FB: Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference

[firstdown]

ExTartan Player-

I got your point.  However, to the contrary,  they scored 13 points against a top defense, and a lot of points against against not so highly ranked defenses including five team ranked from 195th to 240th in overall defense, and four team ranked 96th to 121st in total defense.  IWU was 96th in Total Defense.

Do I think that Franklin has a very good offense - absolutely, but I don't think that the stats support your basic point very well.

[USee]

ExTartan Player-

I got your point.  However, to the contrary,  they scored 13 points against a top defense, and a lot of points against against not so highly ranked defenses including five team ranked from 195th to 240th in overall defense, and four team ranked 96th to 121st in total defense.  IWU was 96th in Total Defense.

Do I think that Franklin has a very good offense - absolutely, but I don't think that the stats support your basic point very well.

And those same stats how Wabash ranked as the #3 defense coming against offenses that aren't very highly ranked either. So Saturday is a "show me" game yes? I am pretty sure the Wabash D is for real and will play well against a great offense. Is Franklins offense great? not sure. Is Bash D great? pretty sure. Franklins offense is likely better than any other offense Bash has faced so far. Saturday will be a good test

[Dr. Acula]

Not to derail the Franklin/Wabash talk, but I had to post my congrats to RHIT.  6 of the 26 members of the Academic All-District team are from Rose.  As someone whose grandfather, father and sister are all engineers I know what kind of classes those kids are taking.  Very, very impressive stuff playing football and handling that academic load.

[emma17]

I don't know (yet) that Wabash is a legitimate dominating team in any of the areas because I haven't seen them do it against top competition.  They may well be the real deal, but too early to say.     

This is where these debates gets sticky depending on who is participating.  Because your idea of "top competition" is pretty different from the idea that the other 99% of D3 have.

When I posted that comment, I was thinking about it from a different angle.  I was trying to figure out why Franklin might have a chance given what I believe are very favorable stats in Wabash's favor (defense and running game).  As some (especially Usee) have pointed out, it's all about who you've played to build those stats.  So how do you get beyond the trap of comparing stats that may be built upon a house of cards?  I considered how Franklin performed against teams with stats that we all recognize as legitimate (Mt, MHB, UWW).  At times Franklin competed and at times they were overwhelmed.  But like you suggest Wally, that's against the elite teams.   

At this point in time, we really don't know whether Wabash's numbers will hold up as the competition gets tougher. 
Thus, I have to assume Wabash's numbers will water down a bit, which means Franklin should have a decent chance of being in this game until the end- because they have a coaching staff and players that have had to scheme against the best of the best. 

I'll acknowledge my thinking was wrong if Wabash dominates Franklin. 

[Wabash Hokie]

Franklin's game notes are here:


http://franklingrizzlies.com/sports/fball/2014-15/Football_Game_Notes_-_Wabash.pdf


Repost of Wabash's game notes:


http://sports.wabash.edu/documents/2014/11/20/2014NCAA1Gamenotes.pdf

[wally_wabash]

I don't know (yet) that Wabash is a legitimate dominating team in any of the areas because I haven't seen them do it against top competition.  They may well be the real deal, but too early to say.     

This is where these debates gets sticky depending on who is participating.  Because your idea of "top competition" is pretty different from the idea that the other 99% of D3 have.

When I posted that comment, I was thinking about it from a different angle.  I was trying to figure out why Franklin might have a chance given what I believe are very favorable stats in Wabash's favor (defense and running game).  As some (especially Usee) have pointed out, it's all about who you've played to build those stats.  So how do you get beyond the trap of comparing stats that may be built upon a house of cards?  I considered how Franklin performed against teams with stats that we all recognize as legitimate (Mt, MHB, UWW).  At times Franklin competed and at times they were overwhelmed.  But like you suggest Wally, that's against the elite teams.   

At this point in time, we really don't know whether Wabash's numbers will hold up as the competition gets tougher. 
Thus, I have to assume Wabash's numbers will water down a bit, which means Franklin should have a decent chance of being in this game until the end- because they have a coaching staff and players that have had to scheme against the best of the best. 

I'll acknowledge my thinking was wrong if Wabash dominates Franklin.

No, you're not wrong. I was just pointing out that "the best" from the vantage point of somebody who sees their team play for the title every year is different than "the best" from the vantage point of the rest of us.  It's the difference between measuring yourself against the top 2-3 in the nation and measuring yourself against the top 20-30. 

