FB: Empire 8

[dlippiel]

Made a mistake with Salisbury comment, was referring more to Frostburg, and thier troubles this year.

No worries dlip saw it after he posted it  .

[Boxer7806]

If Springfield leaves the E8, the most logical place to put them would be in the ECFC, which would basically be an automatic bid to the playoffs for them most every year when the conference finally got an auto. I would rather see Maine Maritime move to the ECFC, makes more sense travel wise and has a natural rival in Husson, and have Springfield replace them in them in the Bogan. It also sets up an intriguing matchups of Springfield vs Bridgewater/USGA each year and Springfield vs Curry in the championship game. It also makes the conference stronger.

[maxpower]

I think it's about the same.

You dont think its more painful to lose at home than on the road?  Or if rephrased ... you dont think a loss at home is more damaging than a loss on the road?

Of course not...if it makes Ithaca look good and Hartwick look bad...then throw out all conventional wisdom and say whatever feels right.

Like you, I have been saying it for over a year now.  Wick losses to Curry on the road, it's the worse loss ever...Ithaca losses to Curry at home, and all of a sudden Curry has "arrived".  No big deal...just the way things are.

You going to the Wick-UC game this weekend?

BoSox: I've experienced heartbreaking losses at home (game 7 '04 ALCS, Cortaca '03, '05) and on the road (a-rod-varitek brawl game '04, fisher-IC '06). They feel about the same. It's probably worse on the road because all the home fans are so happy. Maybe it feels different for players, I don't know.

Yanks: Get over the inferiority complex. I think the Ithaca loss was WORSE than the Hartwick loss. Curry is still Curry.

[SJFF82]

Wouldn't the addition of Frostburg St and Salisbury St hurt the conference? It is almost as if a cupcake in Norwich leaves and two cupcakes arrive. Won't this allow for one less OOC game each year for the E8 as well?

Salisbury has traditionally been a force to be reckoned with.  This year, after beating Fisher, many posters were commenting that Salisbury wasnt a power and were inferring that it was a bad loss for Fisher and a good indicator that SJF could not compete OOR.  Many pointed to the Union-Salisbury game as a chance to prove that.  Salisbury is still a force to be reckoned with.

[Yanks 99]

I think it's about the same.

You dont think its more painful to lose at home than on the road?  Or if rephrased ... you dont think a loss at home is more damaging than a loss on the road?

Of course not...if it makes Ithaca look good and Hartwick look bad...then throw out all conventional wisdom and say whatever feels right.

Like you, I have been saying it for over a year now.  Wick losses to Curry on the road, it's the worse loss ever...Ithaca losses to Curry at home, and all of a sudden Curry has "arrived".  No big deal...just the way things are.

You going to the Wick-UC game this weekend?

BoSox: I've experienced heartbreaking losses at home (game 7 '04 ALCS, Cortaca '03, '05) and on the road (a-rod-varitek brawl game '04, fisher-IC '06). They feel about the same. It's probably worse on the road because all the home fans are so happy. Maybe it feels different for players, I don't know.

Yanks: Get over the inferiority complex. I think the Ithaca loss was WORSE than the Hartwick loss. Curry is still Curry.

What complex?  I just said it wasn't a big deal...but that is the perception.  Your earlier post suggested it as well.

[pumkinattack]

So no one's concerned that Salisbury and Frostberg are probably one (or two) and done for that new mid-atlantic conference and there's suspicion that Springfield might not be in for the long haul?  That, worst case scenario leaves five schools and no logical programs to pick up.  

The LL may have the same issue if MMA or WPI were to bounce, but there's been at least rumors that RIT may revive their football program.  I think WPI's in the for long haul because of a relationship with RPI, but I could be wrong.  I don't get MMA, but other than the NEFC or NJAC, they don't have anywhere to go (NJAC aint happening unless they drop the three suny's).  The only nice thing for the LL is that the core five schools (Roch, Bart, SLU, RPI, Union) all have 50+ year histories together that I'm pretty sure they'd maintain at all costs (unless RPI somehow thinks they can move up to 1-AA, but I don't see that happening).    

BTW, I suspect Frostberg could finish above two teams in the E8 when they join, but we'll see.  They were 3-6 last year, but played five playoff teams and beat Brockport by two touchdowns.  I could absolutely see them being ahead of Utica and Hartwick and will be better than Norwich.  That's down the road and a lot can happen between now and then though. 

[Bombers798891]

I think it's about the same.

You dont think its more painful to lose at home than on the road?  Or if rephrased ... you dont think a loss at home is more damaging than a loss on the road?

Of course not...if it makes Ithaca look good and Hartwick look bad...then throw out all conventional wisdom and say whatever feels right.

