FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[wally_wabash]

Might just be me, but something about that quote makes me feel like this isn't a full stop for the IIAC.  Maybe Chicago is in play here? 

I tend to doubt that. Chicago can only join the IIAC in one sport, football. If your suspicion is correct that these two sentences:

Moreover, as the Iowa Conference undertakes a comprehensive strategic planning process, Nebraska Wesleyan's participation will advance our work as we position the IIAC for the future.

... indicate further expansion on the part of the IIAC, my guess is that the league will look for another full member, a la Nebraska Wesleyan, as opposed to merely adding Chicago as an associate member for football. The CCIW is already committed to a model that uses associate members for various sports (Rose-Hulman in men's and women's swimming, Carroll and Dubuque in men's and women's lacrosse, and Wash U in football three seasons from now), but the IIAC isn't. Rather than simply fill in the gaps piecemeal the way that the CCIW does, I suspect that the IIAC would much rather opt for the tidier solution of simply add a tenth full member. The problem, though, is that wrestling is a required sport for the IIAC, and the number of D3 schools that offer wrestling has dwindled considerably over the past two decades.

All great points, Gregory.  Chicago to the IIAC as an affiliate is probably a longer shot than I realized initially.  It sounds like the IIAC holds pretty closely to some ideals like requiring a wrestling team.  I do think though that the landscape is shifting around a bit and it might not be out of the question to see some of these conferences make an exception here and there.  For IIAC football, this would be about locking up an even number of teams and not about preserving Pool A status so the necessity of adding an orphan like Chicago isn't quite there.  Even then, there is worse company to keep for any group of institutions than the University of Chicago, even if it is just for football season.

And with that, I'll sit back and wait for the announcement of Chicago to the MWC sometime this fall. 

[kiko]

Pool C has been shrinking, not expanding. The recent examples of 2 loss teams not making it are as obvious as the couple who did. NCC didn't make it last year as a 2 loss team. Is a loss to Wesley vs UWSP the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think the difference has anything to do with who NCC lost to.  I think the difference is how the rest of the region performed.  Had Wabash lost a second game, let's say to Hampden-Sydney,  of if John Carroll had lost their surprisingly tight game to ONU, I think the order of the regional rankings gets shuffled in a way that puts North Central in the field.  Some years it plays out that way, but last year it didn't. 

You make my point better than I could have made it. I 100% agree. I was being nice when I said "...maybe, maybe not". NCC didn't make it last year because they lost to UWSP. If they beat Alma by 30 instead, they are in. The current system rewards NCC for beating Benedictine in a non-competitive game vs losing to Wesley by 2. The Wesley game doesn't help the program. It just introduces more risk and limits the upside, which is never a good choice.

I think its fair to say that the Wesley game doesn't help the program get into the playoffs if the Cardinals lose.

But to make a blanket statement that it doesn't help the program, full stop, is IMO not fully accurate as it is a really narrow lens to look through.

It doesn't help the program any more than playing Benedictine helps. Not in any way that can be quantified. You can argue playing a good team makes you better but, in the CCIW, there is not data that supports that conclusion. In fact the data says the opposite.

So it can't be quantified, but the data says the opposite.  Gotcha.

You and I obviously have very different perspectives on this topic, which is fine.  This would be a really boring place if we all agreed on everything.

[emma17]

Wally,
I will move away from your politically charged terminology and get to the bottom line.
Pool C is entirely about selecting the most competitive of the failed teams.  All Pool C candidates failed to win their conference.
That said, and as you agree, SOS doesn't work well when comparing which failed team should get in.
I suggest, quite strongly, that the committee consider how each failed team fared against highly competitive teams, in the current season and in the recent past. 
I think there is a great deal to learn about a team, which is part of a program, by looking at how they matched up with known playoff successful teams.

