FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Desertraider]

SoS doesn't matter for an 0-7 team.  And what is your point that they lost to one bad team?  Mount plays a couple bad teams as well.  The difference is that they have won every game.  Keep in mind that record is still much more important than SoS.  Having the #1 SoS does no good if you're 3-4.

What is disturbing about the SoS for Mount is that, to me, it is more indicative of the state of the OAC then anything else. Its not like Mount can schedule tougher teams - outside of the 1st game. But to have an all OAC schedule and rank at 122 tells me the conference needs to step up. However, great point about record being most important.

[skunks_sidekick]

I think the NCAA committee has shown evidence that SOS means absolutely NOTHING (see W & J last year).  As discussed many other times, it seems like you are much better suited (in the committee's eyes) to play a weak non-conference schedule and win, then to play a really tough non-conference schedule and do "ok". 

My thoughts on the Raiders after taking in my first game in person.

1.  Seaman has improved greatly since last year, and even since the beginning of this year.  His arm strength is much better, and he can throw a tight ball.  His scrambling looks to be less impressive than it did a year ago, but that may be a product of having more of a "throw first" attitude.

2.  Mount's receiving corp is sic, and as far as I am concerned, Cecil can just take his time getting back.  That way we will have him ready for the play-offs, where we will definitely need him.


3.  Mount's running game is better, but I'm not ready to call it great.  I would rate it a 6.5 out of ten.  I like the toughness of Murray, and hope we can see him break a couple of long runs so he becomes even more of a concern for opposing defenses.

4.  The defense is fast, and very tough.  I believe our pass defense has improved immensely since the Osh Kosh game.  My only concern is wondering if our smaller size will hurt us against a power running team (insert UWW here).

I don't think we get tested (unless we have one of our crapper games) until round 2, or even 3 in the play-offs.

Oh...and the margaritas at Pancho's are still as good as ever.   

[HScoach]

IMHO, the SoS is a slanted stat because the of the different number of non-league games each conference plays.  The OAC gets 1game to boost/kill their SoS numbers, but the CCIW get 3.  And the numbers are just pure wins & losses.  As we all know, there is a huge difference between going .500 in the OAC or CCIW as opposed to the NCAC or HCAC, but the SoS numbers from beating a middle of the pack NCAC team will create the same points as beating a average CCIW team.

[Raider 68]

IMHO, the SoS is a slanted stat because the of the different number of non-league games each conference plays.  The OAC gets 1game to boost/kill their SoS numbers, but the CCIW get 3.  And the numbers are just pure wins & losses.  As we all know, there is a huge difference between going .500 in the OAC or CCIW as opposed to the NCAC or HCAC, but the SoS numbers from beating a middle of the pack NCAC team will create the same points as beating a average CCIW team.

It gets back to what a team can control or not. If you win 10 games in a top conference then the team will be a reasonably high seed. The OAC is one of the best in D3 and its winner will no doubt be a top seed or #2.

Frankly, the only scenario for SoS is, in my view for the at-large teams where SoS is a consideration.

[Desertraider]

"I don't think we get tested (unless we have one of our crapper games) until round 2, or even 3 in the play-offs."

Who knew that Marietta would be a crapper game? I can't really say much about MUC yet. I was able to stay awake long enough to see one game on the rebroadcast. Other than that it has been the phone link and radio. I really want to see the running game against "The Tans". As far as I am concerned it is Mounts running game that dictates where they will go. If a back emerges fom nowhere and tears it up (i.e. THEE Nate Kmic) then Mount will go far. However, some great Mount teams have lacked that 'game breaking' runner (it has been discussed on here several times) and not gone as far. BTW: Mount "going far" = Championship, not Championship game.

Great point on the SoS from HScoach. I don't worry about SoS at all. My only point was that playing an all OAC schedule, and the OAC being regarded as one of the tougher conferences, would lead one to believe that Mount would not be down at 122 on the SoS.

[seventiesraider]

The problem with the NCAA strength of schedule calculation is that all it calculates is Size of Score

BTW-Sidekick: you saw the running game w/o Wes Ryder, big difference from when he is in, still Murray's stock raises every week. You need to come watch his cuts and reads from the endzone with me. He ain't Chuck Moore yet, but he has time to learn

[reality check]

I thought the same thing about SOS regarding the non-conference thing but it's actually indicative of something else in my opinion.  Consider this.  

