FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[USee]

This week All Conference awards will be determined. I think some of the top awards will be a no-brainer but I will be interested to see who they determine a few others.

I think Broc Rutter should be a unanimous choice for OPOY
Jeff Thorne is likely the strong favorite for COY
For DPOY it may be interesting. Usually the POY awards go to the conference champs. But Wheaton's defense was by far the most consistent and dominant unit in the league (and the nation-#4 ranked) against a very strong set  of offensive teams. I think the right choice is one of Wheaton's top 3 defenders (Pat O'Connell, Eric Stevenson, Tyler Sigler). I am sure NCC will argue for DJ Warkenthein from the #2 defense in the conference and IWU may try for Eric Dubose, who was  the most impactful player on the Titan defense.

The other battles that will be difficult discussions are at QB and WR. I can't remember a year with a deeper talent pool at those two spots, all deserving of 1st team accolades. Unfortunately, the usual stats that would earn you first team may well get you 2nd team or not mentioned.

Though I strong dislike the naming of mulitple players on the 2nd team, it's likely what we will see with as many as 4 QB's named all conference and 8 WR's.

From my view I like:

Broc Rutter, 1st team, OPOY
Brandon Bauer, 2nd team
Johnny Davidson/Curtis McWilliams, honorable mention (though we don't have HM in the CCIW)

WR:
Healy, IWU,1st team
Nichols, Wheaton, 1st Team
Kamienski, , NCC, 1st Team
Walsh, IWU,  2nd Team
Sfikas, NCC, 2nd team
Perry, Millikin, 2nd team

All of these WR are 1st team talents in my opinion.

There are going to be some tough choices.

[Gregory Sager]

All I know is that David Simmons of NPU led the NCAA -- not just D3, but the NCAA as a whole -- in blocked kicks this season. He had six of them, five on PAT attempts and one on a punt. There are a lot of good reasons to put Simmons on the All-CCIW team for the third time in his career, but that particular reason is very hard to get around.

[wally_wabash]

Just listened to the Chair on the podcast. Great job by Pat to try and pin him on the issues of how the North got ranked and the rationale against IWU.

That said, good Lord did he butcher the explanation on the North. It's really a huge step back when you say things like:

"...we lean on the RAC [to rank teams]. I wish I could see all 250 teams play...[we won't change it]as long as there is not major issues with the criteria they are putting up there. Teams are evaluated by the [North] committee members who are seeing them."

When pressed whether the fact that Wabash sat on the board so long was an indication the North RAC got it wrong he said:

"I don't think that's their job....the Regionally Ranked wins were all over the place and there was some cannibalization with teams playing each other. The regionally ranked wins were all over the place, there was some cannibalization with teams playing each other, It was about who did they beat, that was a big part of it. The losses that piled up cost them even though they were quality losses"

I think he's falling on his sword for the North RAC. Nice thing to do for the RAC members, but no justice for the broader system. I want the NC to be willing, when needed, to reach down into a RR and re-adjust when it's clearly out of wack. That's the only form of accountability these RAC's have. But he said they were essentially unwilling to do this when he went on the podcast a month ago. Basically if there was a strange ranking, they'd go back to the RAC and ask them to 'explain their rationale.' That's a far cry from sending it back to the RAC and saying, 'listen, you got this wrong and look out of step with the criteria. SOS, Win %, RRO, common opponenents, h2h, etc. are all criteria. You can't just cherry pick one category and list accordingly.'

The thing is that the rankings that the North RAC has put out in the last two seasons aren't outside of the criteria.  It seems like everybody outside of that particular conference call feels like they are doing a piss poor job of applying the criteria, but the rankings do fit the criteria they're given to work with.  Just not in the way that pretty much anybody else applies the criteria.  This is the probably the deal until there's some significant changeover in the makeup of that committee.  I'm not sure off the top of my head how long terms are for these volunteer committee gigs. 