Thus,
If I am a committee member and my job is to select the most competitive failed teams into Pool C, I need evidence that the failed team can play with the best.
Muhlenberg has shown no ability to play with the best.  Del Val has shown little ability.  Bridgewater State has shown little ability.
NCC, UWO, St. Thomas, St. John Fisher and some others have shown an ability to play with the best. 
I don't care what region he/she is from, if a committee member cannot see an obvious track record of the teams mentioned above, and use it to support a decision about filling 5-6 slots, then perhaps the committee member isn't cut out for the job.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  We don't know what Muhlenberg would have done with North Central's spot in tournaments past.  Muhlenberg is located in an area where they don't get the same opportunity to play the powerful teams in the midwest and north that we've sort of come to accept as the upper crust of the division.  I don't think they deserve to be penalized for that.  Or, approaching it from the other side, it doesn't seem right to me to give 2014 North Central (sans Stanek) credit for what the 2013 North Central team did (with Stanek).  And not that Spencer Stanek was the only reason North Central won a region in 2013, but not having the best non-Kevin Burke QB in the division matters and a committee shouldn't approach any team based on things done with players that have moved on.

Wally,
I do respect that you and some others are steadfast in your belief that only the results of the current year should be taken into consideration for Pool C selection.  I understand it as well.

IMO, however, in the absence of convincing evidence, and recognizing that SOS is extremely flawed, teams like Muhl, Del Val, Chris Newport, Widener, Hamp Syd, Br State all have one thing in common.  They simply lose, every single time, to the better playoff teams.  I'm not even talking Mt or UWW. 

I can't ignore the performance of their programs in big games.  Each team, in each year, is part of a program.  The program tradition does impact who they are each and every year. 

Lastly, please don't break down my point to individuals like Stanek, or I'm sure you'd use Wara similarly.  NCC has performed extremely well vs every big opponent they've played in the last few years, even Linfield if you look at the real story.  UWO has done the same, with and without Wara. 

The committee has 5-6 slots to fill with the goal of raising the level of competition, ignoring very recent performance against the best competition seems shortsighted to me.

[Gregory Sager]

I could definitely see a long-term CCIW/IIAC matchup series coming out of this.

I would love to see a CCIW/IIAC series, but to make it work the IIAC will need a tenth member after Wash U joins the CCIW as a football affiliate in 2018.  Perhaps they could let St. Norbert tag along as in the MIAA/CCIW series.   

Actually, I was thinking of Finlandia when I mentioned the subject. As an independent, the Lions will always be looking for games.

After thinking about it some more, it appears to me that the only way that this would work once Wash U enters the CCIW as an associate member for football three years from now would be for the CCIW/IIAC matchup to take place on the same day as the annual Founders Cup game between Wash U and Chicago. Once the CCIW adds the Bears as the league's tenth team, there will only be one non-conference spot left on everybody's schedules. The Bears are not going to discontinue a trophy game against their archrival, no way, no how, and the CCIW shouldn't try to force them to do so. But, for the other nine CCIW teams, a straight-up matchup with the nine IIAC teams could be a handy way to package that final remaining non-conference game and spare the league's coaches the increasingly difficult task of having to work the phones every year to set up non-conference contests.

[wally_wabash]

The point kind of is about individuals.  North Central lost an all-timer QB in 2014 and they weren't as good.  Why should we treat them like they were the same team when it is plain to see that they weren't?  Stanek's Cardinals don't gag away a game to Stevens Point. 

But let's put your plan in action here- let's say that Pool C is only open to teams that have played a reasonably competitive game sometime in the last three years with who you consider to be a great team (and here I'll say that your idea of who the good teams in the division are is really, really skewed through the Whitewater lens- a lens that the selection committee probably, and hopefully, doesn't view the division through).  Let's identify the teams that are Pool C eligible in Emma's system. 

