FB: New England Small College Athletic Conference

[PolarCat]

The elite kicker is only as good as the rest of the field goal unit.  I saw Baron went 0-1 last week.  What happened?  Bad snap, bad hold, blocked kick, tried the FG from outside his range?  If Baron has a new snapper or holder, or an OL that lets guys through, Colby may not be able to count on those points.

[amh63]

Nescac1....good question.  Amherst,  along with some other CAC schools recently signed a 5-year deal with UA for team uniforms.  This past weekend, the Amherst players wore old Nike jerseys...but maybe new pants...with broad stripes.  Meanwhile the Women golf team were wearing UA tops, as were the soccer teams.  The WBB team wore UA shoes and socks last season.  I'm looking for some dramatic helmet design with maybe curved tusks .  Expect the jerseys will be bland like some D1 teams...Norte Dame...that have signed up with UA.  Surprising, the non players on the sidelines..."cut" players...were wearing UA Amherst t- shirts.  Too well built for normal " water boys".
Hopping for new uniforms at Homecoming and/or the Williams game....with the three stripes on the jersey sleeves!

[ColbyFootball]

Nescac 1, lumbercat and Polarcat
Thanks for your viewpoints.
For what it's worth I'm told the soph is starting at QB for Colby. The plot thickens.

[lumbercat]

Interesting - The new Colby OC speaks.

maybe they will slide Sparacio into a utility RB mode as they have done in the past.

Wonder if this elevates QB Kraft on the depth chart..... look for a Kraft contingent on Mayflower Hill as the Mules take on Williams- J Kraft's esteemed alma mater.

[nescac1]

Wow lumbercat, eerily similar points of view -- which means that we are likely both completely wrong .  And I agree with your gameplan from Williams' perspective, as well.  They can't expect to be able to again have Maimaron sit back, unpressured, while receivers get 25-30 yards down the field for a touch pass.  At least early in the game, I'd spread the ball around with some quick passes, and also run a lot of quick-hitting draws, including QB draws (Williams didn't have much success with Maimaron on the ground in week one, yet that seems to be one of his best attributes, at least judging by high school performance), which can result in a big gain vs. a blitzing defense.  The Williams offense is playing with more pace than I've ever seen it before, a no-huddle attack with a lot of downfield throws is really a TON to put on a frosh QB after a few weeks of practice.  Hopefully he continues to handle it well. 

Surprised, amh63, that Amherst didn't figure out the mascot design over the summer.  Perhaps you are right, waiting for Homecoming, that would make sense, make it an event.  Some of the Amherst folks I know hate it, but personally, I like it ... I was rooting for something more ridiculous, like poets, but mammoths is pretty respectable. 

[PBPOP20]

The Williams offense is playing with more pace than I've ever seen it before, a no-huddle attack with a lot of downfield throws is really a TON to put on a frosh QB after a few weeks of practice.  Hopefully he continues to handle it well. 

There were points in the game where half the Polarbear defense was looking to the sideline for the call when the Ephs snapped the ball.  That's on the coaches.   But, Maimaron was extremely composed and comfortable... and WOW #3 is a killer.

On defense #45 and #49 harrassed Nelson all day...   Bowdoin OL was not consistent, nor was Nelson.   Too little on Stalcup to have an opinion yet, but I did like mixing in the other FY QB running the option.   Should have used it more as it actually was productive when run.

[ColbyFootball]

Interesting - The new Colby OC speaks.

This OC wasn't around last year and they did the same thing. So it's Michaeles for whatever reason. Neither QB stood out in last week's game against a tough Trinity team. And Sparacio is a senior who's shown flashes, like last years Bates game. So I don't get it. And I'm told Kraft should never see the field if not for his name.

[Nescacman]

A few highlights from Williams-Bowdoin, of particular note are the three big-play Williams TDs (starting at the 6:50 mark). 

http://www.willinet.org/content/williams-college-football-show-91817-0

On all three plays, there is picture-perfect blocking from the OL, really blowing the (smallish-looking) Bowdoin defenders off the ball.  Great to see that sort of early cohesion from a unit that has only one returning starter and has only two upperclassmen in the top six guys.  Of course, it will get much tougher as Colby returns most of its defense from last year and then Trinity looms, which is an entirely different situation to face.  But again, for Williams it's all about progress week-to-week. 

The first two TD plays are both beautiful on-the-money passes from Maimaron to Stola, who is clearly going to be his favorite target; from the first play of the game, Maimaron was looking to him early and often.  Stola won't surprise anyone after the week he put up, and will surely get loads more attention, so other guys will need to step up for sure.  I wonder if Tyler Patterson is hurt, as he was last year's big-play guy.  Regensburg also had a very quiet day after being the leading receiver last season. 

