FB: New Jersey Athletic Conference

[dlippiel]

Your post about the assessment of the Rowan/Montclair Game actually had me laughing out loud. "I thought the LB's for Rowan were a little better then MSU's LB's, I thought the DB's for Rowan were a little better than MSU's db's". Did you play ball? Are you a coach? So then since your so knowledgeable on the topic, please explain why, why were the linebackers better for Rowan, was it their technique, did they work down hill, stayed low to the ground, attack the line of scrimmage, read there keys properly, if they did what keys were they reading? Nearest back, were they watching the guard, did they false step? Are they good in space and can cover ground? What defense was Rowan in ¾, 4/3 3/5 stack, are they a gap controlled defense? Db's do they play 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,if so how was their  technique? Quick feet, good hips, can get out of their back pedal, break on the ball,  communicate well, pass the WR's off to the next zone, pattern read??

And I would also like to know how you gathered this from a 27-7 loss to Montclair...

Would his assessment be equally invalid if he said something you agreed with? It's funny how these posts demanding intricate knowledge of the game before having an opinion come out of the woodwork whenever someone has the audacity to offer a opinion someone disagrees with.

Get over yourself. So you were an ex-player/coach. Big deal. No-one here is especially impressed when those types of people come rolling in here. It's nice to have contributions from them, and first-hand knowledge, but believe me, having a smug, holier-than-thou attitude about what you know just means people will think you're a jerk. If people who didn't play/coach are so incapable of offering quality analysis, why are you posting in a forum where there are so many of us? Why don't you just talk to your ex-football buddies? If you need to come to a message board and act superior towards others because you were an ex-player, then there's something missing in your life. But no-one in here is actually going to be intimidated or impressed by your attitude.

+k bombers

[MSU Pride]

Your post about the assessment of the Rowan/Montclair Game actually had me laughing out loud. "I thought the LB's for Rowan were a little better then MSU's LB's, I thought the DB's for Rowan were a little better than MSU's db's". Did you play ball? Are you a coach? So then since your so knowledgeable on the topic, please explain why, why were the linebackers better for Rowan, was it their technique, did they work down hill, stayed low to the ground, attack the line of scrimmage, read there keys properly, if they did what keys were they reading? Nearest back, were they watching the guard, did they false step? Are they good in space and can cover ground? What defense was Rowan in ¾, 4/3 3/5 stack, are they a gap controlled defense? Db's do they play 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,if so how was their  technique? Quick feet, good hips, can get out of their back pedal, break on the ball,  communicate well, pass the WR's off to the next zone, pattern read??

And I would also like to know how you gathered this from a 27-7 loss to Montclair...

Would his assessment be equally invalid if he said something you agreed with? It's funny how these posts demanding intricate knowledge of the game before having an opinion come out of the woodwork whenever someone has the audacity to offer a opinion someone disagrees with.

Get over yourself. So you were an ex-player/coach. Big deal. No-one here is especially impressed when those types of people come rolling in here. It's nice to have contributions from them, and first-hand knowledge, but believe me, having a smug, holier-than-thou attitude about what you know just means people will think you're a jerk. If people who didn't play/coach are so incapable of offering quality analysis, why are you posting in a forum where there are so many of us? Why don't you just talk to your ex-football buddies? If you need to come to a message board and act superior towards others because you were an ex-player, then there's something missing in your life. But no-one in here is actually going to be intimidated or impressed by your attitude.

+k bombers

[pg04]

MSUPride, I'll give you a +K for your response to Bombers.  I could see how Bombers got the impression originally but I think your response was good. 

[PBR...]

MSUPride, I'll give you a +K for your response to Bombers.  I could see how Bombers got the impression originally but I think your response was good. 

agreed pg4...+k around the horn...

[MSU Pride]

Thanks fellas!!! 

[Pat Coleman]

MSUPride, I'll give you a +K for your response to Bombers.  I could see how Bombers got the impression originally but I think your response was good. 

I second that and second the plus-1 karma.

[Bombers798891]

You're misunderstanding my post and I don't know why you took such offense to it, I am just interested in how he came up with his assessment. This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing, I didn't say the LB's or DB's were better from MSU, part because while I was at the game, it was early in the year and I really don't remember. I give credit where credit is due, Cortland, very good team, tremendous team speed, # 3 who was the roll down safety is a beast.

I am not a doctor while I may entertain a conversation with a friend of mine who is regarding a topic pertaining to his profession, I would probably refrain from offering my own opinion because I do not know enough about the topic to add anything worth of value.

I love this site, helps keep D3 on the map, Pat Coleman is our voice, and I enjoy reading the majority of the posts which add some color to my day and a build of for Saturday. I definitely do not have a "holier-than-thou attitude" LOL, far from it.  I think it's great people route for their team and route against others, talk about what teams were better in the past, who was overrated and so fourth. I am pro NJAC, Pro D3 Football; I have made multiple phone calls for guys who played on other teams in our conference and D3 to help them continue their career at the next level. Trust me nothing is missing in my life and my intent was not to bully someone simply because I may know more about a topic then they do.  When you write an analytically about something you leave yourself open for the reader to question your assessment which is what I am doing.

