FB: Midwest Conference

[Maverick]

All very well said there by Moncolfan and Kilts & Bagpipes...good stuff guys.  And I'm sure the MC coaching staff will get the unsportsmanlike conduct penalties taken care of this week so they do not continue to be an issue as the season moves forward.  If I may add something to the discussion regarding the quote from Coach Howard in the newspaper, a program with no class and poor behavior would've gone ahead and punched in that last touchdown to make it 63 rather than taking a knee at the 1-yard line after 15 straight run plays to finish the final 10 minutes of the game.

Also, no worries about the rankings.  Take care of business in the MWC, get some more W's on the resume, and the rest of that stuff will take care of itself all in good time.

[scottie]

If anyone would like to copy & paste the coach's comments, Scottie would appreciate it. 

Thanks,

Scottie

[warthog]

Some one tell me how this works.  Last week, Monmouth beats Grinnell 61-20 and has 660 yards of total offense.  They get 24 top 25 votes.  This week, they hold a team that scored 62 points to a shutout.  A team that had 600 yards the week before to under 200.  Oh and by the way, they had 680 yards of offense this week.  And they get 10 votes.  They dropped by 14 votes? The only team that beat them, Wartburg, moves up 3 spots and is 3-0.  That game was pretty evenly fought and minus two big plays that accounted for most of Wartburgs passing offense, Monmouth wins that game.   If anybody has a reason why this drop of votes happened.  Then by all means, I will understand, but it doesn't make sense to me right now.  Pat, were there some bigs wins out there in DIII land that I am not aware of?

Were ifs and buts, candy and nuts, Christmas would last all year. 

[Moncolfan]

"My first thought is that the team that is significantly better and has high aspirations should not have to resort to personal fouls and taunting, and swearing at us on the sidelines," said Howard. "I would expect more from this program. If they want to be the program that they say they want to be, then I would expect behavior that way. They are a good team, but that was an ugly display of football. You can quote me on that."  Quote from LU coach in the Daily Review

By the way Warthog - I agree with you but I will say this I think MC would love to have another crack at you guys so hopefully WC can run the table and host  a playoff game against the Scots- not entirely impossible is it?

[Kilts and Bagpipes]

Some one tell me how this works.  Last week, Monmouth beats Grinnell 61-20 and has 660 yards of total offense.  They get 24 top 25 votes.  This week, they hold a team that scored 62 points to a shutout.  A team that had 600 yards the week before to under 200.  Oh and by the way, they had 680 yards of offense this week.  And they get 10 votes.  They dropped by 14 votes? The only team that beat them, Wartburg, moves up 3 spots and is 3-0.  That game was pretty evenly fought and minus two big plays that accounted for most of Wartburgs passing offense, Monmouth wins that game.   If anybody has a reason why this drop of votes happened.  Then by all means, I will understand, but it doesn't make sense to me right now.  Pat, were there some bigs wins out there in DIII land that I am not aware of?

Were ifs and buts, candy and nuts, Christmas would last all year. 

I was in no way saying that MC should have beat Wartburg.  My point was that it was a pretty evenly matched game and that Monmouth had every opportunity to win that game.  I think the two teams are evenly matched and for Wartburg to be ranked 10 and Monmouth to be unranked is a pretty wide spread for two pretty close teams.  Not trying to take anything away from Wartburgs win.  Sorry if it looked that way.

[scottie]

"My first thought is that the team that is significantly better and has high aspirations should not have to resort to personal fouls and taunting, and swearing at us on the sidelines," said Howard. "I would expect more from this program. If they want to be the program that they say they want to be, then I would expect behavior that way. They are a good team, but that was an ugly display of football. You can quote me on that."  Quote from LU coach in the Daily Review

Okay, thanks.  I think what the good coach meant was that it was a beautiful display of football, but an ugly display of sportsmanship.  So, were these taunts during the first quarter when the outcome was still in doubt (stay with me... ) or later in the game when the outcome was determined?  Were they made by the all-conference caliber starters, or the second or third or fourth string?  Were they in response to anything the LU players could have possible said pre-game, demonstrating some sort of inflated machismo following a 62-point outburst the week before against the "mighty" Knox?  In either scenario, I'm sure Mav is right that the MC coaches will put a stop to it.

