FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[ADL70]

For some historical perspective, the "preferred" scheduling did not begin with Kenyon in 2004.  Oberlin was not scheduled with Witt or Allegheny in 2000 or 2001.  And in 2004 Kenyon did play the 2003 champ (no it wasn't Witt or Bash) and in 2005, they played (and beat) the 2004 champ.  Witt and Bash aren't always the top two teams.  If you  recall Wabash was tied for fourth in 2004.  So in 2004 Kenyon played four teams even with or higher than Wabash in the standings.

[wally_wabash]

IF anyone here is a jerk, it's Pat.

Does that little "if" make that any less insulting?

No. But the proper noun makes it a lot less accurate, so I'm not overly concerned.

Seems like there's always one Wabash fan that has to be governed by the chip on his shoulder. Perhaps that person ... and I'm not saying you, btw, should cosider taking a chill pull before posting. Thanks.

The comment was made that Wabash doesn't "fit" because of its single sex enrollment   and that policy does't jive with the NCAC's longstanding tradition of equality.  Posters here jab at Wabash over a lot of things...the funny striped overalls we wear, our oxymoronic nickname, etc. etc.  Most of these things are really pretty irrelevant.  But to insinuate that the College and the people associated with the College are somehow opposed to the idea of social equality in general, and gender equality specifically, is something that crosses the line.  Hinting at the notion that the Wabash community in general is bigoted in any way will draw my ire with a quickness. 

The bottom line is that a statement was posted that carried with it some generalizations (intended or not) serious enough that I couldn't let it go unchecked.  If defending the College from veiled accusations of bigotry is the chip on my shoulder, then I'm happy to carry it. 

And now back to the football...

[wally_wabash]

For some historical perspective, the "preferred" scheduling did not begin with Kenyon in 2004.  Oberlin was not scheduled with Witt or Allegheny in 2000 or 2001.  And in 2004 Kenyon did play the 2003 champ (no it wasn't Witt or Bash) and in 2005, they played (and beat) the 2004 champ.  Witt and Bash aren't always the top two teams.  If you  recall Wabash was tied for fourth in 2004.  So in 2004 Kenyon played four teams even with or higher than Wabash in the standings.

Past performance is not an indicator of future results....however, past performance is how the NCAC determines who plays who in the coming years.  I think the NCAC is in a bit of bind with this...I doubt seriously that they thought a team with the #9 or #10 power ranking could ever seriously challenge in the loss column (those teams still have to play three of the traditional top half teams which should guarantee two or three losses and 2-3 loss teams have no chance to win the conference).  It's nearly inconceivable to think a team from one of those two bottom spots could get good enough within one rankings cycle to be a legitimate 1-loss team.  Kenyon has exposed the flaw in the system.  This is really the first time that this sort of thing has happened, and my guess is that once we cycle out of this current set of power rankings, things will return to normal. 

[Li'l Giant]

For some historical perspective, the "preferred" scheduling did not begin with Kenyon in 2004.  Oberlin was not scheduled with Witt or Allegheny in 2000 or 2001.  And in 2004 Kenyon did play the 2003 champ (no it wasn't Witt or Bash) and in 2005, they played (and beat) the 2004 champ.  Witt and Bash aren't always the top two teams.  If you  recall Wabash was tied for fourth in 2004.  So in 2004 Kenyon played four teams even with or higher than Wabash in the standings.

Past performance is not an indicator of future results....however, past performance is how the NCAC determines who plays who in the coming years.  I think the NCAC is in a bit of bind with this...I doubt seriously that they thought a team with the #9 or #10 power ranking could ever seriously challenge in the loss column (those teams still have to play three of the traditional top half teams which should guarantee two or three losses and 2-3 loss teams have no chance to win the conference).  It's nearly inconceivable to think a team from one of those two bottom spots could get good enough within one rankings cycle to be a legitimate 1-loss team.  Kenyon has exposed the flaw in the system.  This is really the first time that this sort of thing has happened, and my guess is that once we cycle out of this current set of power rankings, things will return to normal. 

The question becomes how often do we set the rankings? Is it practical to do them every year, based on the previous years' results (a la the NFL) or do we do them a couple of years out (like the Big XII), or like the current system, which, I believe is 4 years. Is that right? 4 years. I don't know. Someone else may be able to enlighten me on that.

[usee]

If memory serves me correctly I believe current Wabash HC Chris Creighton was a Kenyon Grad and played quarterback there. Does the fact that he now coaches football at Wabash make him an idiot?

I am in a quandry? Observer, lil help.

[ADL70]

Seems you are a little hypersensitive about your status as an all-male institution.  Nothing in the post suggested bigotry and that was not the point.   From the NCAC site: "equality in number and emphasis between men's and women's athletics is just one of the elements that sets the North Coast apart."  There was no suggestion that Wabash was "wrong", just different.  

While Kenyon rose higher last year than any other traditional second division team, almost every year one of them rises to the first division.  If there is a "flaw" in the system it is not playing a full round robin.  If I'm not mistaken, the NFL uses a similar scheduling system.  There it's applauded for creating parity.  A blind draw could result in the same schedule.  You could also have the Big Ten situation where two unbeaten teams did not meet each other.

