FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[emma17]

The political season appears to be driving some of the replies to my point- I'm being accused of saying something that is totally out of context.

When I said it's "ok to lose" that was a comment specifically to Bceagle and specifically in reference to the JV team. The idea is simple- a Mt loss at the JV level means two things:
1.  The conference is getting stronger
2.  As those JV players become varsity players- it will create an even greater game day experience for the Mt players and fans.
If you want to argue w me- at least argue my point.

Also- I DISAGREE with each and every one of you that thinks blow outs are a good thing.
I'm not suggesting it's better to lose than blow out opponents.
I'm saying, without a shred of apprehension, that the game day experience for the players (starters) AND the fans, is significantly enhanced when the games are tougher.
I'm also saying a tougher conference schedule better prepares a team for playoff success.

I have friends and family that want to come w me to see a UWW game. My biggest challenge is to find a home game against good competition that works for all schedules.
I don't want a friend that's never seen UWW play coming to a game that UWW wins by 50 points.
You know what that says to the friend?  No wonder UWW has such a good record- the other teams Suck!
That's a discredit to the program- and don't think for a second that there aren't people out there that discredit Mt and UWW based on the poor performance of their opponents.

It makes perfect sense that we all hope our conference opponents get stronger and in turn provide tougher games at the varsity level.

[02 Warhawk]

I concede that a close game prepares the team better, and obviously it makes the game more exciting for fans. However, there's always the risk of losing close games. Where as you never lose a blow out. In 2012 Buffalo State, Oshkosh and Stevens Point were close games for UWW.....which didn't turn out too well for our Warhawks. Plus close games are a killer on my nervous system. Since UWW plays in the WIAC, these blowouts are few are far between against the top half in our conference.

I suppose if Whitewater was guaranteed to win all their close games, then yes...I'll be all for the close games. But I know that's impossible. I guess I would like to see a Whitewater team clicking on all cylinders (offense, defense, special teams), then get the backups in for the second half preparing them for the future.

[Dr. Acula]

The only thing I'll add to the discussion here is that perhaps the amount of blowouts actually helps those programs sustain success.  I've always been a proponent of the thought that one of the biggest advantages programs like Mount have is getting young guys game reps at the varsity level.  These back ups and 3rd stringers are playing in varsity games nearly every week.  Add in the additional month+ of practice they get annually from deep playoff runs and that's a lot of development that can happen for kids who will become starters down the road.

Now is the flip side of that coin that it doesn't push the current starters hard enough to prepare them for elite teams?  That argument can certainly be made too.

[theaprof]

The only thing I'll add to the discussion here is that perhaps the amount of blowouts actually helps those programs sustain success.  I've always been a proponent of the thought that one of the biggest advantages programs like Mount have is getting young guys game reps at the varsity level.  These back ups and 3rd stringers are playing in varsity games nearly every week.  Add in the additional month+ of practice they get annually from deep playoff runs and that's a lot of development that can happen for kids who will become starters down the road.

Now is the flip side of that coin that it doesn't push the current starters hard enough to prepare them for elite teams?  That argument can certainly be made too.

I think this is one of the biggest advantages for the elite programs--if they get deep into the playoffs they have almost a season and a half of practices every season--so a senior starts his last season with the equivalent of almost 4 1/2 years of college level coaching to prepare him for another run at the walnut and bronze--that is definitely an advantage.

[HScoach]

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.

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. 

DISCLAIMER:   The text below is a brief synopsis I wrote a few years ago when someone was saying the Mount only makes the playoffs because the OAC is horrid.   It's a couple years out of date, but the point is still valid.    I was trying to show where their toughest/closest games (team & conference) came from.   Over the years, especially a decade ago, the OAC has often put up as tough a fight as the best playoff teams from around the nation not hailing from Wisconsin.   The WIAC has always been an outlier for Mount due to their size, was the same in '92 against LaCrosse and it's the same today against Whitewater.  The WIAC teams are bigger/stronger/faster as a whole than Mount.   Typically if Mount beats the WIAC champ it's because of their skill people overcoming the WIAC size advantage.

Anyway, here's my previous post:

Writing off the OAC simply because Mount has consistently won the conference is an overly simplistic and incorrect view.

