FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[footballfan413]

ff413, I tried that excuse too (back when I claimed I was distracted by the kids), but the timing cuts out after just a few minutes of inactivity.   Now that I'm retired (and up to 278 days and counting!) I just respond: 'I have a life - it is d3sports.com!'

While I will never catch Pat or Ralph Turner in posts, I'm PROUD of the fact that I spend more time here than the guru himself!

Crap, figured it was something like that.  Oh well, I don't even want those 49 days back..........and that is saying something.   

[mr_mom]

Before I forget, I want to thank all the fans that suggested a spread for the Stagg Bowl.  I did take them all into consideration.  Here's hoping that the rubber match is something special!

[BoBo]

i am too lazy to look it up-what's the other purple teams record for the last 7-8 years, and in that weak conference(kidding btw)

In the last seven years, UWW's record against their conference foes:

La Crosse  8-0
Platteville  7-0
River Falls  7-0
Stout  7-0
Oshkosh  7-0
Eau Claire  78-0
Stevens Point  6-1

That's 49-1 in a division that some think is the toughest in D3. 

Why do I only go back 7 years?  Their turn-around started when they decided to be the best, they had to play the best, and scheduled a home-and-home with MUC in 2002 and 2003.  They lost 44-21 and 40-17.  But they learned what they had to do to match MUC and have done exactly that!

And I also agree with HSCoach.  HailRaiders ... Shut Up!

And Ric, you don't say much anymore, but what you say resonates!

One more win you forgot. In '08, we played Eau Claire twice.  They also had a home and home with St. John's in 02 & 03. Lost there 42-18, then didn't play the return game because St. John's didn't want to travel that far for a game (or so the legend has it). But, by that time, I think Brez had a pretty good idea what to do.

[mr_mom]

You're right ... missed that one.  50-1

Thanks, Bobo.  +k

[Pat Coleman]

Just rolled over to 49 days, need a life, too.  Got to remember to log out more often when I close the browser.  But with the default set to, "forever," when we sign in now, I'm hoping it isn't entirely accurate.   

Unfortunately, even with logging in forever, it does count accurately. It only adds to the time when you are actually clicking through pages.

[pg04]

I am at 81 days! Wow....

[UMUplayerdad]

i am too lazy to look it up-what's the other purple teams record for the last 7-8 years, and in that weak conference(kidding btw)

In the last seven years, UWW's record against their conference foes:

La Crosse  8-0
Platteville  7-0
River Falls  7-0
Stout  7-0
Oshkosh  7-0
Eau Clair  7-0
Stevens Point  6-1

That's 49-1 in a division that some think is the toughest in D3. 



Why do I only go back 7 years?  Their turn-around started when they decided to be the best, they had to play the best, and scheduled a home-and-home with MUC in 2002 and 2003.  They lost 44-21 and 40-17.  But they learned what they had to do to match MUC and have done exactly that!

*And I also agree with HSCoach.  HailRaiders ... Shut Up!*

And Ric, you don't say much anymore, but what you say resonates!

mr mom thanks for doing my homework and i hope the  shut up wasnt for me
50-1 proves the point- lotta d3 teams have had the chance to at least wreck homefield advantage for both teams-do it on the
field not by rules or a committee and ya wont hear one complaint from either team or fan base i bet

[OAC Yahoo]

The Division III level is the only place where Mount's dominance would be allowed. In the highest level of non-scholarship football the Ivy League (and also the Patriot League) there are restrictions on Harvard Yale and Princeton's recruiting. They are restricted from taking too many of a certain level of players to level the playing field. The  playing field is artificially leveled to try and produce equality. Why is this? Because it is supposed to be about the student-athlete having a opportunities. How great of a conference would the OAC be if everyone truly had an opportunity to win the league? Below is who would have been the conference champion if there was no Mount Union the past 20 years. Amazingly seven different teams would have accomplished this incredible feat. Everyone can say is is sour grapes or whatever- isn't this supposed to be about the student-athlete experience? How in any way is Mount Union going 178-2 over that 20 year period in the OAC what Division III athletics is truly about. It sure is not about opportunity. The most ironic thing is that Mount is so good, if they lose on Friday it is considered a bad season. Winning the OAC does not mean a lot to their  players- they have a one game season. They win it great year- they lose it bad year. How big would it have been for BW, Heidelberg, Ohio Northern, Otterbein , Capital to win the conference in the last couple of years. Would winning the conference mean anything to their players?


