FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Blutarsky]

Did anybody see this?
http://www.kgw.com/news/Texas-dad-accuses-winner-of-bullying-in-91-0-football-game-228927051.html

Yeah, I saw it.  I've become strangely fascinated with defending the "bully" in cases like this because often the final score doesn't tell the whole store.  There was a similar game a few weeks ago where the winning team ran 14 plays in the second half, two were penalties, the remaining 12 were the same inside-zone run with the second-and-third team offense in, and the winning team was still accused of running up the score.  Ludicrous.  There are times when a team is clearly rubbing the opponent's nose in it, but just because the final score was lopsided doesn't mean that was the case (here, for example, it was 91-0 and honestly there does not appear to be any bad sportsmanship, except on the part of the parent who brought the complaint).  I think it's even more insulting for the winning team to stop playing the game and start kneeling on first down, or punting, or whatever.  Let the backups play regular football, just rein in the play-calling and ditch any sort of "hurry up" offense, and I think you're fine regardless of what the final score ends up.

Interesting stat from that game.  Winning Team had 7 minutes Time of Possession.

Which is exactly why "time of possession" is the most over-rated statistic in football......kind of like Batting Average in baseball.

[Bombers798891]

Did anybody see this?
http://www.kgw.com/news/Texas-dad-accuses-winner-of-bullying-in-91-0-football-game-228927051.html

Yeah, I saw it.  I've become strangely fascinated with defending the "bully" in cases like this because often the final score doesn't tell the whole store.  There was a similar game a few weeks ago where the winning team ran 14 plays in the second half, two were penalties, the remaining 12 were the same inside-zone run with the second-and-third team offense in, and the winning team was still accused of running up the score.  Ludicrous.  There are times when a team is clearly rubbing the opponent's nose in it, but just because the final score was lopsided doesn't mean that was the case (here, for example, it was 91-0 and honestly there does not appear to be any bad sportsmanship, except on the part of the parent who brought the complaint).  I think it's even more insulting for the winning team to stop playing the game and start kneeling on first down, or punting, or whatever.  Let the backups play regular football, just rein in the play-calling and ditch any sort of "hurry up" offense, and I think you're fine regardless of what the final score ends up.

I've always believed that the bigger issue in these situations is that you have two schools that are clearly so different in ability level that they really shouldn't be playing each other in the first place. The coach of the winning team was quoted as saying "The score could have very easily been 150 to nothing." Given that he pulled his starters early, the second half was played with a running clock, and he likely changed his play-calling, this is probably close to a reasonable assumption.

I know this was a league game, but it makes me wonder if we don't need a better way to organize leagues at the HS state level. Precisely who benefits from a football game that could "easily" be 150-0? The winning team has starters who aren't challenged at all, and even the backups likely face little resistance—and they're running a watered-down system anyway. As for the losing team, while we hear a lot of talk about how playing a team better than you can help you in the long run, I'm not sure that's true when the physical talent gap is THIS wide.

At some point, don't blowouts turn into embarrassments even if no one is setting out to "bully" anyone (and I truly believe no one was trying to do that here)? Aren't teams better off playing teams that are at least in their ballpark in terms of talent? Sure, games between good teams can get ugly, but if a team is capable of beating another by 150 points, then we're dealing with something else entirely, IMHO.

FWIW, I once interviewed a high school baseball coach after his team won a three-inning game 65-0. The coach was genuinely remorseful, and did all sorts of things the next time the teams played to keep the score reasonable: his players used wood bats, and hit from their non-dominant side. The score wound up being 29-0 in five innings. There was no bad feelings between the two, but the coach did tell me he wished he could have made the game an exhibition.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Did anybody see this?
http://www.kgw.com/news/Texas-dad-accuses-winner-of-bullying-in-91-0-football-game-228927051.html

Yeah, I saw it.  I've become strangely fascinated with defending the "bully" in cases like this because often the final score doesn't tell the whole store.  There was a similar game a few weeks ago where the winning team ran 14 plays in the second half, two were penalties, the remaining 12 were the same inside-zone run with the second-and-third team offense in, and the winning team was still accused of running up the score.  Ludicrous.  There are times when a team is clearly rubbing the opponent's nose in it, but just because the final score was lopsided doesn't mean that was the case (here, for example, it was 91-0 and honestly there does not appear to be any bad sportsmanship, except on the part of the parent who brought the complaint).  I think it's even more insulting for the winning team to stop playing the game and start kneeling on first down, or punting, or whatever.  Let the backups play regular football, just rein in the play-calling and ditch any sort of "hurry up" offense, and I think you're fine regardless of what the final score ends up.

