FB: New England Small College Athletic Conference

[ColbyFootball]

Heading to my first NESCAC game this weekend, Amherst - Wesleyan.  Should be a good one and looking forward to being there in person... while I appreciate that the games are streamed, its been tough watching them online.  As an aside, I preferred the second half of the Colby game's audio.  Much better to hear the crowd and the game announcer. #Tusksup

I've asked this of others, and ask for your take. What did you think of the game with respect to competitiveness vs. final score, the teams respective offenses and defenses, etc.? Your thoughts, to whatever extent possible, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[JEFFFAN]

Heading to my first NESCAC game this weekend, Amherst - Wesleyan.  Should be a good one and looking forward to being there in person... while I appreciate that the games are streamed, its been tough watching them online.  As an aside, I preferred the second half of the Colby game's audio.  Much better to hear the crowd and the game announcer. #Tusksup

You will have a blast.   The size of the audience isn't huge, especially in the new nice but semi sterilized stadium, but because this is Homecoming Weekend there should be a good crowd.   I suggest that you not sit in the stands too much but spend time circling the two end-zones to get a sense of the small groups that hang out.   That is where you will capture the true flavor of a NESCAC game ... not in the stands.

What incredible luck - you will also be able to see the unveiling of the oft-ridiculed Mammoth.   All I can hope is that while the Mammoth is wandering around the stadium you will also tilt your ears to hear "Oh Lord Jeffery Amherst is a solider of the king ..." coming from the alumni in attendance.   The voices you hear will be older voices as the younger, more politically correct young alumns will not have the courage or interest in singing the song.   But the hold guys ... listen because you will hear it!

Assuming they score against Wesleyan ...

[Trin9-0]

I haven't had much time to check out the NESCAC message board this season (mostly due to a pair of 6 month old twins at home). It looks like I haven't missed much. Hopefully this post will go through before Pat is forced to shut down the thread.

A few points:

Parents and coaching: To the same old disgruntled dads complaining about how "the coach doesn't know what he's doing" , get a clue. Any coach in this league has forgotten more about football than you'll ever know. Don't get me wrong, I love hearing the parent perspective and often they have insight into the program that former players don't have. But at this point it just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining. The hierarchy in NESCAC football has been well established for a very long time and is only mildly disrupted every 10 years or so due to a major cultural shift at an institution. If Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Hamilton aren't winning it's not the coaches fault so take your gripes somewhere else. 

Scheduling: Every team now plays every other team. There is no such thing as a weak or hard schedule in the NESCAC. If a bottom tier team plays a top tier team in week one or week nine they're still going to lose. The Maine schools should be excited that they have winnable games coming up (albeit against each other). Isn't it better to go out on a winning note than to get your one or two wins early and finish losing the last 6 or 7 games?

"Bullying": By in large I think most posters are respectful and share an appreciation for NESCAC football and the work put in by all players and coaches. The lone exception in my view is nescacman who appears to be a Wesleyan student with an axe to grind against Williams, Trinity, and to a lesser degree Amherst. My guess is that nescacman wasn't accepted into Williams and begrudges Wesleyan's utter lack of success against Trinity and Amherst so he tries to overcompensate with disparaging nicknames and pot-shots at the bottom tier teams. Clearly nescacman is a newcomer to the NESCAC because it hasn't been very long since Wesleyan was the team at the very bottom of that lower tier. I appreciate the amount of time that goes into the weekly posts, but the homerism toward Wesleyan is completely transparent and I look forward to when nescacman goes the way of his predecessor, Al Davis.

Outlook: I agree Trinity is beatable (isn't every team?). And after this week they face the daunting task of back-to-back road games at Midd and Amherst. I think they'll be able to put up enough points against the Panthers to pull out a win, but the defense needs to improve if they expect to beat the Mammoths (still getting used to that one) on the road. Trinity's tackling against Tufts was atrocious and historically the teams that natch up best with Trinity are those who can match the Bantams' physicality. If Trin is 8-0 when they face Wes at Homecoming I fully expect another Bantam victory over the Cardinals (that would make it 16 of the last 17 meetings).

Apologies for the long post... there's been a lot to catch up on!

[ColbyFootball]

Trin8-0 wrote:
"Parents and coaching: To the same old disgruntled dads complaining about how "the coach doesn't know what he's doing" , get a clue. Any coach in this league has forgotten more about football than you'll ever know. Don't get me wrong, I love hearing the parent perspective and often they have insight into the program that former players don't have. But at this point it just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining. The hierarchy in NESCAC football has been well established for a very long time and is only mildly disrupted every 10 years or so due to a major cultural shift at an institution. If Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Hamilton aren't winning it's not the coaches fault so take your gripes somewhere else."

