FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[smedindy]

but his WNBA comments really get under my skin.

Are you one of the 11 people that actually watch WNBA games?

Kidding aside, I don't see what he wrote in this COLUMN that wasn't true. The WNBA is a charity case.

Back in 2003, when the Spurs were in the NBA Finals, and the Silver Stars were in their first year in SA, there was a Silver Stars player who was taken off the court on a stretcher after a mid air collision attempting a lay up. it got maybe 3 seconds of mention in the sportscast. The rest was devoted to the Spurs practice session before one of the games against New Jersey That's just the way it is. Nobody cares.

Sorry to hijack the football room, but telling the truth about the swirling toilet of money that is the WNBA is hardly a reason to dislike Simmons.

Just because no one cares does not mean that one has to falsely denigrate it.

The truth is that all sports leagues take time to take hold. I remember he had someone try to refute the notion of the WNBA and the NL by stating that the NL was 'stable' after a short while. HAH!

[Li'l Giant]

The truth is that all sports leagues take time to take hold. I remember he had someone try to refute the notion of the WNBA and the NL by stating that the NL was 'stable' after a short while. HAH!

First, I'll say that there is no "false" denigration of the WNBA. No one watches because it's not worth watching. This is a professional league which has the stated purpose to make money. It's not doing that. It's being subsidized. The economics major in me thinks that good ideas don't need subsidy.

Second, lets remember baseball (a) was the only game in town for a long time and (b) has been around over a century. The WNBA has too much competition of things that are actually entertaining and will NOT be around in 100 years. It's a niche sport like soccer, hockey, curling and tattooed-babe rollerball.

I realize that this is a tough sell on the NCAC board, but I'd recommend that everyone go to the Gagliardi Trophy ballot page, and vote for Tom Brew, All-American LB from Case Western Reserve University.

He's a tremendous asset to our school, both on, AND off the field.

I'm sure he's a great kid. But seriously. 

[wally_wabash]

I have already posted this list but let's see what doesn't fit here....Tony Sutton, All American...Jake Knott, All American...Tristan Murray, All American....Casey Donaldson, All American..............RV CARROLL.  Think about that list for a minute.  In addition, the most valid point anyone made on this is the question; if Dustin Huff would have put up the same numbers that Matt Hudson put up, would he have been the Offensive Player of the Year???  Hell yes he would have!  The credibility of this award just took a huge hit in my opinion.

We've been saying all along that the biggest strike against Hudson for the 2007 Gregory Award is that he's a sophomore.  That, it turns out, is too much of an obstacle to overcome. 

Congrats to all the award winners!

[BashBacker#16]

Wally,

So, do you agree with the selection?

1,038 rushing yards on 212 carries?  Did Lafitte have that his FROSH season?

[wally_wabash]

Oddly enough, Laffite's 2003 season was almost identical to Carroll's 2007 season.  Lafitte scored as many rushing TDs as Carroll did (16).  He gained 30 fewer yards, but also needed 60 fewer carries to do it. 

And no, I don't agree with the selection.  If the award is supposed to go to the best offensive player in the conference, then the conference whiffed on this one.  Hudson had the better season, his team won the league championship, the circumstances around Hudson's season make it even more impressive, and when the two players were on the same field, Hudson totally crushed Carroll 45-14 and contributed over 400 passing yards and five touchdowns to that beatdown.

[Li'l Giant]

I guess I look at it like the NL MVP award. Was Jimmy Rollins really the most valuable player? You could make good arguments for other guys. Rollins wasn't a terrible selection. But he wouldn't have gotten my vote either.

The good news is Hudson has 2 more years to win one of these. And he has the chance to win a playoff game this weekend.

[wally_wabash]

Oddly enough, Laffite's 2003 season was almost identical to Carroll's 2007 season.  Lafitte scored as many rushing TDs as Carroll did (16).  He gained 30 fewer yards, but also needed 60 fewer carries to do it. 

It's worth noting that these statistical comparisons are all relative...this year Carroll was the league's leading rusher.  Laffitte's 2003 season, while statistically similar (almost identical actually) was doubled up by Sutton.  Sutton scored 20.7 points per game in 2003.  That was a higher per game scoring average than 5 teams in the league! 

[bashbrother]

Happy Thanksgiving to all D3 fans!

[aueagle]

Congrats to Ohio Wesleyan Chad Ellis...1st Team OLB.. outstanding for the Bishops....as well as 2nd Team WR Zach Dennis...& Jr OL Mark Wall. At 6-6 260lbs; he will be back to anchor the Bishops line...if he adds another 10-15 lbs..look-out! Great job by Tiger Brad McKinley as Newcomer of the Year...I wonder how close OWU QB Fisher was?!
Good Luck to Wabash and all the LG's going to Cleveland...Win & Carry On!
Happy Turkey Day to all the NCAC posters...

[nike]

I thought Hudson should have gotten this hands down several weeks ago. From every statistical comparison, team success and importance to that team's success, I just do not see how he did not get it.  And then as mentioned earlier, head to head.  Carroll is a good back and had a good, not great year.  Hudson is a great quarterback who had a great year in comparison to not just league standards, but national standards. Just do not get it.
Thought Shepperd would be first team selection.  Will have to review NCAC season rushing numbers.

