FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[rscl70]

That is correct. Roman is no longer enrolled.

Sad.  If he had gone to a D1 school like FSU, he would have been able to play until his last appeal, or until he was sent to the chair.

But in D3/MUC, he was let go as soon as there was an accusation, just to avoid any distraction.

The optimum solution is probably somewhere in the middle.  But in any case, a stern warning to players not to put themselves in positions where this could happen.

It does make one wonder what ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty."  But as you've stated, a student - athlete has responsibility for his or her own conduct.  He should have used better judgement in how he spent his free time, especially leading into or during the season.

[Ric]

Namdar did not play in a game and was not on any game roster and was not with the team by the opener. Wherever he chooses to go, he will have two years remaining.

[rscl70]

The win pushes Heidelberg to 7-0, 6-0 in the OAC and sets up showdown against Mount Union next week in Tiffin.

"They are a very good football team," said Hallett, talking about No. 1 Mount Union. "We're going to have to do a good job in preparing for them next week."


Ya think!

[ohiofan1954]

If he had gone to Ohio State especially under the new coach the charges  would have been dropped and he would be playing now. I can't wait for Saturday, when would be a good time to get their? Might be tough finding a good spot to watch this one.

[purple]

 At this point Roman intends to return to Mount Union next semester. I believe we will see him in a Raider uniform next year. I hope so. Obviously ,the standards for students are higher at Mount Union than at some other schools,and the school is not held to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt of legal guilt before imposing sanctions for conduct the school deems not in keeping with it's high standards. It is a good thing for the schools annual fund raising efforts such a standard was not in force when I and several of my friends went there.

[Dr. Acula]

Finally got to watch the game.  Quick thoughts:

The story of the game was the D obviously.  Beyond dominant. What else can we say?  That was crazy, especially on the heels of Ott moving the ball and scoring on Berg pretty effectively last week.  And oh by the way, Jones and Scott were benched for the 1st qtr and Spencer sat out.

That Mitchell TD run?  Wow.  I think it was maybe an 8 yd TD but man is that a 5 second flash of what makes Mitchell so exciting.  That change of direction and lateral quickness is incredible.  And congrats to him on getting the start.  He's earned it.

Pretty solid job by the O line especially in pass protection. Burke seemed to have time to throw almost every time.  Running was effective too.

Liked seeing Scott out there with Burke. Didn't like another Raider fumble inside the 15 though. 

Only negatives I saw were that Burke missed a couple open guys and it seemed like the WR had trouble getting open on plays when Burke had lots of time to throw.  Maybe no pressure and no one open was due to Ott dropping guys into coverage, I don't know. 

[mr_mom]

Only negatives I saw were that Burke missed a couple open guys and it seemed like the WR had trouble getting open on plays when Burke had lots of time to throw.  Maybe no pressure and no one open was due to Ott dropping guys into coverage, I don't know.

Don't forget trying to throw in 30-knot winds.

[HScoach]

Too bad the Berg guys got toasted.   This week would have been fun.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Too bad the Berg guys got toasted.   This week would have been fun.

But HScoach, you find easily offended people rather offensive!

(Or do you suspect they got ousted as opposed to being run off?  It takes quite a bit to get Pat to ban you - though his trigger finger might be much itchier for 'newbies'.) 

Personally, I found the Berg guys naively exuberant (and who wouldn't be, with Heidi's history?), rather than in any way obnoxious.

[mr_mom]

The spreads for Week 9 of the OAC Pick-Em are posted.

I thank you for all your discussion on the UMU-HEI game ... the cold, unfeeling calculations were tempered with your collective inputs.  Hopefully I can get a 50-50 split like I did this week.

Let the playoffs begin!   

[Desertraider]

Too bad the Berg guys got toasted.   This week would have been fun.

But HScoach, you find easily offended people rather offensive!

(Or do you suspect they got ousted as opposed to being run off?  It takes quite a bit to get Pat to ban you - though his trigger finger might be much itchier for 'newbies'.) 

Personally, I found the Berg guys naively exuberant (and who wouldn't be, with Heidi's history?), rather than in any way obnoxious.

I was wondering what happened to the Berg guys as well. Hope they did not get run-off. I remember some great back-and-forth with the UWW fans, and the Johnnies - you support who you support and try to give better than you get. With that being said - this game is going to be a battle.
I like what Mount did to OTT but also realize you can't really look at how Mount and Berg played common teams. The key for Mount is: contain Cartel Brooks. He will get his yards - but I would like to see 100 yards on 100 carries! The Raider D has to have sound fundamentals: hit and wrap-up. Force Berg to throw it by putting them in 2nd and 3rd and long. The Raider O has got to have consistency outside of Burke running it. I saw the Ott replay and liked what I saw from Mitchell (and I think Nemeth is rising as well), but I am concerned with the passing game. I know it was windy, and wet the week before with Cap, but Burke was off in both games and the offense was more predictable because of it.

