FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[emma17]

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.

Wally, I don't know who you think you are to be so comfortable in making judgments about people and motives. 
I can care less if the WIAC is better than the OAC.  I don't come on this board to beat my chest or promote my team- you're full of yourself and it gets old with me.
I'm on this board discussing a real issue Mt has.  If  you don't think Mt would benefit by playing tougher competition, which would include playing against better O and D lines, then you're nothing but a phony football wannabe. 
I like Mt, in fact I love Mt because without them, UWW isn't what it is. 
If you want to argue that the OAC is doing Mt any good, go right ahead.  You cannot, cannot, cannot make me un-see what I've seen or un-know what I know. 
Teams get better by playing better competition, just like athletes get better by playing better competition.
That's your Full Stop.

[emma17]

^ 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.

This applies to you too HSCoach.  Teams get better by playing better teams just as athletes get better by playing better athletes. 
Disagree with that if you will. 
I don't disagree that Mt may be struggling to get their #1 O and D line recruits in the door, but that changes nothing about the point above.
Mt's O linemen and Mt's D linemen will be better prepared in the Stagg Bowl IF they played against better O and D linemen throughout the season and playoffs.
Mt doesn't have to dominate the line of scrimmage to win, they have to be better than what they've been. 

[WarhawkDad]

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.

Wally

Thank-you for the shout out to the line play at UWW (my son played O-Line there in 09,10 and 11) but it is more than that.  We are talking about 18 - 22 year olds for the most part.   If you do not experience and win tight games, if you do not know adversity, then it is hard to overcome it when confronted with it.   It would have been hard for those lineman that you speak so highly about to become dominate if they had not faced tough competition.  The line play at Platteville and Oshkosh is extremely good as well, so we can tell you that our tough conference play has helped our team prepare for the playoffs and winning tough games against Linfield and Mary Hardin Baylor and others got those lines and those teams prepared for the Stagg Bowl.     Think about it, what we are saying is not only true about D3 football, it is true in other sports and at all levels.   The teams that experience tough games and overcome adversity typically do better when challenged.

WHD

[Desertraider]

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.

Wally, I don't know who you think you are to be so comfortable in making judgments about people and motives. 
I can care less if the WIAC is better than the OAC.  I don't come on this board to beat my chest or promote my team- you're full of yourself and it gets old with me.
I'm on this board discussing a real issue Mt has.  If  you don't think Mt would benefit by playing tougher competition, which would include playing against better O and D lines, then you're nothing but a phony football wannabe. 
I like Mt, in fact I love Mt because without them, UWW isn't what it is. 
If you want to argue that the OAC is doing Mt any good, go right ahead.  You cannot, cannot, cannot make me un-see what I've seen or un-know what I know. 
Teams get better by playing better competition, just like athletes get better by playing better competition.
That's your Full Stop.

I think we have to put it all together. I agree that Mount is getting ripped off by recent OAC competition (or lack there of) and a number of Mount fans have referenced that in the past. So a point to Emma. Mount would be better served with better regular season games. But I also agree that Mounts skill players tend to be better and that UWW had better lines (O and D), which propelled them past Mount in those Stagg Bowls (so a point to HSC and Wally). But these are connected - if Mount was getting stiffer comp from OAC schools, specifically making the O and D lines work harder - the line play could have been better later in the season. None of the OAC teams have been a match for Mounts D lines (except for a game or 2 with JCU) - they pressure at will, stuff the run (-58 yds rushing??). Similarly none of thier D lines seems able to stand up to Mounts O-line. They don't really provide pressure to QBs, they don't stunt or blitz well, and don't stop the run and make Mount adjust. What happens in the end is Mount runs up against a UWW with stellar (and I mean amazing) LB and D-line athletes and schemes and Mounts line looks pedestrian. On the other side of the ball UWW O-line has dealt with stiffer Defenses and had to make adjustments all year. Its easy for coaches to adjust game plans and schemes - its harder for the players on the field to do it. Not having to make those adjustments during the year has probably hurt Mount more than anything.

BTW: Of all the people that have come in beating their chest "my conference is better..." - Emma ain't one of 'em.

[Desertraider]

^ 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.

This applies to you too HSCoach.  Teams get better by playing better teams just as athletes get better by playing better athletes. 
Disagree with that if you will. 
I don't disagree that Mt may be struggling to get their #1 O and D line recruits in the door, but that changes nothing about the point above.
Mt's O linemen and Mt's D linemen will be better prepared in the Stagg Bowl IF they played against better O and D linemen throughout the season and playoffs.
Mt doesn't have to dominate the line of scrimmage to win, they have to be better than what they've been.

This is a coaching issue. I fall back on an LK statement. "We decided to stop complaining about what we didn't have and instead develop what we did have".

[wally_wabash]

Teams get better by playing better competition, just like athletes get better by playing better competition.

