FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[nkwest]

This, however, is completely different and I don't think we bear the stain of hypocrisy. Turning a game into trick-play practice is something all together different. Particularly when that novelty practice is against a perennial cellar dweller and after the game is well, well in hand. Check out that YouTube clip and have another think.

The two point conversion featured on ESPN was executed when the game was 6-3 in favor of UST. Some may argue that the game was, in fact, well in hand at that point, but Carleton had also just opened the game by eating up half of the first quarter against a UST defense largely devoid of passion. The conversion changed the energy level on the UST sideline and in the crowd.

The other two conversions were attempted because Carleton is a fundamentally unsound football team. On the second two point conversion, the holder running the ball in from the swinging gate formation was possible because Carleton didn't line up to properly defend the point of attack. On the third, they left a UST player split out wide completely undefended. The receiver could have ordered a pizza for delivery from Davanni's and finished half of it by the time the closest Carleton player came close to making a play. It would have been irresponsible of UST to not convert that pass.

As art76 astutely mentioned, teams trade film from the three previous games. UST's potential first & second round NCAA opponents won't see the (failed) first half onside kick attempt against Bethel, but they will see the (successful) first half attempt against Carleton, and the same goes for the two point conversions. Whether or not future opponents practice against these specific plays/formations is somewhat irrelevant because it pays dividends either way. Communicating the threat of exploiting fundamentally unsound football is the goal.

I realize it's popular to find any opportunity to rip the UST coaching staff on this forum, but there's a point where it betrays an ignorance, willing or otherwise, I don't expect from fans of a team with a rich tradition of championship caliber football.

[retagent]

Blah, Blah, Blah.

They could take the approach - "Don't show them anything." One can justify either approach. What else are we going to talk about?

[nkwest]

Blah, Blah, Blah.

They could take the approach - "Don't show them anything." One can justify either approach. What else are we going to talk whine about?

Fixed that for you.

[57Johnnie]

Blah, Blah, Blah.

They could take the approach - "Don't show them anything." One can justify either approach. What else are we going to talk about?

BEER 

[Walter Eagle]

This, however, is completely different and I don't think we bear the stain of hypocrisy. Turning a game into trick-play practice is something all together different. Particularly when that novelty practice is against a perennial cellar dweller and after the game is well, well in hand. Check out that YouTube clip and have another think.

The two point conversion featured on ESPN was executed when the game was 6-3 in favor of UST. Some may argue that the game was, in fact, well in hand at that point, but Carleton had also just opened the game by eating up half of the first quarter against a UST defense largely devoid of passion. The conversion changed the energy level on the UST sideline and in the crowd.

The other two conversions were attempted because Carleton is a fundamentally unsound football team. On the second two point conversion, the holder running the ball in from the swinging gate formation was possible because Carleton didn't line up to properly defend the point of attack. On the third, they left a UST player split out wide completely undefended. The receiver could have ordered a pizza for delivery from Davanni's and finished half of it by the time the closest Carleton player came close to making a play. It would have been irresponsible of UST to not convert that pass.

As art76 astutely mentioned, teams trade film from the three previous games. UST's potential first & second round NCAA opponents won't see the (failed) first half onside kick attempt against Bethel, but they will see the (successful) first half attempt against Carleton, and the same goes for the two point conversions. Whether or not future opponents practice against these specific plays/formations is somewhat irrelevant because it pays dividends either way. Communicating the threat of exploiting fundamentally unsound football is the goal.

I realize it's popular to find any opportunity to rip the UST coaching staff on this forum, but there's a point where it betrays an ignorance, willing or otherwise, I don't expect from fans of a team with a rich tradition of championship caliber football.

I have been off this board for a long time and am a long time Tommie fan, season ticket holder and financial supporter.  I was so upset with the lack of respect these plays represented that I left the game before halftime.  I have spent a lot of time trying to rationalize why these "ultra" trick plays were done and I can't come up with anything that would be justified.  You explanation is a load of BS.  BTW you did not throw in the drop kicked extra point that I heard about but did not see.

I don't know what is going on with this program and why we at St. Thomas would want it run this way but things have gone from suspicious to completely shocking, starting with the end of the Mount Union game, continuing with the photo at the end of the Johnnie game and now this ridiculous display of what?  Immaturity, hubris, megalomania?

Even beyond the mocking and bullying aspect of Saturday's behavior you are putting your players in jeopardy for retaliation that could result in a severe injury.  I JUST DON'T GET IT.

One last thing re the trading of game video.  There are many ways to get way more video than the last three games.  Any game that is web-cast can be live copied as it is broadcast or later archived and coaches will often freely trade video among themselves.

[nkwest]

You explanation is a load of BS.

