FB: American Rivers Conference

[warthog]

To keep this a true D3 discussion I will ask this in two parts.  Discussed in the past, but possibly time to review again for both groups.

Questions:

1)  Should the IIAC expand?  If so, what colleges/universities should be invited?

2)  Should the Big 12 expand?  If so, what colleges/universites be invited?

My answers to follow after I give it more thought.  At this point, I'm thinking a little out of the box.

[Old Dutch]

You two are correct, Hansen and Hanus were in their second years as a starter when they made all-conference. 

I am pointing out though, that it was said on these boards that Dubuque was in for a rough year in 2012 because Zweifel was gone and losing a player of his caliber was too hard to overcome.  Not only was Zweifel gone, but so was Fleming, Spaulding and the right side of the O-line.  Then Dubuque goes out and puts up nearly identical offensive numbers in 2012 as they did the season before.

Now its said that Dubuque will be in for a rough year in 2013 because Hanus is gone and losing a player of his caliber will be too hard to overcome.  Dubuque might be in for a long season...I just don't think it will be because of the loss of 1 player.   

Dude, Defense wins championships.   Lets talk about sparty's defense a little, then make a prediction.

[doolittledog]

You two are correct, Hansen and Hanus were in their second years as a starter when they made all-conference. 

I am pointing out though, that it was said on these boards that Dubuque was in for a rough year in 2012 because Zweifel was gone and losing a player of his caliber was too hard to overcome.  Not only was Zweifel gone, but so was Fleming, Spaulding and the right side of the O-line.  Then Dubuque goes out and puts up nearly identical offensive numbers in 2012 as they did the season before.

Now its said that Dubuque will be in for a rough year in 2013 because Hanus is gone and losing a player of his caliber will be too hard to overcome.  Dubuque might be in for a long season...I just don't think it will be because of the loss of 1 player.   

Dude, Defense wins championships.   Lets talk about sparty's defense a little, then make a prediction.

Exactly!!!

[doolittledog]

To keep this a true D3 discussion I will ask this in two parts.  Discussed in the past, but possibly time to review again for both groups.

Questions:

1)  Should the IIAC expand?  If so, what colleges/universities should be invited?

2)  Should the Big 12 expand?  If so, what colleges/universites be invited?

My answers to follow after I give it more thought.  At this point, I'm thinking a little out of the box.

I don't know who would join the IIAC. 

Iowa Wesleyan wanted in and the IIAC wouldn't take them.

Grinnell and Cornell are happy where they are.

I had heard some noise about Graceland looking at either the IIAC or the MSFA football conference which includes Waldorf, Grand View, William Penn, and St Ambrose.  It looks likely if Graceland left the HAAC, which has teams in Kansas and Missouri, it would be to stay NAIA and move to the MSFA. 

I think Grand View, William Penn, St Ambrose are happy in the NAIA.  They can say they offer scholarships and its just like D2.  Any of those schools would be desirable if they were interested.  I just can't imagine any of them would move our way.   

I can't imagine the IIAC would be interested in Waldorf, now that they are "for profit"

The 4 GPAC schools out west...Briar Cliff, Dordt, Morningside, Northwestern have always been associated with schools in South Dakota and Nebraska.  I can't see them wanting to leave those schools in SD and NE due to geographical issues.  Morningside and Northwestern would be the two most desirable out of that group, but they have fan bases that would be up in arms over a move to D3.  Northwestern has long roots in the NAIA and Morningside were D2 for many years. 

We are the Iowa Conference, I wouldn't be happy with adding a team or two out of state.  Such as Nebraska Wesleyan or Augustana. 

If the NAIA went away...all bets are off.  There would be a scramble, would the NAIA schools in our state stick in their conferences and go either D2 or D3 together...or would they split up and look for different conferences.  Then it could be a mess. 

Or...if the Iowa Conference voted to move D2, and the NCAA allowed that, there could be a scramble to want to join the IIAC. 

Here is a thought.  The Big 10 schools are linked academically as well as athletically.  Which has brought great wealth to the member schools and has made other schools want to join the conference.  What if the IIAC schools worked together on some projects?  Something that would bring added federal research dollars into our schools?  That would bring interest from other schools in our state.  Athletics doesn't make money at our level.  But if our schools were linked academically and we started bringing in additional funding above the levels we are currently at and significantly higher than other private schools in our state, that could start a log jam of schools knocking on our door.  Now that said, 10 schools is the absolute highest number I would ever be interested in.  I don't want to see divisions and all that. 

