FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[kiko]

He lost me here:

I am not saying BU is a CCIW calliber team becasue there not Wheaton showed that, but they are a good football team that is getting better and I believe could beat out a couple of teams in the CCIW.

If I am making an honest assessment, I would classify the CCIW as an upper-middle-class conference in football.  Better than most, but absent deeper playoff runs on a more consistent basis, certainly not in the league of the elites.  If being a good team means you're beating just a couple of CCIW teams, you are clearly defining 'good' much differently than I am...

Kiko---

You're certainly right about CCIW accomplishments back in the 80s having little relevance to placement in today's world.
However, before you berate the current state of CCIW football too drastically, and underestimate its standing on a national basis, consider that CCIW teams occupy the 13th, 16th, and 19th place in this week's D3Football Top 25, and 2 other conference members are also receiving votes. Thats not too shabby and I believe is emblematic of a conference that actually ranks pretty highly on today's national scene.   

Well, I did say that the CCIW is better than most conferences.  I'm not sure how you lept to the idea that I was berating the current state of the conference.

In any event, to the extent that Week 2 rankings can be used as any kind of surrogate for conference strength, the numbers you mentioned essentially prove my point.  The conference does not (presently) have a top-ten team.  It has a number of very good teams, but the best of the best of the best reside elsewhere, at least until someone steps up and proves otherwise.

[Langhorst_Ghost]

Bluejay4ever/L-Ghost-

As others have chimed in with me,  it's nice Elmhurst picked up a home win yes, agreed.  However, to think Elmhurst is suddenly playoff caliber, or 1 of the top 3 teams in the CCIW (presently), is premature because they have yet to prove themselves against A) A currently playoff positioned team and B) the incumbent 1, 2, 3, etc. of the CCIW.  Namely NC/IWU/Wheaton (in any particular order). 

IMO- Right now it's still too early to really gauge where the CCIW is going to pan out, but an arbitrary view would be
1) NC
2) IWU
3) WHEATON (injuries and health is going to make WC a 3 or 4)
4) Carthage/EC
5) rest of the conference

Again, this is just going by the 1 game I have seen thus far, and some stats in the paper/net.

As much as I am a super fan of the Blue Jays and drink more than my share of the blue punch I do realize that they have to beat a Wheaton, NC, or IWU to be considered into that level. I believe this year they have a legitimate shot at being in the top 3. Although some people are down playing the Trine game I was really impressed with some of their athletes and size. They reminded me of that second tier CCIW type of team that would be in a fight in each game. But for EC to become a member of that top tier they have to beat those teams which is exactly what they did. It is going to be a fun season to see how things play out. One of the most encouraging things is starting with this group of seniors is the discipline they show on the field. That is something that as each recruiting class that Coach Lester has had becomes seniors will only improve over time. I think that is a step that has been lacking over the years with the limited amount of seniors they have had. That is changing and each year the number of upper classmen are improving. There is a huge difference mentally and physically when you are putting 21 year olds out there instead of 18 year olds.

I agree with almost all of this post. I think the start of this season should be encouraging to EC and their fans.  Personally, I wouldn't read too much into beating Trine if the aspirations are to break into the top 3 of the CCIW.  Losing to them would have been a bad sign (still can't get over what happened to the Thunder!), but the Jays got the job done. I have my doubts whether the Jays preseason schedule will adequately prepare them for NCC. It would certainly be nice to play someone (ANYONE) else for their conference opener, but it is what it is.  For Jays' fans, there's no reason not to be optimistic at this point.

BleedPurple - exactly my sentiment.  Nobody's suggesting we hand out the rings in week 2, Jaybird, but steadfast support is not to be confused with blind optimism.  Are there challenges ahead?  Absolutely - i recognize (and more importantly, the players recognize) that there will always be challenges.  NCC will be a tremendous challenge under the lights at Benedetti.  Wheaton will be an incredible challenge at Langhorst.  But champions see challenges as opportunities to succeed.