Who wins the conference championship is not the only sign of conference strength.  Balance, yes.  But not strength.  You dismiss the OAC simply because they can't beat Mount?  Well then you can dismiss the rest of D3 outside of the WIAC for the last few years.     Since 1996, there have been exactly five (5) teams that have beaten Mount Union, and only one of them has done it multiple times:
Whitewater (WAIC) – 4 times
Ohio Northern (OAC) - once
Mary Hardin Baylor (ASC) - once
St John's (MIAC) - once
Rowan (NJAC) - once

So outside of the WIAC, the OAC has done exactly what the rest of the nation has done against Mount.  Beaten Mount every once in a while.   

Here's a brief synopsis of the last 20 years of Mount results in terms of toughest/closest games that season and what conference that team was from.   If you take the time to read it, you'll see that the OAC has often provided the toughest test for Mount.  Not always, but the conference has often put up as tough a fight as the best playoff teams from around the nation.


2011 – National Runner-up (14-1)
Ohio Northern  (OAC)  :  Mount win 14-6
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 25-20
Wesley (ind):  Mount win 28-21
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount loss 13-10
     
2010 – National Runner-up (14-1)
Marietta  (OAC)  :  Mount win 28-14
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount loss 31-21
Next closest regular season game was Otterbein (OAC) by 18 pts, next closest playoff game was 20 pts

2009 – National Runner-up (14-1)
Capital  (OAC)  :  Mount win 28-21
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount loss 38-28
no other team, including playoffs, was closer than 17 pts.

2008 – National Champion (15-0)
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount win 31-26
No other team, playoffs included, closer than 21 pts

2007 – National Runner-up (14-1)
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount loss 31-21
No other team, playoffs included, closer than 24 pts

2006 – National Champion (15-0)
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 14-0
Capital  (OAC) in Round 3  :  Mount win 17-14
St. John Fisher (E-8):  Mount win 26-14
    NOTE:  beat Whitewater (WIAC) by 19 in Stagg

2005 – National Champion (14-1)
Ohio Northern  (OAC):  Mount loss 21-14 
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 17-3
Capital  (OAC) in Round 3  :  Mount win 34-31
Whitewater (WIAC):  Mount win 31-26

2004 – Semi-Finalist (12-1)
Ohio Northern  (OAC)  :  Mount win 41-27
Mary Hardin Baylor (ASC):  Mount loss 38-35 to runner-up

2003 – National Runner-up (13-1)
St. John's (MIAC):  Mount loss 24-6
Only decent games were John Carroll  (OAC)   34-16 and Baldwin Wallace  (OAC) 24-0.   No other team, including playoffs, was closer.

2002 – National Champion (14-0)
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 28-21
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 35-16
Capital  (OAC)  :  Mount win 38-22
Ohio Northern  (OAC)  :  Mount win 34-24
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 21 pts.  Beat John Carroll  (OAC) in semi-finals.

2001 – National Champions (14-0)
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 17-3
Bridgewater (ODAC):  Mount win 30-27
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 21 pts

2000 – National Champions (14-0)
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 41-31
Wittenberg (NCAC):  Mount win 32-15
St. John's (MIAC):  Mount win 10-7
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 24 pts.  Beat Ohio Northern   (OAC)    in Round 1

1999 -  Semi-Finalist (12-1)
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 57-51 in  3 OT's 
Augustana (CCIW):  Mount win 42-33
Rowan (NJAC):  Mount loss 24-17 in OT to runner-up
Played Ohio Northern   (OAC)    in 2nd round of playoffs.

1998 – National Champion (14-0)
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 21-14
Albion (MIAA):  Mount win 21-19
Wittenberg (NCAC):  Mount win 21-19
Trinity Tx (ASC):  Mount win 34-29
    NOTE:  beat Rowan (NJAC) by 20 in Stagg

1997 – National Champions (14-0)
Allegheny (NCAC):  Mount win 34-30
Closest regular season game 38-14 over Ohio Northern  (OAC)  .  Other than Allegheny, no playoff game within 45 pts.  Played John Carroll   (OAC)    in 2nd round of playoffs.