My rank of preference would be (and it doesn't mean they would be interested in return)
Morningside and Northwestern as a package deal
Cornell/Grinnell as a package deal
Grand View
Graceland
St Ambrose
Dordt
William Penn
Iowa Wesleyan
Briar Cliff
Upper Iowa

[Fannosaurus Rex]

This was posted elsewhere ...

New football rule changes.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/football+rules+committee+recommends+ejection+for+targeting+defenseless+players

Others:

To make blocks below the waist from the side and back illegal, but legal if the blocked player is facing the player blocking below the waist.
   
To add a 10-second runoff with less than a minute remaining in either half when the sole reason for the clock to stop is an injury.
   
To establish three seconds as the minimum amount of time required to be on the game clock in order to spike the ball to stop the clock. If one or two seconds remain on the clock, there is only time for the offense to run one more play.
   
To require a player that changes numbers during the game to report this to the referee, who will announce this.
   
To only allow one player number to be worn by the same team and participate at the same position (e.g., two quarterbacks on the same team are not allowed to have the same number).
   
To require teams to have either their jersey or pants contrast in color to the playing field.   
To allow the use of electronic communication by the on-field officiating crew after successful experimentation by the Southeastern Conference. This is not a required piece of equipment but will allow officiating crews to use this tool.
   
To allow the Big 12 Conference to experiment with using an eighth official on the field in conference games. This official would be placed in the backfield opposite the referee.
   

Have camouflaged players been that big a problem that we needed a rule change?  And if you are trying to hide wouldn't you try to blend into whatever is in the end zones rather than the ground your standing on?  Maybe they should call this the Goodyear Blimp Rule since the idea seems to be to make you easier to see from overhead than from field level.

[notlongago]

This was posted elsewhere ...

New football rule changes.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/football+rules+committee+recommends+ejection+for+targeting+defenseless+players

Others:

To make blocks below the waist from the side and back illegal, but legal if the blocked player is facing the player blocking below the waist.
   
To add a 10-second runoff with less than a minute remaining in either half when the sole reason for the clock to stop is an injury.
   
To establish three seconds as the minimum amount of time required to be on the game clock in order to spike the ball to stop the clock. If one or two seconds remain on the clock, there is only time for the offense to run one more play.
   
To require a player that changes numbers during the game to report this to the referee, who will announce this.
   
To only allow one player number to be worn by the same team and participate at the same position (e.g., two quarterbacks on the same team are not allowed to have the same number).
   
To require teams to have either their jersey or pants contrast in color to the playing field.   
To allow the use of electronic communication by the on-field officiating crew after successful experimentation by the Southeastern Conference. This is not a required piece of equipment but will allow officiating crews to use this tool.
   
To allow the Big 12 Conference to experiment with using an eighth official on the field in conference games. This official would be placed in the backfield opposite the referee.
   

Have camouflaged players been that big a problem that we needed a rule change?  And if you are trying to hide wouldn't you try to blend into whatever is in the end zones rather than the ground your standing on?  Maybe they should call this the Goodyear Blimp Rule since the idea seems to be to make you easier to see from overhead than from field level.

See Boise St. Blue unis on the Blue turf.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I suspect that is the 'Boise State' rule!

(I see notlongago beat me to the punch. )

[grboob]

Any idea who the COE QB will be in 2013?

[wartknight]

Not football related, but the Knights advance all 10 wrestlers to the quarters tonight! It would be cool to send Miller out with the highest point total in NCAA history. The Warts currently have the top 4 all time.

[DuffMan]

Congrats to Wartburg on the wrestling 3-peat!  Not the greatest showing for SJU. 

[CaliRamRL6]

Any idea who the COE QB will be in 2013?

I think it's fair to say that Atwater will be given the keys to the car.

[Kohawk Krazy]

This was posted elsewhere ...

New football rule changes.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/football+rules+committee+recommends+ejection+for+targeting+defenseless+players

Others:

To make blocks below the waist from the side and back illegal, but legal if the blocked player is facing the player blocking below the waist.
   
