FB: Empire 8

[maxpower]

Maybe its time for an east team to go out and play a North region team from another conference (SJF has already played MUC).  Go out and play North Central, Wittenburg, Wabash, etc.

I still don't have a problem having Mt. Union in the east.  Untill we see an eastern team get screwed out of a playoff spot because of it, I say let them stay.

Certainly an option for E8/LL teams who play 3-4 games OOC a year. I wonder though, how much the economy makes that difficult. Can teams afford the expenses for that kind of travel on the D-III level? What would it cost to say, get Ithaca to Wabash vs. Lycoming?

I've wanted Alfred to schedule a home and home with Mississippi College for years, just so I'd have an excuse to go down to Jackson and visit my brother-in-law.  A Saxons-Choctaws series would be exactly the kind of game to add to this belabored conversation.

I'm waiting for the big Ithaca/Mt. Ida series too!  (I used to live 5 minutes from Mt. Ida but now actually live 10 minutes from Curry)

I live in Somerville now, so I've been waiting for that Curry matchup too.... or at least that MBB would come to the Amherst tourney again, but alas... I saw more IC sports when I lived in SoCal because of all the spring trips!

[SJFF82]

OK...where are the South Region teams lining up to play the East teams?  That works both ways you know...what evidence or facts do you have besides word of mouth that all of these "South Region" powers are lining up to play SJF, Ithaca, Rowan, Cortland, etc. and that these teams are turning them down to stick with "like-minded institutions"

You're a Hartwick fan, right? Wesley has had to play nine-game schedules and play Gallaudet because you guys won't play them even though you have had mutual open dates. Wesley has proven with its regular-season schedule that it will take on all comers.

I am a Hartwick fan...and I wish the administration there would agree to a tenth game.  That isn't the coaching staff's or the players fault...as I know...for a fact...that the coaches have been trying to get a tenth game approved for about 3 years now, with no success.  That still doesn't prove anything.  Right now, Wesley would be playing down to Wick...so there wouldn't even be a benefit for them to play Hartwick.  I wasn't even considering Wick when I made these comments, as we are no where near a national, regional, or even league power.  What would Hartwick have to do with my point on this one???

Don't we get the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to taking on all comers when we are talking about our best Region teams???  I mean, SJF took on MUC and Salisbury in the same season two years in a row...doesn't that stand for something???

not in his mind, because it clearly shows he is incorrect and biased.

[Doid23]

I don't equate 34-31 with 19-7. I don't equate 17-14 with 26-14 ... let alone 52-10 in the same round a year later. I don't equate 24-7 with any other game that happened last season. I understand why you want to believe those things but they are not the same.

I would equate 19-7 or 26-14 with 24-7, sure, but those are too far apart to be apples to apples, aren't they? Those aren't years where Mount Union was in the east bracket, either, and isn't the argument that the East comes by its bad rep unfairly because it's had to play Mount Union the last three years?

No, my argument is that take away the "Superpowers" of MUC and UWW, and I don't see where the results are fundamentally different, and that there is any distinguishing difference between the North, South and East as it relates to MUC. The point about MUC coming to the east is about "perception", that the east is below the other regions based on rankings, which, short of actual cross region games, is by nature about perception. When looking at the facts, nothing shows that the East has performed fundamentally differently than the North in the playoffs when MUC is in their bracket. And Wesley did not perform as well as Fisher and Rowan when they met MUC in the semis.

And the reason I compare them to MUC because YOU have used playoff results against MUC as proof that the East is worse than the North, and I simply laid out the past 5 years playoff results. In 2005 and 2006 MUC was in the North, and then in the East after that. Yanks also had a great set of facts regarding how MUC has lost only once in 120+ games vs. North teams.

As to your statement that "you know why I want to believe that", well, no you don't. I'm simply using facts to have a dicsussion. Actually, I believe that the East hasn't had an extremely strong team in the past few years, and that the top East teams may be below the top South teams (e.g. Wesley). But when you look at the facts, that cannot be supported. I have presented some of the limited facts available. You have presented anectodal evidence (e.g. Hartwick was "afraid" to play Wesley, therefore, the east teams are ducking the best competition).

[maxpower]

I believe 2006 was the first year MUC was in the East... didn't they play Fisher that year? Not that it's something I'd beat my drum about...

[fisheralum91]

06 wasnt the drummer boy year.............

