FB: Middle Atlantic Conference

Chum Slam · November 03, 2005, 02:08:58 PM

I understand your point of view, but for myself and my teammates second best is not good enough.

D3Phan · November 03, 2005, 02:52:34 PM

Wonderful article about Adam Knoblauch on the front page!

Way to go Adam! Good luck on Saturday!

Go Aggies!

bman · November 03, 2005, 03:03:15 PM

I have to agree with Chum here...Although not connected to the team(with no inside info)...) I was glad that we did not accept that ECAC bid.

Also I was not aware that Zwaan made that decision...I always thought it was a school decision...

Chum Slam · November 03, 2005, 03:20:21 PM

Ultimately it came down to us. We said no. Therefore Zwaan said no, Great coach.

bossman05 · November 03, 2005, 07:49:17 PM

Hey Chum Chum,
was that ur senior year?

If so, any football player i know or myself for that much would do anything to play another game...ecac or whatever it was......

I also think it is selfish to take away playoff style experience away from the younger players which is the teams future

And since 2002 widener has not seen the playoffs maybe they should have taken advantage of the game for the younger players and the future?

?

As i said b4 look at the positive influence it had on dvc and kings b4 their title runs......

zoolander · November 03, 2005, 11:51:55 PM

sory bossman i was on that 2002 team that got shafted. as a senior i wanted no parts of that ecac game. being nationally ranked at 9. with only one loss on the road to a team that shared the mac title with us. not 2 mention kings only had 198 yard against in that victory, it was a slap in the face. you dont turn down a 9-1 team that made 2 great runs at the stagg bowl the previous years. turning that ecec game down was a great idea bc we felt that we went out like champs regardless of the panel of decision makers that failed to get the top teams in the dance.

its these situations that made the ncaa give the dance 4 more pool c bids

what would our team get out of playing a 7-3 moravian team again?

thier was no emotion for any significant player to show up and practice for an ecac game. esp when thier is a 6-4 christopher newport team that is getting ready for a real playoff game oh and i think we played them first round the year b4 and it was a silly game 48-0 at half. it looked like a circus. no disrespect to the cnu program.

*oh and my final thought for this topic... if the younger players needed more work play a jv game or something. dont take away the pride that them seniors had on thier last game.

Pat Coleman · November 04, 2005, 01:27:46 AM

Unfortunately, Zoolander, we knew you weren't getting that NCAA bid. In all four playoff projections we did in 2002, Widener was on the outside looking in. It was clearly strength of schedule.

Of course we got merciless crap from Widener fans (aka players posting on the board and their parents) for our alleged bias.

Jonny Utah · November 04, 2005, 08:10:48 AM

As an Ithaca player who played in an ECAC game I can mirror some of the thoughts of some people on here. In 1996 we started out 7-1 (7-0 d3) and nationally ranked on our way to the playoffs untill losing our last two games.

We got an ECAC bid and to be honest, the game didnt mean anything and a lot of us were so disapointed that our season ended that way. We had key starters hurt, and many people didnt want to play in a game that didnt matter. We all went to Ithaca college for a chance to win a national championship. As past teams had done.

Looking back, Im glad we played in that ECAC game. The school was invited, and we accepted the invatation. We arent any better than any one else just because we missed the ncaas. Sure it was disapointing, but the ecac games are part of eastern division 3 football.

To turn down the bid would be selfish, and arrogant in my opinion. Looking back Im glad we did it. If we turned it down I would have been embarrassed.

Again, thats just my opinion. At the time, we werent up for the game, but its up to the team and coaches to expliain the importance of this game and get the team prepared for it

maAggie5 · November 04, 2005, 09:16:15 AM

Great post Johnny Utah! Glad to see someone with a little sanity and great perspective post on this subject!

bman · November 04, 2005, 09:41:42 AM

guys

You know it's funny...you accuse these kids as having sour grapes etc...

Ask ANY member of the 1972 Olympic basketball team, if they regret not standing or accepting their medals after having the gold taken from them, and I would bet none of them do for a minute....what is different here?

