Mount Union/Cecil Shorts getting some run in the Plain Dealer...

http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/blog/index.ssf/2009/12/mount_unions_latest_title_push.html

Quote from: Hoops Fan on December 15, 2009, 12:43:42 PM

Quote from: CarrollStreaks on December 14, 2009, 10:01:13 PM

Quote from: frank uible on December 13, 2009, 05:39:52 PM
Mr. Pasternak, the academics for most inter-collegiate basketball players at most DI colleges is at best merely glorified junior high school.

Great point.  Over the past few days ESPN has done features on the athletic programs at schools like Florida State and Miami (FL).  During the course of these shows, it becomes blatantly obvious to the viewer that many of the top Division I schools are seriously bending their academic requirements for athletes in pursuit of winning football and basketball teams.  Undoubtedly that happens to some degree with a few schools in Division III, but not to the rampant extent seen in Division I. 

I don't have a problem with schools bending admissions requirements for certain students, the real problem is then bending the actual academic requirements when they arrive.

If a kid who ordinarily would not be able to get a chance at college can because of his athletic ability, I think that's something to be celebrated, but the athletic department then needs to make sure he has the help to succeed, not evade the academic process.

I waiver a bit on that, because I agree, it's great that the athletic talents of some can land them a chance at college.  However when we're talking about underqualified kids attending some of our country's most prestigious universities, I think that's a problem (not to mention a recipe for disaster).

There are stories coming out of Florida State that left me needing to pick my jaw up from the floor.  But that's not to pick on FSU, because there's no doubt that this stuff is happening at schools throughout Division I.

Quote from: frank uible on December 13, 2009, 05:39:52 PM
Mr. Pasternak, the academics for most inter-collegiate basketball players at most DI colleges is at best merely glorified junior high school.

Great point.  Over the past few days ESPN has done features on the athletic programs at schools like Florida State and Miami (FL).  During the course of these shows, it becomes blatantly obvious to the viewer that many of the top Division I schools are seriously bending their academic requirements for athletes in pursuit of winning football and basketball teams.  Undoubtedly that happens to some degree with a few schools in Division III, but not to the rampant extent seen in Division I. 

Quote from: smedindy on November 23, 2009, 11:25:53 AM
Sorry to ramble about this, but here's a list of recent FCS programs that could have fit into a D-3 type model, perhaps.

Boston University
Canisius
Evansville
Fairfield
Iona
LaSalle
Northeastern
St. Johns (NY)
St. Mary's (CA)
St. Peter's
Siena

Add those teams to the existing Ivy, Patriot and Pioneer, and then you may have a good division there. I wonder if the Northeast Conference's move to scholarships will be helpful or harmful for them.

What does this have to do with D-3? Well, in my mind it could solidify the thoughts of some that smaller division or non-scholarship football isn't viable, and isn't worth it. Which means that D-3 gets 'blown off' by the media at large, despite Pat's good work.

A lot of those schools listed above previously did sponsor Division I FCS non-scholarship programs before they dropped the sport.  I think if there was a Division I FCS non-scholarship playoff, more schools would consider going that route. 

Oh, and in regards to the Patriot League and Ivy League, while it's true that they don't offer scholarships for football, my understanding is that they use scholarship equivalents which means there is little difference between the level of play in those leagues and the level of play in other scholarship FCS leagues.

Sorry if someone already posted this.  But below is a cool article in the Plain Dealer about former Muskingum player and current head coach of OHSAA Division II state finalist Maple Heights, Todd Filtz.  He was a four year starter at linebacker for the Muskies.

http://www.cleveland.com/hssports/blog.ssf/2009/12/still_inspired_by_his_game_on.html

Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 20, 2009, 01:27:13 AM

Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 20, 2009, 01:06:52 AM
As we've seen time and again, the OAC is often regarded by fans of other conferences as MUC and the little nine, or the nine other schools that one by one lay down for Mount Union before they head off for postseason play.  

As evidenced by the OAC runners-up and their cumulative record in the playoffs against teams other than Mount Union?

They do pretty well, there's no doubt about that.  But it's hard to get a read on just how good these runners-up are in any given year considering they are almost always set up to see MUC in the second or third round.  Have any of them reached the level of a program like Whitewater?  A team that is a clear contender and consistent challenger to Mount Union.  I don't believe so.

Quote from: PurpleSuit on November 20, 2009, 01:18:14 AM
CarrollStreaks,

You're wrong.  Mount doesn't need to go independent.  They need to move up a division or join the MAC.  At the very least schedule Akron or Kent or YSU. 

