FB: Empire 8

[bomber3]

Upstate --

That is an intended rush.  Rushing statistics, in most peoples' minds, refers to when a running back or quarterback gets a hand off.  The sacks and snaps over a punter's head is not a true intended rush and therefore skews the actual rushing data.  They shouldn't count those plays toward the rushing yard total and should be classified in an "other" category or something of the like.  It just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps a #@!!% category?

Yeah there are not F-Uped Play categories...

If you lost yardage, you lost yardage...

I quote Sports Night.

"There's a difference between divorced and separated. One is divorced and the other is separated. That's why they have those names."

If a rush for negative yards and a sack were the same thing, we wouldn't call them by different names. That's why "pass protection" is considered blocking before the QB throws the ball.

Seriously, where's the common sense? When a QB takes the snap, we say "He drops back to pass," not "He takes the hand-off, runs backwards six yards and looks for his receiver." When a QB gets sacked on four straight plays like they did at Iowa, we don't say "Man, the Hawkeyes can't run block at all!"

Isn't a punt a special teams play? Why is it considered a "rush"? A ball snapped over a punters head which he falls on is not a running play. There may not be a category for it, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be. Why not just make a "Special Teams Yardage" category? When the Bombers blew that punt snap, was your first thought, "Man what a terrible running play?"

Wow Bombers we agree on something! +K.  It just doesn't make sense to classify those plays as "rushes".  I could care less about it affecting Ithaca's stats it just doesn't make sense and misleads people.

[bomber3]

In response to Ithaca not using their timeouts, and letting Lycoming run the time out....

Coach Welch was asked about it by the radio guy after the game. He stated that he didn't use any timeouts because they were confident they could block the kick.

?

What the....
Why can't you block the kick with 50 seconds?! Were they afraid Lycoming was going to score a touchdown instead of kicking the field goal?  That is the only rationale explanation.  I know they missed an XP earlier in the game but I would put the odds of a make at about 90%.  If you have faith in your defense to get a stop then you call the two timeouts with 50 seconds and make them kick the field goal.   Then you have 50 seconds to try and get to the opposing 30 to try a field goal yourself.  Worst case scenario is Lycoming scores with 45 seconds in which case you have to score another TD with one time out left.  With their passing game and kick return potential it is not crazy to think they could score in 45 seconds.  I think they blew that call.

[Bombers798891]

Pat -

The question on the football homepage regarding Ithaca's rushing game is misleading.  Those numbers take into account a snap over the punter's head and QB sacks, which accounted for -62 yards rushing.  In my opinion those yards shouldn't count so the real number is 48 yards rushing.  It is misleading!

How about this...IC's rushing game was simply atrocious regardless if it was -12 or +48. Believe dlip he understands your frustration with a lack of running game being a Union fan whose team couldn't move the ball on the ground at all at Butterfield in week #2 but in his mind this is a tad bit of a nit pick.  IC deserves negative attention regarding their lack of a ground game because it is their main weakness. If the Bombers could move the ball on the ground they would most likely be a top #5 east region team easily. Who knows they still may end up being one but until they progress in their ground game dlip thinks it is somewhat unlikely.

I am the first to admit that Ithaca's run game has not been a force over the past two years.  But if it is that bad why can't teams focus more on their passing game and stop them?

I disagree. Teams are figuring them out. Zappia started 10-for-10 on Saturday and then went 10-for-23 from then on. Yes, he was without two of his best receivers, but if you think Fisher's not going to have a defensive scheme in place, you're kidding yourself. They've shut down better IC offenses than this one. And their in-game adjustments run circles around the Bombers'--just take a look at the 2nd-half point totals.

I don't think there's "progress" to make in the ground game. Is their offensive line going to get bigger and more skilled over the week? Is Ruggerio going to go back to his pre-injury self? The Bombers' top three running backs have 97 carries and 320 yards. We're not talking about a small sample size here.