I've always believed that the bigger issue in these situations is that you have two schools that are clearly so different in ability level that they really shouldn't be playing each other in the first place. The coach of the winning team was quoted as saying "The score could have very easily been 150 to nothing." Given that he pulled his starters early, the second half was played with a running clock, and he likely changed his play-calling, this is probably close to a reasonable assumption.

I know this was a league game, but it makes me wonder if we don't need a better way to organize leagues at the HS state level. Precisely who benefits from a football game that could "easily" be 150-0? The winning team has starters who aren't challenged at all, and even the backups likely face little resistance—and they're running a watered-down system anyway. As for the losing team, while we hear a lot of talk about how playing a team better than you can help you in the long run, I'm not sure that's true when the physical talent gap is THIS wide.

At some point, don't blowouts turn into embarrassments even if no one is setting out to "bully" anyone (and I truly believe no one was trying to do that here)? Aren't teams better off playing teams that are at least in their ballpark in terms of talent? Sure, games between good teams can get ugly, but if a team is capable of beating another by 150 points, then we're dealing with something else entirely, IMHO.

FWIW, I once interviewed a high school baseball coach after his team won a three-inning game 65-0. The coach was genuinely remorseful, and did all sorts of things the next time the teams played to keep the score reasonable: his players used wood bats, and hit from their non-dominant side. The score wound up being 29-0 in five innings. There was no bad feelings between the two, but the coach did tell me he wished he could have made the game an exhibition.

Interesting anecdote on the baseball game.  Thanks for sharing.  You do make an interesting point, but I'm not sure there's much of a solution.  Admittedly I know nothing of the "geography" in the league in which this game happened, but in my home region, the schools are generally in leagues organized roughly by county, and moving between leagues is not very practical because it would require prohibitively long trips to games.  Hold this thought for a minute.

I believe I've related this anecdote somewhere before on the boards, but I played in a high school game that matched my team (who would finish the season 12-1 and in the state quarters) against a school in their first year with a varsity program; as we allude to above, they were in our league by virtue of being the only league where all of the teams would be within an hour's bus ride.  We scored on our first, second, and fourth offensive snaps plus a punt return and led 28-0 less than six minutes into the game.  Our coach yanked the starters (and our very good second-string RB departed after scoring on his first carry), cleared the bench, gave everyone but the waterboy a rushing attempt, and we ended up winning 55-0, but that game also could easily have been 100-0 or worse.  I'm sympathetic to the problem and agree that no one really benefited much from that game, save the JV guys that got to play most of a varsity game, but they also got into other games that season which weren't nearly THIS utterly lopsided.

After a few years of getting steamrolled in every league game, this school explored the possibility of joining another league which was a bit of an odd hodgepodge of teams very loosely located in central/eastern Pennsylvania.  The reason they explored this league was that, frankly, it was a conglomeration of other schools that had been mercilessly pounded in their own leagues and they ALL pulled out to form this league of teams that would at least be competitive with each other (sort of like some of the D3 conferences - ECFC comes to mind).  The problem was that, for a high school league, the travel was really problematic - the nearest school in this league was something like 90 minutes away, and really all of them were pretty far-flung from one another - so they did not make the move.  There is a happy ending - now, 12 years later, after getting utterly destroyed for most of a decade, they are 4-4 and have a realistic chance at their first .500 season ever.  It took forever, but they finally have enough kids on the team and enough experience to compete.

This season:
http://epasports.com/Games.asp?Sport=Football&Year=2013&Location=District%203&Team=Fleetwood&Class=AAA&Mascot=Tigers

Their first season:
http://epasports.com/Games.asp?Sport=Football&Year=2001&Location=District%203&Team=Fleetwood&Class=AAA&Mascot=Tigers

But I digress.  The point is that I think most schools in this situation cannot easily relocate to another league.  While there are places it may be necessary and this is a general suggestion, I think that somewhere around an hour, maybe 90 minutes, is the longest reasonable bus ride that a high school team should expect to take for a league game.  Playoff games are different, of course, I'm strictly speaking of league games.  So there's that issue.