For these kids, it's a bureaucracy taking something away, rather than refs...but the point is still the same....

And for us older folks (And don't start the conspiracy crap) there has been a history of WU getting the short end of the stick with the NCAA...ie... the 2001 WU team not getting a home game against a BW team that came from nowhere... Gee I wonder why? Maybe from some ouside influence?...Quote from NCAA president's council meeting...."There is a strong consensus among the Presidents Council that we ought to limit the growth of the membership in Division III. The council is concerned about the division's numbers for all sorts of reasons," said Phillip Stone, president at Bridgewater College and chair of the Division III Presidents Council. " ...looks like backroom politics to me...

Or we can go back to 87, or 78 when the defending natl champs were not invited to the play-offs....

yes I for one am glad they did not participate...

Jonny Utah · November 04, 2005, 10:14:35 AM

bman, the referees are different than when a selection commitee picks a game. In 2002 Widener lost to Kings College for cryin out loud, and then they had close games with average opponents. Rowan got screwed in 01, and they have gripe 10000X more legitimate than the 2002 widener team.

Granted the 2001 team was a different team, but they still lost to mt union by a half a hundred.

Back then, playoff teams had to win big in big games to make the playoffs. Widener lost to an average team and barely beat other teams on their schedule that werent even that good.

You have to look at the teams that get in over widener...they deserved it more because they didnt lose any crappy games and blew out some good teams. Thats the way the system is.

Jonny Utah · November 04, 2005, 10:16:37 AM

1989 the defending national champs didnt go to the playoffs either. And they didnt deserve to.

zoolander · November 04, 2005, 10:50:08 AM

pat , i recall u predicting widener not making it in to the ncaa's,
strength of schedual could have been the x factor, however, kings 8-2 record and out of conference loss to a ok hatrford team didnt help. also, we should have recieved a bye in 2001 and played bridgwater at home.

we thought we had a good chance to get in bc of our past 2 seasons and our current record, although the favor was returned to lyco in 2003, ur welcome guys, and in reply to the "your welcome guys" most of them said thanx...

now jonny, if my team went 7-3, it would foolish to turn down a ecac game. like i said, what would our 2002 team get out of playing a moravian team that we already defeated. we beat moravian four straight years, nobody cared to make it five. we wanted another shot at the national championship bc we deserved 2 be there.
PTI ERRORS JONNY!!! wideners loss to mt. union was in the final four and it was in 2000. and we lost by 4 decades, not half a century. oh n the 2002 kings team that u speak of shared the confrence title with widener and did pretty well in the playoffs

bman · November 04, 2005, 11:11:44 AM

Jonny

"Back then, playoff teams had to win big in big games to make the playoffs. Widener lost to an average team and barely beat other teams on their schedule that werent even that good."

What year was that???

Jonny Utah · November 04, 2005, 11:12:12 AM

why would it be foolish to turn down an ECAC game? We went to the national semifinals 2 years before (and lost on a last minute touchdown, not a 70-whatever pasting) and we all went to Ithaca to win a national championship. the ecac isnt affialited with the ncaa, they invite the best teams to play in thier games that dont make the playoffs.

We were 7-3 but one loss was to a d2 team (which pat says dont count, Im still not sure if the ncaa looked at this loss, im thinking they would) and the other loss was to buffalo st after we already new the playoffs were gone, because as you know....

one loss teams sometimes dont make the playoffs.

2002 widener was invited to play in a postseason game. They turned it down. What did a 7-3 Ithaca team thats won 3 national championships and was a top 5 team in the middle of the year get out of an ECAC game? ECAC games are traditional games that have been played since the early 1980s.

Ok, so Kings college in 2002 lost to Hartwick and Lycoming during the regular season.

Hartwick lost to Ithaca and RPI in close games.

Can you take widener over hartwick? the ncaa took kings over hartwick. How did that happen? Hartwick played a tougher schedule and deserved to go over both those teams as the mac had a down year..

Like I said, what did Ithaca care about an ecac game in 96? You really didnt have any chance of a national championship in 01 either the score wasnt even close.