1996 – National Champion (14-0)
Allegheny (NCAC):  Mount win 31-26
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 18 pts.
     NOTE:  beat Rowan by 32 in Stagg

1995 – Semi-Finalist (12-1)
Marietta  (OAC)  :  Mount win 41-37
Wisc La Crosse (WIAC):  Mount loss 20-17 to eventual champs
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 21 pts

1994 – Regional Finalist (10-2)
Ohio Northern  (OAC)  :  Mount win 41-35
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC):  Mount loss 23-10
Allegheny (NCAC):  Mount win 38-19
Albion (MIAA):  Mount loss 34-33 to eventual champs

1993 – National Champs (14-0)
Heidelberg  (OAC)  :  Mount win 24-7
Albion (MIAA):  Mount win 30-16
Rowan (NJAC):  Mount win 34-24

1992 – Semi-Finalist (12-1)
Baldwin Wallace  (OAC)  :  Mount win 23-14
John Carroll  (OAC)  :  Mount win 24-14
Wisc La Crosse (WIAC):  Mount loss 29-24 to eventual champs
No other team, including playoffs, closer than 17 pts.

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

RE: Mount Union Starters or Backups running up the score on teams.

If I recall correctly, last Saturday was the first game the Mount Union Starters played the entire 3rd Quarter.

vs. Bethany - Last score from Starters was at 00:00 in second

vs. Muskingum - Last score from Starters was at 00:27 in the second

vs. Marietta - Last score from Starters was at 13:43 in the third

vs. Capital - Last score from Starters was at 1:04 in the second

vs. ONU - Last score from Starters was at 3:57 in the third 

vs. Heidelberg - Last score from Starters was at 8:36 in the third

[wally_wabash]

How did Marietta only lose 28-14?  Is that the best game ever played in the history of Marietta football?

[Desertraider]

How did Marietta only lose 28-14?  Is that the best game ever played in the history of Marietta football?

To paraphrase a quote from E. Gordon Gee (on the 13-13 tie between OSU and Michigan):
'This is the greatest win ever (for Marietta)' - I think they have it in their trophy case...and if not...why not?

[bceagle80]

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.

I agree with Warhawk regarding the analysis given. The coaches on both Mount Union and UW-W know their players and what they are capable of doing. What the close games will teach the boys to do is where they can draw from when the going gets tough. It will also give experience to the coaches in managing the intracacies of the game better (i.e. - time clock).

[bceagle80]

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.

This is probably true. Each football player came to Mount Union for a number of reasons. With respect to football, they came because the coaches conveyed a clear message that it would not easy, that there education was extremely important and, after that, with football, they were going to have to give it their very best daily and they would have a chance to be part of something special. Special does not mean only winning occasionally and hoping your going to win close games. Special means that the team synergy comes together from individual efforts given above and beyond what seems to be able to be done and creates a wave of spirit and enthusiasm that can not be stopped. Both Mount Union and UW-W have been blessed to be able to recruit young men who seek to find out what is the very best in them that they can give. They want to and, in reality, need to be able to show this when they get out of the field whether it is on the practice field, in a JV game or in the Varsity game.

[Desertraider]

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.

I agree with Warhawk regarding the analysis given. The coaches on both Mount Union and UW-W know their players and what they are capable of doing. What the close games will teach the boys to do is where they can draw from when the going gets tough. It will also give experience to the coaches in managing the intracacies of the game better (i.e. - time clock).

I don't think anyone is saying that closer games would be a negative. I firmly believe that the Mount loss to ONU in 2005 and the 34-31 battle with Capital in the playoffs is what put Mount over the top for the Stagg that year. The loss was an absolute shock and rallied the team (IMHO). I think the issue is how the close games happen. I don't see Mount, or the other Powers, trying to keep games close for that purpose. Or shall I say - I don't see The Powers getting worse, ONU and Cap raised their level in 2005 and pushed Mount. This brings us back to the same discussion that has been on this board for...seems like an eternity: the rest of the OAC needs to step up and get better and then they need to build on that and sustain it. Tom Arth has JCU playing at a high level and they WILL test Mount. But can they then stay at that level and continue to push Mount? Can they beat Mount? I don't know. Like we have said with Cap, Berg, ONU 4-5 years seems to be the limit (so far) and then they regress - or in Caps case they just implode.

[Blutarsky]

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.

