FB: New England Small College Athletic Conference

[bant551]

Not that it has proven effective... but wasn't the point of the rule supposed to be to create more equality on the football field between the Williams, Amhersts and Trinitys and the Hamiltons of the league?

I could of sworn that I heard it was designed to create an even playing field or something, and I remember not thinking it made sense.

[Trin9-0]

Not that it has proven effective... but wasn't the point of the rule supposed to be to create more equality on the football field between the Williams, Amhersts and Trinitys and the Hamiltons of the league?

I could of sworn that I heard it was designed to create an even playing field or something, and I remember not thinking it made sense.

I remember that being one of the reasons for the rule as well.

I doubt anyone actually thought the rule would create parity. However, it may have swayed a few kids who were not heavily recruited by the top football schools in the league towards going to a school where he had a better chance to play (or at least make the team).

That could certaintly be a factor in Bates fielding a full 75 this fall.

It's unfortunate that a kid who had his heart set on a particular DIII school would have to consider whether he'll be good enough to make the football team. If you're playing at this level it's because you love the game and you should be granted to chance to play where ever you decide to get your education.


I wonder how much of a factor the athletic budget (Title IX, etc) was in this decision?

[Jonny Utah]

Not that it has proven effective... but wasn't the point of the rule supposed to be to create more equality on the football field between the Williams, Amhersts and Trinitys and the Hamiltons of the league?

I could of sworn that I heard it was designed to create an even playing field or something, and I remember not thinking it made sense.

I remember that being one of the reasons for the rule as well.

I doubt anyone actually thought the rule would create parity. However, it may have swayed a few kids who were not heavily recruited by the top football schools in the league towards going to a school where he had a better chance to play (or at least make the team).

That could certaintly be a factor in Bates fielding a full 75 this fall.

It's unfortunate that a kid who had his heart set on a particular DIII school would have to consider whether he'll be good enough to make the football team. If you're playing at this level it's because you love the game and you should be granted to chance to play where ever you decide to get your education.


I wonder how much of a factor the athletic budget (Title IX, etc) was in this decision?

I think these schools just dont want a football team with 100+ (or 10% of the male population in many cases) kids playing one sport.

[union89]

Not that it has proven effective... but wasn't the point of the rule supposed to be to create more equality on the football field between the Williams, Amhersts and Trinitys and the Hamiltons of the league?

I could of sworn that I heard it was designed to create an even playing field or something, and I remember not thinking it made sense.

I remember that being one of the reasons for the rule as well.

I doubt anyone actually thought the rule would create parity. However, it may have swayed a few kids who were not heavily recruited by the top football schools in the league towards going to a school where he had a better chance to play (or at least make the team).

That could certaintly be a factor in Bates fielding a full 75 this fall.

It's unfortunate that a kid who had his heart set on a particular DIII school would have to consider whether he'll be good enough to make the football team. If you're playing at this level it's because you love the game and you should be granted to chance to play where ever you decide to get your education.


I wonder how much of a factor the athletic budget (Title IX, etc) was in this decision?

Is it just me or......not EVERYONE can play elite or semi-elite DIII football.  I agree that, for the most part, we all played for the love of the game.  I attended a pretty good high school program in MA and in my opinion, only about 5% of the kids on my high school team could have played at a program like Union.......Union, Trinity, RPI, Hobart, Springfield....about 25% could have played at Ithaca (sorry Utah & Jose...couldn't help it).

[Jonny Utah]

Not that it has proven effective... but wasn't the point of the rule supposed to be to create more equality on the football field between the Williams, Amhersts and Trinitys and the Hamiltons of the league?

I could of sworn that I heard it was designed to create an even playing field or something, and I remember not thinking it made sense.

I remember that being one of the reasons for the rule as well.

I doubt anyone actually thought the rule would create parity. However, it may have swayed a few kids who were not heavily recruited by the top football schools in the league towards going to a school where he had a better chance to play (or at least make the team).

That could certaintly be a factor in Bates fielding a full 75 this fall.

It's unfortunate that a kid who had his heart set on a particular DIII school would have to consider whether he'll be good enough to make the football team. If you're playing at this level it's because you love the game and you should be granted to chance to play where ever you decide to get your education.


I wonder how much of a factor the athletic budget (Title IX, etc) was in this decision?