The first play was just a simple fly route where Stola showcased his straight-ahead speed; Maimaron hit him right in stride.  Not very good defense by Bowdoin on that one, as you obviously can't let a WR just run free past everyone in the secondary, and Maimaron had forever to throw.  The second was a gorgeous, much tougher play for the offense -- Maimaron dropped the ball perfectly between about five guys in zone coverage, and Stola made an excellent catch. 

Again, the defensive competition will only grow tougher this season, but it will be interesting to watch that duo grow together over the next four years ...

It is doubtful that the Ephs can get as many big plays in future games as they did in week 1, so they will need to work hard on sustaining more consistent drives.

Looks like the Ephs had the bigger pillow in this fight...

[westcoastDad]

The temp on the field for Bates v Amherst had to be over 100 degrees.  Kept wondering why the night game (or later start) is so shunned.

Noticed via stats around the league that the pass is in big play.

Very surprised Wesleyan lost.  Middlebury must finally have a good D to go with their usual good passing attack.

Amherst Mammoths seems primed to challenge for another strong season. 

Lots of former players were in the stands.  104 kids went out for team.  The last cut was 24 hours nefore game (a junior). Spoke to one player (a senior) who I find hard to believe isn't playing. Built like Rock (D Johnson)

Have a feeling that Hamilton game is a trap game as Mammoths see Middlebury game as huge tilt.

Prayers to those school kids in Mexico trapped by collapsed bldg in Mexico. And, of course, all else.

Will end with thoroughly enjoyed the Texas v USC classic that saw a walk on freshman KICKER steal the show.  Whether a football player or not..... the pressure at that position is 2nd to none!
 

[nescac1]

104 players went out for the Amherst team?  Wow -- that means 1/9 men on campus are football players.  Obviously a huge advantage to have so much competition just to make the roster, although it does mean a lot of guys who worked hard are going to be disappointed. 

I just hope that by next year, Williams can have a roster at or close to 75.  This year's team is incredibly thin at a number of positions due to sheer lack of healthy bodies ... magnifies the impact of every injury, which are of course inevitable in football. 

[PolarCat]

Amherst may find it harder and harder to admit that many football players in the future, thanks to the concerns (hysteria?) surrounding youth football.  Today's Boston Globe article adds fuel to the fire: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2017/09/19/study-links-youth-football-greater-risk-later-health-problems/UF3vWIAraotnJnbU8o8TDP/story.html

I am skeptical about the "science", since so many youth football players have gone on to become incredibly successful in later life.  Did the parents of Gerald Ford, Hank Paulson, Jeff Imelt and others follow the path of Tom Brady's parents, and keep them from playing FB till age 14?  (Not to mention my fellow esteemed members of this board; with the possible exception of amh63, I don't think any of us are suffering from getting our bells rung too often at an early age).  Are the kids today playing with better equipment and following safer procedures than you and I did, as the Pop Warner folks would have you believe?

In the end, it probably doesn't matter.  The witch hunt will continue, and the boys of America will be stuck playing Madden on PlayStation instead of America's Game.

[nescac1]

Come on, PolarCat.  Last I checked, witch-hunts involved superstition and naked conjecture, not a substantial number (and growing) of scientific, peer-reviewed studies.  I think a better analogy is tobacco -- for decades people like you scoffed at those who claimed that tobacco is dangerous to consume.  Until science, of course, proved otherwise.  Would you give your ten-year-old kid cigarettes?  If the answer is "no," as I hope it would be, then why wouldn't you at least be seriously concerned about a study that shows allowing a ten-year-old kid to play organized football seriously increases the risk of permanent brain damage?  It doesn't make one a snowflake to try to prevent your children from suffering easily-avoidable debilitating brain injuries.  Now, I'm no scientist, but this study seems to come from a respected source, not some quack.  If you have some criticism of the scientific methology employed, by all means, share it.  But just because you don't like the conclusion does not mean that the study is in any way flawed. 

And the study seems to make sense on the surface.  Nobody would expose a three-year-old to repeated head trauma.  That would be child abuse.  At some age, the risks become more acceptable.  But at what age?  Six seems ridiculously young to play tackle football.  So where is the line?  You certainly don't know.  Nor do I have any clue.  If studies can provide a good sense of when the risks to rapidly-developing brains from playing tackle football are simply too high to be acceptable, that is something we should celebrate.  What percent chance of getting permanent brain damage do YOU think present an acceptable risk?  If studies can determine that, hypothetically, a 9-year-old playing an entire year of tackle football has a 20 percent chance of suffering permanent, serious brain damage, do you really think that any 9-year-old should be doing so?  What would the acceptable risk -- 1 percent?  One tenth of one percent?  Honestly, even that seems far too high to me, if we are talking about my child.  That's why it is so critical to study this issue carefully, so parents and children (and society-at-large) can at least fully understand the risks.   

