FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[wabashcpa]

Wilmington in the HCAC would be a better football fit, not sure about overall fit.  Had to be a reason they left the HCAC in the first place.

[Dr. Acula]

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?

Logic would probably say their first call would probably be to the HCAC to see if they could go back there.  I don't know the back story as to why they left the HCAC though so maybe not.  I would be shocked if anyone leaves the OAC though.  10 schools is a good number and there aren't many options elsewhere as far as conferences go. 

[pradierguy]

It is something of a double edged sword. I hate seeing Kevin Burke play half of one quarter in one of the last starts we get the pleasure of watching. At the same time, it's great to see David Burkes get some game experience, even if it is against Wilmy and Mount isn't trying to score in bunches.

[ExTartanPlayer]

It is something of a double edged sword. I hate seeing Kevin Burke play half of one quarter in one of the last starts we get the pleasure of watching. At the same time, it's great to see David Burkes get some game experience, even if it is against Wilmy and Mount isn't trying to score in bunches.

Just to set the record straight on something: I've seen it mentioned a few places that Mount's starters only played "half of one quarter" or that they were pulled with 9 minutes remaining in the first quarter. This does not appear to be true, per the box score, although I was not at the game...given that Kevin Burke threw a TD pass to Taurice Scott in the second quarter.

Sure, Mount took their foot off the gas WAY early and did everything possible to keep the score down; I'm not accusing Mount of anything unsportsmanlike, they're the epitome of winning big with class from what I can see.  I know it's possible - I played in a HS game against a first year program when we actually DID remove the starters with a 28-0 lead halfway through the first quarter - but it looks like the starters at least played into the second against Wilm. Or at least the offensive starters did.

Personally, I'm of the mind that

1) pretty much anything goes until halftime. Playing the starters for 30 minutes is well within reason, even if the score creeps up to 70-0. I'd feel a little differently in youth football or even high school, but in college, everyone should be a big enough boy to handle that.

2) with that said, if it's obviously lopsided, one need not go out of the way to run it up further. Going up 56-0 by beating the pants off a team is one thing; doing it with fake punts or onside kicks would be another.

3) I'm also ok with letting the second stringers run the "regular offense" for at least a series or two. I know that the best way to get the game over and keep a score down is fullback dives every play and bleeding the clock, and with 3 minutes left in a blowout I think that's how it ought to go, but if the second stringers come in with a 50-point lead in the third quarter and throw a few passes to get the backup QB some work, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

[Desertraider]

It is something of a double edged sword. I hate seeing Kevin Burke play half of one quarter in one of the last starts we get the pleasure of watching. At the same time, it's great to see David Burkes get some game experience, even if it is against Wilmy and Mount isn't trying to score in bunches.

Just to set the record straight on something: I've seen it mentioned a few places that Mount's starters only played "half of one quarter" or that they were pulled with 9 minutes remaining in the first quarter. This does not appear to be true, per the box score, although I was not at the game...given that Kevin Burke threw a TD pass to Taurice Scott in the second quarter.

Sure, Mount took their foot off the gas WAY early and did everything possible to keep the score down; I'm not accusing Mount of anything unsportsmanlike, they're the epitome of winning big with class from what I can see.  I know it's possible - I played in a HS game against a first year program when we actually DID remove the starters with a 28-0 lead halfway through the first quarter - but it looks like the starters at least played into the second against Wilm. Or at least the offensive starters did.

Personally, I'm of the mind that

1) pretty much anything goes until halftime. Playing the starters for 30 minutes is well within reason, even if the score creeps up to 70-0. I'd feel a little differently in youth football or even high school, but in college, everyone should be a big enough boy to handle that.

2) with that said, if it's obviously lopsided, one need not go out of the way to run it up further. Going up 56-0 by beating the pants off a team is one thing; doing it with fake punts or onside kicks would be another.

3) I'm also ok with letting the second stringers run the "regular offense" for at least a series or two. I know that the best way to get the game over and keep a score down is fullback dives every play and bleeding the clock, and with 3 minutes left in a blowout I think that's how it ought to go, but if the second stringers come in with a 50-point lead in the third quarter and throw a few passes to get the backup QB some work, I'm not losing any sleep over it.

Kevin Burke played one series in the 2nd qtr. The 1st qtr closed with Mount at Wilmas 30. Mount ran 2 plays and kicked a FG 21 seconds into 2nd qtr. Burke then played one full series when Mount got the ball back. Granted not "half a quarter" but not much more than that either.

