FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[OldAuggie]

Hey, show a little love! Carleton returns a lot (from an admittedly abysmal team). My optimistic projections have them beating Hamline, Augsburg, and Olaf. Honestly, does anyone know how Augsburg will fare this year? Several key cogs are gone

Can't replace Ayrton Scott but I have faith that someone will emerge as a legit QB. The last 8 years at least, if not longer, AUG has started the season with a good QB and most of them have transferred in. That is a trend if you ask me. I know they had several candidates on campus this spring including at least one transfer.  Sonnenfeld will be hard to replace and so will Tyrell Martin but I know of some quality young guys that are waiting for a chance and a nice transfer RB. The offensive line will have 2 starters back but they will miss three seniors that I can think of. Defense should be a bit better off with several quality starters returning and young guys who are ready at d-line, d-back and linebacker and at least one transfer coming in that will contribute at d-line.

I think the offense will be young and the defense will be improved from last year. So hard to move up to the next tier of the MIAC so I think the Reverend Ratings are about right for this fall if we can maintain quality QB play.

[carletonknights]

I think Art76's list is a fair reflection of where things are likely headed.  St. Olaf and Carleton don't have the roster size to move out of the basement although St. Olaf seems to be trying a bit harder than Carleton.  Coaches at those schools have to play players who aren't really deserving of playing time.  I believe that St. John's might be ripe for coming in third at the hands of Bethel, Concordia, or Gustavus, if not this year then over the next two years.

Of course St. Olaf is trying harder than Carleton. Football was never a priority at Carleton, it never will be. Each year, there will be more people attending Rottblatt than all the football games combined. That being said, I think this year Carleton will finally have a 70+ man roster. Part of the issue has been coaching instability leading to less than mediocre recruiting classes

The key to any of these teams moving up is their success at recruiting.  Has anyone done an analysis of the last two recruiting year classes?  I have some thoughts on a couple of the schools 2016 recruiting class but since not all of them have announced I'll leave that for another day.

Might as well let us hear it now. Can't recall a time in the past five years Carleton publicized their recruiting class. I'm sure most that do, already have.

Augsburg is an interesting case.  I'm not a fan of the offensive scheme employed by Augsburg as they really can't grind out yards on the ground when needed and that keeps their defense on the field too long - with predictable results.  One interesting point with Augsburg is their new S&C coach.  He's from the UofM, studied under Dietz, and understands Triphasic Training.  Looking at his summer workouts he's done an excellent job incorporating the triphasic approval coach into his summer football workouts.  If his approach works for the Augsburg football team they could be very tough team to handle.  It will probably take a couple of years to find out though.

Augsburg will be interesting this year indeed. In addition to the graduation losses, they seem to have underwent some offseason turmoil and an additional 30 underclassmen quit the team. No idea how many seniors they had, we'll just say 15, so that's a 45ish players lost from one season to another. Interesting to watch indeed

OldAuggie, did you hear anything backing that bit up?^

[carletonknights]

I agree with you, sowilson, that SJU will be challenged really hard for 2nd this year. I think Bethel is going to put up a really good fight for that second playoff berth. I'm not sure what I think of GAC and Concordia yet

[OldAuggie]

Augsburg will be interesting this year indeed. In addition to the graduation losses, they seem to have underwent some offseason turmoil and an additional 30 underclassmen quit the team. No idea how many seniors they had, we'll just say 15, so that's a 45ish players lost from one season to another. Interesting to watch indeed

OldAuggie, did you hear anything backing that bit up?^

No I did not. I try not to pry in to team matters though. What the "h" happened?

[OzJohnnie]

I called it. They get a Gustie chastity ring...

Ha!  This ain't D1, though.  It probably came from a crackerjack box.

[OzJohnnie]

I think Art76's list is a fair reflection of where things are likely headed.  St. Olaf and Carleton don't have the roster size to move out of the basement although St. Olaf seems to be trying a bit harder than Carleton.  Coaches at those schools have to play players who aren't really deserving of playing time.  I believe that St. John's might be ripe for coming in third at the hands of Bethel, Concordia, or Gustavus, if not this year then over the next two years.

