MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[sac]

This guy forgot there was basketball tonight.


Olivet 105 Finlandia 97   

This must have been quite a contrast from the offensive struggle I saw the other night from Olivet.  Looks like a great night for their guards with Alvino Ashley 26, Marquis Childers 20 and Jaren Edsel with 20.   Eric Mack had 13, Matt El 12

It seems both appropriate and sad to point out both teams shot below 50% from the FT line.



North Park 71 Albion 66

This might be a really unimpressive loss for the Britons....Trine beat this same North Park team a few weeks ago by 29, I don't know what to make of North Park. Perhaps Greg Sager will have a first hand account on the CCIW board.



With these results, the league moves to 37-33 on the year with 3 games left this week.

[Gregory Sager]

North Park 71 Albion 66

This might be a really unimpressive loss for the Britons....Trine beat this same North Park team a few weeks ago by 29, I don't know what to make of North Park. Perhaps Greg Sager will have a first hand account on the CCIW board.

Recap's over there. Let's just say that NPU followed the motto of the mayor of our fair city, Rahm Emmanuel, "Don't let a crisis go to waste." With the Vikings' best player sitting on the bench in street clothes due to a sprained ankle, NPU played its finest game of the year and simply outshot Albion to the point where the offensively-challenged Britons just couldn't keep up.

I'd love to say that tonight was the real North Park team, as opposed to whoever or whatever it was that showed up in NPU uniforms two and a half weeks ago in Angola, but I'd be lying if I did. At this juncture I'm just hoping that, two months from now, Jody May will have reason to look back on this game and say, "Y'know, losing to North Park at their place by five wasn't such a bad loss."

[oldknight]

Report by Calvin's task force on football is in and it recommends:

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2011/12/calvin_college_will_weigh_posi.html

[ziggy]

Report by Calvin's task force on football is in and it recommends:

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2011/12/calvin_college_will_weigh_posi.html

Momentum seems to have this going in the right direction but the two-thirds of faculty apposing the addition of football troubles me. Perhaps this just "faculty being faculty", whatever that means. There are certainly academic-types that embrace athletics as part of the collegiate experience but my assumption (that might make an ass of u and me) is that the lack of support is not surprising and therefore not as big of a hurdle as it might appear.

[Happy Calvin Guy]

Report by Calvin's task force on football is in and it recommends:

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2011/12/calvin_college_will_weigh_posi.html

Momentum seems to have this going in the right direction but the two-thirds of faculty apposing the addition of football troubles me. Perhaps this just "faculty being faculty", whatever that means. There are certainly academic-types that embrace athletics as part of the collegiate experience but my assumption (that might make an ass of u and me) is that the lack of support is not surprising and therefore not as big of a hurdle as it might appear.

Technically it wasn't 2/3 of faculty that opposed football, but 2/3 of those who made the effort to respond to the survey.  This is a potentially big distinction depending on the response rate of the survey (which was not reported). We could be observing the phenomenon of the most impassioned anti-football crowd "stuffing the ballot box" while those faculty only mildly in favor of football were too busy teaching classes to be bothered with filling out a survey. 

Either way, the faculty doesn't make the final decision--they are just one constituent group, as are students, alumni, supporters, etc.  I'd be interested to know whether the upcoming vote at faculty senate means anything real beyond mere "feedback" to the board.  I also wonder what influence, if any, the new college president might have on the process, since the final decision is scheduled to be made before he is installed.

Go football Knights!

[ziggy]

Technically it wasn't 2/3 of faculty that opposed football, but 2/3 of those who made the effort to respond to the survey.  This is a potentially big distinction depending on the response rate of the survey (which was not reported). We could be observing the phenomenon of the most impassioned anti-football crowd "stuffing the ballot box" while those faculty only mildly in favor of football were too busy teaching classes to be bothered with filling out a survey. 

Either way, the faculty doesn't make the final decision--they are just one constituent group, as are students, alumni, supporters, etc.  I'd be interested to know whether the upcoming vote at faculty senate means anything real beyond mere "feedback" to the board.  I also wonder what influence, if any, the new college president might have on the process, since the final decision is scheduled to be made before he is installed.

