Running up the score

[repete]

Can we put Larry Kehres in the Way Back Machine, swap him for John Cooper at OSU and see a completely different d3 landscape the past two decades.

[smedindy]

AHA! I've figured it out! Kehres has kidnapped Mr. Whoopie and the 3-D BB to draw up plays. But unlike Tennessee Tuxedo, he actually listens to him!

Plus, Chumley is one of his linemen. It's hard to shed a block from a walrus, you know.

[Rick Akins]

I am also a Rocky & Bullwinkle fan, but I want to make one comment about the theme of this thread. I have made several specific comments on the ASC board.  People obviously have different opinions about it, but I tend to agree with Keith in almost every respect.

I do believe in emptying the bench if at all possible in a true blowout.  I frankly think it is both arrogant and stupid to risk injury to key players at that point.  Play can get sloppy and the losing side can get embarrassed and do something foolish that could hurt your players--literally.

However, when I played sports once upon a time, I would have been much much more humiliated by my opponent taking knees, punting on 1st down, kicking field goals, etc. that having the 4th string running  back running hard  or even the 3rd string QB throwing a pass. I guess if it approaches 70 or 80 points maybe even those extreme let's not run it up tactics are appropriate, but I have seen coaches do stuff like that at 30 or 40 points, and to me that calls more attention to the facts---we whipped you badly--than playing the game with substitutes.

I also agree that  HOW the game is played by both sides is more important than the score. Respect your opponent no matter what.  I am not that big a fan however of the losing side playing its starters against 4th teamers just to make the score more "respectable." I think that cheapens the game, and each coach I guess has to play the game the way he sees it, but I don't think you should have it both ways--have mercy on me, but I play all out for 60 minutes with my first team.

Common sense and mutual respect would go a long way, and usually does, on all sides.

[section13raiderfan]

You know whats wrong with D3 football? Nobody has a 100 thousand seat stadium they can fill with deep pocket boosters to watch their team beat up on anybody willing to be the victim for the right payday.

It takes courage to schedule a 9 time champion when you can avoid them until the playoffs. But on the outside chance you actually beat them.....then you are riding a tsunami sized wave of momentum for the next 9 games. If you lose....oh well, nobody expected you to win anyways, just cash the check and be happy you got the chance to face the best.

First game of the season, or your last game of the playoffs....you have to play the best to be the best. Averett may have been schooled by MUC, but at least they know exactly where their program stands. Plus they have 9 games to get better for a shot at redemption. In the playoffs its one and done, so to speak. Which is worse?

[Pat Coleman]

You know whats wrong with D3 football?

I do. It's not related to your second sentence at all, however.

Nobody has a 100 thousand seat stadium they can fill with deep pocket boosters to watch their team beat up on anybody willing to be the victim for the right payday.

[section13raiderfan]

I wasnt disrespecting D3 at all. D1 yes. For the right payout some programs will take the whipping for the payday and the exposure. D3 doesnt generate enough money to temp someone to take the risk. Its a less tainted scenario. I prefer the D3 setup actually. Plus, you get an undisputed champion every year.

Can we put Larry Kehres in the Way Back Machine, swap him for John Cooper at OSU and see a completely different D3 landscape the past two decades.

This is good food for thought. Would LK stay 25 years at OSU? What would OSUs records look like under LKs system? What would recruiting be like for OSU under LK? How long would Cooper last in D3?  Who would transition to the other level the best? This could be a topic of its own.

[ADL70]

Mike DuBose, late of Alabama, doing pretty well at Millsaps.

[K-Mack]

For what it's worth, I've heard lots of reasons that coaches can't fill their schedules.  Some of them are not particular to Mount Union or isolated regions.  Those reasons include...

1) "Everyone around us has lots of conference games": the MAC runs into that next year when the NJAC expands (a role reversal from when the MAC had 10 teams and the NJAC needed games). It's a different sport, but this was one of the factors that pushed Lincoln (Pa.) to go Division II in basketball.

2) "We have trouble filling our schedule because we're an independent": This is one reason teams will drive long distances to part of illogical conference alignments.

3) "No one wants to play us because we're too good": One coach of a new program jokingly told me the opposite.  "Everyone wants to play us to be their homecoming queen."

4) "We can't afford to travel that far": One team had an intriguing offer to play a game half way across the country, but the school doesn't have the funds to make the trip.  "That would blow our whole budget for one game," he lamented.

5) "We can't find enough opponents who are 'like minded institutions'": No one has explicitly said the words "like minded institutions" to me, but there have certainly been implications that some schools are not interested in playing others because they view their institutions' approach to athletics as inherently different.  The corollary theory is...