To add a 10-second runoff with less than a minute remaining in either half when the sole reason for the clock to stop is an injury.
   
To establish three seconds as the minimum amount of time required to be on the game clock in order to spike the ball to stop the clock. If one or two seconds remain on the clock, there is only time for the offense to run one more play.
   
To require a player that changes numbers during the game to report this to the referee, who will announce this.
   
To only allow one player number to be worn by the same team and participate at the same position (e.g., two quarterbacks on the same team are not allowed to have the same number).
   
To require teams to have either their jersey or pants contrast in color to the playing field.   
To allow the use of electronic communication by the on-field officiating crew after successful experimentation by the Southeastern Conference. This is not a required piece of equipment but will allow officiating crews to use this tool.
   
To allow the Big 12 Conference to experiment with using an eighth official on the field in conference games. This official would be placed in the backfield opposite the referee.
   

Have camouflaged players been that big a problem that we needed a rule change?  And if you are trying to hide wouldn't you try to blend into whatever is in the end zones rather than the ground your standing on?  Maybe they should call this the Goodyear Blimp Rule since the idea seems to be to make you easier to see from overhead than from field level.

I would guess it had something to do with coaches watching film as well and not being able to see anything.

[doolittledog]

This was posted elsewhere ...

New football rule changes.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/football+rules+committee+recommends+ejection+for+targeting+defenseless+players
     
To require teams to have either their jersey or pants contrast in color to the playing field.
     

So we don't go more than a week without a single post

As was noted this sounds like the Boise St rule. 

But, what is the playing field? 

Dubuque has a green field, blue endzones.  The Spartans often wear blue jerseys/blue pants at home.  Would that need to change?

Wartburg has a green field, black endzones.  The Knights often wear black jerseys/black pants at home.  Would that need to change?

Could IIAC officials choose not to enforce such a rule, like we are seeing some sheriffs announce they will not enforce new gun control laws?  Or, could a coach employ gamesmanship and about 30 seconds before kickoff, complain to the refs and try to get them to force Dubuque/Wartburg or whoever they needed to change their uniform to comply with NCAA regulations?  Or, if after a loss, then complain the other team did not wear contrasting colors and file a complaint? 

[5 Words or Less]

This was posted elsewhere ...

New football rule changes.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/football+rules+committee+recommends+ejection+for+targeting+defenseless+players
     
To require teams to have either their jersey or pants contrast in color to the playing field.
     

So we don't go more than a week without a single post

As was noted this sounds like the Boise St rule. 

But, what is the playing field? 

Dubuque has a green field, blue endzones.  The Spartans often wear blue jerseys/blue pants at home.  Would that need to change?

Wartburg has a green field, black endzones.  The Knights often wear black jerseys/black pants at home.  Would that need to change?

Could IIAC officials choose not to enforce such a rule, like we are seeing some sheriffs announce they will not enforce new gun control laws?  Or, could a coach employ gamesmanship and about 30 seconds before kickoff, complain to the refs and try to get them to force Dubuque/Wartburg or whoever they needed to change their uniform to comply with NCAA regulations?  Or, if after a loss, then complain the other team did not wear contrasting colors and file a complaint?

What about muddy jerseys?

[Mr. Ypsi]

This was posted elsewhere ...

New football rule changes.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/football+rules+committee+recommends+ejection+for+targeting+defenseless+players
     
To require teams to have either their jersey or pants contrast in color to the playing field.
     

So we don't go more than a week without a single post

As was noted this sounds like the Boise St rule. 

But, what is the playing field? 

Dubuque has a green field, blue endzones.  The Spartans often wear blue jerseys/blue pants at home.  Would that need to change?

Wartburg has a green field, black endzones.  The Knights often wear black jerseys/black pants at home.  Would that need to change?

Could IIAC officials choose not to enforce such a rule, like we are seeing some sheriffs announce they will not enforce new gun control laws?  Or, could a coach employ gamesmanship and about 30 seconds before kickoff, complain to the refs and try to get them to force Dubuque/Wartburg or whoever they needed to change their uniform to comply with NCAA regulations?  Or, if after a loss, then complain the other team did not wear contrasting colors and file a complaint?

What about muddy jerseys?

On a muddy field?  Obviously illegal!