If you do re-organize leagues based on competitiveness, there's a second problem that has to be dealt with.  Going back to the above anecdote re: a special league of somewhat less-strong teams that played each other because it gave their kids more competitive games, two schools eventually emerged as the class of this league and started winning most of their games, and that created the second problem: since these two teams were going 8-2 or 9-1, they were qualifying for the playoffs (not unlike an NEFC or ECFC team getting a Pool C bid) and this became a source of bitter controversy, since they'd suffer some 60-point drubbing in the first round and fans of "better" 7-3 and 6-4 teams that missed the playoffs would scream about how unfair it all was.  The shouting got so loud that at least once, a school actually turned down a playoff bid (denying their kids of a 9-1 team a chance to play in the playoffs) because there was so much yelling about the whole issue.

[Bombers798891]

Interesting anecdote on the baseball game.  Thanks for sharing.  You do make an interesting point, but I'm not sure there's much of a solution.  Admittedly I know nothing of the "geography" in the league in which this game happened, but in my home region, the schools are generally in leagues organized roughly by county, and moving between leagues is not very practical because it would require prohibitively long trips to games.  Hold this thought for a minute.

I believe I've related this anecdote somewhere before on the boards, but I played in a high school game that matched my team (who would finish the season 12-1 and in the state quarters) against a school in their first year with a varsity program; as we allude to above, they were in our league by virtue of being the only league where all of the teams would be within an hour's bus ride.  We scored on our first, second, and fourth offensive snaps plus a punt return and led 28-0 less than six minutes into the game.  Our coach yanked the starters (and our very good second-string RB departed after scoring on his first carry), cleared the bench, gave everyone but the waterboy a rushing attempt, and we ended up winning 55-0, but that game also could easily have been 100-0 or worse.  I'm sympathetic to the problem and agree that no one really benefited much from that game, save the JV guys that got to play most of a varsity game, but they also got into other games that season which weren't nearly THIS utterly lopsided.

After a few years of getting steamrolled in every league game, this school explored the possibility of joining another league which was a bit of an odd hodgepodge of teams very loosely located in central/eastern Pennsylvania.  The reason they explored this league was that, frankly, it was a conglomeration of other schools that had been mercilessly pounded in their own leagues and they ALL pulled out to form this league of teams that would at least be competitive with each other (sort of like some of the D3 conferences - ECFC comes to mind).  The problem was that, for a high school league, the travel was really problematic - the nearest school in this league was something like 90 minutes away, and really all of them were pretty far-flung from one another - so they did not make the move.  There is a happy ending - now, 12 years later, after getting utterly destroyed for most of a decade, they are 4-4 and have a realistic chance at their first .500 season ever.  It took forever, but they finally have enough kids on the team and enough experience to compete.

This season:
http://epasports.com/Games.asp?Sport=Football&Year=2013&Location=District%203&Team=Fleetwood&Class=AAA&Mascot=Tigers

Their first season:
http://epasports.com/Games.asp?Sport=Football&Year=2001&Location=District%203&Team=Fleetwood&Class=AAA&Mascot=Tigers

But I digress.  The point is that I think most schools in this situation cannot easily relocate to another league.  While there are places it may be necessary and this is a general suggestion, I think that somewhere around an hour, maybe 90 minutes, is the longest reasonable bus ride that a high school team should expect to take for a league game.  Playoff games are different, of course, I'm strictly speaking of league games.  So there's that issue.

If you do re-organize leagues based on competitiveness, there's a second problem that has to be dealt with.  Going back to the above anecdote re: a special league of somewhat less-strong teams that played each other because it gave their kids more competitive games, two schools eventually emerged as the class of this league and started winning most of their games, and that created the second problem: since these two teams were going 8-2 or 9-1, they were qualifying for the playoffs (not unlike an NEFC or ECFC team getting a Pool C bid) and this became a source of bitter controversy, since they'd suffer some 60-point drubbing in the first round and fans of "better" 7-3 and 6-4 teams that missed the playoffs would scream about how unfair it all was.  The shouting got so loud that at least once, a school actually turned down a playoff bid (denying their kids of a 9-1 team a chance to play in the playoffs) because there was so much yelling about the whole issue.

I agree that there's not a perfect solution, or even a likely one, in some of these cases. But I think any attempt to address a football game that can end 150-0 needs to begin at a much higher level than "Well, what were the play calls?" Is it something in the way the two schools prioritize the sport? Is it a major budgetary inequality? Are the schools drastically different in terms of enrollment?