FYI, here's the group:
Kris Diaz, co-chair Baldwin Wallace University Ohio Athletic Conference
Michael Schulist, co-chair Carroll University (Wisconsin) College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
Ron Planz Elmhurst College College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
Nick Johnson Earlham College Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference
Mike Duffy Adrian College Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association
Chris Monfiletto Kenyon College North Coast Athletic Conference
Dennis Miller Wisconsin Lutheran College Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference
Tim Doup Otterbein University Ohio Athletic Conference

CCIW has 25% representation here, plus half of the chair.  It's not like there isn't advocacy for this league's teams. 

[Gregory Sager]

David Simmons ended his career with 11 blocked kicks, two short of the D3 career record of 13 set by Frank Lyle of Millsaps in 1979-82. Six of them were PAT attempt blocks, three were FG attempt blocks, and two were punt blocks. One of his three FG attempt blocks was returned by another Viking 76 yards for a touchdown against Elmhurst three seasons ago, and his two punt blocks set up NPU at the 37 and 10 yard lines of their opponents, respectively, leading in both cases to North Park touchdowns. Simmons therefore prevented opponents from likely scoring fifteen points with his blocks (all three FG attempts were from pretty close distances), directly caused six points for NPU, and indirectly set up twelve more.

[USee]

Just listened to the Chair on the podcast. Great job by Pat to try and pin him on the issues of how the North got ranked and the rationale against IWU.

That said, good Lord did he butcher the explanation on the North. It's really a huge step back when you say things like:

"...we lean on the RAC [to rank teams]. I wish I could see all 250 teams play...[we won't change it]as long as there is not major issues with the criteria they are putting up there. Teams are evaluated by the [North] committee members who are seeing them."

When pressed whether the fact that Wabash sat on the board so long was an indication the North RAC got it wrong he said:

"I don't think that's their job....the Regionally Ranked wins were all over the place and there was some cannibalization with teams playing each other. The regionally ranked wins were all over the place, there was some cannibalization with teams playing each other, It was about who did they beat, that was a big part of it. The losses that piled up cost them even though they were quality losses"

I think he's falling on his sword for the North RAC. Nice thing to do for the RAC members, but no justice for the broader system. I want the NC to be willing, when needed, to reach down into a RR and re-adjust when it's clearly out of wack. That's the only form of accountability these RAC's have. But he said they were essentially unwilling to do this when he went on the podcast a month ago. Basically if there was a strange ranking, they'd go back to the RAC and ask them to 'explain their rationale.' That's a far cry from sending it back to the RAC and saying, 'listen, you got this wrong and look out of step with the criteria. SOS, Win %, RRO, common opponenents, h2h, etc. are all criteria. You can't just cherry pick one category and list accordingly.'

The thing is that the rankings that the North RAC has put out in the last two seasons aren't outside of the criteria.  It seems like everybody outside of that particular conference call feels like they are doing a piss poor job of applying the criteria, but the rankings do fit the criteria they're given to work with.  Just not in the way that pretty much anybody else applies the criteria.  This is the probably the deal until there's some significant changeover in the makeup of that committee.  I'm not sure off the top of my head how long terms are for these volunteer committee gigs. 

FYI, here's the group:
Kris Diaz, co-chair Baldwin Wallace University Ohio Athletic Conference
Michael Schulist, co-chair Carroll University (Wisconsin) College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
Ron Planz Elmhurst College College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
Nick Johnson Earlham College Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference
Mike Duffy Adrian College Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association
Chris Monfiletto Kenyon College North Coast Athletic Conference
Dennis Miller Wisconsin Lutheran College Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference
Tim Doup Otterbein University Ohio Athletic Conference

CCIW has 25% representation here, plus half of the chair.  It's not like there isn't advocacy for this league's teams.

Doesn't it seem like they are only applying 1 criteria or at least weighting that above all others? They clearly looked at the other criteria or they wouldn't have come up with NCC as #2 and JCU as #3 and undefeated Trine further down. So it seems they, at a minimum, inconsistently applied the criteria. Any way you look at it, if I am Norm Eash, I am scheduling Eureka or Benedictine for the foreseeable future.

[AndOne]

NCC has territorial dibs on Benedictine! 

