FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Dr. Acula]

This may be premature, however, I thought I would ask it anyway.  Obviously, so far, Mount Union is the favorite to win it all this year and I think most likely will this time.  Yet, with three weeks or so left in the regular season, which team among the Top 10 currently rated do you ?guys believe (at least at this point) will be the best challenger to Mount?

I'd say Linfield, but until they beat UWW they have to be right there too.

[TailGate]

Mount had tough time running the ball at Wilmington.  Look at NCAA stats.  Tougher to run it there than against any other team this year.  Was not just because BJ got hurt.

[Raider 68]

This may be premature, however, I thought I would ask it anyway.  Obviously, so far, Mount Union is the favorite to win it all this year and I think most likely will this time.  Yet, with three weeks or so left in the regular season, which team among the Top 10 currently rated do you ?guys believe (at least at this point) will be the best challenger to Mount?

This is an interesting subject.  I admit to not having seen Mt this year so I really have no idea how to compare them to teams of the past or teams I've seen this year. 
I assume you feel Mt is the favorite to win it all based on the results below.  It's funny, I see it exactly opposite.  The results below are the reason I think Mt will have a very hard time winning it this year- depending on how the brackets come out.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Mt basher, but I've seen Mt enough in the past to reasonably suspect that the numbers below are more reflective of the failure of the conference than it is a tribute to Mt's strength in 2015:

vs. Bethany •   W, 47-0   
vs. Muskingum * •   W, 56-0   
at Marietta * •   W, 61-0   
vs. Capital * •   W, 62-7   
vs. Ohio Northern * •   W, 51-7   
at Heidelberg * •   W, 59-17   
at Wilmington * •   W, 69-0   

emma17,

Good points, but I compare the Raiders 2015 vs. 2014 and the difference is defense. How many years that the Warhawks
won the trophy because it was an outstanding defense and a very good offense. For me, the Raider defense is by far better
than 2014. We will see going forward if they have that balance on both sides of the ball to move deep in the playoffs.

[Dr. Acula]

Mount had tough time running the ball at Wilmington.  Look at NCAA stats.  Tougher to run it there than against any other team this year.  Was not just because BJ got hurt.

Not sure how much I'd read into it.  The guys running behind the starting O line put up 7+ ypc combined.  Nemeth was right on his season avg.  Aaron was the one who dragged them down.  It is interesting that you mentioned it though because I noticed a shakeup on the 2nd team O line on the 2 deep this week and wondered about that.

[wally_wabash]

Mount had tough time running the ball at Wilmington.  Look at NCAA stats.  Tougher to run it there than against any other team this year.  Was not just because BJ got hurt.

I'm not sure how you can possibly nitpick anything in a game that was 56-0 at halftime.  The offensive stats really don't mean anything in a game like that.  I look at that box and I see 6 first downs allowed, 87 yards of offense allowed, -58 yards rushing allowed with just 1 sack (!!).  Honestly.  Mount Union is fine.  Relax. 

[pg04]

Mount had tough time running the ball at Wilmington.  Look at NCAA stats.  Tougher to run it there than against any other team this year.  Was not just because BJ got hurt.

I'm not sure how you can possibly nitpick anything in a game that was 56-0 at halftime.  The offensive stats really don't mean anything in a game like that.  I look at that box and I see 6 first downs allowed, 87 yards of offense allowed, -58 yards rushing allowed with just 1 sack (!!).  Honestly.  Mount Union is fine.  Relax.

Perhaps the team wouldn't be so dominant for two decades if they didn't nitpick small things like this.

[Desertraider]

This may be premature, however, I thought I would ask it anyway.  Obviously, so far, Mount Union is the favorite to win it all this year and I think most likely will this time.  Yet, with three weeks or so left in the regular season, which team among the Top 10 currently rated do you ?guys believe (at least at this point) will be the best challenger to Mount?

This is an interesting subject.  I admit to not having seen Mt this year so I really have no idea how to compare them to teams of the past or teams I've seen this year. 
I assume you feel Mt is the favorite to win it all based on the results below.  It's funny, I see it exactly opposite.  The results below are the reason I think Mt will have a very hard time winning it this year- depending on how the brackets come out.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Mt basher, but I've seen Mt enough in the past to reasonably suspect that the numbers below are more reflective of the failure of the conference than it is a tribute to Mt's strength in 2015:

vs. Bethany •   W, 47-0   
vs. Muskingum * •   W, 56-0   
at Marietta * •   W, 61-0   
vs. Capital * •   W, 62-7   
vs. Ohio Northern * •   W, 51-7   
at Heidelberg * •   W, 59-17   
at Wilmington * •   W, 69-0