My attitude is a result of his post about something that he probably doesn't have enough knowledge to comment on. If he would have said, I just think Rowan is a better team, laid an egg the second game of the year, or Montclair is overrated. Maybe I would make a smart ass remark about the scoreboard but would chalk it up as agree to disagree. That's not what he wrote though...

But why doesn't he have enough knowledge to comment? Because he wasn't a player? That's what you never explained, which is why I disliked you post. As I read it, the only reason you gave for why he wasn't qualified to comment was the implication that he wasn't a coach or player. And that's a cop-out response coming from anyone.

I'm sure you're not a doctor. But have you ever read a sports article and said it was terrible? Do writers respond, "When you're a professional writer, then you can tell me why my article is bad?" Have you ever said food at a restaurant wasn't very good and then been told "When you're a chef, you can criticize my cooking?" Have you ever said you didn't like a movie or TV show? Well, if you're not a filmmaker or a TV producer, who are you to offer an opinion on if that movie or show is good or not?

The point is, I am sure you have at some point, offered your opinion on something you're not qualified to criticize due to lack of first-hand knowledge. I've done it too. We all do it. There's nothing wrong with doing that. But this is why those "Well when have you ever..." arguments, when coming from anyone, are met with such disdain. They're only trotted out when it's an attempt to discredit one specific person and one specific point of view. They're never universally applied.

[clandfan]

MSU...I have to agree with Bombers, while maybe you didn't mean it, I thought it came off as holier than thou. 

Message board stuff, email etc....all lends itself to some misinterpretation.  Perhaps you  were misinterpreted....but I don't believe for a minute that you never offer an opinion on a subject that you  know little about.

[Doid23]

Your post about the assessment of the Rowan/Montclair Game actually had me laughing out loud. "I thought the LB's for Rowan were a little better then MSU's LB's, I thought the DB's for Rowan were a little better than MSU's db's". Did you play ball? Are you a coach? So then since your so knowledgeable on the topic, please explain why, why were the linebackers better for Rowan, was it their technique, did they work down hill, stayed low to the ground, attack the line of scrimmage, read there keys properly, if they did what keys were they reading? Nearest back, were they watching the guard, did they false step? Are they good in space and can cover ground? What defense was Rowan in ¾, 4/3 3/5 stack, are they a gap controlled defense? Db's do they play 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,if so how was their  technique? Quick feet, good hips, can get out of their back pedal, break on the ball,  communicate well, pass the WR's off to the next zone, pattern read??

And I would also like to know how you gathered this from a 27-7 loss to Montclair...

Would his assessment be equally invalid if he said something you agreed with? It's funny how these posts demanding intricate knowledge of the game before having an opinion come out of the woodwork whenever someone has the audacity to offer a opinion someone disagrees with.

Get over yourself. So you were an ex-player/coach. Big deal. No-one here is especially impressed when those types of people come rolling in here. It's nice to have contributions from them, and first-hand knowledge, but believe me, having a smug, holier-than-thou attitude about what you know just means people will think you're a jerk. If people who didn't play/coach are so incapable of offering quality analysis, why are you posting in a forum where there are so many of us? Why don't you just talk to your ex-football buddies? If you need to come to a message board and act superior towards others because you were an ex-player, then there's something missing in your life. But no-one in here is actually going to be intimidated or impressed by your attitude.

Agreed. +K

[rams1102]

No offense JT but I'm kinda hopin for a TCNJ upset over Rowan.  Would make this a whole lot easier.

Rams, on the other hand, is hoping Willy P finds a way to beat Cortland.

You, obviously would like to see Montclair lose.

If we all win out, I am hearing that the tie breaker would go to OOWP.  Is that your understanding as well?

Its cool. I was rooting for Cortland last week. I was even telling player parents how to beat Montclair in the parking lot after Cortland vs. Rowan.  I also told them I thought Cortland was better.  I didn't think it would come down to a missed FG.  I figured Cortland by 7.

I've looked at it, but I'll wait for the master D3 bracketologists like Gordon, Pat, and others to weigh in.

I didn't realize the NJAC tie breakers were that crazy.  Logically, I was thinking the team (Rowan), that beat the team (Cortland), that beat the team (Montclair) was huge... but apparently not so much.

And I always want to see Montclair lose... just going to their campus is depressing.  Except for Sam Mills every thing about Montclair is evil.

I always want to see Rowan lose, but I'm not as bad as you. I offered you and your family food and drink in the Train Station, did not sick the dogs on you and only beat you guys by 19. I thought that was very hospitable Good luck the rest of the year.