[USee]

This season's results have overshadowed one of the better accomplishments we have seen in the CCIW in the past 15+ years. Wheaton's defense, ranked overall #5 nationally, put up some numbers  that have not been equaled in the CCIW in any time frame I can find.

CCIW Leading Totals (national rank)
90 total pts (5th)
9.0 ppg (5th)
2.0 yds per rush (13th)
66.2 rush yds per game (11th)
5.3 yds per pass (19th)
218 yds per game (5th)
3.6 yds per play (5th)
97.3 Dpass eff (22nd)
124 opp 1st downs (8th)
12.5% 4th down conversions (2nd)
21.3% 3rd down conversions (3rd)

They did all this in a year when the overall offenses in the CCIW were putting up record numbers. The total offense and scoring offense numbers are the highest our conference has seen in 15+ years. This makes this one of the more dominant defenses our conference has seen in the modern era. These are similar to MHB type numbers. Crazy good year for the Thunder defense.

[wally_wabash]

Just listened to the Chair on the podcast. Great job by Pat to try and pin him on the issues of how the North got ranked and the rationale against IWU.

That said, good Lord did he butcher the explanation on the North. It's really a huge step back when you say things like:

"...we lean on the RAC [to rank teams]. I wish I could see all 250 teams play...[we won't change it]as long as there is not major issues with the criteria they are putting up there. Teams are evaluated by the [North] committee members who are seeing them."

When pressed whether the fact that Wabash sat on the board so long was an indication the North RAC got it wrong he said:

"I don't think that's their job....the Regionally Ranked wins were all over the place and there was some cannibalization with teams playing each other. The regionally ranked wins were all over the place, there was some cannibalization with teams playing each other, It was about who did they beat, that was a big part of it. The losses that piled up cost them even though they were quality losses"

I think he's falling on his sword for the North RAC. Nice thing to do for the RAC members, but no justice for the broader system. I want the NC to be willing, when needed, to reach down into a RR and re-adjust when it's clearly out of wack. That's the only form of accountability these RAC's have. But he said they were essentially unwilling to do this when he went on the podcast a month ago. Basically if there was a strange ranking, they'd go back to the RAC and ask them to 'explain their rationale.' That's a far cry from sending it back to the RAC and saying, 'listen, you got this wrong and look out of step with the criteria. SOS, Win %, RRO, common opponenents, h2h, etc. are all criteria. You can't just cherry pick one category and list accordingly.'

The thing is that the rankings that the North RAC has put out in the last two seasons aren't outside of the criteria.  It seems like everybody outside of that particular conference call feels like they are doing a piss poor job of applying the criteria, but the rankings do fit the criteria they're given to work with.  Just not in the way that pretty much anybody else applies the criteria.  This is the probably the deal until there's some significant changeover in the makeup of that committee.  I'm not sure off the top of my head how long terms are for these volunteer committee gigs. 

FYI, here's the group:
Kris Diaz, co-chair Baldwin Wallace University Ohio Athletic Conference
Michael Schulist, co-chair Carroll University (Wisconsin) College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
Ron Planz Elmhurst College College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
Nick Johnson Earlham College Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference
Mike Duffy Adrian College Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association
Chris Monfiletto Kenyon College North Coast Athletic Conference
Dennis Miller Wisconsin Lutheran College Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference
Tim Doup Otterbein University Ohio Athletic Conference

CCIW has 25% representation here, plus half of the chair.  It's not like there isn't advocacy for this league's teams.

Doesn't it seem like they are only applying 1 criteria or at least weighting that above all others? They clearly looked at the other criteria or they wouldn't have come up with NCC as #2 and JCU as #3 and undefeated Trine further down. So it seems they, at a minimum, inconsistently applied the criteria. Any way you look at it, if I am Norm Eash, I am scheduling Eureka or Benedictine for the foreseeable future.

Norm Eash should probably have a candid conversation with his counterpart at Elmhurst about why those rankings look the way they look.   

Of course, in two seasons you could have six new voices on this committee and the way they rank teams will likely be completely different.  The way to get in to the tournament continues to be- win your league.  If you don't win your league, you're at the mercy of whatever other nonsense exists (weird RACs, unexpectedly poor season from a noncon opponent, whatever).   

