FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[raiderfan1983]

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.

Don't know the guy personally, obviously... but Easterbrook comes off as the type that would be horribly offended that you left that pretentious second G off the end of his first name.

[hazzben]

The other thing I'd note, people on here are complaining about this (and Gregg Eastertool), but are the other OAC teams? It's a man's game.

Don't know the guy personally, obviously... but Easterbrook comes off as the type that would be horribly offended that you left that pretentious second G off the end of his first name.

There, fixed it 

[BoBo]

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.

So, you are saying Mount doesn't travel with a back-up QB, no? That would be highly unsual I would think. I would think most might take 3 QB's on away games, regardless of any travel restrictions.

However, I read on this board some time ago that Mount doesn't have travel restrictions on the numbers they can suit up on road games, explained like 'pack'em a ham sandwich and give'em a seat on a bus!' I heard they take as many as the buses they want to take hold. Has that changed?

[Dr. Acula]

Well they have to take at least the back up QB since he starts at WR.   

[Raider 68]

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.

So, you are saying Mount doesn't travel with a back-up QB, no? That would be highly unsual I would think. I would think most might take 3 QB's on away games, regardless of any travel restrictions.

However, I read on this board some time ago that Mount doesn't have travel restrictions on the numbers they can suit up on road games, explained like 'pack'em a ham sandwich and give'em a seat on a bus!' I heard they take as many as the buses they want to take hold. Has that changed?

BoBo,

The Raiders and the other OAC teams are limited to the number of players they can take on away games. I think the number is 55, but I am sure HScoach knows for sure.

[Dr. Acula]

Are you sure, 68?  That would seem unfair to limit the visitor to 55 when the home team can dress unlimited players.  Plus it sure looked like Mount had north of 55 at Musky and Cap.

[Raider 68]

Are you sure, 68?  That would seem unfair to limit the visitor to 55 when the home team can dress unlimited players.  Plus it sure looked like Mount had north of 55 at Musky and Cap.

Dr. Acula,

No I am not sure exactly, but I do know they have limitations, so the number could be 60 or so.

[Raider 68]

They was considerable discussion some weeks ago as to whether the Raider defense was better this year 2014 vs. 2013.
Until the season does conclude, here is what we do know:

2013- Regular season points allowed in 10 games- 123  points or 12.3 per game

2013 - Playoffs 192 allowed over 5 games or 38.5 points per game with a high of 59 against the Raider D by Wesley

2013- Yards given up 293 yards/per game over 15 games, 213 - pass, 80- run


2014 - Regular season through seven games 44 points 6.3 per game

2014- Yards given up 182 per game over 7 games, 104- pass, 78 - run.

At this time thus far, the 2014 defense is better and we'll  see if the trend  is a predictor for the balance of the season and the
playoffs.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Are you sure, 68?  That would seem unfair to limit the visitor to 55 when the home team can dress unlimited players.  Plus it sure looked like Mount had north of 55 at Musky and Cap.

Can't speak to the OAC, but when I was on school the UAA had a 55-player limit for conference road games.

We discussed this once, if not in this thread then elsewhere on this forum. The benefits of letting the home team dress everyone far outweigh the competitive imbalance of limiting a road team to 55 guys. How many teams REALLY play more than 55 guys in close/meaningful minutes? That's enough for two full units plus a handful of specialists an a few wildcards (fifth WR, third TE, etc). Player #56 is rarely going to be the difference between winning and losing.

[formerd3db]

Are you sure, 68?  That would seem unfair to limit the visitor to 55 when the home team can dress unlimited players.  Plus it sure looked like Mount had north of 55 at Musky and Cap.

Dr. Acula,

No I am not sure exactly, but I do know they have limitations, so the number could be 60 or so.

Are you sure, 68?  That would seem unfair to limit the visitor to 55 when the home team can dress unlimited players.  Plus it sure looked like Mount had north of 55 at Musky and Cap.

Can't speak to the OAC, but when I was on school the UAA had a 55-player limit for conference road games.

We discussed this once, if not in this thread then elsewhere on this forum. The benefits of letting the home team dress everyone far outweigh the competitive imbalance of limiting a road team to 55 guys. How many teams REALLY play more than 55 guys in close/meaningful minutes? That's enough for two full units plus a handful of specialists an a few wildcards (fifth WR, third TE, etc). Player #56 is rarely going to be the difference between winning and losing.

Are you sure, 68?  That would seem unfair to limit the visitor to 55 when the home team can dress unlimited players.  Plus it sure looked like Mount had north of 55 at Musky and Cap.

