Quote from: stanbob on October 11, 2008, 09:19:32 PM

Quote from: Lone Auggie Backer on October 11, 2008, 08:39:27 PM
I guess it's just a matter of math to me. 4 to 1. 12/3. Somehow, that doesn't seem like a rational outcome of non-biased officials. I have never once stated that they were Pro-Carleton. Rather, that they thoroughly screwed us! I'm not saying that they did anything to benefit Carleton. I have said from the beginning that they screwed us. And, yes, a 4 to 1 penalty ratio disparity IS rather difficult to overcome.

Perhaps you missed my very first post. Posted first because I wanted to give the Carleton and Augsburg teams and their performances their due. I did that FIRST because it should have been that way.

Perhaps my play by play suggests my maroon colored glasses. But, perhaps your disagreement suggests your maize and blue colored ones. I go back to the stats then as my neutral point. 12 vs 3. that's my "meet in the middle" location.

Maybe they tried to cheat more.

that's the game i saw stanbob

my glasses are maize.  the maize and blue ones gave me headaches or it could have been all the beatings I took while there.  I think that I would buy that carleton was underpenalized (I don't have any specific instances because my glasses filter those out) easier than that augsberg was overpenalized, give or take a call or two.

So we have confirmed, that your point as stated and backed up by "evidence" is that the game was stolen from Augsburg by the officials.  well, i disagree and I don't think that me arguing with an infallible eye, judgement, viewpoint, etc. is going to get me anywhere.  i've never heard in football, of any officiating crew who has ever favored carleton over anybody, but if the conspiracy exists it should be taken up at the league office.  well your conscience is clear in getting the news of the conspiracy out, and mine is clear by disagreeing.

sorry about the spelling, i do admit I wasn't paying attention...to the spelling?
you shouldn't get so worked up.

no, not that they couldn't do anything wrong, but that it seems unlikely that they'd all of a sudden be receiving blatantly positive biased officiating.

alright, your angle, on all plays, was better than mine.  and better than the officials.  and that made your view from the opposite sideline crystal clear for the onside kick.  and augsberg didn't have any late hits.  and the officials should have made sure not to call anything to keep momentum neutral or preferably on augsbergs side.  although you and your team have been wronged, I am grateful that former MIAC also-ran miraculously now receives biased and overly favorable officiating.

I didn't think the facemask was bogus and there was another, in fact, that was missed.  I think the ball went 10 yards on the onside kick, and I'm not sure on the call on the double reverse pass.  As far as the rest of the yardage, the penalties do tend to add up when they're 15 yards.   There were several chippy plays that deserved flags and got them.  The officiating was pretty standard for the MIAC (mediocre to bad) but saying that Augsberg somehow was fighting uphill against officials trying to take the game away from them is untrue.  I  think that your play by play evidence is exactly what someone with augsberg tinted glasses would see.  I don't understand how just because augsberg had more penalty yards, that somehow means the officials were biased. they were less disciplined in several situations.  Was the officiating great? never seen that in the MIAC.  Did somebody take your win away? definitely not.

Quote from: familyguyfaneightyfour on October 05, 2008, 09:06:20 PM
Carleton beat Olaf.....  I quit. 

on a side note... the hot carls forgot to point the eagle towards carleton after turning it.  its still pointing at St. Olaf.  You're killin me Carleton.

I saw the eagle pointed appropriately as well. On a side note, after the end of the current losing streak the knights only trail by 4 in the all time series.

Quote from: DuffMan on September 25, 2006, 08:27:05 AM
CCKnight (or any other Carleton poster ),

How is this year's Carleton team different from those of previous years?  Has Ramler totally revamped offense and defense?  What type of offense are they running?

Maybe with a few wins under their belts, we'll get a couple more Hot Carls on the board???

Carleton's increased numbers and improved recruiting is starting to pay off.  We have more talent, that is more experienced, at more positions than times when our football team numbered in the low 40's.  There is both a new offense and a new defense but after watching the game on saturday it looked like the more important issue was the talent and experience level combined with the team being ran correctly.  Often times during the Brann era things looked like they were being run like a fire drill.  It looks like Ramler has everybody on the same page and that they seemed pretty confident in their roles both offensively and defensively.  On Saturday, the defensive line was spectacular, linebackers really great, and the secondary was solid.  Our offense needed to find consistency, but as noted by others, Bethel's defense is pretty good. Obviously one upset win doesn't erase question marks after years of futility, but as a Carleton alum who didn't like the way the program was ran under brann (other than the recruiting), the professionalism which ramler was showed on Saturday was impressive.

Knights 52 Scots 0. Final.

Carleton 38 Macalester 0 at the half.

50-14 Carleton over UM-Morris with 6 minutes left in former Johnnie Ramler's coaching debut.  R.J. Jackson had 6 touches in the first half.

As a former Knight I would say that Brann left because Beloit is an hour from Chicago and that is where his wife wanted to be.  (That's where her and her family are from I believe)

I also don't think that the resources, as in money, at Carleton is an issue.  The administration is usually fully prepared to invest money in things.  Resources, as in how many football players the admissions office is willing to accept in a year might be an issue.  Carleton is a small school and maybe the administration isn't willing to have such a large proportion of its incoming class be football players.  That could be an issue but there are also plenty of players who meet the admissions standards that can still be recruited.

Johnnie Esq.:  I think that it is likely that Brann did see that a pretty sweet pot,  and some mixed up notion that making a bigger name by winning the MWC than being competitive in the MIAC combined  with his wife being closer to Chicago would have been enough to swing him away.  Hopefully the recruiting process and fervor stay in place and the College makes a nation wide search a priority.  I know that most alums have a pretty large interest in this hire.  Carleton has fallen on tough times in the last 10 years but there are quite a few alums who are starting to make the big bucks that were around when Carleton was a perrenial top half finisher.