FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

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? 

No?  Can we get a North Central fan in here for a ruling?  How has that schedule helped them?  I think they are hoping that it helps, but they don't know for sure.   And I don't believe the evidence says it does.  I mean Wheaton's schedule up to last week's game was really pretty bad...and yet- Wheaton 17, NCC 9.  Shouldn't North Central have been prepared?  Or do they just not have the same level of guys right now that Wheaton has...because that's what I'm going with.  Schedule doesn't trump dudes.  Have to have the dudes first and foremost. 

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. 

Mount Union plays Whitewater every single year.  How are they not prepared? 

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. 

I disagree.  Whitewater warmed up with Finlandia and Belhaven and then went on the road, on a short week, and played a very good Morningside team (I think they translate to a top 10-ish team in D3) and won.  Why?  Better dudes at the LOS.  This isn't rocket problems, man.  I appreciate that you guys like to take Whitewater's accomplishments and sprinkle some of the credit around to the other teams in the league (very neighborly of you), but I really, really don't think that La Crosse or Platteville or Stout have anything to do with Whitewater winning championships.  Whitewater wins championships because for most of the last decade they've had better players and better coaching than the rest of the division. 

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?     

I think my point all along here is that there aren't 4-5 teams in the division (let alone on Mount Union's hypothetical independent schedule) with UWW's linemen...that's how you get to 6 out of the last 8 championships. 

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?

We're not even talking about the same thing any more.  College football teams are not the same as youth baseball players.  Bad analogy. 

[pg04]

This is an interesting discussion for sure. I tend to think the overall competition does help, at least a little bit. I don't think one scheduled game in Week 1 against Mount or UWW will change a program (If we recall, Buffalo State beat UWW in that one infamous game but that didn't boost them to perennial playoff winner). But I definitely think the league in which one plays is important, at least in the context of the region I know best, the east. The teams that come out of the tough conferences generally are the ones that make it to the later rounds and (try to) compete with the big dogs. Ithaca, Rowan, St. John Fisher are teams that have better performances than teams like Endicott, Framingham, etc. against powerhouse programs.

[emma17]

I've identified a lack of temperance as a weakness of mine.  It mostly rears its ugly head when I grow impatient with people that I feel work harder to prove their point than they do to understand others. 

I've thought about your point of view and while I agree wholeheartedly that UWW typically has better guys on the LOS, I can't get myself to agree that the 3-4 tough conference games per year and 2-3 very tough playoff games each year aren't a significant benefit to UWW.  If Mt had the same season and path, even with lesser skilled/sized linemen, they too would benefit from these types of games and as such, their level of play would be a bit greater come the Stagg.  Because of the talent Mt has in the skilled positions, they don't need to dominate the LOS, they just need to play better than they have against UWW to this point.

BTW, this isn't only about linemen.  A more challenging schedule throughout the year helps to prepare all positions, as well as coaches.  It's not like Mt couldn't run the ball last Stagg.  Mt averaged 6.9 yards per rush- where is USee- I think he's the guy that says no team can win giving up 6.9 yards per rush (compared to UWW's 4.2).  It's not like Mt couldn't get pressure on Behrendt or that UWW sacked Burke multiple times.  It's not like Tom Lally didn't have a great game at D line against UWW. 
What it is like, and what it has been like for several years now, is that something seems to keep Mt from pulling it out in the end.  That something may very well be a season full of blowouts, including most playoff games.       

[HScoach]

Last Stagg result was a LOT more about coaching advantage than players.    A more veteran coach doesn't panic late in 2nd quarter and turn a small deficit into a huge one.  That was shades of Kaz at ONU back in the day.

And the screen pass the next play after Mount took the lead was perfect call.   You knew the Mount D would be jacked and flying around like madmen.  Perfect call.  Reminds me of some of LK's over the years.

Mount won a lot of games because they had a decided coaching advantage.    About time the pendulum started to swing back the other way.

VK has the advantage of taking over a well stocked cupboard,  but doesn't get the benefit of making young coaching mistakes at an ignored program like his Dad did.  Everything is magnified.   

[wally_wabash]

What it is like, and what it has been like for several years now, is that something seems to keep Mt from pulling it out in the end.  That something may very well be a season full of blowouts, including most playoff games.       

