I was a sociology major at Kenyon but I still know that English should be capitalized.  Your idea about colleges teaching "real life skills" isn't too bright, read "All I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" by Robert Fulghum.  You're thinking about "real job skills," which is completely different, and depends on individual criteria.  None of this has anything to do with football anyway, every school in the NCAC is good to very good academically, and the idea that you can't get a great education at any of those schools is flat out wrong.

Quote from: lbennett on October 17, 2006, 09:11:58 AM
Kenyon is a great school, but it you want to go to college "to play football" in the NCAC you DON'T go to Kenyon.  Some of their players are probably good, but if they had the true competitive spirit they would thrive on the challenge of playing the tougher teams. 

How about the challenge of raising a program from the garbage can?  I'd say it has been a much bigger challenge for Kenyon football to rise from the grave than it is for Wabash or Witt to win a conference championship.  Those programs are to the point where every year they expect to contend for the NCAC crown, and continually do so because they have built programs that kids buy into.  Kenyon seems to be doing something I'd say is a lot tougher, which is going from a historically bad team (2003 era) to at least being in the discussion for a conference championship for the second year in a row.  Before the season started, people liked to point at the one year surges of Oberlin or Denison or whoever and just count Kenyon among those teams, but by showing up strong for the second straight year Kenyon is showing signs of becoming a program.  Maintaining greatness isn't easy, and Wabash and Witt should be complimented for doing that, but building greatness (which Kenyon is trying to do) is more of a challenge.  To suggest that any player who did not choose to attend a year in year out contender isn't competitive is a joke.

Does anyone really think Kenyon would have beaten Wabash or Witt that year?  I might be wrong, but I don't think this year's schedule would be any different. 

The point is don't blame the kids or staff at Kenyon for what happened before they got there.  No one on the current team or staff had anything to do with that decision.  Blame the AD if you want, but you can't expect much from a guy who has a swimming background and came from an all girls school.  It isn't their fault, so it would be unfair to hold it against them.    Even if Kenyon was put on some sort of probation period on its return to the conference, that probably would be up by now.  None of this matters unless Kenyon wins out, and I doubt too many people out there would bet on that happening anyway.

Quote from: medicine man on October 15, 2006, 10:16:43 AM

Let's hope this does not happen.......it is absolutely not fair.  That is why it is really irritating when they go on and on about being so good, (KC)
but  Woo, Witt and Bash  always have to play everyone.

Who has been going on and on about Kenyon being so good?  They have a good to very good offense to go with a mediocre defense right now, and I haven't seen anybody claim otherwise.  To simply not allow them any chance at the playoffs because of their weak schedule would be "absolutely not fair" to the players, since they didn't make the schedule, they didn't make the decision to drop from the conference (none of them were even there back then).

I held on to my hat.

Sigma, I'm fine with your opinion of Sanchez, I never said he's the best, just that he might be.  However, your claim that Shoemaker is merely marginal is dead wrong.  Two years ago, he led the conference in receptions (59) and was second in receiving yards (834), while still playing sporadically on defense (had a pick too), and playing for an offense that was unsettled at QB (Sanchez was splitting time as freshman at QB and WR).  With Sanchez beginning to come into his own at QB last year, in just one half of football he had 5 catches for 84 yards and 2 TDs, much better than adequate, and you cannot discount his impact in the run game because he is a very solid blocker.  Since he redshirted, Kenyon has two years left to pair him up with Sanchez and Johnson (who came on very strong to end the season and has become an impact receiver in his own right), plenty of time to prove he is far more than a marginal player.

Suggesting Sanchez is an inadequate thrower is unfair.  Just because he played WR some and ran for 1,000 doesn't mean he can't throw.  He approached 2,000 yds in the air last year, and that was without his #1 receiver (Shoemaker-out with a broken leg for 9.5 games) and a bunch of 1st and 2nd year receivers.  He just might be the best QB in the league next year.

Has the conference schedule been released for next year?  Shouldn't it be changing since last year was the second year of those match ups?

I don't know how or why Kenyon swimming got so good, but it has gotten to the point where the monster feeds off itself and excellence is expected.  The swim team certainly must have some pull somewhere because they constantly recruit kids from Brazil and other exotic locales that your typical Kenyon kid has never visited, much less been raised in.  But the typical reaction to this among the faculty, students, and whoever else is probably the same as most people's reading this, "who cares?"  They may be excellent, but no one really notices them, they are a niche group, albeit one with resources from some mysterious place.  Football is not a niche in the United States, certainly not in Ohio.  Kenyon is a very liberal school, and so are the professors.  When our illustrious AD removed us from the conference a few years ago, there was a debate among the trustees to do away with the team.  One of the reasons was because football is a barbaric game that flies in the face of the ideals of an institution of higher learning or some crap like that.  That mindset obviously didn't win out, but that it was even there speaks to the general opinion of football by some around the school.

