FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

Why fight the notion that Yoder has already made a difference and be so against the idea he can build a winner there?  Isn't it better for the entire conference to elevate the quality of the competition, especially if it's a bottom ring team?

I don't. In fact, if you read my post I quite happily admit they are better. Of course, as I said, they could hardly have been worse. I took exception to the tenor of an original post which implied that all Coach Yoder had to do was show up and he would build a winner. It denigrated many of the other coaches and teams in the conference. Coach Yoder may make Shenandoah a power. I don't have a problem with that should it happen, other than it implies they would consistently beat my Generals, but I do have a problem implying that his greatness will swamp what is already a good conference.

As for this week, I just pointed out that it is all sunshine and daisies for Shenandoah's surprise wins, but the blowouts by Guilford and Catholic passed without comment. It amuses me that when they win you show up to declaim his inevitable greatness but when they get buried no one wonders if he is incompetent (of which I'm sure he is not, I'm just pointing out the flip side of the coin).

The ODAC is extremely flat. Most of the teams are good, none are great right now. Bridgewater, E&H and Catholic feasted on weak OOC schedules but sit at the bottom of the ODAC table. Guilford is leading the conference after struggling through a mediocre (at best) OOC schedule, but they have done it on the back of single digit wins over everyone but Shenandoah, who they were murdering before calling off the dogs.

So the difference isn't huge between these teams and Shenandoah and Coach Yoder may very well breach it within a couple years. But that would also imply the other teams are standing still. As for the newer coaches in the conference, I'd put my money on Coach R at Guilford pushing a few conference titles long before I would Coach Yoder, and Coach Abell at W&L already owns one. We shall see which of these guys who have taken the reigns in the last 3 years can best compete with Coach Favret (several conference titles, Coach Arruza (at least one), and Coach Clark (6 plus a Stagg Bowl appearance).

[jknezek]

gotcha...so "very unimpressive" means "it won't help [your seeding in the ncaa tournament]"...you w&l guys have a much deeper understanding of the english language than i do...i appreciate that you translated that for me

When talking about a potential conference champion, losses to teams that aren't potential conference champions, especially in non-power conferences, aren't impressive. Or am I wrong here? Are you impressed if the USASC champion loses to a third or fourth place team, maybe not even that high, in the ODAC? Or a team that has only been above .500 3 times in 14 seasons and not since 2005? Or does it reflect poorly on your champion for playoff and other implications?

In the context of Guilford winning the ODAC, losing to Methodist is "very unimpressive" in my book. I'm sorry you find that upsetting.

[narch]

When talking about a potential conference champion, losses to teams that aren't potential conference champions, especially in non-power conferences, aren't impressive. Or am I wrong here?

i think there is a good bit of difference between "[not] impressive" and "very unimpressive" - had you used the term unimpressive, i wouldn't have taken umbrage, the qualifier makes your statement inaccurate, in my mind

Are you impressed if the USASC champion loses to a third or fourth place team, maybe not even that high, in the ODAC? Or a team that has only been above .500 3 times in 14 seasons and not since 2005? Or does it reflect poorly on your champion for playoff and other implications?

if you are referring to the mu vs. ehc game, the monarchs performance was a long way from "very unimpressive"...i'm not sure there is a  pejorative strong enough for that performance - that being said, if mu goes 7-3 or 8-2 (with wins against cnu, huntingdon, and lagrange), i would call a loss to the monarchs a solid loss even though it won't help guilford's potential tournament seed...the usasac and odac will be the two lowest seeds in the region regardless...the only teams that had an outside chance to be higher than that were cnu, huntingdon and rmc if they had went undefeated

of course, by your rather narrow definition of a good loss (a loss to a regionally ranked team), there are only about 8 to 10 losses in the south region (can't remember how many teams are ranked in this region) that are not "very unimpressive"...

In the context of Guilford winning the ODAC, losing to Methodist is "very unimpressive" in my book. I'm sorry you find that upsetting.-

not upsetting...just currently (and potentially) inaccurate - i know methodist is an above average d3 team...i've seen it in person

[mattvsmith]

Why fight the notion that Yoder has already made a difference and be so against the idea he can build a winner there?  Isn't it better for the entire conference to elevate the quality of the competition, especially if it's a bottom ring team?