There is alot of merit in an argument for EC, and a lot of good reasons to make that argument (which i have clearly been motivated to do). The 'Jays have a legitimate opportunity in 2012 to shift the balance of the conference with an experienced coaching staff, a talented veteran roster, and an explosive offense.   

This team is ready, this program is ready - history may tell a story of the past, but it does not define the reality of the present.  i'm all in on the 'Jays. 

[cardinaldad]

Bluejay4ever/L-Ghost-

As others have chimed in with me,  it's nice Elmhurst picked up a home win yes, agreed.  However, to think Elmhurst is suddenly playoff caliber, or 1 of the top 3 teams in the CCIW (presently), is premature because they have yet to prove themselves against A) A currently playoff positioned team and B) the incumbent 1, 2, 3, etc. of the CCIW.  Namely NC/IWU/Wheaton (in any particular order). 

IMO- Right now it's still too early to really gauge where the CCIW is going to pan out, but an arbitrary view would be
1) NC
2) IWU
3) WHEATON (injuries and health is going to make WC a 3 or 4)
4) Carthage/EC
5) rest of the conference

Again, this is just going by the 1 game I have seen thus far, and some stats in the paper/net.

As much as I am a super fan of the Blue Jays and drink more than my share of the blue punch I do realize that they have to beat a Wheaton, NC, or IWU to be considered into that level. I believe this year they have a legitimate shot at being in the top 3. Although some people are down playing the Trine game I was really impressed with some of their athletes and size. They reminded me of that second tier CCIW type of team that would be in a fight in each game. But for EC to become a member of that top tier they have to beat those teams which is exactly what they did. It is going to be a fun season to see how things play out. One of the most encouraging things is starting with this group of seniors is the discipline they show on the field. That is something that as each recruiting class that Coach Lester has had becomes seniors will only improve over time. I think that is a step that has been lacking over the years with the limited amount of seniors they have had. That is changing and each year the number of upper classmen are improving. There is a huge difference mentally and physically when you are putting 21 year olds out there instead of 18 year olds.

I can't let this one go. Beating one of the top tier teams does not automatically put a team into the top tier. A team has to consistently beat top tier teams to be considered top tier. The win may signify some improvement. But a win doesn't justify "top tier" status. Win these games against top tier teams more times than lose them. Then, they can be considered "top tier."

[79jaybird]

We have a new winner in the kool-aid salesman of the year award... it's Bluejay4ever.   

I agree the program has come a long way.  But when you're at rock bottom going 1-7 in conference, there is only 1 way to go.
New coach
New mentality
Better recruits
Improved (arguably adequate) facilities
Check- this is all present and agreed upon.

"This team is ready, this program is ready..."  Has been the theme for the past 5 years.  Unfortunately, losses to the top 2 teams (in given year) has proven, that the preliminary optimism, has only given EC the product of disappointed 6-4 3-4 or 4-3 marks.

[cardinaldad]

We have a new winner in the kool-aid salesman of the year award... it's Bluejay4ever.   

I agree the program has come a long way.  But when you're at rock bottom going 1-7 in conference, there is only 1 way to go.
New coach
New mentality
Better recruits
Improved (arguably adequate) facilities
Check- this is all present and agreed upon.

"This team is ready, this program is ready..."  Has been the theme for the past 5 years.  Unfortunately, losses to the top 2 teams (in given year) has proven, that the preliminary optimism, has only given EC the product of disappointed 6-4 3-4 or 4-3 marks.

jaybird - Are you ok? I'm a little worried about you! This used to be you until last year! You drank the bluest cool-aide of all. It's OK to still drink a little blue cool-aide!  LOL

[NCF]

Bluejay4ever/L-Ghost-

As others have chimed in with me,  it's nice Elmhurst picked up a home win yes, agreed.  However, to think Elmhurst is suddenly playoff caliber, or 1 of the top 3 teams in the CCIW (presently), is premature because they have yet to prove themselves against A) A currently playoff positioned team and B) the incumbent 1, 2, 3, etc. of the CCIW.  Namely NC/IWU/Wheaton (in any particular order). 