Go football Knights!

Excellent point. It's kind of like restaurant reviews online. A disproportionate number of people use them to voice their displeasure than to provide positive feedback.

Apartment reviews are funny that way. I did some online apartment hunting after graduating and the reviews made them all sound like the worst places on earth. Then you go and visit and you realize disgruntled people just like to complain.

[realist]

Like it or not the faculty members had their say along with all the other groups.  Now the faculty senate, as a deliberative body, will review/discuss the findings and take a vote yea or nay. 
Frankly the 2/3rds indicating at least some objection to football may be a major hurdle. Much depends on how strong the case is for adding football. 
Should the faculty senate vote against football one has to doubt seriously if the trustees would vote for football.  About the only way the trustees might disagree or overturn the faculty senate vote is if the margin is very small either in favor of or against football. 

[oldknight]

Report by Calvin's task force on football is in and it recommends:

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2011/12/calvin_college_will_weigh_posi.html

Momentum seems to have this going in the right direction but the two-thirds of faculty apposing the addition of football troubles me. Perhaps this just "faculty being faculty", whatever that means. There are certainly academic-types that embrace athletics as part of the collegiate experience but my assumption (that might make an ass of u and me) is that the lack of support is not surprising and therefore not as big of a hurdle as it might appear.

Technically it wasn't 2/3 of faculty that opposed football, but 2/3 of those who made the effort to respond to the survey.  This is a potentially big distinction depending on the response rate of the survey (which was not reported). We could be observing the phenomenon of the most impassioned anti-football crowd "stuffing the ballot box" while those faculty only mildly in favor of football were too busy teaching classes to be bothered with filling out a survey. 

Either way, the faculty doesn't make the final decision--they are just one constituent group, as are students, alumni, supporters, etc.  I'd be interested to know whether the upcoming vote at faculty senate means anything real beyond mere "feedback" to the board. I also wonder what influence, if any, the new college president might have on the process, since the final decision is scheduled to be made before he is installed.

Go football Knights!

I have no doubt the search committee addressed the football possibility with the candidate. The school really can't undertake such a major endeavor without the new president being on board with the possiblity. There may be a clue in Michael Le Roy's extensive CV which I have read (Wow, this guy has written and done a lot). I noticed that tucked away in the middle of his eight page CV he mentioned the fact that he provided oversight for Whitford's athletic program, and he casually highlighted Whitford's overall athletic successes during his tenure. That fact makes me think he is not merely a stereotypical egghead faculty type but rather believes in the need for a well rounded college experience for students. I suppose it could be an accident of timing that the task force recommendation came on the heels of the Le Roy announcement but, then again, maybe not.

[Pat Coleman]

I did some online apartment hunting after graduating and the reviews made them all sound like the worst places on earth. Then you go and visit and you realize disgruntled people just like to complain.

Fixed.

[ziggy]

I did some online apartment hunting after graduating and the reviews made them all sound like the worst places on earth. Then you go and visit and you realize disgruntled people just like to complain.

Fixed.

Way too true.

[Happy Calvin Guy]

Report by Calvin's task force on football is in and it recommends:

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2011/12/calvin_college_will_weigh_posi.html

Momentum seems to have this going in the right direction but the two-thirds of faculty apposing the addition of football troubles me. Perhaps this just "faculty being faculty", whatever that means. There are certainly academic-types that embrace athletics as part of the collegiate experience but my assumption (that might make an ass of u and me) is that the lack of support is not surprising and therefore not as big of a hurdle as it might appear.

Technically it wasn't 2/3 of faculty that opposed football, but 2/3 of those who made the effort to respond to the survey.  This is a potentially big distinction depending on the response rate of the survey (which was not reported). We could be observing the phenomenon of the most impassioned anti-football crowd "stuffing the ballot box" while those faculty only mildly in favor of football were too busy teaching classes to be bothered with filling out a survey. 