No, it's the exact explanation you'd get from the coaching staff if you would bother to ask them, and they give you the opportunity to do so in person every other Monday all season long. These aren't trade secrets and it's not a new pattern. UST has been consistently running these types of plays in these quantities for many seasons now because it's all about the film. That's especially true this time of the year with potential non-conference opponents on the horizon who don't have mountains of film from previous games of their own against UST.

[wm4]

<< I was so upset with the lack of respect these plays represented that I left the game before halftime. >>

Just to be clear, UST went for 2, twice in the first half.  That's pretty much the norm, regardless of opponent.  One was the "behind the back" pass play, while the other was a straight ahead run for two.  The halftime score was 44-3.  Coach Caruso goes for 2, a lot.  The game was well in hand and that point, but UST was playing their own game and wasn't doing anything more than they normally do in games. 

The two, 2 point converstions in the second half were a bit much, will concede that. 

Caruso goes for 2 a bunch, he on-sides kicks a bunch and he runs trick plays on punt returns often as well.  That is nothing new and he does it consistently against all types of opponents. 

[Walter Eagle]

You explanation is a load of BS.

No, it's the exact explanation you'd get from the coaching staff if you would bother to ask them, and they give you the opportunity to do so in person every other Monday all season long. These aren't trade secrets and it's not a new pattern. UST has been consistently running these types of plays in these quantities for many seasons now because it's all about the film. That's especially true this time of the year with potential non-conference opponents on the horizon who don't have mountains of film from previous games of their own against UST.

My mistake.  I let my emotions get the best of me.  I should have said "your explanation doesn't ring true".

[SagatagSam]

You explanation is a load of BS.

No, it's the exact explanation you'd get from the coaching staff if you would bother to ask them,

I read Walter Eagle's critique as an attack on the merits of the explanation. Whoever is delivering the explanation, whether it be you, Glenn Caruso, or St. Thomas Aquinas himself, is irrelevant.

[wm4]

You explanation is a load of BS.

No, it's the exact explanation you'd get from the coaching staff if you would bother to ask them, and they give you the opportunity to do so in person every other Monday all season long. These aren't trade secrets and it's not a new pattern. UST has been consistently running these types of plays in these quantities for many seasons now because it's all about the film. That's especially true this time of the year with potential non-conference opponents on the horizon who don't have mountains of film from previous games of their own against UST.

Case in point, UST tried a mid range field goal earlier in the year and the defense rushed 5 guys, while the other 6 defended any sort of fake that might happen.  Not only had the opponent had to spend practice time to draw up coverages for what might happen, but in this particular play the kicker was not hurried in any way and calmy made the field goal.  Huge factor?  Probably not.  Subtle way of gaining an edge over your opponent?  You betcha.

[02 Warhawk]

You explanation is a load of BS.

No, it's the exact explanation you'd get from the coaching staff if you would bother to ask them, and they give you the opportunity to do so in person every other Monday all season long. These aren't trade secrets and it's not a new pattern. UST has been consistently running these types of plays in these quantities for many seasons now because it's all about the film. That's especially true this time of the year with potential non-conference opponents on the horizon who don't have mountains of film from previous games of their own against UST.

I think future opponents of St. Thomas (2nd round and beyond) will see right through the coaching on this one. No way they are kicking onside kicks and going for two in close games when they hit the second round on the playoffs.

I had to look no further than the St. John's game. If this was truly part of their game, where was the going for 2 and onsides in Collegeville? Because the risk outweighs the reward against a solid team...that why. Just like will in the playoffs. It will be the end of St. Thomas if they try that crap in the playoffs. And the opposing coaches know that.

[nkwest]

The two, 2 point converstions in the second half were a bit much, will concede that. 

To be accurate, there was one 2 point conversion in the second half, the one where Carleton left a receiver completely uncovered.

Caruso goes for 2 a bunch, he on-sides kicks a bunch and he runs trick plays on punt returns often as well.  That is nothing new and he does it consistently against all types of opponents.

This.

[nkwest]

I think future opponents of St. Thomas (2nd round and beyond) will see right through the coaching on this one. No way they are kicking onside kicks and going for two in close games when they hit the second round on the playoffs.

If the kick return team lines up 13 yards off the ball and consistently bails out, you might be surprised.

[wm4]

I had to look no further than the St. John's game. If this was truly part of their game, where was the going for 2 and onsides in Collegeville? Because the risk outweighs the reward agaisnt a solid team...that why. Just like will in the playoffs. It will be the end of St. Thomas in the playoffs if they try that crap in the playoffs.
[/quote]

On sides kick in the first half of the Bethel game.  Bethel wound up scoring off it. 

[faunch]

On the third, they left a UST player split out wide completely undefended. The receiver could have ordered a pizza for delivery from Davanni's and finished half of it by the time the closest Carleton player came close to making a play. It would have been irresponsible of UST to not convert that pass.

"I didn't want to do it.  I felt I owed it to them."
Judge Smails

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MA2NDf9LdDE