Tag Archives: Bethel

Triple Take: Regions’ best meet

Posted on by
Mount Union
Will Mount Union run away and hide on Saturday? Perhaps not.
Photo by Dan Poel for d3photography.com

Remember the last times these two groupings of teams lined up against one another? Fans of the losing teams would probably rather forget those lopsided outings.

But that was then — long enough ago that it doesn’t matter how those matchups played out. At best, a handful of seniors on Mount Union’s and Bethel’s teams were on the 52-man roster for (and actually played in) the semifinal game from 2007. And then there’s UW-Whitewater and Wesley, which haven’t met in the postseason since 2006.

This is a whole new era for each of the four teams on the field.

So perhaps there will be some new predictions from Pat, Keith and Ryan. Or maybe not. You’ll have to keep reading to find out.

Bethel at Mount Union

Ryan: Mount Union 38, Bethel 14
I can hardly remember the last time a one-dimensional offense fared well against the Purple Raiders. Ironically, maybe it was back in 2004 in the Mount Union loss against Mary Hardin-Baylor. But even then, UMHB needed to have enough skill and composure to complete a long pass in the waning seconds for the win. Can Bethel successfully pass if the going gets tough? The Royals showed they could in an impressive Round 1 against Wartburg. Muster up that kind of outing, and Bethel will have a shot on Saturday. If Bethel puts too much faith in the ground game, Mount Union will be celebrating its 14th consecutive victory.

Keith: Mount Union 14, Bethel 0
I don’t think I’ve ever predicted a shutout before, at least not this deep into the playoffs. And maybe 21-7 is more like it. Or maybe it spirals out of control and my prediction is way wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time. But I’m calling a super-low-scoring semifinal because as much as we like to obsess over offensive stars, the back end of the playoffs rewards the team that gets dirtiest and is willing to do the simple things well, like finish blocks and wrap up tackles. Both the Purple Raiders and Royals excel on defense. If Bethel is smart enough to use more than one player to try to limit Cecil Shorts III (59 catches, 16 TD), Mount Union will be able to go to tight end Kyle Miller (54 catches, 5 TD) and wide receiver Jasper Collins (53 catches, 0 TD) for key conversions. Bethel, on the other hand, might end up a one-dimensional running team against a 4-2-5 defense that excels at pursuing to the ball and finishing when they get there. The Royals told our Brian Hunsicker that they don’t send fat guys after the quarterback; Their well-toned rushers better make it to Neal Seaman, who’s hardly needed his uniform washed after some games. Otherwise I think both defenses get their licks in early, and the Purple Raiders emerge with just enough offense to get to Salem.

Pat: Mount Union 24, Bethel 8
Struggling to figure out how Bethel will score, as I suspect my compatriots were. One-dimensional offenses don’t tend to fare too well against Mount Union. In the first meeting with St. Thomas, when Bethel was even more one-dimensional, it wasn’t even Logan Flannery who scored, but Kevin Lindh breaking one open for 52 yards. Mount Union isn’t necessarily the immovable object on defense that the playoffs have portrayed the Purple Raiders as, but the Royals will need to get or create a couple of breaks to put more points on the board. Defensively I see them slowing the Purple Raiders down but not necessarily enough to make more than a dent, although Brendan Flaherty’s reputation as a cover corner will be put to the test against one Cecil Shorts III.

UW-Whitewater at Wesley

Ryan: Wesley 31, UW-Whitewater 27
To come out gun-slinging and not turn the ball over are the best nuggets of advice I can give to Wesley. Wolverines quarterback Justin Sottilare has been wicked-crisp during the postseason: going 63-for-91 (that’s almost 70 percent) with nine touchdowns in that time. And that comes against some solid defenses. The cherry on top might be that Sottilare has also had zero picks in the past three weeks. That’s the playmaker front; Wesley may also be able to harness a bit of an edge in the trenches. The size of the Wolverines’ offensive and defensive lines seems to be better matched than that of their Warhawk counterparts, though it won’t be until we see these teams collide as to whether it’s clear if any speed has been sacrificed in the size differential. To be sure, UW-Whitewater is a top-notch team that could certainly win in Salem for the second year in a row (we’ve all been talking about that for months), but I don’t think of this prediction as going out on a limb — at least not when a team like Wesley also brings so much to the table.

