FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[SaintsFAN]

It has always been my understanding that the side I am on is the correct one. Yes. 

No, you are correct Emma. 02 and I are on the same side - just needed to clarification to ensure we were. I think the longer the conversation continues, the more pages it occupies, the harder it gets to remember all the posts. That's why I the clarification was needed.

I just don't feel like either side is wrong.  It's hard to declare right and wrong on something you can't quite measure.  Otherwise my statement about 1993-2007 period of time would be useful in some part of the discussion .

[02 Warhawk]

How about a little accountability. 
Lastly,
I'm not sure what O2 and desertraider are disputing, I think you are on the same side (the correct side) of this discussion.

Yes, we've agreed on this.

[emma17]

It has always been my understanding that the side I am on is the correct one. Yes. 

No, you are correct Emma. 02 and I are on the same side - just needed to clarification to ensure we were. I think the longer the conversation continues, the more pages it occupies, the harder it gets to remember all the posts. That's why I the clarification was needed.

I just don't feel like either side is wrong.  It's hard to declare right and wrong on something you can't quite measure.  Otherwise my statement about 1993-2007 period of time would be useful in some part of the discussion .

SaintsFan, it isn't hard.  Do you, or don't you agree that tougher competition during the regular season, and playoffs, better prepares a team for playing the best competition? 
That's all this conversation is about.  Conferences come into the mix only because it's a convenient term for "the group of teams we play during the regular season".

As for your 1993-2007 point, I respectfully don't think you're getting the point.  Playing in the WIAC isn't the magic potion for winning the national championship.  The potion is a mixture of lots of things, one of the important ingredients is being tested on a somewhat regular basis by really good teams.  It's been said on this board that in those days, the WIAC was big and slow (boy, you'd think with all the O and D line power they'd just sweep through D3).  The reality is they weren't complete teams. 
If the old WIAC had multiple complete teams, then yes, you'd think it would have been an advantage for a team with championship aspirations to play in that conference.
   

[emma17]

To USee,
I have to apologize for mis-quoting the yards per carry discussion.  Full disclosure is NCC averaged 7.6 yards per carry over UWP and you felt that any team that gave up 7+ yards per carry wasn't worthy of a top 25 ranking.  Mt only averaged 6.9 against UWW.

[Desertraider]

It has always been my understanding that the side I am on is the correct one. Yes. 

No, you are correct Emma. 02 and I are on the same side - just needed to clarification to ensure we were. I think the longer the conversation continues, the more pages it occupies, the harder it gets to remember all the posts. That's why I the clarification was needed.

I just don't feel like either side is wrong.  It's hard to declare right and wrong on something you can't quite measure.  Otherwise my statement about 1993-2007 period of time would be useful in some part of the discussion .

SaintsFan, it isn't hard.  Do you, or don't you agree that tougher competition during the regular season, and playoffs, better prepares a team for playing the best competition? 
That's all this conversation is about.  Conferences come into the mix only because it's a convenient term for "the group of teams we play during the regular season".

As for your 1993-2007 point, I respectfully don't think you're getting the point.  Playing in the WIAC isn't the magic potion for winning the national championship.  The potion is a mixture of lots of things, one of the important ingredients is being tested on a somewhat regular basis by really good teams.  It's been said on this board that in those days, the WIAC was big and slow (boy, you'd think with all the O and D line power they'd just sweep through D3).  The reality is they weren't complete teams. 
If the old WIAC had multiple complete teams, then yes, you'd think it would have been an advantage for a team with championship aspirations to play in that conference.

Kleppe comes to mind. He was big and looked solid in the 1st qtr - but man I thought he was going to have a heart attack in that game. As the game wore on the UWW lines wore down. I wish they would have done that in the following years.

[Sir Battlescars]

So what color are the uniforms this week?

I need this information so I can make my picks for the week.

[USee]

Have you been paying attention to what everyone is saying?!?! Of course Jake coming back was huge...but so did playing in tough games leading into the playoffs. Ask any ex-athlete (there's pleanty of them on here) and they will agree that stiff competition unquestionably helps one get better. Far more than winning 72-3 all the time. Of course getting great recruits, coaches, facilities, etc... are a big factor, but there's more to it. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand here.

It's funny you question me about the UWW/UWRF game, but not Mount fans about the ONU game in 2005.

"Your honor, I strenuously object."

Why are you questioning Wally's attention span? It seems to me he is saying having an NFL player on your roster who comes back for the playoffs (and has some huge performances!) had a lot to do with winning the title post UWRF game. What's so difficult to understand about that? I totally agree. Playing in "tough games" is so completely subjective and difficult to measure. I think you can get 100% of the people to agree its a good thing and less than 10% would agree on the definition of "tough game". Wesley's game with NCC a "tough game" that prepares them for a deep playoff run? Some people seem to think it is more of an indicator that Wesley isn't very good. Is UWW's loss to UWO a "tough game" game for both teams? Or an indicator that UWW is off a bit this year and we don't know if UWO is Stagg worthy? I have heard both ideas indicated. But having the leading rusher in NCAA history in your backfield was a statistical reality, not a subjective discussion. I think that's what Wally is really saying. There is no way to objectively measure "tough games" and their effect other than in hindsight.