Starting with the best of the best and who pushed them, newly Pool C eligible teams bolded as we go :
vs. UWW
2014 - Linfield, Wartburg, maybe Mount Union
2013 - probably Linfield again, UMHB
2012 - not a tournament team

vs. Mount Union
2014 - maybe John Carroll
2013 - North Central, Wesley
2012 - UMHB

And from there expand the sphere to include tournament results from the last three years from teams identified as having pushed the top two:

vs. Linfield
2014 - UMHB, UWW
2013 - UWW
2012 - PLU, UW-O (sorry, but North Central doesn't count here...there's no way you can spin a game where North Central is -6 on turnovers and down 30-0 in the third quarter as having been a competitive game.  It wasn't.)

vs. Wartburg
2014 - St. Thomas, St. John's, UWW
2013 - Bethel (interesting question- does this really count because 2013 Wartburg wasn't the team that makes this list until 2014)
2012 - not qualified

vs. UMHB
2014 - TLU (although I'd understand anybody taking that tournament result with a grain of salt...weird game), Linfield
2013 - UWW
2012 - Mount Union

vs. John Carroll
2014 - Wheaton, Mount Union
2013 - SJF (but we have another Wartburg situation...does this game count when it happened before JCU qualified for the list)
2012 - not qualified

vs. North Central
2014 - not qualified
2013 - Mount Union
2012 - Linfield

vs. Wesley
2014 - Mount Union
2013 - Johns Hopkins, Mount Union
2012 - UMHB

Which brings the list of Pool C eligible teams, according to your thinking, to this:

UWW
Linfield
Wartburg
Mount Union
UMHB
John Carroll
North Central
Wesley
PLU
UW-O
St. Thomas
St. John's
Bethel
TLU (maybe)
Wheaton
SJF
Johns Hopkins

Full stop.  Whoever doesn't automatically qualify from that list should be selected to fill out the field, regardless of how many losses they carry or what anybody else in the division has done, because sometime in the last three years they played a reasonably close game with the best of the best or somebody who played a close game with the best of the best.  This is a self-perpetuating loop which shuts off access and opportunity to the rest of the division.  This is a good ol' boys network right here and that's not good for anybody. 

[Augie6]

Wally,
I will move away from your politically charged terminology and get to the bottom line.
Pool C is entirely about selecting the most competitive of the failed teams.  All Pool C candidates failed to win their conference.
That said, and as you agree, SOS doesn't work well when comparing which failed team should get in.
I suggest, quite strongly, that the committee consider how each failed team fared against highly competitive teams, in the current season and in the recent past. 
I think there is a great deal to learn about a team, which is part of a program, by looking at how they matched up with known playoff successful teams.

Thus,
If I am a committee member and my job is to select the most competitive failed teams into Pool C, I need evidence that the failed team can play with the best.
Muhlenberg has shown no ability to play with the best.  Del Val has shown little ability.  Bridgewater State has shown little ability.
NCC, UWO, St. Thomas, St. John Fisher and some others have shown an ability to play with the best. 
I don't care what region he/she is from, if a committee member cannot see an obvious track record of the teams mentioned above, and use it to support a decision about filling 5-6 slots, then perhaps the committee member isn't cut out for the job.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  We don't know what Muhlenberg would have done with North Central's spot in tournaments past.  Muhlenberg is located in an area where they don't get the same opportunity to play the powerful teams in the midwest and north that we've sort of come to accept as the upper crust of the division.  I don't think they deserve to be penalized for that.  Or, approaching it from the other side, it doesn't seem right to me to give 2014 North Central (sans Stanek) credit for what the 2013 North Central team did (with Stanek).  And not that Spencer Stanek was the only reason North Central won a region in 2013, but not having the best non-Kevin Burke QB in the division matters and a committee shouldn't approach any team based on things done with players that have moved on.

Wally,
I do respect that you and some others are steadfast in your belief that only the results of the current year should be taken into consideration for Pool C selection.  I understand it as well.

IMO, however, in the absence of convincing evidence, and recognizing that SOS is extremely flawed, teams like Muhl, Del Val, Chris Newport, Widener, Hamp Syd, Br State all have one thing in common.  They simply lose, every single time, to the better playoff teams.  I'm not even talking Mt or UWW. 