Keith: UW-Whitewater 21, Wesley 16
I’ve been stuck on the same thought since I realized this matchup was taking place: Is this Wesley team significantly different from the the previous three who reached the semifinals and lost, two by blowout at UW-Whitewater? Fans around the country who are tired of seeing Purple in Salem would love to hear a yes, but I think it’s a no. If these Wolverines are better than the ones I picked to win at Mount Union in this round last year, it’s something intangible that I haven’t picked up on. If Wesley wins this Saturday, I don’t think home field is a big factor. It’s Mike Drass and staff vs. Lance Leipold and staff this time, which is a difference from the ’05 and ’06 meetings, when Bob Berezowitz coached the Warhawks. But at this point in the playoffs, every year it comes down to virtually the same thing: What you’ve got up front. And while I have it on good authority that this is Wesley’s most cohesive offensive line, if not it’s most physically talented of the era of Wolverines dominance, I’ve seen both teams this year with my own eyes. UW-Whitewater still does two things most teams can’t: Generate a pass rush using only their defensive line, and bear down and grind out tough rushing yards in the fourth quarter behind their offensive line. Having the nation’s best running back in Levell Coppage doesn’t hurt either. This might be Wesley’s best defense ever, but unless they can win in the trenches more often than not, it’s the same end result.

UW-Whitewater 21, Wesley 16
I’ve resisted making Blanchard plays/Blanchard doesn’t play predictions so far and I’m going to continue to do so even though I feel there is a difference of about a touchdown or so. Having seen UW-Whitewater’s MO on paper the previous two weeks and in person last week, it’s a game plan that should have just as reasonable a chance of succeeding as it did against North Central. Play it fairly close to the vest on offense, wear the other team down, right? Except Wesley isn’t supposed to be as easy to wear down. Here’s where I struggle with Wesley, however — Ellis Krout injured his knee last week against Mary Hardin-Baylor and if he’s not able to go 100 percent, that cuts into one place Wesley has a distinct advantage, its passing game against the UW-Whitewater secondary. Whitewater will have to contain Chris Mayes early after his four sacks in the first half against Mary Hardin-Baylor, as Lee Brekke isn’t as experienced at facing the rush at the college level as LiDarral Bailey was. And this is likely to be an extreme rush. With that in mind I see another low-scoring game, but I still think UWW has enough of the extras aside from the starting 22 to push the balance in its favor — more reliable kicking game, better discipline, and other things that can’t be measured by stats or a roster.

ATN podcast: Four games, plus awards

Posted on by
Wesley's Chris Mayes
Wesley defensive end Chris Mayes had Mary Hardin-Baylor quarterback LiDarral Bailey in his sights all day on Saturday.
Photo by Peggy Erwin, D3sports.com

Four teams survived and advanced on Saturday … perhaps Mount Union didn’t really have to do the “survive” part … and we have two semifinals upcoming with familiar opponents.

But before we even get there, it’s also awards season, and Keith and Pat give their take on the four Gagliardi Trophy finalists and the apparent direction of the award itself in recent years. We’ve taken to referencing it as the top overall student-athlete in Division III football. Also, the D3 Senior Classic was played on Saturday, taking some important steps forward toward being an all-star game

And then there were the games, including UW-Whitewater’s rally, the impressive showings by the Wesley and Bethel defenses and Mount Union’s methodical dismantling of another opponent. That and we look forward to next week’s two semifinals. All that’s covered too, and it’s even under an hour long this time.

Click the play button below to listen.