The key to any of these teams moving up is their success at recruiting.  Has anyone done an analysis of the last two recruiting year classes?  I have some thoughts on a couple of the schools 2016 recruiting class but since not all of them have announced I'll leave that for another day.

I look forward to GAC's attempt to unseat UST for second place in the MIAC. That mid-80's revival is just around the corner. We've been fearing it for years. 30 to be exact.

[carletonknights]

Augsburg will be interesting this year indeed. In addition to the graduation losses, they seem to have underwent some offseason turmoil and an additional 30 underclassmen quit the team. No idea how many seniors they had, we'll just say 15, so that's a 45ish players lost from one season to another. Interesting to watch indeed

OldAuggie, did you hear anything backing that bit up?^

No I did not. I try not to pry in to team matters though. What the "h" happened?

Well I don't want to say too much, as I have no idea how much is rumor and how much is true, and how much I trust my source, but it seems that the coach made some changes during the off-season and that was the fulcrum

[BDB]

I've been told there is a Pokemon at the boat landing by my house and it's kinda creeping me out.

[Mr.MIAC]

I think Art76's list is a fair reflection of where things are likely headed.  St. Olaf and Carleton don't have the roster size to move out of the basement although St. Olaf seems to be trying a bit harder than Carleton.  Coaches at those schools have to play players who aren't really deserving of playing time.  I believe that St. John's might be ripe for coming in third at the hands of Bethel, Concordia, or Gustavus, if not this year then over the next two years.

The key to any of these teams moving up is their success at recruiting.  Has anyone done an analysis of the last two recruiting year classes?  I have some thoughts on a couple of the schools 2016 recruiting class but since not all of them have announced I'll leave that for another day.

Augsburg is an interesting case.  I'm not a fan of the offensive scheme employed by Augsburg as they really can't grind out yards on the ground when needed and that keeps their defense on the field too long - with predictable results.  One interesting point with Augsburg is their new S&C coach.  He's from the UofM, studied under Dietz, and understands Triphasic Training.  Looking at his summer workouts he's done an excellent job incorporating the triphasic approach into his summer football workouts.  If his approach works for the Augsburg football team they could be very tough team to handle.  It will probably take a couple of years to find out though.

Your comment on coaches having to play players not deserving of playing time touches on an interesting philosophical question, namely, "How does one assess who's really deserving of playing time in Division III football?"

You seem to imply there's a standard of play in DIII that players should meet in order to be deemed deserving of playing time. There is none. No DIII player has accepted an athletic scholarship and thereby agreed to any concomitant performance requirements. In DIII talent is concentrated in a handful of schools and there's a large disparity in talent amongst the top 10 or 20 teams and the rest. As a result of this disparity, determining a DIII standard of play is nearly impossible. We can't use the performance of top DIII teams as an aspirational standard either. Just look at the MIAC. If UST-level performance were set as the standard, most MIAC players would get zero playing time.

I think standards of play develop organically at the team level and one can assess who's deserving of playing time only at this level. Aside from the fact that factors beyond performance influence who gets playing time in DIII, coaches must create their own standard of performance and make decisions accordingly. Going back to St. Olaf and Carleton, those who get playing time on those teams are all deserving because they ostensibly meet the performance requirements established by their coaches, who determined these requirements based on the pool of talent available to them and the team's aspirations.

You're right to point out the importance of recruiting for MIAC teams. Solid recruiting not only brings in more talented players. It allows coaches to raise their expectations on the standard of play across the team. Effective recruiting has been a big part of Caruso's success, but as UST drew in more talent the coaches also ratcheted up their expectations for the team as a whole. Now you'd be hard pressed to find someone within the UST program who isn't aiming for a national championship. Those who get playing time feel a sense of accomplishment just being on the field because they know the level of talent competing for their spot.  This sort of virtuous circle helps teams at the top, but in the converse it harms teams at bottom, who would need to make a major sea change in recruiting and aspirations to rise in the MIAC rankings (like UST did).

SJU might slip to third at the hands of Bethel or maybe Concordia. Bethel stumbled last year, but they're likely to rebound; Concordia has made great strides the past few years and they beat SJU in 2014. I'm not so sure about Gustavus. They looked great the first half of last season, but faltered later in the season when faced with real competition. I think it will take at least a few more years of building for great things to happen in St. Peter.