IMO- Right now it's still too early to really gauge where the CCIW is going to pan out, but an arbitrary view would be
1) NC
2) IWU
3) WHEATON (injuries and health is going to make WC a 3 or 4)
4) Carthage/EC
5) rest of the conference

Again, this is just going by the 1 game I have seen thus far, and some stats in the paper/net.

As much as I am a super fan of the Blue Jays and drink more than my share of the blue punch I do realize that they have to beat a Wheaton, NC, or IWU to be considered into that level. I believe this year they have a legitimate shot at being in the top 3. Although some people are down playing the Trine game I was really impressed with some of their athletes and size. They reminded me of that second tier CCIW type of team that would be in a fight in each game. But for EC to become a member of that top tier they have to beat those teams which is exactly what they did. It is going to be a fun season to see how things play out. One of the most encouraging things is starting with this group of seniors is the discipline they show on the field. That is something that as each recruiting class that Coach Lester has had becomes seniors will only improve over time. I think that is a step that has been lacking over the years with the limited amount of seniors they have had. That is changing and each year the number of upper classmen are improving. There is a huge difference mentally and physically when you are putting 21 year olds out there instead of 18 year olds.

I can't let this one go. Beating one of the top tier teams does not automatically put a team into the top tier. A team has to consistently beat top tier teams to be considered top tier. The win may signify some improvement. But a win doesn't justify "top tier" status. Win these games against top tier teams more times than lose them. Then, they can be considered "top tier."

Beat me to this one. Beating them once every few years doesn't quite cut it. Beat one or two of them year in and year out-now you are in the top tier. Elmhurst will find out very quickly how good they are. Beat NC, Wheaton or IWU and you've got some bragging rights.

[cardinaldad]

New rankings are out. I guess NCC handily beating ranked Redlands for their opener was not as impressive as Wheaton's loss to Albion. Redlands drops all the way down to 25, while Wheaton only drops to 19. Is anyone else surprised by this?

[Pat Coleman]

New rankings are out. I guess NCC handily beating ranked Redlands for their opener was not as impressive as Wheaton's loss to Albion. Redlands drops all the way down to 25, while Wheaton only drops to 19. Is anyone else surprised by this.

You've really taken only one item into account. How about the site of the game (home vs. road)? How about the scoring margin?

[NCF]

New rankings are out. I guess NCC handily beating ranked Redlands for their opener was not as impressive as Wheaton's loss to Albion. Redlands drops all the way down to 25, while Wheaton only drops to 19. Is anyone else surprised by this?

Yes, NC should have moved up at least one spot. More motivation for the this way though.

[Gregory Sager]

Irish---

The fact is that Benedictine is a good football team, BUT only in a bad conference. Overall, as Greg Sager indicated, they are NOT a very good team. Since becoming a member of the NATHC in 2008, their record from 2008-2011 within the conference is 22-6. However, in non-conference games within that same time frame, they are only 3-11. The Benedictine-NPU game was an exercise matching perhaps the best team in a weaker conference with the worst team in a very strong conference. And the "good" team beat the "bad" team by only 8 points. Not exactly a strong statement by an (overall) good team.

Thank you, Mark. Yes, that is precisely my point. Whether it's because he's a BU fan or because he's been watching a steady diet of NAthCon football -- or both -- Irish is apparently deluded in his view of what constitutes a good football team. Is BU good by NAthCon standards? Probably; we'll see as the season wears on. Was BU good the last two years by NAthCon standards? Sure was; the Eagles won the league title both times. Were they good by overall D3 football standards? Well, you tell me, Irish. Your Eagles lost both years to an NPU program that hasn't won a CCIW game in over a decade. And the Eagles lost their playoff games by scores of 57-10 and 47-7. And, as Mark indicates, last year's Eagles seniors only went 3-11 in non-conference play for their careers.