[jmw73]

Here's the NJAC tiebreaker rule:

Champion/NCAA Automatic Bid Determination

a.       The team with the best conference record in regular season play will be declared the conference champion and will receive the league's automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament.

b.       If two teams finish the season tied for first place with identical conference records, co-champions will be declared and the tiebreaker procedure listed in (A4c) will only be used to determine the conference's automatic qualification to the NCAA Tournament. 

c.        In case of a tie for first place, the tiebreaker will be determined as follows:

     i.         Two teams tied:  The winner in head-to-head competition

     ii.        Three teams tied*:

          1.       Winner in head-to-head competition – team with best record against other two combined is declared champion

          2.       Results versus next highest ranked conference team (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th,  8th, 9th, 10th) until tie is broken

          3.       Opponents' opponents' winning percentage in all of Division III

          4.       Opponents' opponents' winning percentage in-region

          5.       Rose Bowl Rule

          6.       Coin toss (if 3 teams, odd team out advances

This was posted a couple of days ago and I assume it is correct.  Fran is the SID at Cortland.  If NJAC ends in three way tie, Ist head to head tie breaker is a wash. 2nd tie breaker is also a wash as all three will have beaten all other conference opponents.  Theat brings us to third tie breaker...opponents opponents winning percentage.  

For Montclair that means the winning percentage of Westfield States opponents + Lycoming + Ithaca;

Rowan :Lycomings opponents + Ithaca + Westfield State

Cortland: Ithaca's opponents + Lycoming + Westfield State.  

As of now the strength of the E8 and the fact that E8 only has 6 members favors Cortland.  Larger confefences of the NEFC and MAC will trend closer to .500 WP Because conference wins are nullified by conference loss.  E8 has fewer conference losses  and more OOC wins and if all holds true, will trend higher than the other two conferences. ...unless of course there are more bad losses like Alfred to UofR.

If that is true, then the current numbers are:

Montclair State: 57-46 (.5534)
Rowan: 52-45 (.5361)
Cortland State: 57-39 (.5938)

Which means that currently Cortland State is in the driver's seat for the NJAC title, if I'm right.

[MSU Pride]

To be continued...Deadlines...


Quick question though, does anyone think it has any relevance whatsoever if MSU blanks B Port, Willy P and drops 40 on both of them...

[Jonny Utah]

To be continued...Deadlines...


Quick question though, does anyone think it has any relevance whatsoever if MSU blanks B Port, Willy P and drops 40 on both of them...

Maybe not at this point but they should.  If they beat them 17-14, I'd say they probably aren't that good.  If they beat them both 55-3, then I'd probaby think twice about their playoff chances.

[JT]

Your post about the assessment of the Rowan/Montclair Game actually had me laughing out loud. "I thought the LB's for Rowan were a little better then MSU's LB's, I thought the DB's for Rowan were a little better than MSU's db's". Did you play ball? Are you a coach? So then since your so knowledgeable on the topic, please explain why, why were the linebackers better for Rowan, was it their technique, did they work down hill, stayed low to the ground, attack the line of scrimmage, read there keys properly, if they did what keys were they reading? Nearest back, were they watching the guard, did they false step? Are they good in space and can cover ground? What defense was Rowan in ¾, 4/3 3/5 stack, are they a gap controlled defense? Db's do they play 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,if so how was their  technique? Quick feet, good hips, can get out of their back pedal, break on the ball,  communicate well, pass the WR's off to the next zone, pattern read??

And I would also like to know how you gathered this from a 27-7 loss to Montclair...

My resume to judge football talent, game plans, and schemes is long and broad.  But I'm not submitting any resume for a football job.  Plus, most post pattern readers aren't interested in analysis that extends past your average newspaper analysis.  Can I do it... sure.  But there's a difference between basic analysis and showing off.

I was very disappointed with Rowan game plan and use of personnel at Montclair.  It consistently put the Rowan D in bad situations.  Rowan has improved greatly since this game.

Generally my analysis and predictions over the years here have been solid.  Especially where the NJAC is concerned.

There are quite a few similarities between Cortland and MSU.  Having seen both, I thought MSU was overrated at #14.  I thought Cortland was better, and I said so BEFORE the game.

I greatly appreciate those who have played the college game, but it does not mean they have exclusive providence over team/game analysis.

[JT]

No offense JT but I'm kinda hopin for a TCNJ upset over Rowan.  Would make this a whole lot easier.

Rams, on the other hand, is hoping Willy P finds a way to beat Cortland.

You, obviously would like to see Montclair lose.

If we all win out, I am hearing that the tie breaker would go to OOWP.  Is that your understanding as well?

Its cool. I was rooting for Cortland last week. I was even telling player parents how to beat Montclair in the parking lot after Cortland vs. Rowan.  I also told them I thought Cortland was better.  I didn't think it would come down to a missed FG.  I figured Cortland by 7.

I've looked at it, but I'll wait for the master D3 bracketologists like Gordon, Pat, and others to weigh in.

I didn't realize the NJAC tie breakers were that crazy.  Logically, I was thinking the team (Rowan), that beat the team (Cortland), that beat the team (Montclair) was huge... but apparently not so much.

And I always want to see Montclair lose... just going to their campus is depressing.  Except for Sam Mills every thing about Montclair is evil.

I always want to see Rowan lose, but I'm not as bad as you. I offered you and your family food and drink in the Train Station, did not sick the dogs on you and only beat you guys by 19. I thought that was very hospitable Good luck the rest of the year.

I'm joking.... however, the campus today is very inhospitable to the fans.  Its not as much fun as it used be.