Quote from: hasanova on October 31, 2006, 10:32:46 AM

Quote from: Snakehandler on October 31, 2006, 09:53:30 AM
One thing keeps coming back to me.

As posted by hasa' yesterday:

Does anyone honestly believe a reputable program with logical coaches would dare touch a player that had a previous association with another conference or DIII member if they had any inkling of his complete history?  I don't.  Were there some additional ways, such as the clearinghouse mentioned in earlier posts, that Guilford could have fully verified his background?  Perhaps.  Do I think there will be some additional stringent checks in the future?  Yes!  This could have happened to any school in this conference, so I hope everyone, not just Guilford, is doing a "lessons learned" evaluation.

I believe you make some good points here. I do want to compare this scenario to another currently happening in the NFL. Though the topics are very differant the emphasis by both the NFL and NCAA are both very strong as the NCAA has many strict regulations when it comes to an athletes elgibility and the NFL has many strict regulations when it comes to its HGH policy.

Does anyone think that Shawn Merriman a 270lb linebacker would start to use steroids after being a pro bowler in his rookie year and on the verge of becomming the best defensive player in the NFL? Were there some additional ways he could of known what was in the supplements he was taking? Will he take those extra additional steps to ensure this doesn't happen again? Of course.

I know I may catch some lashing for this comparison as the topics are very differant. But Personally I do not think Guilford did this on purpose and I also don't think Merriman did it on purpose. I do think that one will pay a penalty and the other will not. Just my thoughts.

Quote from: Matt Barnhart (kid) on October 30, 2006, 01:57:16 PM
FYI, I'm still discussing this issue NOT to drag Guilford through the mud or because I think Bridgewater should or can still get the GC-BC game forfeited.  I just think it's a facinating case that's worth discussing.  That's why I'd like to hear the ODAC and/or NCAA's reasoning for not taking action.

I too don't understand why it is not reported by other news outlets like this website. I do not think it is about the game more then it is about the principle of the issue. I understand that Guilford has a good record with the NCAA and that the game is won and lost on the field, but I think it is more about principle. Either you broke the rules or abided by them.

Quote from: Snakehandler on October 30, 2006, 09:14:02 AM
'nova,

I will give you an opportunity to clear up the ineligible player incodent.  What was the infraction? How many games did he play in? What has the coaching staff done to remedy the situation?  If I were Guilford I would not forfeit the game(s) until the NCAA or ODAC made us. But, if you guys are as honorable as you say you are, at least you can come clean and stop denying the situation.

I am not a regular poster as I usually post to try an mix things up a little on the message board, but am confused about this whole ineligible player thing and how its "not a story because no action was taken" deal. From what I am getting the team did not have any consequences because of how the player was ineligible or something like that. Does it matter what caused the ineligibility? He is either eligible or not correct??? I also don't understand how its not a story because there was no action taken. I thought stories were bigger when no action was taken, but maybe that just me.

It appears to me that BC has lost its "invinceability" within the conference. When BC was making its undefeated run the previous 6 years, you could always sense that the opponent had some doubt in their mind that they could defeat BC. Now that the doubt is gone and teams know they can beat BC, I think the conference will be more competitive. Sort of like how FSU controlled the ACC and no one could beat them. Once UVA defeated FSU teams started believeing that they could actually win. Just my thoughts.

Also, anyone else notice in that article before the BC/GU game how the o-line said they more worry about where they are going to eat then the opponent or something like that. And they do not like being yelled at. Statements like that kind of make me wonder. Maybe they need to refocus a little bit. Not blaming the o-line, but maybe they need a good lashing.

Quote from: Matt Barnhart (kid) on September 20, 2006, 01:40:18 PM

Quote from: gone on September 20, 2006, 01:37:11 PM
I remember a few years back (2001) BC was beating CUA really bad and fake a punt , ran a reverse, and a few playaction passes deep in the second half. By the way BC had already clinched a playoff berth and it was the last game of the season.

My take is that the BC coaches wanted that stuff to be on film so our second round opponent had to plan for it.