OAC Champions last 20 years
2011 Baldwin-Wallace / Heidelberg
2010 Ohio Northern
2009 Otterbein  / Ohio Northern
2008 Otterbein
2007 Capital
2006 Capital
2005 Capital
2004 Ohio Northern
2003 Baldwin-Wallace
2002 John Carroll
2001 Ohio Northern
2000 Ohio Northern
1999 Ohio Northern
1998 Baldwin-Wallace
1997 John-Carroll
1996 John-Carroll
1995-Marietta
1994- Baldwin-Wallace / John Carroll
1993- Baldwin-Wallace
1992- Baldwin-Wallace / John Carroll

Championships last 20 years
Baldwin-Wallace (6)
Ohio Northern (5)
John Carroll (5)
Capital (3)
Otterbein (2)
Marietta (1)
Heidelberg (1)

Mount Union is the best. No program will ever duplicate what they do. Everyone knows and respects that. But can anyone truly say what they are doing and continue to do is the ideal situation for a conference to have?

[HScoach]

The pussification of America is almost complete.  Not only does everyone in youth soccer deserve a trophy, but OAC football too?

Hate to burst your bubble, but the real world isn't equal.  Nor is it fair.  Some people are naturally gifted, beautiful, blessed with a great family network, etc.  Some are naturally dumb, ugly and come from trash.  And whole bunch somewhere in between.  Only fair in life is that you have an opportunity thru hard work to improve your lot in life.  Nothing more.

And football is no different.  Should LK have to rotate teams every year to give each kid an equal opportunity?
   
  To the victors goes the spoils and right now that is UWW and MTU.

[UMUplayerdad]

The Division III level is the only place where Mount's dominance would be allowed. In the highest level of non-scholarship football the Ivy League (and also the Patriot League) there are restrictions on Harvard Yale and Princeton's recruiting. They are restricted from taking too many of a certain level of players to level the playing field. The  playing field is artificially leveled to try and produce equality. Why is this? Because it is supposed to be about the student-athlete having a opportunities. How great of a conference would the OAC be if everyone truly had an opportunity to win the league? Below is who would have been the conference champion if there was no Mount Union the past 20 years. Amazingly seven different teams would have accomplished this incredible feat. Everyone can say is is sour grapes or whatever- isn't this supposed to be about the student-athlete experience? How in any way is Mount Union going 178-2 over that 20 year period in the OAC what Division III athletics is truly about. It sure is not about opportunity. The most ironic thing is that Mount is so good, if they lose on Friday it is considered a bad season. Winning the OAC does not mean a lot to their  players- they have a one game season. They win it great year- they lose it bad year. How big would it have been for BW, Heidelberg, Ohio Northern, Otterbein , Capital to win the conference in the last couple of years. Would winning the conference mean anything to their players?


OAC Champions last 20 years
2011 Baldwin-Wallace / Heidelberg
2010 Ohio Northern
2009 Otterbein  / Ohio Northern
2008 Otterbein
2007 Capital
2006 Capital
2005 Capital
2004 Ohio Northern
2003 Baldwin-Wallace
2002 John Carroll
2001 Ohio Northern
2000 Ohio Northern
1999 Ohio Northern
1998 Baldwin-Wallace
1997 John-Carroll
1996 John-Carroll
1995-Marietta
1994- Baldwin-Wallace / John Carroll
1993- Baldwin-Wallace
1992- Baldwin-Wallace / John Carroll

Championships last 20 years
Baldwin-Wallace (6)
Ohio Northern (5)
John Carroll (5)
Capital (3)
Otterbein (2)
Marietta (1)
Heidelberg (1)

Mount Union is the best. No program will ever duplicate what they do. Everyone knows and respects that. But can anyone truly say what they are doing and continue to do is the ideal situation for a conference to have?