I was checking the box score and saw that Mount kicked a FG on 1st down at the 1 yd line after an interception return. Must have missed that during the game. Wonder if Easterbrook took note?

[Desertraider]

I just went over and read TMQ. Easterbrooke took notice of three on Mounts FG attempts. Granted it reads like he is almost taking credit for a turn to good sportsmanship. 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/TMQWeekEight1410228/factoring-academics-college-football-playoff-tuesday-morning-quarterback

[Dr. Acula]

"Sportsmanship Watch: TMQ has taken more than one shot at Mount Union, the Division III powerhouse prone to running up the score on regional opponents that don't recruit. That makes me pleased to relate that Saturday, Mount Union showed good sportsmanship."

These teams don't recruit?  I was unaware of this.  No wonder Mount wins by so much.  Thankfully Easterbrook shed light on that huge advantage!  What a tool.  Haha.

[ExTartanPlayer]

"Sportsmanship Watch: TMQ has taken more than one shot at Mount Union, the Division III powerhouse prone to running up the score on regional opponents that don't recruit. That makes me pleased to relate that Saturday, Mount Union showed good sportsmanship."

These teams don't recruit?  I was unaware of this.  No wonder Mount wins by so much.  Thankfully Easterbrook shed light on that huge advantage!  What a tool.  Haha.

Ugh.

*Edited to add: I have emailed Easterbrook a few times on Mount Union's behalf to explain that in all of those prior cases when he's taken Mount to task for winning by 60, they've been doing this same thing (kicking FG's on first down, etc).  He's always ignored it.  Now it pisses me off to see him STILL twisting the facts by insterting that douchey comment that big bad Mount Union is doing this against "regional opponents that don't recruit" which makes no sense.

Just ugh.

[retagent]

Just saw Gone Girl today, and was impressed  with the performance of the actress who played Ben Afleck's character's sister. Found out she's a Mt Union grad - Carrie Coon. Among a number of good jobs, in a good movie, she may have been the best. Not sure how this relates to football, but figured I'd weigh in anyhow.

[bceagle80]

51-14 win is what I saw somewhere. bceagle can confirm though.

Yes. The score was 51-14 win for the JV against DII Ashland University. I give Ashland credit for scheduling Mount Union at the JV level. My son did play and it sounded like he did well when he was in.

[BoBo]

"Sportsmanship Watch: TMQ has taken more than one shot at Mount Union, the Division III powerhouse prone to running up the score on regional opponents that don't recruit. That makes me pleased to relate that Saturday, Mount Union showed good sportsmanship."

These teams don't recruit?  I was unaware of this.  No wonder Mount wins by so much.  Thankfully Easterbrook shed light on that huge advantage!  What a tool.  Haha.

Ugh.

*Edited to add: I have emailed Easterbrook a few times on Mount Union's behalf to explain that in all of those prior cases when he's taken Mount to task for winning by 60, they've been doing this same thing (kicking FG's on first down, etc).  He's always ignored it.  Now it pisses me off to see him STILL twisting the facts by insterting that douchey comment that big bad Mount Union is doing this against "regional opponents that don't recruit" which makes no sense.

Just ugh.

I made a note of something following the first game of the year for Mount and UWW...I thought it was interesting and worth noting, but due to unforeseen circumstances never posted it. Considering the current topic, I decided to revisit the issue. Both Mount and UWW had basically cakewalks in their respective first games, 58-7 for Mount and 73-7 for UWW. Both games were essentially over by the end of 1 quarter - Mount led 21-0, while UWW was at 28-0. A major difference was in starting QB's numbers: Burke stat line 23-34, 411 yards, 3 TD, including a TD pass early in 3rd quarter; Behrendt stat line 4-5  35yds 1TD on first possession of game. Burke took 87% (73 of 84) of Mounts offensive snaps; Behrendt, 18% (12-67) of UWW's offensive snaps. It's only one game, but I was shocked comparing Behrendt's participation in UWW's blowout win compared to Burke's participation in Mounts blowout win. Couldn't help but wonder why Mount would leave their top dog in the game that long, risking injury or whatever, when it didn't matter in any way, shape, or form? I haven't examined the other games, but my gut tells me I would find similar results.  Not trying to insinuate anything, just putting it out there as food for thought.

[pradierguy]

"Sportsmanship Watch: TMQ has taken more than one shot at Mount Union, the Division III powerhouse prone to running up the score on regional opponents that don't recruit. That makes me pleased to relate that Saturday, Mount Union showed good sportsmanship."

