FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[ron doney]

Bench, you've become quite the sandbagger in your later years.

If anyone in the MIAC beats St. Thomas this year it will be a major upset.  I expect them to cruise through the regular season.

I'm not tempering expectations,  if UST doesn't run the table in the MIAC again I'll be steamed, but that's the whole point. Success sometimes creates unreasonable expectations (unless you're MUC). The reason why I could see a regular season loss was that there seemed to be a lack of focus in what most would consider gimme games. 4 turnovers against GAC, a half dozen turnovers against Hamline.

That to me (and I am sure everyone on UST's staff) is unacceptable, and if you make a routine of losing focus in those types of games it may show up against UWEC, SJU, Bethel, Concordia, STO or even Auggie Tech, which are all squads that can make you pay w/ a loss if the stars align.

Granted, some of those games are when UST goes 3 or 4 deep in the depth chart and may be experimenting or putting things on tape, but there's a reason why certain RBs that were every down players at the beginning of the season were ghosts by playoff time.

Any team that has a bad day protecting the football has capable of losing.

This is Bench's full take.  Seems the season played out in the way he was worried about.  Casual play in the UWRF "gimmie" game caught up UST the next week against SJ1.

[ron doney]

Anybody notice something kind of humorous and presumptuous  on the U$T football schedule? 
I think they should consider updating the Nov. 23rd game.

http://www.tommiesports.com/ftbl/schedule/

Now, that's too funny and made me chuckle this fine Monday morning.

St. Thomas made the mistake of anointing themselves kings of the MIAC, and it hasn't worked out so well this year.  I can't say they are a bad team, but the MIAC as a whole is quite talented.  I don't think any of the other schools agreed to that one.

If any team were to put playoff dates on their schedules it would be Mount Union and / or Whitewater.  If you check their schedules there is no mention of playoffs.  I don't have a problem with a team listing the start date of the playoffs as long as they include a qualifying statement.  To list "Home" for the location is a bit much.

I think ROR said it best....

I am humbled by the exposure of this nefarious activity by the SJ1 UST sports information department.  Heads had better roll.

[Retired Old Rat]

Context is generally helpful when trying to be honest.

My comment was about SJU posting prior season awards.   Nothing presumptuous about that.  But, you knew that.

Can't you admit that it was an arrogant thing to do and move on?  Or, maybe better yet, just refrain from commenting in the future when something is true and you don't like it?

[Pat Coleman]

I'm continually amused by the schools who post playoff schedules all the way out to Salem/Appleton/San Antonio/Name your site here and because a lot of them are in the PrestoSports network, I see them. Lots of schools whose programs have never been there or haven't been in decades.

[Retired Old Rat]

Bench, you've become quite the sandbagger in your later years.

If anyone in the MIAC beats St. Thomas this year it will be a major upset.  I expect them to cruise through the regular season.

And I couldn't be happier to have been proven wrong.

[art76]

I don't get out much and during my lunch break today I came across this site and thought I'd share it with you folks, who are also somewhat football minded: http://www.helmethut.com/
I went there looking for information on the helmet I wore back in the day, a Bike air helmet with what looked like a Schutt SH720 mask. Enjoy.

[edstone]

http://www.helmethut.com/
Enjoy.

Art76 - Thanks for the link. It was interesting to look back at some of the helmet types and especially face mask changes.
In the interest of full disclosure, when I began playing football not only were leather helmets the thing, face masks were optional. I was a high school senior before I had a plastic lid to wear.

[ron doney]

Context is generally helpful when trying to be honest.

My comment was about SJU posting prior season awards.   Nothing presumptuous about that.  But, you knew that.

Can't you admit that it was an arrogant thing to do and move on?  Or, maybe better yet, just refrain from commenting in the future when something is true and you don't like it?

ROR....unlike myself, you appear to be the one on this board who is respected as being "clued in."  So please you or any of the clued in folks on this board,  tell me how I am off base here, as this is how I see it.....

