Returning QB's

[Thepeman]

Re: Returning QB's

When I was in high school it was leather helmets, no facemasks :)

Now, you are not that old! :) Me, on the other hand.

[Brandon]

Re: Returning QB's

Poor Central seems to have started with tough games the last 10 years straight or so. No MSSU or NSU in sight for you guys.

It seems like you had the top 3 teams the first 3 games most of those years.

It's the problem of consolidating a ton of great programs in the same league.

[Hornetfan]

Re: Returning QB's

It's the problem of consolidating a ton of great programs in the same league.

But is it really a problem? Granted it means that some teams that are really good are going to miss the playoffs. There are going to be some really good 6-5, 5-6 teams since for every win for one team there has to be a loss for another.

But I would rather have high quality football across the league with a couple of teams capable of winning a national championship and 3-4 teams that are good enough to make some noise in the playoffs (even though they won't all make it), 3-4 more that have the ability to knock anyone off and then maybe two crappers that get destroyed most weeks. It's more exciting (and I think would drive more traffic) than having one awesome team, 1-2 really good ones that provide a challenge to the top dog, 1-2 decent teams and seven terrible teams that the top five just beat on every week.

But I'm also a guy that likes the silo schedule because you basically know what you are getting week in and week out. And you get a true champion and measuring stick of the league if everyone plays everyone and there is no BS about how a team was only good because of the schedule they played.

[Brandon]

Re: Returning QB's

But is it really a problem? Granted it means that some teams that are really good are going to miss the playoffs. There are going to be some really good 6-5, 5-6 teams since for every win for one team there has to be a loss for another.

But I would rather have high quality football across the league with a couple of teams capable of winning a national championship and 3-4 teams that are good enough to make some noise in the playoffs (even though they won't all make it), 3-4 more that have the ability to knock anyone off and then maybe two crappers that get destroyed most weeks. It's more exciting (and I think would drive more traffic) than having one awesome team, 1-2 really good ones that provide a challenge to the top dog, 1-2 decent teams and seven terrible teams that the top five just beat on every week.

But I'm also a guy that likes the silo schedule because you basically know what you are getting week in and week out. And you get a true champion and measuring stick of the league if everyone plays everyone and there is no BS about how a team was only good because of the schedule they played.

I have a totally opposite opinion on almost all these points.

If deserving teams miss the playoffs...that means they aren't in the playoffs. I want the best teams in the playoffs. I know it's not always perfect because of regionalization, but I'd still like to make it as good as I can.

Traffic (my issue, no one else's) is not driven by parity. Traffic is driven by greatness. If UCM is 9-2 and in playoff contention versus 7-4 and eliminated, more UCM folks will visit. Traffic is best with the largest schools with the largest fan bases in contention and in the playoffs. Sure, there can be traffic spikes when there are good games, but that won't typically happen unless both teams are in playoff contention. Let's take UCM and Lindenwood and throw them in the GLVC. They play each other the last game of the season. 10-0 UCM versus 9-1 Lindenwood has a lot of interest. Both teams are likely playoff contenders if not in the playoffs already. Instead, put them in the MIAA. Now UCM is 7-3 and LU is 6-4. Both are likely out of the playoffs and no one is talking about the game. It's still the same two teams playing and they're still as good as they were. The only difference lies in who the teams had played previously.

In reality, I don't know that expansion of the league has changed the league dynamic that much. Aside from Fort Hays last year, none of the newcomers has truly impacted the conference. So I can't really say that expansion has caused teams to miss the playoffs. When i was thinking of teams in the past that were playoff worthy, I was thinking about UCM, Washburn, Western, and Omaha (not all in the same season). The problem would exist whether or not the conference had expanded to 12 provided all teams had maintained their previous levels of excellence.

I think the MIAA, before expansion, was exactly how you described your ideal conference. As far as traffic goes, I think the best configuration is a 10 team conference with about five tiers (historically):+

T1: Pitt, Northwest
T2: Western, Central, Washburn
T3: Emporia, Truman
T4: Southern, Baptist
T5: Rolla

As you know, I hate the conference-only schedule. Yes, you know what you get week in and week out and eventually year in and year out - and that's the problem. Boredom. Missouri Southern has basically played the same schedule for the past decade. If not for some defections it would be exactly the same.

