FB: Empire 8

[SJFF82]

When I wrote 7-3, I meant to write:

Wouldn't an 8-2 IC squad with losses to Fisher and say Cortland be almost as impressive as a "7-3" SJF team?

I don't know. I understand that you can't say SJF should beat Mt. Union, but if we're just going to say that it doesn't really count against them if they lose, then what's the point of keeping score? I mean, it's not that ambition with an OOC slate shouldn't be applauded, but to me, it shouldn't be used as a way to say "Well, let's ignore this loss, and pretend they're a one-loss team." No-one forced them to play MUC. They're not a "one-loss" team if they run the table from here on out. They're a two loss team with one of those losses coming against a phenominal team. MUC may be ALMOST unbeatable, but they can be beaten. There shouldn;t be some unofficial "Mount Union exception" because then where does it stop? Whitewater has been to the last three title games, no? Do the teams who lose to them get those same benefits? What's the line? If Cortland State is 9-0 when Ithaca comes to town, and they're in the top 8 or so, and they beat IC, can we consider IC to be a "one-loss team" because Cortland just ran the table?

I remember when people were talking about the D-I NC last season and they kept saying, "Yeah, LSU has two losses, but they were both in overtime, so really, they're two plays away from being undefeated." You play the games to win, and if you have the ambition to schedule a team MUC, that's awesome. But you should be held to a standard just the same. I can understand it if two teams have identical records, but if one team goes 9-1 and the other goes 8-2 with a loss to MUC, they're not the same thing.

This isn't so much a rant against Fisher--they just happen to be the team playing Mt. Union this season. It's just, for a guy rooting for a Big-10 school (Go Spartans) who has to hear ad naseum that every SEC school is better simply because most of the SEC losses "Don't count" it gets tiresome to hear. We all say the phrase "On any given Saturday, anyone can be upset." And to me, part of that means you don't get any "Get out of one loss free" cards. If Vandy can beat Auburn, and if Stanford can beat USC, then SJF can beat MUC

Bombers, I think I see what your 'concern' is.  The answer, in my opinion, is that there is no imaginary line to draw.  It is not as black and white as:  certain losses do not count at the end of the season, and the committee is actually looking at the teams' schedules and objectively removing losses.  What the committee is likely doing, and I would be doing and I am sure you would be also, is subjectively looking at a team's record and taking into account the outcomes and the in doing so, the schedule.  One way to look at the SJF-MUC issue, is that assume for a minute that SJF had not played MUC, but rather played some team on IC's schedule that IC beat and that you would agree that SJF would have beaten had they played them.  Now having beaten that hypothetical team, (assuming and ONLY if SJF beats everyone else as expected) presumably they go 9-1 again, hence the 'subjective' discounting of the MUC loss. 

On the other hand, this theory only works for the so-called play-off caliber teams.  Certainly if Norwich schedules and loses to MUC, Whitewater, plus SJF and IC in conference, but also lose or play mediocre to Utica, etc, then they do not get any benefit of the doubt, nor should the committee say, "ok we will pretend that your 4 losses to MUC UWWW, SJF and IC didnt happen."  Likewise with SJF, even if they run the table and finish 8-2, but 'struggle' with Norwich and/or Utica, perhaps aN 8-2 IC team is looked at as better and perhaps the MUC loss is not discounted as much.  Your teams' overall performance is dispositive of how certain losses are ultimately looked at.

Bottom line is that any team that can go 8-2 against one of the toughest if not the toughest schedule in the land, will garner support as a '1 loss' team if the other loss was to MUC.  If the same team (SJF in this case) only goes 7-3 or 6-4, then they do not get nor do they deserve to be looked at as anything but said 7-3 or 6-4 team.

Is that as clear as mud?

[pg04]

a lose too MUC should be looked at with a grain of salt... and does a 8-2 fisher squad deserve a playoff spot before an 9-1 Ithaca... yes absolutley

In that case Fisher would get the bid since they have the head to head...

Unless Hartwick also runs the table. Then it gets ugly.

I'm completely not allowing that scenario to happen again 

[SJFF82]

a lose too MUC 

Boy, Supes, your reputation is certainly not in jeopardy with that grammatical performance

[pg04]

a lose too MUC 

Boy, Supes, your reputation is certainly not in jeopardy with that grammatical performance

Do you know how hard that was for me to ignore? 

[SJFF82]

a lose too MUC 

Boy, Supes, your reputation is certainly not in jeopardy with that grammatical performance

Do you know how hard that was for me to ignore? 

Then I guess my rep. for pointing everything out to a fault is certainly not in danger either

[superman57]

I've stated numerous times... that I don't care... If I wanted to take the time to check my grammer and spelling that would be sad... this is a message board not an essay contest

[pg04]

I would have to say though that this mistake actually disturbs the flow of the sentence when I try to read it because lose sounds so much different than loss.

You say it's sad to take time out to check grammar and spelling, which is probably true.  But sometimes it seems even sadder what actually comes out!!

[superman57]

I would have to say though that this mistake actually disturbs the flow of the sentence when I try to read it because lose sounds so much different than loss.

You say it's sad to take time out to check grammar and spelling, which is probably true.  But sometimes it seems even sadder what actually comes out!!

agreed... and there is more behind it than meets the eyes... but that is just getting too personel

[pg04]

I would have to say though that this mistake actually disturbs the flow of the sentence when I try to read it because lose sounds so much different than loss.

You say it's sad to take time out to check grammar and spelling, which is probably true.  But sometimes it seems even sadder what actually comes out!!

agreed... and there is more behind it than meets the eyes... but that is just getting too personel

Understood... I'll try not to harp on it. 

[superman57]

wow.. we are now in year 2060... I will be 76 years young... and I just hope that it is a "little" like the Jetsons...

[superman57]

and on that note it is time for supes to go to bed... t

[maxpower]

I've stated numerous times... that I don't care... If I wanted to take the time to check my grammer and spelling that would be sad... this is a message board not an essay contest

Love that this post has the perfect spelling... oooohhh wait no, spelled "grammar" wrong. irony upon irony. wouldn't change it for the world supe. supportive -k.

[pg04]

wow.. we are now in year 2060... I will be 76 years young... and I just hope that it is a "little" like the Jetsons...

I don't know what this post means... lol

[theoriginalupstate]

Word is that Brown and Beihl will be back for the trip to Norwich....

[superman57]

wow.. we are now in year 2060... I will be 76 years young... and I just hope that it is a "little" like the Jetsons...

I don't know what this post means... lol

pg look at the page number