FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[CardinalAlum]

I may be a d-bag...but I'm not a "Homer."  Just saying.

May be??  You're a lawyer!!!   

[Sterny]

Well, no one else seemingly is going to defend McCully Field, so I guess I'll have to break my vow of silence I've been keeping.  cciw claimed a few pages  ago that the field must have bad drainage.  I have a very personal "attachment" lets say to that field and I highly doubt it.  The rainfall that day in the Chicago area was greater than 6.5 inches!  Thats one day.  I'm not sure any field is really designed to handle that.  For what its worth.

[Mugsy]

Well, no one else seemingly is going to defend McCully Field, so I guess I'll have to break my vow of silence I've been keeping.  cciw claimed a few pages  ago that the field must have bad drainage.  I have a very personal "attachment" lets say to that field and I highly doubt it.  The rainfall that day in the Chicago area was greater than 6.5 inches!  Thats one day.  I'm not sure any field is really designed to handle that.  For what its worth.

I thought about defending the drainage on McCully field, but got caught up in other matters.  I agree... the problem was not with the drainage, rather the nearly 7.5 inches of rain by my estimate in Wheaton.

[CCIW]

Well, no one else seemingly is going to defend McCully Field, so I guess I'll have to break my vow of silence I've been keeping.  cciw claimed a few pages  ago that the field must have bad drainage.  I have a very personal "attachment" lets say to that field and I highly doubt it.  The rainfall that day in the Chicago area was greater than 6.5 inches!  Thats one day.  I'm not sure any field is really designed to handle that.  For what its worth.

I laughed at this one to the point of exhaustion.  Defend an inanimate football field?  Really?  Are you a grounds keeper?  The place was a swimming pool, not a football field.  If the field could not handle the appropriate drainage, then the game should never have been played.  You engineer drainage into a football field so it can be playable.  If it can't drain the field adequately, then it is not playable.

[Pat Coleman]

Yawn -- if you have nothing to do but complain then you might want to think about whether it makes sense to post here.

[Mugsy]

CCIW is well represented on the Team Of The Week, congrats to all.

QB Evan Jones, So., Carthage
Jones was 23-for-35 passing for 428 yards and six touchdowns with no interceptions as Carthage rolled past Hope 70-46.

OL Josh Delancy, Kyle Antos, Mike Larson, Wes Welnack, Zach Baldacci, Jr., North Central (Ill.)
The Cardinals line helped North Central dominate in time of possession, 37:05 to 22:55, allowing them to run 22 more plays than Ohio Northern and outgain the Polar Bears by nearly 100 yards. They allowed no quarterback sacks in 38 opportunities.

RET Pete Ittersagen, Sr., Wheaton
All-American Pete Ittersagen scored Wheaton's lone touchdown in a 10-7 win against fifth-ranked Bethel with a 65-yard punt return for a touchdown.

[matblake]

Well, no one else seemingly is going to defend McCully Field, so I guess I'll have to break my vow of silence I've been keeping.  cciw claimed a few pages  ago that the field must have bad drainage.  I have a very personal "attachment" lets say to that field and I highly doubt it.  The rainfall that day in the Chicago area was greater than 6.5 inches!  Thats one day.  I'm not sure any field is really designed to handle that.  For what its worth.

I thought about defending the drainage on McCully field, but got caught up in other matters.  I agree... the problem was not with the drainage, rather the nearly 7.5 inches of rain by my estimate in Wheaton.

Since I wasn't at either game, what were the conditions like at North Central?  The photos I looked at here: http://www.pictureprints.net/albums.php?gallery=2238 looks like the field was in less waterlogged conditions than just up the road in Wheaton.

[Mugsy]

Well, no one else seemingly is going to defend McCully Field, so I guess I'll have to break my vow of silence I've been keeping.  cciw claimed a few pages  ago that the field must have bad drainage.  I have a very personal "attachment" lets say to that field and I highly doubt it.  The rainfall that day in the Chicago area was greater than 6.5 inches!  Thats one day.  I'm not sure any field is really designed to handle that.  For what its worth.

I thought about defending the drainage on McCully field, but got caught up in other matters.  I agree... the problem was not with the drainage, rather the nearly 7.5 inches of rain by my estimate in Wheaton.

Since I wasn't at either game, what were the conditions like at North Central?  The photos I looked at here: http://www.pictureprints.net/albums.php?gallery=2238 looks like the field was in less waterlogged conditions than just up the road in Wheaton.