So, no, Benedictine is not a good football team by overall D3 standards, which are the only standards that really interest anyone who reads the CCIW football room. The Eagles are the prettiest woman in the nursing home, the tastiest chocolate in a box of Ex-Lax, and the best downhill skier in Libya.

I'm currently cleaning coffee off my screen after reading that one.

Honestly GS, did you make those up or did you borrow them? (I'm going to tuck the "tastiest chocolate in a box of Ex-Lax" away for personal use at a later date.)

I made 'em up. But I probably should've saved them for a webcast rather than posting them online.

I agree to a significant degree with the comments of the BU/NPU game.  I will add .02.  I sat in the BU section (at the 40 yd line), showing no emotion for either team.  BU had two parents (husband/wife perhaps?) whose shouts embarrassed BU.  The woman mocked BU players and play selection, and the male was constantly calling for the insertion of a backup QB who I presume was the son.  Since BU occupied the east sideline, I have to believe the Eagle players and coaches heard these idiots.  How utterly stupid.  Who openly mocks their own players?  I sat in front of several former BU players who agreed with me 100%. I was impressed by the number of BU fans who attended the game.

This is the reason why Scott Pethtel has moved the NPU bench over to the west sideline. Too many Vikings fans were causing distractions to the team with their in-game commentary, whether well-intentioned or otherwise. In defense of the BU parents whom you sat near, Mark, I've heard NPU parents spout their ire at the Vikings coaches in a similar manner if their kid isn't playing. I suspect that this is a fairly common subspecies of football parent, unfortunately.

The stands at Hedstrand Field are so close to the east sideline that it can pose a real problem for coaches who are trying to keep their players focused. So why not take advantage of the home field by moving your team away from the fans?

He lost me here:

I am not saying BU is a CCIW calliber team becasue there not Wheaton showed that, but they are a good football team that is getting better and I believe could beat out a couple of teams in the CCIW.

If I am making an honest assessment, I would classify the CCIW as an upper-middle-class conference in football.  Better than most, but absent deeper playoff runs on a more consistent basis, certainly not in the league of the elites.  If being a good team means you're beating just a couple of CCIW teams, you are clearly defining 'good' much differently than I am...

Kiko---

You're certainly right about CCIW accomplishments back in the 80s having little relevance to placement in today's world.
However, before you berate the current state of CCIW football too drastically, and underestimate its standing on a national basis, consider that CCIW teams occupy the 13th, 16th, and 19th place in this week's D3Football Top 25, and 2 other conference members are also receiving votes. Thats not too shabby and I believe is emblematic of a conference that actually ranks pretty highly on today's national scene.   

Well, I did say that the CCIW is better than most conferences.  I'm not sure how you lept to the idea that I was berating the current state of the conference.

In any event, to the extent that Week 2 rankings can be used as any kind of surrogate for conference strength, the numbers you mentioned essentially prove my point.  The conference does not (presently) have a top-ten team.  It has a number of very good teams, but the best of the best of the best reside elsewhere, at least until someone steps up and proves otherwise.

I think that Kiko's assessment of the CCIW is an accurate one. The statute of limitations has long since run out on Bob Reade's Augie championship teams of the Reagan era as being a barometer of the league's national strength. Until someone wearing CCIW livery dumps Purple One or Purple Two after the leaves have fallen and brings home Walnut and Bronze, this league will be very good but not great in football -- and one can argue that it'll take more than one deep post-season run, probably including additional wins over Purple One and/or Purple Two, in order to make that happen.

[Gregory Sager]

I've been pretty hard on NPU in my comments about the first two games. I'm not retracting anything that I've said, but I do think that an explanation is in order. In past years I would've simply shrugged my shoulders at those two losses and said, "Well, it's North Park football. What do you expect?" But the stakes are a little different this season. This is a North Park team that has a commodity that's almost unheard-of in the recent history of the program: Experience. As I've said before, this is the largest senior class that the Vikings have had since my school days, which are so unfathomably ancient that they even predate the Augie national championships.