If you can honestly say poor coaching is not a factor I suggest you are the one who should "get a clue". Look at what Raymond has done at Williams, after what the previous HCOF did to nearly destroy the program. Civetti has turned a winless program of just a few years ago into a contender, and Wesleyan couldn't get out of it's own way until Whelan took it over. Moving on to the Ivy, Bagnoli sits at 5-0 at Columbia with a program that couldn't win a game, or draw a fan, or raise a buck based on football. All of this has changed under Bagnoli.

So if you want to say coaching isn't always the program, I certainly agree. But to suggest, as you do, that coaching is not the problem in any nescac situation is wrong.

As for my opinions on Colby, I will keep them to myself for now. But I suggest you watch a game or two, and evaluate the stats, and then make your judgment.

And finally, anyone can learn X's and O's. That does not a great coach make. Coaching requires so much more.

[JEFFFAN]

I haven't had much time to check out the NESCAC message board this season (mostly due to a pair of 6 month old twins at home). It looks like I haven't missed much. Hopefully this post will go through before Pat is forced to shut down the thread.

A few points:

Parents and coaching: To the same old disgruntled dads complaining about how "the coach doesn't know what he's doing" , get a clue. Any coach in this league has forgotten more about football than you'll ever know. Don't get me wrong, I love hearing the parent perspective and often they have insight into the program that former players don't have. But at this point it just seems like complaining for the sake of complaining. The hierarchy in NESCAC football has been well established for a very long time and is only mildly disrupted every 10 years or so due to a major cultural shift at an institution. If Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Hamilton aren't winning it's not the coaches fault so take your gripes somewhere else. 

Scheduling: Every team now plays every other team. There is no such thing as a weak or hard schedule in the NESCAC. If a bottom tier team plays a top tier team in week one or week nine they're still going to lose. The Maine schools should be excited that they have winnable games coming up (albeit against each other). Isn't it better to go out on a winning note than to get your one or two wins early and finish losing the last 6 or 7 games?

"Bullying": By in large I think most posters are respectful and share an appreciation for NESCAC football and the work put in by all players and coaches. The lone exception in my view is nescacman who appears to be a Wesleyan student with an axe to grind against Williams, Trinity, and to a lesser degree Amherst. My guess is that nescacman wasn't accepted into Williams and begrudges Wesleyan's utter lack of success against Trinity and Amherst so he tries to overcompensate with disparaging nicknames and pot-shots at the bottom tier teams. Clearly nescacman is a newcomer to the NESCAC because it hasn't been very long since Wesleyan was the team at the very bottom of that lower tier. I appreciate the amount of time that goes into the weekly posts, but the homerism toward Wesleyan is completely transparent and I look forward to when nescacman goes the way of his predecessor, Al Davis.

Outlook: I agree Trinity is beatable (isn't every team?). And after this week they face the daunting task of back-to-back road games at Midd and Amherst. I think they'll be able to put up enough points against the Panthers to pull out a win, but the defense needs to improve if they expect to beat the Mammoths (still getting used to that one) on the road. Trinity's tackling against Tufts was atrocious and historically the teams that natch up best with Trinity are those who can match the Bantams' physicality. If Trin is 8-0 when they face Wes at Homecoming I fully expect another Bantam victory over the Cardinals (that would make it 16 of the last 17 meetings).

Apologies for the long post... there's been a lot to catch up on!

I will stay away with our third paragraph about bullying but the rest of your post has some great substance.

Parents have complained since the beginning of time and will until the end of time.  It is what a small percentage of parents do - and it really is a small percentage - but at the college level the coaches wont hear it.  Nor should they.   In  high school maybe they listen but not in college.   

In terms of scheduling, I absolutely agree.  With the new 9 game schedule, it is an even playing field for each team. Timing might be different but that is irrelevant.   No such thing as an unfair schedule in the NESCAC anymore. 

In terms of the season, I think the only surprise is Williams.   Trinity is at the top, Middlebury, Wesleyan and Amherst are right behind at this point; Williams is a surprising 4-1 right beyond these four with the obvious potential to be ahead of them at the end; the rest of the league is where everybody expected them to be.   So the kudos here go to Williams for a great showing so far with the potential to ruin the seasons of Wesleyan, Amherst and Trinity.   Kills me to say that, by the way.  As to the rest of the league ... yup, about what everyone forecasted.

