Playoffs 2013

[Pat Coleman]

If the OAC is to be deserving of top conference recognition, the teams not named Mt should start beating better non-conf competition, either in the regular season or in the playoffs. 

Which is why it doesn't have top conference recognition.

First, I'm not referring to only the most recent rankings (which even #4 is too high IMO).   
Second, the majority of your replies to 02 seemed as though you lacked a willingness to engage the actual point.  Replies such as "When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading"- are not only a complete twisting of the point 02 was making, but disrespectful IMO.

I wonder if you finished the conversation, because I actually did finish the conversation.

As to your other point, next year's preseason conference rankings will reflect results since October.

[Pat Coleman]

Emma17 -

I respectfully disagree. The strength of a conference lies not with the top, but how the second and lower tiers fare against the other conferences.

You throw Wesley into the UMAC and that doesn't change the UMAC's overall strength one whit. But you can gauge a league where a league is by the masses.

This is ironic, because we ranked the WIAC as the top conference in Division III well before 2005 based on precisely this, because the WIAC hadn't done squat in the playoffs. If we were ranking conferences in October 2005 by Emma's standard, we would probably have had the WIAC 4 or 5 instead of 1.

[K-Mack]

Off topic, I wonder what Midwestern ECACish games would look like.

I posted a potential D3 NIT tourney a few days ago in the NCAC board. It would be a stout tournament and I even think I missed a team or two.

Cool. I don't venture off general football anymore unless prompted. Who has that kind of time?

[smedindy]

Here's who I had:

Wabash
UW - Oshkosh
St. Thomas
Concordia - Moorhead
St. John's
Heidelberg
Millsaps
Rhodes
Thomas More
Alfred
Willamette
Wheaton
Illinois College
Coe
Delaware Valley
Lake Forest

But even here, I forgot Greenville and Chapman, two one loss teams.

No matter if you choose five, ten, or fifty at large teams - someone will be angry.

[K-Mack]

How many OAC pool C teams need to be upset in the first round before everyone realizes the OAC is far over rated?!?! There's Mount and nobody else.

second best conference in the nation...nope.

That argument works if you limit it to the past 2 years.

If you expand it to the fact that between 1999 and last year, an OAC team had been eliminated from the playoffs by a team other than Mount Union only once (B-W in a 16-12 loss to Wheaton 2003, IIRC), then you get where the reputation comes from.

It's fine if you want to argue that previous great runs by Capital, etc. are ancient history, but then you'd also have to note that the OAC was not No. 2 in the most recent conference rankings.

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings

They're No. 4.

[K-Mack]

Just a reminder -- the OAC was NOT the No. 2 conference in our most recent rankings, either, 02:

http://www.d3football.com/columns/around-the-nation/2013/2013-conference-rankings

Ha! I didn't see the latest rankings. I was going off the Kickoff rankings.

Soooo......this is awkward   

Ah, I'm glad this was handled. I did read 2 pages before responding.

[K-Mack]

Here's who I had:

Wabash
UW - Oshkosh
St. Thomas
Concordia - Moorhead
St. John's
Heidelberg
Millsaps
Rhodes
Thomas More
Alfred
Willamette
Wheaton
Illinois College
Coe
Delaware Valley
Lake Forest

But even here, I forgot Greenville and Chapman, two one loss teams.

No matter if you choose five, ten, or fifty at large teams - someone will be angry.

I agree with that. How many bowls does D-I have, and some 6-6 team that travels gets taken over an 8-4 and people make a stink about it (I think; I've actually gone from going to D-I games to not following at all)

Also, I didn't mean that I was too lazy to venture over there now that you had prompted.

I got your top 4 teams in the final 4. Thomas More and Wheaton the dark horses.

[smedindy]

Here's who I had:

Wabash
UW - Oshkosh
St. Thomas
Concordia - Moorhead
St. John's
Heidelberg
Millsaps
Rhodes
Thomas More
Alfred
Willamette
Wheaton
Illinois College
Coe
Delaware Valley
Lake Forest

But even here, I forgot Greenville and Chapman, two one loss teams.

No matter if you choose five, ten, or fifty at large teams - someone will be angry.