I don't. In fact, if you read my post I quite happily admit they are better. Of course, as I said, they could hardly have been worse. I took exception to the tenor of an original post which implied that all Coach Yoder had to do was show up and he would build a winner. It denigrated many of the other coaches and teams in the conference. Coach Yoder may make Shenandoah a power. I don't have a problem with that should it happen, other than it implies they would consistently beat my Generals, but I do have a problem implying that his greatness will swamp what is already a good conference.

As for this week, I just pointed out that it is all sunshine and daisies for Shenandoah's surprise wins, but the blowouts by Guilford and Catholic passed without comment. It amuses me that when they win you show up to declaim his inevitable greatness but when they get buried no one wonders if he is incompetent (of which I'm sure he is not, I'm just pointing out the flip side of the coin).

The ODAC is extremely flat. Most of the teams are good, none are great right now. Bridgewater, E&H and Catholic feasted on weak OOC schedules but sit at the bottom of the ODAC table. Guilford is leading the conference after struggling through a mediocre (at best) OOC schedule, but they have done it on the back of single digit wins over everyone but Shenandoah, who they were murdering before calling off the dogs.

So the difference isn't huge between these teams and Shenandoah and Coach Yoder may very well breach it within a couple years. But that would also imply the other teams are standing still. As for the newer coaches in the conference, I'd put my money on Coach R at Guilford pushing a few conference titles long before I would Coach Yoder, and Coach Abell at W&L already owns one. We shall see which of these guys who have taken the reigns in the last 3 years can best compete with Coach Favret (several conference titles, Coach Arruza (at least one), and Coach Clark (6 plus a Stagg Bowl appearance).

I think you were reading too much into my original post, and this is really an exercise in working out a beef that's been rubbing you for a while. You said "you Hobart guys come here..." I didn't remember coming to this board since preseason. So I don't really get the you Hobart guys (me...who else? I haven't been paying attention) coming here after wins (this one time?) and blah blah blah.

Is there real harm in being glad to see a fellow alumnus succeed? Did I tear anyone else down to try to make him appear better? No. Did I say the previous coach sucked? No. Did I say the opposing coaches sucked? No. I just made a positive assessment of a good young coach. I even threw in a critique of penalties for a little balance.

Get over yourself.

[jknezek]

Are you impressed if the USASC champion loses to a third or fourth place team, maybe not even that high, in the ODAC? Or a team that has only been above .500 3 times in 14 seasons and not since 2005? Or does it reflect poorly on your champion for playoff and other implications?

if you are referring to the mu vs. ehc game, the monarchs performance was a long way from "very unimpressive"...i'm not sure there is a  pejorative strong enough for that performance

Actually the statistics refer to Methodist's body of work going into this year. None of that quotation refers to E&H. I don't think Methodist will finish above third, just my thoughts, in the USASC. And Methodist is a team that has only been above .500 3 times in 14 seasons and not since 2005. If you were curious E&H has only been under .500 4 times in 14 seasons and not since the abysmal 2007 campaign.

And yes, for a conference champion, the only "good" loss is to a Regionally Ranked team. With more than 10 teams Regionally Ranked each year (not the same 10 get ranked both known times and the last undeclared time), a conference champion who loses to a team outside of that grouping has taken a bad loss. Essentially you've lost to a team that wasn't even considered one of the 10-15 or so best in your region, which would work out to the 40-60 best as a sum of the regions. That's roughly the top 25% of D3 if you hold out the NESCAC. For a conference champion to lose to a middle quartile team, that's unimpressive. The farther you get from regionally ranked, the more unimpressive it becomes. You may be correct and Methodist goes 8-2 or 7-3. But for right now, at 5-2 with a 39 point loss on their books... well, I've stated my opinion. Yours is clearly different.

