Then there's the million-dollar question about how much beer to bring on a fishing trip with some Reformed/CRC participants?


Depends.  If you invite ONE only, he'll drink all your beer.  If you invite TWO, they won't drink any.  HA! 



[/quote]
This is sort of like they say in NW Iowa: "What is a Dutch Reform persons favorite tavern?" The answer: "One that is in the next county."

[/quote]

Not entirely true. In Orange City, most just settle for the next town over: Alton and the Double D.  But it might depend on whether you're simply Reformed or Christian Reformed (not to mention Netherlands Reformed). The latter would probably make sure it was a solid county over.  [hunkering down, preparing to take the inevitable karma hit from some lurking, super sensitive CRC rube  ]

Quote from: CaliRamRL6 on June 08, 2011, 09:47:39 AM
I keep hearing that Weymiller will be returning to the Coe lineup. Can any of you Kohawks confirm?

I must have missed something -- was there word of a pending transfer?  Hurt?  Modeling?  Whichever the case, good news for Coe.

Controlled the entire game might be a little overstatement.

Understood, and certainly not intended as a point of contention.  Perhaps it's "red glasses" vs "orange", but from my biased perspective, aside from a couple of Central mishaps, the Knights were not particulary effective putting points on the board.   

To be honest, it "felt" like Central was in control.   You would have to agree that Wartburg's last drive was decidedly more impressive than anything else they had produced up to that point?   Regardless of what transpired earlier in the game, Wartburg won the game and the championship on that last drive, when the game was on the line.  Without that late performance, Central wins, and the stats, for what they're worth, look a lot different. 

No arguement or sour grapes about the outcome here; the Knights answered the bell, just the way champions are supposed to.   

It would be nice if it were that simple?  IMHO, Central simply tried to "out-athlete" other teams in a couple of key positions, namely QB and WR.   The Snead brothers are indeed an effective twosome, but I thought the Central offense was lacking at crunch time.  And what was just as interesting, the defense also lacked late in both losses.

Coe ran all over the Dutch D; a poor effort in 2nd half.  Against W'burg, Central D controlled the entire game aside from the drive at the end, when the game was on the line.  A late Central drive dried up, due in part to a good defensive stand, but mostly because it appeared that Central could think of nothing else to do except for throwing long to bro, or to run that predictable QB draw.  Never mind that it is still tough to stop....but the lacking edge on defense and creativity on offense rank for me as bigger concerns for me than are the special teams.

All said, much credit to #1 and #2 in conference last year; certainly both proved to be better competitors on game day.

Quote from: Fannosaurus Rex on May 16, 2011, 11:34:00 AM
It isn't hard to tell we are in the slow season.  I'll try a little football talk.  Looking forward to the 2011 football season, I don't have my normal Central fan's optimism.  I have been thinking about last season to figure out what Central will have to do to reclaim its proper spot at the top of the IIAC.  The thing I have come up with is that The Dutch need to get back the special teams advantage.  In the two games Central lost last year, there were two really key fumbles, but I don't want to talk about those.  Against Coe, Central missed both of its field goal tries and in the Wartburg game, they had both a punt and a field goal blocked against them.  I was afraid this would happen once the kicking coach was no longer the college president.  What makes it especially scary is that Central loses a lot of talent this year including both the punter and place-kicker.  I'm pretty sure both were four year starters.  I know they were both big contributors to the team's success during their careers.  I hope the team finds some talented toes to take their places.

This just might be the most beautiful man I have ever laid eyes on. 

Quote from: Walston Hoover on October 30, 2010, 09:05:56 PM
Don't see stuff like this in the register too often-
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101030/SPORTS13/101030014/0/SPORTS020602/Old-Time-Photo-of-the-Week-Falling-toward-an-upset?GID=I72VyksMScEDymIewy2u0WcUxNAQAy0ZfpCZWGhB7Uo%3D

Quote from: Bird Dog on October 20, 2010, 04:31:19 PM
It was many moons ago I watched a show on TV and the guest's main argument on football equipment was that the padding was on the wrong side.  His contention was there would be fewer injuries, concussions etc.  if there was additional padding on the outside of helments and shoulder pads.  Making them less of a weapon.

He had some data to back it up and contended a hit from a padded helmet was so much less severe that it would loose its advantage over the fundamentally sound technique.  The helmet looked kind of goofy but with todays bigger, faster, and stronger athlete it might make sense.   

Maybe we should have all the players dress up in those "sumo wrestler" outfits.  That would be very cool.  The collisions would be slower, but everyone knows how much fun it is to watch people battle each other and fall down.

Just a funny thought, BD, not taking away from anything you noted.

A Simpson FB player was sitting at the end of the bar by himself, drinking a beer.  As the evening wore on, the bartender watched as the kid sort of mumbled to himself, and occasionaly burst into laughter.  Finally, the bartender approached the Simpson player and asked, "Hey, what are you doing?  I've been watching you sit all by yourself, any you've been  mumbling and laughing all night long -- what gives?"

