FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[02 Warhawk]

The Pool C teams that are coming out of the OAC aren't doing the conference any favors. The previous two both have been upset - at home - in the first round. Of course, this perception can all change if someone other than Mount can win a playoff game or two.

As a DIII fan, I'm really looking forward to see what VCU can do against Mount (and vice versa).

[thewaterboy]

While I'm not naive enough to expect 3 or 4 teams in the OAC to push Mount hard each year I also don't think it's outrageous to expect a few of them to at least make Mount play their starters into the 4th qtr.  We expect the starters to be out early against Musky, but VK shouldn't be benching the starters at halftime against ONU or Ott or whoever we put in that 2nd tier at the moment.  And yes, I'm already assuming the starters will play sparingly if at all in the 2nd half at Ott Saturday.

The answer to this question is "probably not," but do you think its concerning to Mount fans that the 1st string has yet to play a complete game? Just wondering.

[jknezek]

The answer to this question is "probably not," but do you think its concerning to Mount fans that the 1st string has yet to play a complete game? Just wondering.

It hasn't really mattered in the past. Other than playoffs, UMU had 1 game last year that ended inside one score, 3 games total inside 14 points. In 2012 UMU had only a single playoff game inside 14 points. In 2011 there were 2 regular season games inside 14 points. 2010 there was 1 regular season game inside 14 points.

UMU has thrived regardless of how deep the starters have played.

[emma17]

Purplesuit and MUC-
I haven't scoured the boards to find the posters that are ripping Mt for playing a soft schedule, so I can't speak to what you might have read.

I personally have posted about the OAC, but not from the perspective that Mt's success should somehow be discredited.  My thought entirely is that for the quality of the experience for all involved, I hope that the OAC bottom- mid level teams improve dramatically.  I don't hope for the OAC to improve so that Mt gets beat, I just want a more rewarding experience for the players and fans.     

I don't think for a second that Mt runs the score up or that Mt schedules cupcakes in the one non-con game they have a choice to schedule.  To Mt's credit, they have done a great service to D3- scheduling teams like UWW, UW Oshkosh, St John Fisher, Franklin, etc. in the past- knowing full well these programs were trying to learn from the experience in order to some day beat Mt. 

Mt needn't apologize for its success.  That said, I think it's perfectly fine for college football fans to root for the improvement of weaker teams- no matter what conference they are in.  I don't want UW Eau Claire to be winless (I do think you might want to show them some respect given they've lost to St. Thomas, St. John's, Wheaton, UW Platteville, UW Stevens Point and UWW) and I don't want the game with them to be a blow-out.  I hope they become a good team soon.   
 

[rscl70]

I may be in the minority here, but I thought Heidelberg was as good as most of the playoff teams we have seen at Mount since 1993 (I said most, not all).  I'm confident that JCU will be a very tough opponent come Nov. 15.  So, the OAC, IMO, has three playoff caliber teams.  Most likely only two will get in.

As for the rest of the conference, ONU alway disappoints.  I can see no reason they should not be a contender every year, yet they aren't.  The rest of the conference is competative with each other, if not with the top three (which I guess means nothing). 

Anyway, I think there are three good teams in the OAC right now, and if Mount breezes by them it is a credit to Mount, not a downgrading of the others.

[Dr. Acula]

I made the point on another thread that having watched Mount's games against both teams I thought Berg was pretty comparable to Witt last year.  Witt won the NCAC and a playoff game, so no slouch there.  That's in no way saying Berg would have won the NCAC.  Just saying the two teams seemed about even to me.

The problem, as someone mentioned, is that the OAC runner-up has been tripped up in Round 1 recently.  JCU needs to make some noise this year to put some shine back on the OAC name.

[wally_wabash]

While I'm not naive enough to expect 3 or 4 teams in the OAC to push Mount hard each year I also don't think it's outrageous to expect a few of them to at least make Mount play their starters into the 4th qtr.  We expect the starters to be out early against Musky, but VK shouldn't be benching the starters at halftime against ONU or Ott or whoever we put in that 2nd tier at the moment.  And yes, I'm already assuming the starters will play sparingly if at all in the 2nd half at Ott Saturday.

Then, I don't know...don't?  I don't think anybody makes VK take his starters out at any particular point in a game.  That's a unilateral decision. 

