FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Dr. Acula]

Sadly, BW is not the hope for greater balance unless another QB from Michigan State decides to transfer home.

[Purple Badger]

JCU had a better defense than Mount in '13 and I would expect '14 to be the same.   This version of Mount's D appears to be a little better than last year, but not significantly so.   Week 10 should be a shootout.

It is interesting to see the comments each week and the debate on how good Mount Union really is. Keep in mind each team is comprised of some new faces each year and every team every year needs to learn how to win. The gifted athletes on Mount Union's football team are, most likely, learning just like every team does. The real question is how do they take it to the top level this year. I agree with Dr. Acula that a few young men need to emerge as game changing difference makers. Who will they be and when will we see it happen? I expect it will happen over the next few weeks before the JC game.

FYI: JV won against Baldwin Wallace 40-0 this past Sunday.

Bceagle- I know you have a son on JV so congrats on their continued victories.
On the other side of that coin- isn't it a bit depressing to see the never ending blow outs?  Wouldn't it be better to see some really tight scores or even losses so that the conference has hope for greater balance in the future? 

Nothing Mt can do I know. But I'm not even an OAC guy and I get frustrated with the failure of the other programs to improve.
We get some of that in the WIAC- just not to the degree of disparity.
[/quote]
I went to the JV game on Sunday.  It is hard to know what the difference in talent on paper between these teams but what I noticed was the difference in the intensity between the 2 teams.  You could tell that the Mount union players were ready to play.  The very first play of the game the Mount Union defensive end bullrushed the tackle to get into the backfield and get to the QB.  They tackled harder and caught the passes that were difficult (BW dropped too many).  MU was not perfect and BW moved the ball, but MU worked well together and you could tell they wanted to perserve the shut-out. Once these teams get behind it is hard for them to mentally get up to compete. But they should all be ready to start with intensity and seemed to be lacking this past weekend.

[ExTartanPlayer]

On the other side of that coin- isn't it a bit depressing to see the never ending blow outs?  Wouldn't it be better to see some really tight scores or even losses so that the conference has hope for greater balance in the future? 

I agree, so don't take the following as opposition of tight scores and good games.  Everyone wants to see tight scores and good games.

With that said, let's get a couple of things straight, because Mount and UWW's national dominance tends to color our perception of stuff like this:

1. Despite the perception of "never-ending blowouts" there have been really tight scores for Mount in conference games.  In the last five seasons:

2013: Mount Union 42, John Carroll 34.  JCU had the ball at the Mount Union 15-yard-line with 1 minute to play and a chance to tie the game.
2012: nobody was really close (33-14 vs. Heidelberg was closest conference game)
2011: Mount Union 14, Ohio Northern 6. Ohio Northern had the ball at the Mount Union 28-yard-line with 1 minute to play and a chance to tie the game.
2011: Mount Union 25, Baldwin-Wallace 20.  Mount needed a touchdown on 4th-and-11 from the BW 29 with 2 minutes remaining, and then a stop, as BW reached the Mount  32-yard-line with 15 seconds remaining and a chance to win the game.
2010: nobody was really close (28-14 vs. Marietta, of all teams)
2009: Mount Union 28, Capital 21. Capital led 21-14 early in the fourth quarter, requiring a Mount rally and go-ahead score with three minutes to play.

Yes, there have been a few seasons where no one even threatened Mount, but there have been a few nailbiters.  To be clear, since I'm sure someone will read this post wrong: I am not, in any way, putting down the impressive nature of Mount Union's ridiculous streak of OAC victories.  I am pointing out that the length of the streak may give the impression that it's been 100 straight blowouts, and while it can feel that way sometimes, that is NOT really the case.  There have been "some really tight scores" in that streak.

2. If you're not impressed by the above argument, then let's try another tack: despite their national prominence making them the most obvious cases, Mount and UWW are not the only teams that blow out their opponents in 75-90% of their conference games and get challenged once or twice a year. 

UMHB's last conference loss came in 2009, and if you look at the last four seasons, they have only had a few games like the aforementioned UMU close calls, where the opponent had the ball in the fourth quarter with a chance to take the lead or tie the game. 

Linfield hasn't lost an NWC game since 2008 and seems to have roughly the same "one close game a year" experience that Mount does (2013 Pacific, 2012 Pacific Lutheran, 2011 Whitworth, etc) with a bunch of blowouts mixed in there. 

Franklin has lost three HCAC games since 2007 and the road to that record is littered with a string of blowouts and an occasional close call. 

Point being, while Mount Union's national dominance is unmatched by anyone but the Warhawks, plenty of teams lord over their league with a string of blowouts and one or two close games a year.  I'm sure that HCAC fans, and NWC fans, and ASC fans, all would love to see a few other teams in their league challenge Franklin, and Linfield, and UMHB, respectively.