6) "They won't play us because we're a public school"

7) "We can't find games because no one wants to travel here": The implied completion of the sentence is "...and we're not going drive to Wassamatta U if they're not returning the favor next year."  Can't say I fault those coaches.

8 ) "We just can't make the schedules work":  This may be the case where coaches are trying to avoid having a game on a particular week.  One coach told me he couldn't schedule games for Week 1 because of quirks in the institution's academic schedule.  Tough to fault them for putting the schoolwork first.

No. 7 can also combine with No. 3 to limit opening week opportunities.  Another coach who had a bye in Week 1 told me he couldn't fill that week because it would mean bringing players back to campus a week early and they couldn't afford to pay for the players' accommodations.  This was a coach who was easily within driving distance of lots of schools...but his budget wasn't.


The point is, putting together a schedule is hard for lots of reasons.  And those reasons aren't always evident from a comparison of open dates or looking at Mapquest.

Take this post as virtual gospel.

I ask about scheduling nearly everywhere I go and those are the main responses, in one form or another, I hear.

When they know you aren't quoting them, coaches are often very glib.

Outside of the logical pairings of NWC, WIAC and ASC top-half teams who all share the need games/no one will play us/can travel situation, I believe the top-flight East and Midwest teams who say they literally cannot get anyone to take them for a non-conference game.

You would think there are more teams like Averett and St. John Fisher and Christopher Newport who believe that you gain something by playing the best, and that big games are what kids enjoy most.

Unfortunately, there are as many philosophies on scheduling as there are coaches making schedules.

I guess this is somehow relevant to running up the score.

[K-Mack]

but I tend to agree with Keith in almost every respect.

That is always worth +1 karma! 

[K-Mack]

I am also a Rocky & Bullwinkle fan, but I want to make one comment about the theme of this thread. I have made several specific comments on the ASC board.  People obviously have different opinions about it, but I tend to agree with Keith in almost every respect.

I do believe in emptying the bench if at all possible in a true blowout.  I frankly think it is both arrogant and stupid to risk injury to key players at that point.  Play can get sloppy and the losing side can get embarrassed and do something foolish that could hurt your players--literally.

However, when I played sports once upon a time, I would have been much much more humiliated by my opponent taking knees, punting on 1st down, kicking field goals, etc. that having the 4th string running  back running hard  or even the 3rd string QB throwing a pass. I guess if it approaches 70 or 80 points maybe even those extreme let's not run it up tactics are appropriate, but I have seen coaches do stuff like that at 30 or 40 points, and to me that calls more attention to the facts---we whipped you badly--than playing the game with substitutes.

I also agree that  HOW the game is played by both sides is more important than the score. Respect your opponent no matter what.  I am not that big a fan however of the losing side playing its starters against 4th teamers just to make the score more "respectable." I think that cheapens the game, and each coach I guess has to play the game the way he sees it, but I don't think you should have it both ways--have mercy on me, but I play all out for 60 minutes with my first team.

Common sense and mutual respect would go a long way, and usually does, on all sides.

Great post all-around, by the way.

On topic too. 

[Rick Akins]

Thanks, K-Mack.  I try! Watching a lot of UMHB this year I have had plenty of opportunities to see  different approaches to this issue from the losing side by UMHB opponents this year! Overall Coach Fredenburg has been more than fair, IMHO.

[Knightstalker]

I remember a long long time ago when I was in high school.  We played one team every year that had no freshman or JV team, they only had about 20 kids in uniform in a good year.  The final score would usually end  up being 72-6 or something like that.  Our varsity would play the first quarter, JV the second and the freshman team the second half and the freshman would not pass after the fourth quarter started.  Those kids never quit, they played hard for the whole game and they could hit, just not enough skill or numbers.  They would get even quite often during the wrestling season, those farm boys make good wrestlers.

[K-Mack]

This, from the comments on the Daily Dose after St. Olaf scored 85, definitely belongs here:

#  repete Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
You summed up the St. Olaf-Carleton mess nicely. It would be nice if STO would own up or explain, but not likely.

# wahoo3 Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
At face, I couldn't agree with you more on the 85 points put up by Ole; however, within context I think its getting a bit more scrutiny (relatively) than it deserves for several reasons. However, the specific reasons mentioned in the podcast why it was unsportsmanlike, were the following.

1. "Oles scored 28 points in the 4th Qtr," The last 7 were scored by an INT for a touchdown, so now we're down to 21. On 2 of the 3 touchdown drives there were 0 or 1 pass attempt and the 1 was by the backup QB in a drive that started with over 10 minutes left in the 4th. In terms of scoring on those drives, they were on short fields due to turnovers and there were several long runs. Whos fault is that?