ONU sits at 6 overall.  Why?  It's not because they've played a great non-conf opponent in UWRF who is 0-5 on the year.  It's because they've already played the quality OAC teams in the conference.  ONU has not played anyone in conference worse than 3-4 at this point.  Mount still has OTT and BW and that BW game should drastically improve both team's SOS.  ONU will slide a little and Mount/BW will both jump up.  

I don't think this is a reflection of a weak OAC at all.  The fact of the matter is that when it all washes out, all the OAC teams should have respectable and pretty close SOS calcuation because we share so many common opponents and the OOWP is minimally different because it really is only impacted by the one non-conf game we play.  

[reality check]

The problem with the NCAA strength of schedule calculation is that all it calculates is Size of Score

BTW-Sidekick: you saw the running game w/o Wes Ryder, big difference from when he is in, still Murray's stock raises every week. You need to come watch his cuts and reads from the endzone with me. He ain't Chuck Moore yet, but he has time to learn

What are you referring to? 

[seventiesraider]

In the words of Miss Emily Latela from Saturday night live, "Never Mind" . It was another ranking service that used margin of victory.  No excuse at 11:00 AM.

It still needs to factor in some level of the strength of those opponents or else you end up with the whole New England league on  top.

[reality check]

In the words of Miss Emily Latela from Saturday night live, "Never Mind" . It was another ranking service that used margin of victory.  No excuse at 11:00 AM.

It still needs to factor in some level of the strength of those opponents or else you end up with the whole New England league on  top.

I'm going to go ahead and share the link with you since you obviously haven't looked at it before raising these issues.  The NESCAC schools are all listed at the bottom as their SOS doesn't matter...

http://www.d3football.com/seasons/2010/schedule?tmpl=sos-template

[jam40jeff]

It still needs to factor in some level of the strength of those opponents or else you end up with the whole New England league on  top.

Even if the NESCAC were included in the SoS rankings, they wouldn't be on top.  They would be centered around .500 (with slight variations where the teams with winning records would be slightly below .500 and the teams with losing records would be slightly above .500).  Any closed set of teams will always have an overall record of .500.

[seventiesraider]

It still needs to factor in some level of the strength of those opponents or else you end up with the whole New England league on  top.

I just used them as a bad example. Sorry, I didn't scroll all the way to bottom of the list. It's still worthless without attempt to assign some level of strength to the opponents.

[Mr. Ypsi]

It still needs to factor in some level of the strength of those opponents or else you end up with the whole New England league on  top.

I just used them as a bad example. Sorry, I didn't scroll all the way to bottom of the list. It's still worthless without attempt to assign some level of strength to the opponents.

Agreed, but I don't know how that could be done without turning a (flawed, but accessible and objective) measure into virtually a 'poll'.  It is especially problematic for those conferences (e.g., the OAC) with only one non-con game per team - by definition, all such teams will end up about in the middle.  On the other hand, the CCIW currently has 6 teams in the top 17 nationally due to going 22-2 non-con (even though a fair number of those opponents have terrible records, virtually ALL CCIW teams have overall winning records because of it).

[seventiesraider]

It still needs to factor in some level of the strength of those opponents or else you end up with the whole New England league on  top.

I just used them as a bad example. Sorry, I didn't scroll all the way to bottom of the list. It's still worthless without attempt to assign some level of strength to the opponents.

Agreed, but I don't know how that could be done without turning a (flawed, but accessible and objective) measure into virtually a 'poll'.  It is especially problematic for those conferences (e.g., the OAC) with only one non-con game per team - by definition, all such teams will end up about in the middle.  On the other hand, the CCIW currently has 6 teams in the top 17 nationally due to going 22-2 non-con (even though a fair number of those opponents have terrible records, virtually ALL CCIW teams have overall winning records because of it).

What he said

[raiderpa]

Just got home from the JV game at Ashland....a tale of two halves...first half Mount looks like they did not want to tackle, cover, or complete a pass..27-0 Ashland...left corner gets beat all night, once on 3rd and 18 from the 25 for a TD...

Second half..Mount looks like Mount...D starts dominating, Pioloto looks like Dan Marino and they score 28 straight to lead 28-27 with 1 min 15 seconds left.  Defense turns back the clock to first half, same corner gives up two big plays and Raiders lose on a FG as time expires....31-28

was a great second half to watch...Pilotto (assuming it was him.#13) has a cannon and threw deep pass very well.  A couple receivers looked very fast and two running backs were strong...Ashland QB looked very very good...Is this the kid LK was after ??