[nike]

Trying to figure out Vanover over Shepperd.  Did he get it because he dropped the pass?
Someone helpe understand. 10th in rushing?

[smedindy]

First, I'll say that there is no "false" denigration of the WNBA. No one watches because it's not worth watching. This is a professional league which has the stated purpose to make money. It's not doing that. It's being subsidized. The economics major in me thinks that good ideas don't need subsidy.

Second, lets remember baseball (a) was the only game in town for a long time and (b) has been around over a century. The WNBA has too much competition of things that are actually entertaining and will NOT be around in 100 years. It's a niche sport like soccer, hockey, curling and tattooed-babe rollerball.

I think it IS worth watching, and 8,000 a game isn't so bad. It's only a niche sport in comparison with the behemoths. Much of the criticism, to me, smacks of sexism. It's a different game, but it's purer basketball than what goes for the NBA nowadays. It is entertaining, and inspirational for girls like mine. My daughter, when watching the NCAA tourney, asks when the girls are going to play.

I remember when Robin Miller, when he was at The Star, kept denigrating the high school girls tournament, and then was basically told to STFU when he lost free throw shooting contests and one on one games to girls high school athletes.

Many sports leagues were subsidized in their infancy. Baseball for one (and I'm a student of the 19th century baseball) was kept afloat by deep pocketed owners that had other interests (sporting goods, street cars) and they propped up several franchises. The New York Giants were actually owned, for the most part, by the rest of the NL in the 1890s. Heck, even in the 30's there was a lot of issues with the Boston franchises, the Phillies, and the Browns and they were propped up by the league.

The NFL has revenue sharing, which is a subsidy. MLB now has that as well, another subsidy. The salary caps of the leagues are anti-free market.

[Li'l Giant]

Much of the criticism, to me, smacks of sexism. It's a different game, but it's purer basketball than what goes for the NBA nowadays.

That "purer" criticism is usually aimed at the "above the rim" play, which to me smacks of racism. Please don't think I'm saying you're racist. I know that's not the case. But that's what I usually hear when I hear the "purity" argument.

Many sports leagues were subsidized in their infancy. Baseball for one (and I'm a student of the 19th century baseball) was kept afloat by deep pocketed owners that had other interests (sporting goods, street cars) and they propped up several franchises. The New York Giants were actually owned, for the most part, by the rest of the NL in the 1890s. Heck, even in the 30's there was a lot of issues with the Boston franchises, the Phillies, and the Browns and they were propped up by the league.

Most sports team owners got their fortunes other than owning sports. Leagues owning teams isn't unheard of recently either (Les Expos anyone?). Propping up individual teams is one thing. Having one phenomenally profitable and popular league prop up a miserable failure of a league is completely something different.

The NFL has revenue sharing, which is a subsidy. MLB now has that as well, another subsidy. The salary caps of the leagues are anti-free market.

Again, it's different. Those are to increase the competitive balance and to make an already successful product more enjoyable for stakeholders. The competitive balance (or imbalance) isn't why the WNBA's numbers suck. It's the product itself.

It is entertaining, and inspirational for girls like mine. My daughter, when watching the NCAA tourney, asks when the girls are going to play.

I remember when Robin Miller, when he was at The Star, kept denigrating the high school girls tournament, and then was basically told to STFU when he lost free throw shooting contests and one on one games to girls high school athletes.

Totally cool. I'm glad your daughters are inspired by it. My niece is an athlete in high school and is inspired by female professional athletes as well. But that's not a reason to keep a money losing venture going.

And I'm not saying these women aren't great athletes. I'm just saying that after a decade if it's not taking off the way they wanted it do, maybe it's not sexism. Maybe it just sucks. And maybe they need to accept it, market their product to their niche (fathers and daughters and lesbians) and see if that's enough to keep it afloat. Bemulleted blue-collar northerners keeps the NHL afloat. It's not the NFL or NBA. But it doesn't need to be. And the WNBA isn't either.

[BashBacker#16]

Smeds - I & OTHERS are wondering what you are talking about??  How about the sweet 16, the Gagliardi, the All NCAC selections, or some good ole Wabash/Case pre-game breakdowns.  Maybe you and LilGiant can call one another and have a crazy conference call?  Here - FreeConferenceCall Customer Service  877.482.5838 Toll free 24-Hour Support

Nike - tough call there with Vanover and Sheppard.  Both very quality backs - much different where one is more of a feature back and the other a fullback.  May be another example of a Senior winning over an underclassmen (I do not agree with it but it seems the reality) - similar to Carroll over Hudson??

At least Coach Creighton won the Coach-of-the-Year award.  Congrats to CC, well deserved!

[Li'l Giant]

Maybe you and LilGiant can call one another and have a crazy conference call?

I apologized for the threadjack. I can't avoid an argument. It's an occupational hazard. Sorry. 

At least Coach Creighton won the Coach-of-the-Year award.  Congrats to CC, well deserved!

I'm glad that they got this one right. Given the loss of Huff and then having to try two sophomore QBs and still to end up 7-0 and conference champs is a seriously good coaching job. It would have been easy for the team to get deflated and go in the tank but that didn't happen. Congrats to CC and all the winners are in order.