I'm probably different than most, but shared championships and *****ing contests about league titles don't bother me a bit. I'm sure ESU didn't throw away their MIAA trophy from 2003 even though they had to share it with four other teams. I'm sure it's still listed in the media guide. Yes, I know you can argue that "at least everyone played each other to get that result." I'm simply illustrating that a clean champion cannot be guaranteed.

After all, what do these national champions have in common?

2017 Texas A&M-Commerce
2014 CSU-Pueblo
2012 Valdosta State
2007 Valdosta State
2003 Grand Valley
2000 Delta State
1996 Northern Colorado.....and I got lazy after that.

I miss going to watch Chadron State at Washburn. I saw Chadron, Winona, and South Dakota play at Western. Northwest played a ton of great teams. Washburn beat a 1-AA team. Central almost did in Jim's first year there.

[Erbert]

I have a totally opposite opinion on almost all these points.

If deserving teams miss the playoffs...that means they aren't in the playoffs. I want the best teams in the playoffs. I know it's not always perfect because of regionalization, but I'd still like to make it as good as I can.

Traffic (my issue, no one else's) is not driven by parity. Traffic is driven by greatness. If UCM is 9-2 and in playoff contention versus 7-4 and eliminated, more UCM folks will visit. Traffic is best with the largest schools with the largest fan bases in contention and in the playoffs. Sure, there can be traffic spikes when there are good games, but that won't typically happen unless both teams are in playoff contention. Let's take UCM and Lindenwood and throw them in the GLVC. They play each other the last game of the season. 10-0 UCM versus 9-1 Lindenwood has a lot of interest. Both teams are likely playoff contenders if not in the playoffs already. Instead, put them in the MIAA. Now UCM is 7-3 and LU is 6-4. Both are likely out of the playoffs and no one is talking about the game. It's still the same two teams playing and they're still as good as they were. The only difference lies in who the teams had played previously.

In reality, I don't know that expansion of the league has changed the league dynamic that much. Aside from Fort Hays last year, none of the newcomers has truly impacted the conference. So I can't really say that expansion has caused teams to miss the playoffs. When i was thinking of teams in the past that were playoff worthy, I was thinking about UCM, Washburn, Western, and Omaha (not all in the same season). The problem would exist whether or not the conference had expanded to 12 provided all teams had maintained their previous levels of excellence.

I think the MIAA, before expansion, was exactly how you described your ideal conference. As far as traffic goes, I think the best configuration is a 10 team conference with about five tiers (historically):+

T1: Pitt, Northwest
T2: Western, Central, Washburn
T3: Emporia, Truman
T4: Southern, Baptist
T5: Rolla

As you know, I hate the conference-only schedule. Yes, you know what you get week in and week out and eventually year in and year out - and that's the problem. Boredom. Missouri Southern has basically played the same schedule for the past decade. If not for some defections it would be exactly the same.

I'm probably different than most, but shared championships and *****ing contests about league titles don't bother me a bit. I'm sure ESU didn't throw away their MIAA trophy from 2003 even though they had to share it with four other teams. I'm sure it's still listed in the media guide. Yes, I know you can argue that "at least everyone played each other to get that result." I'm simply illustrating that a clean champion cannot be guaranteed.

After all, what do these national champions have in common?

2017 Texas A&M-Commerce
2014 CSU-Pueblo
2012 Valdosta State
2007 Valdosta State
2003 Grand Valley
2000 Delta State
1996 Northern Colorado.....and I got lazy after that.

I miss going to watch Chadron State at Washburn. I saw Chadron, Winona, and South Dakota play at Western. Northwest played a ton of great teams. Washburn beat a 1-AA team. Central almost did in Jim's first year there.

[Hornetfan]

Re: Returning QB's

I have a totally opposite opinion on almost all these points.

If deserving teams miss the playoffs...that means they aren't in the playoffs. I want the best teams in the playoffs. I know it's not always perfect because of regionalization, but I'd still like to make it as good as I can.