Last summer I did not say that SJ1 was presumptuous by posting a link to awards (Yep, I knew that). I simply said they were arrogant, especially when they had awards at the top of the list of links.  Fast forward to today and UST is being called arrogant, for being presumptuous. 

So I see both sides slinging claims of arrogance at each other.  Your approach in a reply last summer was to be sarcastic and dismiss my claim.  I figured that recycling your post this time around would be appropriate and certainly in context.*

Btw, in response to my post this summer Pat said SIDs linking to awards wasn't arrogant and quite common.  And wouldn't you know it, he says the same thing here about SIDs and post season schedules being common.  I'm guessing he'd argue both sides are a little "clueless" to argue arrogance on these matters.
_ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _  _ _ _ _  _

I used to listen to a lot of sports talk radio.  Now I can only stand it for stretches of a few weeks at a time.  Why? Because the same arguments get recycled in often hypocritical way.  When they do, I tune out.  The board is supposed to be like talk radio.  The difference is that we can pull forward those old arguments/comments and be honest about how they've been flipped on their head in such a short time.

*just because SJ1 was not being presumptuous, doesn't mean they were not being arrogant - as you seem to argue here. If context is helpful, so is not spinning words.

[DuffMan]

Doney,

It's been clear from the beginning that this is a Johnnie Smoke Fest^TM.  I'll sum it up for you:

If SJU does it, it is good.
If U$T does it, it is bad.

[ron doney]

Doney,

It's been clear from the beginning that this is a Johnnie Smoke Fest^TM.  I'll sum it up for you:

If SJU does it, it is good.
If U$T does it, it is bad.

Hahaha....well played.  I'll take it.

[USTBench]

Bench, you've become quite the sandbagger in your later years.

If anyone in the MIAC beats St. Thomas this year it will be a major upset.  I expect them to cruise through the regular season.

I'm not tempering expectations,  if UST doesn't run the table in the MIAC again I'll be steamed, but that's the whole point. Success sometimes creates unreasonable expectations (unless you're MUC). The reason why I could see a regular season loss was that there seemed to be a lack of focus in what most would consider gimme games. 4 turnovers against GAC, a half dozen turnovers against Hamline.

That to me (and I am sure everyone on UST's staff) is unacceptable, and if you make a routine of losing focus in those types of games it may show up against UWEC, SJU, Bethel, Concordia, STO or even Auggie Tech, which are all squads that can make you pay w/ a loss if the stars align.

Granted, some of those games are when UST goes 3 or 4 deep in the depth chart and may be experimenting or putting things on tape, but there's a reason why certain RBs that were every down players at the beginning of the season were ghosts by playoff time.

Any team that has a bad day protecting the football has capable of losing.

This is Bench's full take.  Seems the season played out in the way he was worried about.  Casual play in the UWRF "gimmie" game caught up UST the next week against SJ1.

Benchstradamus

[OzJohnnie]

Context is generally helpful when trying to be honest.

My comment was about SJU posting prior season awards.   Nothing presumptuous about that.  But, you knew that.

Can't you admit that it was an arrogant thing to do and move on?  Or, maybe better yet, just refrain from commenting in the future when something is true and you don't like it?

ROR....unlike myself, you appear to be the one on this board who is respected as being "clued in."  So please you or any of the clued in folks on this board,  tell me how I am off base here, as this is how I see it.....

Last summer I did not say that SJ1 was presumptuous by posting a link to awards (Yep, I knew that). I simply said they were arrogant, especially when they had awards at the top of the list of links.  Fast forward to today and UST is being called arrogant, for being presumptuous. 

