FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Retired Old Rat]

I love the reference to St. Glenn from a Mount guy. +k to you.

[crufootball]

It's the playoff games where UMHB plays their first string the entire game where the rubber meets the road.  The last few years their offensive output has been slashed the deeper they've gone in the playoffs.  Granted, this is generally true for all teams as they advance, but for UMHB it's pretty telling. 

Interesting.  You inspired me to go have a look.  Just eyeballing the numbers it looks like:

* 2017, about 50 point in-conference scoring average (even with HSU holding them down), low 20's out of conference (against the big boys)
* 2016, high 50's, low teens (but enough to win it all)
* 2015, low 60's, mid 30's
* 2014, high 60's, high 20's

Isn't that something.  How do the Johnnies compare?  Is this an anomaly or every team faces the same struggle?

* 2017, low 40's, teens
* 2016, low 50's, teens
* 2016, 40's, teens

Obviously, the Johnnies have had a similar pattern so I can't say it's too unique to UHMB.  But the difference is that the Johnnies this year have a new offensive scheme.  And this year the conference vs the big boys (BU, UST, I would say TM but it was a thumping and would distort the numbers too much) is a different story.

* 2018, about 50, high 30's (put TM in and there's no difference)


My conclusion, we could be looking at something special.  I hope the boys are focused.

One would sure hope the scoring averages go down a bit come playoff time, but if it drops a ton then that leads me to believe one or both of the following factors:
1.  you're running up the score on lesser opponents in the regular season ala St Glenn that can't be duplicated in the playoffs
2.  your regular season opponents drastically pale in comparison to those seen in the playoffs

If you scores don't drop much, then that could point too:
1.  your regular season competition was similar to the playoff competition as a whole
2.  you really held back in the regular season and could have drilled people much worse than you did

I'm too lazy to go thru 25 years of Mount scores, but here's the last few:
2017:  regular season = 63.1 / playoffs = 38.2
2016:  regular season = 49.2 / playoffs = 37.0
2015:  regular season = 53.8 / playoffs = 52.4
2014:  regular season = 60.8 / playoffs = 54.0

UMHB's offensive numbers this year have been great, last year not so much and 2 years ago was very good but the offense is not why we have reached a new level of play during the time.

In that time our defense is what has carried us, in 2016 we gave up 14.6 per playoff game, 5.6 in 2017, and this year for the season we have given up 6.6 points per game.

Offense might get all the attention but most likely if we can win this Saturday it will be because we hold you guys down to a point where we don't have to have our video game like offensive numbers.

[OzJohnnie]

One would sure hope the scoring averages go down a bit come playoff time, but if it drops a ton then that leads me to believe one or both of the following factors:
1.  you're running up the score on lesser opponents in the regular season ala St Glenn that can't be duplicated in the playoffs
2.  your regular season opponents drastically pale in comparison to those seen in the playoffs

If you scores don't drop much, then that could point too:
1.  your regular season competition was similar to the playoff competition as a whole
2.  you really held back in the regular season and could have drilled people much worse than you did

I'm too lazy to go thru 25 years of Mount scores, but here's the last few:
2017:  regular season = 63.1 / playoffs = 38.2
2016:  regular season = 49.2 / playoffs = 37.0
2015:  regular season = 53.8 / playoffs = 52.4
2014:  regular season = 60.8 / playoffs = 54.0

I'm not arguing your conclusions (as they are pretty much indisputable) but I would like to point out that in the playoffs UMU only really encounters one big opponent, in the Stagg.  Sometimes they come up against a semi-finalist that is tough, but usually it's just the Stagg.  West and South are usually hitting the really tough games in the semi's and sometimes (like this year) in the quarters.

Just looking at Stagg scores and modifying your table we get:

2017:  regular season = 63.1 / playoffs = 38.2 / Stagg = 12
2016:  regular season = 49.2 / playoffs = 37.0 / Stagg = 12
2015:  regular season = 53.8 / playoffs = 52.4 / Stagg = 49
2014:  regular season = 60.8 / playoffs = 54.0 / Stagg = 34

Making that recent Stagg average in the mid 20's.  Again the drop (and luckily hinting at my point as I didn't know the answer until I typed this sentence).

Maybe the rule we're seeing here is not that it's tougher as the competition gets tougher (duh) but that when your offensive output drops to less than half your regular season average then you're in trouble and a good chance of getting beat.

EDIT: Mount didn't make the Stagg in 2016, losing in the semi's to OWO.  I took the last game as my reference point.  Thanks KB.

[Kelly Boggs]

One minor correction: Mount wasn't in the Stagg in 2016.