And I think this where we differ.  I can watch those Stagg Bowls and walk away being convinced that Whitewater was just better.  The thing that keeps Mount Union from pulling out those games- they weren't as good as their opponent.  I don't start from a place where the two teams are equal or Whitewater has a talent disadvantage and then search for reasons why they wound up winning.  They've won because they've been better than Mount Union and that happens whether or not Stout is better than Otterbein. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

wally, I lean your way in this debate, but cannot subscribe to your seeming position that strength of opposition (and experience in tough games) has NO effect.  'Getting off the bus with the best players' is clearly a sign of a great coach (to paraphrase IWU BBall legend Dennie Bridges), but he was being too modest.  'Best' players are not just recruited, and not just developed by coaching, they are also developed by competition.  UMU may be able to get away with it right up to the Stagg despite inferior competition, because their practices and intra-squad scrimmages are probably tougher than almost anyone else's game schedules, but it may hurt them ultimately that they don't get that challenge more often in actual game situations.

And I thought your comment of 'bad analogy' to emma was lame.  Of course college football and youth baseball are different, but his point was quite accurate.  And I've seen the same sort of thing coaching youth soccer.  Tougher competition won't make schlubs into stars, but tougher competition WILL make players ready to benefit from it into better players.  It is insane to argue otherwise, whether youth or college, and whatever the sport.

[USee]

I see both sides of this argument. I agree totally with Wally that championships are won up front. You don't win titles without controlling the line of scrimmage. If you have a major advantage there, it goes a long way but it also doesn't guarantee success. As HSC points out, you can be neutral with the opposition up front and win with better skill players as well. So these arguments don't have to either/or, they can be "and".

I also agree better competition has a positive effect on creating championship quality teams. But to prove that is the only way to win a title it has to be true every time. It's not. There are examples in sports where teams who play lower quality schedules can win. It doesn't happen very often but Allegheny in 1990, Albion 1994, UMHB (runner up) 2004 come to mind as championship quality teams that didn't play great competition until the playoffs. In basketball, Butler came within 6 inches of beating Duke for the title and they were in the Horizon league for goodness sake (They did play Georgetown and Ohio State in the non conference, which were both top 15 that year, going 1-1). So, while I think playing tough competition is a path that works, it doesn't preclude a great team rising from the ashes of a mediocre schedule and winning it all.

Most coaches believe that. I think Wheaton and Wabash scrimmage every year because they believe that is high quality competition that prepares their team for success. But I absolutely agree with Wally that the biggest factor in winning is better dudes. And I agree UWW has won primarily because of better dudes. A tough schedule has honed the focus of those dudes, but those teams won with the best players. That's why I think both can be true. You can win with the best players with a weaker schedule, but it's harder to do and we see it less.

Emma, I did say you can't beat a team if you give up 5.9yds per carry (NCC v UWP) and Mt Union had 6.9 ypc. But they also turned it over 5 times. I think most rational people would agree if they don't turn it over 5 times they probably win the Stagg. UWW scored 23 pts off those turnovers.

[SaintsFAN]

What it is like, and what it has been like for several years now, is that something seems to keep Mt from pulling it out in the end.  That something may very well be a season full of blowouts, including most playoff games.       

And I think this where we differ.  I can watch those Stagg Bowls and walk away being convinced that Whitewater was just better.  The thing that keeps Mount Union from pulling out those games- they weren't as good as their opponent.  I don't start from a place where the two teams are equal or Whitewater has a talent disadvantage and then search for reasons why they wound up winning.  They've won because they've been better than Mount Union and that happens whether or not Stout is better than Otterbein.

I'm with Wally on this one and I know Hscoach has said it also - but I also have what I believe to be an original thought (as in, I haven't seen anyone else make this point).  Whitewater plays in the same league as they did prior to this run.  Before this run, LaCrosse was the last to win the title from the WIAC, correct?  If playing in the WIAC truly was the big factor here, wouldn't we see a smaller spread between Championships for the WIAC?  1993-2007 is a long time.  I could be wrong.

[02 Warhawk]

I'm with Wally on this one and I know Hscoach has said it also - but I also have what I believe to be an original thought (as in, I haven't seen anyone else make this point).  Whitewater plays in the same league as they did prior to this run.  Before this run, LaCrosse was the last to win the title from the WIAC, correct?  If playing in the WIAC truly was the big factor here, wouldn't we see a smaller spread between Championships for the WIAC?  1993-2007 is a long time.  I could be wrong.

When UWW failed to reach the playoffs in 2012, UWO took their place and made it all the way to the semifinals. I know that's not at the same level as a Stagg Bowl...but still a great run considering they had to win in Linfield for their regional final.