I can't ignore the performance of their programs in big games.  Each team, in each year, is part of a program.  The program tradition does impact who they are each and every year. 

Lastly, please don't break down my point to individuals like Stanek, or I'm sure you'd use Wara similarly.  NCC has performed extremely well vs every big opponent they've played in the last few years, even Linfield if you look at the real story.  UWO has done the same, with and without Wara.

The committee has 5-6 slots to fill with the goal of raising the level of competition, ignoring very recent performance against the best competition seems shortsighted to me.

emma17,

I get your points around NCC and tend to agree.  I do think it's difficult to implement this type of scenario and, my guess is, it will never happen.  What I don't really understand is putting UWO in the same discussion.  I really don't see where they have done anything historically that would make sense to include them in this discussion, other than one good year in 2013 (the only time they have made the playoffs).  I think it's very difficult to put a team into this discussion who has only been to the playoffs one time in their history.  Their record since 2010 is 38-16 overall and 26-9 in the WIAC (with one conference championship, two seconds, a third and a fourth place finish).  I know the WIAC is a tough conference, but these are hardly the type of results that would warrant special consideration from the selection committee for a Pool C berth.   

[USee]

Pool C has been shrinking, not expanding. The recent examples of 2 loss teams not making it are as obvious as the couple who did. NCC didn't make it last year as a 2 loss team. Is a loss to Wesley vs UWSP the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think the difference has anything to do with who NCC lost to.  I think the difference is how the rest of the region performed.  Had Wabash lost a second game, let's say to Hampden-Sydney,  of if John Carroll had lost their surprisingly tight game to ONU, I think the order of the regional rankings gets shuffled in a way that puts North Central in the field.  Some years it plays out that way, but last year it didn't. 

You make my point better than I could have made it. I 100% agree. I was being nice when I said "...maybe, maybe not". NCC didn't make it last year because they lost to UWSP. If they beat Alma by 30 instead, they are in. The current system rewards NCC for beating Benedictine in a non-competitive game vs losing to Wesley by 2. The Wesley game doesn't help the program. It just introduces more risk and limits the upside, which is never a good choice.

I think its fair to say that the Wesley game doesn't help the program get into the playoffs if the Cardinals lose.

But to make a blanket statement that it doesn't help the program, full stop, is IMO not fully accurate as it is a really narrow lens to look through.

It doesn't help the program any more than playing Benedictine helps. Not in any way that can be quantified. You can argue playing a good team makes you better but, in the CCIW, there is not data that supports that conclusion. In fact the data says the opposite.

So it can't be quantified, but the data says the opposite.  Gotcha.

You and I obviously have very different perspectives on this topic, which is fine.  This would be a really boring place if we all agreed on everything.

You misunderstand me. I said the data that quantifies the argument says playing Wesley isn't helpful. I am trying to find a reason to agree with you and I can't. In 2013 when NCC lost by 1 in the semis @Mt Union their non conference opponents were a combined 4-26. Which one of those games helped them go deeper than they have ever gone that year? In 2014 the loss to UWSP kept them out of the playoffs. In 2009 it was the loss at Redlands. If those games were wins, they were in the playoffs 10 straight years. Help me agree with you. We don't have different perspectives, I just have a mountain of dis-confirming evidence that I am choosing not to ignore. I am certainly open to being persuaded otherwise.

[USee]

Emma,

Your repeated reference to the NCC @ Linfield game as "competitive" has me baffled. I don't care too much as it's significantly off topic but since you keep adding it to your data, you should probably at least provide a rational explanation of your perspective. I watched the game and also saw many of NCC's games that year. As Wally said, they were -6 in turnovers and down 0-30 in the 3rd. One player is not the difference there.