[warthog]

"My first thought is that the team that is significantly better and has high aspirations should not have to resort to personal fouls and taunting, and swearing at us on the sidelines," said Howard. "I would expect more from this program. If they want to be the program that they say they want to be, then I would expect behavior that way. They are a good team, but that was an ugly display of football. You can quote me on that."  Quote from LU coach in the Daily Review

Okay, thanks.  I think what the good coach meant was that it was a beautiful display of football, but an ugly display of sportsmanship.  So, were these taunts during the first quarter when the outcome was still in doubt (stay with me... ) or later in the game when the outcome was determined?  Were they made by the all-conference caliber starters, or the second or third or fourth string?  Were they in response to anything the LU players could have possible said pre-game, demonstrating some sort of inflated machismo following a 62-point outburst the week before against the "mighty" Knox?  In either scenario, I'm sure Mav is right that the MC coaches will put a stop to it.

I am a follower of the non-conference team that has probably played Monmouth more frequently than any other over the past six years. Based on what I have seen of the Fighting Scots program I would guess the coaching staff and/or the administration would put an end to this even without the comments of the Lawrence coach.  I would imagine there was plenty of blame to pass around on both sides of the field.  Rather than whine to a newspaper, I would encourage the LU coaching staff to redouble their efforts to make their football team better.  The best way to quiet a bully is to punch him in the nose and kick him in the groin.  When LU can do that to MC they won't need to worry about what is being said.  They can just point to the score board.

[Maverick]

"My first thought is that the team that is significantly better and has high aspirations should not have to resort to personal fouls and taunting, and swearing at us on the sidelines," said Howard. "I would expect more from this program. If they want to be the program that they say they want to be, then I would expect behavior that way. They are a good team, but that was an ugly display of football. You can quote me on that."  Quote from LU coach in the Daily Review

Okay, thanks.  I think what the good coach meant was that it was a beautiful display of football, but an ugly display of sportsmanship.  So, were these taunts during the first quarter when the outcome was still in doubt (stay with me... ) or later in the game when the outcome was determined?  Were they made by the all-conference caliber starters, or the second or third or fourth string?  Were they in response to anything the LU players could have possible said pre-game, demonstrating some sort of inflated machismo following a 62-point outburst the week before against the "mighty" Knox?  In either scenario, I'm sure Mav is right that the MC coaches will put a stop to it.

scottie - After reading through the play-by-play in the box score, there was a personal foul and an unsportsmanlike conduct on the offensive drive in the 3rd quarter that put Monmouth up 49-0.  There was another unsportsmanlike conduct that pushed the kickoff following that touchdown drive back to the 15-yard line.  And on the following Lawrence possession, Monmouth picked up another personal foul and another unsportsmanlike conduct.  There were no names listed on who any of these penalties were given to; but by looking at the names of the players listed on alot of those plays, it appears most of Monmouth's regulars were still in the game at that point (I don't know this for sure, but it just looks this way since many of the names are ones that I recognize).  All of this seems to have been contained to two drives during the 3rd quarter, so I would guess that things were probably just getting a little chippy in a blowout game and some Monmouth guys got caught up in some stuff that they shouldn't have.  I wasn't at the game so I don't know what happened or led to any of the penalties, but I would guess warthog is right when he says "I would imagine there was plenty of blame to pass around on both sides of the field."  Like I said before, I'm sure the Monmouth coaching staff will correct these things so they don't happen in any crucial situations down the road...or so they just don't happen anymore at all.

If I may shift gears for a moment, congratulations to Trey Yocum on being named this week's MWC Offensive Performer of the Week!

