FB: Northwest Conference

[desertcat1]

Just a quick question.
Is there any copies of the Linfield vs Whitewater playoff game available?
I bought your highlight video but I would sure like to see the whole game if someone has a copy.
I don't expect it free so let me know a cost if available.

Thanks.

Sorry to hear of your loss but I am sure the program is in good hands. I know what it would do to our program if LK was leaving. JUMP!!

Go Raiders!

Raiderguy:  Shall we send that  film to LK"S OFFICE...  come on , go fish in another hole..   lol 

Go Cats

[footballfan413]

Just a quick question.
Is there any copies of the Linfield vs Whitewater playoff game available?
I bought your highlight video but I would sure like to see the whole game if someone has a copy.
I don't expect it free so let me know a cost if available.

Thanks.

Sorry to hear of your loss but I am sure the program is in good hands. I know what it would do to our program if LK was leaving. JUMP!!

Go Raiders!

Raiderguy:  Shall we send that  film to LK"S OFFICE...  come on , go fish in another hole..   lol 

Go Cats

If the NCAA had done the right thing you would have a copy of that game taped off ESPN2 because everyone who had the priviledge of seeing that game in person,
knows, it was the 2005 Stagg Bowl.   #1 against #2.......11 lead changes..........over 1,000 yds of offense........ 85 points scored........winning TD with 42 seconds left.......one of the best games ever played.......  Last thing I heard, Mt Union fans could purchase a bootlegged copy on the street for a price of.....(visualize my pinky finger touching my chin)..... One MIIIILLLLLIIIIOOOONNNN dollars!!!!!!

[criswyly]

As a diehard Wildcat fan I would truly like a copy of the WWhitewater Linfield game also....surely the "game footage" exists somewhere....Is it available to us starving Cats?

[footballfan413]

As a diehard Wildcat fan I would truly like a copy of the WWhitewater Linfield game also....surely the "game footage" exists somewhere....Is it available to us starving Cats?

Game tape exists.  I'm sure it is available to anyone who meets a few qualifications. 
Pass a 500 multiple-choice questionaire, blood test, finger print and FBI background check.....

[d-train]

everyone who had the priviledge of seeing that game in person,
knows, it was the 2005 Stagg Bowl. 

Immediately after the game, I thought the same thing. But I don't think you can really say that after knowing the results from Salem two weeks later, can you?

[raiderguy]

Desert Cat 1

If it is the game everone says it is why not share? I have tapes of a lot of games.  Need one?

"The 2005 Stagg Bowl" comes to mind. I'll trade you a copy?

I did purchase the Linfield video (passed all the tests for that one) and was a fun tape to watch. No secrets there. I am sure if LK wanted a copy he wouldn't be calling me to get it. Am I really that connected? WOW.

He ain't heavy LK's my brother! (You know tune) sing a long.

Criswyly

Send me the questionaire...bloods on the way.

[raiderguy]

d-train

Excellent point. The Stagg Bowl is the reward for the two teams that make it through a true playoff system. Thank God the NCAA did get that right!

Wisconsin Whitewater was the same team that played in Oregon two weeks prior and earned a trip to Salem I think.

Did they not deserve to be there?

And the best team won on that day.

I hope the preseason polls are not going to start the "unfair bracket" talk already.

[beancounter]

Red and Purple.....yards after catch is hardly a joke....maybe that is statistical naivete coming through.

It is pretty obvious that one could chart the QB's passes in a game for yards before and after the catch to determine success in "over the top" passes as opposed to short passes where the receiver got loose.  Similarly, incomplete passes and interceptions could be charted as well.

A real world example would be this....In the scoring section of the stat box you may read "Allen 80 pass from Elliott"....but that doesn't tell you whether Casey caught a ball over the middle for 15 and ran the remaining 65, or whether he caught the ball 40 yards downfield and ran the remaining 40.    YAC is more information that is usable.

While YAC isn't as relevant as say, QB ratings, YAC does measure certain nuances in the passing game.   It certainly has more value than using division three statistics for suitability as a prospect in the National Football League, as was posted here last week.