It's one thing for kids to play high school or college football, when they (1) can at least give reasonably-informed consent and (2) when their brains are not developing in the same way as a younger child.  But I find it odd that your initial reaction to a scientific study like this is to dismiss it as hysteria rather than to think, huh, maybe it would be better if we as a society didn't expose young children to a substantially increased risk of irreversible brain damage in order to play a game.  Seems like, pardon the pun, a no-brainer, especially if additional studies reach similar conclusions. 

Your anecdotal "logic" is also silly.  It's no different from saying, I can identify ten prominent life-long smokers who did not get lung cancer; therefore, the idea that cigarettes cause lung-cancer must be a myth.  Smoke awake, kids!  Yes, I'm sure Tom Brady's parents are happy he played football.  I'm think it's also safe to say that Junior Seau's parents would rather that their son still be alive, living an anonymous life.   

I continue to love football, but I also continue to be increasingly conflicted about my love for a sport that, without any question, leads to a much higher risk of severe brain damage the longer and more seriously you play.  And I sure as hell would not let my son play organized football before age 14, if ever, after reading a study like this.  Not unless some other studies can prove that its conclusions are clearly wrong.  The risks are just too scary.  There are a thousand other productive things one can do -- other than playing video games -- as a ten-year-old that don't present a serious risk of brain damage. 

[FourMoreYears]

The elite kicker is only as good as the rest of the field goal unit.  I saw Baron went 0-1 last week.  What happened?  Bad snap, bad hold, blocked kick, tried the FG from outside his range?  If Baron has a new snapper or holder, or an OL that lets guys through, Colby may not be able to count on those points.

Granted, I was watching from the new Trinity soccer field ... but I know it was a 44 yard attempt and my memory says it had the distance but was wide left.  Can't speak to the hold or snap ...

[PolarCat]

Wow.  Where did that come from?  Here are my comments, scientific or not.

• Tobacco.  That's an insulting straw man argument.  Please.  You can do better.
• Sample size.  The study was based on a whopping 214 (two hundred and fourteen) men who played football.  I'd be willing to bet there are +/- 40 million men in this country that played football at some point in their lives.
• Sample integrity.  32% of the sample played in the NFL.  48% played college ball.  Does that sound like a representative cross section of former youth football players to you?  Is there any possible way to posit that the cognitive issues arose because of YOUTH FOOTBALL, not playing in college or the pros?
• Control group.  What was it?  How was it defined?  Was there even a control group?  Or did the researchers look only at their 214 man sample, and extrapolate that there was a trend toward more impairment the longer one had played the game?
• Post hoc ergo prompter hoc logic.  What was really the determining variable here?  The age at which the kids started playing?  The number of years they played?  Or the ferociousness with which they played?  I find it impossible to believe there is no statistical difference between a kid who plays Pop Warner for 5 seasons, with a kid who has a passion for the game and grows up to play D1 or makes it to the NFL.  It feels to me like the researchers disregarded other hypotheses which would fit their data.
• The average age of the study participants was 51.  Remember what our helmets were like in the 1970's?  Is there much / any resemblance between those buckets to the stuff kids wear today?  Heck, my first experiences in tackle football were sans helmet, playing on the sandlot.  I'm sure others here can relate.

How about a study of a REPRESENTATIVE sample of American men who played football, including those who never played HS ball, never played college ball, and never made it to the pros?  I'd place credence in that study.  This smacks of sensationalism.

PS: Anecdotal evidence, from my own small sample size of 2: My kids both suffered multiple concussions in youth sports.  But the sports responsible were soccer and lacrosse.  Fit that into the data and tell me why youth football should be vilified?

[ColbyFootball]

Amherst may find it harder and harder to admit that many football players in the future, thanks to the concerns (hysteria?) surrounding youth football.  Today's Boston Globe article adds fuel to the fire: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2017/09/19/study-links-youth-football-greater-risk-later-health-problems/UF3vWIAraotnJnbU8o8TDP/story.html

I am skeptical about the "science", since so many youth football players have gone on to become incredibly successful in later life.  Did the parents of Gerald Ford, Hank Paulson, Jeff Imelt and others follow the path of Tom Brady's parents, and keep them from playing FB till age 14?  (Not to mention my fellow esteemed members of this board; with the possible exception of amh63, I don't think any of us are suffering from getting our bells rung too often at an early age).  Are the kids today playing with better equipment and following safer procedures than you and I did, as the Pop Warner folks would have you believe?

In the end, it probably doesn't matter.  The witch hunt will continue, and the boys of America will be stuck playing Madden on PlayStation instead of America's Game.

You are absolutely right. Youth football with the youngest kids is like slow motion bumper cars. The major fault of this PR disaster is with the NFL. The have the resources to make known just how much safer the game is, and they've failed.