Running punt returns out of bounds with no one in sight and kicking field goals on second down is just wrong.  I'd rather them play until the end.  Had it been 103-0, so be it.

I think this also had something to do with the cheap shots CU gave BC the year before.  But Kid is correct. Its mostly to get things on film to have other teams prepare.

I too had a problem with MUC kicking field goals on 2nd down. Think that is more of an insult then running the score up. But you can't really complain if you can't stop the other team.

Quote from: WCLegacy on September 13, 2006, 12:26:03 PM
One thing that is going to factor into the Guilfrod-Averett game is that Guilford hasn't faced a team yet that has a real passing attack.

I do not follow either of these two teams, ( as I only follow conference champions) but I would think that Guilford is prepared against the pass, as they do practice against their offense.  So what, Guilford hasn't played against a real passing attack, they practice against one every day. Which one do you think would better prepare you for a passing team, playing against one or practicing against one? Just my thoughts.

I was at the BC game on Sat and a couple things that caught my eye.

BC defense did what it is supposed to do. Kick an opponent when down, because McDaniel just isn't good on offense. The DB's did a nice job of taking those short out patterns that killed us the previous years away. Good pressure on QB, sacks resulted in taking QBs 1st option away in passing game.  Defense is physical and that hit on the 2nd half kickoff had the stands talking for about 5 minutes. If not the stands it had me wound up. I think the pass defense will be better then people think with the starters.

BC QB looked good as far as pocket awareness, once he is on the same page with recievers watch out. Recievers did a good job of cathing the ball as well, but can kind of see the deep threat missing. Soltis did a good job of picking up play calling duties. Just thought Matthews could get a couple more touches.  #1 looked good, just think once he learns to make something out of nothing, and pick his holes, he can be a legitamate RB in D3. Copland looks a little like Moss the way he makes it look easy.

Quote from: eh ... just call me 'kid' on May 13, 2006, 12:54:59 PM
This year's BC recruiting class is looking as good (on paper) as the one we will graduate tomorrow, and the group of rising juniors we have.  Not counting the class of 2010, I would say the top three recruiting classes BC has ever had were;

1) class of 2002; Lutz, Cruz, Richardson, Parker, and Huffman to name a few
2) class of 2006; The recruiting class that came in after the 2001 Stagg Bowl
3) class of 2008; The likes of Highfill, Copeland, Cotton, Campo and Chaptman

Kid,

I do think that 2002 class was the best recruited. I am a little biased that the 2004 class was second best with players such as Taylor, Nelson (the 2nd best LB in the conference his junior and senior years), Lehto, and White. If Mike Kelly would have stayed in school he would of competed for player of the year and a lot of the RB might not have come to BC that graduated in 2006. But there are always what ifs......like PJ.

Quote from: WLU78 on May 12, 2006, 11:36:56 AM
"...I'd be better off."


Washington and Lee
Private institution
Year founded: 1749
Religious affiliation: None
Academic calendar: Other
Undergraduate student body: 1,760
Setting: Rural
Endowment: $477,504,000

Bridgewater College
Year founded: 1880
Religious affiliation: Church of the Brethren
Academic calendar: 4-1-4
Undergraduate student body: 1,532
Setting: Rural
Endowment: $51,038,527

And what does this have to do with football ? Maybe you should look up the great diversity your school has if there is any diversity. Or the oppurtunities of young adults whose parents do not make over 6 figures who atend your school. Though I did not look this up I'm pretty sure you can find a number similar to the amount of times W&L has beaten BC since the conference has been renamed the BCAC.

Quote from: WLU78 on May 12, 2006, 03:29:13 AM
To quote Rightdownthehall  "Quick note that may put some things in perspective"

US NEWS AND WORLD REPORTS COLLEGE RANKINGS:
Top National Liberal Arts Collegees: Washington & Lee #14.  Bridgewater College 4th Tier.  Now that will put some things into perspective.  (not bad for a school with the alledged drug problem huh downthehall?) 