At some point, I'd wonder if there are safety concerns in these types of games as well. How much bigger, stronger, and faster must a team be to so dominate a game, and at what point does that become an issue? And what about freshman vs. seniors? At the college level, we usually talk about that in terms of experience, but I'd think at the high school level, the size difference can be more pronounced

[reality check]

Toph

I was giving you those 3.5 points in my spread already..

[Toph]

Toph

I was giving you those 3.5 points in my spread already..

I'll say a Hail Mary for you.

Actual analysis:  As excited as I am, we don't know exactly what the JCU defense has.  They've played incredibly well.  They've also played no one (BW looked great...until they played JCU).  And unlike our recently departed friends who were quick to announce their arrival to the top of the OAC, I'm taking a wait and see approach.  Maybe I'm mellowing as I age, who knows? 

The front seven looks fast, aggressive, and has dominated the point of attack when I've seen them.  I am excited to see what the defense looks like when they are matched up with Heidelberg and Mount Union.  As I've said all year, they've done exactly what a good team should do and dominate lesser competition.  The true test comes soon.  Hopefully everybody stays healthy.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Your restraint is admirable, Toph. One thing worth noting is that JCU may not have played a "playoff" team but they've done a little better than "no one" - they have beaten last year's third and fourth place teams (Ott and B-W) quite comfortably. Not a guarantee that they're ready for prime time, but still impressive enough to think they deserve to be in the conversation with Berg and Mount.

I wonder where our old friend is. Hopefully doing some creative impressions.

[D3MAFAN]

Your restraint is admirable, Toph. One thing worth noting is that JCU may not have played a "playoff" team but they've done a little better than "no one" - they have beaten last year's third and fourth place teams (Ott and B-W) quite comfortably. Not a guarantee that they're ready for prime time, but still impressive enough to think they deserve to be in the conversation with Berg and Mount.

I wonder where our old friend is. Hopefully doing some creative impressions.

I guess he's not coming back, since he was ran out of town.

[Desertraider]

Questions, we have questions.

1)  If the WIAC and the OAC finish with three one-loss teams, they'll fill four of the five Pool C spots, right?  RIGHT?

2)  What is now the consensus of opinion on Germany Woods?

3)  Is the offensive line improving in more than a very minor way?

4)  Did Hank Spencer get hurt in the last game, and, if so, what is his condition now?

5)  Why didn't Bradley "11.0" Mitchell carry the ball in the last game?  Was he hurt, and, if so, what is his condition now?

6)  What are the strong points and weak points of Taurice Scott's passing game?

I am going to focus on the Germany Woods question here. I watched the video feed of the game, and have watched him whenever I can find games on re-play, and have seen him play once. Based on that - he is slow to the hole and lacks vision. I get running behind your blockers - but he takes an eternity to hit the hole. In addition - a number of plays have a hole develop to either side of where he is going and he seems unable to see it or can't make the cut to get to it. We have seen Kmic, Moore, and Pugh be able to cut to a hole and finish - but Woods thus far remindes me of Prendergast the last couple of years. He had a lot of promise - but was not the same after being injured (as I have been told). I saw him in a game at Mount where you could have timed him with a calendar from his stance to the LOS. Germany Woods is about the same. On my own RB depth chart I have: Minnich, Nemeth, Mitchell and Woods fourth. In all seriousness I would not be suprised if he starts getting 4th qtr time only. I want to see what Nemeth and Mitchell can do against a steady stream of solid first teamers (i.e. JCU and Heidi).

My question on Taurice Scott is - can Mount get him on the field somewhere else like they were trying to do with Namdar this year? He is electric. If Mount had another option at QB to back up Burke I would have Scott at a WR or RB spot....and then Woods would be fifth and not even on my travel squad. I know what Woods CAN do (my God coming into the season I even mentioned him the same sentence as Kmic!) - but he is not even close to doing that.

[Dr. Acula]

Prendergast is a sad story. That kid was lightning quick before the knee injury. Legit 4.45 guy.  Did everything at Minerva.  As I've said before I thought he was going to be Wray 2.0

Scout.com

[Dr. Acula]

6)  What are the strong points and weak points of Taurice Scott's passing game?