I agree with Warhawk regarding the analysis given. The coaches on both Mount Union and UW-W know their players and what they are capable of doing. What the close games will teach the boys to do is where they can draw from when the going gets tough. It will also give experience to the coaches in managing the intracacies of the game better (i.e. - time clock).

I don't think anyone is saying that closer games would be a negative. I firmly believe that the Mount loss to ONU in 2005 and the 34-31 battle with Capital in the playoffs is what put Mount over the top for the Stagg that year. The loss was an absolute shock and rallied the team (IMHO). I think the issue is how the close games happen. I don't see Mount, or the other Powers, trying to keep games close for that purpose. Or shall I say - I don't see The Powers getting worse, ONU and Cap raised their level in 2005 and pushed Mount. This brings us back to the same discussion that has been on this board for...seems like an eternity: the rest of the OAC needs to step up and get better and then they need to build on that and sustain it. Tom Arth has JCU playing at a high level and they WILL test Mount. But can they then stay at that level and continue to push Mount? Can they beat Mount? I don't know. Like we have said with Cap, Berg, ONU 4-5 years seems to be the limit (so far) and then they regress - or in Caps case they just implode.

....Pentello graduates.

[Raider 68]

Here is a question, Who are/were the best OAC QB's  (Top 10) over the 20 years?

[SaintsFAN]

Both Mount Union and UW-W have been blessed to be able to recruit young men who seek to find out what is the very best in them that they can give.

I hardly think UW-W and Mount Union have the market cornered on athletes at this level who are trying to be the best football players they can be.   Most of the players at this level value education (they ARE paying for it) and want to be the best they can be on the field. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

Tom Arth has JCU playing at a high level and they WILL test Mount. But can they then stay at that level and continue to push Mount? Can they beat Mount? I don't know. Like we have said with Cap, Berg, ONU 4-5 years seems to be the limit (so far) and then they regress - or in Caps case they just implode.

....Pentello graduates.

This actually brings up a very interesting point: many of the teams that have bubbled up for a brief time have been able to do with one or two outstanding individuals that, in hindsight, seem to be the difference between "decent" and "playoff challenger" teams.  This is not to say that the other players on those teams aren't any good, but rather that the distinguishing factor between those Capital teams topping out at "solid 8-2 team" vs. "challenger to Mount Union" was the presence of Pentello, while the rest of the guys on the team were "nice" players but basically the same as the guys who came before-and-after him.  Likewise, John Carroll's defense last year was good enough that they'd have been near the top of the OAC, Myers or not, but the presence of Myers is what gives JCU that little oomph that makes us think maybe they can challenge Mount.

On a lesser level (i.e. not "challenging for national prominence" but merely examples of 1-2 elite individuals being the difference), a few teams that I saw personally include the 2006 Carnegie Mellon and then 2007-09 Case Western teams.  The bulk of 2006 Carnegie Mellon's roster was likely not much different than the teams that came before or after it, but in 2006 they had the program's 1st and 3rd all-time leading rushers in the same backfield.  Take those two dudes off the team, and instead of 11-1/playoffs they're back to the same 5-5ish teams that came before and after.  Ditto Case Western and Dan Whalen, who lifted Case from a 5-5ish program to three straight playoff appearances, after which they returned to the same .500-ish level within a few seasons.  Those are just examples I remember offhand, no doubt people more familiar with the various leagues can list some other similar individual/team examples.  Scottie Williams at Elmhurst is another that comes to mind.  2012 Elmhurst, with Williams running the ball, goes 10-2 and gives a legitimate challenge to Stagg Bowl finalist UST.  The Elmhurst teams before/after that were basically .500 teams.  In Division III, perhaps even moreso than Division I, the difference between being a middle-of-the-pack team and a fringe-level Top 25 team often seems to be the presence of one or two truly elite individuals.  Obviously you still need the roster of supporting players around that guy, but I pretty firmly believe that the "regular guys" on many Division III teams are pretty similar. 

What seems to set UWW and Mount (and to a slightly lesser extent UMHB, Wesley, and Linfield) apart is that they have the overall roster depth that 1) the next star-in-waiting is always there and 2) even when he isn't, the rest of their "regular guys" are so good that the team doesn't really drop off much.  Most good-but-not-great D3 teams seem to lose a guy of that caliber and don't have the next superstar lined up; they have a team full of "guys" just like they had before the superstar arrived.