FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[rscl70]

If you go from 1990 to current then it is 221-3-1.

This is why I always roll my eyes at the "It's the responsibility of the other teams to raise their game and take down Mount". The entire OAC has taken a shot for a quarter-century and accomplished squat. Frankly, other than Whiewater, the entire country has accomplished next to nothing since 1996. It seems clear that 98% teams are either incapable or unwilling to do what Mount Union does to take them down at football.

That's, of course, not Mount's (or Whitewater's) fault, and I don't think anyone who's intelligent and objective about these things would claim otherwise. But it's impossible to claim that a level of dominance like that, for this long, is good for the sport. It's impossible to claim that the seemingly never-ending string of 40/50/60 point wins Mount's put up in that time is good for the sport.

Actually, that's the number I'd be really interested in. Since the start of 1996, when Mount embarked on that little 109-1 stretch, till now, what percentage of their games have they won by 40 or more points? I bet it would better the winning percentages of some of the winningest coaches in D-III.

The answer is 46.5%.  Years with the most wins by 40 or more are 1997 (11), 2007 (11 and lost in Stagg 31-21 to UWW), and 2014 (12). Years with the fewest wins by 40 or more 1998 (2), 1999 (3), and 2010 (4).

[Bombers798891]

If you go from 1990 to current then it is 221-3-1.

This is why I always roll my eyes at the "It's the responsibility of the other teams to raise their game and take down Mount". The entire OAC has taken a shot for a quarter-century and accomplished squat. Frankly, other than Whiewater, the entire country has accomplished next to nothing since 1996. It seems clear that 98% teams are either incapable or unwilling to do what Mount Union does to take them down at football.

That's, of course, not Mount's (or Whitewater's) fault, and I don't think anyone who's intelligent and objective about these things would claim otherwise. But it's impossible to claim that a level of dominance like that, for this long, is good for the sport. It's impossible to claim that the seemingly never-ending string of 40/50/60 point wins Mount's put up in that time is good for the sport.

Actually, that's the number I'd be really interested in. Since the start of 1996, when Mount embarked on that little 109-1 stretch, till now, what percentage of their games have they won by 40 or more points? I bet it would better the winning percentages of some of the winningest coaches in D-III.

The answer is 46.5%.  Years with the most wins by 40 or more are 1997 (11), 2007 (11 and lost in Stagg 31-21 to UWW), and 2014 (12). Years with the fewest wins by 40 or more 1998 (2), 1999 (3), and 2010 (4).

Hmm. Admittedly lower than I thought. But still absurd

[tigerfanalso]

I would think the MU players would grow very old of not having competitive games and playing only one half of each game. Why can't other coaches use that to their recruiting advantage. UWW is much different in they have competitive games during the regular season and because of where they are located, play against better competition in the playoffs and enjoy having to play competitive games. I think that may well explain why UWW has won so many championships in the recent past.

Someone needs to right a book on the MU program. Hard to believe one school can be so dominant for so long. Hard to believe other D3 schools have not done a case study in an effort to improve their program.

[jknezek]

I would think the MU players would grow very old of not having competitive games and playing only one half of each game. Why can't other coaches use that to their recruiting advantage. UWW is much different in they have competitive games during the regular season and because of where they are located, play against better competition in the playoffs and enjoy having to play competitive games. I think that may well explain why UWW has won so many championships in the recent past.

Someone needs to right a book on the MU program. Hard to believe one school can be so dominant for so long. Hard to believe other D3 schools have not done a case study in an effort to improve their program.

Actually D3 is rife with dynasties. UMU is a good one, but not the most dominant. You'd have to look at Kenyon swimming or the two schools that have dominated wrestling for much longer than UMU let alone UMU/UWW dominated football. Messiah is ridiculously good at soccer, a sport where thanks to low scoring good teams lose to lesser opponents at a much higher rate than sports like football. Some of the women's sports are even worse.

There are always a few things in common among all these dynasties. Institutional will, which includes admissions flexibility and spending money, and excellent coaching. You need both of those, plus a dash of luck to get rolling. Lots of schools have the admissions flexibility but not the money or coaching. Others have the money but not the flexibility. Some have the flexibility and money, but can't find the coaching. Getting all 3, and keeping the coaching, is tricky.