[display_podcast]

You can also get this and any of our future Around the Nation podcasts automatically by subscribing to this RSS feed: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3football/?feed=podcast

Triple Take, Scores and more

Posted on by
North Central
North Central will need to generate some offense in order to beat UW-Whitewater, we think

In the regional finals, the field has been whittled down to just eight. As in years past, Pat, Keith and Ryan now take you a little deeper into their rationale for the winners and scores that are picked.

Aside from Mount Union and Alfred, the others are not unfamiliar foes: there are the MIAC conference-mates, the regular South Region powers and Midwest teams again battling it out in the postseason. We’ve seen a version of each of these three games at least once since 2007.

Does that make the comparisons any easier? Perhaps. Compiled without consulting with each other, we give you our thoughts. Don’t hesitate to give us yours in the comments section.

Ryan: Wesley 31, Mary Hardin-Baylor 24
This might be my favorite rivalry-that-isn’t-officially-a-rivalry game in the country. Over the past five seasons, these two teams have met four times — with Wesley winning the first two meetings and UMHB the next two — and the outcome is usually an exciting one. This year, it’s not the things that will happen that are significant, it’s be the ones that won’t happen: UMHB won’t be anywhere close to its average of nearly 500 yards of offense a game; Wesley’s two-headed rushing attack won’t be called upon much; and there won’t be a shortage of turnovers. The team with the better defense will be the factor on Saturday. In that case, the nod goes to the corps led by Chris Mayes, Mike Asiedu and Aaron Benson.
Pat: Wesley 35, Mary Hardin-Baylor 30
The game may well be a welcome relief for the Wesley players after the events of the week, in which four of their teammates, all from the playoff roster, were arrested and charged in connection with burglaries of dorm rooms over Thanksgiving break. Wesley is facing a souped-up version of Salisbury, with the ability to pass the ball. But I’m still concerned about the Mary Hardin-Baylor defense. I do recognize that they performed better down the stretch and have so far in the postseason, but Howard Payne, Sul Ross State and Texas Lutheran were the bottom three teams in total offense in the ASC. Wesley will be a different type of team.
Keith: Wesley 20, Mary Hardin-Baylor 15
I think all four games Saturday turn on defense. No surprises between the Wolverines and Cru, who won’t have any of the jitters a team making its first trip to Dover might. Wesley is talented enough in the secondary to make UMHB one-dimensional, and fast enough to play its assignments when the Cru runs option. The Wolverines will miss the four players kicked off the team after their arrests for burglary (hat tip to WDEL’s Sean Greene) — but they were mostly offensive contributors, including WR DeAndre Fowlkes. Deep enough to persevere through 11 injuries already, what’s four more players to replace? UMHB is well-tested from the ASC schedule and seems to have hit another gear late in the season (378-32 the past five games). The line will open up some holes against the Wolverines’ oft-talked-about defensive line, but they’ll close up quickly because Wesley can match UMHB’s team speed. The Cru is penalized and turns it over more than is good for an elite team, and that could be their undoing. This will be the first real close game in the five-game series.

Ryan: Mount Union 45, Alfred 7
There’s no doubt that Alfred has impressed me this postseason, becoming that sleeper team for which the dream could end at any moment. The Saxons have offensive balance and have proven that they can win the big game if needed (Fisher and Cortland). But will they again? Yes … in 2011.
Pat: Mount Union 52, Alfred 9
I don’t foresee this game being much different than the rest of the bracket so far against Mount Union. In score, perhaps, but not in the final outcome.
Keith: Mount Union 31, Alfred 10
Before dismissing Alfred offhand, I considered this: The Saxons put up 34 on a defense last week that let one regular-season opponent hit 20; Seven Cortland State opponents were kept in single digits. So why can’t Alfred surprise again? For starters, Mount Union gave up 28 in its opener and has allowed 54 since. Two playoff opponents together have mustered one field goal. The Purple Raiders might be sophomore-laden, but reports of the Machine’s vulnerability are premature. I watched a Mount Union game on DVR and realized I might have been looking at the Purple Raiders backwards. Aside from Cecil Shorts III and Lambert Budzinski, Mount Union lacks star power of previous iterations. But are there any weaknesses? I didn’t see any, and neither will Alfred. QB Tom Secky will have to make quick reads against UMU’s unfamiliar 4-2-5, while his counterpart, Neal Seaman, will have plenty of time in the pocket to come through for key conversions. I don’t see an outlandish final, but I think Mount Union can do roughly what it did to Delaware Valley.