[kiko]

Pool C has been shrinking, not expanding. The recent examples of 2 loss teams not making it are as obvious as the couple who did. NCC didn't make it last year as a 2 loss team. Is a loss to Wesley vs UWSP the difference? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't think the difference has anything to do with who NCC lost to.  I think the difference is how the rest of the region performed.  Had Wabash lost a second game, let's say to Hampden-Sydney,  of if John Carroll had lost their surprisingly tight game to ONU, I think the order of the regional rankings gets shuffled in a way that puts North Central in the field.  Some years it plays out that way, but last year it didn't. 

You make my point better than I could have made it. I 100% agree. I was being nice when I said "...maybe, maybe not". NCC didn't make it last year because they lost to UWSP. If they beat Alma by 30 instead, they are in. The current system rewards NCC for beating Benedictine in a non-competitive game vs losing to Wesley by 2. The Wesley game doesn't help the program. It just introduces more risk and limits the upside, which is never a good choice.

I think its fair to say that the Wesley game doesn't help the program get into the playoffs if the Cardinals lose.

But to make a blanket statement that it doesn't help the program, full stop, is IMO not fully accurate as it is a really narrow lens to look through.

It doesn't help the program any more than playing Benedictine helps. Not in any way that can be quantified. You can argue playing a good team makes you better but, in the CCIW, there is not data that supports that conclusion. In fact the data says the opposite.

So it can't be quantified, but the data says the opposite.  Gotcha.

You and I obviously have very different perspectives on this topic, which is fine.  This would be a really boring place if we all agreed on everything.

You misunderstand me. I said the data that quantifies the argument says playing Wesley isn't helpful. I am trying to find a reason to agree with you and I can't. In 2013 when NCC lost by 1 in the semis @Mt Union their non conference opponents were a combined 4-26. Which one of those games helped them go deeper than they have ever gone that year? In 2014 the loss to UWSP kept them out of the playoffs. In 2009 it was the loss at Redlands. If those games were wins, they were in the playoffs 10 straight years. Help me agree with you. We don't have different perspectives, I just have a mountain of dis-confirming evidence that I am choosing not to ignore. I am certainly open to being persuaded otherwise.

No, what we have are different perspectives.  I'm not going to convince you that mine is right, and you're not going to convince me that yours is.  You clearly endorse Wheaton's scheduling philosophy, and I believe that playing the best possible competition, even if it costs you a playoff berth in a random individual year, would help North Central ascend to the next level.

The data points you are using show correlation rather than causality.  And you are framing them in a way that ascribes full causality for the outcome on the strength of schedule.  We both know that this is overly simplistic.  Neither one of us can produce something that shows sufficient causality -- certainly not with the small sample size that a football schedule offers -- so this really does boil down to a philosophical difference.

I think the root of our differing perspectives is what I highlighted in purple above.  My perspective is based on what I believe makes the program better, not what helps to make the playoffs in a given year.  These are not the same metrics.  I am quite frankly not interested in a path that gets the Cardinals into the playoffs every year like a metronome, but that sees them never seriously challenge the purple powers.  The program has made tremendous progress -- more than I would have dared to dream is possible from the dark days prior to the present era -- and has come too far to settle for that, however nice of a neighborhood it might be.  I want to see that ascendance continued until the Cardinals are part of that group at the upper echelon of D3.  They are not there yet -- there's Whitewater and Mount are at the top, there are 3-4 programs at the next tier, such as Wesley, UMHB, etc., and then a gaggle of teams a notch below that that includes North Central.