I can agree that it is not ideal for a conference to be dominated like mt has but it is fair. and in the last 2 years 3-4 teams have thrown a scare into mount only to fall short-and hs coach i was about to bring up the youth soccer thought myself

[Raider 68]

Mount Union's goal for the last two decades has been:

- win the conference

- win the playoffs to get to the championship

- win the championship

All the players who have come and graduated know those are the goals. In order to win the conference
Mount "had" to take each game at time and the results show that is what they have done!

[rscl70]

The Division III level is the only place where Mount's dominance would be allowed. In the highest level of non-scholarship football the Ivy League (and also the Patriot League) there are restrictions on Harvard Yale and Princeton's recruiting. They are restricted from taking too many of a certain level of players to level the playing field. The  playing field is artificially leveled to try and produce equality.

If someone had done this for my industry it would have made my sales job a lot easier.  But then the accomplishments would have meant so much less.

[OAC Yahoo]

So at every level of football. The NFL is the best example. Where the draft and the salary cap are in place to level the playing field. Division I- IAA - II have scholarship limits to level the playing field. The Ivy League does it with admissions. Every level of football including the big boys try to level the field. Only at this level does something like what Mount is doing happen.
With your thinking why not let Ohio State have 150 on scholarship? It used to be that way. People in athletics are always- always trying to make it competitive.
If Mount Union really wants to compete. Move up to Division II . Test yourself where you wouldn't have the roster-admissions- financial aid advantages.

[rscl70]

So at every level of football. The NFL is the best example. Where the draft and the salary cap are in place to level the playing field. Division I- IAA - II have scholarship limits to level the playing field. The Ivy League does it with admissions. Every level of football including the big boys try to level the field. Only at this level does something like what Mount is doing happen.
With your thinking why not let Ohio State have 150 on scholarship? It used to be that way. People in athletics are always- always trying to make it competitive.
If Mount Union really wants to compete. Move up to Division II . Test yourself where you wouldn't have the roster-admissions- financial aid advantages.

Someone forgot to tell the Cleveland Browns about the level playing field in the NFL.  As for Division I:  Why are the same two teams playing for the championship again this year?  Why is the SEC considered the dominant conference?  Why aren't the MAC schools competeing for the national championship?  The playing field is hardly level.

[Shark]

Ric, great post.....+k

We have become so spoiled that anything less than a 40 point win and anything short of demolishing your opponent and you are having a down year.

A few years back Mount was at the top of the heap and we said if you want to challenge them, then step up! Teams have done that, especially UWW but we have also seen that with other programs. That was a great Wesley team we played last week and they keep getting closer each year. Others have built steadily improving programs as well over the past few years. Maybe Mount is not "down" as much as others are "up". What Whitewater has accomplished over the past few seasons is remarkable and I tip my hat to them. They have earned it and if we want it, we will have to take it back. They are not going to surrender it easily. Now it is us who needs to step up.

I agree with Ric's comments. Games are played on the field and while this is a great Whitewater team, this is still a 14-0 Mount team that is getting a little healthier. I can't remember if Mount was ever a 16.5pt underdog during LK's run but I can assure you that he will have the troops ready to go. Win or lose, I expect a solid performance from Mount.

I am always amazed when Mount goes 14-1 that someone on the street will inevitably ask me "What's wrong or what happened to Mount? Really??? Many of the young men playing today were toddlers when Mount won their 1st title. To maintain that level of excellence for such a sustained period is remarkable. A single loss won't ruin my season. I am proud of the effort these young men give each and every week. It's a bit unfair to compare them to legendary teams of the past. I'll settle for a "down' 14-0 team and the opportunity to be in Salem to root them on.