Some additional random thoughts on this general topic:

Some conferences have a league rule for travel roster limitations while in other situations it is up to the individual schools.  Regardless, the reason is obviously a result of attempting to keep costs down.  Yet, ETP makes a legit point that the last tier reserve players will usually not be the difference, although if a certain position is short in numbers due to injuries, sometimes that could be a challenge.

The previous discussions on this topic in past years as mentioned have been interesting.  I recall back in the 1990's when I learned that the NCAA had limitations on the playoff rosters and especially for the Stagg Bowl, I was told by the then NCAA president (and his deputy) that the reason was due to attempting to keep the congestion down on the sidelines because there were too many other people, reporters, television people, media, photographers, etc., etc. on the sidelines.   This, IMO, was the biggest b.s. excuse ever because that isn't any different as far as the number of other people on the sidelines for the FBS bowl games so it was not really a legit point.  My reply was that while it certainly is true that most of the extra players would not see any game action, at the same time, if they and/or their parents and/or the school wanted to pay the extra costs for them to be there as it is usually a once-in-a-lifetime experience, then allow it as it certainly would not cause any more "congestion" on the sidelines than at the DI level games (remember that the NCAA pays for everyone up to their 60 or so person limit (includes the 53 players, 20 coaches, staff, medical staff and administrators as I recall).  Of course, they didn't "buy"/pay any heed to my reasoning.    

[Dr. Acula]

If there's a travel limit it must be like 100.  79 guys played at Musky.  Not traveled, played.  67 played at Cap and 66 at ONU.  And assuming the guys listed in the box score as not participating were there it puts them around 100 total for each road game.   

[bleedpurple]

As far as I know, neither Mount nor UW-W have any sort of reputation for running up the score within the ranks of people who actually follow D-III football.  Any anecdotal evidence someone may point to is easily counterbalanced by the simple fact that a Head Coach has to do what he thinks is best for his football team.  I can't imagine anyone on the Mount Union or UW-W staff feeling the need to run up a score. Their records speak for themselves.

Easterbrook's comments are just plain offensive.  So few national commentators even bother to look into D-III football.  Apparently he is one of them.  The difference is that others don't comment on it (although some well informed commentary would be refreshing).  Easterbrook knows that his audience doesn't know that much about D-III.  So he capitalizes on that by making up his own storyline and slurring Mount in the process.  Maybe I'm the only one, but I actually believe that's kind of a serious issue.  I sort of wish Mount's administration would issue a complaint with Easterbrook's employer or even appeal to the NCAA to step in on Mount's behalf.

[raiderpa]

Easterbrooke is protected by his Constitutional amendment rights and trying to quiet him would, most likely, backfire and provide him even more ammunition to fire at Mount.  The fact is that he is a dwarf among sports writers and apparently believes that spewing his harsh words and opinions really mean something and make him legitimate.  The fact that we discuss him probably gives him a weird sense of importance that he cannot get in his regular reporting because he basically is pedestrian in his field.

[BoBo]

As far as I know, neither Mount nor UW-W have any sort of reputation for running up the score within the ranks of people who actually follow D-III football.  Any anecdotal evidence someone may point to is easily counterbalanced by the simple fact that a Head Coach has to do what he thinks is best for his football team.  I can't imagine anyone on the Mount Union or UW-W staff feeling the need to run up a score. Their records speak for themselves.

Easterbrook's comments are just plain offensive.  So few national commentators even bother to look into D-III football.  Apparently he is one of them.  The difference is that others don't comment on it (although some well informed commentary would be refreshing).  Easterbrook knows that his audience doesn't know that much about D-III.  So he capitalizes on that by making up his own storyline and slurring Mount in the process.  Maybe I'm the only one, but I actually believe that's kind of a serious issue.  I sort of wish Mount's administration would issue a complaint with Easterbrook's employer or even appeal to the NCAA to step in on Mount's behalf.

That's hilarious stuff, bleed? Are you serious? That would be real funny asking the NCAA to fight Mount's battles or the battles of a few posters on this forum who don't likes the opinions of some schmuck. Mount would become the new laughing stock of DIII football. It's the occupational hazard of winning by blowouts week after week, year after year, but it isn't worth censorship.

[jknezek]

I tend to like Easterbrook's column. Most weeks it's an entertaining mix of football, pop culture, science, and other things. It's worth a read. I did get annoyed by his wrong comment this week, and a few others he's made over the years. But that goes for just about every columnist I've ever read. Occasionally I send columnists an email detailing mistakes or misconceptions. I've only gotten something back once, and it wasn't from Easterbrook. All that being said, it's not a big deal. I did fire off another email after this week's column, but it isn't the end of the world. If you don't like it, stop reading him. For the most part, that one occasional paragraph about D3 in his columns isn't going to do much damage to people's perceptions. In fact, most people simply don't, and won't, care, regardless of what he writes about D3...