FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 05:19:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

sjusection105

Quote from: GoldandBlueBU on November 24, 2014, 04:55:44 PM

I don't think any of us were saying that BU deserved to be in based on the weather...that would be ridiculous...just expressing how frustrating it was to see weather change that game in the way that it did via the field conditions, where our BU bias (and statistics) led us to believe that things would have gone the other way on a better surface.  (Cue OldAuggie to post another rant about how the field didn't matter at all). 

BU lost in a completely fair matchup where both teams had to play on an ice sheet, and Augsburg made 1 more play than Bethel.
Artificial Turf solves this problem. Get it done BU. The program is too good to play on an inferior surface.
As of now they're on DOUBLE SECRET Probation!

SagatagSam

Sing us a song, you're the piano man
Sing us a song tonight
Well, we're all in the mood for a melody
And you've got us feelin' alright.

RoyalsFan

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2014, 04:42:06 PM
Weather is a factor in how a game is played.  Duh.

What's stupid is the insinuation that a playoff selection committee should consider "bad weather" as an excuse for a loss.  Playoff selection committees should look at the game's results, end of story.  There's no provision to say "Golly gee, the weather was bad that day, so Good Team X lost to Bad Team Y because of Weather.  I guess we can't count that loss against Good Team X because the game was affected by weather."  Nor is there some obligation to try to guess what the game results would have been if it was played in perfect conditions ("Good Team X would have beaten Bad Team Y in good weather"), especially because weather happens in the playoffs, too.  Actually, there's likely to be more "weather" in the playoffs, the deeper we get into the year, than in the regular season.

Holy cow - being a little sensitive here? I was just poking a little fun with that comment. I never insinuated that the selection committee should look at the weather as an excuse for a team losing. I just pointed out that I thought the frozen field negated Bethel's advantage they had on defense and that the field/weather conditions played a factor in the game. You and a some other posters jumped all over me saying that weather is never an excuse - so when I saw the post saying that it may have been because of the weather that SJU played down to St. Olaf I couldn't resist.     

RoyalsFan

Quote from: sjusection105 on November 24, 2014, 07:40:19 PM
Quote from: GoldandBlueBU on November 24, 2014, 04:55:44 PM

I don't think any of us were saying that BU deserved to be in based on the weather...that would be ridiculous...just expressing how frustrating it was to see weather change that game in the way that it did via the field conditions, where our BU bias (and statistics) led us to believe that things would have gone the other way on a better surface.  (Cue OldAuggie to post another rant about how the field didn't matter at all). 

BU lost in a completely fair matchup where both teams had to play on an ice sheet, and Augsburg made 1 more play than Bethel.
Artificial Turf solves this problem. Get it done BU. The program is too good to play on an inferior surface.

I would love to see BU get artificial turf, but unfortunately (from what I hear anyway) is that BU doesn't receive the same type of funding from alumni supporters that UST or SJU get so they can't afford/justify the expense. 

wif

Quote from: SagatagSam on November 24, 2014, 07:15:00 PM
Quote from: wif on November 24, 2014, 06:19:40 PM
Brushing up on my UST recent history - was O'connell the starTing  QB on their Stagg Bowl team?

Yes.
He went 15-35 for 116 yards and an interception that day in Salem.

My point was more to the fact that during the Stagg Bowl season (I am assuming his Soph season), he had to have performed at a high level to lead his team that far. I saw him play SJU twice ('13 & '14) and I saw some of the Bethel game this year. In all three of those contests, he did not play well. There was talk he was suffering from mono vs SJU in the '13 game, and I know he suffered a very severe leg injury late in the '13 season. He played mediocre at best vs SJU this season, and frankly his performance during the first half of this season's Bethel game was really poor. He's an athletic player with what looks to be a good arm, but his accuracy and decision making in the three games I saw him play did not suggest that he was a quarterback that could take a team to the Stagg Bowl. Aside from the leg injury (which might be reason enough?), has there been some speculation as to the drop off in his performance? I'm definitely not a fan of UST, but I hate to see a player struggle during their senior season to the point where they get benched, but as has been mentioned, Caruso really had no choice.

wif

Quote from: RoyalsFan on November 24, 2014, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2014, 04:42:06 PM
Weather is a factor in how a game is played.  Duh.

What's stupid is the insinuation that a playoff selection committee should consider "bad weather" as an excuse for a loss.  Playoff selection committees should look at the game's results, end of story.  There's no provision to say "Golly gee, the weather was bad that day, so Good Team X lost to Bad Team Y because of Weather.  I guess we can't count that loss against Good Team X because the game was affected by weather."  Nor is there some obligation to try to guess what the game results would have been if it was played in perfect conditions ("Good Team X would have beaten Bad Team Y in good weather"), especially because weather happens in the playoffs, too.  Actually, there's likely to be more "weather" in the playoffs, the deeper we get into the year, than in the regular season.



