FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Texas Ole]

I will jump back in the fray.  I remember the great days of Ole athletics and well today.  I have plenty of concerns about the direction of St. Olaf, but this is not the place.

If the MIAC wants to end these blowouts that can be done pretty easily.  The first is to move to a running clock.  That is possible in the NCAA.  Clemson did it a few years ago.  Both coaches have to agree to it.  You can also work to make a deal between teams where you move to base sets and try to keep the clock running.  The next is to expand travel rosters.  Take it up to 80.  It isn't like most teams aren't already renting 2 buses.  That may make it tough for Concordia trips (to and from), but you can also travel less.  Also I would worry that if I was up big in a game that something might happen to one or a group of my players.  Those types of games can get chippy in a hurry.  As a ref and a fan I have seen it far too often.  I have also seen teams turn off the scoreboard in college.  I laughed when I saw it.  The last is something I have only seen a few times in high school and never in college.  That is to have a coach pull their team from a game either before or during the game as a way to send a message to the other team.  Sure the team looks like quitters and the fans hate it, but it sends a huge message about an opponent.

With regards to removal of UST and possibly others I have thought more about this issue especially from the perspective of a St. Olaf fan.  I think if St. Olaf feels that this conference is not what they desire then it is in their best interest to leave for a better fit.  If they want to take other schools with them then go for it.  As an Ole fan and from a historical perspective I value the Luther game more than several MIAC games.

If the MIAC is to remove a school they need to have a good reason.  Several years ago when Mac was still in MIAC I met a few administrators from several schools.  They voiced numerous concerns about certain MIAC schools.  The financial aid issue with certain schools was discussed.  Also discussed was the quality of student being recruited for athletic purposes.  The academic record of athletes was an issue when that was compared to a regular student.  This may shed some light on the current issue.  If a school is intentionally lowering standards and giving aid above what is normal to a large group of athletes that is something that might need to be addressed.  There are always exceptions, and it can be addressed without removing a school.

Another issue is the grad school programs.  While grad students are not eligible schools with grad programs can be at an advantage.  There are 5th year programs that may be available that 4 year schools have dropped.  There is also a familiarity from undergrad to grad.  I don't know if UST and others give preferential treatment to their undergrads who choose to apply to their grad schools, but it is possible.  That would be a benefit that the 4 year schools cannot match.  There is also a greater ability of red or grey shirting.  Transfers could easily benefit from this advantage.  Miss a season through one of those means and preserve an extra year of eligibility.  The worst issue could be if a student-athlete wanted to do their undergrad at one of the 4 year school and grad school at another.  A coach could use the grad school as leverage by either offering or threatening to withhold admission to that school based on where the student does their undergrad.  I strongly doubt this happens in the MIAC, but I have heard of it happening elsewhere.  Some of these might be a reason to remove a school.

If you are going to remove a school give the I think the posturing between the groups will continue.  If UST is forced out I could see SJU also leaving.  What happens at St. Ben's becomes an issue.  I don't know where they go or what happens to each sport.  Both schools would probably have to find new facilities for certain sports.  The other issue within the MIAC is when it comes to AQ status for NCAA tournaments.  Losing 2-3 schools in certain sports could have a dramatic effect and that might sway votes.  Lastly if you are going to remove a school give the real reason.

[Pat Coleman]

If a school is intentionally lowering standards and giving aid above what is normal to a large group of athletes that is something that might need to be addressed. 

If so, this will be addressed by the NCAA, because it's not allowed in Division III. If a school gives more financial aid to its student-athletes than to the non-athletics student population (above a variance of 4%) then it is in violation of Division III rules. These are audited and adjudicated.