I made the point on another thread that having watched Mount's games against both teams I thought Berg was pretty comparable to Witt last year.  Witt won the NCAC and a playoff game, so no slouch there.  That's in no way saying Berg would have won the NCAC.  Just saying the two teams seemed about even to me.

The problem, as someone mentioned, is that the OAC runner-up has been tripped up in Round 1 recently.  JCU needs to make some noise this year to put some shine back on the OAC name.

I don't think Heidelberg is good.  I mean, they know how and when to look good.  They've flat out piled on some really, really bad teams over the last three years.  But not many teams get an annual regular season shot at Mount Union and now they get a second crack annually at a great result against a strong John Carroll team and they faceplant.  That's my question- where's Cartel Brooks in these games?  Where's your best player when it matters?  And if the best teams on your schedule can take him out of the game, how good are you as a team if you have no plan B?  With all of that conference rival familiarity, the whole Mount Union aura can't have the same effect that it does on playoff teams playing the Raiders for the first time so Heidelberg shouldn't be intimidated out of the game like so many are.  There's a point at which all of these 50 and 60 and 70 point games against Alma and Capital and Wilmington stop being impressive.  Lots of decent teams in the region can pile on those teams.  Where are those big stat All-American dudes when the spotlight is on? 

[Sir Battlescars]

PurpleSuit et. al.

It's amazing that even though Mount Union is in such a "crappy" conference and is lucky to be there, they have the best playoff record in all of DIII. Eleven national championships makes me think they do pretty well against the best in DIII. The OAC may be "down" now, but hasn't always been so. Not too many years ago, it was believed that if the top four teams in the OAC each went to a different region in the playoffs, they would all meet in the national semifinals. Maybe would have never happened, but......?

Let's give credit where it's due. Go Raiders!

uhhh....

...it would probably be better for Mount to join a conference where half of the schools are unbeaten or one loss and the other half have not won more than a single game.  That conference sounds great! there would be  three teams that have a winning record overall.  The WIAC is sooooo tough, Wilma and Cap should aspire to be more like an Eau Claire or Stout.

This probably isn't even worth arguing, but the WIAC's records are a bit depressed by the type of teams they tend to schedule in nonconference play.  Give the OAC teams three nonconference games each and schedule the same way the WIAC teams do and they'd have the same kind of carnage below Mount, JCU, and maybe Heidelberg.  Who else in the OAC would win a nonconference game against St. John's, St. Thomas, UMHB, North Central, etc?  The teams at the bottom of the WIAC all played good teams.  Nobody in that league plays any layups just for the sake of going 3-0 in nonconference play.

UW-Oshkosh also is an outlier that introduces a little bias to your "only three teams have a winning record overall" statistics.  Is there really any doubt that UWO is better than your typical "3-4" Division III team?

I'm sure the bottom of the OAC could schedule some MIAC teams and lose all the same.  I guess we could give a half of a win or something for losing to a good team, especially if its close.  The WIAC doesn't have many wins, but they lost to good teams.

Yeah, you're correct they lost to those good teams, and there's a difference between scheduling tough games and actually winning those tough games.  I'm certainly not saying that the WIAC is the Big Ten (although it might actually be better, given the current state of the Big Ten).  But I do think it's at least worth acknowledging that, given the same nonconference slate(s) throughout the conference, that deceiving "only three teams have a winning record overall" is probably how pretty much every D3 conference would look at this point in the season.

a tough non-conference schedule doesn't mean much if you don't get wins. I believe Pat has a saying about its not who you lose to that matters come playoff time.  I just find it amazing that around the boards, people are ripping Mount for their schedule and amount of blowouts, when it is pretty similar, if not stronger than the rest of the title contenders.  Is it better to play a couple of decent opponents (UWP UWSP), and the rest above junk or to play the best inter-conference game nationally (JCU), one above average (Berg), a couple above junk (ONU, Ott, BW) and the rest junk?  It seems like the boards (maybe voters?) are getting carried away debating our junk vs their junk.   

Purplesuit – I hate to tell you this, but your junk is unimpressive and nothing to brag about. 

[HSCTiger74]

PurpleSuit et. al.