2. "Passing late in the game — specifically the one long pass to Gant from Penz"
The pass in question came with 12:41 left in the 4th. I admit, it was not a run and catch, it was a deep throw. You CAN blame the coach for calling a pass (but I'd suggest you can find hundreds of other instances of coaches calling pass plays this late in the game up this many — if you want I can show you SJU stat sheets). However, you can't blame the coach for who the QB threw to or which route was thrown. If you know something about modern passing games you know against cover 2 press your outside receivers convert almost every route to a fade or side-pocket (see colts/pats game last night). This appears to be what happened. Meidt likely did call the pass, but Carleton's defense dictated which route was thrown and you CANNOT blame the QB for executing.

Should the starting QB have been in for this drive? Maybe, maybe not. How many QB's did the Oles travel to Carleton — 2. How many games does Penz have left to play in his life? 1. Personally, I would give my left nut to play in one more quarter.

My first reaction when I see scores like this is the same as I've read on Post Patterns and heard on the podcast; however, being at the game I feel obligated to give some additional color around the circumstances that led to the 85 points. Also, note that the Carleton QB threw for over 300 yards in the first half and shred our defense to put Carleton up 21-7.

# Pat Coleman Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
While you have people looking at St. John's boxes I'll send people to Mount Union boxes to see how they handle blowouts. Lots of intentionally running out of bounds, lots of starters on the bench, lots of field goals early in downs.

Not sure why we have to accept a 30-yard INT return for a TD as an automatic (fourth TD of fourth quarter). Not sure a 67-yard drive is considered a short field (second TD of fourth quarter).

# wahoo3 Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Not sure "intentially running out of bounds" is the best thing to do.

If you're suggesting that a coach can/should stop a senior DB who rarely plays from returning (assuming) the only INT of his career for a touchdown, I don't agree with you.

I have the utmost respect for Coach Kehres (sp?) and by all accounts he always does the right thing, but if he really is taking every precaution not to run it up how do you even score 73 vs. Capital in '99. If scoring too many points is such a concern, than why even kick a field goal? Why not just turn it over on downs? The point I guess I'm trying to make is that sometimes the score gets out of hand beyond the coaches control. You still have to let your players play. Its all in context. In a game where the Carleton QB threw for almost 350 yards in the first half and where Carleton was leading 21-7, I think context would suggest that "securing" the game (although clearly did not require 85) took additional effort than your typical blowout.

# repete Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
"(but I'd suggest you can find hundreds of other instances of coaches calling pass plays this late in the game up this many — if you want I can show you SJU stat sheets)"

Wahoo,

You tried this argument on the MIAC board. In your very own example, SJU's starter took a seat at halftime, while STO's was throwing long in the fourth. And the longest completion of the 2nd half by SJU was 13 yards — nothing downfield. Several runs were longer.

What's worse having No. 2s and 3s running short plays all second half or a starter throwing long in the 4th? Seems an easy question.

# Pat Coleman Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
wahoo — they do that too.

M 1-G A14 Zac Angel rush for 4 yards to the AUF10 (KNOWLES, Kenny;BELL, Allen).
M 2-G A10 Scott Thomas rush for 3 yards to the AUF7 (GLENN, Quincey;MCCAULEY,
Justi).
M 3-G A07 TEAM rush for loss of 2 yards to the AUF9.
M 4-G A09 TEAM rush for loss of 2 yards to the AUF11.

# wahoo3 Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Why didn't they take a loss on 1st and 2nd down as well, what are they trying to prove by gaining yardage? I'm sure they would have won if they didn't gain those yards.

The point is, where do you draw the line?

Against Augsburg, the Johnnies were playing at home — so I'd hope that all 9 of their QB's played in that game. The Oles only travelled 2 to Carleton — due to injuries. Further, they were only up by 1 point at half time so I don't think its likely that Penz was going to sit the whole second half.

See earlier post for why its not necessarily the coaches fault that his QB executed the play and threw it deep. The coach determines if its a run or a pass, after that its depends on what defense is run.

# Pat Coleman Says:
November 5th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
"Why didn't they take a loss on 1st and 2nd down as well, what are they trying to prove by gaining yardage?"

Please. That's a ridiculous question, and I know you know it. Spare us the rhetoric.

[K-Mack]

Bear with me on this one.

Running it up is kind of like cheating on someone. You never really intend to do it, it sort of just happens.

And it always hurts the "victim" more than the "perpetrator." The disconnect comes in when either party fails to respect the difference in how important the other considers it.

Whaddya think?

[gordonmann]

Hm.  I was going to say running up the score is like chasing a goose with a toaster oven but your analogy makes more sense.