In the end, this RAC apparently feels that losing is not better than winning- which is actually a position you've taken pretty firmly elsewhere in these rooms, IIRC. 

[Augie6]

Looks like this answers the question if Coach Bell will remain in charge of the program at Augie:  https://qconline.com/sports/college_sports/bell-co-continue-to-rebuild-viking-program/article_90df6933-e1a7-581a-8203-901a81ec1d0a.html

I guess success for Augie football is now defined by the number of applications that the football program generates as opposed to wins on the field.  In that case, congrats on a great season. 

[Augie6]

This season's results have overshadowed one of the better accomplishments we have seen in the CCIW in the past 15+ years. Wheaton's defense, ranked overall #5 nationally, put up some numbers that have not been equaled in the CCIW in any time frame I can find.

CCIW Leading Totals (national rank)
90 total pts (5th)
9.0 ppg (5th)
2.0 yds per rush (13th)
66.2 rush yds per game (11th)
5.3 yds per pass (19th)
218 yds per game (5th)
3.6 yds per play (5th)
97.3 Dpass eff (22nd)
124 opp 1st downs (8th)
12.5% 4th down conversions (2nd)
21.3% 3rd down conversions (3rd)

They did all this in a year when the overall offenses in the CCIW were putting up record numbers. The total offense and scoring offense numbers are the highest our conference has seen in 15+ years. This makes this one of the more dominant defenses our conference has seen in the modern era. These are similar to MHB type numbers. Crazy good year for the Thunder defense.

USee - No doubt these are impressive numbers, but the bolded part of your statement is not really accurate.  I won't post the stats of the 85 and 86 Augie Defenses, but suffice it to say, they were better than this (significantly better in both cases).  And those stats included 4 playoff games against some of the best teams in the country. 

[USee]

This season's results have overshadowed one of the better accomplishments we have seen in the CCIW in the past 15+ years. Wheaton's defense, ranked overall #5 nationally, put up some numbers that have not been equaled in the CCIW in any time frame I can find.

CCIW Leading Totals (national rank)
90 total pts (5th)
9.0 ppg (5th)
2.0 yds per rush (13th)
66.2 rush yds per game (11th)
5.3 yds per pass (19th)
218 yds per game (5th)
3.6 yds per play (5th)
97.3 Dpass eff (22nd)
124 opp 1st downs (8th)
12.5% 4th down conversions (2nd)
21.3% 3rd down conversions (3rd)

They did all this in a year when the overall offenses in the CCIW were putting up record numbers. The total offense and scoring offense numbers are the highest our conference has seen in 15+ years. This makes this one of the more dominant defenses our conference has seen in the modern era. These are similar to MHB type numbers. Crazy good year for the Thunder defense.

USee - No doubt these are impressive numbers, but the bolded part of your statement is not really accurate.  I won't post the stats of the 85 and 86 Augie Defenses, but suffice it to say, they were better than this (significantly better in both cases).  And those stats included 4 playoff games against some of the best teams in the country.

I remember well the Augie defenses of old, very well. I don't need a reminder. Fortunately their stats aren't up on the CCIW website to easily find. That's why I said "This makes this one of the more dominant defenses our conference has seen in the modern era", which is absolutely true.

It's two different era's really. Augie's 85-86 defense didn't have to defend modern offenses either. I am confident the quality of the players on Wheaton's defense this year is equal to the quality I have seen on any CCIW defense over the past 30 years.

[AndOne]

This week All Conference awards will be determined. I think some of the top awards will be a no-brainer but I will be interested to see who they determine a few others.

I think Broc Rutter should be a unanimous choice for OPOY
Jeff Thorne is likely the strong favorite for COY
For DPOY it may be interesting. Usually the POY awards go to the conference champs. But Wheaton's defense was by far the most consistent and dominant unit in the league (and the nation-#4 ranked) against a very strong set  of offensive teams. I think the right choice is one of Wheaton's top 3 defenders (Pat O'Connell, Eric Stevenson, Tyler Sigler). I am sure NCC will argue for DJ Warkenthein from the #2 defense in the conference and IWU may try for Eric Dubose, who was  the most impactful player on the Titan defense.