It's amazing that even though Mount Union is in such a "crappy" conference and is lucky to be there, they have the best playoff record in all of DIII. Eleven national championships makes me think they do pretty well against the best in DIII. The OAC may be "down" now, but hasn't always been so. Not too many years ago, it was believed that if the top four teams in the OAC each went to a different region in the playoffs, they would all meet in the national semifinals. Maybe would have never happened, but......?

Let's give credit where it's due. Go Raiders!

uhhh....

...it would probably be better for Mount to join a conference where half of the schools are unbeaten or one loss and the other half have not won more than a single game.  That conference sounds great! there would be  three teams that have a winning record overall.  The WIAC is sooooo tough, Wilma and Cap should aspire to be more like an Eau Claire or Stout.

This probably isn't even worth arguing, but the WIAC's records are a bit depressed by the type of teams they tend to schedule in nonconference play.  Give the OAC teams three nonconference games each and schedule the same way the WIAC teams do and they'd have the same kind of carnage below Mount, JCU, and maybe Heidelberg.  Who else in the OAC would win a nonconference game against St. John's, St. Thomas, UMHB, North Central, etc?  The teams at the bottom of the WIAC all played good teams.  Nobody in that league plays any layups just for the sake of going 3-0 in nonconference play.

UW-Oshkosh also is an outlier that introduces a little bias to your "only three teams have a winning record overall" statistics.  Is there really any doubt that UWO is better than your typical "3-4" Division III team?

I'm sure the bottom of the OAC could schedule some MIAC teams and lose all the same.  I guess we could give a half of a win or something for losing to a good team, especially if its close.  The WIAC doesn't have many wins, but they lost to good teams.

Yeah, you're correct they lost to those good teams, and there's a difference between scheduling tough games and actually winning those tough games.  I'm certainly not saying that the WIAC is the Big Ten (although it might actually be better, given the current state of the Big Ten).  But I do think it's at least worth acknowledging that, given the same nonconference slate(s) throughout the conference, that deceiving "only three teams have a winning record overall" is probably how pretty much every D3 conference would look at this point in the season.

a tough non-conference schedule doesn't mean much if you don't get wins. I believe Pat has a saying about its not who you lose to that matters come playoff time.  I just find it amazing that around the boards, people are ripping Mount for their schedule and amount of blowouts, when it is pretty similar, if not stronger than the rest of the title contenders.  Is it better to play a couple of decent opponents (UWP UWSP), and the rest above junk or to play the best inter-conference game nationally (JCU), one above average (Berg), a couple above junk (ONU, Ott, BW) and the rest junk?  It seems like the boards (maybe voters?) are getting carried away debating our junk vs their junk.   

Purplesuit – I hate to tell you this, but your junk is unimpressive and nothing to brag about. 

Paging Michael Scott ... that was your cue.

[wabashcpa]

Purplesuit and MUC-
I haven't scoured the boards to find the posters that are ripping Mt for playing a soft schedule, so I can't speak to what you might have read.

I personally have posted about the OAC, but not from the perspective that Mt's success should somehow be discredited.  My thought entirely is that for the quality of the experience for all involved, I hope that the OAC bottom- mid level teams improve dramatically.  I don't hope for the OAC to improve so that Mt gets beat, I just want a more rewarding experience for the players and fans.     

I don't think for a second that Mt runs the score up or that Mt schedules cupcakes in the one non-con game they have a choice to schedule.  To Mt's credit, they have done a great service to D3- scheduling teams like UWW, UW Oshkosh, St John Fisher, Franklin, etc. in the past- knowing full well these programs were trying to learn from the experience in order to some day beat Mt. 

Mt needn't apologize for its success.  That said, I think it's perfectly fine for college football fans to root for the improvement of weaker teams- no matter what conference they are in.  I don't want UW Eau Claire to be winless (I do think you might want to show them some respect given they've lost to St. Thomas, St. John's, Wheaton, UW Platteville, UW Stevens Point and UWW) and I don't want the game with them to be a blow-out.  I hope they become a good team soon.   

Also my hope for the NCAC for years - for every team that starts to show a pulse (DePauw, Ohio Wesleyan, Hiram (!), you have a team take a dump (Kenyon, Oberlin, Allegheny).  More depth in the middle for a change this year, so hopefully trending upward as a conference, but both of our conferences need more competitve bottom halves.

