FB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[DBQ1965]

Given that I am not an alum of either Calvin or Hope but love D3 football ... I would pay good money to see that inaugural game ... and some games after that ... and wonder how long it would take Calvin to catch up to Hope on the gridiron.

And I would love to see some IIAC - MIAC football ... except the big lake is in the way and that adds to the travel costs.

[formerd3db]

Great comments everyone.  Also, sac - once again you outshine all of us - great job on the historical attendance statistics since 1979.  I'd like to see those from the years 1974-1977 if you have those as well.

Now ThunderHead.  I don't want to get into any arguement with you, so don't take this the wrong way.  I understand your perception of the attendance at the game you mention this year.  However, I can tell you unequivically that the attendance listed is legit.  I have known the SID at Hope for many years since my own playing days and he has also been the MIAA Publicist for decades.  His integrity is above and beyond impeccable and as such, there is no way - NO WAY- he pads or fudges attendance records - what is listed is the actual attendance at games - period.  We've had this discussion in past years when others have challenged that, so I want to be clear on this.

Until the recent poor records, Hope has always had great attendance as sac has noted in the listings.  Again, this is due to the great support of community citizens and the fine relationshiop Hope College has had with the Holland community - much more so compared to the other MIAA cities and I do not mean that as any intended disrespect or negative to those other cities/communities.  Yet, as you mentioned, winning means everything to attendance and I have no doubt that Hope will return to higher home football game attendance (over the 3,000 mark regularly) when we start winning again.  In championship years, you will see that over the 4,000 mark like Trine did this year.  Also, for what it is worth, even Kalamazoo had over 4,000 at its Homecoming game against Hope about 4-5 years ago - and that is a milestone for Kazoo.  The all-time MIAA single game attendance record for football was in the late 1990's at nearly 9,000 for the championshiop game involving Albion @ Alma that year.  A great sight that was to see; but also as we all know, seeing 12,000 at the Monon Bell game (Wabash/DePauw) as Joe Wally can attest to, the same for the Ithaca/Cortland game and the 10,000+ for home games at St. John's are all fantastic sights.  I think that you could see a huge number for a Hope/Calvin game approaching the MIAA record - at least for the inaugaral game.  They did it for basketball - it could be done for football.  And remember, back in my day, Hope basketball was unfortunately not very good.  Again, winning produces the attendance.  One last comment - as I recall, Hope's women's basketball team outdrew Michigan State's women's team for a game this past season or at least equalled them for one gammme) - so that says alot - even if it was only for one game on one particular day.

Anyway, great discussion in all of these topics guys. Talk to you later.

[formerd3db]

DBQ1965:

If they ever have that game and you came to it, we'll make you feel welcome.  I'll treat you to a steak dinner (instead of the old routine hot dog at the game!) .

Yes, travel costs unfortunately now play a major factor in schedules.

[formerd3db]

hopewatcher:

Welcome to the board!  Great to have you here.  Best wishes to your son for this upcoming season on our team.

[formerd3db]

Flying Dutch Fan:

I don't want to "beat a dead horse" regarding this topic as that old saying goes; but I'll just add one more comment.  I agree with you regarding the concussion aspects - that is a ludicrous arguement by the writer regarding Calvin adding football.  You are so correct on the hockey as well as the fact that Calvin's basketball, lacrosse and soccer teams play among the toughest (and yes, meanest ) as far as legit contact for many years.  So when Calvin people put forth that arguement against football (and they have in the past), it is disingenuous to say the least - just plain bogus.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

Flying Dutch Fan:

I don't want to "beat a dead horse" regarding this topic as that old saying goes; but I'll just add one more comment.  I agree with you regarding the concussion aspects - that is a ludicrous arguement by the writer regarding Calvin adding football.  You are so correct on the hockey as well as the fact that Calvin's basketball, lacrosse and soccer teams play among the toughest (and yes, meanest ) as far as legit contact for many years.  So when Calvin people put forth that arguement against football (and they have in the past), it is disingenuous to say the least - just plain bogus.

Well said!!  If you want to read some additional interesting thoughts on this subject (from several well-respected, long time Calvin fans) take a look on the MIAA basketball board. 

http://www.d3boards.com/index.php?topic=4596.30120

[Joe Wally]

I for one love beating dead horses.  I have to disagree with the assertion that the argument about concussions is ludicrous.

I have absolutely no research to back me on this point except for some quotes from Malcolm Gladwell and my own observation of sporting events over 44 years.  I have played probably two dozen games of organized football in my lifetime....all of which is to say that I am going to hold this position with absolute conviction, and certainty of my correctness, and anyone who disagrees with me is a complete fool.  

As I understand it, the aspect of football that is drawing attention from medical experts is not the massive open field tackle where a player is laid out (although there can clearly be damage there as well).  The more insidious and damaging aspect of the game is the constant sub-concusive hits to the head that occur, probably for every player except the QB, DBs, and wideouts, on absolutely every play.  That is where the real undetected damage is being done.

That sort of constant pounding is not something that you see in any other sport, except maybe rugby.

[KnightSlappy]

I for one love beating dead horses.  I have to disagree with the assertion that the argument about concussions is ludicrous.

I have absolutely no research to back me on this point except for some quotes from Malcolm Gladwell and my own observation of sporting events over 44 years.  I have played probably two dozen games of organized football in my lifetime....all of which is to say that I am going to hold this position with absolute conviction, and certainty of my correctness, and anyone who disagrees with me is a complete fool.  