If that is the framing, then the logical question is: how do you get there?  And there's a number of levers you can pull that can help.  (Key word here: help.  Not seal the deal, but help.)  You can get better players.  Have better coaching.  Better facilities will likely help.  Better schemes and systems.  Better preparation.  Better execution.  Better conditioning.  Better luck.  Better in-game decisions.  Etc. etc.  And in that context, one aspect of better preparation is, in my opinion, playing better competition.  Playing Benedictine -- we referred to them as Itty Bitty College back in the day -- won't make a program at North Central's level better.  It will likely help to produce better Pool C metrics, but it won't make you better.  Win or lose, I think that, for a program that has reached North Central's level, playing better competition makes you a better team.  Can I quantify this?  Of course not.  It is one of many factors in the mix.  Playing stronger opponents may cost you a win -- and therefore a playoff berth -- here or there, but that is in my mind a short-term metric on a scorecard in which I am looking at the long-term returns.  The dividends from playing tougher opponents might not show up on the scoreboard, or in the regional rankings, or even in an immediate timeframe.  But in my opinion it does more for you, long-term, than binging on a steady diet of MWC cupcakes.  Playing Benedictine does little to nothing to get you ready for the likes of Mount.  Playing Wesley, or Platteville, or Redlands... well, they're still not Mount, but they're further along that continuum. 

You don't subscribe to this POV, and that's fine, but I think it is because we are defining the goal differently.  As I said, we have different perspectives on this question.

[kiko]

Lastly, please don't break down my point to individuals like Stanek, or I'm sure you'd use Wara similarly.  NCC has performed extremely well vs every big opponent they've played in the last few years, even Linfield if you look at the real story.  UWO has done the same, with and without Wara. 

I know Linfield is not the only example you're using as evidence of North Central's track record, but this is an awfully big burden to place on committee members regarding teams they may not have ever seen play.  The result was what it was, painful as it might have been.   This starts to bleed into what-might-have-been territory.

[USee]

Kiko

Thanks for the detailed explanation.  You have misunderstood my position.  I have never said I am in favor of Wheatons philiosphy.  In fact I have opposed it.  I don't like it. But I cannot argue with it.  And clearly NCCs administration embraces your position. While I don't agree with Wheatons approach I can't argue with it. The system rewards it. And by reward I do mean playoff births because ultimately playing 2-3 extra games in a year is how you get better.  And those games are against progressively better teams.  Are you seriously making an argument that losing to Wesley in non conference and not maiming the playoffs is better for the program than beating Benedictine and then getting to play at UWW or at Mt Union after 2-3 playoff games? That strikes me as your ego talking not your brain.

Both programs want a national title. They have different philosophies.  Both have been successful.  Wheaton is 5-5 against NCC in the Thorne era.  Wheatons playoff record is 11-8 while NCC is 10-8.  Both have been to the semis once and the quarters once. 

Again, I don't agree with Wheatons scheduling philosophy.  But I can't argue against it and your argument just doesn't stand up to the facts.  The best teams play in the playoffs and that's where your program takes the next step.  The difference between losing to Wesley and missing the playoffs and beating Alma and making the playoffs is massive to the program. It's. It ohilosophical it's real. Weeks of practice and games against elite teams.

In the CCIW you don't need Wesley for that.  If you are in a league where your conference slate doesn't get you ready for Mt Union, then you should play tougher teams in the non conference.

[kiko]

Couple of clarifying points, then I am moving off this topic.  We're going in circles, and we're going to keep going in circles.

Kiko

You have misunderstood my position.  I have never said I am in favor of Wheatons philiosphy.  In fact I have opposed it.

I didn't say you are in favor of this philosophy.  I said you've endorsed it.  Which you have.

Are you seriously making an argument that losing to Wesley in non conference and not maiming the playoffs is better for the program than beating Benedictine and then getting to play at UWW or at Mt Union after 2-3 playoff games?

I don't frame this scheduling choice as something that assumes a loss to Wesley.  I know you don't intend to suggest that this is a sure defeat, but rather that a loss will have severe negative consequences for Pool C selection.  But you're also not allowing for the benefits, in confidence, in progress by whatever dimension you want to characterize it, and, of course, in Pool C possibilities that come as the spoils of victory.

But to answer your specific question, we don't know if, for instance, a loss to Point last year left North Central further behind on that arc of progress than they would be had they won that game and played a couple of playoff games.  It strikes me that, either way, they are playing a playoff-caliber team.   Point was not a playoff team last year, but a 7-3 WIAC team is in my mind on the same level as probably 30-40% of the playoff field.