[02 Warhawk]

Bceagle- I know you have a son on JV so congrats on their continued victories.
On the other side of that coin- isn't it a bit depressing to see the never ending blow outs?  Wouldn't it be better to see some really tight scores or even losses so that the conference has hope for greater balance in the future? 

Nothing Mt can do I know. But I'm not even an OAC guy and I get frustrated with the failure of the other programs to improve.
We get some of that in the WIAC- just not to the degree of disparity.

So are you saying you enjoyed 2012 WIAC season? I know I didn't

However, it was nice seeing a WIAC team make a deep playoff run in Whitewater's absence.

[Raider 68]

ExTartanPlayer,

Great post! +k

[emma17]

Ex Tarten- You raised some good points and presented the exceptions to the rule. 
All in all, I can't imagine Mt fans get the same fullness of game day joy when there are so many blowouts- and no matter how many exceptions we show over five years, there simply are so many blowouts.

In all the other conferences you used as blow out examples, how many have produced a national champion of late?

My point in no way is that it would be more fun for Mt's varsity to lose.  My point is, there is nothing wrong with rooting for conference opponents to get stronger.  Their strength doesn't just make for a more exciting game day, there is a case to be made that better conference strength aides post season success. 

Now Bleed, let me say this:
If my son's team lost a JV game I might be bummed for... 10 minutes.  But I'd go right into great anticipation of the varsity game coming up down the road. 

[Dr. Acula]

I was just checking out the Wilmington 2 deep.  Yikes.  A looooot of youngsters on there.  14 freshmen out of 22 offensive players including the starting QB.  10 freshmen on defense including 2 starters in the secondary.  That should go well.  I also noted in the game preview that the Quakers have dropped 50 of their last 51 games.  Hopefully these kids take their lumps now and get a few wins down the road.

[Raider 68]

Ex Tarten- You raised some good points and presented the exceptions to the rule. 
All in all, I can't imagine Mt fans get the same fullness of game day joy when there are so many blowouts- and no matter how many exceptions we show over five years, there simply are so many blowouts.

In all the other conferences you used as blow out examples, how many have produced a national champion of late?

My point in no way is that it would be more fun for Mt's varsity to lose.  My point is, there is nothing wrong with rooting for conference opponents to get stronger.  Their strength doesn't just make for a more exciting game day, there is a case to be made that better conference strength aides post season success. 

Now Bleed, let me say this:
If my son's team lost a JV game I might be bummed for... 10 minutes.  But I'd go right into great anticipation of the varsity game coming up down the road. 

emma17,

Are you really serious, "more fun for Mt's varsity to lose". When a program that has been one of the best in "all of college football"
for over two decades, would anyone, Mount fan, supporter, alum and former player such as me and so many others prefer a loss to a blow-out?
I think not. Would we all like the conference to become more competitive, sure, but the other
programs have not reached that level at least on a longer term consistent basis. There have been stretches where, B-W, ONU, Capital,
JCU and lately Heidelberg were pretty good, but for various reasons have not sustained that strength over the years.
John Carroll and Heidelberg will be very competitive, IMHO, since the have developed good programs led by some top notch
HC's.

[Desertraider]

Bceagle- I know you have a son on JV so congrats on their continued victories.
On the other side of that coin- isn't it a bit depressing to see the never ending blow outs?  Wouldn't it be better to see some really tight scores or even losses so that the conference has hope for greater balance in the future? 

Nothing Mt can do I know. But I'm not even an OAC guy and I get frustrated with the failure of the other programs to improve.
We get some of that in the WIAC- just not to the degree of disparity.

Emma, my man! Your taking this line of thought to the OAC now?  Wow, good luck with that.  Yes, a Mount parent is going to think it's better for his son's school to take some losses for the hope of greater balance in the future. RIIIIGGGHT.

I know where you are going with that 17, but really it's up to the rest of the conference teams to step it up. (And of course I know that's what you are really talking about).  But it is a bit much to ask fans of UW-W or Mount to root for a loss.   I probably shouldn't put this in writing, but in a sense, it is UW-W and Mount's mission to DESTROY parity and balance. It's up to everyone else to keep them from doing it. 

Why not put it in writing - it is true. Mount Union, UWW, UMHB, Wesley and a very few others do not care about parity and when they think about it, it is in terms that 'someone else is stepping up' not that one of the powers is stepping back. The bottom-line is that Mount and the others (can I just collectively call them "The Powers"?) set out every week to blow the opposing teams doors off. The Powers want to score as many points as time allows and hold a shut out on the other team. That is why year in and year out the final 2 rounds of the playoffs consist of The Powers. We have seen teams make runs (in the OAC: ONU, Berg, Capital and now JCU) but they last until whatever class started it graduates. No one has sustained it - maybe JCU will. I don't want to see Mount lose - EVER. I want to see 15-0 and National Champs until the cows come home. I want to see a blow-out every week no matter who the opponent is and I want to see 800 yard offensive performances - so we can nit-pick and argue "it could have been 900 yards if..". I am a fan of Mount Union - I want to see that. But (NEWSFLASH): So do the players at Mount Union...and at all of The Powers. That is why they dominate. Do I want to see some parity - sure why not...but for that to happen a whole lot of teams have to get really damn good, really damn fast cause The Powers have left the station and are rolling at full speed. Roll Raiders~Roll!!