[jknezek]

I think you were reading too much into my original post, and this is really an exercise in working out a beef that's been rubbing you for a while. You said "you Hobart guys come here..." I didn't remember coming to this board since preseason. So I don't really get the you Hobart guys (me...who else? I haven't been paying attention) coming here after wins (this one time?) and blah blah blah.

Is there real harm in being glad to see a fellow alumnus succeed? Did I tear anyone else down to try to make him appear better? No. Did I say the previous coach sucked? No. Did I say the opposing coaches sucked? No. I just made a positive assessment of a good young coach. I even threw in a critique of penalties for a little balance.

Get over yourself.

As far as I know there are two really active Hobart guys? Maybe one more? Had fun swapping some info last year before my Generals took their lumps. So yeah, guys, plural, refers to you two. What's the big deal about that? Someone (pumpkinattack maybe?) posted after the first Shenandoah win, you posted after the second. The seems like a plural situation to me. I have no problem with it, I just found it entertaining and had some fun with it. I certainly spend enough time on the other boards to enjoy when we get some returns.

But yeah, the original pre-season post struck me a bit. If someone wandered into the Liberty League board on a new hire and said in a few years that coach would have WPI rolling to multiple championships wouldn't you stand up for Coach Cragg who has done such an great job at Hobart? Would you not scoff a bit and say it isn't going to be that easy?

That's all I'm saying. I expect you guys to be proud of Coach Yoder and root for him unless he's playing Hobart. Wouldn't you expect the ODAC fans to do the same for the coaches that have proven themselves in conference? It's no big deal, just a bit of fun with no name calling and not making it personal.

[narch]

jknezek - sorry, i didn't realize that the last 13 years had anything to do with this year - so by your line of thinking, if mu goes 7-3 or 8-2, does it count as a good year?

if it counts (news flash...it does), then i think it's a stretch to label losing to a team that wins 70-80% of their games as "very unimpressive"...you can continue to defend an indefensible position, but i think most sensible football fans would agree with me

...now if mu finishes the season at 5-5 or 6-4 (it's possible), i'll agree with your assessment

[tigerfanalso]

Hasa

What a difference a year makes!!!! Congrats on the win over RMC. If HSC comes down there this weekend and plays as they did this past Saturday the result will not be pretty. Hopefully the Tigers will regroup and make a game of it.

[jknezek]

jknezek - sorry, i didn't realize that the last 13 years had anything to do with this year - so by your line of thinking, if mu goes 7-3 or 8-2, does it count as a good year?

if it counts (news flash...it does), then i think it's a stretch to label losing to a team that wins 70-80% of their games as "very unimpressive"...you can continue to defend an indefensible position, but i think most sensible football fans would agree with me

...now if mu finishes the season at 5-5 or 6-4 (it's possible), i'll agree with your assessment

Personally I think the position is defensible. And yes, the last 13 years do have an effect on reputation. That's just part and parcel of reality, even if it is a bit unfair to the current team. If MU goes 7-3 or 8-2 it is certainly a good year for them. If a team like UMU or Whitewater or UMHB goes 7-3 or 8-2 it's not a good year for them. So it all depends on how you look at it. But I think we've beaten this one to death so we can agree to disagree.

[hasanova]

Hasa

What a difference a year makes!!!! Congrats on the win over RMC. If HSC comes down there this weekend and plays as they did this past Saturday the result will not be pretty. Hopefully the Tigers will regroup and make a game of it.

Thanks, tfa.  Guilford has definitely improved.  I would characterize it more as "what a difference three years make."  After 0-10 in 2010 and a coaching change, Guilford has progressed to 2-8 (1-6), 5-5 (4-3) and now 5-2 (4-0).  As you may remember, GC pulled out a come-from-behind win over RMC in Ashland last year with a rookie QB.  As sophomores this season, QB Pawlowski, RB Schow, WR Smith, Kicker/Punter Hunt and many, many others (including the defense!) have improved tremendously.  Last Saturday was a great passing performance by the Quakers.  No one, including me, expected GC to jump out to a 21-0 halftime lead.  Even with their loss to SU, HSC is still in the hunt and scares the heck out of me.  I am as shocked as anyone at the 36-35 outcome, but have to congratulate SU Coach Yoder and his gutsy decision to go for two on the road.  I'm sure it will be an intense week of practice for both squads and everyone knows the Quakers have not beaten the Tigers since 1999 - including some years we appeared to have the better team.  Hopefully, this season will be a different outcome - this Quaker team is playing with confidence and will definitely have crowd support.