What's astounding to me is the complete and utter drop-off of the running game in two years (RB's only):

2008: 388 carries, 2096 yards. 5.4 YPC, 30 TD's
2009: 289 carries, 1099 yards, 3.8 YPC, 8 TD's
2010: 300 carries, 842 yards, 2.8 YPC, 13 TD's (projected)

That's just absurd. But it's also not the kind of thing you can really fix in-season. It's not like 2004 when the Bombers just needed Donovan to get caught up with the rest of the team. This is the kind of issue that takes time to fix.

Maybe IC can just go pass-happy and hope their defense/special teams bails them out and they go 8-2. But to what end? To get the #8 seed and get obliterated at Del Valley or Mount Union? A team this flawed can't make a deep run.

The program needs a down year, IMO. Just a little kick in the butt, let's revitalize the program kind of thing. Wake up the coaching staff and administration a little. The program's become a little stagnant and the seasons all blend into an 8-2/7-3 mush. Sometimes, I wonder if, long-term going 5-5 would help them more than 7-3.

It shouldn't take you a half of football to figure it out should it?  And SJF figured out Ithaca when they had great running games, so I don't think SJF "figuring" IC out this year is going to be a suprise.

And Ithaca this year has had great second halves against their first three opponents.  Union connected on some amazing pass plays to make that game close,  St. Lawrence crumbled in the 4th, and Wilkes let up 21 points in the third quarter.  And we could very well see a Lycoming team that ends up with one or two losses.

As for a wake up call for the school I can't say I disagree.  Although I've heard the financial aid just isn't there like it was 10 years ago.  Plus they don't recruit New England and any of the prep-private NE schools like they used to. 

You're right about the figuring out I guess. I was just noting how the last four games have all been close at the half and then Fisher blows it open in the second. Remember the 06 game? It was 10-0 IC at the half and that Fisher team was astoundingly good.

I've heard from people close to the program that IC still plays it to recruits like they're a national power. That's kind of more sad than anything. Let's face it, the team hasn't been a national power since 1994. They were surpassed by Buffalo State in the mid 90's, by Fisher now, and arguably by Cortland. And I don't see any trophies in THEIR cases either, so that's saying something. Ithaca's barely a regional power anymore to say nothing of a national one.

Maybe it was that 2007 team that screwed it all up. Went up to MUC, only trailed by 9 at the half, scored the first TD on that 1st-string defense all year, had the first lead, etc...maybe that let them think they were in that realm still. At least Fisher got waxed by them last season. Sometimes, that's what it takes.

There's always complaining about financial aid, but you know what? If that 2004 team doesn't piss away the regular season and the 2008 team doesn't blow it to Curry, maybe we could pitch something to High School kids like "Hey, we won a playoff game after you hit puberty." The money didn't have anything to do with Brian Grastorf missing Kyle Crandall at the end of the Curry game or the entire 2004 team missing a tackle against Noah Ferenbach in the 4th quarter against Fisher.

Don't sell me that they need more when they don't even maximize what they get now

[Pat Coleman]

Pat -

The question on the football homepage regarding Ithaca's rushing game is misleading.  Those numbers take into account a snap over the punter's head and QB sacks, which accounted for -62 yards rushing.  In my opinion those yards shouldn't count so the real number is 48 yards rushing.  It is misleading!

Sacks count. Sorry. A bad snap? OK, but sacks are part of every NCAA team's rushing yardage.

[theoriginalupstate]

Pat -

The question on the football homepage regarding Ithaca's rushing game is misleading.  Those numbers take into account a snap over the punter's head and QB sacks, which accounted for -62 yards rushing.  In my opinion those yards shouldn't count so the real number is 48 yards rushing.  It is misleading!

Sacks count. Sorry. A bad snap? OK, but sacks are part of every NCAA team's rushing yardage.

PC, it makes IC look bad therefor it's misleading...

I'm pretty sure someone at Ithaca is petitioning the NCAA to come up with a new statistical category as we speak...

We'll call it Ithardage Lost or Yarthaca Lost...