These teams don't recruit?  I was unaware of this.  No wonder Mount wins by so much.  Thankfully Easterbrook shed light on that huge advantage!  What a tool.  Haha.

Ugh.

*Edited to add: I have emailed Easterbrook a few times on Mount Union's behalf to explain that in all of those prior cases when he's taken Mount to task for winning by 60, they've been doing this same thing (kicking FG's on first down, etc).  He's always ignored it.  Now it pisses me off to see him STILL twisting the facts by insterting that douchey comment that big bad Mount Union is doing this against "regional opponents that don't recruit" which makes no sense.

Just ugh.

I made a note of something following the first game of the year for Mount and UWW...I thought it was interesting and worth noting, but due to unforeseen circumstances never posted it. Considering the current topic, I decided to revisit the issue. Both Mount and UWW had basically cakewalks in their respective first games, 58-7 for Mount and 73-7 for UWW. Both games were essentially over by the end of 1 quarter - Mount led 21-0, while UWW was at 28-0. A major difference was in starting QB's numbers: Burke stat line 23-34, 411 yards, 3 TD, including a TD pass early in 3rd quarter; Behrendt stat line 4-5  35yds 1TD on first possession of game. Burke took 87% (73 of 84) of Mounts offensive snaps; Behrendt, 18% (12-67) of UWW's offensive snaps. It's only one game, but I was shocked comparing Behrendt's participation in UWW's blowout win compared to Burke's participation in Mounts blowout win. Couldn't help but wonder why Mount would leave their top dog in the game that long, risking injury or whatever, when it didn't matter in any way, shape, or form? I haven't examined the other games, but my gut tells me I would find similar results.  Not trying to insinuate anything, just putting it out there as food for thought.

Since we can speak to the other games, my thoughts for those stats for opening weekend would be:

Mount was coming off a blowout loss in the Stagg Bowl. Worst loss the program has seen in decades.

UWW was coming off a blowout win in the Stagg Bowl. Best win in the program has seen in decades.

[ExTartanPlayer]

"Sportsmanship Watch: TMQ has taken more than one shot at Mount Union, the Division III powerhouse prone to running up the score on regional opponents that don't recruit. That makes me pleased to relate that Saturday, Mount Union showed good sportsmanship."

These teams don't recruit?  I was unaware of this.  No wonder Mount wins by so much.  Thankfully Easterbrook shed light on that huge advantage!  What a tool.  Haha.

Ugh.

*Edited to add: I have emailed Easterbrook a few times on Mount Union's behalf to explain that in all of those prior cases when he's taken Mount to task for winning by 60, they've been doing this same thing (kicking FG's on first down, etc).  He's always ignored it.  Now it pisses me off to see him STILL twisting the facts by insterting that douchey comment that big bad Mount Union is doing this against "regional opponents that don't recruit" which makes no sense.

Just ugh.

I made a note of something following the first game of the year for Mount and UWW...I thought it was interesting and worth noting, but due to unforeseen circumstances never posted it. Considering the current topic, I decided to revisit the issue. Both Mount and UWW had basically cakewalks in their respective first games, 58-7 for Mount and 73-7 for UWW. Both games were essentially over by the end of 1 quarter - Mount led 21-0, while UWW was at 28-0. A major difference was in starting QB's numbers: Burke stat line 23-34, 411 yards, 3 TD, including a TD pass early in 3rd quarter; Behrendt stat line 4-5  35yds 1TD on first possession of game. Burke took 87% (73 of 84) of Mounts offensive snaps; Behrendt, 18% (12-67) of UWW's offensive snaps. It's only one game, but I was shocked comparing Behrendt's participation in UWW's blowout win compared to Burke's participation in Mounts blowout win. Couldn't help but wonder why Mount would leave their top dog in the game that long, risking injury or whatever, when it didn't matter in any way, shape, or form? I haven't examined the other games, but my gut tells me I would find similar results.  Not trying to insinuate anything, just putting it out there as food for thought.

I think that's 1) the stylistic nature of the two teams and 2) the fact that not all blowouts are created equal, even with similar final margins of victory. 

It might seem laughable to suggest that Bethany could have come back and seriously threatened to win that game, but they had just come up with a turnover and quick score to make it 38-7.  Perhaps the Mount coaches wanted the first-string offense to finish on a good possession instead of what happened on the first drive of the second half (a sack/fumble followed by a Bethany touchdown), or perhaps they just wanted to make sure they avoided the potentially-awkward situation of Bethany scoring once more and possibly having to put the starters back into the game.  I'd much rather leave the starters in one series too long and secure the win rather than pull them one series too early to the point where the game gets close...