Also a good point about Leonard and his staff coaching and preparing for those top level teams.  They definitely have that experience.  They've never won, but they've played those games.  Erik Raeburn is no stranger to the top shelf either, though.  He's got some coaching experience (that comes along with rings) at the top level as well. 

So we can correctly question if Wabash's defensive statistics are built on a foundation of poor opposition and we can correctly question if Franklin's offensive statistics are built on a foundation of poor opposition.  Maybe it's all a mirage.  I'd have to check stats and scores on this (which would be a pretty sizable project), but my sense is that fraudulent offenses get exposed in the postseason before fraudulent defenses do. 

[USee]

Actually, my question is more about what happens if neither Franklin s offense, nor Wabash defense are a fraud. What if they are both legit? I want to see an offense that matches up with Wabash defense. I don't know that Franklin is that matchup. If you look at the scores from about 5 of the Purple Stagg Bowls, UWW and UMU both brought in top defenses in every one of those. The total points scored in several of those was over 50 pts. Defense definitely wins championships but great offense can score on great defense if they matchup well. Doesn't mean they beat them, but they can usually score.

[emma17]

Actually, my question is more about what happens if neither Franklin s offense, nor Wabash defense are a fraud. What if they are both legit? I want to see an offense that matches up with Wabash defense. I don't know that Franklin is that matchup. If you look at the scores from about 5 of the Purple Stagg Bowls, UWW and UMU both brought in top defenses in every one of those. The total points scored in several of those was over 50 pts. Defense definitely wins championships but great offense can score on great defense if they matchup well. Doesn't mean they beat them, but they can usually score.

I don't think either are frauds per se, I simply think the rankings aren't quite mature. I do think they are much closer to legit than fraud.
Based on rankings alone I agree that Franklin probably doesn't match up well w Wabash. This is the intrigue though because the Franklin staff knows that as well.

Total points scored may have been over 50 combined- but Mt in particular nearly averaged 50 on their own during the season- usually ranking top 5 nationally.

[firstdown]

USee and emma17

A very good discussion, and it will make tomorrow's game interesting to watch.  A key difference between the two teams in that while Franklin's offense is ranked at 18th in Division 3 in scoring offense, and Wabash is ranked at 19th, but Franklin's defense is ranked 200th.  Wabash relies on its running game, but has success passing as well.  Franklin's offensive strength lies in its passing game.  Against teams with a strong passing attack, principally Hampden-Sydney, but also DePauw, Wabash used the running game as a part of its defensive strategy to create a significant disparity in time of possession.  An offense, no matter how good, can't score if it is standing on the sidelines.  Whereas a defense standing on the sidelines, particularly one such as Wabash's which uses speed and heavy pressure, benefits from the extra time which keeps legs fresher.  One has to look no further than the game between the Colts and the Patriots the other day to see  this sort of strategy executed to perfection.

[emma17]

USee and emma17

A very good discussion, and it will make tomorrow's game interesting to watch.  A key difference between the two teams in that while Franklin's offense is ranked at 18th in Division 3 in scoring offense, and Wabash is ranked at 19th, but Franklin's defense is ranked 200th.  Wabash relies on its running game, but has success passing as well.  Franklin's offensive strength lies in its passing game.  Against teams with a strong passing attack, principally Hampden-Sydney, but also DePauw, Wabash used the running game as a part of its defensive strategy to create a significant disparity in time of possession.  An offense, no matter how good, can't score if it is standing on the sidelines.  Whereas a defense standing on the sidelines, particularly one such as Wabash's which uses speed and heavy pressure, benefits from the extra time which keeps legs fresher.  One has to look no further than the game between the Colts and the Patriots the other day to see  this sort of strategy executed to perfection.

Wabash's victory over H-S was very impressive for sure.  The defensive stats from that game are seriously good and it gives credibility to the high ranking.

That whole time of possession thing is an interesting concept.  There are many teams that lose TOP but win because they have a quick strike offense, like the Green Bay Packers.  Given the choice though, I'm with you in that I prefer a team that can control the ball.   

[Desertraider]

I have always thought TOP is an over-rated stat. Yes ball control is great, keeping the other teams offense off the field is great but as Emma said - if it is a quick strike offense it doesn't mean much. If you have 2 teams relying on long drives and a strong running game then TOP would matter more. But I have seen several Mount games where the opponent had as much as a 15 minute TOP advantage and still lost by 50 (look at some of the bx scores).