It does look considerably less swampy than Wheaton was... I'd say at least 50% of Wheaton's field had a inch of standing water.

[79jaybird]

People c'mon!  This is FOOTBALL not ballet or some other activity where they pack their bags and leave if the weather is not perfect.  I/we played in snow, sleet, hail, etc.  As long as there was no lightning we were playing. 
We had 9.5 inches total in Mt. Prospect and my house had some seepage puddles for the first time in 30 years.  Oh well, that's nature! 
The fact remains that the CCIW has won some pretty good battles thus far and most of the conference is off to a great start.  I hope that continues throughout the non-conference slate.
Barking about the weather, the field, and other intangibles is a waste of time.

[Comet 14]

Well, no one else seemingly is going to defend McCully Field, so I guess I'll have to break my vow of silence I've been keeping.  cciw claimed a few pages  ago that the field must have bad drainage.  I have a very personal "attachment" lets say to that field and I highly doubt it.  The rainfall that day in the Chicago area was greater than 6.5 inches!  Thats one day.  I'm not sure any field is really designed to handle that.  For what its worth.

I laughed at this one to the point of exhaustion.  Defend an inanimate football field?  Really?  Are you a grounds keeper?  The place was a swimming pool, not a football field.  If the field could not handle the appropriate drainage, then the game should never have been played.  You engineer drainage into a football field so it can be playable.  If it can't drain the field adequately, then it is not playable.

cciw, your a complete idiot. I drove home from Olivet on Sunday and 80/94 was closed due to flooding, and is still closed as of today. I'm pretty sure that the engineers did not design it to flood. We had a more than normal amount of rainfall in a very short period of time. Both teams played on the exact same field and I am pretty sure ( although I was not at the game and did not "look at the tape" they even trade directions at the end of each quarter. This is to even the playing field. Get over it and move on.

[CardinalAlum]

Since I wasn't at either game, what were the conditions like at North Central?  The photos I looked at here: http://www.pictureprints.net/albums.php?gallery=2238 looks like the field was in less waterlogged conditions than just up the road in Wheaton.

That surprised me when I read about the standing water at Wheaton.  I know it rained a lot but there was no standing water on the field at NCC.

[Mugsy]

Since I wasn't at either game, what were the conditions like at North Central?  The photos I looked at here: http://www.pictureprints.net/albums.php?gallery=2238 looks like the field was in less waterlogged conditions than just up the road in Wheaton.

That surprised me when I read about the standing water at Wheaton.  I know it rained a lot but there was no standing water on the field at NCC.

This was pretty typical for the game - a reasonable amount of spray.  That said it did not appear like footing was too big of an issue, IMO.  There was some slipping, but it wasn't like guys were sliding all over the place.  Much, much better conditions than the natural grass fields I played on 20 years ago.

[letsplay2]

I would love to see an argument between cciw and the engineers of the field... I wonder who would win that one

Anyways, back to football... I'm expecting a sweep from all cciw schools this weekend... although the Millikin-Albion game could be a close one.  They had a few good athletes when Wheaton played them last year.  Lakeland and Carthage usually play close games too.

[W.Sobchak]

How does IWU look to fare this week?  I know Aurora isn't a perenially strong program, but going on the road and having to play in a brand new stadium may pose some challenges.

I can't wait for conference play to begin!  Glad to see IWU in the running after so many awful seasons...

[D306]

letsplay2

I will not claim to know any real detail regarding Milliken except that they play in the CCIW and will be pretty good.

I can speak regarding Albion.  
Albion is way ahead of last years team.
While still a young team, Albion played last year with many Sophmores seeing considerable time, due to Senior Class injuries.
These same players forced into action last year are now the core of a solid defense. The defense has speed and depth on Dline will go 7-8 players in line rotation so they are always fresh and offer different skills. A offense that has speed and talent but needs to Gel on line play.
The line has some size, but numerous new players, that need to get a rythem and trust each other to do their job.
QB rotation maybe possible as both QB's offer a little different look to the offense.

I make no prediction of a Albion win, but I do know albion will be ready and
fired up to play. The D has forced numerous fumbles already this year, the offense has had great ball security, they will not beat themselves. Being a home game, and the first road game for Albion's young team I would certainly think Millken should be the favorite.

I will be at the game and try to remember to give a Albion fans view on this board after, win or lose.