I agree with that. How many bowls does D-I have, and some 6-6 team that travels gets taken over an 8-4 and people make a stink about it (I think; I've actually gone from going to D-I games to not following at all)

Also, I didn't mean that I was too lazy to venture over there now that you had prompted.

I got your top 4 teams in the final 4. Thomas More and Wheaton the dark horses.

Hah! I had a moment to share it. I really should have posted it here earlier.

Oh, don't get me started on the 6-6 bowl teams. I have a friend who is complaining about Indiana scheduling Navy because they couldn't get to six wins. Heck, if you can't beat NAVY and five others (no offense to the Mids, but...) you shouldn't be in a bowl anyway.

[footballfan413]

JCU proved once again that you must be able to run the ball in the playoffs to combat Mother Nature.    Congrats to SJF on the win.

Amen.......BALANCE is the key.  When UWW started mixing the play-action pass (successfully) with their strong running game, they took their game to the next (and best) level. 

The only thing that saves you if you are one dimensional on offense is if you have a lights out defense, and/or superior special teams.

Amen to your Amen, Skunks.  I have been saying this for years.  My connection with UWW started in 03 when we were just a very good WIAC team with a, "run first, run often," philosophy but UWL owned the conference.  The stark difference that happen in 05, with a record breaking QB and a WR that ended his career in the NFL, was crazy.  By the start of the conference season, we were saying, "holy crap," this team can pass as well, if not better, than run, (and we could run pretty damn well,) and is a totally different animal.  UWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off. And I have, also, always contended since then that no team will go deep into the play-offs without one, not even with a, "lights out defense, and/or superior special teams."  Not by the 3/4th round, anyway.   And UWW's defensive coordinator, Borland's #1 goal and philosophy, each and every game, is to, "make the opponent one dimensional! I'm sure he just loves it when a team starts out that way.   

I also changed my thought process about just how much weather affects a talented team after watching our California QB throw for 4 touchdowns in an, absolute, blizzard in 07.  Weather be damned, you still have to be able to mix it up against the best in the country to move on in December, IMHO

Let me start by saying, I think balance is a great thing. It's tough to scheme against teams that are strong in both the run and the pass.

But we overstate the matter when we pretend a team can't win with just a great run game, defense and special teams. Evidence, you say...

Nebraska & Georgia Southern (to name just a few).

The former dominated more balanced teams for decades until they abandoned the triple option with the ouster of Frank Solich. Those option teams beat Florida, FSU, Miami & Tennessee teams that were much more balanced on paper.

The latter proves that you can win a playoff championship in this way. They just beat Florida (a team with loads more 'talent' and scholarships) without throwing a single pass. They've also won multiple FCS/IAA national titles with a run oriented, option approach. For a DIII version, how about Augustana back in the 80's? 

There are more teams that could be sighted, but the fact is, you can win with a dominant, one dimensional offense. And you can win against defenses that are faster, more athletic and more physical than anything that has ever set foot on the field of a Stagg Bowl.

The better question might be, can you win with a run dominant approach from a more tradition/pro-style offensive set? Suffice to say though, there are teams who win national titles against the 'more balanced team' by relying (at times almost exclusively) on the run.

Of course, there are no absolutes and I was, simply, referencing what I have observed with the D3 play-offs, up close and personal with UWW, the last ten years.  It wasn't meant to be a for every team. at every level or for multiple decades.  Augustana in the 80's?    You made some great points and provided us with many examples of a team winning, "being one dimensional," throughout the history of football. My point is that I sure haven't seen it at our level going back to 05. 

[smedindy]

Balance, I think, comes from balances on offense, defense and special teams. I don't think you're going to win championships by just trying to outscore anyone, nor by just relying on a stout defense. You need some elements of both offense and defense, because that way if one side of the game is faltering you still can turn to the other to try to get back into it.

[K-Mack]

Speaking on how we/I do the rankings themselves, I would say neither of these approaches are totally true.

You can only rank a conference by taking the whole conference into account. We start with the non-conference mark, and then dig into those results to see if they tell us anything. Playoff success is a major factor. We also look at the middle and the bottom of the conference, for bad losses, for outliers (one or two teams accounting for a majority of non-conference defeats).