[Bombers798891]

Rams,
I think that in an ideal world there would be an upstate superconference.
We have had that discussion many times.
Just dont see it happening.
Not in my lifetime anyway.

JQV and I have had the discussion about whether IC should have stayed independent all those years ago... it makes me wonder about whether adding another possibility for the playoffs (pool A) led to a certain lax-ness on Ithaca's part. I mean, you can afford to let Lycoming beat you by 3 on the road if you know you will run the table in-conference (which in the early 2000s pre-Mark Robinson was practically a guarantee). I wonder if someone can comment on whether the switch to conference play may have affected recruiting and/or preparation in such away that hurt Ithaca's performance regionally and nationally....

After the screw job the NCAA laid on them in 1998, I'm happy to see them in a conference.

Remember, none of those independent Bomber teams ran the table even under Butterfield, and they were pretty mediocre in the mid-late 90's. I also think the administration changed, and the tuition increase has made it tougher to get certain athletes. There's a multitude of issues.

The only thing I miss is Cortaca playoff implications. Yes, it can happen now, but imagine the 2008 game if we were an independent, at 8-1, fighting for that last spot. Cortland would have come out with more intensity. They had to love doing it to us in 1997 and 1999 and almost doing it in 2003. As it was, we were both already in the playoffs (I think we had clinched, but maybe not) and the game felt anticlimactic

[Yanks 99]

I think I'd just like some sample sizes taken into account. It's meaningful (to me) to say that through hundreds/thousands of regular season games in the past four years, the East has failed to distinguish itself. That's why I agree with Pat's premise that the East is down and disagree with the idea that he's biased. I don't always agree with Pat, but read his posts (even ones not related to the E8) and I've never thought he showed bias.

But a dozen or so games against MUC seems to be a bad piece of supporting evidence for that premise. I think MUC and UWW are too good to really use as barometers for anything nation-wide. And even though I've done it myself, comparing scores is tricky. If the 2007 Bombers game MUC their closest game of the year to that point, does that mean they're better than the rest of the OAC? Doubtful, but how can we know either way?

I agree...using MUC as the barometer is not a great example...but it is the only one we really have, and the one that Pat brings up often.  Again...as I have stated a few times today already...I think it is the North Region that gets the biggest pass in all of this.  Yes...the East Region teams have not been successful against MUC.  Their record against them in the past 11 years is 1-12.  But the North Region teams have a record of 1-122 during this same timeframe.  That is a pretty big freaking sample of lack of success.

That's because you're not putting that stat into context. You keep trotting it out, but it's not a valid comparison, which is why people ignore it. That 122 losses includes dozens of losses against mediocre and bad OAC teams and not playoff teams which is all they get from the East.

You need to compare similar teams. I doubt that the North Region playoff record against MUC is that much worse than the East. Which again, pretty much proves what? That no-one can expect to have sustained success against MUC but Whitewater

If MUC was in the NJAC, the East would be 1-122 against them too (depending on how Rowan did). Would anyone from the E8 have taken them? Maybe 2006 Fisher if they were at home, but after that? Not likely. Who in the Liberty League would have beaten them? No-one.

I understand...and I could pull the numbers against "playoff teams".  I am almost certain that it would be something like 1-30 then.  I''l take a look.  It still doesn't explain their overall lack of success against a team they see every single year.

Bombers...just to make sure I have my "facts" correct...I dig a little digging.  As stated before, the North Region teams (which MUC belongs to) are 1-122 against MUC in the past 11 years.  Amazingly, and I may be off by one or two here...but by my count playoff teams during this timeframe (including regular season and playoff games) from the North Region are, in fact, 1-30 against MUC.  

[Bombers798891]

I think I'd just like some sample sizes taken into account. It's meaningful (to me) to say that through hundreds/thousands of regular season games in the past four years, the East has failed to distinguish itself. That's why I agree with Pat's premise that the East is down and disagree with the idea that he's biased. I don't always agree with Pat, but read his posts (even ones not related to the E8) and I've never thought he showed bias.

But a dozen or so games against MUC seems to be a bad piece of supporting evidence for that premise. I think MUC and UWW are too good to really use as barometers for anything nation-wide. And even though I've done it myself, comparing scores is tricky. If the 2007 Bombers game MUC their closest game of the year to that point, does that mean they're better than the rest of the OAC? Doubtful, but how can we know either way?