Is it just me or......not EVERYONE can play elite or semi-elite DIII football.  I agree that, for the most part, we all played for the love of the game.  I attended a pretty good high school program in MA and in my opinion, only about 5% of the kids on my high school team could have played at a program like Union.......Union, Trinity, RPI, Hobart, Springfield....about 25% could have played at Ithaca (sorry Utah & Jose...couldn't help it).

You might be right anyway considering Union Football doesnt really know what theyre doing. Im going to go with Coach Butterfield and the other 20% of U89s 1978 Norfolk Aggie Tech, Aggie League champion team.

[Jonny Utah]

Or maybe Ithaca just took the guy that you backed up in high school?

Zing!

[Trin9-0]

Is it just me or......not EVERYONE can play elite or semi-elite DIII football.  I agree that, for the most part, we all played for the love of the game.  I attended a pretty good high school program in MA and in my opinion, only about 5% of the kids on my high school team could have played at a program like Union.......Union, Trinity, RPI, Hobart, Springfield....about 25% could have played at Ithaca (sorry Utah & Jose...couldn't help it).

The kids who were cut from the Trinity teams I played on were good enough to at least be on the team. No one is saying they even had to play in the games. Most of them just wanted to continue playing football.

I could understand not letting a kid play if it was a situation where could get hurt (i.e. a medical problem) but if a kid just wants to practice and be part of a team I think he should have the opportunity to do so.

[union89]

Is it just me or......not EVERYONE can play elite or semi-elite DIII football.  I agree that, for the most part, we all played for the love of the game.  I attended a pretty good high school program in MA and in my opinion, only about 5% of the kids on my high school team could have played at a program like Union.......Union, Trinity, RPI, Hobart, Springfield....about 25% could have played at Ithaca (sorry Utah & Jose...couldn't help it).

The kids who were cut from the Trinity teams I played on were good enough to at least be on the team. No one is saying they even had to play in the games. Most of them just wanted to continue playing football.

I could understand not letting a kid play if it was a situation where could get hurt (i.e. a medical problem) but if a kid just wants to practice and be part of a team I think he should have the opportunity to do so.

Man, I give those kids credit....I love football, but if I'm riding the pine at a DIII program, I'd probably quit and join the chess team.  I can see being a practice hero at a big DI program, but to do it at the DIII level, you have to REALLY love the game.

[bant551]

For us linemen, the motivation to stay on the team even when not a starter may include the desire to be considered a "big, strong football player" rather than just a fat dude.

[Trin9-0]

As some of you may have noticed there is a discussion thread debating the top 10 East region football teams in the D3football.com era. As per usual there was no love for the NESCAC and since we seem to be an entity unto ourselves I though it might be fun to get a dialouge regarding the best NESCAC teams over that span.

I believe the starting point they used was 1999. However, since the NESCAC didn't begin officially crowning a league champion until 2000 you could say that in no particualar order the top 10 teams would be the leage champs from those years:

2006 Williams
2005 Trinity
2004 Trinity
2003 Trinity
2002 Trinity & Williams
2001 Williams
2000 Amherst, Colby & Middlebury

Anyway... these lists are always fun and I thought it could spark some debate, especially since most of our D3 football knowledge is NESCAC related.


By the way my vote for #1 is the 2003 Bants... 

[Col. Partridge]

As a starting point, I'd say you have to remove any teams with losses from consideration.  So teams from 2000 and 2002 are out...

[Trin9-0]

As a starting point, I'd say you have to remove any teams with losses from consideration.  So teams from 2000 and 2002 are out...

I agree if you're only looking for the #1 team, but for a top 10 list I think a one loss team could easily qualify. For instance the '03 Ephs or '06 Bantams were both excellent teams that finished 7-1 and would likely make my top 10.

[cruiser]

colby '05 was very strong as well as a one loss team

[Trin9-0]

colby '05 was very strong as well as a one loss team

That was a good team. However, they gave up over 14 points a game and didn't play Trinity (which went undefeated that year). I'm not sure if I'd put them as a top 10 team.

Amherst '01 could easily make a case for top 10 consideration. They won their first 7 games allowing less than 4 points per game while scoring over 20. Their only loss was at Williams in overtime 23-20.

[cruiser]

however, the offense averaged over 25 points a game and the defense, despite the 14 ppg, was underrated. i think this team at least deserves consideration. i have a sneaking suspicion that, while in most cases it is deserved, that this list will be populated mostly by trinity teams with an odd williams and/or amherst thrown in there as well, if only because the majority of the posters here are trinity backers. i would like to think that some nescac teams aside from the ones in amherst, williamstown and hartford have been able to put together some truly strong teams.