Ryan: St. Thomas 21, Bethel 17
These two teams were evenly matched six weeks ago when they first met, and they’re evenly matched still today. And they both have overcome some big hurdles in competition to get to the regional final. The only difference this time may be that there will be a few more points on the board by close of day Saturday.
Pat: St. Thomas 17, Bethel 15
Teams that love playing each other — at least, St. Thomas loves playing Bethel, preparing for Bethel, etc. Smashmouth football all the way. Big days, potentially, for Logan Flannery and Colin Tobin/Ben Wartman. And with the game on the biggest radio station in the state, there could be more listeners than fans making the short trip. Did Bethel catch lightning in a bottle last week with its surprising field goal or have the Royals found a little confidence for their struggling kicker? Filling the stadium is always harder when the weather gets cold and the students have to pay to get in, but this should get close.
Keith: St. Thomas 14, Bethel 7
Since Minnesota is Pat’s home turf, I’ve seen MIAC teams very little the past few years. I have the least to go on here, but what I do know led me to this: Most rematches bear little resemblance to a first meeting. But all Bethel and St. Thomas want to do is run it down the other’s throat (each averages at least 217 rushing yards per game) and play great defense (St. Thomas has given up 137 points in 12 games, Bethel 139). Good formula for winning in St. Paul in December. So I think this one looks just like the first, low-scoring and rugged. Bethel could crash the party and leave us with the same semifinal matchups as 2007 (Royals at Mount Union, while UW-W and UMHB meet again on the opposite side), but I put this one on St. Thomas’s defense playing just a hair better than Bethel’s.

Ryan: UW-Whitewater 38, North Central 17
The leadership and performance of backup Warhawks quarterback Lee Brekke has served the team well the first two weeks of the playoffs (seven passing touchdowns and nearly 100 points in all), helping to kick around the defenses of teams from my native Indiana. But Brekke isn’t quite Matt Blanchard, and if the latter is to be a factor heading toward the Stagg Bowl, he needs to get his feet wet again before Salem. The UWW offense will score — on the ground and through the air. I suspect North Central’s will as well, but the one-dimensional attack of last weekend won’t get the Cardinals far against the defending national champions. Spencer Stanek will need to throw, a lot.
Pat: UW-Whitewater 24, North Central 13
I don’t know if the weather keeps the score down or the defenses, but I expect this to be a lower scoring game. For North Central to have a shot, they’ll need to have a big day through the air, I think, which is the opposite of the direction they’ve taken the past few weeks. They still have receiving talent on the roster, Steve Hlavac for example, but need to get the ball in the air. UW-Whitewater could win regardless of Matt Blanchard’s status because it should be able to run the ball, even if nobody has against North Central all season.
Keith: UW-Whitewater 16, North Central 13
I gave some serious thought to picking the Cardinals, even though I’m on record saying the Warhawks are the team I think is going to win the tournament. It has nothing to do with home field either — as a player, I always felt there was just as much to like about being on the road as there was to dislike. I think it’ll be a 60-40 or 70-30 split crowd anyway. Points are going to be hard to come by Saturday; North Central is the nation’s No. 2 scoring defense (8.3/game) and has given up double digits twice — 13 and 14. Whitewater is tied with Bethel for sixth in scoring D (11.6/game), but gave up 31 to Trine last week. It might not have been so much weakness exposed as the Thunder being that good. North Central and UW-Whitewater match up physically, and I leaned Warhawks here because in a low-scoring tie game in the fourth, UW-W has the championship grit and the muscle along the line to grind out a game-winning drive. I’ll call an Eric Kindler field goal — he’s 9 of 10 since missing six straight in September — to decide an epic clash.