Either way, the faculty doesn't make the final decision--they are just one constituent group, as are students, alumni, supporters, etc.  I'd be interested to know whether the upcoming vote at faculty senate means anything real beyond mere "feedback" to the board. I also wonder what influence, if any, the new college president might have on the process, since the final decision is scheduled to be made before he is installed.

Go football Knights!

I have no doubt the search committee addressed the football possibility with the candidate. The school really can't undertake such a major endeavor without the new president being on board with the possiblity. There may be a clue in Michael Le Roy's extensive CV which I have read (Wow, this guy has written and done a lot). I noticed that tucked away in the middle of his eight page CV he mentioned the fact that he provided oversight for Whitford's athletic program, and he casually highlighted Whitford's overall athletic successes during his tenure. That fact makes me think he is not merely a stereotypical egghead faculty type but rather believes in the need for a well rounded college experience for students. I suppose it could be an accident of timing that the task force recommendation came on the heels of the Le Roy announcement but, then again, maybe not.

It's too bad that Dr. Le Roy won't be able to act in any official capacity yet.  He could be a great conciliator with those faculty members that are opposed to a football program.  By all accounts the same faculty that is allegedly 67% opposed to football is also nothing shy of ecstatic about the new choice of president. 

[realist]

Report by Calvin's task force on football is in and it recommends:

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2011/12/calvin_college_will_weigh_posi.html

Momentum seems to have this going in the right direction but the two-thirds of faculty apposing the addition of football troubles me. Perhaps this just "faculty being faculty", whatever that means. There are certainly academic-types that embrace athletics as part of the collegiate experience but my assumption (that might make an ass of u and me) is that the lack of support is not surprising and therefore not as big of a hurdle as it might appear.

Technically it wasn't 2/3 of faculty that opposed football, but 2/3 of those who made the effort to respond to the survey.  This is a potentially big distinction depending on the response rate of the survey (which was not reported). We could be observing the phenomenon of the most impassioned anti-football crowd "stuffing the ballot box" while those faculty only mildly in favor of football were too busy teaching classes to be bothered with filling out a survey. 

Either way, the faculty doesn't make the final decision--they are just one constituent group, as are students, alumni, supporters, etc.  I'd be interested to know whether the upcoming vote at faculty senate means anything real beyond mere "feedback" to the board. I also wonder what influence, if any, the new college president might have on the process, since the final decision is scheduled to be made before he is installed.

Go football Knights!

I have no doubt the search committee addressed the football possibility with the candidate. The school really can't undertake such a major endeavor without the new president being on board with the possiblity. There may be a clue in Michael Le Roy's extensive CV which I have read (Wow, this guy has written and done a lot). I noticed that tucked away in the middle of his eight page CV he mentioned the fact that he provided oversight for Whitford's athletic program, and he casually highlighted Whitford's overall athletic successes during his tenure. That fact makes me think he is not merely a stereotypical egghead faculty type but rather believes in the need for a well rounded college experience for students. I suppose it could be an accident of timing that the task force recommendation came on the heels of the Le Roy announcement but, then again, maybe not.

It's too bad that Dr. Le Roy won't be able to act in any official capacity yet.  He could be a great conciliator with those faculty members that are opposed to a football program.  By all accounts the same faculty that is allegedly 67% opposed to football is also nothing shy of ecstatic about the new choice of president.

Considering the politics of the situation I doubt Dr. Le Roy, or any other candidate, would voice a very strong opinion either for or against football or any other major item being considered by the college at this time.  The last thing a new pres. would want is to be viewed as a pres. inclined to "force" their opinion on others.  Assuming that Dr. Le Roy is "pro" football about the most I would expect him to do, if asked, would be to say that in his experience football has had a "positive" impact on the educational experience.  If he dislikes football he really just demures the decision to the process underway.  Football, for or against, is not the fight a new pres. would want or need.  The last thing a new pres. would want is to have people's opinion of him tied to the success or failure of the football program. 

[ChicagoHopeNut]

If you could take an anonymous poll of the faculty at every football playing college (any level) across the country my guess is that at at least 90% of the schools more than half of the faculty (and probably closer to 2/3) would be opposed to football.

There are stories on a pretty regular basis across the country of some faculty group or faculty senate being against opposed to football and other sports as a waste of resources/time/focus/etc.