My question on Taurice Scott is - can Mount get him on the field somewhere else like they were trying to do with Namdar this year? He is electric. If Mount had another option at QB to back up Burke I would have Scott at a WR or RB spot....and then Woods would be fifth and not even on my travel squad. I know what Woods CAN do (my God coming into the season I even mentioned him the same sentence as Kmic!) - but he is not even close to doing that.

Strong point of Scott's passing game:  his arm. Weak point:  he doesn't really get to use it

Taurice is one of my favorite things about this team.  How many times can you say "I can't wait until this is a blowout so we get to watch these back ups"?  Scott and Mitchell are fun to watch.  Mitchell has earned more touches. Scott is tougher to get in, but boy is it a shame to not have him on the field somehow.  I wonder if part of it is that with Burke running so much they're keeping Scott in the wings strictly as a back up due to a higher chance Burke may get banged up.

[ExTartanPlayer]

6)  What are the strong points and weak points of Taurice Scott's passing game?

My question on Taurice Scott is - can Mount get him on the field somewhere else like they were trying to do with Namdar this year? He is electric. If Mount had another option at QB to back up Burke I would have Scott at a WR or RB spot....and then Woods would be fifth and not even on my travel squad. I know what Woods CAN do (my God coming into the season I even mentioned him the same sentence as Kmic!) - but he is not even close to doing that.

Strong point of Scott's passing game:  his arm. Weak point:  he doesn't really get to use it

Taurice is one of my favorite things about this team.  How many times can you say "I can't wait until this is a blowout so we get to watch these back ups"?  Scott and Mitchell are fun to watch.  Mitchell has earned more touches. Scott is tougher to get in, but boy is it a shame to not have him on the field somehow.  I wonder if part of it is that with Burke running so much they're keeping Scott in the wings strictly as a back up due to a higher chance Burke may get banged up.

Any thoughts that they're keeping Scott in reserve for the regular season due to the fear you mention (insurance against Burke getting hurt), but that they'll pull the cover off and unveil a shiny new hood ornament as an RB/WR utility threat somewhere along the lines in the playoffs?

[HScoach]

Prendergast is a sad story. That kid was lightning quick before the knee injury. Legit 4.45 guy.  Did everything at Minerva.  As I've said before I thought he was going to be Wray 2.0

Scout.com

I agree 100%.   Drew was going to be a playmaker at Mount before the blown out knee.   

For those that don't follow Stark County football or D1 recruiting, when Dymonte Thomas (All-Ohio RB and S from Marlington that is now at Michigan) was asked by the Canton Rep who the toughest HS player he's ever faced his answer was very quickly Drew Prendergast.   

Drew was the only player I ever saw on the football field that Dymonte couldn't catch.  And that includes Butchel in the state semi's.

[Dr. Acula]

It looks like around 50 and dry in Alliance tomorrow.  Ott is a good opponent for this point in their schedule.  Outside of the top 3 the Cards have the best D of the rest.  They'll push the Raiders offense some.  They have at least a couple nice D linemen so that'll give us a read on the O line's progress. 

Things I'm looking for tomorrow:

Run the ball.  I'd like to see them mix in the RB's and get consistent production from someone not wearing #10.  If they run the ball well on Ott I'll feel better.  And to be specific I mean run the ball well on designed runs, not scrambles.  Just to be clear.

To go along with the above, I'd like to see the return of Mitchell after a hiatus in Bexley.  Not sure if he was dinged up or VK just didn't like the scenario for him or what.  I hope to see him and Spencer both back out there making plays.

Typical suffocating D.  Despite how Berg made them look I don't think Ott is overly dangerous offensively.  I'm not demanding a shutout or it's a failure, but it also wouldn't surprise me at all.  High bar to set, I know, but VK only has himself to blame for spoiling us!  And I can guarantee you Sizemore isn't throwing for 354 yards tomorrow.  That's for sure.

Specifically for the D I'd like to see Rosalva and/or Thomas get in the backfield and make some plays.  It seems like I've been hearing a lot more of Lally and Fechko's names recently.  That's not a big knock on the DE's because the DT's are studs, but still something I'd like to see.

   

[ohiofan1954]

Interesting talk on the 91-0 game. I myself was at a high school game in 2008 that ended 96-0. Columbus Beechcroft over Columbus Centennial. The score should have been actually 102-0. Centennial fumbled into it's own end zone and it was recovered by Beechcroft. The Beechcroft coach asked the officials not to count it though and they placed the ball on the one. Beechcroft took a knee four times from there. No complaining after the game , but nobody talked about it either.