Related tangent: my HS and their rival (both 9-0) are coached by grizzled veterans who display very good sportsmanship.  Both teams have played a string of blowout wins this season (their stats read like a bad video game: the QB's have thrown 13 TD's on 54 pass attempts and 19 TD's on 72 pass attempts, respectively; neither team has played the starters into the fourth quarter yet) leading up to the season-ending showdown.  However, our rival did have one wacky game in which they led 41-0 at halftime, triggering the "mercy rule" for the second half, and thus they did not play the starters at all after halftime.  The other team (currently 2-7, not exactly one thought to pose much of a threat) scored 34 points against the backups for a final of 48-34.  The poor coach was probably on the cusp of needing to put his now-very-cold starters back into the game to secure the win.

I don't really think such a scenario was likely for Mount, of course, but the point is that not all 50-point wins happen quite evenly.  The Wilmington game for Mount is probably a better analog to UWW's Waldorf game; in that one, Burke threw 12 passes, the last of which game with 13:09 remaining in the second quarter.

For really good teams, there will always be a balance between "getting the starters enough work, running your regular offense, and securing the victory" vs. "minimizing risk/exposure and keeping the score down." 

[Pat Coleman]

Super important detail that also has bearing on this: Mount Union's first game was on the road, where they had fewer players suited up than UW-Whitewater did for its first game at home.

[hazzben]

I made a note of something following the first game of the year for Mount and UWW...I thought it was interesting and worth noting, but due to unforeseen circumstances never posted it. Considering the current topic, I decided to revisit the issue. Both Mount and UWW had basically cakewalks in their respective first games, 58-7 for Mount and 73-7 for UWW. Both games were essentially over by the end of 1 quarter - Mount led 21-0, while UWW was at 28-0. A major difference was in starting QB's numbers: Burke stat line 23-34, 411 yards, 3 TD, including a TD pass early in 3rd quarter; Behrendt stat line 4-5  35yds 1TD on first possession of game. Burke took 87% (73 of 84) of Mounts offensive snaps; Behrendt, 18% (12-67) of UWW's offensive snaps. It's only one game, but I was shocked comparing Behrendt's participation in UWW's blowout win compared to Burke's participation in Mounts blowout win. Couldn't help but wonder why Mount would leave their top dog in the game that long, risking injury or whatever, when it didn't matter in any way, shape, or form? I haven't examined the other games, but my gut tells me I would find similar results.  Not trying to insinuate anything, just putting it out there as food for thought.

I still go back to having every right to play with the pedal all the way down until halftime.

Obviously, you're making note that Burke played after the half as well. To which I say, meh.

It's the first game of the year. Regardless of how bad the opponent is, I completely understand Mount wanting to get stuff on film, work against live competition and see what they've got. It hurt Bethel against Wartburg this year, playing their first game against a very good team who had already played once. Talking with the coaches afterward, there were several things they found out about their team and would do (and are now doing) much differently with the game plan. They just didn't know this stuff until they'd gone live against another team. That's pretty common in a first game. SO I completely understand keeping starters in and doing as much as you can to get a feel for what this new team is like.

And I'd argue, it's a little different for Mount in the OAC than UWW in the WIAC. Whitewater knows they are going to get some stiff tests from the likes of  UWO, UWP, UWSP. And even the worst WIAC teams are light years ahead of the OAC cellar.

For Mount, they have to make sure their starters are getting sufficient, legit reps. Knowing JCU might be their only real test of the regular season definitely affects how they divvy up playing time against the other teams. Wally was right, job #1 is getting Mount up to speed and knocking the rust off.

The other thing I'd note, people on here are complaining about this (and Greg Eastertool), but are the other OAC teams? It's a man's game. I'm guessing the other coaches and players know this. From what I can tell, LK had a good rep in the league from other coaches (I know he did with Bethel's staff). They respected what he'd built and how he comported himself in games like this. VK hasn't shown me anything different.

And above all this, I'd argue for Burke, et al getting as many reps as they can. The end of their careers are rapidly approaching. There's no 'pick up football' at the local YMCA when they are done. The last time 99.9% of these guys take off their pads for Mount will be the last time they take off their pads period. Forget politically correct mercy, let these kids play and soak it up. I'd hate to think Burke or anyone else would ever have to look back with regret at a Sr. year in which they only got to throw 15 passes a game and didn't played after halftime in 85% of the games, simply because they were worried about hurting people feelings.