Traffic (my issue, no one else's) is not driven by parity. Traffic is driven by greatness. If UCM is 9-2 and in playoff contention versus 7-4 and eliminated, more UCM folks will visit. Traffic is best with the largest schools with the largest fan bases in contention and in the playoffs. Sure, there can be traffic spikes when there are good games, but that won't typically happen unless both teams are in playoff contention. Let's take UCM and Lindenwood and throw them in the GLVC. They play each other the last game of the season. 10-0 UCM versus 9-1 Lindenwood has a lot of interest. Both teams are likely playoff contenders if not in the playoffs already. Instead, put them in the MIAA. Now UCM is 7-3 and LU is 6-4. Both are likely out of the playoffs and no one is talking about the game. It's still the same two teams playing and they're still as good as they were. The only difference lies in who the teams had played previously.

In reality, I don't know that expansion of the league has changed the league dynamic that much. Aside from Fort Hays last year, none of the newcomers has truly impacted the conference. So I can't really say that expansion has caused teams to miss the playoffs. When i was thinking of teams in the past that were playoff worthy, I was thinking about UCM, Washburn, Western, and Omaha (not all in the same season). The problem would exist whether or not the conference had expanded to 12 provided all teams had maintained their previous levels of excellence.

I think the MIAA, before expansion, was exactly how you described your ideal conference. As far as traffic goes, I think the best configuration is a 10 team conference with about five tiers (historically):+

T1: Pitt, Northwest
T2: Western, Central, Washburn
T3: Emporia, Truman
T4: Southern, Baptist
T5: Rolla

As you know, I hate the conference-only schedule. Yes, you know what you get week in and week out and eventually year in and year out - and that's the problem. Boredom. Missouri Southern has basically played the same schedule for the past decade. If not for some defections it would be exactly the same.

I'm probably different than most, but shared championships and *****ing contests about league titles don't bother me a bit. I'm sure ESU didn't throw away their MIAA trophy from 2003 even though they had to share it with four other teams. I'm sure it's still listed in the media guide. Yes, I know you can argue that "at least everyone played each other to get that result." I'm simply illustrating that a clean champion cannot be guaranteed.

After all, what do these national champions have in common?

2017 Texas A&M-Commerce
2014 CSU-Pueblo
2012 Valdosta State
2007 Valdosta State
2003 Grand Valley
2000 Delta State
1996 Northern Colorado.....and I got lazy after that.

I miss going to watch Chadron State at Washburn. I saw Chadron, Winona, and South Dakota play at Western. Northwest played a ton of great teams. Washburn beat a 1-AA team. Central almost did in Jim's first year there.

Our point of view is based on our own experiences. ESU has gone 13-2 in non-conference action under Higgins with a 9-1 record in the regular season. All of the regular season games were from 2007-2011 when the Hornets were a collective 19-36. Since going to the silo schedule the Hornets are 51-21 and have gone 4-1 against outside teams in the playoffs and a bowl game. So in my mind playing a conference only schedule has been good.

No one around here really got excited about beating Western State 42-0 or Southwestern Okla. 48-17 or Langston 35-7 in the regular season. Most of our fans knew those games were hollow victories against teams that weren't competing at the same level (less scholarships) as the MIAA.

Playing non-conference never really helped ESU either going back to 1998 when the Hornets went to Fargo and knocked off NDSU to open the season, finished 9-2 and still didn't make the playoffs. I know that if they hadn't lost to Truman or Northwest they would have been at least 10-1 and gone to the playoffs, but if all it takes is going 10-1 then what does it matter who you play in the non-conference. It's different than in basketball where you play 8-10 non-conference games and can build decent set of data - 30% of your schedule is much more significant than 18% of your schedule.

Lastly - fans in the MIAA are spoiled on travel. Unless you are one of the outliers like UNK, NSU or LWU most of our trips are under five hours, meaning if a game starts at 2 pm and gets over at 5 pm you can probably still get home by 1 am if not earlier. When you start taking trips to Arkansas, Minnesota, South Dakota, Colorado, Texas to get non-conference games you are talking about 8-12 hour drives. A lot of fans are not going to make those trips. Not everyone is going to be able to get games with the Missouri teams in the GLVC and even if you do, isn't it just seeing a different set of teams over and over again?