Holy cow - being a little sensitive here? I was just poking a little fun with that comment. I never insinuated that the selection committee should look at the weather as an excuse for a team losing. I just pointed out that I thought the frozen field negated Bethel's advantage they had on defense and that the field/weather conditions played a factor in the game. You and a some other posters jumped all over me saying that weather is never an excuse - so when I saw the post saying that it may have been because of the weather that SJU played down to St. Olaf I couldn't resist.     

Anybody that thinks that Augsburg puts up 62 points on this year's Bethel D on a dry surface is smoking something I'd like to try. They put up 3 vs Wartburg and 7 vs SJU and something like 28 (mostly after the game was decided) against UST. I'd put Bethel's D somewhere in the middle of that group if I had to rank them.

OzJohnnie

Quote from: 57Johnnie on November 24, 2014, 04:33:48 PM
Quote from: Retired Old Rat on November 24, 2014, 04:20:22 PM
Congratulations to Sam Sura on being named a finalist for the Gagliardi Trophy.

http://www.d3football.com/notables/2014/11/gagliardi-semifinalists-announced

Well deserved.
I cast my ballot  :)

I did as well.

Note to Pat or anyone else associated with the fan voting:  There is a simply and fairly well known means of circumventing the single-vote mechanism of Survey Monkey.  If fan vote is a determining factor in the award then this needs to be looked at.  If it's just a data point for a committee to consider then all is fine.
  

sjusection105

Quote from: RoyalsFan on November 24, 2014, 09:00:32 PM
Quote from: sjusection105 on November 24, 2014, 07:40:19 PM
Quote from: GoldandBlueBU on November 24, 2014, 04:55:44 PM

I don't think any of us were saying that BU deserved to be in based on the weather...that would be ridiculous...just expressing how frustrating it was to see weather change that game in the way that it did via the field conditions, where our BU bias (and statistics) led us to believe that things would have gone the other way on a better surface.  (Cue OldAuggie to post another rant about how the field didn't matter at all). 

BU lost in a completely fair matchup where both teams had to play on an ice sheet, and Augsburg made 1 more play than Bethel.
Artificial Turf solves this problem. Get it done BU. The program is too good to play on an inferior surface.

I would love to see BU get artificial turf, but unfortunately (from what I hear anyway) is that BU doesn't receive the same type of funding from alumni supporters that UST or SJU get so they can't afford/justify the expense.

If some dough-head can raise $55K earlier this year, via the Internet, to make potato salad then BU can come up with creative fund raising to install a decent field & weight room for their football team. Where there's a will there is a way. Nobody said it would be easy bit it can be done.
As of now they're on DOUBLE SECRET Probation!

OldAuggie

#71963
Quote from: wif on November 24, 2014, 09:06:52 PM
Quote from: RoyalsFan on November 24, 2014, 08:52:17 PM
Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on November 24, 2014, 04:42:06 PM
Weather is a factor in how a game is played.  Duh.

What's stupid is the insinuation that a playoff selection committee should consider "bad weather" as an excuse for a loss.  Playoff selection committees should look at the game's results, end of story.  There's no provision to say "Golly gee, the weather was bad that day, so Good Team X lost to Bad Team Y because of Weather.  I guess we can't count that loss against Good Team X because the game was affected by weather."  Nor is there some obligation to try to guess what the game results would have been if it was played in perfect conditions ("Good Team X would have beaten Bad Team Y in good weather"), especially because weather happens in the playoffs, too.  Actually, there's likely to be more "weather" in the playoffs, the deeper we get into the year, than in the regular season.



Holy cow - being a little sensitive here? I was just poking a little fun with that comment. I never insinuated that the selection committee should look at the weather as an excuse for a team losing. I just pointed out that I thought the frozen field negated Bethel's advantage they had on defense and that the field/weather conditions played a factor in the game. You and a some other posters jumped all over me saying that weather is never an excuse - so when I saw the post saying that it may have been because of the weather that SJU played down to St. Olaf I couldn't resist.     

Anybody that thinks that Augsburg puts up 62 points on this year's Bethel D on a dry surface is smoking something I'd like to try. They put up 3 vs Wartburg and 7 vs SJU and something like 28 (mostly after the game was decided) against UST. I'd put Bethel's D somewhere in the middle of that group if I had to rank them.
Nobody was saying that the score would be the same. The only argument was that the crappy field conditions favored one team. They both played on the same field so nobody could use the field as an excuse.
MIAC champions 1928, 1997

SagatagSam

Quote from: RoyalsFan on November 24, 2014, 09:00:32 PM
Quote from: sjusection105 on November 24, 2014, 07:40:19 PM
Quote from: GoldandBlueBU on November 24, 2014, 04:55:44 PM

I don't think any of us were saying that BU deserved to be in based on the weather...that would be ridiculous...just expressing how frustrating it was to see weather change that game in the way that it did via the field conditions, where our BU bias (and statistics) led us to believe that things would have gone the other way on a better surface.  (Cue OldAuggie to post another rant about how the field didn't matter at all). 

