Playoffs 2013

[HScoach]

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.

I completely understand, and agree, that the the OAC hasn't been a great conference the last couple years.   However their reputation is built on LONG history of competing on a national stage.  I 100% get that the most recent showings have been poor, but those of us in the OAC have openly acknowledged that the conference has been down the last couple of seasons.


OAC losses to Mount in the playoffs:
2006 - Capital lost to Mount in Round 3 (2 wins)
2005 - Capital lost to Mount in the Round 3 (2 wins)
2002  -  John Carroll  lost to Mount in the semi-finals (3 wins)
2000  - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 1 (0 wins)
1999 - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 2 (1 win)
1997 –  John Carroll lost to Mount in Round 2 (1 win)

The '05 and '06 Capital teams lost to Mount in the playoffs by 3 points each time and were in many people's eyes the best team Mount played all year.  Including UWW in the Stagg.

OAC losses against someone else:
Baldwin Wallace to Wheaton in 2nd round of 2003 (1 win)
Capital at Whitewater in Round 1 of 2007 (UWW was Nat Champs) (0 wins)
Otterbein to Franklin in 2008 round 1 (Franklin beat NCC in 2nd round, lost to Wheaton in regional final) (0 wins)
Heidelberg to Wittenberg in 2012 (easily the worst of the OAC losses) (0 wins)
John Carroll to St John Fisher in 2013 (0 wins)

Overall, the 2nd place OAC team is a respectable 9-11 in the playoffs.    Remove their losses to Mount, they're a very respectable 9-5.   Not stellar, but not too shabby either.

I fully realize we're not the WIAC, CCIW, NWC or E-8 when it comes to depth and/or parity, and I know it's hard for the rest of the nation to realize, but the OAC is has been HISTORICALLY a little bit more than just Mount Union and a bunch of crap teams. 

[HScoach]

And on the subject of balance, you better be freaking DOMINANT if your only one dimensional.   Being really, really good won't cut it long term.  You might get lucky with the matchups one season and avoid the handful of teams that can take away your strength, but over a course of years you must be reasonably balanced to win.  In my opinion, if you're going to be lopsided, your best chances to win reside in the following order of preference:
1.  defense
2.  O-line and running attack 
3.  QB and receiving corps

I rank the running game ahead of passing because it's not typically weather dependent and is more consistent than a QB dominated team.   A great QB might have an off day, but a great O-line is normally very consistent.   And weather is a huge factor.   30 degrees, high winds and freezing rain is not conducive to being able to successfully throw it 50 times.   

[hazzben]

@413

Please explain how else to take this statement:

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.   

always contented...no team...without [a balanced offense]...not even with a lights out D

Again, how does one not read your initial post to mean anything but he fact that you have maintained since 2005 that no team can go deep or win a title w/o a balanced attack. Maybe you articulated your point poorly. But at first, second and third blush it is pretty clear you were making an absolute statement.

For that matter, explain what 'augustana in the 80's [wink]' means if not condescendingly implying that run dominant teams from the 80's can't be cited as evidence that running teams can win in the playoffs because that's ancient history. What else did you mean by throwing the Augie quote back at me with a wink. I'm all ears...(or eyes as it were)

Also, this is just pleasant back and forth, no need to get all overly intense (at least that's the tone I'm picking up)

[smedindy]

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.

You definitely gave that impression it was playoff or bust.

[hazzben]

@HSCoach

Agreed. If a team isn't offensively balanced, they have to be incredible at what they do. Which is why I think most of those run dominant examples were from offensive scheme sushi g misdirection and option techniques. Much harder to succeed in run dominant fashion if your never getting fancier than ISO, power or counter.

[footballfan413]

@413

Please explain how else to take this statement:

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.   

always contented...no team...without [a balanced offense]...not even with a lights out D

Again, how does one not read your initial post to mean anything but he fact that you have maintained since 2005 that no team can go deep or win a title w/o a balanced attack. Maybe you articulated your point poorly. But at first, second and third blush it is pretty clear you were making an absolute statement.

For that matter, explain what 'augustana in the 80's [wink]' means if not condescendingly implying that run dominant teams from the 80's can't be cited as evidence that running teams can win in the playoffs because that's ancient history. What else did you mean by throwing the Augie quote back at me with a wink. I'm all ears...(or eyes as it were)

Also, this is just pleasant back and forth, no need to get all overly intense (at least that's the tone I'm picking up)

A: By the fact that I started that comment with this line before.  UWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off.
It is called, "context."  In this case, UWW/D-3 playoffs since 05.  And, I say again, "No team has won the D3 National Championship since 05 with a one dimensional offense so yes, when referring to D-3 championships since 05, I was making an absolute statement backed up by fact.   