[Trin9-0]

If you can honestly say poor coaching is not a factor I suggest you are the one who should "get a clue". Look at what Raymond has done at Williams, after what the previous HCOF did to nearly destroy the program. Civetti has turned a winless program of just a few years ago into a contender, and Wesleyan couldn't get out of it's own way until Whelan took it over.

Of course coaching matters, but the turnarounds by Wesleyan and Tufts are not solely due to coaching. Both institutions made a long-term commitment to improve their football programs through increased financial resources and admissions flexibility. Similarly, the fact that Hamilton has won more than 2 games per season just twice in the past 18 years isn't solely because of some assumed ineptitude of the six head coaches they've had over that same span.

Parents are quick to blame the coach when the reality is, more often than not, it's their kids who aren't as good as the players on the other team. Top recruits want to win, so they gravitate to the more successful programs. Better players means better teams, and the cycle perpetuates. It takes a lot more than a "good coach" to turn around a dormant program.

So the kudos here go to Williams for a great showing so far with the potential to ruin the seasons of Wesleyan, Amherst and Trinity.

Williams is certainly the surprise of the NESCAC this season but they missed their chance to ruin Trinity's season. With apologies to Bowdoin, only Midd, Amherst, or Wes can do that now.

[lumbercat]

Lumbercat?  Really....politics to the board?  Trump was a USFL owner back in the 80s.  Jimmy Brown was both a superstar athlete and very political man.  You had zero problem when his name came up previously dude.  lighten up.   smh.




WCD

Lol- that's quite a reach. You inject a political  comment or reference on a Nescac football board and then find some remote linkage to the game of Football to make it all relevant. You find some interesting ways to bring political substance to a football blog and don't seem to be able to get away from that.

I'm suggesting that you lighten up- political stuff is heavy. Nescac football is light.

As previously stated by many on the board political issues and ideas are not what folks want to read on this board. Nobody here wants to get bogged down on political issues-though far more important  those realities are too heavy and out of place in this venue.

So, again my 2 cents.... lets keep it light and stay with Nescac football.

[ColbyFootball]

Trin8-0 wrote:
Of course coaching matters, but the turnarounds by Wesleyan and Tufts are not solely due to coaching. Both institutions made a long-term commitment to improve their football programs through increased financial resources and admissions flexibility. Similarly, the fact that Hamilton has won more than 2 games per season just twice in the past 18 years isn't solely because of some assumed ineptitude of the six head coaches they've had over that same span.

Parents are quick to blame the coach when the reality is, more often than not, it's their kids who aren't as good as the players on the other team. Top recruits want to win, so they gravitate to the more successful programs. Better players means better teams, and the cycle perpetuates. It takes a lot more than a "good coach" to turn around a dormant program.

Nobody every said coaching was everything, so what you imply is just not accurate. But, coaching is very important. And saying parents "are quick to blame the coach" is nonsense. Do some homework. In the case of Colby, look at the numbers put up by the offense under Michaeles. They are terrible. This year they are last in the nescac by far in all categories, i.e. 27 points in 5 games. And nearly last in the entire country in D3. I don't want to go into all of it again as everyone's sick of it (including me), but it's hard to ignore your post. So before you accuse anyone of being a disgruntled parent, look at the statistics over Michaeles' tenure, starting with this year. And the team is 0-5 this season.

[Trin9-0]

First of all, correctly using the quote function on this message board really isn't that difficult. There's even a preview button to see how your post will look before posting. Take a few minutes to try and figure it out. This applies to more than a few on this board.

Secondly, have you ever considered the possibility that Colby is bad at football because they have bad football players? Must it always be the coach's fault? The biggest difference between a top tier team in this league and a bottom tier team is talent, not coaching.

This was admittedly many years ago, but I recall a coach telling me before a game against one of the bottom tier schools that there wasn't a single player on their roster that would be a starter on our team. Not. One.

Maybe that's not the case anymore, and perhaps something has drastically changed. I've only been able to watch one full game (Trinity-Tufts) streamed live this season and will hopefully get to my first live game tomorrow, but I always watch the video recaps that Coach Devanney sends to alumni and it seems to me that Trinity has been far more talented than most of their opponents thus far.

The talent gap between the top tier teams isn't substantial. Nor is the talent gap between the bottom tier teams. But there is a significant difference between the caliber of players on the top and bottom tier teams.