As I understand it, the aspect of football that is drawing attention from medical experts is not the massive open field tackle where a player is laid out (although there can clearly be damage there as well).  The more insidious and damaging aspect of the game is the constant sub-concusive hits to the head that occur, probably for every player except the QB, DBs, and wideouts, on absolutely every play.  That is where the real undetected damage is being done.

That sort of constant pounding is not something that you see in any other sport, except maybe rugby.

which Calvin already sponsors (in club form).

[formerd3db]

Joe Wally:

I understand your point of view.  Yet, my point was not directed at the "problem" of concussions in sports because I agree with you those are major problems facing sports, obviously and particularly, the contact sports.  Rather, my point was that using the "excuse" in and of itself of concussions as one of the major reasons not to add football as a sport is ludicrous.  

I just returned from a major national sports medicine conference in which concussions was one of the major topics and the presentations were by some of the current leading researchers/athletic trainers, team physicians, etc., etc. who are investigating conscussions in all aspects.  Lacrosse is also one of the sports of major concern, not just football and you are correct that it is "hits to the head" (whether inadvertant or not), not the "contact" per se of contact sports that is the problem.  Helmets in any sport do not prevent concussions - they are not designed to nor can ever be designed to do that.  Rather, they are designed to try and limit the effects from head hits.  Lacrosse helmets sole purpose is to protect the head and face from the ball - unlike football helmets, which are designed to not only do that i.e protect the face and head, but lessen the effects of head hits.

I'm sure most of you probably already know this, however, you will see more and more strict guidelines in regards to players not being allowed to return to games the same day with this new research, findings and rules being put int effect by the NCAA, NFL and high school and youth leagues.  As much as I like the hitting aspect of football (yes, I still love a major hit (legal of course ), I agree with this new focus and direction in regards to concussions. We are now seeing the effects on players who are years removed from their playing days.  Anyway, just thought I would share some of the above with you and the others.

[cave2bens]

I for one love beating dead horses.  I have to disagree with the assertion that the argument about concussions is ludicrous.

I have absolutely no research to back me on this point except for some quotes from Malcolm Gladwell and my own observation of sporting events over 44 years.  I have played probably two dozen games of organized football in my lifetime....all of which is to say that I am going to hold this position with absolute conviction, and certainty of my correctness, and anyone who disagrees with me is a complete fool.   

As I understand it, the aspect of football that is drawing attention from medical experts is not the massive open field tackle where a player is laid out (although there can clearly be damage there as well).  The more insidious and damaging aspect of the game is the constant sub-concusive hits to the head that occur, probably for every player except the QB, DBs, and wideouts, on absolutely every play.  That is where the real undetected damage is being done.

That sort of constant pounding is not something that you see in any other sport, except maybe rugby.

which Calvin already sponsors (in club form).

KSlappy -

Calvin isn't alone in this - Brandeis, NYU, and Emory in the UAA all have had very active men's and women's rugby programs for many years.

@ Joe Wally - the emboldened phrase now explains a whole bunch of personal issues, and provides me an excuse for future indiscretions.  Dankie!  On my way out to "Old Boy's" practice as soon as I post this - 42 yrs after initial scrumdown, and still brain-dead.   

[cave2bens]

BTW, congrats to the MIAA participants who will undoubtedly pass the Heartland board in total posts this evening - a hearty "well done."   

[Joe Wally]

I am still working it through in my own head from a legal standpoint, but it seems to me that the problem for an institution that sponsors a football program, or that is looking to sponsor a football program such as Calvin is the issue of liability.

When a kid tears up his knee playing football, the institution pays those medical costs.

If it pays thoses costs, should it not also pay the long term medical costs associated with these concussive injuries.

Moreover, with this ever increasing body of medical data that is tending to substantiate the position that football as it is currently played is a dangerous activity, does an institution that sponsors that activity expose itself to broader liability beyond solely the medical injuries?

If the answer is yes (hell, if the answer is maybe), is that a risk that the institution wants to take?

[DBQ1965]

DBQ1965:

If they ever have that game and you came to it, we'll make you feel welcome.  I'll treat you to a steak dinner (instead of the old routine hot dog at the game!) .

Yes, travel costs unfortunately now play a major factor in schedules.

Thanks for the offer of hospitality.  Since I live in GR, I try to make one Hope game each season ... sometimes two ... usually sitting on the visitors' side since I can sit in the top row close to the 50.

[Raider 68]

DBQ1965:

If they ever have that game and you came to it, we'll make you feel welcome.  I'll treat you to a steak dinner (instead of the old routine hot dog at the game!) .

Yes, travel costs unfortunately now play a major factor in schedules.

Thanks for the offer of hospitality.  Since I live in GR, I try to make one Hope game each season ... sometimes two ... usually sitting on the visitors' side since I can sit in the top row close to the 50.

Can't beat the 50 yard line. We have season tickets for Mount Union on the 40 and that is good condidering the time it takes to inherit 50 yard line seats!

[02 Warhawk]

DBQ1965:

If they ever have that game and you came to it, we'll make you feel welcome.  I'll treat you to a steak dinner (instead of the old routine hot dog at the game!) .

Yes, travel costs unfortunately now play a major factor in schedules.

Thanks for the offer of hospitality.  Since I live in GR, I try to make one Hope game each season ... sometimes two ... usually sitting on the visitors' side since I can sit in the top row close to the 50.

Can't beat the 50 yard line. We have season tickets for Mount Union on the 40 and that is good condidering the time it takes to inherit 50 yard line seats!

Interesting...are all seats assigned for Mount Union football games? Everything is GA at Whitewater, first come first serve. All the same ticket price.

I guess I assumed all (or most) of DIII sporting events was GA.