you can to win when you have the ball and being a good offense and going so conservative you put all the pressure to win on your defense. We all know the stats of the games during the regular season but the shell comes out in the later rounds of the playoffs and the offense goes into hibernation. This is a fact that not only our fans know but all of D3 knows.

[Etchglow]

I think we can expect both and frequently we do have both, I think lately though that our defense has been so good that any offense would struggle to keep up.

I did some quick math to compare us to Mount Union, a team that has never been judged to lack offense, comparing the playoff runs for 16, 17 and 18.

All total Mount Union scored 532 point and let up 283 for an average of 38-20. UMHB scored 439 points and let up 164 for an average of a 29-11 score.

So we both won by an average of 18 and I feel like I have to mention that few would argue that we have faced tougher competition in those 3 years.

Also should mention it is really hard to find 30 guys (22 starters + 8 rotational guys like extra RBs and WRs on offense, or all 3 levels on defense) whose skillsets are good and complementary enough to have a great offense and a great defense. Even most title-winning teams have one side of the ball that is great and the other that is "just" really good. And, given the records, it looks to be better to have a great defense and a good offense than the reverse. Going back to the last 10 champions, in my opinion:

Defense > Offense:
2018 - UMHB (I want to put this team in the last set, but the CRU folks on here don't seem to share that opinion.)
2017 - UMU
2016 - UMHB
2011 - UWW
2010 - UWW

Offense > Defense:
2015 - UMU (Maybe they go in the last set? Only St. Thomas honestly stressed them, and they put up at least 36 on everybody they played.)
2009 - UWW (The Raiders outgained them and the QB had a great game, but they put the ball on the ground 5 times and lost 3 of them).

The years where arguably both were great:
2014 - UWW
2013 - UWW
2012 - UMU

To me, this whole list suggests, "give me a defense that can stop anyone's/Mount Union's offense, and I have a better shot at a title than an offense that can score on their defense." I am referencing the Raiders a lot because they seem like a fair point of comparison. They held some influence on the champion every year I mentioned.

There is a difference in being a good offense and doing everthing you can to win when you have the ball and being a good offense and going so conservative you put all the pressure to win on your defense. We all know the stats of the games during the regular season but the shell comes out in the later rounds of the playoffs and the offense goes into hibernation. This is a fact that not only our fans know but all of D3 knows.

I'd be interested to see if that was just because the level of competition is that much higher. Maybe I'll look into historical stats when I get home.

[TheChucker]

Pretty cool Tweet from Mike Maynard the Redlands coach.

https://twitter.com/UR_CoachMaynard/status/1197995621120200704?s=20

[Etchglow]

So, went back four years and made a table of the average score by round.  Probably need to go back further to when UMHB's great defense isn't in the finals every year...



   
   
   
   
   

Year	First Round	Second Round	Quarter Finals	Semi Finals	Finals
2018	44-10	46-20	51-18	30-17	24-16
2017	39-12	40-15	42-26	33-20	12-0
2016	38-18	33-14	43-27	12-8	10-7
2015	46-14	42-20	41-27	37-12	49-35

[TheChucker]

For all you Belton experts, what barbeque places do you recommend? I've visted Belton several times as my kid goes to UMHB, but am still a relatively newbie. I've been to:

Miller's BBQ: seemed high quality and a very good lunch scene. nice traditional downtown location.
Clem Mikeska's: good family style place with easy access in a busy retail area
Backyard BBQ: maybe my favorite for some reason. hole in the wall. sticky picnic table seating. but great casual atmosphere.
The Gin at Nolan Creek: had fried catfish which was awesome and really liked the place, but not a pure BBQ joint.
Deadfish Grill: definitely not a BBQ focused place, but incredible scenery on the lake, good service, and unique southern cookin.

[Etchglow]

For all you Belton experts, what barbeque places do you recommend? I've visted Belton several times as my kid goes to UMHB, but am still a relatively newbie. I've been to:

Miller's BBQ: seemed high quality and a very good lunch scene. nice traditional downtown location.
Clem Mikeska's: good family style place with easy access in a busy retail area
Backyard BBQ: maybe favorite for some reason. hole in the wall. sticky picnic table seating. but great casual atmosphere.
The Gin at Nolan Creek: had fried catfish which was awesome and really liked the place, but not a pure BBQ joint.

Miller's is pretty good as you've mentioned. I actually don't like Clem's but that is personal preference. Schoepf's is decent and is usually worth the trip just for the cheesy potatoes lol. We don't eat BBQ much there anymore since we live down near Austin and there are so many great places down this way. Instead, we go to jaliscos for the cheap hole in the wall tex mex lol.