[USee]

To USee,
I have to apologize for mis-quoting the yards per carry discussion.  Full disclosure is NCC averaged 7.6 yards per carry over UWP and you felt that any team that gave up 7+ yards per carry wasn't worthy of a top 25 ranking.  Mt only averaged 6.9 against UWW.

You cut me deep Shrek.

[bulk19]

Pat gets a +K for his take on UWEC! 

[SaintsFAN]

It has always been my understanding that the side I am on is the correct one. Yes. 

No, you are correct Emma. 02 and I are on the same side - just needed to clarification to ensure we were. I think the longer the conversation continues, the more pages it occupies, the harder it gets to remember all the posts. That's why I the clarification was needed.

I just don't feel like either side is wrong.  It's hard to declare right and wrong on something you can't quite measure.  Otherwise my statement about 1993-2007 period of time would be useful in some part of the discussion .

SaintsFan, it isn't hard.  Do you, or don't you agree that tougher competition during the regular season, and playoffs, better prepares a team for playing the best competition? 
That's all this conversation is about.  Conferences come into the mix only because it's a convenient term for "the group of teams we play during the regular season".

As for your 1993-2007 point, I respectfully don't think you're getting the point.  Playing in the WIAC isn't the magic potion for winning the national championship.  The potion is a mixture of lots of things, one of the important ingredients is being tested on a somewhat regular basis by really good teams.  It's been said on this board that in those days, the WIAC was big and slow (boy, you'd think with all the O and D line power they'd just sweep through D3).  The reality is they weren't complete teams. 
If the old WIAC had multiple complete teams, then yes, you'd think it would have been an advantage for a team with championship aspirations to play in that conference.

Well, when you say it like that, I agree.  Maybe I jumped in without reading far enough back.

[wally_wabash]

Wally is wrong.  And if you agree with him, you're wrong too.

To those that agreed with me...sorry to let you down.  Had I realized that having radical ideas like "championship teams pretty much always have the best players" would wind up dragging you down, I'd have kept it to myself.  I hope y'all can forgive, and that in time we can still be cool. 

[USee]

How about a little accountability.

Ok, you got it!

Too many of you choose to ignore the actual statements made, or give a pass to the arrogance of some on these boards. 
I, Emma 17, said Mt isn't as well prepared to play against the best teams because of the horrific competition in the OAC.  I stand by that 100%.   

Un-measurable. I call BS. Stand by it 50, 100 or 150%. It's not provable either way. This is a subjective statement that simply cannot be measured. Be accountable and BE SPECIFIC. The OAC doesn't play anyone else but themselves so we don't have any idea if Otterbein beats UWO or Wilma crushes St Johns. It's all speculation. Not to mention the possibilty of other reasons that has already been entered but subjectively disregarded (That Mt Union plays UWW every year for 10 years so should be fully prepared or that they have a new coach with different experience than the predecessor)

And Usee- You're wrong about your yards per carry statement.  You never added a qualifier like (if there are x turnovers blah, blah, blah).  I'll be happy to copy and paste your post.  Be accountable for what you say. 

My bad. I am going on record here, right now, with the following prophetic amendment: Teams that give up 7+ yds per carry against the run (minimum 20 runs a game)  aren't top 25 teams. And (here is the amendment part) teams that give up 6.9 yds per carry in the Stagg can't win UNLESS the team rushing for 6.9 yds per carry, turns it over at least 5 times leading to 20+ pts.

Lastly,
I'm not sure what O2 and desertraider are disputing, I think you are on the same side (the correct side) of this discussion.

Finally, you cannot declare a victory in an un-measurable debate. There are no metrics around your declaration that are objective. Be accountable for your BS.

[Spurrier]

blah, blah, blah...where my polar bears at?

[Desertraider]

Sorry but even if St. Johns is a brand of tater chips - Wlima ain't crushing it. I am at the point where - I am agreeing to disagree. The real key to greatness is:
PURPLE! PURPLE! PURPLE![/size]

It is  a proven statistical fact that teams wearing Purple are more likely to win a championship - every champion since 2003 (with the exception of Wisc LAX, Pac Luth, and St. Johns) wore Purple. That's it - change your colors to something and purple and BOOM!

[USee]

Sorry but even if St. Johns is a brand of tater chips - Wlima ain't crushing it. I am at the point where - I am agreeing to disagree. The real key to greatness is:
PURPLE! PURPLE! PURPLE![/size]

It is  a proven statistical fact that teams wearing Purple are more likely to win a championship - every champion since 2003 (with the exception of Wisc LAX, Pac Luth, and St. Johns) wore Purple. That's it - change your colors to something and purple and BOOM!

Be accountable!  Something like: "87.5% of the champions since 1999 wore purple. So consider a change in colors to increase your chances of success."

This is measurable and accurate. I can get behind this.