[Predatory Primates]

Re: Returning QB's

I like non-con games, but also like playing everyone.

If the talk was "let's drop some teams and do 1-2 non cons", I would be all for it.

If the talk is, "let's add teams, go to some weird bracket system and hope it's not too lopsided", I'm out.\

It seems like in the past, 1-3 teams a year were actually willing abd able to schedule non-cons against great teams from other conferences while most of the others schedule crap teams to get a win, or mediocre teams who will likely finish with good records because they are in a weak conference. Still others will schedule whomever will play them to get a home game for the $$$. (looking at my alma mater here)

Not worth it to me to divide the conference for that.

[ShirtedBearcat]

Re: Returning QB's

A few years ago, when the playoff criteria/formula put so much more emphasis on OWP, OOWP, etc., I would have been all for figuring out a way to get out of conference games back in the MIAA. As of yet, there has been really no "punishment" for conferences that use "silo" scheduling. Until playoff selection starts reflecting what they have been saying and obviously deserving teams from the MIAA start getting left out of the playoffs, they have no reason to make any changes to the current format.

[Wallst]

Re: Returning QB's

Poor Central seems to have started with tough games the last 10 years straight or so. No MSSU or NSU in sight for you guys.

It seems like you had the top 3 teams the first 3 games most of those years.

what's wrong with that? It generally means Juiced and before that Bill were gone by Oct 1 :)

[Hornetfan]

Re: Returning QB's

I like non-con games, but also like playing everyone.

If the talk was "let's drop some teams and do 1-2 non cons", I would be all for it.

If the talk is, "let's add teams, go to some weird bracket system and hope it's not too lopsided", I'm out.\

It seems like in the past, 1-3 teams a year were actually willing abd able to schedule non-cons against great teams from other conferences while most of the others schedule crap teams to get a win, or mediocre teams who will likely finish with good records because they are in a weak conference. Still others will schedule whomever will play them to get a home game for the $$$. (looking at my alma mater here)

Not worth it to me to divide the conference for that.

I don't think the MIAA will ever drop to ten teams overall, but the membership could change to where there are only ten teams playing football.
I don't think that would be good for the conference in my personal opinion. If you get to many schools that don't have or really care about football they can start influencing decisions for the entire conference that could have unintended consequences for the football playing schools.

[Brandon]

Re: Returning QB's

Our point of view is based on our own experiences. ESU has gone 13-2 in non-conference action under Higgins with a 9-1 record in the regular season. All of the regular season games were from 2007-2011 when the Hornets were a collective 19-36. Since going to the silo schedule the Hornets are 51-21 and have gone 4-1 against outside teams in the playoffs and a bowl game. So in my mind playing a conference only schedule has been good.

No one around here really got excited about beating Western State 42-0 or Southwestern Okla. 48-17 or Langston 35-7 in the regular season. Most of our fans knew those games were hollow victories against teams that weren't competing at the same level (less scholarships) as the MIAA.

Playing non-conference never really helped ESU either going back to 1998 when the Hornets went to Fargo and knocked off NDSU to open the season, finished 9-2 and still didn't make the playoffs. I know that if they hadn't lost to Truman or Northwest they would have been at least 10-1 and gone to the playoffs, but if all it takes is going 10-1 then what does it matter who you play in the non-conference. It's different than in basketball where you play 8-10 non-conference games and can build decent set of data - 30% of your schedule is much more significant than 18% of your schedule.

Lastly - fans in the MIAA are spoiled on travel. Unless you are one of the outliers like UNK, NSU or LWU most of our trips are under five hours, meaning if a game starts at 2 pm and gets over at 5 pm you can probably still get home by 1 am if not earlier. When you start taking trips to Arkansas, Minnesota, South Dakota, Colorado, Texas to get non-conference games you are talking about 8-12 hour drives. A lot of fans are not going to make those trips. Not everyone is going to be able to get games with the Missouri teams in the GLVC and even if you do, isn't it just seeing a different set of teams over and over again?