[TheChucker]

For all you Belton experts, what barbeque places do you recommend? I've visted Belton several times as my kid goes to UMHB, but am still a relatively newbie. I've been to:

Miller's BBQ: seemed high quality and a very good lunch scene. nice traditional downtown location.
Clem Mikeska's: good family style place with easy access in a busy retail area
Backyard BBQ: maybe favorite for some reason. hole in the wall. sticky picnic table seating. but great casual atmosphere.
The Gin at Nolan Creek: had fried catfish which was awesome and really liked the place, but not a pure BBQ joint.

Miller's is pretty good as you've mentioned. I actually don't like Clem's but that is personal preference. Schoepf's is decent and is usually worth the trip just for the cheesy potatoes lol. We don't eat BBQ much there anymore since we live down near Austin and there are so many great places down this way. Instead, we go to jaliscos for the cheap hole in the wall tex mex lol.

Yeah, I want to try Schoepf's. I didn't even notice it when searching for BBQ places my first few times there. I've seen Jalisco's mentioned on some UMHB twitter feeds so I might need to try that out. I likes me some tex mex too!

[TheChucker]

So, went back four years and made a table of the average score by round.  Probably need to go back further to when UMHB's great defense isn't in the finals every year...



   
   
   
   
   

Year	First Round	Second Round	Quarter Finals	Semi Finals	Finals
2018	44-10	46-20	51-18	30-17	24-16
2017	39-12	40-15	42-26	33-20	12-0
2016	38-18	33-14	43-27	12-8	10-7
2015	46-14	42-20	41-27	37-12	49-35

Nice table. I'll just say this rearding defense vs offense. I saw UMHB last year in person for the first time and was amazed at their atheticism on defense. I've never seen a collection of athletes on a D3 team like that, nor most D2 teams either. That's UMHB's brand and I hope they stick with it. A great defense combined with a clock-draining offense are a tried-and-true recipe for sucking the life out of competitors and winning big games. If you look at D1, the Big 12 is perceived to be a step behind the SEC and Big 10 because no-one plays defense.

[Ralph Turner]

For the Californians who are traveling to "rural" Texas for the first time, Tex-Mex is its own cuisine.

It is not Mexican, but rather an indigenous cuisine arising from the native Tejanos in the late 19th century.

Some food historians might refer to the Martinez family's El Fenix, established in 1918, as the first Tex Mex restaurant as we understand the term now, but each town has its favorite, not unlike mom and pop Italian restaurants in New York or Chicago.

I invite the locals to tell me their favorite Tex-Mex restaurants in Belton, for my future reference, of course ;-)

[TheChucker]

For the Californians who are traveling to "rural" Texas for the first time, Tex-Mex is its own cuisine.

It is not Mexican, but rather an indigenous cuisine arising from the native Tejanos in the late 19th century.

Some food historians might refer to the Martinez family's El Fenix, established in 1918, as the first Tex Mex restaurant as we understand the term now, but each town has its favorite, not unlike mom and pop Italian restaurants in New York or Chicago.

I invite the locals to tell me their favorite Tex-Mex restaurants in Belton, for my future reference, of course ;-)

I wouldn't necessarily call the Killeen/Temple/Belton rural There's half a million people there! But yeah, I get the "rural" comment in comparison to the So Cal area.

[Etchglow]

For the Californians who are traveling to "rural" Texas for the first time, Tex-Mex is its own cuisine.

It is not Mexican, but rather an indigenous cuisine arising from the native Tejanos in the late 19th century.

Some food historians might refer to the Martinez family's El Fenix, established in 1918, as the first Tex Mex restaurant as we understand the term now, but each town has its favorite, not unlike mom and pop Italian restaurants in New York or Chicago.

I invite the locals to tell me their favorite Tex-Mex restaurants in Belton, for my future reference, of course ;-)

I wouldn't necessarily call the Killeen/Temple/Belton rural There's half a million people there! But yeah, I get the "rural" comment in comparison to the So Cal area.

We don't claim the Killeen/Fort Hood area lol. There has been a ton of growth in the past 5-10 years in Belton. Heck, I was driving 121 after a game a few weeks ago and barely recognized it...

[D O.C.]

Chucker ....  Rerdlands is actually on the edge of the megalopolis you refer to as So Cal.
In view of the campus is the 11,505 foot Mount San Gorgonio (with a vast wilderness area). 25 miles out Palm Springs way is 10,800 foot San Jacinto Mountain.
Redlands probably won't be eating any Tex Mex while there. Those dawgs are raised on raw meat.

[TheChucker]

Chucker ....  Rerdlands is actually on the edge of the megalopolis you refer to as So Cal.
In view of the campus is the 11,505 foot Mount San Gorgonio (with a vast wilderness area). 25 miles out Palm Springs way is 10,800 foot San Jacinto Mountain.
Redlands probably won't be eating any Tex Mex while there. Those dawgs are raised on raw meat.

Yeah. I've been through there a number of times on my way (from my stations in Yuma and Pendleton) to skiiing in Big Bear. The anticipation mounts as one nears the mountains. It is scenic.

I won't comment on the tex mex dig. But I am getting hungry.