Obviously that's an institutional decision, and one I believe the school probably could not afford at this time.  It's debatable that Kent and Akron, large state schools, even belong in Division I-A. 

I know you're being facetious because that's something you've heard before, but it would be nice if someone had the fortitude to legitimately discuss this.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 20, 2009, 12:56:07 AM
CarrollStreaks,

Allow a non-OAC observer to give you some advice (and one who is obviously not anti-JCU, since I took them in the basketball 'Survivor Pool'): either cool it or shut up.

You are WAY out of line to come out of nowhere and accuse RC of being a liar (HE has credibility after posting for more years than the current set-up tracks; you have less than zero and dropping fast).

After such a pathetic start, I have no idea if you can ever be an actual 'member' of the board, though I've seen others start nearly as badly and eventually be accepted and welcomed.  But I would suggest you either wipe the chip off your shoulder, apologize for your actions to date, and behave, or else disappear for a while and try coming back under a different name (and different attitude).

With all due respect (because you are truly one of the few who commands it around here), you're wrong.  Reality Check embellished on a story a few weeks back and didn't have the guts to concede that he might be wrong when called on it.  And when I challenged him on his assertion, a few posters here had the audacity to say that he must be right because he's been here longer.  Talk about a load of garbage.

As for my "pathetic start," I'm certain I've made a positive contribution to the DIII boards.  You're unfairly judging me on the few times I got down and played in the mud with the handful of people who disagree with me on the OAC football board.  It's unfortunate that you can't see past that.

And I don't care about being accepted, because in doing so one is required to bend over backwards to impress the Mount Union bullies who practically run this board (without a doubt they run the OAC part of it).  One can't say any little thing that may upset their delicate little sensibilities or else they're going to be exiled.  And even worse, it seems that just about every other OAC fan that posts here has accepted this and tiptoes around making very certain not to anger and Purple Raiders fans.   They fall into line and refuse to challenge the status quo.  If I were wrong, I'd accept that, but from what I've heard from fans of schools in other conferences, I'm not the only one who sees this.

One last thought for the night:

Mount Union should go independent for football.  As of right now, no one benefits from them continuing to dominate the OAC.  If they went independent, they'd have no trouble earning a Pool B bid, and that would free up the OAC's Pool A bid for another team which, I feel confident in saying, would always be deserving of it.  Right now it's clear that the NCAA selection committee isn't willing to accept the fact that the OAC is one of the toughest conferences in the country, dominated by a dynasty unlike anything ever seen at this level of play.  As a result, good programs like Ohio Northern and Capital are reserved to playing for second place and have no margin for error if they want to remain in the Pool C hunt.  And unfortunately because of the strength of the conference, in recent years these teams have often had trouble sealing the deal (that is, winning all of their other remaining conference games).  Even going out of conference and beating a co-champion from another solid conference isn't deemed good enough.

The other reality is that the rest of the OAC hasn't caught up with MUC, and it doesn't look like they will for the foreseeable future.  They've got advantages (some self-developed, some institutional) that their OAC rivals won't be able to match for years, if ever.  As long as they're around, the rest of the conference will be left fighting for table scraps and many years coming up short.

One side note.  When Mount Union wins the national championship, they don't represent the OAC.  As we've seen time and again, the OAC is often regarded by fans of other conferences as MUC and the little nine, or the nine other schools that one by one lay down for Mount Union before they head off for postseason play.  Without the OAC, Mount Union is still the dominating force that it is today.  As a contrast, when Florida or LSU (and perhaps soon Alabama) wins the national title, these teams proudly carry the SEC flag along the way.  And doing so makes sense, because these teams and other members of the conference beat each other up and routinely there are multiple legitimate national title contenders from the SEC.  The OAC hasn't had that type of parity in years, and the Purple Raiders have dominated the conference for well over a decade.  So if you're a fan of another OAC team, there's no reason to get excited about another Purple Raiders national title.  It's not the conference's, it's theirs, and theirs alone.  There is no grounds for basking in their reflective glory.  When someone other than Mount Union proves that they can compete against the big boys from around the country, then perhaps we all can have some conference pride.

Quote from: Chris Brooks on November 18, 2009, 09:43:47 PM

Quote from: CarrollStreaks on November 18, 2009, 04:02:56 PM
While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Something to consider. JMO, but I think the DIII football playoffs is about as good as it gets if you think about it. In DI football, they always defend the bowl system by how important it makes the regular season and how the playoff tournament in DI basketball cheapens the regular season.