So I see both sides slinging claims of arrogance at each other.  Your approach in a reply last summer was to be sarcastic and dismiss my claim.  I figured that recycling your post this time around would be appropriate and certainly in context.*

Btw, in response to my post this summer Pat said SIDs linking to awards wasn't arrogant and quite common.  And wouldn't you know it, he says the same thing here about SIDs and post season schedules being common.  I'm guessing he'd argue both sides are a little "clueless" to argue arrogance on these matters.
_ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _  _ _ _ _  _

I used to listen to a lot of sports talk radio.  Now I can only stand it for stretches of a few weeks at a time.  Why? Because the same arguments get recycled in often hypocritical way.  When they do, I tune out.  The board is supposed to be like talk radio.  The difference is that we can pull forward those old arguments/comments and be honest about how they've been flipped on their head in such a short time.

*just because SJ1 was not being presumptuous, doesn't mean they were not being arrogant - as you seem to argue here. If context is helpful, so is not spinning words.

Ha, ha, ROR.  Serves you right.

[RoyalsFan]

I don't know if it is a new rule this year or just being enforced this year.  I like the rule.  The players gotta learn to keep them strapped up.  When I played if your helmet came off in a game it was a good thing because it meant the doctor had easier time checking on you.  I just turned 31 so no leather helmet jokes.

I agree that players need to keep their helmets strapped, but making them sit out a play really doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Football is a violent game and helmets come off sometimes even if they are strapped on. I understand when a player is injured that they should sit out at least 1 play for safety reasons, but don't know why it would be a safety reason if your helmet comes off. If it is because they (league officials) want to make sure helmets are strapped on, then it would make more sense to asses a penalty if a player doesn't have his helmet strapped on. I don't know about college, but when I was playing high school football it was a 15 yard penalty if you didn't have your mouth piece in. They could do the same for unstrapped helmets rather than make them sit out a play. Just me 2 cents worth.

Coach can call a timeout to get the player back in the game without missing a play.

Yes, that is true, but why should it cost a team a timeout? I just don't see the need to make a player sit out a play (or cost the team a timeout) just because his helmet came off.

[badgerwarhawk]

Helmets don't just fly off the heads of players.  If a helmet is dislodged there is usually some sort of contact to it that is involved.  The helmet is worn on the head.  When there is contact to it there is contact to the head.  Having the player removed for one play is insignificant in the scope of an entire game of plays and it gives the medical staff an opportunity to check things out.  Better safe than sorry. 

If you think this is bad just wait until the NCAA forces teams to switch to the new high tech helmet which has sensors that register the degree contact and the participation rules that will be developed by that.  When that happens, and I don't think it will for a while, players may have to sit out even when the helmet remains on their heads. 

[OzJohnnie]

Helmets don't just fly off the heads of players.  If a helmet is dislodged there is usually some sort of contact to it that is involved.  The helmet is worn on the head.  When there is contact to it there is contact to the head.  Having the player removed for one play is insignificant in the scope of an entire game of plays and it gives the medical staff an opportunity to check things out.  Better safe than sorry. 

If you think this is bad just wait until the NCAA forces teams to switch to the new high tech helmet which has sensors that register the degree contact and the participation rules that will be developed by that.  When that happens, and I don't think it will for a while, players may have to sit out even when the helmet remains on their heads. 

Knees are prone to injury. Serious soft tissue injuries. I wonder where all this is headed. We can't chose to do dangerous activities and expect them to be performed in a risk or consequence free way. But it seems an implicit assumption has been made that risk is the top value. But then it seems the consequences from concussion are long term and significant so you don't want people walking to that blindly. But then it's like cigarettes - at this point who doesn't know their health affects?  At what point does an individual get permission to choose which activities, even dangerous and deleterious ones, to participate in?  But then rules about coming out after helmet loss aren't much different in principle than chop blocking rules: they are there to protect participants from hazardous situations not in keeping with good play. But then a chop is a deliberate act while a hard hit to the head may just be random chance - so it's a rule based on the outcome rather than an infraction which does seems different.  And what if concussions turn out to be a scientific fraud/scare like silicone breast implants (God bless 'em) or electronic devices in airplanes?

Anyway, I'm still tossing this trend around in my head.  I'm not sure where I stand.