Like you, I have been saying it for over a year now.  Wick losses to Curry on the road, it's the worse loss ever...Ithaca losses to Curry at home, and all of a sudden Curry has "arrived".  No big deal...just the way things are.

You going to the Wick-UC game this weekend?

BoSox: I've experienced heartbreaking losses at home (game 7 '04 ALCS, Cortaca '03, '05) and on the road (a-rod-varitek brawl game '04, fisher-IC '06). They feel about the same. It's probably worse on the road because all the home fans are so happy. Maybe it feels different for players, I don't know.

Yanks: Get over the inferiority complex. I think the Ithaca loss was WORSE than the Hartwick loss. Curry is still Curry.

What complex?  I just said it wasn't a big deal...but that is the perception.  Your earlier post suggested it as well.

That is the perception. Because it's true. As a football program since they returned, Hartwick's been inferior to Ithaca. That may irritate Wick people, but it'd be no different if we were comparing Ithaca and Rowan over the past 10 years.

Look, the Wick is 8 games over .500 in the d3.com era (since 1999). Ithaca is 58 games over. Ithaca's gone 7-1 against the Hawks in the last eight years. The Hawks made the playoffs once. Ithaca's made it five times.

Why do we have to pretend that the two programs are equal? They're not. Year-in, year-out, Ithaca's a better program. And because the programs are not equal, wins over the two teams do not carry equal weight. That's the way it works in sports. Things don't always exist in a one-year vacuum. Opinions tend to be made based information from multiple years.

Yes, technically we're comparing 2007 Wick to 2008 Ithaca, and on just that, we could debate endlessly. But for a lot of people, it's the name that draws attention to it.

[Yanks 99]

I think it's about the same.

You dont think its more painful to lose at home than on the road?  Or if rephrased ... you dont think a loss at home is more damaging than a loss on the road?

Of course not...if it makes Ithaca look good and Hartwick look bad...then throw out all conventional wisdom and say whatever feels right.

Like you, I have been saying it for over a year now.  Wick losses to Curry on the road, it's the worse loss ever...Ithaca losses to Curry at home, and all of a sudden Curry has "arrived".  No big deal...just the way things are.

You going to the Wick-UC game this weekend?

BoSox: I've experienced heartbreaking losses at home (game 7 '04 ALCS, Cortaca '03, '05) and on the road (a-rod-varitek brawl game '04, fisher-IC '06). They feel about the same. It's probably worse on the road because all the home fans are so happy. Maybe it feels different for players, I don't know.

Yanks: Get over the inferiority complex. I think the Ithaca loss was WORSE than the Hartwick loss. Curry is still Curry.

What complex?  I just said it wasn't a big deal...but that is the perception.  Your earlier post suggested it as well.

That is the perception. Because it's true. As a football program since they returned, Hartwick's been inferior to Ithaca. That may irritate Wick people, but it'd be no different if we were comparing Ithaca and Rowan over the past 10 years.

Look, the Wick is 8 games over .500 in the d3.com era (since 1999). Ithaca is 58 games over. Ithaca's gone 7-1 against the Hawks in the last eight years. The Hawks made the playoffs once. Ithaca's made it five times.

Why do we have to pretend that the two programs are equal? They're not. Year-in, year-out, Ithaca's a better program. And because the programs are not equal, wins over the two teams do not carry equal weight. That's the way it works in sports. Things don't always exist in a one-year vacuum. Opinions tend to be made based information from multiple years.

Yes, technically we're comparing 2007 Wick to 2008 Ithaca, and on just that, we could debate endlessly. But for a lot of people, it's the name that draws attention to it.

What are you talking about?  I never said that Wick and Ithaca are equal.  Not even close.  From a program standpoint, we hope to get where Ithaca is.  No one is disputing that...especially me.

I only said in general the loss Curry playoff "losses" were treated completely different.  No one can dispute that.

[Jonny Utah]

I think it's about the same.

You dont think its more painful to lose at home than on the road?  Or if rephrased ... you dont think a loss at home is more damaging than a loss on the road?

Of course not...if it makes Ithaca look good and Hartwick look bad...then throw out all conventional wisdom and say whatever feels right.

Like you, I have been saying it for over a year now.  Wick losses to Curry on the road, it's the worse loss ever...Ithaca losses to Curry at home, and all of a sudden Curry has "arrived".  No big deal...just the way things are.

You going to the Wick-UC game this weekend?

BoSox: I've experienced heartbreaking losses at home (game 7 '04 ALCS, Cortaca '03, '05) and on the road (a-rod-varitek brawl game '04, fisher-IC '06). They feel about the same. It's probably worse on the road because all the home fans are so happy. Maybe it feels different for players, I don't know.