[OzJohnnie]

Perhaps someone would like to put in the effort to do a quick scan on defensive performance to see if there is a similar looking rule.  Maybe there's a point where defensive output drops (ie, other teams score more) and when scores against double or triple the regular season average then you're playing games where you're also facing a high risk of losing.

It's all backwards looking analysis and does nothing to help predict this coming week, but it maybe has a bit of influence on strategic emphasis.  It could also re-enforce the conventional wisdom that bigger, stronger, faster is the key to winning DIII.  Brutes on the line of scrimmage tend to dictate the pace of the game and decrease the variance from average on both offense and defense.  Bigger brutes, more predictability.  Finesse and complexity are harder to maintain, particularly with the variability of talent and program commitment in DIII.  Against the simple schemes of DIII offenses (compared to the higher levels of competition) brute is smart.

[UMHB03]

For some perusing...

UHMB stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/450417

SJU stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/450344


UHMB dominate the national stats to a scary degree.  The question is: have they padded them in a conference of cream puffs by building a huge program in a minnow pond or are they insanely dominant? We'll find out soon enough.

I am confident in thinking their defensive stats are legit.  The offensive ones are built on the back of drilling below average teams.  MHB has the penchant for burying teams by 70 if they can which inflates the scoring higher than it actually should be.

On the contrary. UMHB puts up big points in spite of the fact that the 2nd/3rd stringers are usually in the game in the 3rd quarter. If UMHB were interested in inflating their numbers, and left their starters in for most of the game, they could have scored 100 several times, including last week in a second round playoff game, and against a Southwestern team that beat Mount Union's 'mighty' first round opponent earlier in the year.

  Snooze.  Every top team only plays one half of football.  The fact that the Johnnies played starters in four quarters twice this year isn't a testament to the Johnnies' weakness but to the strength of the MIAC.

Texas creampuffs are on the menu for UHMB week in and week out.  We'll see if the Jays can serve a more filling meal.

SJ played one more non-cream puff than UMHB. The Crusaders didn't have a game closer than 21 points all year, and the starters didn't finish the 4th quarter in any games.

I'm not claiming that SJ is weak by any stretch. In fact, the match up with them concerns me as much, if not more than potential match ups with Whitewater and MU. I'm just refuting the assertion that UMHB runs up big numbers against nine scrub opponents while SJ faces a full gaunlet of power houses, because the facts simply don't support that.

[D O.C.]

Nothing to add, I just want to be a part of page 6000.

[stanbob]

For some perusing...

UHMB stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/450417

SJU stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/450344


UHMB dominate the national stats to a scary degree.  The question is: have they padded them in a conference of cream puffs by building a huge program in a minnow pond or are they insanely dominant? We'll find out soon enough.

I am confident in thinking their defensive stats are legit.  The offensive ones are built on the back of drilling below average teams.  MHB has the penchant for burying teams by 70 if they can which inflates the scoring higher than it actually should be.

On the contrary. UMHB puts up big points in spite of the fact that the 2nd/3rd stringers are usually in the game in the 3rd quarter. If UMHB were interested in inflating their numbers, and left their starters in for most of the game, they could have scored 100 several times, including last week in a second round playoff game, and against a Southwestern team that beat Mount Union's 'mighty' first round opponent earlier in the year.

  Snooze.  Every top team only plays one half of football.  The fact that the Johnnies played starters in four quarters twice this year isn't a testament to the Johnnies' weakness but to the strength of the MIAC.

Texas creampuffs are on the menu for UHMB week in and week out.  We'll see if the Jays can serve a more filling meal.

SJ played one more non-cream puff than UMHB. The Crusaders didn't have a game closer than 21 points all year, and the starters didn't finish the 4th quarter in any games.

I'm not claiming that SJ is weak by any stretch. In fact, the match up with them concerns me as much, if not more than potential match ups with Whitewater and MU. I'm just refuting the assertion that UMHB runs up big numbers against nine scrub opponents while SJ faces a full gaunlet of power houses, because the facts simply don't support that.

SJU did face two legitimate playoff teams, one of which is still alive and the other that would have walked through the East.  Who did UMHB face?

[UMHB03]

For some perusing...

UHMB stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/450417

SJU stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/450344


UHMB dominate the national stats to a scary degree.  The question is: have they padded them in a conference of cream puffs by building a huge program in a minnow pond or are they insanely dominant? We'll find out soon enough.

I am confident in thinking their defensive stats are legit.  The offensive ones are built on the back of drilling below average teams.  MHB has the penchant for burying teams by 70 if they can which inflates the scoring higher than it actually should be.