BTW: Great piece on Leipold at UWW. Great Coach, great team....even though I want the Raiders to hang 70 on em!

[Desertraider]

Bleedpurple: On Mount giving up 407 to Berg. All the Mount guys, and other OAC to some extent have been saying that Mount needs a test. I know Berg is not the greatest offense but they are not that bad either. Regardless, we can't say we want a test and then complain when they get it. Mount got tested. They gave up yards. But - they only gave up 17 points and 7 of those were late in 4th. We can nit-pick about it really only being 10, or 3 or whatever because of Mounts mistakes that aided the first 2 scores - but the scoreboard says 17. It was a test, the first test, and I feel pretty good about the results. However - the secondary does cause me concern. Last year the d-line could not get pressure and the secondary could not turn their heads in coverage. The d-line is now getting pressure - but the secondary is still a weak spot. JCU will be an interesting game. Good luck to your Purple Power and Congrats to Coach Leipold (has he thought about moving up to say...UW? Just saying..).

[bceagle80]

JCU had a better defense than Mount in '13 and I would expect '14 to be the same.   This version of Mount's D appears to be a little better than last year, but not significantly so.   Week 10 should be a shootout.

It is interesting to see the comments each week and the debate on how good Mount Union really is. Keep in mind each team is comprised of some new faces each year and every team every year needs to learn how to win. The gifted athletes on Mount Union's football team are, most likely, learning just like every team does. The real question is how do they take it to the top level this year. I agree with Dr. Acula that a few young men need to emerge as game changing difference makers. Who will they be and when will we see it happen? I expect it will happen over the next few weeks before the JC game.

FYI: JV won against Baldwin Wallace 40-0 this past Sunday.

Bceagle- I know you have a son on JV so congrats on their continued victories.
On the other side of that coin- isn't it a bit depressing to see the never ending blow outs?  Wouldn't it be better to see some really tight scores or even losses so that the conference has hope for greater balance in the future? 

Nothing Mt can do I know. But I'm not even an OAC guy and I get frustrated with the failure of the other programs to improve.
We get some of that in the WIAC- just not to the degree of disparity.
[/quote]

To directly answer you regarding it being "a bit depressing", emma17, the answer is a very strong "NO"! There is a reason for this answer. My son has seen great victories during his schoolboy years but he has also suffered defeat. He is very happy to have many young men around him with strength, talent and ability. Ultimately, my son wants to play at the highest level possible and then coach football at the highest level possible. He is a sponge when it comes to football and he is watching and learning about coaching all the time during practices as well as games. While dealing with defeat can become a positive growing experience, he never again wants to put up with a losing season. He is learning how to win at the college level. He is seeing the focus and intensity needed to win at this level.

For me, I just enjoy football and want to see my son enjoy himself playing the game for a little while longer (hopefully most of the next 4 years).

[02 Warhawk]

Why not put it in writing - it is true. Mount Union, UWW, UMHB, Wesley and a very few others do not care about parity and when they think about it, it is in terms that 'someone else is stepping up' not that one of the powers is stepping back. The bottom-line is that Mount and the others (can I just collectively call them "The Powers"?) set out every week to blow the opposing teams doors off. The Powers want to score as many points as time allows and hold a shut out on the other team. That is why year in and year out the final 2 rounds of the playoffs consist of The Powers. We have seen teams make runs (in the OAC: ONU, Berg, Capital and now JCU) but they last until whatever class started it graduates. No one has sustained it - maybe JCU will. I don't want to see Mount lose - EVER. I want to see 15-0 and National Champs until the cows come home. I want to see a blow-out every week no matter who the opponent is and I want to see 800 yard offensive performances - so we can nit-pick and argue "it could have been 900 yards if..". I am a fan of Mount Union - I want to see that. But (NEWSFLASH): So do the players at Mount Union...and at all of The Powers. That is why they dominate. Do I want to see some parity - sure why not...but for that to happen a whole lot of teams have to get really damn good, really damn fast cause The Powers have left the station and are rolling at full speed. Roll Raiders~Roll!!

I 100% agree with this - every word. I have the same thoughts about UWW. I want to see a blowout every game. Yes, it would be cool if the WIAC got better, but just as long as they fall short of Whitewater. I want to see the WIAC win every non-conference game (regular and post season)...just as long as they don't beat my 'Hawks.