[Bombers798891]

Pat -

The question on the football homepage regarding Ithaca's rushing game is misleading.  Those numbers take into account a snap over the punter's head and QB sacks, which accounted for -62 yards rushing.  In my opinion those yards shouldn't count so the real number is 48 yards rushing.  It is misleading!

Sacks count. Sorry. A bad snap? OK, but sacks are part of every NCAA team's rushing yardage.

I don't think anyone is debating that they count. Just that it doesn't make sense why they count

[Bombers798891]

Pat -

The question on the football homepage regarding Ithaca's rushing game is misleading.  Those numbers take into account a snap over the punter's head and QB sacks, which accounted for -62 yards rushing.  In my opinion those yards shouldn't count so the real number is 48 yards rushing.  It is misleading!

Sacks count. Sorry. A bad snap? OK, but sacks are part of every NCAA team's rushing yardage.

PC, it makes IC look bad therefor it's misleading...

I'm pretty sure someone at Ithaca is petitioning the NCAA to come up with a new statistical category as we speak...

We'll call it Ithardage Lost or Yarthaca Lost...

Yeah, but then we gotta start a petition to have all the games vs. Fisher removed from the last four years. Plus the Curry game. And probably any mention of Ryan Steenberg at QB...

[Pat Coleman]

Nonetheless, they do. They have to count somewhere.

You could make the argument, for example, that until a pass is thrown, it's not a pass. Could not a quarterback still pull the ball down and run at any time? How would you deal with a situation where a quarterback is shaken from the pocket and runs for positive yardage? Clearly this was a *designed* pass play, but the ball was run instead.

Any time a quarterback is sacked, this was an alternate possible outcome.

[bomber3]

Upstate -

I stated I could care less if it makes Ithaca look bad or not it is just misleading.  Did Ithaca really have -14 rushing in the typical sense of the word? No, they didn't, so why should the stats count that way? Quit choosing half the story to make yourself sound clever.

[Jonny Utah]

Nonetheless, they do. They have to count somewhere.

You could make the argument, for example, that until a pass is thrown, it's not a pass. Could not a quarterback still pull the ball down and run at any time? How would you deal with a situation where a quarterback is shaken from the pocket and runs for positive yardage? Clearly this was a *designed* pass play, but the ball was run instead.

Any time a quarterback is sacked, this was an alternate possible outcome.

Well you could have the official scorer make a call like they would in baseball with a hit or an error.  If the QB drops back to pass and it looks like a pass play and gets sacked, that yardage would only count as sacked yards lost and not rushing yards. 

[theoriginalupstate]

Upstate -

I stated I could care less if it makes Ithaca look bad or not it is just misleading.  Did Ithaca really have -14 rushing in the typical sense of the word? No, they didn't, so why should the stats count that way? Quit choosing half the story to make yourself sound clever.

Yes, I agree they are misleading and yes obviously you do care how it makes Ithaca look to observers, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up to begin with...

If you can't handle some slight ribbing you probably shouldn't be around...

[Bombers798891]

Nonetheless, they do. They have to count somewhere.

You could make the argument, for example, that until a pass is thrown, it's not a pass. Could not a quarterback still pull the ball down and run at any time? How would you deal with a situation where a quarterback is shaken from the pocket and runs for positive yardage? Clearly this was a *designed* pass play, but the ball was run instead.

Any time a quarterback is sacked, this was an alternate possible outcome.

You could make that argument. But by that logic, you could also argue that anytime a RB is tackled in the backfield, an alternative possible outcome is that he was going to throw it, he just never had the time. Don't most of Springfield's passes work that way? Fake like they're running the option, step back and throw it?

Obviously, this doesn't happen often. But for most teams, QB's don't naturally run the ball either. For example, Ithaca QB's have attempted 123 passes. They have 12 total rush attempts (including five sacks). Which means that 91% of the time a QB doesn't give the ball to someone else, the play winds up being a pass play.

We really should be able to make the obvious call and just say "Yeah, that was probably going to be a pass attempt."

