FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[finsleft]

I'm the only one on the board who remembers how good the Johnnie bread was back in the 50s.
Some of the younger Johnnies can tell you what it is like now. 

I used to work the info desk, where the majority of the bread is sold (at least most of it was sold there then).  Fresh, it's great, but it doesn't stay that way long.  Back then, they'd keep extra loaves frozen.  On busy days, if you were early, you could get still-warm loaves, but when the fresh stuff ran out, you'd get the loaves from the freezer.  Many people would ask if we had fresh or forzen--no one wanted the frozen.

When Fins, Jr. started "working" at the info desk, I asked if he got free bread. He said no, we're supposed to buy it. But if there's a torn bag, it can't be sold and they could take it home. I seem to remember asking him to tear a bag when I knew he was coming home after work.
When I was a student, I would go in the open back door where the warm, unwrapped bread was on the cooling racks. I had to save bags to use when I brought the fresh stuff back to my apartment. Toasted and peanut butter...mmmm!

For the record, I had 0 fumbles of my loaves.

[finsleft]

[Mr.MIAC]

Check this out. Regardless of your politics, this guy is funny. Plus it touches on football and Hamm's beer, so it's cleared for discussion on this forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy-zACYVKqk

[OzJohnnie]

Ha!  That's getting shared.

[OzJohnnie]

Well, the Hawks lost.  A wet night but 91k still showed up.  They'll now play the winners of the Geelong v Melbourne game tonight. The double chance is a huge advantage of a top four finish.

Very fumbly, the Hawks, and the Tigers really turned up the pressure screws in the second half to walk away with what had been a tight game.  We'll meet again in the Grand Final, I hope, to write a different story.

[RoyalsFan]

MIAC 2018 Week 2

The game of the week has to be Concordia Moorhead traveling down to UW Whitewater. Both teams had wins last week, the Cobbers popping the Prairie Wolves at home last week, and the Warhawks tearing apart the Spartans on the road. The Cobbers have to win this game to have any chance of winning the conference this year. And if they do win this game, they'll end up cracking back into the top 25, where they were in week 10 of last season. But, I don't see that happening. I expect the Warhawks will keep grinding away and end up winning by a couple of scores. It might even be a game where the teams trade scores in the beginning, which will make it a good game to watch.

I guess the statement highlighted above has me a bit confused. Why do the Cobbers have to win a non conference game in order to have any chance of winning the conference? If that is the only game they lose this year don't they win the conference?

[Pat Coleman]

I suspect Art means this in a different way -- in that if Concordia is going to be good enough to win the MIAC, they have to be good enough to win at UWW.

[art76]

I suspect Art means this in a different way -- in that if Concordia is going to be good enough to win the MIAC, they have to be good enough to win at UWW.

Yep - that's exactly what I was trying to convey. Thanx Pat.

[MiacMan]

Football question derived from a comment from Coach Marrone:

Is it a good goal to have your QB commit 0 turnovers?

Follow-up Q: Is it a good goal to have you RB commit 0 turnovers (fumbles)?

Jamto

IMHO, 0 Turnovers would be a team goal. Turnovers occur when there is a breakdown and not necessarily the fault of the QB and/or the RB. The QB's should have goals based on what it takes to achieve "0-turnovers" from his position such as: Mechanics, check downs, throw aways, etc.. Similar goals would be applied to the RB position. What does it take from my position to complete a successful pass play and or a run play? Goals should be based on the breakdown of what it takes to achieve a desired outcome. There is too much pressure on the individual when the focus is placed on the outcome.

Hey Jamto,

What am I chopped liver?   

So you respond to the pop warnerish canned answer from the redneck Esquire straight from the cast of Fargo (sorry Bench, just making a point  )
but manage to ignore my well thought out, philosophical and Belichickesque professional answer. I have to say that I'm hurt    I'll have you know I'm kneeling in protest as I post this. I'm sure Bench will back me on this even though I took a small shot at him. 

[jamtod]

Football question derived from a comment from Coach Marrone:

Is it a good goal to have your QB commit 0 turnovers?

Follow-up Q: Is it a good goal to have you RB commit 0 turnovers (fumbles)?

Jamto

IMHO, 0 Turnovers would be a team goal. Turnovers occur when there is a breakdown and not necessarily the fault of the QB and/or the RB. The QB's should have goals based on what it takes to achieve "0-turnovers" from his position such as: Mechanics, check downs, throw aways, etc.. Similar goals would be applied to the RB position. What does it take from my position to complete a successful pass play and or a run play? Goals should be based on the breakdown of what it takes to achieve a desired outcome. There is too much pressure on the individual when the focus is placed on the outcome.

