FB: Empire 8

[Doid23]

But the East gets blitzed while the South has not embarrassed itself.

I don't think many current fans are basing their opinion on a game in 1999. Probably not many are on a game in 2004, but then again, that was the last time Mount was kept out of the Stagg Bowl.

I do not agree with your premise that the South would have performed the same as the East has against Mount Union. It's not just the wines, but the scores. Regional finals of 55-3, 41-14 and 52-10 the past three years? I don't think those happen against Mary Hardin-Baylor or Wesley. (We know for a fact it wouldn't against Wesley.)

There's more to the playoffs than regional finals.

1) In 2007, Ithaca gave MUC a better game than anyone they played in their first ten games. Ithaca actually had a lead, and scored on the first team defense. They were only down nine at the half. What an embarrassment.

2) The Purple Raiders didn't exactly roll through Fisher in 2006 either considering it was 19-14 in the 4th quarter. Another embarrassment

3) Cortland's margin of defeat in 2008 (27) was closer than anyone's in the OAC's that year and like Ithaca the year before, they were the first team to have a lead against them and trailed by six at the half. And that year in the opening week, Fisher held them to the fewest points they'd score all season before the Stagg Bowl. Two more humiliating experiences

Yeah, the OAC as a whole has been down. But it's not like East teams been going in there and trailing 45-0 after two quarters. Three years in a row, East teams went into MUC and gave them solid games, in most cases their best games of the season to that point. Have they beaten them  No. But there's more to  determining a region's strength than how they do in one game shots against arguably the greatest dynasty in college football.

I updated a comment I posted last year, but the theme is the same. Sure, Wesley played them tight, but so did Rowan and Fisher in the past:

Here's my problem with the whole importing Mt. Union thing. The numbers don't support that the East is so  lacking vs. the North. The real beneficiary of this model are the "elite" North (Midwest) teams, but I'm not sure why they deserve the pass.  This is going to seem strange, sometimes comparing blowout losses, but basically, the results over the last 5 years vs. the North and East are very similar for Mt. U's opponents:

2005  d. MSJ 49-6, Augustana 44-7, Capital 34-31, Rowan 19-7
2006  d. Hope 49-6, Wheaton 44-7, Capital 17-14, Fisher 26-14
2007  d. Ithaca 42-18,New Jersey 59-7, Fisher 52-10, Bethel 62-14
2008  d. RMacon 56-0, Hobart 42-7, Cortland 41-14, d. Wheaton 45-24
2009  d. W&J55-0, Montclair 62-14, Albright 55-3, Wesley 24-7

They blow out everyone in the first rounds, no matter where they're from. But, the scores show that over the years, the best North Rep excluding Mt. U (Capital, Capital, Bethel, Wheaton) had similar results vs Mt. U and the East (Rowan, Fisher, Fisher, Cortland. So, ex Mt. U, why exactly is the North considered superior to the East? Take away Mt. Union (the fact that they carry a 200 man roster would suggest to me that they're really not a true DIII team, but that's a discussion for another day), and I'd stack the East vs. the North any day.

[dlippiel]

But the East gets blitzed while the South has not embarrassed itself.

I don't think many current fans are basing their opinion on a game in 1999. Probably not many are on a game in 2004, but then again, that was the last time Mount was kept out of the Stagg Bowl.

I do not agree with your premise that the South would have performed the same as the East has against Mount Union. It's not just the wines, but the scores. Regional finals of 55-3, 41-14 and 52-10 the past three years? I don't think those happen against Mary Hardin-Baylor or Wesley. (We know for a fact it wouldn't against Wesley.)

There's more to the playoffs than regional finals.

1) In 2007, Ithaca gave MUC a better game than anyone they played in their first ten games. Ithaca actually had a lead, and scored on the first team defense. They were only down nine at the half. What an embarrassment.

2) The Purple Raiders didn't exactly roll through Fisher in 2006 either considering it was 19-14 in the 4th quarter. Another embarrassment

3) Cortland's margin of defeat in 2008 (27) was closer than anyone's in the OAC's that year and like Ithaca the year before, they were the first team to have a lead against them and trailed by six at the half. And that year in the opening week, Fisher held them to the fewest points they'd score all season before the Stagg Bowl. Two more humiliating experiences

Yeah, the OAC as a whole has been down. But it's not like East teams been going in there and trailing 45-0 after two quarters. Three years in a row, East teams went into MUC and gave them solid games, in most cases their best games of the season to that point. Have they beaten them  No. But there's more to  determining a region's strength than how they do in one game shots against arguably the greatest dynasty in college football.

+k bombers very well said.

dlip agrees with PC when it comes down to the wire though, "want more respect? Get better period." Yet he does sense that PC has a bit of an anti-east thing going on.