[RedandPurple]

LB:
"What a joke" was in reference to Madden not the "YAC".

[D O.C.]

The YAC question was meant to be provocative.
 
I was able to see only 7 of Brett's WILDCAT games. If I turned my back the team scored. If I left disgusted 5 minutes before halftime to 'help at a tailgate' they would score 3 times while I was walking across the lots to go ahead by 5.

It was apparent that Brett's father and advisor steered him into a corps of receivers as good/better as any in NCAA Division III. If I am to believe the legend, apparently dropped right into Jay Locey's (goodbye All-American quarterback-hello record setting All-American quarterback) lap.

Viewing Wildcat 11's video logs I understand many of the games I did not see were like the ones I saw. The Stagg Bowl first TD catch AND run by Hazenberg was so typical. LINFIELD could literally score on any play they ran the last two years.*

The quarterback did his job, got the ball to a corps of receivers par excellence, and they advanced that ball into the record books.

['Cats Fa Natic]

Red and Purple.....yards after catch is hardly a joke....maybe that is statistical naivete coming through.

It is pretty obvious that one could chart the QB's passes in a game for yards before and after the catch to determine success in "over the top" passes as opposed to short passes where the receiver got loose.  Similarly, incomplete passes and interceptions could be charted as well.

A real-world example would be this....In the scoring section of the stat box you may read "Allen 80 pass from Elliott"....but that doesn't tell you whether Casey caught a ball over the middle for 15 and ran the remaining 65, or whether he caught the ball 40 yards downfield and ran the remaining 40.    YAC is more information that is usable.

While YAC isn't as relevant as say, QB ratings, YAC does measure certain nuances in the passing game.   It certainly has more value than using division three statistics for suitability as a prospect in the National Football League, as was posted here last week.

Okay, here's my ramblings on this simply because I can't resist a good rhetorical argument...

I can understand the desire for YAC stats, because it might further illuminate who was doing what during a pass. Ten yard pass goes for 80 yard TD = 10 yards to QB, 70 yards goes to WR, right?  But there's so much going on there on that one play that it's almost impossibly hard to quantify on a consistent basis and certainly couldn't be done on the spot during the game. You'd need a board of certified coaches/refs to verify the stats via game film. Yes, the QB threw a pass that traveled 10 yards but did the WR MAKE the rest of the yards on his own? Did the QB throw it in the only place possible so the DB stood no chance to intercept? Perhaps the DB then made a leaping grasp for the ball and then fell down, leaving the WR with an unprotected cakewalk into the end zone. Who should truly get credit for that? The WR for an easy run that a grandma with a stroller could have done or the QB who threw the dart in the first place? On the other end of the spectrum, you'd have a wounded duck that the WR caught over the top of a DB, juked and twisted out of five tackles and flat out outran and outmuscled the entire defense. In this case, a QB gets credit for an additional 70 yards of offense that he did not "earn" in any sense of the word.

If we're going to keep stats for YAC, then why not YBT? As in, yards before tackle? Some of the best RBS do a lot of running for very little yardage. Think of Barry Sanders and how he could run from one sideline to the other, dodge half the defense but only move the chains by two critical yards. Should we be keeping tabs of those first actual 70+ yards vs. the actual 2 yards because they don't tell the whole story?

But what about the other statistics that are wholly missing in this YAC discussion? The exceptional, well-timed block by the other WR that cleared the way for the catching WR? The TE running interference or drawing the safety into an out route, clearing the middle? The entire OL giving the QB the time to throw in the first place? The RB who has proved so formidable that the defense doesn't dare drop into a cover two and hugs the line even though there is 80 yards behind them? What about the coach who calls the play in the first place?

I suppose the opposite could be true, too. What about keeping stats for missed tackles on the defensive side? What about stubbing toe stats? For when the DL trips over their own feet when they should have gotten to the QB before he threw it? Or the defensive coach who isn't paying attention and calls in the wrong play?