And the Simpson player replied, "oh, I've been telling myself some jokes.  Some I've heard, and some I haven't."

Bouncing back—Central did make some changes following the 37-28 loss at Coe College Sept. 25. Defensive back Jason Breon (sophomore, Anamosa) and linebacker Patrick Kelley (junior, Eagle Grove) were inserted in the starting lineup. Breon recovered a first-quarter fumble while Kelley made five tackles.

Yet McMartin said much of his team's progress was simply the result of being more ready to play and that will remain a focus.

"We'll work this week preparing ourselves mentally as much as physically," he said. "The mental side of the game is so important. We want to improve that aspect. We want to be a team that plays 60 minutes of hard-hitting football."


Told ya

Quote from: Mav45 on September 27, 2010, 03:39:35 PM
Congrats to the Kohawks on a nice win.

A couple of thoughts/observations:

1) Kohawks are good.
2) Central boys were NOT ready to play. 

Evidences from listening to the game:  "Game-On" readiness/attitudes don't allow 500+ yards of offense to anyone, lest you're getting 50-pointed by some FAR superior team.  Poor tackling -- same deal.  Jumping offsides with your opponent on the 1 yard line?  Then giving up the first down.  It just sounded to me like the Coe guys had a hungrier desire to win this game.  I'd bet a dozen Casey's donuts that if a 2nd game were played tomorrow, the 530+ yards stats would look much different.  Who knows about the outcome....not going there, as the Kohawks proved that they were the better team when the game was on the line.

I DID think Central would have difficulty with Coe's passing game....I've believed that our under coverage has been very soft last year and to present.  I DID NOT expect Coe to embarass the rush defense like they did. 

Hard to understand such an apparently casual Central effort.  Nevertheless, Credit to Coe for bragging rights to a butt kicking.  We'll find out who both teams really are over the next few weeks!

Hey, my intended message didn't come across as I hoped:

I thought UD played a great game the first half, and I also observed a team miss a tough field goal, and then come out flat as a pancake in the 2nd half --- gave up everything they had worked for in a manner of minutes -- that was NOT the same UD in the first  few minutes of the 2nd half!  That they came back is admirable, but what I was trying to acknowledge was that ALL the minutes count, especially against a very good Coe team.

Now another person could/should argue "yea, but Coe didn't play a great game/not "themselves" the first half, yaddah yaddah --- well, kudos to them for turning things around (QUICKLY) and then holding on.

When UD floundered out of the 2nd half blocks, I thought that they would now probably battle to the end, but they would likely come up just a little short.  The "little short" occurred in a manner of minutes.  They gave TOO MUCH away too quickly.  That doesn't take away from a great 3 qtr effort; just hafta do better than that to beat a good Coe team.  And it doesn't take away from Coe's "W" in the final analysis.  Good teams find a way to win. 

Finally, wasn't comparing UD to Central's performance, or counting/comparing statistics....UD played winning football for 3 1/2 quarters.....but, still...you don't get a medal for that.  Bet you a million dollars that that UD coach staff is saying the same thing! 

Quote from: Willie University on October 04, 2010, 10:31:33 AM

Quote from: Mav45 on October 02, 2010, 05:16:23 PM
Wow, UD let this one go. 

Horrendous start to 2nd half!  Lousy punt strategy in wind, such conservative offense?  Who did the talking at halftime?  Didn't chose to watch the end, but I somehow suspected the mantra would be "well we made it close; better luck next time".

Coe's intensity out of the gate 2nd half, and the obvious desire to get back into/win the game is the story on this one.  Great UD 1st half effort.  When my son was little we used to do those little tyk wrestling tournaments.  I remember having to explain to him that he didn't get a medal for winning his first match....he had to go win again, and probably again to get the medal.

No soup for you, today, UD.  Congrats to Coe on winning a tight one against a good 3-quarter team UD team. 

Really  Then, did you also teach your son to never give up. Even if he was down in his wrestling match by 7 points, he could always pin his opponent and win. Maybe you should watch an entire game before you open your mouth about "efforts". Sure, I will concede the start of the 3rd Qtr in addition to the missed field goal and extra point was what doomed the spartans on Saturday but the fact that they put themselves in the position to still win the game says a lot about not giving up.

PS- Coe was averaging over 500 yards of offense and the UD defense held them to about 200 less then that. UD also led in about every category EXCEPT the one that matters most---the score and Win column.

I am just as upset as I am sure every coach, player, and fan is about losing the game especially when every person knows we could have won it but such is life and football.

Time to move on and take care of business at Lorass.

Willie U

Wow, UD let this one go. 