I will say that if you look at the elite D3 football programs they pretty much fall in line. UMU has had all 3, UWW has used football, and athletics in general, as a huge part of their differentiation from the rest of the UWW system. They are an incredible example of institutional will. Linfield and UMHB have spent the money and don't require much admissions flexibility, both let in close to 90% of applicants, as well as excellent coaching. Wesley is somewhat of an outlier. They have the coaching, and the institutional will to get the kids in, but they don't have the facilities indicative of the money. On the other hand, playing as an independent has cost them dearly in travel fees, so now that they have joined a full conference money may be moved from travel to facilities.

There isn't some massive secret here. There is, however, a huge difficulty in getting the right coach and coaching staff. There are lots of good coaches, I think the ODAC has some excellent coaches, but getting to that nationally competitive coach, and assistant coaches, is a big, big mountain. It requires a bit of luck, and then even more than a bit to hold on to that staff.

[Pat Coleman]

I would think the MU players would grow very old of not having competitive games and playing only one half of each game. Why can't other coaches use that to their recruiting advantage.

I am not sure that "winning is boring" is a great sales pitch, but I could be wrong.

[tigerfanalso]

But having one blow out after another, not being challenged, the #1's playing one half of football week over week, would certainly bore me to death. I don't see how the competitive juices are challenged when you know you are going to be up 50 to 0 at half time. The few blow out games played by HSC over the years have put me to sleep, quickly and the players did not enjoy it either.

[jknezek]

But having one blow out after another, not being challenged, the #1's playing one half of football week over week, would certainly bore me to death. I don't see how the competitive juices are challenged when you know you are going to be up 50 to 0 at half time. The few blow out games played by HSC over the years have put me to sleep, quickly and the players did not enjoy it either.

Because most h.s. kids don't look at it that way? UMU is going to win conference championships. Kids like championship rings. They are going to make the playoffs. Kids like playing for the best, and they are, most likely, going to play for national titles. Almost all h.s. kids think they are good enough, they just need a break. So of the 100+ freshman that UMU pulls every year, about 20-30 stick it out to play senior year. But none of those kids is going to believe that they aren't going to be one of those 20-30 to walk out without those rings!

Boring to win big? Boring to be pulled at half? No, exciting to win titles and chances at the Walnut and Bronze and, of course, to be the next D3 player headed to the NFL! Show them all wrong. All those D1 schools that offered walk-on treatment or D2 schools and their partial scholarships.

Reality doesn't apply to most h.s. kids. It sure didn't apply to me. I figured I'd wander in to W&L and be a soccer superstar. I was quickly disabused of that notion and realized I might get a chance to play as a junior or senior, if I stuck out the pine for 2 or 3 years. But maybe not even then. Had a nice time playing club rugby and soccer instead of going through the struggle.

[umhb2001]

Other in-state options plays a huge part as well.

9 FBS Schools in Texas
8 FBS Schools in Ohio
1 FBS School in Wisconsin

8 FCS Schools in Texas
2 FCS Schools in Ohio
0 FCS Schools in Wisconsin

10 D2 Schools in Ohio
6 D2 Schools in Texas
0 D2 Schools in Wisconsin

So, when you tally all of this up, and you see how many programs UMHB has to beat out, you see the magnitude of what they have accomplished. Obviously, the size of the state means more players, but still.

History and competition give UWW and UMU a substantial advantage over other programs. I even read about a kid from Texas going to UMU one year to play football. Plus, when you look at those other schools in Ohio and Wisconsin, some may not play football, and if they do, what is their chance of getting a good player? I mean, if I can go to UWW or UMU, play four years, have a shot at a title EVERY year, and still be recognized by NFL scouts, why not?? This is a question I ask of guys in Texas, not literally, but hypothetically. Why go to a D2 or D1FCS if you have not history of playing for a title when you have D1 style facilities and treatment at UMHB AND a shot at a title AND prospective scouts from the NFL can still see you? Money...Scholarships, and saying you played D1 or scholarship ball.

Soap box broken...

[jknezek]

UMHB has it easier than UMU. Texas has a population more than twice as big as Ohio. There are 23 D1/D2 schools in Texas, 20 in Ohio. Pretty close. But in D3 terms, there are 21 D3 football schools in Ohio, there are only 8 in Texas. Kind of silly to crawl on a soap box as a Texas school claiming it is less competitive for schools to get good players in Ohio than Texas. It gets worse when you start to consider the number of schools in an area surrounding Ohio with the same population as Texas, as there is no shortage of D3 schools in every state that touches Ohio except West Virginia. By any measure, there are more football programs in a Texas-sized area around Ohio than Texas will EVER have to deal with.

[Ralph Turner]

2013 population (estimate).