Yanks: Get over the inferiority complex. I think the Ithaca loss was WORSE than the Hartwick loss. Curry is still Curry.

What complex?  I just said it wasn't a big deal...but that is the perception.  Your earlier post suggested it as well.

That is the perception. Because it's true. As a football program since they returned, Hartwick's been inferior to Ithaca. That may irritate Wick people, but it'd be no different if we were comparing Ithaca and Rowan over the past 10 years.

Look, the Wick is 8 games over .500 in the d3.com era (since 1999). Ithaca is 58 games over. Ithaca's gone 7-1 against the Hawks in the last eight years. The Hawks made the playoffs once. Ithaca's made it five times.

Why do we have to pretend that the two programs are equal? They're not. Year-in, year-out, Ithaca's a better program. And because the programs are not equal, wins over the two teams do not carry equal weight. That's the way it works in sports. Things don't always exist in a one-year vacuum. Opinions tend to be made based information from multiple years.

Yes, technically we're comparing 2007 Wick to 2008 Ithaca, and on just that, we could debate endlessly. But for a lot of people, it's the name that draws attention to it.

What are you talking about?  I never said that Wick and Ithaca are equal.  Not even close.  From a program standpoint, we hope to get where Ithaca is.  No one is disputing that...especially me.

I only said in general the loss Curry playoff "losses" were treated completely different.  No one can dispute that.

Ill dispute that.  They were treated different because they were different.  Wick lost to WNEC by 3 touchdowns the same year they lost to Curry.  I don't think anyone was that suprised by that loss.  Sure, you are going to be made fun of a little, but I don't think anyone treated that loss like some sort of shock, or that Hartwick was favored to even win that game.  Most people didn't expect much from Hartwick in 2007.  Sure they beat some good teams and had the potential to score 50 on any given day.

Ithaca in 2008 on the other hand was more of a shock.  Ithaca beat most teams pretty bad the whole year, unilike Hartwick in 2007.  And its a year after losing to MUC in a game where they pretty much did whatever they wanted to do passing the ball.  And they had all those offensive weapons back in 2008.  So yea, it was a little more shocking that Ithaca lost, and it should have been treated differently.

[Yanks 99]

I think it's about the same.

You dont think its more painful to lose at home than on the road?  Or if rephrased ... you dont think a loss at home is more damaging than a loss on the road?

Of course not...if it makes Ithaca look good and Hartwick look bad...then throw out all conventional wisdom and say whatever feels right.

Like you, I have been saying it for over a year now.  Wick losses to Curry on the road, it's the worse loss ever...Ithaca losses to Curry at home, and all of a sudden Curry has "arrived".  No big deal...just the way things are.

You going to the Wick-UC game this weekend?

BoSox: I've experienced heartbreaking losses at home (game 7 '04 ALCS, Cortaca '03, '05) and on the road (a-rod-varitek brawl game '04, fisher-IC '06). They feel about the same. It's probably worse on the road because all the home fans are so happy. Maybe it feels different for players, I don't know.

Yanks: Get over the inferiority complex. I think the Ithaca loss was WORSE than the Hartwick loss. Curry is still Curry.

What complex?  I just said it wasn't a big deal...but that is the perception.  Your earlier post suggested it as well.

That is the perception. Because it's true. As a football program since they returned, Hartwick's been inferior to Ithaca. That may irritate Wick people, but it'd be no different if we were comparing Ithaca and Rowan over the past 10 years.

Look, the Wick is 8 games over .500 in the d3.com era (since 1999). Ithaca is 58 games over. Ithaca's gone 7-1 against the Hawks in the last eight years. The Hawks made the playoffs once. Ithaca's made it five times.

Why do we have to pretend that the two programs are equal? They're not. Year-in, year-out, Ithaca's a better program. And because the programs are not equal, wins over the two teams do not carry equal weight. That's the way it works in sports. Things don't always exist in a one-year vacuum. Opinions tend to be made based information from multiple years.

Yes, technically we're comparing 2007 Wick to 2008 Ithaca, and on just that, we could debate endlessly. But for a lot of people, it's the name that draws attention to it.

What are you talking about?  I never said that Wick and Ithaca are equal.  Not even close.  From a program standpoint, we hope to get where Ithaca is.  No one is disputing that...especially me.

I only said in general the loss Curry playoff "losses" were treated completely different.  No one can dispute that.