I hope you and many other Tiger fans will make the trip.  It should be a great game and I look forward to meeting you and others!

[jknezek]

Hard to deny the Quakers are on a roll not seen for them since the late 90s. Very impressive for Coach R and his young squad. The rest of the ODAC is going to need to step up to keep pace as just this group has a few years left to run, regardless of how Coach R is backfilling for the future.

You simply can't say enough about the job Coach R has done over the last couple years bringing in players and getting them playing in a hurry. I'm very torn. I need HSC to win to create real havoc at the top of the conference, but I'm really enjoying watching this Quaker team come along.

[narch]

Personally I think the position is defensible. And yes, the last 13 years do have an effect on reputation. That's just part and parcel of reality, even if it is a bit unfair to the current team. If MU goes 7-3 or 8-2 it is certainly a good year for them. If a team like UMU or Whitewater or UMHB goes 7-3 or 8-2 it's not a good year for them. So it all depends on how you look at it. But I think we've beaten this one to death so we can agree to disagree.

you're defending a position that is weak, at best...to say that mu's current 5-2 record (vs. opponents who are 24-15 [.615 win percentage] vs. other d3 competition - .577 owp in wins, .692 owp in losses...didn't have time or energy to calculate oowp) is somehow invalid because of the previous 13 seasons is curious, and then to make comparisons between mu and 3 national powerhouses compounds it...

for the record, if guilford had lost to greensboro and greensboro was 5-2, i would still have an issue with calling that loss "very unimpressive", although i'd probably care much less

my last questions on this topic and i'll hang up and take your answers off the air

if guilford had lost by one score, on the road to a team that had gone .700 over the last decade and was currently 5-2, would that be considered a "very unimpressive" defeat? what if that team lost it's final 3 games to finish 5-5? winning 70% of the time over the last decade doesn't ensure that this team would continue to win (although they might), just as losing 57% of the time over the last decade doesn't ensure that mu will finish the season at 5-5 (although they might) - each year is a new year, which is why they play the games and why we, as fans, watch them

i understand how previous seasons impact reputation, but being the educated person you are, i'm sure you also understand that reputation and reality aren't always the same - a team in the odac or usasac that wins 70+% of its games this year is good this year, regardless of its reputation - i'll acknowledge that there are different degrees of good (i'd take a 7-3 oac or wiac team over any 7-3 usasac or odac team, for instance), but i don't think that the majority reading to these boards would consider losing to a usasac team that wins 70% of its games to be "very unimpressive" for an odac team - a top tier oac or wiac team would...and i wouldn't have any issue with it - the odac isn't close to either of those conferences

at this stage of the season, would you consider the generals 3 losses (the result...not the way the team played) to teams that are currently a combined 15-6, .714 win percentage to be "very unimpressive" or simply games that any mid-to-upper tier odac/usasac team could win or lose?

[tigerfanalso]

Hasa

I'll be there hoping for a major upset. Hope to meet you as well. If HSC happens to win the entire ODAC gets really interesting.
W&L and SU are back in it at that point and any thing could happen. HSC has a very long road playing GC, W&L and RMC last three weeks of the season so time will tell if they are up to the challenge and if GC is capable of sustaining it's run.

[jknezek]

you're defending a position that is weak, at best...to say that mu's current 5-2 record (vs. opponents who are 24-15 [.615 win percentage] vs. other d3 competition - .577 owp in wins, .692 owp in losses) is somehow invalid because of the previous 13 seasons is curious, and then to make comparisons between mu and 3 national powerhouses compounds it...