This is fiction.  This is a really convenient narrative, but it's not really true.  If this were true, why does Eau Claire stink like a foot?  They play the best every single year.  They're awful.  That's one example- there are literally scores more. 

I actually did a breakdown a while ago tracking the progress of teams that took the initiative and scheduled the toughest teams they could find- UWW and Mount Union.  I looked at what those teams were doing before those games and what they've done after.  My findings: playing those games doesn't matter at all, one way or another.  The idea that you get to be a good football team by playing against other good football teams is a myth.  The data don't support that in the slightest. 

If you do not experience and win tight games, if you do not know adversity, then it is hard to overcome it when confronted with it.   

I think there is a little something to this.  Experience matters.  But here again- nobody out there (except for Whitewater) has more tournament experience than Mount Union.  The big(gest) game is not foreign to those players or those coaches. 

It would have been hard for those lineman that you speak so highly about to become dominate if they had not faced tough competition. 

This I disagree with.  I think UWW gets dominant line play because they start with superior players, add in superior coaching, bake at 350 for 25 minutes and bam- All-American linemen.   If those guys decided to get bored and stop working, then sure, they probably aren't as good.  But that doesn't happen.  Good, focused kids and good, focused coaching.  I don't think this has anything at all to do with who is on the other side of the ball.  But again, that isn't as sexy as the adversity laden, battle tested team kind of storyline that we'd rather tell.   

[Desertraider]

Playing tougher teams will not amount to anything. Why does Eau Claire "stink like a foot"? Because Eau Claire has not committed to getting better. Same with Wilma, Etta, Musky, etc. They play the best year after year. You can't take crap and make a wedding cake (not compare the talent at these schools with crap but....best I got). It just isn't going to happen. You have to build. You have to get better talent, coach it, test it - sorry but who they play will matter on some level - and keep doing it year after year. UWW was average when they played Mount to open 02/03 (?). They didn't think playing Mount would by default make them better. They saw the best and saw what it took to get to that level - and they took the steps needed. But don't try to say playing in the WIAC with tough competition didn't help them along the way.

[wally_wabash]

They saw the best and saw what it took to get to that level - and they took the steps needed. But don't try to say playing in the WIAC with tough competition didn't help them along the way.

You've nailed it here- "They took the steps needed."  None of those steps had anything to do with who else was on the schedule and none of it had anything to do playing a couple of games with Mount Union.  Whitewater got really good because they made the institutional decision to do it.  They dedicated the resources to make it happen.  And I think the results that we've seen from 2005-2015 are the same results that we would have seen if Whitewater played in the WIAC or the UMAC or the IIAC or the MWC or anyplace else.  In college football (most college athletics, really), you either have the dudes to go or you don't.  For a long while now (I'd say dating back to 2006), Whitewater has had the best dudes, particular at the LOS where it matters the most.  I really don't think it's much more complicated than that. 

[Desertraider]

They saw the best and saw what it took to get to that level - and they took the steps needed. But don't try to say playing in the WIAC with tough competition didn't help them along the way.

You've nailed it here- "They took the steps needed."  None of those steps had anything to do with who else was on the schedule and none of it had anything to do playing a couple of games with Mount Union.  Whitewater got really good because they made the institutional decision to do it.  They dedicated the resources to make it happen.  And I think the results that we've seen from 2005-2015 are the same results that we would have seen if Whitewater played in the WIAC or the UMAC or the IIAC or the MWC or anyplace else.  In college football (most college athletics, really), you either have the dudes to go or you don't.  For a long while now (I'd say dating back to 2006), Whitewater has had the best dudes, particular at the LOS where it matters the most.  I really don't think it's much more complicated than that.

Sorry but I think that part of the equation is who you play. Devour a bunch of cupcakes, in life and in football, and you end up satisfied, fat and happy - but not better. I was an average football player - playing St. Eds or Iggy would not have made me better. However - I was a good wrestler. My weight class at our school had no one to compete with me and I struggled because I couldn't see weaknesses and things to work on. Unfortunately those weaknesses were revealed come tournament time. The competition was better. Playing tough comp shows you where you need work. You still have to do the work to improve - but tossing rag dolls ain't going to help you prepare.

[Pat Coleman]

WW, I think you're conflating two things that don't necessarily follow. You've done a good study on "Teams That Play Mount Union Don't Improve" but that isn't the same action as "Teams That Play a Steady Diet of Top 100 Competition."

You mention UWEC stinking like a foot -- yes, they stink vs. the schedule they play. But does that mean they aren't good? We don't know that. They only play Top 100 competition and they are probably above the midpoint in Division III (Keith and I sure think they are) but they lose because everyone they play is better.

[02 Warhawk]

This I disagree with.  I think UWW gets dominant line play because they start with superior players, add in superior coaching, bake at 350 for 25 minutes and bam- All-American linemen.   If those guys decided to get bored and stop working, then sure, they probably aren't as good.  But that doesn't happen.  Good, focused kids and good, focused coaching.  I don't think this has anything at all to do with who is on the other side of the ball.  But again, that isn't as sexy as the adversity laden, battle tested team kind of storyline that we'd rather tell.   