[ColbyFootball]

First of all, correctly using the quote function on this message board really isn't that difficult. There's even a preview button to see how your post will look before posting. Take a few minutes to try and figure it out. This applies to more than a few on this board.

Secondly, have you ever considered the possibility that Colby is bad at football because they have bad football players? Must it always be the coach's fault? The biggest difference between a top tier team in this league and a bottom tier team is talent, not coaching.

This was admittedly many years ago, but I recall a coach telling me before a game against one of the bottom tier schools that there wasn't a single player on their roster that would be a starter on our team. Not. One.

Maybe that's not the case anymore, and perhaps something has drastically changed. I've only been able to watch one full game (Trinity-Tufts) streamed live this season and will hopefully get to my first live game tomorrow, but I always watch the video recaps that Coach Devanney sends to alumni and it seems to me that Trinity has been far more talented than most of their opponents thus far.

The talent gap between the top tier teams isn't substantial. Nor is the talent gap between the bottom tier teams. But there is a significant difference between the caliber of players on the top and bottom tier teams.

I hope the use of the quote function makes you happy.
That said, when you talk about the talent gap, maybe you should watch a few games in person, or at the very least streaming, before commenting. You watched one. And why don't you read what some first hand observers have to say, like what Jefffan posted about the Amherst Colby game after he watched it in person. And don't talk to me about a lack of talent at Colby during these losing times because that's BS. Last year they had Hurdle-Price who was as explosive and dynamic a back as you will find ANYWHERE in the nescac. Yet the horrible offensive game plan and coaching allowed other teams to shut him down. It's what happens when you can't challenge defenses with the pass and they pack the Box. So take all your uninformed generalities with you, and come back after you get some first hand knowledge. And for the record, Colby is averaging 5.4 points per game. I bet O'Brien and the other skill players can call their own plays in the huddle and do better than that. They certainly wouldn't do any worse. And those are the facts, not my ill informed opinion.

[lumbercat]

Trin 8-0
Good point on the quote function thing- I usually get it right but I screwed that one up.

On another note, welcome back to the board- enjoying your posts today and your exchange with Colby Football.
You make some great points.

As a Bates guy Colby Football knows I feel his pain but I have said all along he's been heavy handed on the Colby coaching staff while not acknowledging that there is a pretty significant talent issue there. When you start moving guys around from offense to defense and even have some guys going both ways in certain situations I think that speaks directly to level of talent and lack of depth.

Relative to the blame pie relative to coaching consider the situation at Tufts over the past several years Coach Civetti lost 32 straight games and parents like ColbyFootball were livid. They wanted Civetti gone.

Today Tufts is at the top of the conference. Coach Civ is more experienced now but he is still the same guy. The arrival of a new AD and new president, not to mention the hiring of very good OC who had been a NESCAC HC for many years. All those things somehow turned Coach Civetti into a very successful and respected coach in the NESCAC. Same guy.

Coaching is certainly a huge part of the equation but I don't think it's the only factor that influences wins and losses.

[Trin9-0]

Sorry if I struck a nerve but my "generalities" are based on nearly 20 years of playing and watching NESCAC football. Before this season I've watched typically 4-5 Trinity games per season with the majority being live. Sure, it's been tough getting to a game so far this season with two 6 month babies in tow, but I'm confident in my knowledge of the league and clearly have a far less jaded view than you.

Your evidence that Colby's players are every bit as talented as the top tier teams is one player who averaged 61 yards per game last season?

Colby has been bad for a long time. The mules haven't had a winning record since 2005 and their winning percentage since then is .333 (Michael's winning percentage is .288 (13-32) through his 5 and half seasons as head coach. (When you consider they didn't even have to play Trinity half of those years it's actually worse than it looks.)

I find it extremely hard to believe that for ELEVEN years Colby has been SO stocked with talent that only incompetent coaching could be holding them back. Colby was bad before Michaels took over and they're only slightly worse now.

I'm sure I won't convince you, and I'm sure it makes you feel better to blame the coach than admit that maybe your kid and his teammates aren't the superstars you want them to be. Best of luck with the CBB. I'm sure you'll find that the coaching miraculously improves when you play Hamilton, Bates, and Bowdoin.

Trin 8-0
Good point on the quote function thing- I usually get it right but I screwed that one up.

On another note, welcome back to the board- enjoying your posts today and your exchange with Colby Football.
You make some great points.