[Flynntowne]

     Last year UST outscored the four MIAC opponents it played at home 263-14. The Tommies also outscored its two non-conference opponents at home 125-7. Doesn't seem like having the fifth- and sixth-string teams on the sidelines during the Tommies' home games did much to keep those scores down. On the other hand, the Tommies lost two of their four away games (to Bethel and St. John's) and should have lost a third away game (to Gustavus), when the fifth-and sixth-string teams weren't available to "keep those  scores down." The Tommies outscored their opponents at home by 367 points - 388-21 - but only outscored its four away opponents by 14 points - 95-81 - when the Tommies' scores should have been higher because of the fewer "lesser-quality" players who could have played in those games. Clearly, it's the quality of the opponents that makes the difference, not the locations of the games. Making more quality players available to the "Have Not" teams by limiting roster sizes is one way to try and achieve parity. Perhaps roster sizes - both home and away - should be capped at a reasonable number, whether that number is 75 or something else.

[Mr.MIAC]

I will jump back in the fray.  I remember the great days of Ole athletics and well today.  I have plenty of concerns about the direction of St. Olaf, but this is not the place.

If the MIAC wants to end these blowouts that can be done pretty easily.  The first is to move to a running clock.  That is possible in the NCAA.  Clemson did it a few years ago.  Both coaches have to agree to it.  You can also work to make a deal between teams where you move to base sets and try to keep the clock running.  The next is to expand travel rosters.  Take it up to 80.  It isn't like most teams aren't already renting 2 buses.  That may make it tough for Concordia trips (to and from), but you can also travel less.  Also I would worry that if I was up big in a game that something might happen to one or a group of my players.  Those types of games can get chippy in a hurry.  As a ref and a fan I have seen it far too often.  I have also seen teams turn off the scoreboard in college.  I laughed when I saw it.  The last is something I have only seen a few times in high school and never in college.  That is to have a coach pull their team from a game either before or during the game as a way to send a message to the other team.  Sure the team looks like quitters and the fans hate it, but it sends a huge message about an opponent.

With regards to removal of UST and possibly others I have thought more about this issue especially from the perspective of a St. Olaf fan.  I think if St. Olaf feels that this conference is not what they desire then it is in their best interest to leave for a better fit.  If they want to take other schools with them then go for it.  As an Ole fan and from a historical perspective I value the Luther game more than several MIAC games.

If the MIAC is to remove a school they need to have a good reason. Several years ago when Mac was still in MIAC I met a few administrators from several schools.  They voiced numerous concerns about certain MIAC schools.  The financial aid issue with certain schools was discussed.  Also discussed was the quality of student being recruited for athletic purposes.  The academic record of athletes was an issue when that was compared to a regular student.  This may shed some light on the current issue.  If a school is intentionally lowering standards and giving aid above what is normal to a large group of athletes that is something that might need to be addressed.  There are always exceptions, and it can be addressed without removing a school.

Another issue is the grad school programs.  While grad students are not eligible schools with grad programs can be at an advantage.  There are 5th year programs that may be available that 4 year schools have dropped.  There is also a familiarity from undergrad to grad.  I don't know if UST and others give preferential treatment to their undergrads who choose to apply to their grad schools, but it is possible.  That would be a benefit that the 4 year schools cannot match.  There is also a greater ability of red or grey shirting.  Transfers could easily benefit from this advantage.  Miss a season through one of those means and preserve an extra year of eligibility.  The worst issue could be if a student-athlete wanted to do their undergrad at one of the 4 year school and grad school at another.  A coach could use the grad school as leverage by either offering or threatening to withhold admission to that school based on where the student does their undergrad.  I strongly doubt this happens in the MIAC, but I have heard of it happening elsewhere.  Some of these might be a reason to remove a school.

If you are going to remove a school give the I think the posturing between the groups will continue.  If UST is forced out I could see SJU also leaving.  What happens at St. Ben's becomes an issue.  I don't know where they go or what happens to each sport.  Both schools would probably have to find new facilities for certain sports.  The other issue within the MIAC is when it comes to AQ status for NCAA tournaments.  Losing 2-3 schools in certain sports could have a dramatic effect and that might sway votes.  Lastly if you are going to remove a school give the real reason.