[Yanks 99]

Pat -

The question on the football homepage regarding Ithaca's rushing game is misleading.  Those numbers take into account a snap over the punter's head and QB sacks, which accounted for -62 yards rushing.  In my opinion those yards shouldn't count so the real number is 48 yards rushing.  It is misleading!

Sacks count. Sorry. A bad snap? OK, but sacks are part of every NCAA team's rushing yardage.

PC, it makes IC look bad therefor it's misleading...

I'm pretty sure someone at Ithaca is petitioning the NCAA to come up with a new statistical category as we speak...

We'll call it Ithardage Lost or Yarthaca Lost...

Yeah, but then we gotta start a petition to have all the games vs. Fisher removed from the last four years. Plus the Curry game. And probably any mention of Ryan Steenberg at QB...

Hahaha...good stuff...I always appreciate the self depreciating barbs...and all in good fun.  Though if anyone has a reason to hate Steenburg, it is Wick fans.  Him playing terrible (or getting hurt...cannot really remember) against Wick at Butterfield back in the day produced the immediate "arrival" of Fellicetti...

[sjfcards]

I've heard from people close to the program that IC still plays it to recruits like they're a national power. That's kind of more sad than anything. Let's face it, the team hasn't been a national power since 1994. They were surpassed by Buffalo State in the mid 90's, by Fisher now, and arguably by Cortland. And I don't see any trophies in THEIR cases either, so that's saying something. Ithaca's barely a regional power anymore to say nothing of a national one.

I agree with your thought that IC is clearly not a national power anymore, much like every other team in the East region. However, what else would you sell to recruits? Even though the national championships happened forever ago, they did happen, and they are something to be proud of. Also, in DIII, you can probably convince some top level talent that you are a national power (I would use the winning seasons streak as proof) even if you are not, because most High School players follow DI football, until their junior or senior year when they realize that is where they are being recruited.
Is it misleading? sure. Is it unethical? I don't think so. All recruiting is sales, and recruits expect schools to put their best foot forward. The debate about what is okay, and what is not in recruiting could go on and on forever on this board I bet.

[Bombers798891]

I've heard from people close to the program that IC still plays it to recruits like they're a national power. That's kind of more sad than anything. Let's face it, the team hasn't been a national power since 1994. They were surpassed by Buffalo State in the mid 90's, by Fisher now, and arguably by Cortland. And I don't see any trophies in THEIR cases either, so that's saying something. Ithaca's barely a regional power anymore to say nothing of a national one.

I agree with your thought that IC is clearly not a national power anymore, much like every other team in the East region. However, what else would you sell to recruits? Even though the national championships happened forever ago, they did happen, and they are something to be proud of. Also, in DIII, you can probably convince some top level talent that you are a national power (I would use the winning seasons streak as proof) even if you are not, because most High School players follow DI football, until their junior or senior year when they realize that is where they are being recruited.
Is it misleading? sure. Is it unethical? I don't think so. All recruiting is sales, and recruits expect schools to put their best foot forward. The debate about what is okay, and what is not in recruiting could go on and on forever on this board I bet.

It's not so much about the recruiting side of it as it is my worry that that attitude seeps into play on the field. I wonder if IC needs to gain an "edge" back. It's more a worry of wondering if IC thinks a team like say, Curry, is going to come in and be intimidated in a playoff game because it's IC, and they've got this illustrious history. And then, hey, we lost

No disrespect here, but Fisher had a pretty non-descript history prior to say, 2003. But I think that's what's helped them so much now. These kids are putting together the Fisher football legacy. And I think that pushes and motivates. How many times has Fisher, since that 2003 season, lost to a team that finished with a worse record than them? I'm betting not as much as IC has.

But at IC, the legacy's already in place. We had a 20-year run as a national power, which was awesome, but it's time to focus on the future, and getting the program back up to where you want it. Don't make the 1988 and 1991 teams responsible for your legacy forever. Work on making the 2011 team that way. (I am going to assume 2010 is a lost cause)