Texas               26,528,398
Ohio                 11,544, 225
Wisconsin          5,742,713

[umhb2001]

Population means a chance, not a certainty.

I don't think it's silly. I do think it has some credibility. It makes a difference.

[Bombers798891]

Actually D3 is rife with dynasties. UMU is a good one, but not the most dominant. You'd have to look at Kenyon swimming or the two schools that have dominated wrestling for much longer than UMU let alone UMU/UWW dominated football. Messiah is ridiculously good at soccer, a sport where thanks to low scoring good teams lose to lesser opponents at a much higher rate than sports like football. Some of the women's sports are even worse.

Well, wrestling's a bit different because a team can have multiple individual national champions even if the team doesn't win one. Ithaca had that happen a year they finished 5th as a team.

I think football is a unique for reasons I've mentioned before: It isn't just the national titles, it's that, with Mount specifically, they're almost always going undefeated before the Stagg Bowl and are routinely just blowing teams out every week. As was posted earlier, 46% of their games since 1996 have been won by 40+ points! And that's a pretty high bar for uncompetitiveness, IMO.

Look at this stretch in 2012: 57-0, 52-0, 54-0, 66-0, 62-0, 51-0. There's a level of complete and utter dominance that goes beyond "Mount wins all the time". Whole sections of the season are mere formalities. You might as well not keep score.

[jknezek]

Population means a chance, not a certainty.

I don't think it's silly. I do think it has some credibility. It makes a difference.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/9/11/4718442/college-football-state-texas-california-florida

Texas, Florida, California top the list. 3 of the 4 top states by population as well. New York is an interesting outlier, but for the most part, highest population = most D1 football players. The trickle down should be pretty obvious.

Anyway, the rest of your argument was flawed since it didn't account for population. By any measure, there are more collegiate football programs in a 25MM population area around Ohio than Texas. Since both UMU and UMHB are private schools, in-state versus out of state is less relevant.

Now as far as UWW goes, that's a different kettle of fish.

[jknezek]

Actually D3 is rife with dynasties. UMU is a good one, but not the most dominant. You'd have to look at Kenyon swimming or the two schools that have dominated wrestling for much longer than UMU let alone UMU/UWW dominated football. Messiah is ridiculously good at soccer, a sport where thanks to low scoring good teams lose to lesser opponents at a much higher rate than sports like football. Some of the women's sports are even worse.

Well, wrestling's a bit different because a team can have multiple individual national champions even if the team doesn't win one. Ithaca had that happen a year they finished 5th as a team.

I think football is a unique for reasons I've mentioned before: It isn't just the national titles, it's that, with Mount specifically, they're almost always going undefeated before the Stagg Bowl and are routinely just blowing teams out every week. As was posted earlier, 46% of their games since 1996 have been won by 40+ points! And that's a pretty high bar for uncompetitiveness, IMO.

Look at this stretch in 2012: 57-0, 52-0, 54-0, 66-0, 62-0, 51-0. There's a level of complete and utter dominance that goes beyond "Mount wins all the time". Whole sections of the season are mere formalities. You might as well not keep score.

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that DIII dynasties aren't limited to UMU or the UMU/UWW pairing. It's fairly common. Baseball and basketball seem to avoid the issue, but most D3 sports have long stretches of single team dominance. I'm not sure what UMU is supposed to do about the rest of the OAC. They simply can't make Marietta better. They aren't going to move to a new conference since the OAC is a good spot for them for all sports.

W&L has won 23 of the last 25 ODAC women's tennis championships, losing in 1989 and 2002. The team started in 1985/86, a year after W&L went co-ed. The men's team has won 32 ODAC championships since 1977, the year they joined the ODAC. So 32 of 38 roughly (counting this year). But leaving the ODAC in all sports to find better competition in tennis just doesn't make sense.

Football is a flagship sport, but the realities of the problem exist for a lot of teams in a lot of conferences. There just isn't much you can do.

[hscathletics]

You're going to have a hard time trying to convince a high school kid that competing for a national championship on an annual basis is something other than a lot of fun. If a head coach is using a recruiting pitch focused around how that's not fun, I can't imagine he will be particularly successful in recruiting.

Also, having a lot of huge blowouts wins can actually make recruiting easier (ignoring the fact that you know the whole winning a lot of games helps recruiting a ton) because you can pretty much tell any kid that is good enough to make the Mount Union roster that he is very likely going to end up playing a lot because the backups will likely be getting a lot of snaps.