B: I already explained that but you aren't listening, apparently.  It was not meant to be a dig at Augustana's championship teams like you asserted.  Why would I do that?  I was never referring in, my post, to what happened 30 years ago.  I was always referring to the D-3 play-offs and one dimensional teams success since, "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."

C.  Really?  If you want this to be a, "pleasant back and forth,"  I am all in but forgive me for not appreciating a poster twisting my words and telling me what I meant to say and continuing to argue with me,  not listening when I explain what I, actually, was saying.     

[smedindy]

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.

See, I don't think it would intrinsically, taking the entire D-3 universe and the UMAC data set as a whole. Move it up a skosh - yeah - but it wouldn't change it in a profound and meaningful way. But I don't think we'll ever have a test case unless UMHB continues to diverge from the rest of the ASC.

[Jonny Utah]

And on the subject of balance, you better be freaking DOMINANT if your only one dimensional.   Being really, really good won't cut it long term.  You might get lucky with the matchups one season and avoid the handful of teams that can take away your strength, but over a course of years you must be reasonably balanced to win.  In my opinion, if you're going to be lopsided, your best chances to win reside in the following order of preference:
1.  defense
2.  O-line and running attack 
3.  QB and receiving corps

I rank the running game ahead of passing because it's not typically weather dependent and is more consistent than a QB dominated team.   A great QB might have an off day, but a great O-line is normally very consistent.   And weather is a huge factor.   30 degrees, high winds and freezing rain is not conducive to being able to successfully throw it 50 times.

I would agree with these three for the most part, but a running quarterback can be more important than the oline and running attack in many instances.

[Pat Coleman]

2000  - Ohio Northern lost to Mount in Round 1 (0 wins)

This is one win -- ONU beat Millikin in round one. (Which is a good visual reminder for how long ago this was.)

[Pat Coleman]

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.

See, I don't think it would intrinsically, taking the entire D-3 universe and the UMAC data set as a whole. Move it up a skosh - yeah - but it wouldn't change it in a profound and meaningful way. But I don't think we'll ever have a test case unless UMHB continues to diverge from the rest of the ASC.

Agreed. Adding Wesley to the UMAC would move the conference up a few spots, but probably not above the HCAC. While Wesley is better than Franklin, the rest of the UMAC is worse than the rest of the HCAC.

[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.

You definitely gave that impression it was playoff or bust.

How about you just say "sorry, I didn't read your entire post before I responded?  The same post your saying "I definately gave the impression" contains the following: "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." 
My words are right there for you. 

[hazzben]

@413

When I read 'I always contended that no team will...' I took that to mean you were arguing no team will - in the future - ever win a d3 title with a one dimensional offense.

I'm certainly not arguing whether one has actually done that since 2005. Obviously they have not. Zero disagreement there.

But I don't think it's at all unfair to read your initial statement to be a proclamation that (in your opinion/contention) it isn't possible, as opposed to a statement merely that it just hasn't happened. If it was the latter, you don't really need to 'contend' for anything. It's established fact that no one has. E.g no one has to contend that there will be a black president in the 21st century. There's no argument to be had. There already has been one. You can contend that there will be a female president...and then state your evidence in support of that opinion.

Again, zero disagreement that no one has since 2005. My assertion is simply that they have at multiple levels, including d3 in the past, and so it is not unreasonable to argue it's at least possible to do so in the future.

I just don't think it was clear in your initial statement that you were merely saying no ones done it for 8 years. I don't think it was an unfair (I.e. putting words in your mouth) interpretation to read that initial post as you arguing/contending no one will do so in the future.

[emma17]

@413

Please explain how else to take this statement:

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.   

always contented...no team...without [a balanced offense]...not even with a lights out D

Again, how does one not read your initial post to mean anything but he fact that you have maintained since 2005 that no team can go deep or win a title w/o a balanced attack. Maybe you articulated your point poorly. But at first, second and third blush it is pretty clear you were making an absolute statement.