And with this, it appears most of us disagree with you on. Of course playing in a tough conference isn't the end-all solution to being good. But it has unquestionably helped, and factored into UWW's success over the past decade. Yes, having a powerful line is a huge key, but it's only part a team's success.

[wally_wabash]

This I disagree with.  I think UWW gets dominant line play because they start with superior players, add in superior coaching, bake at 350 for 25 minutes and bam- All-American linemen.   If those guys decided to get bored and stop working, then sure, they probably aren't as good.  But that doesn't happen.  Good, focused kids and good, focused coaching.  I don't think this has anything at all to do with who is on the other side of the ball.  But again, that isn't as sexy as the adversity laden, battle tested team kind of storyline that we'd rather tell.   

And with this, it appears most of us disagree with you on. Of course playing in a tough conference isn't the end-all solution to being good. But it has unquestionably helped, and factored into UWW's success over the past decade. Yes, having a powerful line is a huge key, but it's only part a team's success.

See, I think the degree to which what league you play in helps you win national championships is very questionable.  Sort of the crux of the debate, really. 

[WarhawkDad]

Playing tougher teams will not amount to anything. Why does Eau Claire "stink like a foot"? Because Eau Claire has not committed to getting better. Same with Wilma, Etta, Musky, etc. They play the best year after year. You can't take crap and make a wedding cake (not compare the talent at these schools with crap but....best I got). It just isn't going to happen. You have to build. You have to get better talent, coach it, test it - sorry but who they play will matter on some level - and keep doing it year after year. UWW was average when they played Mount to open 02/03 (?). They didn't think playing Mount would by default make them better. They saw the best and saw what it took to get to that level - and they took the steps needed. But don't try to say playing in the WIAC with tough competition didn't help them along the way.

I disagree with this.   I think that the reason some schools in the WIAC are not getting better has more to do with recruiting and the fact that UWW, UW Oshkosh and UW Platteville have been ensconced at the top for a long time.   It is hard to recruit in the WIAC recruitment areas against those 3 schools.   So give Wally a little credit for saying that UWW is recruiting better athletes, add to it the competition and coaching and then you have superior results. 

It does matter that you start with quality ingredients before you starting mixing and cooking.    

[ExTartanPlayer]

I think that the reason some schools in the WIAC are not getting better has more to do with recruiting and the fact that UWW, UW Oshkosh and UW Platteville have been ensconced at the top for a long time.   It is hard to recruit in the WIAC recruitment areas against those 3 schools.

Now, now, let's hold the phone on this for one second.  Platteville went 7-3 in 2011 for their first winning season since 2004 (and that was their only winning season since the establishment of this website in 1999).  Oshkosh has a little bit more history of success but had not been better than 4-3 in league play until 2011, either (clarification - better than 4-3 since 1999, that is, I do not know about the 1990's and before).

UWP and UWO are fantastic now, but their success is a recent occurrence, not suggestive of being "ensconced at the top for a long time" and thereby hogging all the good recruits.  Both UWP and UWO were further down the totem pole until recently.  This isn't a full-blown three-kings situation that's been in place for a long time.  UWP and UWO are evidence that programs can get better.

[emma17]

This I disagree with.  I think UWW gets dominant line play because they start with superior players, add in superior coaching, bake at 350 for 25 minutes and bam- All-American linemen.   If those guys decided to get bored and stop working, then sure, they probably aren't as good.  But that doesn't happen.  Good, focused kids and good, focused coaching.  I don't think this has anything at all to do with who is on the other side of the ball.  But again, that isn't as sexy as the adversity laden, battle tested team kind of storyline that we'd rather tell.   

And with this, it appears most of us disagree with you on. Of course playing in a tough conference isn't the end-all solution to being good. But it has unquestionably helped, and factored into UWW's success over the past decade. Yes, having a powerful line is a huge key, but it's only part a team's success.

See, I think the degree to which what league you play in helps you win national championships is very questionable.  Sort of the crux of the debate, really.

No, it's not the crux of the debate, really.  The crux of the debate is- does playing tougher competition on a regular basis benefit a team?  This question doesn't need to involve conferences at all.  If Mt was an independent, and all of their regular season games were against teams of similar ability to those of the OAC, I'd be saying the exact same thing.  Mt would be better prepared for a team like UWW if they played better competition.  If UWW played 10 regular season games per year against teams like Belhaven or Wilmington, they wouldn't be anywhere near the team they are when playing the best of the best. 
desertraider's example of wrestling is perfect for this discussion.  You don't think Mt's offensive linemen would perform better vs UWW's D linemen if Mt had to play 4 or 5 teams per year with similar ability?     

Youth baseball players have house league (park district) and travel league options.  Do you think a really talented player that stays in the house league will develop his game the same as one that plays on a competitive travel team?