[goodknight]

Report by Calvin's task force on football is in and it recommends:

http://www.mlive.com/smallcolleges/grandrapids/index.ssf/2011/12/calvin_college_will_weigh_posi.html

Momentum seems to have this going in the right direction but the two-thirds of faculty apposing the addition of football troubles me. Perhaps this just "faculty being faculty", whatever that means. There are certainly academic-types that embrace athletics as part of the collegiate experience but my assumption (that might make an ass of u and me) is that the lack of support is not surprising and therefore not as big of a hurdle as it might appear.

Technically it wasn't 2/3 of faculty that opposed football, but 2/3 of those who made the effort to respond to the survey.  This is a potentially big distinction depending on the response rate of the survey (which was not reported). We could be observing the phenomenon of the most impassioned anti-football crowd "stuffing the ballot box" while those faculty only mildly in favor of football were too busy teaching classes to be bothered with filling out a survey. 

Either way, the faculty doesn't make the final decision--they are just one constituent group, as are students, alumni, supporters, etc.  I'd be interested to know whether the upcoming vote at faculty senate means anything real beyond mere "feedback" to the board. I also wonder what influence, if any, the new college president might have on the process, since the final decision is scheduled to be made before he is installed.

Go football Knights!

I have no doubt the search committee addressed the football possibility with the candidate. The school really can't undertake such a major endeavor without the new president being on board with the possiblity. There may be a clue in Michael Le Roy's extensive CV which I have read (Wow, this guy has written and done a lot). I noticed that tucked away in the middle of his eight page CV he mentioned the fact that he provided oversight for Whitford's athletic program, and he casually highlighted Whitford's overall athletic successes during his tenure. That fact makes me think he is not merely a stereotypical egghead faculty type but rather believes in the need for a well rounded college experience for students. I suppose it could be an accident of timing that the task force recommendation came on the heels of the Le Roy announcement but, then again, maybe not.

It's too bad that Dr. Le Roy won't be able to act in any official capacity yet.  He could be a great conciliator with those faculty members that are opposed to a football program.  By all accounts the same faculty that is allegedly 67% opposed to football is also nothing shy of ecstatic about the new choice of president.

Considering the politics of the situation I doubt Dr. Le Roy, or any other candidate, would voice a very strong opinion either for or against football or any other major item being considered by the college at this time.  The last thing a new pres. would want is to be viewed as a pres. inclined to "force" their opinion on others.  Assuming that Dr. Le Roy is "pro" football about the most I would expect him to do, if asked, would be to say that in his experience football has had a "positive" impact on the educational experience.  If he dislikes football he really just demures the decision to the process underway.  Football, for or against, is not the fight a new pres. would want or need.  The last thing a new pres. would want is to have people's opinion of him tied to the success or failure of the football program.

The last new president of the college quickly interjected himself in Calvin's athletic program by making the men's head basketball coach disappear.  Over the span of the next 15 or 16 years, that same president demonstrated many times over that he was actively disinterested in people's opinion of him, unless, of course, they were a very large donor.

[sac]

Today's preview is brought to you by schools who have been playing football since the 1890's.


Finlandia @ Alma  ---  Finlandia is 5-8 on the season having just lost last night to Olivet.  The prospects for a high scoring game went up astronomically after the Lions allowed an anemic Olivet offense to reach the century mark.  Having just hit the century mark in their last game, the Scots could pull off a rare double free taco night in Alma.

As always, any win is a good win for Alma.



Albion @ Elmhurst  ---  The Britons complete playing 1/2 of the CCIW, so far 1-2.  Elmhurst is 5-4 with a mixed bag of losses, but I'm not sure they've beaten a team with a winning record.  Picked near the bottom of the CCIW with North Park, so you might expect a similar result to last night's loss.   Elmhurst beat Olivet by 24 a few weeks ago.

Albion has won and lost every other game, so tonight puts them on schedule for a win.  Albion's reputation has always been defense but the truth is so far this Albion team has been pretty avg on defense allowing opponents to shoot 46% from the floor.