Of course dlip will get hammered for saying this because no one can ever disagree with PC   but dlip has noticed, the past few years, it seems, that PC is always so quick to hammer  anyone from the East when they make statements regarding their displeasure or disagreement with the lack of respect the region receives.

When looking at the numbers it seems as if the East has played MUC tough, tougher than most in the OAC, and quite similar to most, aside from your top 5 teams, that everyone knows, clearly stand above all others.

[dlippiel]

I'd stack the East vs. the North any day.

Right with you on that Doid.

[Bombers798891]

But the East gets blitzed while the South has not embarrassed itself.

I don't think many current fans are basing their opinion on a game in 1999. Probably not many are on a game in 2004, but then again, that was the last time Mount was kept out of the Stagg Bowl.

I do not agree with your premise that the South would have performed the same as the East has against Mount Union. It's not just the wines, but the scores. Regional finals of 55-3, 41-14 and 52-10 the past three years? I don't think those happen against Mary Hardin-Baylor or Wesley. (We know for a fact it wouldn't against Wesley.)

There's more to the playoffs than regional finals.

1) In 2007, Ithaca gave MUC a better game than anyone they played in their first ten games. Ithaca actually had a lead, and scored on the first team defense. They were only down nine at the half. What an embarrassment.

2) The Purple Raiders didn't exactly roll through Fisher in 2006 either considering it was 19-14 in the 4th quarter. Another embarrassment

3) Cortland's margin of defeat in 2008 (27) was closer than anyone's in the OAC's that year and like Ithaca the year before, they were the first team to have a lead against them and trailed by six at the half. And that year in the opening week, Fisher held them to the fewest points they'd score all season before the Stagg Bowl. Two more humiliating experiences

Yeah, the OAC as a whole has been down. But it's not like East teams been going in there and trailing 45-0 after two quarters. Three years in a row, East teams went into MUC and gave them solid games, in most cases their best games of the season to that point. Have they beaten them  No. But there's more to  determining a region's strength than how they do in one game shots against arguably the greatest dynasty in college football.

+k bombers very well said.

dlip agrees with PC when it comes down to the wire though, "want more respect? Get better period." Yet he does sense that PC has a bit of an anti-east thing going on.

Of course dlip will get hammered for saying this because no one can ever disagree with PC   but dlip has noticed, the past few years, it seems, that PC is always so quick to hammer  anyone from the East when they make statements regarding their displeasure or disagreement with the lack of respect the region receives.

When looking at the numbers it seems as if the East has played MUC tough, tougher than most in the OAC, and quite similar to most, aside from your top 5 teams, that everyone knows, clearly stand above all others.

Dlip, I agree the East is down. And I've said numerous times they need to play better as a region. I don't think Pat is anti-east. I think the argument that the East is weak has merit, but don't trot out three regional final scores against MUC of all people as proof of that, especially when ignoring the performances of IC, Fisher and Cortland in recent years.

[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!

I believe in D3, those yards do count. I think that those negative yards count in the rushing totals at all college levels, but maybe PC knows for sure.

there is different rules for d3?

No, as I mentioned yesterday.

Just wanted to clarify... I think that came from a D3 Journalist...

Dewcrew did suggest that maybe it was the case. I debunked it. All playing rules and all statistical rules are the same at all levels of the NCAA.

[Pat Coleman]

Dlip, I agree the East is down. And I've said numerous times they need to play better as a region. I don't think Pat is anti-east. I think the argument that the East is weak has merit, but don't trot out three regional final scores against MUC of all people as proof of that, especially when ignoring the performances of IC, Fisher and Cortland in recent years.

What data did you want to compare East vs. South with? I don't see East teams lining up to play the South's best conference. If you guys would rather play the Centennial, that's fine for your "like-minded institution" stuff, but that's not a way to really get respect.

[Bombers798891]

Dlip, I agree the East is down. And I've said numerous times they need to play better as a region. I don't think Pat is anti-east. I think the argument that the East is weak has merit, but don't trot out three regional final scores against MUC of all people as proof of that, especially when ignoring the performances of IC, Fisher and Cortland in recent years.

What data did you want to compare East vs. South with? I don't see East teams lining up to play the South's best conference. If you guys would rather play the Centennial, that's fine for your "like-minded institution" stuff, but that's not a way to really get respect.

Well, you pointed out the playoff games the East played poorly in and neglected the ones they made a solid showing in. That's your call, but don't just bring up ones that back up you point and ignore the others and expect others just to nod their head.

Like I said, the East is down, I don't disagree. But three blowout losses to MUC in three years is hardly out of the ordinary. The East has has plenty of good performances (relatively speaking) against MUC. It's not like teams regularly play them close (other than Whitewater)

[Bombers798891]

Dlip, I agree the East is down. And I've said numerous times they need to play better as a region. I don't think Pat is anti-east. I think the argument that the East is weak has merit, but don't trot out three regional final scores against MUC of all people as proof of that, especially when ignoring the performances of IC, Fisher and Cortland in recent years.