I can't offer much recruiting insight on the other MIAC schools, but my little birds at UST are singing the praises of our new recruiting class. Maybe someone else can speak to other MIAC schools. 

[sjusection105]

My projected 2016 MIAC finish (without considerations for returning starters, that'll come after Kickoff comes out):

Team	Wins	Losses
St. Thomas	7.6	0.4
St. John's	6.5	1.5
Bethel	5.1	2.9
Concordia-Moorhead	4.8	3.2
Gustavus Adulphus	4.3	3.7
Augsburg	3.6	4.4
St. Olaf	1.7	6.3
Hamline	1.6	6.4
Carelton	0.9	7.1

I would say this fits Reverend MIAC's view of things a little better than Art76's

I'm curious when you shuffle the deck weighing in returning starters. With SJU losing an All-American RB and 4 yr. starters at QB & WR I would be thrilled with a "6.5" weighted designation in wins.
Being a pessimist until I see the product perform on the field, I always have low expectations going into a new season. I'm from the "what have you done lately" school of thought.

[sowilson]

I think Art76's list is a fair reflection of where things are likely headed.  St. Olaf and Carleton don't have the roster size to move out of the basement although St. Olaf seems to be trying a bit harder than Carleton.  Coaches at those schools have to play players who aren't really deserving of playing time...

Your comment on coaches having to play players not deserving of playing time touches on an interesting philosophical question, namely, "How does one assess who's really deserving of playing time in Division III football?"

You seem to imply there's a standard of play in DIII that players should meet in order to be deemed deserving of playing time.

You're way, way, way off base.  I did not imply that there's a standard of play for DIII football that players must meet.  Without getting into specific conversations I've had with MIAC coaches my statement "have to play players who aren't really deserving of playing time" is based on what coaches have to do when faced with small rosters (at any level of play).  For example, let's say you have a roster of 50 players spread normally between the different year classes.  With a small roster you're probably going to play some freshman who aren't really ready to see substantial playing time.  This could be due to underdeveloped strength (need a couple of years in the weight room), lacking skills (weren't taught what they need to know football wise in HS), or haven't mastered the system or playbook.  You will also probably play some older players who aren't deserving of playing time due to attitude/rules issues (team rules, bad attitudes, missing practice, etc), you're also more likely to play players who are less than %100 (injured or just tired from playing 2 way), and yes you may have to play some people with less talent than what you want but hey, it's D3 get use to it.  When you have a much larger roster you have the luxury of letting your talent develop until you (coach) believe they are ready to contribute at a high level, and then you can limit there playing time until they've shown that they deserve more.  Of course there is probably a point at which a roster gets too big to manage successfully and that size hurts you.  Personally I believe that St. Johns would be a better football team with 50-70 less players on the squad and is one of the reasons why they may be ripe to move down the standings. I think that a roster around 85 players is competitive and 120-130 is optimum, above that and you can have issues.  Since the athletes don't get paid (athletic scholarships) their currency is playing time and their is only so much of that to go around. 

[HansenRatings]

My projected 2016 MIAC finish (without considerations for returning starters, that'll come after Kickoff comes out):

Team	Wins	Losses
St. Thomas	7.6	0.4
St. John's	6.5	1.5
Bethel	5.1	2.9
Concordia-Moorhead	4.8	3.2
Gustavus Adulphus	4.3	3.7
Augsburg	3.6	4.4
St. Olaf	1.7	6.3
Hamline	1.6	6.4
Carelton	0.9	7.1

I would say this fits Reverend MIAC's view of things a little better than Art76's

I'm curious when you shuffle the deck weighing in returning starters. With SJU losing an All-American RB and 4 yr. starters at QB & WR I would be thrilled with a "6.5" weighted designation in wins.
Being a pessimist until I see the product perform on the field, I always have low expectations going into a new season. I'm from the "what have you done lately" school of thought.

Because it would be too difficult to get to that level of granular detail for every school, and in the interest of keeping the model unbiased, every returning starter is treated equally. I have had three years of data to work with, and the trend so far has been that an average returning starter is worth about 1.5 points per game for their unit. The national average is 6.75 returning starters per unit, so a team with 9 returning starters would see a 3.375 boost in their offensive or defensive rating.