Well in DIII, the playoffs basically start with the first game. There are so few at-large teams that you can't lose in the regular season, making every game important and winning the league essential. Then the playoffs are only a continuation of that process. Every team has the ability to play into the playoffs, no team is left out. The at-large bids are only meant to bring in the absolute cream of the crop teams left out, who may have stumbled. It's hard to feel bad for teams that stumble twice. 

There are a lot of conferences, but the majority of them put teams in the tourney that are competitive. There are about 15 different conferences recognized in the latest Top 25 poll. For the most part, I don't think any team is getting left out after incredible years. There's room to drop a game, but dropping two should probably put you outside looking in.

I don't necessarily disagree about the de facto double-loss elimination that the committee uses.  It seems useful in most cases.  However, I think it's a bit problematic when talking about certain conferences that have a dominating force.  The runners-up in these conferences have no margin for error.  They're essentially punished for playing in the same league as schools with a dynasty.  I think the committee needs to be more vigilant in looking at the resumes of schools in such a situation.  When the fail to do so, I strongly believe that they are missing out on the "cream of the crop of teams left out [by failing to win their conference title]."

Quote from: seventiesraider on November 18, 2009, 10:33:05 PM
CS-I'm embarrassed for you and how long you must have spent on that post. Me thinks your taking this whole thing way to seriously and I might add doing a piss poor job of reading for comprehension. You rebuted my post by restating it. In my best Phi Beta Kappa-ize Duh!!

Please go off to the basketball boards where I assure you, none of us will follow.

Pardon me while I get back to my life 8)

I spent no longer on that post than I'm sure many of you do on these boards in an average day.

And no, I'm not going anywhere.

Quote from: reality check on November 16, 2009, 10:29:03 PM
CarrollStreaks

Dude, day one was nearly ten years ago for me.  I've been here for a decade and seen a dozen JCU fans come and go.  I'm sure I'll see you off as well.  You've come in here and known more about anything than everyone since your own day one.

Of course I was talking about my first day here.  I'm not going to bother reading your (not ten years, liar, but six years of) posts from before I arrived.  But from what I've seen so far, since I've been here, you're a kept fan.  The MUC fans have really put you in your place and it seems you know not to cross certain lines.  

As for "seeing me off," I'm not going anywhere.

Quote from: reality check on November 16, 2009, 10:29:03 PMIt's a shame the rumor about JCU to the NCAC has lost some steam because I truly think you'd fit in given your general attitude towards the world.

Get off of it.  My opinions are my own, I have no direct affiliation with JCU.  I'm just a fan.  But I'm sure you'd love to turn this into an argument about the Blue Streaks and Polar Bears, as you've tried to do time and again.  This isn't about which school has played MUC tougher in recent years.  My points have validity, yet because you don't want to ruffle any feathers, you deflect them.

Quote from: reality check on November 16, 2009, 10:29:03 PMYou can call me names and claim that I bow down to Mount Union but those who've been here for years know that is simply not true and their opinion of me matters multitudes more than yours.  You've made just over 100 posts so far and going back to post one, you've been a know-it-all whether it pertained to all things JCU or Dayton.  I guess you just know everything there is to know about Ohio-based Catholic Universities (or nothing; I can't really decide).

Of course I know more about those schools.  I grew up around one and attended the other.  You, on the other hand, have a nebulous connection with one, and all of sudden you're supposed to be the expert?  Nice try.  I know people that went to Ohio Northern, including a few athletes, but I would never claim to know more about the school than you.

As for whose opinion matters more, obviously it's clear that you're here to impress the Mount Union fans who all but run the board.  Your posts clearly reflect that.  But looking at the bigger picture, it's an online message board.  None of it really matters.

Quote from: reality check on November 16, 2009, 10:29:03 PMI've always admitted ONU's faults so if you think pointing out the fact that ONU lost to OTT in 2009 or JCU in 2005 hurts me in some way, you're sadly mistaken.  When we lose, we lose and the primary blame goes right on ONU's shoulders.  No excuses.  So call me names.  Call me a d-bag.  You're the bigger man for it and you really put me in my place.  Ouch.  

Really I just wanted you to shut up about John Carroll.  You want this discussion to be about ONU and JCU, but it isn't really.  It's bigger than that.

Quote from: seventiesraider on November 16, 2009, 11:11:52 PM
Streak-One great Carroll team in ten years, get over yourself. Regis without Tom Arth = Muskingum

seventiesraider, Get over yourself.  Mount Union has put together a great run in football.  Division III football.  But at the end of the day, we're just talking about football.  It's not a shock that you people put such an emphasis on your football program--it's clearly making up for other institutional deficiencies.