Ill dispute that.  They were treated different because they were different.  Wick lost to WNEC by 3 touchdowns the same year they lost to Curry.  I don't think anyone was that suprised by that loss.  Sure, you are going to be made fun of a little, but I don't think anyone treated that loss like some sort of shock, or that Hartwick was favored to even win that game.  Most people didn't expect much from Hartwick in 2007.  Sure they beat some good teams and had the potential to score 50 on any given day.

Ithaca in 2008 on the other hand was more of a shock.  Ithaca beat most teams pretty bad the whole year, unilike Hartwick in 2007.  And its a year after losing to MUC in a game where they pretty much did whatever they wanted to do passing the ball.  And they had all those offensive weapons back in 2008.  So yea, it was a little more shocking that Ithaca lost, and it should have been treated differently.

You are right...if you didn't expect much from Wick in 2007, then it should have been much MORE embarrasing for IC to lose in 2008.  That isn't the way it is treated though.

I don't get it...you just "disputed it", then agreed with it.

[pumkinattack]

Don't forget the 68 pts given up the week prior to Utica. 

[Jonny Utah]

I think it's about the same.

You dont think its more painful to lose at home than on the road?  Or if rephrased ... you dont think a loss at home is more damaging than a loss on the road?

Of course not...if it makes Ithaca look good and Hartwick look bad...then throw out all conventional wisdom and say whatever feels right.

Like you, I have been saying it for over a year now.  Wick losses to Curry on the road, it's the worse loss ever...Ithaca losses to Curry at home, and all of a sudden Curry has "arrived".  No big deal...just the way things are.

You going to the Wick-UC game this weekend?

BoSox: I've experienced heartbreaking losses at home (game 7 '04 ALCS, Cortaca '03, '05) and on the road (a-rod-varitek brawl game '04, fisher-IC '06). They feel about the same. It's probably worse on the road because all the home fans are so happy. Maybe it feels different for players, I don't know.

Yanks: Get over the inferiority complex. I think the Ithaca loss was WORSE than the Hartwick loss. Curry is still Curry.

What complex?  I just said it wasn't a big deal...but that is the perception.  Your earlier post suggested it as well.

That is the perception. Because it's true. As a football program since they returned, Hartwick's been inferior to Ithaca. That may irritate Wick people, but it'd be no different if we were comparing Ithaca and Rowan over the past 10 years.

Look, the Wick is 8 games over .500 in the d3.com era (since 1999). Ithaca is 58 games over. Ithaca's gone 7-1 against the Hawks in the last eight years. The Hawks made the playoffs once. Ithaca's made it five times.

Why do we have to pretend that the two programs are equal? They're not. Year-in, year-out, Ithaca's a better program. And because the programs are not equal, wins over the two teams do not carry equal weight. That's the way it works in sports. Things don't always exist in a one-year vacuum. Opinions tend to be made based information from multiple years.

Yes, technically we're comparing 2007 Wick to 2008 Ithaca, and on just that, we could debate endlessly. But for a lot of people, it's the name that draws attention to it.

What are you talking about?  I never said that Wick and Ithaca are equal.  Not even close.  From a program standpoint, we hope to get where Ithaca is.  No one is disputing that...especially me.

I only said in general the loss Curry playoff "losses" were treated completely different.  No one can dispute that.

Ill dispute that.  They were treated different because they were different.  Wick lost to WNEC by 3 touchdowns the same year they lost to Curry.  I don't think anyone was that suprised by that loss.  Sure, you are going to be made fun of a little, but I don't think anyone treated that loss like some sort of shock, or that Hartwick was favored to even win that game.  Most people didn't expect much from Hartwick in 2007.  Sure they beat some good teams and had the potential to score 50 on any given day.

Ithaca in 2008 on the other hand was more of a shock.  Ithaca beat most teams pretty bad the whole year, unilike Hartwick in 2007.  And its a year after losing to MUC in a game where they pretty much did whatever they wanted to do passing the ball.  And they had all those offensive weapons back in 2008.  So yea, it was a little more shocking that Ithaca lost, and it should have been treated differently.

You are right...if you didn't expect much from Wick in 2007, then it should have been much MORE embarrasing for IC to lose in 2008.  That isn't the way it is treated though.

I don't get it...you just "disputed it", then agreed with it.

It was more embarrassing for Ithaca to lose to Curry in 2008, and I think it is treated that way.

And I agree that they were treated differently, but for the exact opposite reason you feel they were treated differently.

I was not suprised Curry beat Hartwick in 2007 and I don't think it was that bad of a loss for Hartwick.  Curry didn't "arrive" in 2007, because all they did was beat Hartwick, which everyone though might have happened.  