A WIAC team has made it to the semifinals every year since 2005. That streak is in jeopardy this year, as I think UWO has a better chance of making a Stagg Bowl run than UWW.

Also, like we've been saying all along, playing in a tough conference is only part of the winning formula UWO and UWW has experienced. You still need the coaches and recruits. But to say it doesn't matter at all, isn't true. Reading through this conversation it looks like most everyone agrees to that.

[jknezek]

Like a bunch of you I don't see this as either/or. I do think having the Jimmys and Johns is most important. Then the Xs and Os. Then a bunch of other stuff, but one of those things that will help you improve is playing good competition. You learn your strengths and weaknesses much better playing good teams than not so good teams. On the other hand, I really don't think playing tougher competition comes at or near the top of the list. Good teams hammer bad teams and still win championships because they are the best teams. But a team that has been able to identify and work on their weaknesses will have a better chance to win against an equivalent talent level team than one that hasn't been able to identify and stress those weaknesses.

[02 Warhawk]

I believe we've had this conversation this time last year. I found this of HScoach and myself discussing the topic a year ago:

Many UWW fans - including myself - always wondered if the Stagg Bowls' outcomes (from 07-13) would have been different if Mount had stiffer competition, preparing them more for UWW.

This I agree with 100%.    And it's been typically true for the entire Mount run.   Back in the 90's and early 2000's, there were plenty of years where the best team (or at least the closest game) Mount played all year was in the regular season or was a playoff game against another OAC team. 

If I'm understanding HScoach correctly...he thinks Mount performed better in the playoffs when the OAC was stronger in the late 90's and early 2000s. And I think most of us agree with that.

[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.

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.   

Then you agree with I said. My statement was that simply playing tougher teams won't get you anything. If it did then Wilmington would be world beaters. I go on to say that you have to commit to getting better - meaning you have to commit to getting better athletes (not necessarily the best) to play against those teams, training and coaching those better athletes to play in those situations. The best athletes are not enough - LK said that in 1993:

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/12/sports/college-football-rowan-falls-to-ballard-s-passes.html

LK says at the bottom "Rowan had the best athletes, but we had the best team". Ballard said in another article ( I will find it) that 'Rowan had better athletes but LK got more from his players than  did (for those unaware  = KC Keeler). But you also say "add to it the competition and coaching and then you have superior results" - I agree. The issue is that you can't ignore the competition which Wally seems to think doesn't matter. UWW is recruiting better athletes (I would say at the O and D line positions) but they aren't bringing championships jsut because of that. They are well coached, disciplined, in a system committed to being successful AND the play better competition week in and week out.

[02 Warhawk]

Then you agree with I said. My statement was that simply playing tougher teams won't get you anything.

But you were the one that said ONU playing Mount tough in 2005 enabled them to win the Stagg Bowl that year. You going back on that now?

Just like many of us think that UWW/River Falls game last year gave them the kick in the pants they needed before entering the playoffs.

[Desertraider]

Then you agree with I said. My statement was that simply playing tougher teams won't get you anything.

But you were the one that said ONU playing Mount tough in 2005 enabled them to win the Stagg Bowl that year. You going back on that now?

Just like many of us think that UWW/River Falls game last year gave them the kick in the pants they needed before entering the playoffs.

No. Not at all - Mount needed that just like UWW did. But it wasn't simply that they played a tough game. Marietta and Wilmington play tough games almost every week - they are still terrible. Hiram - same thing. Mount and UWW have done all the other things - those teams have not. The competition (Mounts ONU game or UWW/River Falls) helps complete them. I don't know if Mount wins the 2005 Championship without the ONU game. They needed that to refocus.

[02 Warhawk]

Then you agree with I said. My statement was that simply playing tougher teams won't get you anything.

But you were the one that said ONU playing Mount tough in 2005 enabled them to win the Stagg Bowl that year. You going back on that now?

Just like many of us think that UWW/River Falls game last year gave them the kick in the pants they needed before entering the playoffs.

No. Not at all - Mount needed that just like UWW did. But it wasn't simply that they played a tough game. Marietta and Wilmington play tough games almost every week - they are still terrible. Hiram - same thing. Mount and UWW have done all the other things - those teams have not. The competition (Mounts ONU game or UWW/River Falls) helps complete them. I don't know if Mount wins the 2005 Championship without the ONU game. They needed that to refocus.

That's all we're saying. Playing tough games along with way certainly "helps".

Gald we agree