For that matter, explain what 'augustana in the 80's [wink]' means if not condescendingly implying that run dominant teams from the 80's can't be cited as evidence that running teams can win in the playoffs because that's ancient history. What else did you mean by throwing the Augie quote back at me with a wink. I'm all ears...(or eyes as it were)

Also, this is just pleasant back and forth, no need to get all overly intense (at least that's the tone I'm picking up)

A: By the fact that I started that comment with this line before.  UWW did not become a national powerhouse until we embraced and nurtured a balanced offense and had the horses to pull it off.
It is called, "context."  In this case, UWW/D-3 playoffs since 05.  And, I say again, "No team has won the D3 National Championship since 05 with a one dimensional offense so yes, when referring to D-3 championships since 05, I was making an absolute statement backed up by fact.   

B: I already explained that but you aren't listening, apparently.  It was not meant to be a dig at Augustana's championship teams like you asserted.  Why would I do that?  I was never referring in, my post, to what happened 30 years ago.  I was always referring to the D-3 play-offs and one dimensional teams success since, "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."

C.  Really?  If you want this to be a, "pleasant back and forth,"  I am all in but forgive me for not appreciating a poster twisting my words and telling me what I meant to say and continuing to argue with me,  not listening when I explain what I, actually, was saying.     

I'm trying to make sense of where the disconnect is between you both.  I don't interpret 413's post to suggest no team in the history of championship play has ever won with a "run-only" style offense.  I do interpret her post to say that since she has started watching D3  she hasn't felt it's possible for a "run only" offense to win the D3 championship. 
If the above is the gist of the difference of opinion then using GA Southern (7-4 in 2013) as an example because they beat FL last week, but last won a championship in 2000, probably isn't relevant.  Nor is Nebraska in their glory days.   Like HS Coach said - maybe a running team gets lucky one year with matchups, but defenses are just so good at game planning now.  And as you know, running teams are disadvantaged when they play from behind, which means their defense probably has to be at least as good as their dominant run offense.  Tough combination.               

[skunks_sidekick]

Hazzben has been a very knowledgeable poster on the D-III boards. 

However, he is a bit "sensitive" when it comes to Bethel.  Therefore, he has been hyper-vigilant when it comes to calling teams out for being "one dimensional", or "run heavy". 

The two teams that came to Alliance from Bethel couldn't throw the ball if their life depended on it.  And their play-off life DID depend on it.  They rolled through lesser teams until they could play a team that could stop the run. 

BOINK!!!!  Done.......

What I was talking about, what 413 was affirming (and then better clarifying) was that to play the elite teams in the last few rounds (semi's/stagg) of the play-offs, you need to be BALANCED. 

Defenses have escalated their games (mainly with the speed) greatly since even the late 90's/early 00's.

[footballfan413]

@413

When I read 'I always contended that no team will...' I took that to mean you were arguing no team will - in the future - ever win a d3 title with a one dimensional offense.

I'm certainly not arguing whether one has actually done that since 2005. Obviously they have not. Zero disagreement there.

But I don't think it's at all unfair to read your initial statement to be a proclamation that (in your opinion/contention) it isn't possible, as opposed to a statement merely that it just hasn't happened. If it was the latter, you don't really need to 'contend' for anything. It's established fact that no one has. E.g no one has to contend that there will be a black president in the 21st century. There's no argument to be had. There already has been one. You can contend that there will be a female president...and then state your evidence in support of that opinion.

Again, zero disagreement that no one has since 2005. My assertion is simply that they have at multiple levels, including d3 in the past, and so it is not unreasonable to argue it's at least possible to do so in the future.

I just don't think it was clear in your initial statement that you were merely saying no ones done it for 8 years. I don't think it was an unfair (I.e. putting words in your mouth) interpretation to read that initial post as you arguing/contending no one will do so in the future.

OK, lets try this one more time.  You are right, I was contending that no one will win a D-3 championship, by having success in the semis/Stagg, without having a balanced offense, in my opinion. One shared by many, it appears, based on what I have observed in the last 10 years but I may have been too absolute about it, in hindsight.  Could it happen?  Of course, it could.  Is it likely?  Very, very unlikely, IMHO, for the reason that Skunks pointed out, great improvements on the defensive side of the ball in the last decade and my experience that it took, becoming highly balanced, for the Hawks to win it all.  Which is why all your examples, refuting my opinion, involving other levels and dating back 30 years, didn't work for me.  But, yes, we can agree, "it's at least possible to do it in the future."

Hope there is no hard feelings, Hazzben.  Emma can tell you, I have no problem mixing it up with the boys, especially, when it comes to football.  Best of luck to Bethel this weekend. Going undefeated in the MIAC and securing your own bracket is a huge accomplishment.