As a Bates guy Colby Football knows I feel his pain but I have said all along he's been heavy handed on the Colby coaching staff while not acknowledging that there is a pretty significant talent issue there. When you start moving guys around from offense to defense and even have some guys going both ways in certain situations I think that speaks directly to level of talent and lack of depth.

Relative to the blame pie relative to coaching consider the situation at Tufts over the past several years Coach Civetti lost 32 straight games and parents like ColbyFootball were livid. They wanted Civetti gone.

Today Tufts is at the top of the conference. Coach Civ is more experienced now but he is still the same guy. The arrival of a new AD and new president, not to mention the hiring of very good OC who had been a NESCAC HC for many years. All those things somehow turned Coach Civetti into a very successful and respected coach in the NESCAC. Same guy.

Coaching is certainly a huge part of the equation but I don't think it's the only factor that influences wins and losses.

A wise man, (Frank Ubile?) once said "It's more about the Johnny's and the Joe's than the X's and the O's".

Jay Civetti was a captain at Trinity my freshman year. He's a great guy and I was so happy that the Tufts administration gave him time and resources to turn around that program. I can only imagine what the Jumbo parents thought of him during those winless seasons. Parents like ColbyFootball must assume he just woke up smarter one day.

[middhoops]

Trin 8-0 and Lumbercat:  thanks for the sanity.
Things have devolved on this board lately.  Welcome back Trin.

[meadowdale]

Wish the world had a little more JOHN WAYNE and a little less DR PHIL...

[nescac1]

Lots of good points, Trin 8-0.  I'd much rather Williams beat Trinity on the playing field than in the snark department.  Hopefully one day soon that will happen again, but until then, Trinity's results speak for themself. 

To me, the question to ask is how much of the talent issue is a product of coaching (i.e. recruiting ability), and how much a product of institutional priorities.  At least at Williams, it really is the former rather than the latter.  Other schools, however, are likely different.  (Tufts seems to be the primary counter-example, at least to some extent).  Coach Raymond in my view is (so far, and I have no reason to believe the disparity won't grow in future years) more successful than Coach Kelton for a number of reasons: he drives his players harder and gets more out of them, he is strategically a far superior gameday coach (I often lamented that Williams lost nearly every game, if not every game, that went down to the last possession during the Kelton era), and he is able to recruit more talented players.  By far the biggest factor of these three is the third.  After all, Coach Raymond went 0-8 last season ... there is only so much strategy and coaching guys up can do without a sufficient amount of explosive talent on both sides of the ball.  So far as I have heard, there has been no change in institutional priority in terms of football recruiting since around the 2000 time frame.  Williams became a LOT tougher for athletics admissions, including football, sometime around then, and one legendary coach and one very good one (Farley and Whalen) still were able to succeed at a very high level given the new constraints, but the team wasn't quite as dominant as it had been during the first decade of the Farley era. 

Still, even given the constraints that have been in place for well over a decade now, there is no reason for Williams, in light of its resources, facilities, program history, and proven ability to attract talented players from all over the country, to ever be below .500 in a bad year, and in a good year they should be challenging for the conference crown.  The main reason the team was in a rough patch for so long was because Kelton and his staff, frankly, weren't very good recruiters.  I'm not sure if it was an issue of not spotting talent or just not being able to close the deal with players they targeted, but the guys who used to end up at Williams were ending up elsewhere (especially Amherst, and it's no accident that the recent Amherst senior classes who went undefeated in their last season or two all came in during Kelton recruiting years).

To pick the most important example, in six years, Kelton brought in one credible, solid QB in (as a Junior transfer, so he only played for two years) and not ONE even average starting NESCAC QB in as frosh.  He benefited from recruits he inherited, but after that the QB position at Williams was mostly a disaster.  That's just incredibly negligent for the most important position.  At the same time, Trinity, Amherst and Midd would bring in about one potential star QB a year, or at worst, every other year.  It took Raymond all of one recruiting season to find a quality (to put it mildly) starting QB.  That is nothing to do with a change in institutional priorities, and all about the ability to identify and recruit talent.  A star QB can sure make a coach look like a genius!  LB is another key position on the Williams defense where Kelton really struggled to bring guys in.  He inherited a superstar MLB, but once that guy graduated, a position where Williams traditionally had NESCAC POY candidates nearly every year was suddenly devoid of anyone approaching even an all-NESCAC level.  Once again, in just one year, the new regime brought in not one but two star LBs who are now leading the team in tackles as frosh and who both make plays all over the field.