What makes you think this is in the MIAC's interests?

[OldAuggie]

Augsburg added a commitment today from another high level woman wrestler, a 2X World Team member from PA; Vayle-Rae Baker. My point and I think folks got it yesterday was that athletics are not only about football success. Adding women's wrestling is a signature move for Augsburg and makes a strong statement for women's athletics as well as the entire Athletic Department. As an alum, I am proud of this move -  even Duffman and Oz approved! 

The Augsburg men will be favored to win the National Ch. again next year as they return almost everyone from this years squad. I think Bennyhoff at 133 is the only graduating senior. Some great recruits have committed already, most of which are local I admit but there are always some national level recruits on the Auggie wrestling roster.

[jamtod]

     Last year UST outscored the four MIAC opponents it played at home 263-14. The Tommies also outscored its two non-conference opponents at home 125-7. Doesn't seem like having the fifth- and sixth-string teams on the sidelines during the Tommies' home games did much to keep those scores down. On the other hand, the Tommies lost two of their four away games (to Bethel and St. John's) and should have lost a third away game (to Gustavus), when the fifth-and sixth-string teams weren't available to "keep those  scores down." The Tommies outscored their opponents at home by 367 points - 388-21 - but only outscored its four away opponents by 14 points - 95-81 - when the Tommies' scores should have been higher because of the fewer "lesser-quality" players who could have played in those games. Clearly, it's the quality of the opponents that makes the difference, not the locations of the games. Making more quality players available to the "Have Not" teams by limiting roster sizes is one way to try and achieve parity. Perhaps roster sizes - both home and away - should be capped at a reasonable number, whether that number is 75 or something else.

You hit the nail on the head. UST played the 4 toughest teams in the conference on the road last year and the 4 weakest at home, so we'd have to do a more thorough analysis than just comparing home vs road scores in a given year. If you look at this over the course of multiple years and matchups against the same team, I think you'll find something a little bit different and that the inability to play 4th stringers in road games at Hamline does have an impact. But is 84-0 really substantially different than 60-0 in the big scheme of things?

[Texas Ole]

What makes you think this is in the MIAC's interests?

Is the fact that we are having a discussion about removing a school possibly due to blowouts good for the MIAC?  Would it be good for the MIAC to lose schools and puts its AQ status in jeopardy?  A fractured MIAC is bad.  If keeping the blowouts to a minimum moves the conference forward I am all for it.

[Gregory Sager]

     Last year UST outscored the four MIAC opponents it played at home 263-14. The Tommies also outscored its two non-conference opponents at home 125-7. Doesn't seem like having the fifth- and sixth-string teams on the sidelines during the Tommies' home games did much to keep those scores down.

Did they, though? Did the Tommies really have the fifth- and sixth-stringers suited up? I counted 137 players listed on the 2018 UST roster. Even if attrition whittled away at that number, I would guess that there were at least still some 110-120 players in the program last season. But this is how many Tommies appeared in the game participation reports for 2018 UST home games:

Trinity International -- 53 Tommies
Hamline -- 57 Tommies
UWEC -- 51 Tommies
Augsburg -- 54 Tommies
Carleton -- 56 Tommies
St. Olaf -- 56 Tommies

That's not even the full third team's worth of participating players.

By contrast, Caruso used more players against the MIAC's bottom four the previous season, when the Tommies played them on the road:

Carleton -- 56 Tommies
Augsburg -- 60 Tommies
Hamline -- 65 Tommies
St. Olaf -- 63 Tommies

That's pretty much the full traveling complement of players who dressed for those games, I'm guessing. So it did appear that Caruso was using everybody he had available in those road blowouts.