The other battles that will be difficult discussions are at QB and WR. I can't remember a year with a deeper talent pool at those two spots, all deserving of 1st team accolades. Unfortunately, the usual stats that would earn you first team may well get you 2nd team or not mentioned.

Though I strong dislike the naming of mulitple players on the 2nd team, it's likely what we will see with as many as 4 QB's named all conference and 8 WR's.

From my view I like:

Broc Rutter, 1st team, OPOY
Brandon Bauer, 2nd team
Johnny Davidson/Curtis McWilliams, honorable mention (though we don't have HM in the CCIW)

WR:
Healy, IWU,1st team
Nichols, Wheaton, 1st Team
Kamienski, , NCC, 1st Team
Walsh, IWU,  2nd Team
Sfikas, NCC, 2nd team
Perry, Millikin, 2nd team

All of these WR are 1st team talents in my opinion.

There are going to be some tough choices.

DJ Warkenthein for DPOY. To the victors go the spoils. 

IDK about anyone else, but it seems strange, even dumb, that in basketball the COY/CO-COYs is/are automatically the coach/coaches that win/share the conference championship, but in football the COY is evidently determined by a vote.

Last year there were 4 WRs on the first team so maybe the same will happen this year. There were also 2 QBs on the second team offense.
Also, while all the QBs USee mentioned had great years Nicco Stepina, who isn't even on the list, is certainly no slouch. Nobody else threw more TD passes.

* Lastly, here is a case for NCC freshman kicker Derik Judka to not only be the first team ALL-CCIW kicker, but 1st Team ALL-AMERICAN kicker.

+ He made all 14 of his FG attempts. Only one other kicker in the nation was perfect, and he was only 9/9.

+ Only one player made more FGs. And that player only made one more (15). But, he had five more attempts—19 compared to Judka's 14.

+ He made 56 of 57 PATs.

[USee]

Just listened to the Chair on the podcast. Great job by Pat to try and pin him on the issues of how the North got ranked and the rationale against IWU.

That said, good Lord did he butcher the explanation on the North. It's really a huge step back when you say things like:

"...we lean on the RAC [to rank teams]. I wish I could see all 250 teams play...[we won't change it]as long as there is not major issues with the criteria they are putting up there. Teams are evaluated by the [North] committee members who are seeing them."

When pressed whether the fact that Wabash sat on the board so long was an indication the North RAC got it wrong he said:

"I don't think that's their job....the Regionally Ranked wins were all over the place and there was some cannibalization with teams playing each other. The regionally ranked wins were all over the place, there was some cannibalization with teams playing each other, It was about who did they beat, that was a big part of it. The losses that piled up cost them even though they were quality losses"

I think he's falling on his sword for the North RAC. Nice thing to do for the RAC members, but no justice for the broader system. I want the NC to be willing, when needed, to reach down into a RR and re-adjust when it's clearly out of wack. That's the only form of accountability these RAC's have. But he said they were essentially unwilling to do this when he went on the podcast a month ago. Basically if there was a strange ranking, they'd go back to the RAC and ask them to 'explain their rationale.' That's a far cry from sending it back to the RAC and saying, 'listen, you got this wrong and look out of step with the criteria. SOS, Win %, RRO, common opponenents, h2h, etc. are all criteria. You can't just cherry pick one category and list accordingly.'

The thing is that the rankings that the North RAC has put out in the last two seasons aren't outside of the criteria.  It seems like everybody outside of that particular conference call feels like they are doing a piss poor job of applying the criteria, but the rankings do fit the criteria they're given to work with.  Just not in the way that pretty much anybody else applies the criteria.  This is the probably the deal until there's some significant changeover in the makeup of that committee.  I'm not sure off the top of my head how long terms are for these volunteer committee gigs. 