But let's apply more criteria shall we?  How about median SAT scores for 2004-2005?  Bridgewater representing the BCAC:
    SAT I scores (25/75 percentile):
    Verbal: 460 – 570
    Math: 460 – 570
    Combined: 920 – 1140

and the Generals playing in the ODAC and charged with drinking kool-aide:
    SAT I scores (25/75 percentile):
    Verbal: 650 – 730
    Math: 660 – 720
    Combined: 1310 – 1450

Now kidsdownthehall, I pose two questions to you as you get smarmy with my last post, have there been any Generals on the board making obscene statements like, "there is a drug problem at W&L"  like Wrightdownthehall did, or the ODAC should be renamed the W&LAC?  I haven't seen any, and it might relate to the scores I just posted for you.  And finally, we Generals sip cocktails at the club, not koolaide!!

W&L guy, you must need.......... somethin

If you guys are so smart then you should win football every year. I think it was the great John Madden who said football is 40% physical and 90% mental.

By the way BC Players had to stop posting the BCAC back then because Coach got wind of the trash talking and didnt want bulletin board material for the other teams.

Quote from: wrighthall220 on May 10, 2006, 05:14:56 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 10, 2006, 01:59:54 PM
Yes. The two Emory & Henry fans and three Catholic fans were very prone to gang up on ... uhh ... K-Mack and ... uhh ... I can't think of anyone else who posted at that time.

I don't know about LONG TERM posters but I do know there were plenty of posts by what may have been E&H and CUA players running around this site a few years ago posting what amounted to be a lot of B.S.  because we certainly had a pile of bulletin board material hanging in the BC locker room.

I think that is when we officially named the ODAC the BCAC. And I think it has been that way ever since 

QuoteQuote from: muchacho on January 06, 2006, 03:29:29 pm
[...] Catholic would have been a lot better, if they could have controlled their turnovers
Shoot, that goes for any team.

Of course thats true...my point here though is that Catholic had a much larger problem with turnovers than other programs. Compare 41 by Catholic with 20 by BC, 23 by W&L, and 27 by HSC.  With a team that was 2nd in the conference in total offense, Catholic should have fared better than 1-5. I am laying blame for Catholic's poor performance last year on the turnovers.

Quote

I think Catholic's main issue at not being able to win games is not being able to run the football. That might be why big leads were lost, and why teams were able to create big leads early in games, because of no ball control. That is probably a reason there turnovers were high as well. Young QB in a pass-happy offense. One of the main reasons BC is able to plug a QB in and not miss a beat is the ability to run the football.

Coach Colbert will definately be missed. I know I can't express how much he helped me off of the field nevermind the football part.

The classic Coach Colbert memory I have is in 2001 in the OT game at W&L after we stopped W&L in OT. Coach was running the option all day, with below average success I would say figuring who we had in our backfield. Coach called the option pass and as soon as W&L lined up Coach called game over and left the booth. On the way down from the booth Van was cathing the ball for a TD.  Classic.

Oh and do not forget about the invention of the "22 Sky" play.

Quote from: Jeremybozz on December 29, 2005, 10:24:02 PM
Ok, it was me. I take the blame. I said Brett and Bob's brother being near St. Vincent would factor into the choice and it did big time. The Steelers apparently even practice at St. Vincent for training camp and who can say no to that extra money?
   Good luck to Bob and thanks for his contributions at BC (and JMU with Rip Scherer) over the years. Make no mistake, we will miss Bob with the X's and O's.

Rip Scherer.............didn't think anyone was familiar with that name.  Jeremybozz must be an avid football fan.

Quote from: eh ... just call me 'kid' on December 14, 2005, 09:33:47 AM

Quote from: Outsider14 on December 14, 2005, 09:29:34 AM
[...]

and btw, i'm not answering questions about the DNR article.

Ironically, I asked Mrs. Colbert at the Funk yesterday about Coach Colbert's plans (the ironic part being me asking the day before the article ran).

She also was very good at not giving me any insider info .

I sure hope Colbert doesn't leave ... both Mr. and Mrs. are awesome people.

I hope they don't leave, because I know someone that will miss them home cooked meals while at school. Then again if Coach Colbert leaves, maybe the other Colbert will take his spot  8)  J/K.