[mr_mom]

Spreads for Week #9 have been posted. 

All in all, it looks like a bad day to be a home team.

Let's all practice safe selects.

[Dr. Acula]

Then, I don't know...don't?  I don't think anybody makes VK take his starters out at any particular point in a game.  That's a unilateral decision. 

Yes, technically it is a unilateral decision, but at some point sportsmanship and respect for your conference mates forces you to sit your starters don't you think?  They would have put 73 on the board by half Saturday if they didn't actively keep themselves from scoring.  I expect that against the bottom teams.  My point was that it shouldn't be the case against the 3rd, 4th, 5th best teams too.

I don't think Heidelberg is good.  I mean, they know how and when to look good.  They've flat out piled on some really, really bad teams over the last three years.  But not many teams get an annual regular season shot at Mount Union and now they get a second crack annually at a great result against a strong John Carroll team and they faceplant.  That's my question- where's Cartel Brooks in these games?  Where's your best player when it matters?  And if the best teams on your schedule can take him out of the game, how good are you as a team if you have no plan B?  With all of that conference rival familiarity, the whole Mount Union aura can't have the same effect that it does on playoff teams playing the Raiders for the first time so Heidelberg shouldn't be intimidated out of the game like so many are.  There's a point at which all of these 50 and 60 and 70 point games against Alma and Capital and Wilmington stop being impressive.  Lots of decent teams in the region can pile on those teams.  Where are those big stat All-American dudes when the spotlight is on?

I guess it depends on your definition of good?  They're definitely not good enough to play with Mount or JCU, but how many teams are?  So are we saying they're not a top 15 team?  Because you're definitely not getting an argument there! 

The Brooks issue is troubling for Berg fans I'm sure.  He has been AWOL all 4 games against Mount/JCU.  His other big stage chance against Witt in the playoffs he was injured and didn't play save for a couple carries to test out his leg.  No big game redemption there either. 

   
   

[wally_wabash]

Then, I don't know...don't?  I don't think anybody makes VK take his starters out at any particular point in a game.  That's a unilateral decision. 

Yes, technically it is a unilateral decision, but at some point sportsmanship and respect for your conference mates forces you to sit your starters don't you think?  They would have put 73 on the board by half Saturday if they didn't actively keep themselves from scoring.  I expect that against the bottom teams.  My point was that it shouldn't be the case against the 3rd, 4th, 5th best teams too.

Then your 3rd, 4th, and 5th place teams need to get better.  I'm not one of these guys that is tired of seeing Mount Union thrash everybody and win all the time.  It isn't up to Mount Union to be nice to everybody.  It's up to everybody else to get better. 

To the point of etiquette, I don't think anybody is under any obligation to sit their starters prior to halftime in any game ever.  If that means Mount Union scores 80 in the first half, so be it.  This is a game played by young men and coached by grown ass men.  If you can't live with a team competing for 30 minutes- regardless of outcome-  then you probably need to dial it back a few levels.  And in Mount Union's case in particular, if Coach Kehres believes that it's detrimental to the team goals (presumably winning the OAC, then winning the national championship) to withhold those snaps from his top line guys, then he should keep playing them until he's satisfied they got the work they need.  Coach Kehres has to look out for number 1 first, the feelings of Muskingum's players second (distant second). 

[section13raiderfan]

Just for instance, say Wilmington were to admit that they were in over their heads in the OAC. Where do you believe they would better fit into another conference? Keeping in mind travel costs and such. What is another viable option? They are kinda remote arent they? And on the other side of the argument, as some are always wishing.... if Mount Union were to go looking for another conference for some reason, where would that conference be?  Then, who might be the teams willing to step into their voids? Would the replacements strenthen the respective conferences or weaken them in the long run? If Mount Union left the OAC I bet it wouldnt be too hard to find applicants.    What conferences would welcome the ex OAC'ers? 

[Dr. Acula]

I agree 100%.  You're preaching to the choir here, Wally!  I've been beating that drum for a while now for BW/ONU to step back up and put some high caliber squads on the field again.  With their facilities and location they should be better.

For the record, Mount rarely pulls the starters before halftime.  That's the exception rather than the rule.