Hey Jamto,

What am I chopped liver?   

So you respond to the pop warnerish canned answer from the redneck Esquire straight from the cast of Fargo (sorry Bench, just making a point  )
but manage to ignore my well thought out, philosophical and Belichickesque professional answer. I have to say that I'm hurt    I'll have you know I'm kneeling in protest as I post this. I'm sure Bench will back me on this even though I took a small shot at him. 

You were too well thought-out and thorough that I wanted your post to stand on its own (or let somebody else shoot it down before I refute it).

I still think it's a bad goal to have for a team. Yes, we want to execute to minimize turnovers, but if the QB (specifically, but others also) is being aggressive and considering the risk/reward, he's going to throw a few. I think I've heard Caruso talk about this before. Don't want guys playing tentative or being checkdown Charlie.

[miac952]

Football question derived from a comment from Coach Marrone:

Is it a good goal to have your QB commit 0 turnovers?

Follow-up Q: Is it a good goal to have you RB commit 0 turnovers (fumbles)?

Jamto

IMHO, 0 Turnovers would be a team goal. Turnovers occur when there is a breakdown and not necessarily the fault of the QB and/or the RB. The QB's should have goals based on what it takes to achieve "0-turnovers" from his position such as: Mechanics, check downs, throw aways, etc.. Similar goals would be applied to the RB position. What does it take from my position to complete a successful pass play and or a run play? Goals should be based on the breakdown of what it takes to achieve a desired outcome. There is too much pressure on the individual when the focus is placed on the outcome.

Hey Jamto,

What am I chopped liver?   

So you respond to the pop warnerish canned answer from the redneck Esquire straight from the cast of Fargo (sorry Bench, just making a point  )
but manage to ignore my well thought out, philosophical and Belichickesque professional answer. I have to say that I'm hurt    I'll have you know I'm kneeling in protest as I post this. I'm sure Bench will back me on this even though I took a small shot at him. 

You were too well thought-out and thorough that I wanted your post to stand on its own (or let somebody else shoot it down before I refute it).

I still think it's a bad goal to have for a team. Yes, we want to execute to minimize turnovers, but if the QB (specifically, but others also) is being aggressive and considering the risk/reward, he's going to throw a few. I think I've heard Caruso talk about this before. Don't want guys playing tentative or being checkdown Charlie.

Sounds like the staff has learned a bit. Without naming names they have had a couple checkdown Charlies earlier in the Caruso era. The tendency was to bail on a pocket way too quickly and throw it away or run out of bounds, instead of stepping up in it and finding second level receivers.

[MiacMan]

Football question derived from a comment from Coach Marrone:

Is it a good goal to have your QB commit 0 turnovers?

Follow-up Q: Is it a good goal to have you RB commit 0 turnovers (fumbles)?

Jamto

IMHO, 0 Turnovers would be a team goal. Turnovers occur when there is a breakdown and not necessarily the fault of the QB and/or the RB. The QB's should have goals based on what it takes to achieve "0-turnovers" from his position such as: Mechanics, check downs, throw aways, etc.. Similar goals would be applied to the RB position. What does it take from my position to complete a successful pass play and or a run play? Goals should be based on the breakdown of what it takes to achieve a desired outcome. There is too much pressure on the individual when the focus is placed on the outcome.

Hey Jamto,

What am I chopped liver?   

So you respond to the pop warnerish canned answer from the redneck Esquire straight from the cast of Fargo (sorry Bench, just making a point  )
but manage to ignore my well thought out, philosophical and Belichickesque professional answer. I have to say that I'm hurt    I'll have you know I'm kneeling in protest as I post this. I'm sure Bench will back me on this even though I took a small shot at him. 

You were too well thought-out and thorough that I wanted your post to stand on its own (or let somebody else shoot it down before I refute it).

I still think it's a bad goal to have for a team. Yes, we want to execute to minimize turnovers, but if the QB (specifically, but others also) is being aggressive and considering the risk/reward, he's going to throw a few. I think I've heard Caruso talk about this before. Don't want guys playing tentative or being checkdown Charlie.

Sounds like the staff has learned a bit. Without naming names they have had a couple checkdown Charlies earlier in the Caruso era. The tendency was to bail on a pocket way too quickly and throw it away or run out of bounds, instead of stepping up in it and finding second level receivers.

I'm a bit confused as to what you (all) are referring to as "checkdown" If you're like me and refer to it as finding the 2nd, 3rd and sometimes 4th receiver, it's exactly what I want. I don't want my QB's (nor does Coach C, or any other coach in the country) forcing the ball to his 1st receiver. You go through your reads/checkdowns if nothing is there, you either run or throw it away.