[Moncolfan]

Not to excuse them, but to be honest I don't think a couple of those penalties would have even been called in a closer game. The fact that it was 42-49 or whatever to zip was why they were called. The worst of the three late penalties was the PF on the MC sideline and I think that kid was sent back into the game.  I think the refs just wanted to keep control and for that you can't blame them.

[scottie]

If the Scots were penalized everytime they got up by 42 points, they'd be one of the most penalized teams in NCAA history!   

[grboob]

Enough about Larry and the Scots.  What about IC, Norbert and Ripon.  I believe they are still undefeated in the MWC.

Come on --comments!!  How are their QB's doing?

[Redhawk Sighting]

Enough about Larry and the Scots.  What about IC, Norbert and Ripon.  I believe they are still undefeated in the MWC.

Come on --comments!!  How are their QB's doing?

I was thinking the same thing grboob..  This board has been pretty quite and when it is going it is talking about MC and why they should be ranked?   Come on, who have they played and beat that proves they should be ranked?  NO one.  I do have something to say about the Carroll and Ripon game.  Who lets Soccer decide when Football will be played.  That game is at 5pm (which is against conference rules) because of a soccer game....  What should happen is since Carroll can't get the game started on time, it should be moved to a site that can.  Just saying.  Either way this will be a good game for Ripon.  All of RC's conference games have turned out to be close games.

[Kilts and Bagpipes]

Enough about Larry and the Scots.  What about IC, Norbert and Ripon.  I believe they are still undefeated in the MWC.

Come on --comments!!  How are their QB's doing?

IC looks to be better this year and with the game being at IC, Monmouth could have a test.  I think that it ends up with a Monmouth win, but IC could make it a good game for a while.  I am just wondering how any defense that gives up 30 points a game is going to be able to handle MC offense.  Seems like they are scoring some points themselves so it might be a question of can IC offense outpace the Monmouth offense.

Is the IC QB a freshman?  Does anyone know what happened to Blu Thru N Thru?  Will Rocky and Bullwinkle escape certain death?

Find out next episode called "Monmouth Bass" or "Boogie Woogie Blueboy"

[Kilts and Bagpipes]

Redhawk...I never said they should be ranked.  What I was asking was why did they lose ground in the "others receiving votes".  And without making Warthog mad, they played a game with the 10 ranked team that could have gone either way.  My question was answered and I agreed.  Moncolfan and Scottie both said that they don't deserved to be ranked.  So I don't get where you are going with that.

Is Ripon young this year?  Why so many close games?  They still seem to be running all over people.  Redzone issues?  Defense issues?

[Redhawk Sighting]

Redhawk...I never said they should be ranked.  What I was asking was why did they lose ground in the "others receiving votes".  And without making Warthog mad, they played a game with the 10 ranked team that could have gone either way.  My question was answered and I agreed.  Moncolfan and Scottie both said that they don't deserved to be ranked.  So I don't get where you are going with that.

Is Ripon young this year?  Why so many close games?  They still seem to be running all over people.  Redzone issues?  Defense issues?

K&B - I think my post was taken as an attack when it was only agreeing with what boobies (sorry had too) said.  So to answer your question about close games, I would say it has to do with a few things.  RC has a very distinct week spot on D that I know they are working on and the offense has had some issues in the red zone also.  I'd say its a bunch of things that at the end of the day can be fixed.  As far as them being young, I don't know the answer to that question without looking through the roster, but I do know that their QB is a stud.  That leads me to a question, what should an offense be able to score and still feel confident that they can win and what should a defense need to hold a team too, to be confident that the Offense is able to score enough points to win.  The obvious answer the offense needs to score more points than the other team and the defense needs to keep the score under their own.  But I  believe a coach should be able to say that if the Offense puts up 35 points we should walk out with a W, meaning the defense did their job and/or the defense keeps the score to 21 that the offense can put up enough points to win..  thoughts/comments?