In their July podcast, Pat & Keith mentioned that they have returning starters broken down by position for every school. I emailed them to see if they would be willing to share that sort of information, but haven't heard anything back yet.

[sowilson]

Of course St. Olaf is trying harder than Carleton. Football was never a priority at Carleton, it never will be. Each year, there will be more people attending Rottblatt than all the football games combined. That being said, I think this year Carleton will finally have a 70+ man roster. Part of the issue has been coaching instability leading to less than mediocre recruiting classes

Might as well let us hear it now. Can't recall a time in the past five years Carleton publicized their recruiting class. I'm sure most that do, already have.

When my son went through the recruiting process one of the things I brought up with coaches was the school administration commitment to fielding a competitive or at least relevant football team.  The coaches (at all the schools I asked) didn't have a problem addressing the question and had plans on how they were going to build their football team up to a reasonable roster size.  I think that if Carleton gets above the 70 man roster that they may start being competitive again in the MIAC.  I do like their coaches and their facilities and the school and town are great (I lived in Northfield as a kid and do remember St. Olaf and Carleton teams that were pretty good).

As for published rosters all the schools list them eventually although not all publish details of their incoming freshman class.

[Mr.MIAC]

Of course St. Olaf is trying harder than Carleton. Football was never a priority at Carleton, it never will be. Each year, there will be more people attending Rottblatt than all the football games combined. That being said, I think this year Carleton will finally have a 70+ man roster. Part of the issue has been coaching instability leading to less than mediocre recruiting classes

Might as well let us hear it now. Can't recall a time in the past five years Carleton publicized their recruiting class. I'm sure most that do, already have.

When my son went through the recruiting process one of the things I brought up with coaches was the school administration commitment to fielding a competitive or at least relevant football team.  The coaches (at all the schools I asked) didn't have a problem addressing the question and had plans on how they were going to build their football team up to a reasonable roster size.  I think that if Carleton gets above the 70 man roster that they may start being competitive again in the MIAC.  I do like their coaches and their facilities and the school and town are great (I lived in Northfield as a kid and do remember St. Olaf and Carleton teams that were pretty good).

As for published rosters all the schools list them eventually although not all publish details of their incoming freshman class.

So how did Haugen respond? Does GAC want to be competitive or are they okay with being relevant? Also, as an aside, it's interesting that Haugen namedrops Caruso in his official biography on the GAC football webpage. I wonder why more MIAC coaches don't do the same.   

Link: https://gustavus.edu/profiles/phaugen2

[Pat Coleman]

My projected 2016 MIAC finish (without considerations for returning starters, that'll come after Kickoff comes out):

Team	Wins	Losses
St. Thomas	7.6	0.4
St. John's	6.5	1.5
Bethel	5.1	2.9
Concordia-Moorhead	4.8	3.2
Gustavus Adulphus	4.3	3.7
Augsburg	3.6	4.4
St. Olaf	1.7	6.3
Hamline	1.6	6.4
Carelton	0.9	7.1

I would say this fits Reverend MIAC's view of things a little better than Art76's

I'm curious when you shuffle the deck weighing in returning starters. With SJU losing an All-American RB and 4 yr. starters at QB & WR I would be thrilled with a "6.5" weighted designation in wins.
Being a pessimist until I see the product perform on the field, I always have low expectations going into a new season. I'm from the "what have you done lately" school of thought.

Because it would be too difficult to get to that level of granular detail for every school, and in the interest of keeping the model unbiased, every returning starter is treated equally. I have had three years of data to work with, and the trend so far has been that an average returning starter is worth about 1.5 points per game for their unit. The national average is 6.75 returning starters per unit, so a team with 9 returning starters would see a 3.375 boost in their offensive or defensive rating.

In their July podcast, Pat & Keith mentioned that they have returning starters broken down by position for every school. I emailed them to see if they would be willing to share that sort of information, but haven't heard anything back yet.

I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to you -- Keith overstated a little bit what we ask for and receive. We have about 55-60 teams' worth of info at this point in any given year. I was planning to get back with you after our preseason poll is released on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning.