East Region Playoff Discussion

[pumkinattack]

I'd really dispute this physical domination concept on the game.  UST had one drive in the first half that went for more than 50 yards (66 yards in the second quarter), on their first three touchdowns they gained 81 yards (avg of 27 per score), and yet were up 32-7 at the half.  UST's D did a number on our offense, for sure, but as I've seen all year long, you get a lead and the other team starts to panic (which we did) and play that way and the D can pin their ears back and get after it with a nice lead.  Even drive where we forced a punt we gave up a free first down via offsides that leads to four more plays for the defense.  This lead to Hobart's being on the field way too much and the game was over at halftime (really after the first two scores early IMO).  I've never seen our D in the past two years with their hands on their hips, including at Wesley last year, which is a comparable team (unless somehow last year's Wesley team wasn't on par, but I'd like to see that case being made).  That's when I knew our luck had run out, but it was very much situation/game specific.  I don't think a lot can gleaned beyond that other than that they came to play and we didn't. 

[gordonmann]

And not much seems to be changing either. It's also worth pointing out that Mount especially, has been practically untouchable in many playoff runs after finishing the year undefeated. Heck, Jim Butterfield took the Bombers to seven Stagg Bowls and Ithaca NEVER finished undefeated with him as the Head Coach. They certainly were never perceived as invincible the way Mount has been.

Last season I raised this same point with Bill Manlove, an Assistant Coach with Delaware Valley who won two national titles as the Head Coach at Widener (1977, 1981).  He made the same observation as Bombers after watching Mount Union demolish Del Val in person. As good as his Widener teams were, they were never as dominant as Mount Union. 

He thought that the recent Delaware Valley teams were just as talented as as his national champions at Widener.  And Delaware Valley has arguably never been a Tier 2 team (someone who will challenge Mount Union or UWW), except maybe 2005.

That tells you something about how Division III football has changed.

[skunks_sidekick]

In my opinion, other than LK (which is the main reason), and that success breeds success, one of the biggest reasons Mount has taken this "next step" is their ability to recruit Florida.  Not that every "speed kid" they have has come from Florida, but it certainly has upped the talent level overall.  You take the traditionally strong NE Ohio football area, and mix in about 1/2 dozen Florida kids, and put them with the best coach in D-III.  Now that is a recipe for continued success.

[repete]

Showing the list of champions since 1991 reinforces Lew's point.

Only if you're wearing East/South blinders. I extended back to LAX because that followed the final East title.

Then where are all of champions from the East (or South)? Apparently, it's just a crazy coincidence.

That a number of West have won Staggs speaks to the depth of the region. It's tougher to sustain Tier I when you've got that depth at the top.

In the East it seems there's always one team carrying the hopes of that region. I do have to laugh about references to "the Rowan era" in this discussion. How can you have an era without a title? Even so, Rowan absorbed one its worst Stagg defeats to the No. 7 West seed. And in all playoff games vs. the West, Rowan was outscored 149-42.

[repete]

Geez, Goordon, you ding me for going back to UW-LAX, then you draw back to the Widener titles???

[HScoach]

Speaking as someone who has witnessed over 95% of Mount Union's games since 1992, the overall talent level of D3 has improved SIGNIFICANTLY since the Mount run has begun.  Just like the NFL, big time college down to the high school level, the players are bigger/stronger/faster than they were 20 years ago.   

The 1997 Mount team was by far the greatest and most dominant in their history, with a senior QB that threw 61 TDs against 2 INTs and a nasty defense, but they would get beat by the recent Mount teams simply because the size, strength and speed along the lines of scrimmage are so much different than they were in the late 90's.  The skill people are similar, but there is a huge difference in the O and D lines.

[hazzben]

The biggest talent gap we noticed in watching the game Saturday btw HOB and UST was the speed and closing abilities of the Tommies DBs.  Their special teams players (punter and FG PK) were also better than their HOB counterparts.  Otherwise both the OL and DLs for both teams were similar in size and strength.  Webb is a better RB than Braddock IMO, O'Connell and Strang seemed pretty even talent wise too.

Bad games happen, it's just a shame when it's at this level of visibility.  Not saying Hobart wins the game if it's played again (in fact they'd probably lose by a couple of scores), but it wouldn't have gotten so out of hand if so many bad plays and breaks (losing #5) didn't happen all at once so early in the game.  The Statesmen return a good deal of players from this year's team and should be ranked in the Top 10 going into the preseason, and deservedly so. 

We predicted a UST-UMU Stagg Bowl on ITH last night (check out the 12/2 archive), so there's no shame to losing to the potential national champs / runner up.  It's just a shame HOB played so poorly on their biggest stage, but knowing Coach Cragg, they'll learn from their mistakes and move on. 

Their front 7 on D also took it to your Oline. And I wouldn't put Strang in the same class as O'Connell. And O'Connell is still young.

The UST WR's were also better. IMO, the only place Hobart had players that compared was on the Dline. And they had some good ones there. Webb is a nice back, running behind a lesser line than Braddock. So I'd probably concede he's better. But Braddock is also a frosh.

Bottom line. I think Hobart and SJF, who I've seen play UST the last two years had nice teams. But it's not just that I don't think they'd win the MIAC - obviously they weren't going to beat UST. It's that I think they'd find themselves in a dog fight with other good teams to finish second (Bethel, St. Olaf, Concordia-Moorhead). And that is the difference between the regions. Your best teams would be in a battle for second place in multiple top conferences from other regions.

And UST hasn't beaten UWO yet. Someone on here said they expected UST to blow UWO out of the water. I'd be surprised if that happened. UWO v. UST is gonna be a dogfight. Which again speaks to the depth of that region.

[jknezek]

All these posts have made for some fun reading for me, so thanks guys. But I swear I could cut and past half of them from the year before and the year before that (prior to that I couldn't tell you as I wasn't here).

The funny thing is, I don't actually think there is much of an argument. Everyone says basically the same thing. The East has no top tier team (the 4-6 with a legitimate shot to win the Stagg in any given year) and then the question comes do they have a bunch of tier two or tier three teams and how many of those do other regions have.

Since it's almost impossible to define the tiers, it's pretty much impossible to end the argument. Suffice to say, a team or two from the East will advance to the final 8 every year since the tournament is loosely scheduled for geography.

Those teams are then going to face the top tier and lose badly. Oddly enough this is pretty much like most other teams in all other regions do when they face the top teams. It just looks a lot worse late in the playoffs then, for example, when UMU demolishes the second or third place OAC team in weeks 3-11... And yes, I know UMU doesn't always demolish the second place OAC team, but it happens quite a bit with a team that hasn't lost their conference in 20 years...

[repete]

There's nothing in that list to suggest any North team other than Mount Union is elite. You have to rely on the more subjective analysis for that ("I saw X and Y play Mount Union and lose by multiple touchdowns and X is definitely better.")
----------------------

Wasn't saying that any team was elite. It was a list of regions that produced champions. And those that didn't.
---

jknrezek, hazz, hscoach  -- true dat, dat and dat.

[hazzben]

Speaking as someone who has witnessed over 95% of Mount Union's games since 1992, the overall talent level of D3 has improved SIGNIFICANTLY since the Mount run has begun.  Just like the NFL, big time college down to the high school level, the players are bigger/stronger/faster than they were 20 years ago.   

The 1997 Mount team was by far the greatest and most dominant in their history, with a senior QB that threw 61 TDs against 2 INTs and a nasty defense, but they would get beat by the recent Mount teams simply because the size, strength and speed along the lines of scrimmage are so much different than they were in the late 90's.  The skill people are similar, but there is a huge difference in the O and D lines.

Couldn't agree with this more.

D3 football has come a long ways. One factor is just the increased popularity of football. The guys who played 30 years ago were kids in the 60's and 70's, a time when baseball still dominated the nations attention. The participation levels of HS football are through the roof right now with the burgeoning popularity of the game.

Also, Title IX and scholarship reductions at FBS schools has a major trickle down affect. Every single team is offering dozens fewer scholarship now. Guys who used to get offers to Alabama are now playing at Kent State...and on down the line. Your typical D3 player is just a lot better.

And the caliber of HS football has also increased. Plenty of teams still run option offenses of various stripes. But in general, the complexity has increased and the passing game is integral to many HS programs. This means kids at every position come in better equipped at passing, running routes, pass pro, pass rush and defending the pass. The makes the learning curve a lot quicker for players.

[gordonmann]

Only if you're wearing East/South blinders. I extended back to LAX because that followed the final East title.

I don't have any delusions about the East or South being as strong as the West.  It isn't. 

My comment was in reference to your scale.  If you don't include Albion's titles that are almost 20 years old, you have one team plus one region winning championships and three regions contributing nothing.  If three of four regions measure zero on the scale, it's not a very useful scale. That was my point.

If your point is the West region is best, then point taken and agreed.  It doesn't show me anything else.

[Jonny Utah]

Speaking as someone who has witnessed over 95% of Mount Union's games since 1992, the overall talent level of D3 has improved SIGNIFICANTLY since the Mount run has begun.  Just like the NFL, big time college down to the high school level, the players are bigger/stronger/faster than they were 20 years ago.   

The 1997 Mount team was by far the greatest and most dominant in their history, with a senior QB that threw 61 TDs against 2 INTs and a nasty defense, but they would get beat by the recent Mount teams simply because the size, strength and speed along the lines of scrimmage are so much different than they were in the late 90's.  The skill people are similar, but there is a huge difference in the O and D lines.

Couldn't agree with this more.

D3 football has come a long ways. One factor is just the increased popularity of football. The guys who played 30 years ago were kids in the 60's and 70's, a time when baseball still dominated the nations attention. The participation levels of HS football are through the roof right now with the burgeoning popularity of the game.

Also, Title IX and scholarship reductions at FBS schools has a major trickle down affect. Every single team is offering dozens fewer scholarship now. Guys who used to get offers to Alabama are now playing at Kent State...and on down the line. Your typical D3 player is just a lot better.

And the caliber of HS football has also increased. Plenty of teams still run option offenses of various stripes. But in general, the complexity has increased and the passing game is integral to many HS programs. This means kids at every position come in better equipped at passing, running routes, pass pro, pass rush and defending the pass. The makes the learning curve a lot quicker for players.

I actually think coaching complex pass offenses is easier than coaching the old school Wing-t/triple option stuff.  (of course you need a good qb to run the current systems)

[Jonny Utah]

Public message to Pat Coleman
Please tell me the name of the rotten bastard who has been smiting me every day for the past few months.  This person needs a good old fashion shaming!

[repete]

"Best?" Sure, there are only a few random deniers out there.

My response/post was more about depth.  I was responding to an unsupported claim that the East's "strength" was that it had  "probably has more Tier 2 teams than any other Region."

The scale to me indicated that depth. Let's all stipulate that Mount is a special beast. The West's ability break that monopoly, by putting up multiple challengers against the Raiders and occasionally win is unmatched.  The NCAA's move to deregionalize the bracket has demonstrated it further as two West teams become staples for the semis. My point: Mount aside, it takes a deep pool to produce the number of varied national contenders that the West has shown in recent history.

With rare exceptions, West teams that reach the semis or the Stagg aren't just one-year wonders. (One example:  SJU, example, lost the Stagg on a final-minute FG to Mount in the 2000 before handing Mount its worst Stagg defeat in '03. In 2000, SJU had three one-score victories in the then-all-West regionals before demolishing Hardin-Simmons in the semis.  Like PLU earlier, SJU was the No. 7 West seed. )

So the idea that the West would have a handful of "Tier I" team but fewer "Tier II" teams seems wacky to me. And that's what I was responding to.

[gordonmann]

The scale to me indicated that depth. Let's all stipulate that Mount is a special beast. The West's ability break that monopoly, by putting up multiple challengers against the Raiders and occasionally win is unmatched.  The NCAA's move to deregionalize the bracket has demonstrated it further as two West teams become staples for the semis.

I think the only West region teams who beat Mount Union are UW-Whitewater and St. John's, right?  PLU won without going through Mount Union because Rowan beat them.  Linfield won without going through Mount Union because Mary Hardin-Baylor beat them.

My point: Mount aside, it takes a deep pool to produce the number of varied national contenders that the West has shown in recent history.

Yes. Totally agree.

I was responding to an unsupported claim that the East's "strength" was that it had  "probably has more Tier 2 teams than any other Region."

Like you, I don't think that's true.

So the idea that the West would have a handful of "Tier I" team but fewer "Tier II" teams seems wacky to me. And that's what I was responding to.

Yep, I'm with you there, too.