Again, I won't argue about the last eight years.  But does anyone really think that number is going to stay at three wins for the "little five" next year?

I didn't say all faculty, I said many if not most.  There were huge fans of the football team at Kenyon, and also those who held it against you.  I experienced both first hand.  I even had a professor who consistently tried to explain things in terms I could understand, using these awful football analogies that just showed he had no idea what he was talking about.  Some faculty look down on football players, just like they look down on Greeks or whatever else the lightning rod of the day is.  I would expect it to be a little different at Wabash since it is an all dude school, but I'm sure there are professors there who dislike jocks.  As far as the stat from the 8 last years, that was my point.  I won't deny that Kenyon, Denison, and Oberlin used to really suck.  They still might not be that good, but you could make a valid (if ultimately incorrect) argument that any or all of them will finish higher then Gheny, OWU, and Wooster next year.  I don't see that happening, but it isn't that unreasonable.  Two teams at the top, two at the bottom, and 6 in some uncertain order in the middle.  Parity.

Like the past few years, the conference is going to be tough to predict again next year.  Put Witt and Wabash at or near the top, Hiram and Earlham at or near the bottom, and you really can argue the rest any way you want.  Earlier a point was made that building a championship caliber team takes a committment from the school in building up the program's numbers.  This year Kenyon actually did contend by definition, but I don't think anyone would really argue they were an elite team in the conference.  Good enough to beat Gheny, good enough to beat Wooster before their season tanked, but they were no Wabash.  Kenyon will probably never be a powerhouse because the school doesn't want such a small campus to be dominated by the football team.  Most, or at least many in the faculty are opposed to the new fieldhouse, and the AD is a former swim coach who is probably quite content as long as the team doesn't suck.  But who could you go out and say is going to be better than them next year?  The NCAC is almost looking like the NFL parity wise, with legit arguments that can be made for just about every team next year.  Is that because the weak teams in the conference have gotten better or because the stronger have gotten worse?

Quote from: DarkSide-D on November 23, 2005, 11:51:28 AM
I agree, I think coach Stanley.  I don't look for them to make a run for the title next year.  Next year, teams will know what they have.  Kenyon finally finished at the top of the conference, which means they will be placed in a situation they are not used to.  Next season, they will have a target on their back, and teams will be better prepared for them.  I doubt teams will go into kenyon week with the attitude that "its just kenyon."

I can't say I really agree with this.  Look at Kenyon's games.  They start 0-3, so maybe their first conference game v. Oberlin the Yeomen think "its just Kenyon," but I don't think they're good enough to ever think that about anyone.  Next up are your boys DD, who probably were thinking that when they were 23rd in the country or whatever.  After beating Wooster, they play a winless Gheny team that is desperate for a win and therefore almost certainly not thinking "just the Lords this week."  Next comes OWU, who may or may not have thought that, but either way whipped Kenyon.  Then come Earlham and Hiram, two teams badly in need of wins who more likely would be thinking along the lines "here's the best chance for a win this year, better give it our best."  Finally comes Denison, the rivalry game, not one taken lightly on either side.  I don't think Kenyon snuck up on anyone except for Wooster, and saying they did takes away from their season.  I also kind of doubt they're going to have a huge target on their backs next year, because after all, "they're just Kenyon."

By no means did I mean anything negative towards Coach Creighton.  I firmly believe he's the best head coach in the league.  I was just saying that I think he got the award for winning the conference, and that this particular award tends to go that way, so I was only mildly surprised Stanley didn't get it, although I hoped he would.  If they actually gave it to the best coach in the conference every year, he'd win it every year.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that Wooster had so few all-conference picks because these awards reward teams more than individuals.  For Kenyon, this is another step in the right direction, without looking it up Alby is probably the first 1st team selection since '99, if not earlier.  Next year he should have some company, with Sanchez returning, Shoemaker (probably the best player on the team) coming back from injury, and the improvement of the the younger guys on the team, some of whom had really good years.  Not to put down Funari who had a good year, but DB's don't have that many tackles, especially not that many solo tackles, without getting thrown at a lot, and having a lot of those balls caught too, so maybe that's why he got no love.  I'm surprised Stanley didn't get the COY, but again the champ gets the awards.  Maybe next year.

Sorry to interupt the Wabash talk, but Kicker, you clearly misunderstood me.  I was making a joke on the off chance Ben still reads this page.  He is well on his way to being the next Morgan though (which isn't neccessarily bad).  Let's take a look: Florida breeding?  Check.  Inability to drive?  Check.  Fat to skinny?  Check.  Humourous meltdowns second semester freshman year?  Check.  Fat kid family?  Check.  Worked up the depth chart from little used lineman to big time contributor/starter?  We'll see.  Being Morgan isn't all that bad, if you take away the videogames and wussy stuff like girls from Minnesota.  I am glad to see Kicker9 is still alive and kicking, I was afraid that little gem was gone from my life forever (the name, not you).