What data did you want to compare East vs. South with? I don't see East teams lining up to play the South's best conference. If you guys would rather play the Centennial, that's fine for your "like-minded institution" stuff, but that's not a way to really get respect.

And as I've said, the East has blown chances for respect--which I've pointed out, numerous times. I'm not some East region homer. I'm pretty sure when the Lindy's preseason poll came out, I was the one who said they overrated IC and SJF. Said the same thing when the AFCA poll came out and IC was no. 13. I'm hardly a shill for the region. But if you want to talk playoff scores, the three I mentioned are no less significant than the ones you did

[Pat Coleman]

As I think you know, I actually didn't mention ALL of the bad games, just the bad late-round games. I glossed over TCNJ's and Montclair's contribution to the cause, etc. But we don't expect low seeds from any region to do well at Mount Union.

[Bombers798891]

As I think you know, I actually didn't mention ALL of the bad games, just the bad late-round games. I glossed over TCNJ's and Montclair's contribution to the cause, etc. But we don't expect low seeds from any region to do well at Mount Union.

True, but my issue was not so much that you pointed out the bad games, but ignored the good. No-one can debate, the East has laid some major eggs in Alliance, and yeah, maybe more than most. But they've also had some good showings, and it's fair game to acknowledge those and not act like every game has been a disaster. I remember listening to the IC game in 2007 and the announcers were saying they were surprised and stunned that IC could move the ball.

We're not all rolling over and dying up in Alliance (Well, the E8 isn't anyway)

[Doid23]

I don't think Pat is anti-east.

Seriously? Where have you been? It's a nice thing to say, but Pat is most definitely anti-East.

[Bombers798891]

I don't think Pat is anti-east.

Seriously? Where have you been? It's a nice thing to say, but Pat is most definitely anti-East.

Look, what has the East Region done to differentiate itself? Other than 2006 Fisher, what East region team since Rowan has actually been a contender?

Yes, I think it's a circular argument, to say they're weak and bring MUC East and then use MUC winning to prove that point like it's some big shock that the Purple Raiders won the region (because they so often lost it when they were in the North). But if a team from the East could put together a dominant regular season, we wouldn't have this problem at all.

So next time, tell Fisher to stop losing to Springfield. Or IC to stop losing to Fisher. Or Cortland to stop losing to IC. Or Del Valley to stop losing to...whoever it is that beats them.

[Pat Coleman]

I don't think Pat is anti-east.

Seriously? Where have you been? It's a nice thing to say, but Pat is most definitely anti-East.

I'm pro-facts. Facts don't say much nice about the East. It's just reality, Doid.

[Pat Coleman]

I don't think Pat is anti-east.

Seriously? Where have you been? It's a nice thing to say, but Pat is most definitely anti-East.

Look, what has the East Region done to differentiate itself? Other than 2006 Fisher, what East region team since Rowan has actually been a contender?

Yes, I think it's a circular argument, to say they're weak and bring MUC East and then use MUC winning to prove that point like it's some big shock that the Purple Raiders won the region (because they so often lost it when they were in the North). But if a team from the East could put together a dominant regular season, we wouldn't have this problem at all.

So next time, tell Fisher to stop losing to Springfield. Or IC to stop losing to Fisher. Or Cortland to stop losing to IC. Or Del Valley to stop losing to...whoever it is that beats them.

If I remember correctly, Keith and I spent some time in the podcast this past week on this very subject -- that St. John Fisher has a schedule that would earn it a top seed if it ran the table.

Except I hate the East, so I deleted it from the file before posting it. Right?

[Bombers798891]

I don't think Pat is anti-east.

Seriously? Where have you been? It's a nice thing to say, but Pat is most definitely anti-East.

Look, what has the East Region done to differentiate itself? Other than 2006 Fisher, what East region team since Rowan has actually been a contender?

Yes, I think it's a circular argument, to say they're weak and bring MUC East and then use MUC winning to prove that point like it's some big shock that the Purple Raiders won the region (because they so often lost it when they were in the North). But if a team from the East could put together a dominant regular season, we wouldn't have this problem at all.

So next time, tell Fisher to stop losing to Springfield. Or IC to stop losing to Fisher. Or Cortland to stop losing to IC. Or Del Valley to stop losing to...whoever it is that beats them.

If I remember correctly, Keith and I spent some time in the podcast this past week on this very subject -- that St. John Fisher has a schedule that would earn it a top seed if it ran the table.

Except I hate the East, so I deleted it from the file before posting it. Right?

Don't give that to me. I was the one who said you weren't anti-East.

I've said before that IC and Cortland blew chances in 2008 and Fisher did in 2007. I think saying that the East teams haven't put together good regular seasons is a more compelling argument than, "They go to Alliance and lose, often badly." Because isn't that kind of what makes Mount, Mount?