+k for the numbers and detail. I see your point but have to counter with:
2012 (Mount's Last Title)
Franklin           45-7
Muskingum     57-0   
Marietta           52-0   
Ohio Northern  54-0   
Wilmington       66-0   
Capital              62-0   
Otterbein          51-0

2008
St. John Fisher    33-3   
Ohio Northern   44-7   
Muskingum       51-13   
Baldwin-Wallace 48-3   
Capital               49-7   
Heidelberg         49-0   
Wilmington         55-0   

In 2012 through the first 6 conference games of the season the average Mount score was 57 to 0 - In 2008 through the first 8 games it was 49.33 to 5.0 This year through 6 OAC games it is 59.66 to 5.16. The numbers this year are on par with those in the previous 2 championship years at Mount. In addition the 2006 average through 6 OAC games was 53.16 to 5. As far as I see it the numbers now are very reflective of the previous 3 Mount title years. However - I believe someone once said that "statistics are like bikinis...."

[Desertraider]

Actually - the numbers suggest something else. Maybe Mount's D isn't all that and a bag o'chips. I mean the 2012 unit had 6 straight shutouts! These guys only managed 3 Disturbing indeed - 

BTW: We are essentially addressing "Which one is better, the one that averaged 57-0 or the one that averaged 59.99 to 5.16?" In my best "Coffee Talk with Paul Baldwin" - Discuss! Safe travels all-

[amonachino]

A lot of good detail and in put.  The most important thing that has to take place is when Mount plays UWW or anyone in that class is that they do not piss on their shoes in the game.  Look at their defeats esp. stagg bowl and you will see turnovers beyond the regular season. they have battled back to always have a chance, yet all the errors kill them in the end.  It seems when they lose no matter how many turnovers they make if they could have made one less they would have won.  The last 2 Stagg defeats Mount did not look anything like how they needed to play.  You got to play your best or damn near your best in these games.  It is why they won 11 titles and in many cases why they lost to St. John and UWW  in the other games.  Mount is known for playing big in the big game for 60mins.  That effort is always there.  It is why they are difficult to beat.  When you come up short it is Mount beating Mount 90% of the times.   

[Desertraider]

A lot of good detail and in put.  The most important thing that has to take place is when Mount plays UWW or anyone in that class is that they do not piss on their shoes in the game.  Look at their defeats esp. stagg bowl and you will see turnovers beyond the regular season. they have battled back to always have a chance, yet all the errors kill them in the end.  It seems when they lose no matter how many turnovers they make if they could have made one less they would have won.  The last 2 Stagg defeats Mount did not look anything like how they needed to play.  You got to play your best or damn near your best in these games.  It is why they won 11 titles and in many cases why they lost to St. John and UWW  in the other games.  Mount is known for playing big in the big game for 60mins.  That effort is always there.  It is why they are difficult to beat.  When you come up short it is Mount beating Mount 90% of the times.

That is an unpopular view point but one I agree with. I have put it in here before that normally Mount beats Mount (yes - there have been a couple of possible exceptions to this). The St. Johns game in 2003 (?) - Mount didn't even show up. The Stagg monkeystomp loss to UWW - UWW was the better team. But what made Mount "The Mount" was making that 1 or 2 plays when they had to be made in those games. The UMHB game a few years back was Mount football. Smash mouth, hard nosed, tough game from start to finish and Mount made that play when it had to be made - the big score late and the defensive stand to ice it. I think this Mount team has "it" and can win it all, I think it comes down to Coaching. LK without question could overcome adversity and (as Jim Ballard said ) "get more from his players than other teams could from theirs". The question is can VK do that as well?

[raiderpa]

A team that can make Mount one dimensional has a shot at them.  I agree with HSCoach that the passing game is suspect.  Namdar is truly big time, however take him away and they are just  average or slightly above, IMO.. #83 cannot catch a cold, Kennedy is ok, Hargrove ok, TE has not been a factor and no one else has jumped out.  QB, again IMO, is just above average passer if that.
Many of the Namdar TD's have been throw it long and he runs and gets it because  he is the best athlete on the field.   I have seen no ability to consistently throw into hot spots or good timing patterns.
Love the Raiders, but wonder if the D can carry them with the holes in the Offense.
On the Mount moving up discussion.  A dead horse...NEVER happen.  They are too committed to total athletic program and are in great shape in that respect.  Waste of time even going there with that subject.

[Desertraider]

A team that can make Mount one dimensional has a shot at them.  I agree with HSCoach that the passing game is suspect.  Namdar is truly big time, however take him away and they are just  average or slightly above, IMO.. #83 cannot catch a cold, Kennedy is ok, Hargrove ok, TE has not been a factor and no one else has jumped out.  QB, again IMO, is just above average passer if that.
Many of the Namdar TD's have been throw it long and he runs and gets it because  he is the best athlete on the field.   I have seen no ability to consistently throw into hot spots or good timing patterns.
Love the Raiders, but wonder if the D can carry them with the holes in the Offense.
On the Mount moving up discussion.  A dead horse...NEVER happen.  They are too committed to total athletic program and are in great shape in that respect.  Waste of time even going there with that subject.