Quote from: 09 Polar Bear on November 17, 2009, 01:00:51 AM
now that we've seen the classiness that has been displayed by the Catholic boy from the notheast lets move onto a new topic.......

Thanks for the laugh.

Quote from: PurpleSuit on November 17, 2009, 01:24:14 AMI didnt make any bets with the Marietta fans or the Wilmington fans, so I doubt I will take that one.  I wouldn't try to stir anything up when my team is horrible.   JCU was this close to being Muskingum this year....keep up the good work.   But enjoy the basketball season, you got us there

PurpleDouche, it's not about who has the better team.  It's about your team being better leading you (and many other Mount Union fans) to think that they know everything about everything.  Heaven forbid more than one poster disagree with the Mount Union faithful on anything.  When that happens they must be the same person, right?

As for basketball season, thank you, I will enjoy it.

Quote from: reality check on November 17, 2009, 08:11:31 AMIf you've been around as long as I have in these forums, you'd know that we're not making up the NCAC attitude thing.  It hasn't been a problem in recent years but there have been occasions where NCAC posters (probably long gone by now) have played the academic card and gone so far as to use the cliche "Your schools kids will be working for my school's kids someday" lines.  And I think most of the long-time NCAC posters don't fall into this category.  Every school and every conference has their idiots.  We just recently got a new one.

They're not wrong.  Mount Union is clearly able to admit student-athletes that wouldn't even get wait-listed at most NCAC schools.  And in a sport like football, where numbers really do matter, it's a big advantage for some schools over others at the Division III level.  

And to your last comment about this conference getting a new idiot, I know 09 Polar Bear lacks basic grammatical and spelling skills as exhibited by his few posts, but seriously don't you think that's a little bit harsh?

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 18, 2009, 05:11:00 PM
What you say is true, and we need look no further back than last year to see it.  Wheaton got a Pool C with two losses, and made it all the way to the national semis.  This year they would apparently not have even been seriously considered.

I very much like Pool A, giving every conference champion a shot at the title (despite knowing full well that many of them are destined to lose by 4+ TDs).  And it is not a problem in many sports, where there are still plenty enough at large spots to assure that no legitimate threats to go very far get left out.  But with only 32 total slots, and 23 (soon to be 25) Pool A teams, it IS a problem in d3 football.

Alas, I have no solution to offer.

I agree on both counts.  Expanding the tournament certainly isn't feasible.  But I still don't fully understand how Division III chooses Pool C teams.  It seems like things like travel distance and the "spirit of competition" are still getting in the way of Division III selecting the best conference runners-up to compete in the postseason.  If they're not going to get it right, they may as well eliminate Pool C altogether and at least then, to me, the ideals of the division would be put into action.

Quote from: Bob.Gregg on November 17, 2009, 02:53:10 PM
D O.C., you're right.

They just go about their merry way, sending teams to bowl games with no meaning, having teams sit for over a month between contests, and no real, definitive championship is determined.

Unless either W&J goes on to win the title this year, or exposes some flaw that Norbert/ONU/NCC/SJF/OTT ad infinitum could have better exploited, at least D-3 crowns a champion totally determined by on-field play.

IF W&J wins, Norbert et al can claim that they should have been in instead.
IF W&J exposes that flaw in someone who goes on to win it, they can all claim how they would have won the title had they only been given the chance.

Short of either of those circumstances (neither of which I'm expecting), we're protected at the D-3 level from the BSC BS of the D-I world.

For that, I believe we're all thankful.

While certainly the D3 system is better than the D1 FBS system of determining a true champion, I'm not sure that it's really all played out on the field.  D3 is still often leaving out competitive runner-ups in top conferences, teams that would be a tough out for all but a few other teams around the country.  Now if you're a skeptic of using transitive scores, and think that how one team matches up with another team is more important, then you'd agree that an argument could be made that leaving out these top conference second place finishers, in lieu of champions from much weaker leagues, really can have an affect on the tournament and who ultimately becomes champion.  An effort has been made in D3 to allow for all conference champions to make the postseason football tournament.  However in doing so, D3 is willfully leaving out top teams that I strongly believe could make noise and change the dynamics of the postseason.  Are potential champions being left out?  Probably not, considering the lack of parity at the top.  But still...

Quote from: PurpleSuit on November 16, 2009, 04:53:40 PM
just wondering, are CarrollStreaks and BleedPurple ever online at the same time?

Let's ask Pat to check the ISPs.  And how about if you're wrong in your silly insinuation, you have to place a JCU logo in your avatar for a month.