BU lost in a completely fair matchup where both teams had to play on an ice sheet, and Augsburg made 1 more play than Bethel.
Artificial Turf solves this problem. Get it done BU. The program is too good to play on an inferior surface.

I would love to see BU get artificial turf, but unfortunately (from what I hear anyway) is that BU doesn't receive the same type of funding from alumni supporters that UST or SJU get so they can't afford/justify the expense.

I know when SJU put SprinTurf down at Clemens Stadium in 2002 the school actually saved money.
I worked for Br. Mark Kelly on the grounds crew, and after a few years of not having to mow, re-seed, paint lines, etc., the turf paid for itself. It should be no different at BU.
Sing us a song, you're the piano man
Sing us a song tonight
Well, we're all in the mood for a melody
And you've got us feelin' alright.

RoyalsFan

Quote from: SagatagSam on November 24, 2014, 10:17:08 PM

I know when SJU put SprinTurf down at Clemens Stadium in 2002 the school actually saved money.
I worked for Br. Mark Kelly on the grounds crew, and after a few years of not having to mow, re-seed, paint lines, etc., the turf paid for itself. It should be no different at BU.

So who do I forward this information to at Bethel?  :D It would be great to convince them to install turf.

OzJohnnie

Quote from: RoyalsFan on November 24, 2014, 11:11:02 PM
Quote from: SagatagSam on November 24, 2014, 10:17:08 PM

I know when SJU put SprinTurf down at Clemens Stadium in 2002 the school actually saved money.
I worked for Br. Mark Kelly on the grounds crew, and after a few years of not having to mow, re-seed, paint lines, etc., the turf paid for itself. It should be no different at BU.

So who do I forward this information to at Bethel?  :D It would be great to convince them to install turf.

  

oldsju67

Quote from: wif on November 24, 2014, 09:00:48 PM
Quote from: SagatagSam on November 24, 2014, 07:15:00 PM
Quote from: wif on November 24, 2014, 06:19:40 PM
Brushing up on my UST recent history - was O'connell the starTing  QB on their Stagg Bowl team?

Yes.
He went 15-35 for 116 yards and an interception that day in Salem.

My point was more to the fact that during the Stagg Bowl season (I am assuming his Soph season), he had to have performed at a high level to lead his team that far. I saw him play SJU twice ('13 & '14) and I saw some of the Bethel game this year. In all three of those contests, he did not play well. There was talk he was suffering from mono vs SJU in the '13 game, and I know he suffered a very severe leg injury late in the '13 season. He played mediocre at best vs SJU this season, and frankly his performance during the first half of this season's Bethel game was really poor. He's an athletic player with what looks to be a good arm, but his accuracy and decision making in the three games I saw him play did not suggest that he was a quarterback that could take a team to the Stagg Bowl. Aside from the leg injury (which might be reason enough?), has there been some speculation as to the drop off in his performance? I'm definitely not a fan of UST, but I hate to see a player struggle during their senior season to the point where they get benched, but as has been mentioned, Caruso really had no choice.

I've wondered the same thing.
The last shall be first and the  shall be... FIRST AGAIN!!!

GoldandBlueBU

Quote from: OzJohnnie on November 24, 2014, 11:13:30 PM
Quote from: RoyalsFan on November 24, 2014, 11:11:02 PM
Quote from: SagatagSam on November 24, 2014, 10:17:08 PM

I know when SJU put SprinTurf down at Clemens Stadium in 2002 the school actually saved money.
I worked for Br. Mark Kelly on the grounds crew, and after a few years of not having to mow, re-seed, paint lines, etc., the turf paid for itself. It should be no different at BU.

So who do I forward this information to at Bethel?  :D It would be great to convince them to install turf.



Fantastic!  ++

GoldandBlueBU

Quote from: OzJohnnie on November 24, 2014, 11:13:30 PM
Quote from: RoyalsFan on November 24, 2014, 11:11:02 PM
Quote from: SagatagSam on November 24, 2014, 10:17:08 PM

I know when SJU put SprinTurf down at Clemens Stadium in 2002 the school actually saved money.
I worked for Br. Mark Kelly on the grounds crew, and after a few years of not having to mow, re-seed, paint lines, etc., the turf paid for itself. It should be no different at BU.

So who do I forward this information to at Bethel?  :D It would be great to convince them to install turf.


I'm sure it does pay for itself, at least to some degree.

The issue is the up front capital required...probably in the $1-2 million range? I have no clue.  By itself, that's really not a huge amount (if my guess was anywhere in the vicinity of the ballpark) but the issue is that it is lined up behind other not yet fully paid off items like the student center, and the new fitness center that they just broke ground on.

Maybe once those are checked off, they can focus their fundraising efforts in that direction.