I wonder if some of the YAC discussion here is about trying to find fault with a QB and/or  WR? Namely, the perpetual pessimism about Eliiot-and-anyone-who-actually-excels-must-have-some-fault-somewhere syndrome VS. the eternal optimism about Elliot-and-anyone-who-excels-can-do-no-wrong syndrome. Both camps are equally at fault and miss the point.

Regardless, the stats-for-everything quest overlooks the fact that football is a TEAM sport on every play. There is too much going on at any given moment to quantify every little nuance. Stats give a snapshot of what happened, they don't tell the whole story.  And neither does one single game represent any athlete's entire lifetime "game."

A good WR will consistently have high numbers against different opponents. A good QB will have high numbers to all of his receivers not just one. And that's easy enough to tell from the stats as they are now.

Besides, if stats did tell the entire story and were as interesting to read as actually going to the game, we'd never need to go to the catdome again.

Just IMHO...

[footballfan413]

everyone who had the priviledge of seeing that game in person,
knows, it was the 2005 Stagg Bowl. 

Immediately after the game, I thought the same thing. But I don't think you can really say that after knowing the results from Salem two weeks later, can you?

I was  pretty sure that the end result would be brought up on here and I welcome it from you,  d-train.  I think you are fair with your postings so here is my thought process.  This is in no way meant to take away from the 2005 Stagg Bowl Champions.  On that day, they played 4 good quarters and won the game.  And this is all just conjecture but why not play alittle, "what if?"  "What if,"  the NCAA (props for the play-off system however flawed it is) had moved the #2 team UWW to the #1 seed in the North Region as many agreed should have been done.  "What if," MUC and UWW met in the regional bracket.  Because UWW is the top seed, MUC brings it's legendary coach, winning records and storied tradition to Perkins Stadium.  Would the outcome have been different?  Sounds like the SJU scenario and we know how that worked out for them.  The Hawks had one bad quarter in the Stagg Bowl and I think, ultimately, being alittle overwhelmed and the lack of experience in that environment helped do them in. My one consolation when I walked out of the stadium that day was knowing that the MUC fans, team and coach were thanking their lucky stars that UWW didn't have 3 more minutes on the clock!!!!  The same way I was thankful that Brett and the Cats didn't have 30 more seconds!    Anyway, just making the point that a lot of factors play into the outcomes of games and a change in anything could easily affect the end result especially when dealing with teams playing at that level.   None of this was meant to take anything away from Coach K and the Raiders.  They won it and they earned it!!  Just alittle "what if," for fun!! 

[d-train]

everyone who had the priviledge of seeing that game in person,
knows, it was the 2005 Stagg Bowl. 

Immediately after the game, I thought the same thing. But I don't think you can really say that after knowing the results from Salem two weeks later, can you?

I was  pretty sure that the end result would be brought up on here and I welcome it from you,  d-train.  I think you are fair with your postings so here is my thought process.  This is in no way meant to take away from the 2005 Stagg Bowl Champions.  On that day, they played 4 good quarters and won the game.  And this is all just conjecture but why not play alittle, "what it?"  "What if,"  the NCAA (props for the play-off system however flawed it is) had moved the #2 team UWW to the #1 seed in the North Region as many agreed should have been done.  "What if," MUC and UWW met in the regional bracket.  Because UWW is the top seed, MUC brings it's legendary coach, winning records and storied tradition to Perkins Stadium.  Would the outcome have been different?  Sounds like the SJU senario and we know how that worked out for them.  The Hawks had one bad quarter in the Stagg Bowl and I think, ultimately, being alittle overwhelmed and the lack of experience in that environment helped do them in. My one consolation when I walked out of the stadium that day was knowing that the MUC fans, team and coach were thanking their lucky stars that UWW didn't have 3 more minutes on the clock!!!!  The same way I was thankful that Brett and the Cats didn't have 30 more seconds!    Anyway, just making the point that a lot of factors play into the outcomes of games and a change in anything could easily affect the end result especially when dealing with teams playing at that level.   None of this was meant to take anything away from Coach K and the Raiders.  They won it and they earned it!!  Just alittle "what if," for fun!! 