Both programs want a national title. They have different philosophies.  Both have been successful.  Wheaton is 5-5 against NCC in the Thorne era.  Wheatons playoff record is 11-8 while NCC is 10-8.  Both have been to the semis once and the quarters once. 

Again, I don't agree with Wheatons scheduling philosophy.  But I can't argue against it and your argument just doesn't stand up to the facts. 

I am having a hard time reconciling the red with the purple.  It strikes me that the takeaway is that neither philosophy, on its own, proves to be better than the other.  The two programs have achieved very similar levels of success in recent years -- one doing it the way you endorse, and one doing it the way I prefer.

In the CCIW you don't need Wesley for that.  If you are in a league where your conference slate doesn't get you ready for Mt Union, then you should play tougher teams in the non conference.

Here's one place we have common ground... sort of.  I agree that if your conference slate doesn't get you ready for higher-caliber competition, then you should seek out a tougher non-conference slate.  However, and this will cause rotten tomatoes to fly in my direction, I don't believe the CCIW schedule does this.  To be clear, there are quality teams in the conference -- Wheaton obviously is at the top of that list, so don't read this as a dig against your alma mater.  But Mount and Whitewater are on another planet.  North Central is 46-3 in conference games over the past seven years, but they're oh-for-purple in the deep rounds of the playoffs.  In this context, I believe that taking steps to play even higher-caliber competition in the non-conference slate is the better choice.

Lastly -- we're dragging the Bennies through the mud in this discussion, but it is important to note that, as far as we know, the choice this year wasn't Wesley-or-Benedictine.  It was Wesley-or-open date.  In this context, I pick Wesley, every time.  I'd also pick Alma, every time.  Where we differ is if the choice is Wesley-or-Alma.

In any event, the question around which of these approaches is better will become irrelevant soon enough, once Carroll and Wash U rush our little fraternity.

[emma17]

A painful walk down memory lane:
Regarding NCC vs Linfield in 2012.  Following is my post on November 25, 2012:

Re: FB: Northwest Conference
« Reply #32844 on: November 25, 2012, 03:14:11 am »
No doubt Linfield deserved the win today as they were certainly the better team.  Today's game is a perfect example of what winning as a team really means.  It's not just the offense or defense or special teams, but it's the game plan as well.  The only time NCC had to pass as much as they did (39 times) was mid fourth quarter.  They weren't forced to pass in the first half or third quarter, but for whatever reason, they did and Linfield's defense was far superior to NCC's passing game.  Even the long gains by NCC could have been picks.  But it seems any honest evaluation would question why so much passing?  There is no way that Linfield had the answer to NCC's running game, just as NCC had no answer to Linfield's passing game. 
For reasons only the coaching staff can answer, NCC put more of the outcome of the game on the QB than they did on the real strength of NCC- the running game. 
Kukoc averaged almost 8 yards per carry on 25 runs.  Unless he isn't physically capable of more carries, it seems Linfield benefitted from NCC's decision to pass so much. 
I'm not taking anything from Linfield because you absolutely won as a true team.  It's a head scratcher for those that know NCC though.  I believe Linfield was the better team regardless, but NCC didn't seem to play to their strength today- and I don't see how that has anything to do with final exams- unless the coaching staff was taking them too.   

[Gregory Sager]

Couple of clarifying points, then I am moving off this topic.  We're going in circles, and we're going to keep going in circles.

Aww. Say it isn't so!



I'd rather read your debate over scheduling philosophies than a back-and-forth about an NCC vs. Linfield game that took place three years ago.

[USee]

Couple of clarifying points, then I am moving off this topic.  We're going in circles, and we're going to keep going in circles.

Aww. Say it isn't so!



I'd rather read your debate over scheduling philosophies than a back-and-forth about an NCC vs. Linfield game that took place three years ago.

100% agree