FYI, here's the group:
Kris Diaz, co-chair Baldwin Wallace University Ohio Athletic Conference
Michael Schulist, co-chair Carroll University (Wisconsin) College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
Ron Planz Elmhurst College College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin
Nick Johnson Earlham College Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference
Mike Duffy Adrian College Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association
Chris Monfiletto Kenyon College North Coast Athletic Conference
Dennis Miller Wisconsin Lutheran College Northern Athletics Collegiate Conference
Tim Doup Otterbein University Ohio Athletic Conference

CCIW has 25% representation here, plus half of the chair.  It's not like there isn't advocacy for this league's teams.

Doesn't it seem like they are only applying 1 criteria or at least weighting that above all others? They clearly looked at the other criteria or they wouldn't have come up with NCC as #2 and JCU as #3 and undefeated Trine further down. So it seems they, at a minimum, inconsistently applied the criteria. Any way you look at it, if I am Norm Eash, I am scheduling Eureka or Benedictine for the foreseeable future.

Norm Eash should probably have a candid conversation with his counterpart at Elmhurst about why those rankings look the way they look.   

Of course, in two seasons you could have six new voices on this committee and the way they rank teams will likely be completely different.  The way to get in to the tournament continues to be- win your league.  If you don't win your league, you're at the mercy of whatever other nonsense exists (weird RACs, unexpectedly poor season from a noncon opponent, whatever).   

In the end, this RAC apparently feels that losing is not better than winning- which is actually a position you've taken pretty firmly elsewhere in these rooms, IIRC.

There it is, the inevitable, "just win your league" default argument. None of the 5 Pool C's won their league's AQ so it's an irrelevant comment and not appropriate for this discussion. We are talking about teams that get in as an at large. And it's a process that has objective criteria that are subjectively applied. And I completely understand what the North RAC did even if I don't agree with it. They used number of losses to rank the entire North, then they used secondary criteria to rank teams with similar W/L.

The unintended consequence is to send a message to every North team not to schedule good teams in the non conference slate.

And winning is definitely better than losing.The committee and I both agree with NCC as #2 over JCU. I think 2 win's over RRO's is much better than 1, which IWU likely had and Wabash didn't. If WashU didn't get ranked in the final set, I will understand a bit more. It's too bad Monmouth lost to St Norbert in the last week as Wheaton would have definitely had 2 wins v RRO's in the final rankings.

Any way you look at it the North RAC inconsistently applied the criteria.

[Gregory Sager]

Looks like this answers the question if Coach Bell will remain in charge of the program at Augie:  https://qconline.com/sports/college_sports/bell-co-continue-to-rebuild-viking-program/article_90df6933-e1a7-581a-8203-901a81ec1d0a.html

I guess success for Augie football is now defined by the number of applications that the football program generates as opposed to wins on the field.  In that case, congrats on a great season.

Is that supposed to be a story or a column? It's formatted like a news story, but it's chock-full of unabashed subjectivity on the part of the writer, who even at one point writes, "I don't think that there is any doubt about that."

[AndOne]

Looks like this answers the question if Coach Bell will remain in charge of the program at Augie:  https://qconline.com/sports/college_sports/bell-co-continue-to-rebuild-viking-program/article_90df6933-e1a7-581a-8203-901a81ec1d0a.html

I guess success for Augie football is now defined by the number of applications that the football program generates as opposed to wins on the field.  In that case, congrats on a great season.

Augie6,

I find it interesting that the article you quoted mentions that 250 football "recruits" have already completed applications to attend Augie next year. Looks like AC is gonna' have to lay out major bucks for more uniforms. 
Also, the question I sense the reporter forgot to ask is how many of those 250 are actually RECRUITS in the sense of kids at or near the top of Augie's wish list that they are actively/aggressively pursuing, and how many are kids who just played football in HS and are basically recruiting themselves TO Augie. Also, how many of the 250 are skilled enough to play at the next level, especially in an upper level conference like the CCIW with teams like NCC, Wheaton, IWU, and WashU?

Also—-And you might know as much about this as anyone—
A few years ago I seem to remember a series of posts about Augie de-emphasizing and decreasing funding to many sports other than men's basketball. Any idea is this was/is the case either previously or currently?