Well sure...the result might have been different in a semi-final hosted by UW-W. If UW-W had recently been that deep in the playoffs, that might have helped as well. (I agree that they looked flat for about 1.5 quarters of the Stagg Bowl.) I also tend to hit my second drive much straighter and in the fairway, and my putting is always better in a scramble when someone else shows me the line. But I'm sorry, there's no mulligans here. 

I'm glad you say that nothing should be taken away from the Raiders. That's really my point. They won the Stagg Bowl, it was not played in Oregon two weeks earlier. I got caught up in thinking about some of those 'what if's' as well...but that isn't fair to the Raiders who (I think) played well enough to remove any doubt.

[RedandPurple]

Deep Thoughts by John Madden: (A tip of the hat to SNL)

"Of course, if he had had control of the ball when he hit the ground, then it would have been a complete pass." 
Thanks for explaining the complexities of the forward pass.
 
"Donovan McNabb is doing the things Donovan McNabb does." 
Oh, I thought he was doing the things Brett Favre does.

"The Rams better block that Warren Sapp guy."
Quick, send this to the Rams coaching staff. They may not have thought about it.

"Boom!"
'nuff said!


 

[footballfan413]

everyone who had the priviledge of seeing that game in person,
knows, it was the 2005 Stagg Bowl. 

Immediately after the game, I thought the same thing. But I don't think you can really say that after knowing the results from Salem two weeks later, can you?

I was  pretty sure that the end result would be brought up on here and I welcome it from you,  d-train.  I think you are fair with your postings so here is my thought process.  This is in no way meant to take away from the 2005 Stagg Bowl Champions.  On that day, they played 4 good quarters and won the game.  And this is all just conjecture but why not play alittle, "what it?"  "What if,"  the NCAA (props for the play-off system however flawed it is) had moved the #2 team UWW to the #1 seed in the North Region as many agreed should have been done.  "What if," MUC and UWW met in the regional bracket.  Because UWW is the top seed, MUC brings it's legendary coach, winning records and storied tradition to Perkins Stadium.  Would the outcome have been different?  Sounds like the SJU senario and we know how that worked out for them.  The Hawks had one bad quarter in the Stagg Bowl and I think, ultimately, being alittle overwhelmed and the lack of experience in that environment helped do them in. My one consolation when I walked out of the stadium that day was knowing that the MUC fans, team and coach were thanking their lucky stars that UWW didn't have 3 more minutes on the clock!!!!  The same way I was thankful that Brett and the Cats didn't have 30 more seconds!    Anyway, just making the point that a lot of factors play into the outcomes of games and a change in anything could easily affect the end result especially when dealing with teams playing at that level.   None of this was meant to take anything away from Coach K and the Raiders.  They won it and they earned it!!  Just alittle "what if," for fun!! 

Well sure...the result might have been different in a semi-final hosted by UW-W. If UW-W had recently been that deep in the playoffs, that might have helped as well. (I agree that they looked flat for about 1.5 quarters of the Stagg Bowl.) I also tend to hit my second drive much straighter and in the fairway, and my putting is always better in a scramble when someone else shows me the line. But I'm sorry, there's no mulligans here. 

I'm glad you say that nothing should be taken away from the Raiders. That's really my point. They won the Stagg Bowl, it was not played in Oregon two weeks earlier. I got caught up in thinking about some of those 'what if's' as well...but that isn't fair to the Raiders who (I think) played well enough to remove any doubt.

I totally agree!!!  I retract my statement that the UWW/Linfield game was the Stagg Bowl.  Not a fair statement and any conversation along this line is going to come out sounding like sour grapes on my part.  It really comes down to who is the best team that day for 4 quarters until the final buzzer sounds.  On that day, it was MUC!  Not hoping for a Mulligan but a "Do-Over" would be nice................ LOL......