The OAC is a special case for two reasons. One is how to weigh Mount Union's dominance, which we must give the OAC credit for, with the Wilmington end of the spectrum. It's hard to look into their non-conference results, given that they are a 10-team conference that plays one non-con a year.

The second part of the case is that the vast majority of players who have gone on to pro success have come from the WIAC or OAC. If it was just one player or one school, we could call them outliers or flukes, but when, over the years, it's been Jason Trusnik and Jamal Robertson from ONU, Mike Preston from Heidelberg, London Fletcher, Tom Arth from John Carroll, and Garcon, Shorts, Collins, Kyle Miller and others from Mount Union, it suggests some of the best football in D-III is being played in the OAC.

When you factor in the top of a conference (Wesley would change the UMAC's rank) plus the middle and the bottom, plus other ways to assess strength or level of competition, you get what we've put out.

Emma17 -

I respectfully disagree. The strength of a conference lies not with the top, but how the second and lower tiers fare against the other conferences.

You throw Wesley into the UMAC and that doesn't change the UMAC's overall strength one whit. But you can gauge a league where a league is by the masses. Case in point, the HCAC - one great team and then a disaster in non-conference for the most part.

The issue, of course, is that limited non-conference opportunities, anomalous results can skew things a bit. Case in point - somehow Earlham beat Kenyon. That is what I would call an outlier result and if the data set were bigger, I'd throw that out of the conversation (because upsets happen and bad teams beat good teams - over time with enough results it would normalize but that's not the case here.) But you gotta connect all the dots in the ENTIRE league, not just the top heavy piece.

The OAC wasn't as strong this year - their non-conference results bear that out. But JCU poleaxing St. Norbert is a real result - that matters.

[hazzben]

I'll push back on the 'since 2005' comment.

This seems to state that at other levels or in the past, you could win with a run dominant approach, but not in todays D3. I'm just not buying it. smedindy is right, balance is more accurate when talking about being good in all three phases.

That was my point with Nebraska and Georgia Southern. They were beating teams with vastly superior defensive talent than anything on the field in the d3 playoffs, this year, in 2005 or any time before. But with run dominant offenses, they dominated teams. Point being, you could win in the playoffs next year with a run dominant offense.

97 Nebraska dominated a Peyton Manning led team in their bowl game (UT went on to win the Nat'l Title the following year w/o Manning, to give you sense how good Nebraska was). 1995 Nebraska destroyed defenses. I talked with a buddy who played for Iowa St in the mid 90's. He despises Nebraska, but admits, it was infuriating playing them. They knew that you knew exactly what they were going to do, and there was no way to stop it. He even said he had an offensive lineman who would taunt him by telling him the play before the snap, then beat him anyway!

You can back off your original point with the 'no absolutes' comment But I see what you did there. You did make an implicit point about no one being able to win this way since 2005. And then implied that sure, teams in the past have, but I haven't seen anyone recently...making the leap in logic that this means it is no longer possible.

Maybe, maybe you could make that argument at the FCS level right now. But the speed, size and athleticism of D3 post-2005 isn't better or anywhere close to the teams Georgia Southern and Nebraska were beating week in, week out, year in, year our, with run dominant approaches.

And I'd be a little slower to denigrate the great Augie teams of the 80's. Something tells me that if you put those boys in a modern weight program from middle school onward, like players have today...all other things being equal, I'm betting they hold up just fine!

[emma17]

Emma17 -

I respectfully disagree. The strength of a conference lies not with the top, but how the second and lower tiers fare against the other conferences.

You throw Wesley into the UMAC and that doesn't change the UMAC's overall strength one whit. But you can gauge a league where a league is by the masses. Case in point, the HCAC - one great team and then a disaster in non-conference for the most part.

The issue, of course, is that limited non-conference opportunities, anomalous results can skew things a bit. Case in point - somehow Earlham beat Kenyon. That is what I would call an outlier result and if the data set were bigger, I'd throw that out of the conversation (because upsets happen and bad teams beat good teams - over time with enough results it would normalize but that's not the case here.) But you gotta connect all the dots in the ENTIRE league, not just the top heavy piece.

The OAC wasn't as strong this year - their non-conference results bear that out. But JCU poleaxing St. Norbert is a real result - that matters.