BTW: on the replay I got to listen to Jim Ballard (should we genuflect when his name is mentioned?). He made mention of the 93 team being all from Summit and Stark county - does the fact that the early Mount teams were all locals make what they did more impressive than the more recent versions? Just curious.

BTW2: Was listening to 92.3 on drive home from Mount yesterday and they were talking about RB the Browns could get. As they go to commercial Jeff Phelps says: "Chuck Moore from Mogadore - he was a great one". And on that note I would also like to add - yes Chuck was great, but I still think Kmic should have gotten a shot!

[ExTartanPlayer]

The most vocal Berg guy was not banned - he freaked out and left of his own accord when his identity was discovered and reality check had a little harmless (really, it was harmless) fun at his expense.  Apparently he sent Pat a few angry PM's on his way out the door before deleting his account.

[Raider 68]

Too bad the Berg guys got toasted.   This week would have been fun.

But HScoach, you find easily offended people rather offensive!

(Or do you suspect they got ousted as opposed to being run off?  It takes quite a bit to get Pat to ban you - though his trigger finger might be much itchier for 'newbies'.) 

Personally, I found the Berg guys naively exuberant (and who wouldn't be, with Heidi's history?), rather than in any way obnoxious.

I was wondering what happened to the Berg guys as well. Hope they did not get run-off. I remember some great back-and-forth with the UWW fans, and the Johnnies - you support who you support and try to give better than you get. With that being said - this game is going to be a battle.
I like what Mount did to OTT but also realize you can't really look at how Mount and Berg played common teams. The key for Mount is: contain Cartel Brooks. He will get his yards - but I would like to see 100 yards on 100 carries! The Raider D has to have sound fundamentals: hit and wrap-up. Force Berg to throw it by putting them in 2nd and 3rd and long. The Raider O has got to have consistency outside of Burke running it. I saw the Ott replay and liked what I saw from Mitchell (and I think Nemeth is rising as well), but I am concerned with the passing game. I know it was windy, and wet the week before with Cap, but Burke was off in both games and the offense was more predictable because of it.

BTW: on the replay I got to listen to Jim Ballard (should we genuflect when his name is mentioned?). He made mention of the 93 team being all from Summit and Stark county - does the fact that the early Mount teams were all locals make what they did more impressive than the more recent versions? Just curious.

BTW2: Was listening to 92.3 on drive home from Mount yesterday and they were talking about RB the Browns could get. As they go to commercial Jeff Phelps says: "Chuck Moore from Mogadore - he was a great one". And on that note I would also like to add - yes Chuck was great, but I still think Kmic should have gotten a shot!

desertraider,

I agree with your concerns raised about the passing game. I listened to the Capital game and attended the Otterbein game.
While K. Burke was off his normal accuracy in both games, I saw against Otterbein, that the WR's were not able to create any real separation. Fortunately, the O line gave Burke a lot of time. Both the accuracy and the separation will need to improve against Heidelberg. You are correct, limit Brooks to a reasonable run production, force the long 2 and 3 downs will be the key. Of course, limit TO's.

[Knightstalker]

The most vocal Berg guy was not banned - he freaked out and left of his own accord when his identity was discovered and reality check had a little harmless (really, it was harmless) fun at his expense.  Apparently he sent Pat a few angry PM's on his way out the door before deleting his account.

I'm taking my ball home and you guys can't play anymore.   

[skunks_sidekick]

The most vocal Berg guy was not banned - he freaked out and left of his own accord when his identity was discovered and reality check had a little harmless (really, it was harmless) fun at his expense.  Apparently he sent Pat a few angry PM's on his way out the door before deleting his account.

The spy craft of many of the posters on this board can be quite awesome, and probably a bit unsettling to folks who are used to thinking they can say and behave however they want on a message board because they are anonymous (NOT!).   

I remember the E-8 guys being quite good at the sleuthing as well.  Of course guys that use their college email when registering are easier to detect.

It's quite a conundrum this year.  The "old me" wants to say Mount will be Mount and stifle Berg's offense with a smothering D, and the playmakers (Burke, WR's, special teams) will make enough big plays for Mount to win by 14-17.  The "new me", who watched Mount play on opening day, and has followed fairly close since thinks that this isn't going to be like one of Mount's previous big games. 

Here's hoping our best player (Burke) outperforms their best player (Brooks).  It's the battle of the killer B's!

Prediction...ummm.......

Mount - 35
Berg - 24