The question is why he uses so few players in home blowouts. Now, granted, as someone who works in the press box at D3 football games, I can confirm that game participation tracking is an inexact art. On the D1 level there are people in the box whose only purpose is to track who has played for one particular team; in D3 press boxes you have a much more limited number of spotters and statisticians, so people have multiple duties and it's always possible to lose track of a player here or there. But it's not as though twenty or thirty Tommies per home game got onto the field without being counted. It's simply a fact that the Tommies are not going that deep in home blowouts, 110- or 120-odd players on the roster or not.

On the other hand, the Tommies lost two of their four away games (to Bethel and St. John's) and should have lost a third away game (to Gustavus), when the fifth-and sixth-string teams weren't available to "keep those  scores down." The Tommies outscored their opponents at home by 367 points - 388-21 - but only outscored its four away opponents by 14 points - 95-81 - when the Tommies' scores should have been higher because of the fewer "lesser-quality" players who could have played in those games. Clearly, it's the quality of the opponents that makes the difference, not the locations of the games.

Well, obviously. Nobody ever said that these games were played in a vacuum, and that opponents were interchangeable. Tossing the games against the upper half of the league into the discussion is a red herring. This is about blowouts against the bottom-feeders.

Making more quality players available to the "Have Not" teams by limiting roster sizes is one way to try and achieve parity. Perhaps roster sizes - both home and away - should be capped at a reasonable number, whether that number is 75 or something else.

What's the point in capping the number of players who can dress for a game if the coach of the team that is winning the blowouts isn't even bothering to use them?

Now, if you're talking about capping the actual roster size -- in other words, the players who are issued a uniform and who appear in the team picture and on the official roster on the school website, as opposed to the players who actually dress for varsity games -- then that's another kettle of fish. Or, perhaps more accurately, another can of worms.

[Flynntowne]

      Thanks for your comment - I should probably have been clearer in stating that I was not just talking about equalizing the "home" and "away" squad sizes; I was talking about putting a cap on the size of a team's roster to 75 or so. There would obviously be no guarantee that a player who was "76th or worse" on a team like St. Thomas (and thereby not making the roster) would go to one of the MIAC's bottom-feeders just because he wanted to play football. However, the fact would remain that if team roster sizes were capped at 75 players, then no more than 675 players could be on the nine MIAC schools' rosters. Right now you've got approximately 500 players on the top four MIAC schools' rosters (UST, SJU, Bethel and Concordia). Paring that number down to 300 players among those four teams would mean that 200 players who had chosen to pay the money and go to an MIAC school and play MIAC football would need a place to play (which, I admit, wouldn't have to be an MIAC school - but I'm just trying to make a point here). Assuming those numbers would remain somewhat constant in the future, there would be an additional 200 players in the "pool" of potential MIAC football players that the other five teams would have a good chance to recruit.

       Let me also state again that I, personally, am not for a cap on team roster sizes. Plus, I don't see it happening in the MIAC, in any event, unless all of DIII went for it. But, it's certainly a point of discussion. And I have to believe there are some schools in the MIAC who would definitely be in favor of team roster caps.

[OzJohnnie]

Doh!  Now it's the frickin baseball.

https://gojohnnies.com/news/2019/4/19/baseball-stocks-big-day-career-milestones-highlight-sjus-sweep-of-st-olaf.aspx

NORTHFIELD, Minn. – Saint John's baseball ran its win streak to five games with a doubleheader sweep of St. Olaf, 17-7 and 9-5, on Good Friday, April 19, in Northfield.

[Robert Zimmerman]

http://www.startribune.com/miac-issue-is-about-football-and-that-s-nothing-new/508833302/

More Reusse and the MIAC

[Gregory Sager]

Wow, what an incoherent column. Reusse sets the stage by having a former Johnnie relate a fascinating story about how St. John's seemingly ran up a score against Carleton in 1992, only to provide a painstaking explanation as to why it wasn't really piling on after all for Gagliardi to have gone for a two-pointer after the tenth touchdown. He then fast-forwards into the present, in which the same ex-Johnnie, Jeff Bretherton, makes the comment that now it's Caruso who is accused of running up scores. But this time there is no alibi presented for Caruso's actions either by Bretherton or by Reusse himself, which makes the reader wonder why Reusse went through all the trouble of setting up that parallel ... unless we're supposed to infer that there's a good explanation lingering behind any seeming display of bad sportsmanship by winning coaches towards the end of every epic blowout in college football.