Smed, I'm not sure what I said that you're disagreeing with?  If I gave the impression that conferences should be judged only by the teams at the top, it's not what I meant.  I wrote "one of the best ways to determine the strength of a conference is playoff performance- AND performance against another conference's best teams."   I realize the OAC shouldn't only be ranked by how Mt and JCU did in the playoffs this year.  I think we all know how poor the worst teams in the OAC are.  Thus, in the OAC, you have a conference with horribly performing lower tiers, poor performing 2nd tiers and other than Mt, one and dones at the top tier.  That's what the OAC is of late. 
I realize the game between JCU and St. Norbert actually occurred, but why do you feel the result somehow lends credence to the strength of the OAC? 
I've always been a proponent of your position that a conference should be judged by the second and lower tiers and, to my memory, have never suggested otherwise. 
That's why I think the MIAC and WIAC and E8 and CCIW and perhaps the NWC are better conferences than the OAC.


   

[emma17]

If the OAC is to be deserving of top conference recognition, the teams not named Mt should start beating better non-conf competition, either in the regular season or in the playoffs. 

Which is why it doesn't have top conference recognition.

First, I'm not referring to only the most recent rankings (which even #4 is too high IMO).   
Second, the majority of your replies to 02 seemed as though you lacked a willingness to engage the actual point.  Replies such as "When you compare the OAC to the UMAC, sorry -- I stop reading"- are not only a complete twisting of the point 02 was making, but disrespectful IMO.

I wonder if you finished the conversation, because I actually did finish the conversation.

As to your other point, next year's preseason conference rankings will reflect results since October.

What does a sentence like this mean?  Perhaps I'm just perceiving a level of arrogance or condescension that you didn't intend?

[footballfan413]

I'll push back on the 'since 2005' comment.

This seems to state that at other levels or in the past, you could win with a run dominant approach, but not in todays D3. I'm just not buying it. smedindy is right, balance is more accurate when talking about being good in all three phases.

That was my point with Nebraska and Georgia Southern. They were beating teams with vastly superior defensive talent than anything on the field in the d3 playoffs, this year, in 2005 or any time before. But with run dominant offenses, they dominated teams. Point being, you could win in the playoffs next year with a run dominant offense.

97 Nebraska dominated a Peyton Manning led team in their bowl game (UT went on to win the Nat'l Title the following year w/o Manning, to give you sense how good Nebraska was). 1995 Nebraska destroyed defenses. I talked with a buddy who played for Iowa St in the mid 90's. He despises Nebraska, but admits, it was infuriating playing them. They knew that you knew exactly what they were going to do, and there was no way to stop it. He even said he had an offensive lineman who would taunt him by telling him the play before the snap, then beat him anyway!

You can back off your original point with the 'no absolutes' comment But I see what you did there. You did make an implicit point about no one being able to win this way since 2005. And then implied that sure, teams in the past have, but I haven't seen anyone recently...making the leap in logic that this means it is no longer possible.

Maybe, maybe you could make that argument at the FCS level right now. But the speed, size and athleticism of D3 post-2005 isn't better or anywhere close to the teams Georgia Southern and Nebraska were beating week in, week out, year in, year our, with run dominant approaches.

And I'd be a little slower to denigrate the great Augie teams of the 80's. Something tells me that if you put those boys in a modern weight program from middle school onward, like players have today...all other things being equal, I'm betting they hold up just fine!

No one has won a D-3 Championship since 05 with a one dimensional offense which is the level I was talking about.  You're the one making the leap, here, claiming that my original post was meant to imply anything more than just my opinion about the change in our offense, becoming more balanced, that allowed us to have success at the national level starting in 05,  which is exactly what Skunks said. I was simply agreeing with him and expounding on it.   And I also was NOT denigrating Augie's 1980's championship success but rather your referencing teams from 30 years ago to make your point.  You painted my entire post with way too broad a brush assuming that I was saying more than I was.  You are the one who took my comments out of the context of UWW success at the D-3 level but if I wasn't clear enough, I apologize.  I certainly never meant to imply the no team, in the history of NCAA football, has ever won a championship with a one dimensional offense but maybe you know more about what I meant to say than I do.