Horrendous start to 2nd half!  Lousy punt strategy in wind, such conservative offense?  Who did the talking at halftime?  Didn't chose to watch the end, but I somehow suspected the mantra would be "well we made it close; better luck next time".

Coe's intensity out of the gate 2nd half, and the obvious desire to get back into/win the game is the story on this one.  Great UD 1st half effort.  When my son was little we used to do those little tyk wrestling tournaments.  I remember having to explain to him that he didn't get a medal for winning his first match....he had to go win again, and probably again to get the medal.

No soup for you, today, UD.  Congrats to Coe on winning a tight one against a good 3-quarter team UD team. 

Congrats to the Kohawks on a nice win.

A couple of thoughts/observations:

1) Kohawks are good.
2) Central boys were NOT ready to play. 

Evidences from listening to the game:  "Game-On" readiness/attitudes don't allow 500+ yards of offense to anyone, lest you're getting 50-pointed by some FAR superior team.  Poor tackling -- same deal.  Jumping offsides with your opponent on the 1 yard line?  Then giving up the first down.  It just sounded to me like the Coe guys had a hungrier desire to win this game.  I'd bet a dozen Casey's donuts that if a 2nd game were played tomorrow, the 530+ yards stats would look much different.  Who knows about the outcome....not going there, as the Kohawks proved that they were the better team when the game was on the line.

I DID think Central would have difficulty with Coe's passing game....I've believed that our under coverage has been very soft last year and to present.  I DID NOT expect Coe to embarass the rush defense like they did. 

Hard to understand such an apparently casual Central effort.  Nevertheless, Credit to Coe for bragging rights to a butt kicking.  We'll find out who both teams really are over the next few weeks!

Geesh, seethe much?

Heck, when I saw the numbers you provided (last 11 year stats) it wasn't clear to me that was all that was provided from the site.....guess I didn't read your post closely enough to pick up that detail.  I thought it was odd that you chose 11 years....

I remember thinking when I read that post the same "accusation" you're making!  Ha!

I suppose that's how it is with favorite teams....everybody wants their team to be the best.  Nothing wrong with that!  A new year brings new opportunity for bragging rights.  Or whining.  Sometimes hard to tell the difference!

Go Dutch!

Quote from: warthog on August 26, 2010, 12:47:48 AM
DutchFan2004 and DutchHawk:  
I guess I thought I was fairly clear that I used 11 years because that was the information available on the D3-Football site.  I really don't give a damn how you want to look at the numbers.  I simply reported what was available.  
Go ahead, review and print 1-2-5-10 year results, whatever makes you happy. In fact, if it makes you feel better, I'll report that Central is by far the greatest football power to ever take the field at any level of this sport. I'll destroy everything in my closet except for those few red garments I currently own.  I'll become a card carrying member of the Reformed Church.  I'll admit only Central grads should be allowed to enter any kind of graduate school.  I'll be sure to let everyone know the sewer line from Central College doesn't smell when it dumps into the Pella waste water treatment plant.  I'll start wearing wooden shoes.  I'll drop to my knees and point towards Pella for prayer four times a day because I've learned the holiest of all people are at Central College.  Just let me know what you want; I aim to please.

Of course that answer is easy....nobody wins with "less-than" athletes and competitors.  But don't you think that MOST of the kids that would consider playing FB in college were probably in the "leader" and "competitor" crowd?  Obviously the transition from stud in HS doesn't correlate to college success...one of my favorite days in preseason FB practices was watching the older bulls toss around the "newbies" -- attitude adjustment! 

Everybody understands that kids quit for all kind of reasons.  But I would think that one of the MOST significant reasons a kid might not "bond" to a cause/program would be if they felt they had been misled.  If a kid begins to feel like cannon fodder and nothing more, I bet disillusionment could get the better of them.   Not sure I could be convinced that  dropping from 170 to 90 simply weeds out only the obvious losers who never should have considered the opportunity in the first place.  And if they were that "unwilling" why would they have even considered the possibility in the first place? 

Quote from: badgerwarhawk on August 10, 2010, 08:51:48 PM

Quote from: Mav45 on August 10, 2010, 08:41:43 PM
The only (big) thing I would add/wonder about would be the messaging from the coach/program to the kids being recruited.

If a kid is led to believe that coach "so and so" is actually interested in them as FB players, and then they come to 1st day of practice and find out that there's 170 guys who also believed that they were recruited as "the right kind of kid we want in our program"  ...I wonder if a bulk of those kids, studs and otherwise -- do they end up feeling duped?  Would the kid have selected that college if they knew that there were another 170 guys in the grinder?  Is it really a surprise to have a mass exodus?

I really don't know the answer, but it's fascinating to consider.

It's a good point to consider.  However there's another side of that coin.  Would a college coach want a player who doesn't want to compete?  A player who gives up in the face of competition.  If a player has confidence in his ability they'll be willing to compete for the chance to play.  If they don't think they have much of a chance they'll drop out. 