I think there are too many variables in your comparisons but I also understand why you feel the way you do. But I'll disagree with it anyway. ;)

I think the non-conference games are what allowed Garin to build the program and have led to your current success. Momentum is a big thing. Was it last year that Central had that improbable win against ESU? I believe you talked about how things could have been different if ESU had won that game instead of losing it the way they did. That's possible, but if we give credence to the fact that there is momentum within a season, we have to accept that there can be momentum from season to season.

In the three seasons before Garin arrived, the high mark for wins was five. There was a lot of work to do. In his first five seasons, the high mark for wins was still five. But I want to look at the record each year and who the wins were against.

2007: 3-8 (Wins against Western State and Southwest Baptist)
2008: 4-7 (Wins against Western State and Truman State)
2009: 2-9 (Wins against Southwestern Oklahoma and Truman State)
2010: 5-6 (Wins against Southwestern Oklahoma and Missouri S&T)
2011: 5-6 (Wins against Langston and Lincoln and Truman State and Southwest Baptist)

But what would have happened if you took away some of those easy non-conference wins?

2007: 2-8
2008: 3-8
2009: 1-10
2010: 3-6
2011: 4-6

I took away only the non-conference wins. Would Garin have survived those records? Since this is all theoretical, we'll never know. It's theoretically possible that he could have been fired and ESU's next coach got them to the championship and they won it the last three years. But looking at it realistically, those non-conference wins, along with the patience of the ESU administration, were very important to ESU's recent success.

I post all of that just to illustrate that the lack of winnable, non-conference opponents could have doomed ESU to remain at the bottom half of league forever. He improved the program while playing non-conference games that he could win. But Rob Robinson or Denver Johnson don't have the luxury of scheduling Langston or playing SBU and Lincoln.

You can't compare 1998 to 2018. First of all, don't lose to Truman State. ;) But second of all, if we were playing by today's rules, ESU would have made the playoffs, easily. They would likely have been the #5 seed and played at Nebraska-Omaha in the first round.

Your fans were right not to get too excited about wins over Southwestern Oklahoma. But without those, the wins over Pitt State, Western, and Central might never have happened.

I also don't think scheduling decisions should be made to accommodate the 100 people that decide a trip from Emporia to St. Joe is close enough but Emporia to Chadron is too far. Accommodating the 100 over the MILLIONS that would prefer some non-conference games is not wise.

[Brandon]

Re: Returning QB's

I don't think the MIAA will ever drop to ten teams overall, but the membership could change to where there are only ten teams playing football.
I don't think that would be good for the conference in my personal opinion. If you get to many schools that don't have or really care about football they can start influencing decisions for the entire conference that could have unintended consequences for the football playing schools.

That's the one danger. It's also why they shouldn't be allowed to vote on football issues.

[libertybearcat]

Re: Returning QB's

For NW (only team I know about this year)

We aren't returning either kid that played last year. Who will start is the big question of the year. Whomever will have lots of support around him on the offensive side. One of either Wright, Kowalski, or Brannan. Wright and Brannan can both run. Apparently, the freshman QB from Illinois could make some noise, but i have never seen a True Freshman that could start for Northwest at QB and I don't think this year will be an exception.

I don't disagree with you Joe, that being said, he has a # and we were told essentially his FB IQ is really high, dad played College at Minnesota, NFL with the Bears and has been a HC in the Original Arena league...the vibe I got was he has a chance to contribute.

[Thepeman]

Re: Returning QB's

what's wrong with that? It generally means Juiced and before that Bill were gone by Oct 1 :)

:good:

[Boohaha]

Re: Returning QB's

That's the one danger. It's also why they shouldn't be allowed to vote on football issues.

You end up with the LSC basketball super conference, or the GNAC. The LSC commissioner now is invested in football, but the next one.....probably not as much. The LSC in the course of a year has gone from 2 non football schools to less than half in the conference. The rest of the sports are so crowded that it is near impossible to add a football playing school if we wanted to; Football in the LSC is an endangered species if things do not change soon.