[wally_wabash]

Against teams with a strong passing attack, principally Hampden-Sydney, but also DePauw, Wabash used the running game as a part of its defensive strategy to create a significant disparity in time of possession.  An offense, no matter how good, can't score if it is standing on the sidelines.  Whereas a defense standing on the sidelines, particularly one such as Wabash's which uses speed and heavy pressure, benefits from the extra time which keeps legs fresher.  One has to look no further than the game between the Colts and the Patriots the other day to see  this sort of strategy executed to perfection.

I'll disagree here a little bit.  Teams that have played Wabash this year wind up on the bad side of TOP not so much because Wabash runs a lot, but because Wabash's defense gets teams off the field quickly.  While Wabash's offense is primarily ground-based, they don't exactly take their time-  they do run the offense at an honest pace.  Wabash is ranked 12th in D3 in first downs allowed.  Sometimes the best defense can actually be the defense. 

Wabash had an 8-minute TOP advantage against Wittenberg.  TOP is a red herring. 

[firstdown]

Emma 17

I am with you on that.  Unlike the regular season where coaches and teams are trying to accomplish a number of things, in the playoffs, the only stat that matters is the scoreboard.  If a great defense gives up 100 points in a game, but the offense scores 101, your team moves on. 

Desertraider - by itself, TOP doesn't mean a great deal.  When it is used as a part of a defensive strategy to keep a potent offense off the field, it does.  For example, the Patriots used ball control on offense to perfection to force the Colts into risky passing scenarios to try to make up ground.  The key is to force a quick strike offense out of its comfort zone.  The Patriots did a great job of taking away T Y Hilton  and covering Reggie Wayne very tightly.  This caused the Colts to use passing plays that were outside of the normal comfort zone.  The Pat's got the Colts into the high risk, high reward, and high negative consequence zone.

As Wally points out, a TOP strategy doesn't always work - Witt in 2014 being a good example, whereas in the 2012 Witt game the long drive in the 4th quarter worked to perfection.

[Schwami]

Against teams with a strong passing attack, principally Hampden-Sydney, but also DePauw, Wabash used the running game as a part of its defensive strategy to create a significant disparity in time of possession.  An offense, no matter how good, can't score if it is standing on the sidelines.  Whereas a defense standing on the sidelines, particularly one such as Wabash's which uses speed and heavy pressure, benefits from the extra time which keeps legs fresher.  One has to look no further than the game between the Colts and the Patriots the other day to see  this sort of strategy executed to perfection.

I'll disagree here a little bit.  Teams that have played Wabash this year wind up on the bad side of TOP not so much because Wabash runs a lot, but because Wabash's defense gets teams off the field quickly.  While Wabash's offense is primarily ground-based, they don't exactly take their time-  they do run the offense at an honest pace.  Wabash is ranked 12th in D3 in first downs allowed.  Sometimes the best defense can actually be the defense. 

Wabash had an 8-minute TOP advantage against Wittenberg.  TOP is a red herring.

Denison may well have been the second best offense that Wabash has faced this year and actually had a 7 minute TOP advantage.  They still lost 31-12.

Kenyon had the ball 11 minutes more than Wabash (!) and still lost 52-10.

[GrizFan]

There is no doubt that I worry about Franklin's porous defense, I have worried about that for over 30 seasons!  I do realize that Wabash's defense is awesome and stats show that the GRIZ really have no shot at victory.

I see a glimmer of hope when I remember back to 2008.  We lost to a very good Trine team, but the 2008 GRIZ were not dominant in the HCAC.  They squeaked by in close games against MSJ and Manchester.  The school's historical DIII playoff record was 0-1, having lost 44-42 in a home thriller to North Central (GRIZ also lost at Wabash 35-33 in 2007).  Come playoff time in 2008, the GRIZ were big underdogs to a very good 9-1 Otterbein team.  Otterbein only had one close victory in the OCAC (JCU), but they dominated everyone else except, of course, the National Champions in purple.  The GRIZ beat Otterbein 62-45 on the road.  The GRIZ went on the road again and scored their biggest DIII victory in school history by beating an undefeated (and seeded #1 or #2 in the bracket) North Central 38-28.  Let's hope for a repeat of history!

BTW Firstdown - Walker may be an excellent WR but how can you state that he is the best WR in the nation?  Jake Kumerow is a total stud!  He is 6'5", has long arms and excellent speed. He saw significant playing time during the Big Ten season at Illinois as a redshirt freshman and has been dominating in his career at UWW.  Wonder if he will be healthy for the playoffs?