The only (big) thing I would add/wonder about would be the messaging from the coach/program to the kids being recruited.

If a kid is led to believe that coach "so and so" is actually interested in them as FB players, and then they come to 1st day of practice and find out that there's 170 guys who also believed that they were recruited as "the right kind of kid we want in our program"  ...I wonder if a bulk of those kids, studs and otherwise -- do they end up feeling duped?  Would the kid have selected that college if they knew that there were another 170 guys in the grinder?  Is it really a surprise to have a mass exodus?

I know how tough it is to recruit a kid to a private college!  It is a huge challenge to try to differentiate your program from both state schools, and all the other fine DII and DIII options out there-- and at first just hope to get on a kid's application "short list".  From that point you do your best, and hope like crazy the financial aid works -- it doesn't always!  So of course there must be more kids in the pipeline to account for attrition....that makes sense.  

And maybe some years you win more recruiting battles than others, or vise-versa.  But what I've always wondered is how in the world a program gets that many kids to "buy in"?   It seems for most people, there are deep considerations at play -- how can a coach/program recruit that many kids and still maintain a sense of ethical integrity?  What do you have to tell them?

I really don't know the answer, but it's fascinating to consider.  

Quote from: Willie University on August 10, 2010, 12:14:56 PM

Quote from: warthog on August 10, 2010, 02:19:51 AM
The more the merrier. 

Were I a D3 coach I'd keep recruiting and welcoming kids to campus right up until the day classes start.  In fact I'd welcome transfers from D2 and D1 programs all year long.  If you have coaches, trainers, facilities and equipment for 150, why not use them?

Of course some (most) of the new recruits won't have a full four year football career.  So what?  None of those 60 or 70 who show up for the first day of practice their freshman year are going to play more than four years anyway.  Some will be done after one day, one month, one year, two years, three years or some will last all four years.  All D3 players should arrive on campus with a college degree as their main objective.  So what if 70 young men give football a shot their first year?  At least they've tried.  Its better than going to a state D1 school and doing nothing other than having a near orgasm if one of the members of the football team is in your 400 person English 101 course.

Well said.........all of it 

Quote from: Klompen on July 18, 2010, 08:14:11 PM
Very belated post, but my thoughts and prayers go out to the two families from Kansas City, originally from Haiti, whose sons drowned in the Pella Aquatic Center while attending an FCA camp at Central.  This is a tragedy that never, ever should have happened and shame on all those involved with the numerous mistakes that lead up to this event.  

Pardon me, but as a tax paying citizen of Pella, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen.  So the lights were improperly installed?  So you can't change them without draining the pool?  Haven't there been 3 off seasons that the lights could have been properly installed?  I don't care if the city is in a lawsuit with Central Electric about the way they were installed.  Change them out for the safety of all swimmers for heaven's sake!  These boys should not have had to drown.  They should not have been in the pool.  They should have been seen by someone and lights should have been working.  There is a lot of blame to go around, I hope people don't try to blame the victims for saying they could swim when the counselors realized they forgot to bring the forms to the pool.  What teenage boys would want to admit in front of so many people that they could not swim?

Such a tragedy to get people to realize the importance of doing things right.  So sad for all involved.

Yes, a horrible, horrible tragedy!  But I've heard from numerous people that were there that the boys WERE told by two different counselors to stay out of the deep end.  That the kids elected to venture against that advice is a mystery.  It is true that nobody was "assigned" to watch them, to make sure that they complied --  How should it have been handled?  A babysitter?  These were 14 & 15 year old people.  And they WERE asked if they could swim on site; peer pressure or otherwise, they indicated that they could swim.  That the "waiver" was left back at camp was immaterial, really...such a sad story!

What is most unimaginable is how this could have happened given the number of people that were "right there".  My wife watched that area of the pool from the time the campers arrived, until end-of-party.  As a "nervous nellie", She observed the lifeguards and was well-satisfied that they were well-engaged and actively watching.  There were camp counselors watching.  The entire side of the pool was lined with adult coaches and wives...all enjoying the activity in the pool, all night long, right in front of them..  WHEN and HOW could that have happened?  How could all those people have "missed it?" Nobody knows.  The lifeguard on top insists that he never saw two black boys go down the slide all night.  WHEN did it happen?  Nobody knows.

Will there be a lawsuit?  Oh, I'm certain  that there will be.  Maybe the light-thing could have made a difference.  And in the final analysis, people will argue "who is to blame".  But in that conversation there should be some acknowledement of responsibility, too.     With a sad heart, I believe that the youngsters must share in the responsibility at hand.  Assigning "blame" and "shame" is easy from a distance.  From up close...there are a lot of very good people who were/are VERY emotionally invested in the lives of these young campers, who left Pella with broken hearts over this accident.   A dreadful experience.