While any optimism regarding NPU football has to be both restrained and relative -- a major reason why I've refrained from making any predictions about the Vikes winning a CCIW game this year -- I did think that the Park would at least be as competitive and as tough an out as they proved to be for the most part last year. Given the fact that the vast majority of last year's team was back, I didn't think that I had an excessively optimistic posture. Thus, something unusual has crept into my commentary regarding NPU football, and that is a feeling of disappointment brought on by expectations which, while modest, have really never existed before.

I've expected better of the Vikings, and that's why their inability to play with a minimum of mistakes against two teams that any CCIW team worth its salt ought to have beaten has bothered me so much.

It's not a lost season yet. The Vikings can still right the longship, and, as I said, the upcoming bye week comes at a perfect time for them to refocus. (Plus, their final non-conference opponent, Olivet, doesn't appear to be what most of us would consider a big hurdle.) I haven't given up on NPU being able to salvage something yet of this season, because I do believe in the manifold benefits of an experienced roster. But I have not been the least bit happy with what I've seen thus far.

[wally_wabash]

New rankings are out. I guess NCC handily beating ranked Redlands for their opener was not as impressive as Wheaton's loss to Albion. Redlands drops all the way down to 25, while Wheaton only drops to 19. Is anyone else surprised by this?

Yes, NC should have moved up at least one spot. More motivation for the this way though.

Gotta read more than one number on the poll, fellas.  North Central picked up almost 60 points this week which is an average of 2 positions per ballot.  The Cardinals actually gained a lot. 

Who should have been moved down to make room for North Central one or more spots up on the poll?  And why?

[Titan Q]

I think that Kiko's assessment of the CCIW is an accurate one. The statute of limitations has long since run out on Bob Reade's Augie championship teams of the Reagan era as being a barometer of the league's national strength. Until someone wearing CCIW livery dumps Purple One or Purple Two after the leaves have fallen and brings home Walnut and Bronze, this league will be very good but not great in football -- and one can argue that it'll take more than one deep post-season run, probably including additional wins over Purple One and/or Purple Two, in order to make that happen.

Greg, this seems to contradict the premise you have posted on the basketball boards over the years about conference strength being more about depth of very good/good teams than it is about the competitiveness of the teams at the very top relative to the best teams in Division III.  As you know, the topic has come up over and over again in relation to CCIW basketball vs, say, the MIAA or NCAC...and it seems like you've always been very consistent in your position about "depth."

Now let me be clear, I don't think CCIW basketball vs CCIW football is apples to apples -- the CCIW has been a much better basketball league than football over the years.  I'm just saying that your position, or your measuring stick, on "good vs great" seems to have changed based on what you just posted here.

I disagree with your statement about beating the Purple powers.  The football programs at UW-Whitewater and Mount Union are in a completely different stratosphere than the rest of Division III.  I think a league with multiple (2-3) top 25 candidates at all times, a solid middle-of-the-pack, and no awful teams could qualify as "great" without being able to beat UWW and Mount Union. 

Also let me clarify, I agree with you that the CCIW is a "very good" but not "great" football league.  I think what's holding the CCIW back from being elite in football, however, has nothing to do with the top tier of the league and the competitiveness of these teams vs UWW and Mount Union.  I think it has everything to do with the bottom -- I just don't think the teams finishing 6th, 7th, and 8th most years are good enough to allow the CCIW to be called "great."

We're at least a couple months away from substantive debate on the basketball board, but consider this a bit of a "preseason" tune-up. 

[Gregory Sager]

I think that Kiko's assessment of the CCIW is an accurate one. The statute of limitations has long since run out on Bob Reade's Augie championship teams of the Reagan era as being a barometer of the league's national strength. Until someone wearing CCIW livery dumps Purple One or Purple Two after the leaves have fallen and brings home Walnut and Bronze, this league will be very good but not great in football -- and one can argue that it'll take more than one deep post-season run, probably including additional wins over Purple One and/or Purple Two, in order to make that happen.