But I was suprised Curry beat Ithaca in 2008.  Ithaca did not really do anything in 2008 to make anyone think they would lose to Curry.  I was suprised, and yea, maybe Curry did 'arrive' after beating Ithaca.  It looks like maybe they didn't now, (after getting smoked by Cortland), but the two situations are different, just not different in the way you are making them out to be.

[Yanks 99]

I think it's about the same.

You dont think its more painful to lose at home than on the road?  Or if rephrased ... you dont think a loss at home is more damaging than a loss on the road?

Of course not...if it makes Ithaca look good and Hartwick look bad...then throw out all conventional wisdom and say whatever feels right.

Like you, I have been saying it for over a year now.  Wick losses to Curry on the road, it's the worse loss ever...Ithaca losses to Curry at home, and all of a sudden Curry has "arrived".  No big deal...just the way things are.

You going to the Wick-UC game this weekend?

BoSox: I've experienced heartbreaking losses at home (game 7 '04 ALCS, Cortaca '03, '05) and on the road (a-rod-varitek brawl game '04, fisher-IC '06). They feel about the same. It's probably worse on the road because all the home fans are so happy. Maybe it feels different for players, I don't know.

Yanks: Get over the inferiority complex. I think the Ithaca loss was WORSE than the Hartwick loss. Curry is still Curry.

What complex?  I just said it wasn't a big deal...but that is the perception.  Your earlier post suggested it as well.

That is the perception. Because it's true. As a football program since they returned, Hartwick's been inferior to Ithaca. That may irritate Wick people, but it'd be no different if we were comparing Ithaca and Rowan over the past 10 years.

Look, the Wick is 8 games over .500 in the d3.com era (since 1999). Ithaca is 58 games over. Ithaca's gone 7-1 against the Hawks in the last eight years. The Hawks made the playoffs once. Ithaca's made it five times.

Why do we have to pretend that the two programs are equal? They're not. Year-in, year-out, Ithaca's a better program. And because the programs are not equal, wins over the two teams do not carry equal weight. That's the way it works in sports. Things don't always exist in a one-year vacuum. Opinions tend to be made based information from multiple years.

Yes, technically we're comparing 2007 Wick to 2008 Ithaca, and on just that, we could debate endlessly. But for a lot of people, it's the name that draws attention to it.

What are you talking about?  I never said that Wick and Ithaca are equal.  Not even close.  From a program standpoint, we hope to get where Ithaca is.  No one is disputing that...especially me.

I only said in general the loss Curry playoff "losses" were treated completely different.  No one can dispute that.

Ill dispute that.  They were treated different because they were different.  Wick lost to WNEC by 3 touchdowns the same year they lost to Curry.  I don't think anyone was that suprised by that loss.  Sure, you are going to be made fun of a little, but I don't think anyone treated that loss like some sort of shock, or that Hartwick was favored to even win that game.  Most people didn't expect much from Hartwick in 2007.  Sure they beat some good teams and had the potential to score 50 on any given day.

Ithaca in 2008 on the other hand was more of a shock.  Ithaca beat most teams pretty bad the whole year, unilike Hartwick in 2007.  And its a year after losing to MUC in a game where they pretty much did whatever they wanted to do passing the ball.  And they had all those offensive weapons back in 2008.  So yea, it was a little more shocking that Ithaca lost, and it should have been treated differently.

You are right...if you didn't expect much from Wick in 2007, then it should have been much MORE embarrasing for IC to lose in 2008.  That isn't the way it is treated though.

I don't get it...you just "disputed it", then agreed with it.

Well, I agree that they were treated differently, but for the exact opposite reason you feel they were treated differently.

I was not suprised Curry beat Hartwick in 2007 and I don't think it was that bad of a loss for Hartwick.  Curry didn't "arrive" in 2007, because all they did was beat Hartwick, which everyone though might have happened. 

But I was suprised Curry beat Ithaca in 2008.  Ithaca did not really do anything in 2008 to make anyone think they would lose to Curry.  I was suprised, and yea, maybe Curry did 'arrive' after beating Ithaca.  It looks like maybe they didn't now, (after getting smoked by Cortland), but the two situations are different, just not different in the way you are making them out to be.

I think we both completely agree.  We both agree that it was MORE embarrassing for the 2008 IC team to lose to Curry.

[Jonny Utah]

Right, but I dont think most people think the other way around either.   That was my point.

And lets face it, the quarterback that Ithaca had in the Mt. Union game and throughout the 2008 season did not face Curry that day.  I think thats a huge factor/excuse in what may have happened in that game.

[Yanks 99]

Right, but I dont think most people think the other way around either.   That was my point.

The IC loss being more embarrassing was the only point I was trying to make.  Generally though, it isn't perceived that way.