I can assure you, Coach C as well as every other coach in the country (at all levels) has a goal that addresses winning the "turnover battle". Now, it may not be zero, but in 99% of the cases "turnovers" are addressed in the goals/objectives on both sides of the ball.

Every "turnover" +/- increases or decreases a teams chance of winning by around 10%. It's too big of stat for a coach to ignore. 

[jamtod]

Football question derived from a comment from Coach Marrone:

Is it a good goal to have your QB commit 0 turnovers?

Follow-up Q: Is it a good goal to have you RB commit 0 turnovers (fumbles)?

Jamto

IMHO, 0 Turnovers would be a team goal. Turnovers occur when there is a breakdown and not necessarily the fault of the QB and/or the RB. The QB's should have goals based on what it takes to achieve "0-turnovers" from his position such as: Mechanics, check downs, throw aways, etc.. Similar goals would be applied to the RB position. What does it take from my position to complete a successful pass play and or a run play? Goals should be based on the breakdown of what it takes to achieve a desired outcome. There is too much pressure on the individual when the focus is placed on the outcome.

Hey Jamto,

What am I chopped liver?   

So you respond to the pop warnerish canned answer from the redneck Esquire straight from the cast of Fargo (sorry Bench, just making a point  )
but manage to ignore my well thought out, philosophical and Belichickesque professional answer. I have to say that I'm hurt    I'll have you know I'm kneeling in protest as I post this. I'm sure Bench will back me on this even though I took a small shot at him. 

You were too well thought-out and thorough that I wanted your post to stand on its own (or let somebody else shoot it down before I refute it).

I still think it's a bad goal to have for a team. Yes, we want to execute to minimize turnovers, but if the QB (specifically, but others also) is being aggressive and considering the risk/reward, he's going to throw a few. I think I've heard Caruso talk about this before. Don't want guys playing tentative or being checkdown Charlie.

Sounds like the staff has learned a bit. Without naming names they have had a couple checkdown Charlies earlier in the Caruso era. The tendency was to bail on a pocket way too quickly and throw it away or run out of bounds, instead of stepping up in it and finding second level receivers.

I'm a bit confused as to what you (all) are referring to as "checkdown" If you're like me and refer to it as finding the 2nd, 3rd and sometimes 4th receiver, it's exactly what I want. I don't want my QB's (nor does Coach C, or any other coach in the country) forcing the ball to his 1st receiver. You go through your reads/checkdowns if nothing is there, you either run or throw it away.

I can assure you, Coach C as well as every other coach in the country (at all levels) has a goal that addresses winning the "turnover battle". Now, it may not be zero, but in 99% of the cases "turnovers" are addressed in the goals/objectives on both sides of the ball.

Every "turnover" +/- increases or decreases a teams chance of winning by around 10%. It's too big of stat for a coach to ignore.

Nobody is suggesting that minimizing turnovers is not a good and important thing. Winning the turnover battle is a goal that makes sense. The original quote from Jags coach Doug Marrone is what prompted this question for me, where he said something along the lines of wanting Bortles to have 0 turnovers this season. I think it's a mistake to set that as a goal and that playing for the sake of 0 turnovers is probably going to cost more than it gains.

The idea behind Checkdown Charlie is that a QB fears making a mistake and plays too conservative, failing to capitalize on opportunities. Can't try to make that tight throw because it might go bad. Can't throw deep because...

[RoyalsFan]

I suspect Art means this in a different way -- in that if Concordia is going to be good enough to win the MIAC, they have to be good enough to win at UWW.

Yep - that's exactly what I was trying to convey. Thanx Pat.

I still think it is kind of an odd thing to say, especially since UWW has been a perennial power house team. I don't follow them that close, so I'm not sure how good they are projected to be this year (I see they are currently ranked 12th), but I wouldn't be surprised at all if UWW could beat every team in the MIAC. I don't see why they would have to beat UWW in order to have 'any chance' of winning the MIAC, especially if it is a close game - thats's all I'm saying. 

[art76]

I still think it is kind of an odd thing to say, especially since UWW has been a perennial power house team. I don't follow them that close, so I'm not sure how good they are projected to be this year (I see they are currently ranked 12th), but I wouldn't be surprised at all if UWW could beat every team in the MIAC. I don't see why they would have to beat UWW in order to have 'any chance' of winning the MIAC, especially if it is a close game - thats's all I'm saying.

If you listened to this morning's podcast, you will understand when I say "copy editor". Secondly, I was using hyperbole. Of course I know that they can lose to Whitewater and can still win the MIAC.

Are we good now?