Greg, this seems to contradict the premise you have posted on the basketball boards over the years about conference strength being more about depth of very good/good teams than it is about the competitiveness of the teams at the very top relative to the best teams in Division III.  As you know, the topic has come up over and over again in relation to CCIW basketball vs, say, the MIAA or NCAC...and it seems like you've always been very consistent in your position about "depth."

Now let me be clear, I don't think CCIW basketball vs CCIW football is apples to apples -- the CCIW has been a much better basketball league than football over the years.  I'm just saying that your position, or your measuring stick, on "good vs great" seems to have changed based on what you just posted here.

No, it hasn't changed. What you've overlooked is that basketball and football are even less apples-to-apples than you think. CCIW football teams play three non-conference games apiece out of a ten-game schedule, so non-conference play measures 30% of the total. CCIW basketball teams play eleven non-conference games apiece out of a 25-game schedule, so non-conference play measures 44% of the total. The applicable non-conference database in terms of measuring the league's relative strength is thus much larger in basketball than it is in football, both numerically and proportionally with regard to the full season. In other words, you have to have a completely different mindset when it comes to measuring football league strength than you do for basketball.

Even though non-conference basketball plays a proportionally bigger role than does non-conference football on a cumulative level, each individual non-conference football game has a bigger bearing on the league's performance as a whole than does its basketball analogue. The CCIW plays 24 non-conference football games each year (regular season) and 88 non-conference basketball games each year (regular season), so each individual non-conference football game carries over three times as much weight as far as the league's concerned than does each individual non-conference basketball game. Because the football database is smaller, the importance of each individual non-conference football game is telescoped. Individual football games always have a more magnified importance in terms of the weight each carries with regard to final record than do individual basketball games, because football teams play significantly fewer games. That magnified importance goes for playoff games as well with regard to won-lost record.

Thus, the inability of the CCIW to make much headway in the D3 football playoffs takes on a disproportionate weight compared to basketball playoff performance in terms of how you measure the league. In other words, the post-season shortcomings of the top tier in CCIW football drag down the league more in a given year than would a similar lack of positive results for CCIW basketball's top tier, because post-season football games, for lack of a better term, "count" more than do post-season basketball games.

I disagree with your statement about beating the Purple powers.  The football programs at UW-Whitewater and Mount Union are in a completely different stratosphere than the rest of Division III.  I think a league with multiple (2-3) top 25 candidates at all times, a solid middle-of-the-pack, and no awful teams could qualify as "great" without being able to beat UWW and Mount Union.

I think that here we're just talking about a difference in semantics with regard to the term "great" that's similar to the difference between Irisheagle and Kiko over the word "good".

Also let me clarify, I agree with you that the CCIW is a "very good" but not "great" football league.  I think what's holding the CCIW back from being elite in football, however, has nothing to do with the top tier of the league and the competitiveness of these teams vs UWW and Mount Union.  I think it has everything to do with the bottom -- I just don't think the teams finishing 6th, 7th, and 8th most years are good enough to allow the CCIW to be called "great."

I disagree. Relative to the rest of D3, the bottom of the CCIW has been pretty solid since the turn of the millennium.

Here's what the sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-place CCIW teams combined have done in non-conference play over the past dozen seasons:

2011:	5-4
2010:	8-1
2009:	7-2
2008:	5-4
2007:	4-5
2006:	3-6
2005:	7-2
2004:	5-4
2003:	6-3
2002:	4-5
2001:	4-5
2000:	6-3
TOTAL:	64-44

That's a .592 winning percentage, with winning records in eight of the last twelve seasons (including the most recent four). Most D3 leagues would kill to have their bottom three teams winning almost 60% of their non-conference games. In terms of the bigger D3 picture, our bottom strata is doing just fine and is holding up its end in non-conference play, relatively speaking.

[newparker]

Greg I'm surprised by not winning any non conference game yet since last year we were 3-0 in non conference and  since there is more experience this year returning since what we lost like 9 seniors I can't believe by losing them we have gone backwards  were they that good that their backups are having problems but seems the offense is still the same