It is wrong IMHO to blame Kenyon for this situation.  They should rather be applauded for rising from the depths of 2003 (or to use your words, doing the "nearly                inconceivable").  One poster assailed their "BS athletic policies."  When the target should have been the NCAC schedule.  They did not "pick and choose" their schedule (except in 2003).  And even then they didn't pull a Lewis & Clark and cancel the games once the season started.    There was also a misinformed post that suggested they did not play Allegheny this year.  It's also wrong to suggest that there are only two elite NCAC teams.  Since 2001 four different teams have won the title. 

I thought this was put to rest long ago, but it raised it ugly head again. 'nuff said

[Pat Coleman]

Seems like there's always one Wabash fan that has to be governed by the chip on his shoulder. Perhaps that person ... and I'm not saying you, btw, should cosider taking a chill pull before posting. Thanks

First, Pat I must say I have a lot of respect for you.  With that being said.  Be honest you were a geek with a great idea, and you moved on it.  D3sports is one of the best sights on the web.  You speak of the chip that is on the Wabash posters.  I'm sorry the chip seems to be on your shoulder.  When ever you are called out, you attack.  There are others besides you and Ric and other Mt. Union posters that know football.  I don't profess to be an expert, but some of my comment have merit, as do others that post here.

I don't see where I said none of your comments have merit. I'm not sure this post does, but surely some of them do.

Meanwhile, it seems some Wabash fans can't possibly look past any hint of a perceived slight. That holds this message board back, big time. The overreacting really should stop.

[ADL70]

And it seems whenever someone posts anything positive about their team, someone smacks them down with "You've got delusions of Mt Union."

Well they don't hold the board back in a numeric sense!   

[Pat Coleman]

No, but I don't think the attitude some portray when challenged is very conducive to welcoming newcomers, either. FS4's post is a perfect example of what I was actually talking about re: WallyWabash -- reacting to criticism with personal insults at the "offending" poster. It just isn't necessary and certainly isn't gentlemanly.

In fact, it's a lot closer to always fighting, isn't it?

[scotty]

it's taken me over a year to understand the Wabash posters...good guys, very passionate about their school...somewhat sheltered, not in a negative way but still sheltered...i like them 

btw, i do not like 200 man rosters in D3 football...

[oldguy]

When I read Observer's first post...I assumed it was a joke, then I read the second one.  

Those kind of people just need to be ignored (like they were by all the girls in high school) and they will go away.  Odds are that he is some non-athletic dork who blames all his problems on the "jocks" that always picked on him.  Truth be told, I'm surprised he even reads a discussion board for the "terrible athletic display known as D3 football."  He's part of that group that thinks athletes have it easy and get all the breaks and nothing will change his mind.  

Personally, I've done very well with my "sub-par" Wittenberg education.  If anyone thinks I would have done better with a Kenyon degree, they are sorely mistaken.  And for the record, I was accepted to Kenyon, but chose a more well-rounded educational experience, including football.  I guess that means I'm an idiot as well.  There sure are a lot of idiots in this world that are doing pretty well for themselves with their "junk" degrees.

[Li'l Giant]

I can't speak for any other Wabash posters but I post on other message boards than this one; though I've been posting here longer than any other one.

I post on hornfans.com (Texas), texags.com (Texas A&M), soonerfans.com (Oklahoma), raiderpower.com (Tex. Tech) , katfans.com (Sam Houston State), and bobcatfans.com (Tex. State). (and I post on all of them as "L'ilGiant"). As you can see, I like talking about college football.

What I've found is that the fans of all those schools are no different than most of the posters around here. They all love their schools, are passionate about their alma maters and her teams and when they feel insulted they say something about it.

People say things in message boards they'd never say to someone's face, which is both good and bad. Being a lawyer I'm used to just saying whatever to whomever if I feel I have a point to make. It's the way I was trained.

What I'm trying to say is I don't think the way I or the other Wabash posters behave on here is any different to most posters who are fans of other college teams. Quite the contrary.

There may be some people who take things too personally, or respond with personal insults when challenged, but I can safely say in my experience at those other sites it happens a lot less around here, even from Wabash fans, than it does on those other places. Seriously, hang out in those boards and see what happens when someone says anything that is remotely perceived as a slight. It's lions laying with lambs here in comparison.

[Superfoot Wallace]

Looks like the coaches in Springfield have conditioned the guys to the point where theyve gotten their legs back, maybe its time to start pushing the academics for the remainder of the semester.  If theyre conditioned mentally, physically and psychologicaly this deep into the season, then theyre not going to unlearn it.  Keepem runnin and liftin, pump the academics and best of all keep it fun.

Continue with the good work Thundercats, and hope to see a breakneck pace for the Fall Academic All Tiger Team.

That 88 or 89 team around Neibuhrs arrival had two academic all americans.  When was the last time this supposed nose in the air conference academically posted two academic all americans in the same sport for the same team and it wasnt cross country.

best regards,
the Gary Tranquill Gang

[Pat Coleman]

Yes, and we've tried to foster that and certainly some of the steps we took in setting up the board (requiring valid e-mail address, requiring display of e-mail on your profile, etc.) has helped set this board, sitewide, apart from other boards on other sites.

The described behavior might not be different from boards on other sites, but I think it is different from other topics on this site. For sure, there are conversations that are worse (IBC leaps immediately to mind) but I would think a conference that has schools that are thought of as highly as the NCAC's schools are should aim a little higher than middle of the pack.

My $.02.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Pat, that comment was just so gay!

(Oh, wait, I'm not an IBC poster - thank God!)

How did that board get hijacked by a pack of 6th graders?!