I've wondered if UWO and UWP can sustain the level of success they've had the past few seasons. It looks like UWO is dropping off a bit, and we'll see what kind of challenge UWP is to Whitewater in a couple of weeks.

However, I think what Emma is trying to say is that Mount would maybe benefit from more closely fought games....rather than maybe one or two a year (including the playoffs). I wouldn't go as far as to say they would benefit from losing - I don't agree with that. Seems like Mount just breezes through the regular season (with the exception of one game every couple of years). Then in the playoffs, no one challenges them until a week before the Stagg Bowl (no offense East fans).

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.

[Teamski]

Bleedpurple: On Mount giving up 407 to Berg. All the Mount guys, and other OAC to some extent have been saying that Mount needs a test. I know Berg is not the greatest offense but they are not that bad either. Regardless, we can't say we want a test and then complain when they get it. Mount got tested. They gave up yards. But - they only gave up 17 points and 7 of those were late in 4th. We can nit-pick about it really only being 10, or 3 or whatever because of Mounts mistakes that aided the first 2 scores - but the scoreboard says 17. It was a test, the first test, and I feel pretty good about the results. However - the secondary does cause me concern. Last year the d-line could not get pressure and the secondary could not turn their heads in coverage. The d-line is now getting pressure - but the secondary is still a weak spot. JCU will be an interesting game. Good luck to your Purple Power and Congrats to Coach Leipold (has he thought about moving up to say...UW? Just saying..).

That might be true for a lot of teams, but I really don't see that mentality with Wesley.  Sure, Coach Drass (a defense guru) wants his defense to shut out the opponents, but it seems that there is a cut-off in the scoring department.  From what I observe, Wesley scales back drastically when it hits 40 points or so.  You will note that the back-ups are in no later than the middle of the 3rd quarter during a blow-out.  The 70-2 Menlo score was simply the back-ups running the ball down the field.  Wesley simply does not run up the score for fun and profit.

-Ski

[02 Warhawk]

Bleedpurple: On Mount giving up 407 to Berg. All the Mount guys, and other OAC to some extent have been saying that Mount needs a test. I know Berg is not the greatest offense but they are not that bad either. Regardless, we can't say we want a test and then complain when they get it. Mount got tested. They gave up yards. But - they only gave up 17 points and 7 of those were late in 4th. We can nit-pick about it really only being 10, or 3 or whatever because of Mounts mistakes that aided the first 2 scores - but the scoreboard says 17. It was a test, the first test, and I feel pretty good about the results. However - the secondary does cause me concern. Last year the d-line could not get pressure and the secondary could not turn their heads in coverage. The d-line is now getting pressure - but the secondary is still a weak spot. JCU will be an interesting game. Good luck to your Purple Power and Congrats to Coach Leipold (has he thought about moving up to say...UW? Just saying..).

That might be true for a lot of teams, but I really don't see that mentality with Wesley.  Sure, Coach Drass (a defense guru) wants his defense to shut out the opponents, but it seems that there is a cut-off in the scoring department.  From what I observe, Wesley scales back drastically when it hits 40 points or so.  You will note that the back-ups are in no later than the middle of the 3rd quarter during a blow-out.  The 70-2 Menlo score was simply the back-ups running the ball down the field.  Wesley simply does not run up the score for fun and profit.

-Ski

I'm sure Mount fans can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mount's backups are the ones running the score up. Not the starters. The backups (like for most programs) want to make the best out of whatever playing time they can get. So of course they will try their best to score.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I haven't really seen evidence of any of the powerhouse programs mentioned here running up the score.  They generally all seem to win with class.

Gregg Easterbrook does not look closely enough at box scores to understand this, he just sees that a team wins 69-0 and assumes they ran it up.

But from what I've seen, all of the top programs remove their starters in the 3rd quarter with a 40-something point margin, and if they let the second-string QB throw a few passes I really have no issue with it (after all, you should take advantage of some game time for the backups to let them run the "normal offense" for at least a series or two).

Really, the only way I see it as running up the score unnecessarily is a team running no-huddle offense, using trick plays, or chucking deep passes in the last 5 minutes and/or with an absurd lead (like, 70 points).  A fake punt with a 42-point lead, I'll agree, is running up the score; you're doing something way outside the normal game plan in a clear attempt to humiliate the opponent.  But I've got no problem with the second- and third-string RB running in a touchdown, or even with the second-string QB throwing a couple of passes on his first series or two of the game.  Kids only get so many chances to suit up and play college ball.  A point that I've made before is that, on the wrong side of a blowout, I would probably feel even more frustrated if the opponent started doing ridiculous things to keep the score down (like punting on first down, or kneeling every play with 12 minutes to go) than if they just lined up and played ball with their end-of-the-bench guys in the game.