On the Namdar comment my concern is that he has virtually disappeared the past few games. I wonder if it is by design. I know OTT is nothing special - but the CB for OTT (#28) did very well against Namdar last year. He had Namdar most of the game and was all over him. I think Namdar had 3 catches for under 30 yards and no TDs. Kennedy and Hargrove are good WR but can't take over a game -  more possession WR but have the ability for YAC. I need to see Mount more consistent in the passing game these next few weeks.

[emma17]

I truly can understand why Mt fans would hold the opinion that Mt's losses to UWW (that is what we're talking about) happen mostly because Mt beats Mt. 
I usually come away from a Mt v UWW game thinking Mt has the better athletes.  Of course UWW has their share of athletes, but in general I give Mt the edge almost every year.  It's not just at receiver, but I think Mt's secondary typically has the better athletes. 
UWW has something else though.  If Mt had only lost a couple of times to UWW in the LL era, it would be easier to write it off as Mt beating Mt.  But since the LL era, UWW is 6-1 vs Mt.  Did Mt really beat itself that many times?  Even if the answer is yes, it seems logical then that you'd still have to say UWW plays a better game in the big game. 

IMO one of the primary reasons for this is the very thing that gets some of you excited.  57-0 and 55-5 average season scores- wow- look how good Mt is.  No, don't do that.  Look how poorly prepared Mt is for a team that not only has good athletes, but can play a complete game (all 3 phases) AND has had to play tough competition throughout the season and playoffs.  Mt gets ripped off with the horrific competition in the OAC and they get no favors with the silly easy brackets in the playoffs. 

To Mt's credit, I'm amazed at their ability to fight back in the Stagg.  2013 is the exception (as poorly as Mt's D may have played, UWW's O played amazingly well that game).  2014 comeback, 2010 comeback, 2009 comeback, 2007 comeback.  In all of those games though, UWW had more.  Just look at the teams and hard games UWW had to go through to get to those Stagg Bowls, and there lies the most likely answer. 

[wally_wabash]

IMO one of the primary reasons for this is the very thing that gets some of you excited.  57-0 and 55-5 average season scores- wow- look how good Mt is.  No, don't do that.  Look how poorly prepared Mt is for a team that not only has good athletes, but can play a complete game (all 3 phases) AND has had to play tough competition throughout the season and playoffs.  Mt gets ripped off with the horrific competition in the OAC and they get no favors with the silly easy brackets in the playoffs.  

I think this is a horrible and lazy take, tbqh.  Mount Union plays 15 games every single year.  Every single year they play the maximum number of tournament games.  They know how to play the tournament and they know how to play big games against good teams.  There aren't many teams that do this as much or more than Mount Union (basically, there's one).  Nah- this is nothing more than my-league-is-better-than-your-league chest beating. 

UWW has been beating Mount Union because their line play (both sides) has been superior.  Full stop.  Nothing to do with what league they play in.  UWW has better dudes on the lines than Mount Union and pretty much everybody else.  That's the separation point. 

[HScoach]

^ what he said.

Mount typically has better skill people.   UWW (and the WIAC as a whole) typically has better line play.   When Mount could stalemate the line of scrimmage they usually won (minus the years we had to play with Piloto under center.....).   When UWW dominated the LOS, they typically won.   

In the early to mid-90's when the LK run started, Mount was winning in spite of their line play because they were so much better at QB and WR.   Through the majority of the 2000's Mount was winning because of their line play.   The 2010's (whatever you call it) is back to trying to win solely on the skill positions.   The line play has dropped off by a HUGE margin in the last 5-8 years.   

Which I attribute to mainly to the more difficult recruiting found in Ohio now with the rise of so many D2 schools.   There are only so many 6'2", 275 lbs kids in high school to go around and a much higher # of them are being scooped up by the D2 schools offering them some athletic $.  There are tons of 5'-10" fast kids to fill the roster with adequate DB, LB, RB and WR depth.   It's the lines, especially the O-line where the recruiting in Ohio and western PA is much more difficult than it supposed to be.

Plus factor in that UWW had a great coach in LL and you have the recent past with them.   The question remains whether VK is a great coach or not.   He's a very good D-coordinator when coupled with Dad running the show, but is he a great head coach?   Time will tell.   

Same with UWW.   Berezowitz was a good coach that built stability and depth, much like Ken Wable at Mount.   Leipold was a great coach, much like LK just a shorter sample size.  Now with Bullis the jury is just starting deliberations.   The next couple years will tell the story.