And then there's this contradictory paragraph:

"No matter what you hear, this is about football," Bretherton said. "St. Thomas finished third last season. The schools with football teams near the bottom have problems much deeper than Glenn Caruso running up a score."

If the problem that the schools antagonistic towards UST have is much deeper than Caruso running up scores, then how is this "about football"? Sure, it's somebody else (Bretherton) who said it, but Reusse is presenting it here as part of his column -- which he then ends with a heartwarming story that proves that Caruso is a good guy after all, but which does nothing to elaborate the preceding point about how "the teams near the bottom have problems much deeper than Glenn Caruso running up a score."

Of course, Bretherton's comment could be interpreted as meaning, "St. John's and Bethel were better than St. Thomas, and they both pounded the heck out of the bottom four as well [which is true -- SJU averaged almost 55 points against the bottom quartet and Bethel averaged almost 48 points, while UST averaged almost 66], so the problem obviously rests with the football incompetence of the bottom four." But the problem is that the bottom four aren't trying to run Bethel or St. John's out of the league -- and Reusse went to all of the trouble earlier in his column of quoting Bretherton as pointing out that in the Nineties and the Oughts other MIAC administrators and coaches griped about Gagliardi having his Johnnies run up scores, implying that the issue with SJU should've been much deeper and more long-standing with SJU than with Caruso-era UST. It's a classic case of ruining your point by quoting somebody else and letting them do all of the talking for you, in spite of the fact that your source didn't say exactly what you needed him or her to say.

I got the vague impression that Reusse is writing an apologetic for Glenn Caruso, football coach and human being. But he didn't do a good job of it.

[jknezek]

I read that column twice and I agree. It was mostly incoherent drivel that had nothing in it to support the headline. The column should really have just been headlined "Regardless of results, winning MIAC Football coaches are great guys according to former player/ad". 

But sometimes you have to write 2 columns a week and your idea doesn't pan out, so you send out garbage and hope people don't remember it down the road. Nobody is at their best all the time...

[sjusection105]

What makes you think this is in the MIAC's interests?

Is the fact that we are having a discussion about removing a school possibly due to blowouts good for the MIAC?  Would it be good for the MIAC to lose schools and puts its AQ status in jeopardy?  A fractured MIAC is bad.  If keeping the blowouts to a minimum moves the conference forward I am all for it.

A random thought about blowouts. What would the reaction of St.Olaf present Anderson's be if this year UST comes to town and as a game plan on every drive the Toms down the ball at the Ole 10 yard line, then kick a FG? Overtly showing the Oles can't stop us so we stop ourselves. Would a 45-0 score on 15 FG be more acceptable than 97-0? Would the certain media coverage of a game plan like this show UST in a softer light?  I guess from a player's perspective going down to defeat like this would be demoralizing.

The longer this whole thing plays out, I think this situations will hurt Ole FB recruiting efforts for sometime into the future.

[OldAuggie]

Regarding Reusse. I am an avid Gopher football follower and the majority of us have an extreme dislike for his writing and his radio call in segments......he rips the Gophers every single chance he gets. Many Gopher fans will not click on his Twitter feed or articles from the Strib because he is just shamelessly generating clicks and this MIAC debacle is no different for him. He is kind to the MIAC teams overall and that softens my dislike for him but he is a die hard Gopher hater. He claims he was a big time fan of Big Ten football in the 60's but something soured him, probably the Gophers losing! I think it has to do with his desire to come up with click bait. He is kind of an A-hole and obviously you guys are able to see this bad writing, nice job.