A
Al Bundy
Posts: 4,180
Nov 19, 2011 10:11pm
Jim Ballard was in the NFL for a few years in the 90'squeencitybuckeye;978902 wrote:Thanks, I stand corrected. Three in the last 20+ years, which is a hell of a lot for a D3 program. But it doesn't mean, as some imply, that it's a D1 program in D3 clothing.
S
Sonofanump
Nov 20, 2011 8:55am
Cocaine is a powerful drug.BearBoy69;979801 wrote:I'm still saying Mount could at least hang with Akron i think Ashland may even beat Akron.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Nov 20, 2011 9:27am
I agree with this....not necessarily even40% of the time or beat them like a drum, but it would not be improbable or impossible.A lot of times a player is fast enough for D-I but doesn't have the size. Blair Skilliter and Nate Kmic are good examples. Considering how well coached Mount Union is (from just an execution standpoint), they could definitely beat Akron.
uh, yes they do. From a personal standpoint, if my son did not have a legitimate shot at a pro career I'd choose a full academic ride at UMU over Applacian State or any of a number of D1 schools any day. D3 players do get full rides...they are just not "athletic" scholarships.No one chooses D3 over a D1 scholarship offer.
By and large, D3 schools cannot compete on an everyday basis with a D1 school as stats prove. BUT Mount Union is not your typical D3 football program, and Akron is a particularly weak D1 school.
Crimson streak
Posts: 9,002
Nov 20, 2011 12:35pm
No doubt in my mind a couple years ago mount union could beat a lot if the Mac teams. Those teams were loaded with talent . Greg micheli, Nate kmic, Pierre garçon. And add that to a defense that gave up less than 10 points a game. They were extremely talented
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 20, 2011 1:13pm
Less than 10 points against other D3 teams.Crimson streak;980522 wrote:No doubt in my mind a couple years ago mount union could beat a lot if the Mac teams. Those teams were loaded with talent . Greg micheli, Nate kmic, Pierre garçon. And add that to a defense that gave up less than 10 points a game. They were extremely talented
Crimson streak
Posts: 9,002
Nov 20, 2011 1:52pm
WebFire;980605 wrote:Less than 10 points against other D3 teams.
Well obviously it wouldn't
be like that against Mac teams. But they could score some points
Pick6
Posts: 14,946
Nov 20, 2011 1:55pm
Some of you really need to watch more football.
S
Sonofanump
Nov 20, 2011 2:54pm
In person I have seen Akron, Ashland and Mount Union. It is not hard to understand the differences between the divisions. The closest might be FBS to FCS (see UM vs Appy St) , next would be the very elite D3 would be the worst D2.
Classyposter58
Posts: 6,321
Nov 20, 2011 3:02pm
Funny thing is despite Mount Union getting a few guys into the NFL there's 11 guys on the field. D1 NCAA players are still D1 athletes, I was recruited to play D3 sports for god sakes and I'm no superstar lol. Akron would win big
justincredible
Posts: 32,056
Nov 20, 2011 3:40pm
But could Mount Union beat the Colts? Derp.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Nov 20, 2011 3:40pm
Obviously. By roughly 3-6 touchdowns.justincredible;981008 wrote:But could Mount Union beat the Colts? Derp.
F
Fidmeister
Posts: 249
Nov 20, 2011 11:02pm
Ashland lost to 5 Division II teams. They aren't beating any D1 teams.BearBoy69;979801 wrote:I'm still saying Mount could at least hang with Akron i think Ashland may even beat Akron.
The idea of Mount even being in the game with anyone in Division 1 is just as silly as the idea of a college team beating anyone in the NFL.
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Nov 20, 2011 11:45pm
How is this even a question? Mt. Union would not only lose to Akron, they'd lose big. Mt. Union is great for a D3 school, but to put them on the field and play against a D1, it would be ugly for Mt. Union.
BearBoy69
Posts: 291
Nov 21, 2011 12:58am
nah, shrooms are WAY betterSonofanump;980374 wrote:Cocaine is a powerful drug.
0
0311sdp
Posts: 580
Nov 21, 2011 2:24am
Speed is the difference, although I think Mt. Union could beat some of the poorer what used to be 1-AA teams. Mt. Union has D-1 size but not D-1 speed. Michelli was recruited by (I think) Purdue as a safety so they are not without some D-1 talent from time to time. They get a lot of kids who are a little too short OL 6"0 to 6"1 instead of 6'4 to 6'8. Kmic probaby ran a 4.6 or 4.7 not the 4.4 to 4.5 most backs run in D-1. And I agree with the post that the last couple Mt. Union teams are not as good as a few years ago.
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Nov 21, 2011 5:06am
^^^
A fair position. Mount Union has had some very quality talent (as described above), and could likely pull of an upset of a lower Division team. Against Akron? Akron picks their score.
A fair position. Mount Union has had some very quality talent (as described above), and could likely pull of an upset of a lower Division team. Against Akron? Akron picks their score.
S
Sonofanump
Nov 21, 2011 7:49am
Remember some FCS Iaa schools are non-scholly. So they would compete against them.0311sdp;982061 wrote:some of the poorer what used to be 1-AA teams.
darbypitcher22
Posts: 8,000
Nov 21, 2011 8:06am
I don't think Mount Union would win, but they may keep it close for 15, 20 minutes. Then Akron takes over. Like others have said, you don't choose D3 over D1 even if the scholly offer @ D1 is $500.
se-alum
Posts: 13,948
Nov 21, 2011 9:33am
Lol at people giving Mount Union a chance in this game. Akron wins by as many as they see fit, while likely putting alot of Mount players out of the game.
J
Jawbreaker
Posts: 520
Nov 21, 2011 10:47am
I thought the same thing until my cousin turned down a full ride to Coastal Carolina for baseball because he wanted to play basketball (he ended up playing d3 basketball). Now he regrets doing it.thedynasty1998;978964 wrote:No one chooses D3 over a D1 scholarship offer.
I am a Mount alum and I think they would lose by 60+. I don't see the problem as general overall speed. The biggest problem is depth. Mount wouldn't have the depth to play against a larger division team (unless they are non scholarship d1-aa) for 4 quarters. The first 10 minutes might be interesting.
Heretic
Posts: 18,820
Nov 21, 2011 12:01pm
This is true.BearBoy69;982038 wrote:nah, shrooms are WAY better