On the contrary. UMHB puts up big points in spite of the fact that the 2nd/3rd stringers are usually in the game in the 3rd quarter. If UMHB were interested in inflating their numbers, and left their starters in for most of the game, they could have scored 100 several times, including last week in a second round playoff game, and against a Southwestern team that beat Mount Union's 'mighty' first round opponent earlier in the year.

  Snooze.  Every top team only plays one half of football.  The fact that the Johnnies played starters in four quarters twice this year isn't a testament to the Johnnies' weakness but to the strength of the MIAC.

Texas creampuffs are on the menu for UHMB week in and week out.  We'll see if the Jays can serve a more filling meal.

SJ played one more non-cream puff than UMHB. The Crusaders didn't have a game closer than 21 points all year, and the starters didn't finish the 4th quarter in any games.

I'm not claiming that SJ is weak by any stretch. In fact, the match up with them concerns me as much, if not more than potential match ups with Whitewater and MU. I'm just refuting the assertion that UMHB runs up big numbers against nine scrub opponents while SJ faces a full gaunlet of power houses, because the facts simply don't support that.

SJU did face two legitimate playoff teams, one of which is still alive and the other that would have walked through the East.  Who did UMHB face?

Hardin-Simmons

[OzJohnnie]

Looking at the top half of each conference to see the competition, here are the Massey rankings for those next four teams in DIII:

* MIAC: 9 (BU), 13 (UST), 51 (GAC), 59 (CON).  Average team rank 33

* ASC: 14 (HSU), 54 (ETB), 65 (TXL), 70 (SWUTX).  Average team rank 50.75

You're right.  UHMB has not been feasting on cream puffs.  They have been feasting on scones with extra jam!

[jamtod]

For some perusing...

UHMB stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/450417

SJU stats: http://stats.ncaa.org/teams/450344


UHMB dominate the national stats to a scary degree.  The question is: have they padded them in a conference of cream puffs by building a huge program in a minnow pond or are they insanely dominant? We'll find out soon enough.

I am confident in thinking their defensive stats are legit.  The offensive ones are built on the back of drilling below average teams.  MHB has the penchant for burying teams by 70 if they can which inflates the scoring higher than it actually should be.

On the contrary. UMHB puts up big points in spite of the fact that the 2nd/3rd stringers are usually in the game in the 3rd quarter. If UMHB were interested in inflating their numbers, and left their starters in for most of the game, they could have scored 100 several times, including last week in a second round playoff game, and against a Southwestern team that beat Mount Union's 'mighty' first round opponent earlier in the year.

  Snooze.  Every top team only plays one half of football.  The fact that the Johnnies played starters in four quarters twice this year isn't a testament to the Johnnies' weakness but to the strength of the MIAC.

Texas creampuffs are on the menu for UHMB week in and week out.  We'll see if the Jays can serve a more filling meal.

SJ played one more non-cream puff than UMHB. The Crusaders didn't have a game closer than 21 points all year, and the starters didn't finish the 4th quarter in any games.

I'm not claiming that SJ is weak by any stretch. In fact, the match up with them concerns me as much, if not more than potential match ups with Whitewater and MU. I'm just refuting the assertion that UMHB runs up big numbers against nine scrub opponents while SJ faces a full gaunlet of power houses, because the facts simply don't support that.

SJU did face two legitimate playoff teams, one of which is still alive and the other that would have walked through the East.  Who did UMHB face?

While I don't think the overall schedule is significantly different between UMHB and SJU or MIAC vs ASC, SJU also played Thomas More which was on the brink of a playoff spot and lost by 3 to a quarterfinal team in Muhlenberg.

[sjujohnnie]

The success Mary Hardin-Baylor has had essentially from the beginning of their program is impressive! Being in a state rich with football talent certainly hasn't hurt. This will be a test for St John's & a tale of the tape as to where we're at as a program. Certainly improving!

[art76]

Nothing to add, I just want to be a part of page 6000.

+K 

[OzJohnnie]

While I don't think the overall schedule is significantly different between UMHB and SJU or MIAC vs ASC, SJU also played Thomas More which was on the brink of a playoff spot and lost by 3 to a quarterfinal team in Muhlenberg.

Thomas More are currently ranked 40th in the Massey tables.  Sugar powered scones, methinks.

[sjusection105]

This will be a test for St John's & a tale of the tape as to where we're at as a program. Certainly improving!

The recruiting value of deeper runs in the play-offs can't be denied.The incoming recruiting class should be better than the past 6 years and there has been improvements every year.  Go Johnnies!