Actually I didn't  say the last 13 seasons invalidated this season. I brought those stats up much later as an ancillary piece of information that is relevant to how people see Methodist, not as a trump card. Nor did I say that MU wasn't having a good season for them. I simply said that the loss, in context of Guilford being the ODAC champion, is very unimpressive. Methodist is not a team that the ODAC champion should lose to this year. That's not to say Methodist is a bad team. It's just not a good loss, an impressive loss, or an unimpressive loss for an conference champion. It's very unimpressive in my book. Had the bottom team of the ODAC lost to Methodist, or even the middle teams, that's a completely different story. But for a possible conference champion? It's a stinker of a loss in my book.

if guilford had lost by one score, on the road to a team that had gone .700 over the last decade and was currently 5-2, would that be considered a "very unimpressive" defeat?

Perhaps. It would depend a lot on how that team went .700 over the last decade. If it was mainly beating up bad teams, then it still would be a very unimpressive defeat. Randomly speaking, .700 isn't all that hard to achieve if you schedule 3 weak OOC teams (not what Methodist did, but you can see how it invalidates the generic argument). A .700 team over a decade in the ODAC or USASC is not a .700 team in the OAC or ASC. Not all opponents are created equal, and winning percentage and SOS are not necessarily trump cards. Context is important.

i understand how previous seasons impact reputation, but being the educated person you are, i'm sure you also understand that reputation and reality aren't always the same - a team in the odac or usasac that wins 70+% of its games this year is good this year, regardless of its reputation - i'll acknowledge that there are different degrees of good (i'd take a 7-3 oac or wiac team over any 7-3 usasac or odac team, for instance), but i don't think that the majority reading to these boards would consider losing to a usasac team that wins 70% of its games to be "very unimpressive" for an odac team - a top tier oac or wiac team would...and i wouldn't have any issue with it - the odac isn't close to either of those conferences

Again, context. An ODAC team losing to Methodist this year is not "very unimpressive." The conference champion doing so is. There is a big difference in that distinction. If you live in the world you understand that reputation is important. Anyone who ignores it is missing a piece of the puzzle. Is it the biggest or most important piece? Of course not, but it is a piece. Can't help that you don't like it. And no, being mediocre in the past doesn't make the current team mediocre. It simply makes people more skeptical. This has never been about the majority of people on this board, this is about how I feel about the ODAC champion (possibly) losing to Methodist. Very unimpressed. You feel different and that's what makes the world go round.

at this stage of the season, would you consider the generals 3 losses (the result...not the way the team played) to teams that are currently a combined 15-6, .714 win percentage to be "very unimpressive" or simply games that any mid-to-upper tier odac/usasac team could win or lose?

Actually I find the Generals losses this year to be appropriate for the team. They aren't at the top of the conference this year, so they lost to the conference teams that are. They lost to Centre, but that is, sadly, almost a standard when the Generals travel to Danville. But the Generals aren't really in the running for a conference title (a few very longshot, fingers crossed, eyes closed, scenarios aside). If the Generals were a team I thought should win the ODAC, then I would be unimpressed or very unimpressed with the losses they took to conference foes. For example, the loss to Bridgewater last year was very unimpressive for W&L. Bridgewater, by the way, finished 7-3. Same with F&M. The ODAC champion shouldn't lose to the fourth team in the CC. Unimpressive even though F&M finished 7-4.

Context. It's all about the context.

[narch]

Context. It's all about the context.

oops...i pocket dialed back in to the show

your defense got stronger, but it seems you are assuming a large disparity between the odac/usasac conference champion and the teams just below...i think the margins are razor thin most years, even more so this year (in both conferences) - i don't think anyone would be surprised if guilford beat hsc and cua, then turned around and lost to ehc (in this scenario, guilford would still be odac champions) - i wouldn't be shocked if hsc won out and took the odac title while su lost all of their remaining games...which would mean the odac champion suffered a home loss to a team that was potentially in next-to-last place...

to call a loss to a usasac team that will likely finish in the top half of the conference "very unimpressive" for a (potential) odac champion assumes that you think being champion means that the champion is much better than the rest of the conference...that typically just isn't the case and i think we've all seen that it isn't the case at all this year

the context here is that there isn't much difference between the top and bottom of either of these conferences and calling almost any loss "very unimpressive" isn't accurate within the context of these two conferences