I agree...using MUC as the barometer is not a great example...but it is the only one we really have, and the one that Pat brings up often.  Again...as I have stated a few times today already...I think it is the North Region that gets the biggest pass in all of this.  Yes...the East Region teams have not been successful against MUC.  Their record against them in the past 11 years is 1-12.  But the North Region teams have a record of 1-122 during this same timeframe.  That is a pretty big freaking sample of lack of success.

That's because you're not putting that stat into context. You keep trotting it out, but it's not a valid comparison, which is why people ignore it. That 122 losses includes dozens of losses against mediocre and bad OAC teams and not playoff teams which is all they get from the East.

You need to compare similar teams. I doubt that the North Region playoff record against MUC is that much worse than the East. Which again, pretty much proves what? That no-one can expect to have sustained success against MUC but Whitewater

If MUC was in the NJAC, the East would be 1-122 against them too (depending on how Rowan did). Would anyone from the E8 have taken them? Maybe 2006 Fisher if they were at home, but after that? Not likely. Who in the Liberty League would have beaten them? No-one.

I understand...and I could pull the numbers against "playoff teams".  I am almost certain that it would be something like 1-30 then.  I''l take a look.  It still doesn't explain their overall lack of success against a team they see every single year.

Bombers...just to make sure I have my "facts" correct...I dig a little digging.  As stated before, the North Region teams (which MUC belongs to) are 1-122 against MUC in the past 11 years.  Amazingly, and I may be off by one or two here...but by my count playoff teams during this timeframe (including regular season and playoff games) from the North Region are, in fact, 1-30 against MUC.  

So it's 1-12 vs. 1-30. I would suspect that very few East teams in the past 10 years would have done anything different. '06 Fisher maybe. '03 RPI, eh. '03 IC? Never. I don't think you can say the North's really done any worse. But they've certainly done no better

[Yanks 99]

I think I'd just like some sample sizes taken into account. It's meaningful (to me) to say that through hundreds/thousands of regular season games in the past four years, the East has failed to distinguish itself. That's why I agree with Pat's premise that the East is down and disagree with the idea that he's biased. I don't always agree with Pat, but read his posts (even ones not related to the E8) and I've never thought he showed bias.

But a dozen or so games against MUC seems to be a bad piece of supporting evidence for that premise. I think MUC and UWW are too good to really use as barometers for anything nation-wide. And even though I've done it myself, comparing scores is tricky. If the 2007 Bombers game MUC their closest game of the year to that point, does that mean they're better than the rest of the OAC? Doubtful, but how can we know either way?

I agree...using MUC as the barometer is not a great example...but it is the only one we really have, and the one that Pat brings up often.  Again...as I have stated a few times today already...I think it is the North Region that gets the biggest pass in all of this.  Yes...the East Region teams have not been successful against MUC.  Their record against them in the past 11 years is 1-12.  But the North Region teams have a record of 1-122 during this same timeframe.  That is a pretty big freaking sample of lack of success.

That's because you're not putting that stat into context. You keep trotting it out, but it's not a valid comparison, which is why people ignore it. That 122 losses includes dozens of losses against mediocre and bad OAC teams and not playoff teams which is all they get from the East.

You need to compare similar teams. I doubt that the North Region playoff record against MUC is that much worse than the East. Which again, pretty much proves what? That no-one can expect to have sustained success against MUC but Whitewater

If MUC was in the NJAC, the East would be 1-122 against them too (depending on how Rowan did). Would anyone from the E8 have taken them? Maybe 2006 Fisher if they were at home, but after that? Not likely. Who in the Liberty League would have beaten them? No-one.

I understand...and I could pull the numbers against "playoff teams".  I am almost certain that it would be something like 1-30 then.  I''l take a look.  It still doesn't explain their overall lack of success against a team they see every single year.

Bombers...just to make sure I have my "facts" correct...I dig a little digging.  As stated before, the North Region teams (which MUC belongs to) are 1-122 against MUC in the past 11 years.  Amazingly, and I may be off by one or two here...but by my count playoff teams during this timeframe (including regular season and playoff games) from the North Region are, in fact, 1-30 against MUC. 

So it's 1-12 vs. 1-30. I would suspect that very few East teams in the past 10 years would have done anything different. '06 Fisher maybe. '03 RPI, eh. '03 IC? Never. I don't think you can say the North's really done any worse. But they've certainly done no better

I guess that was kind of the point.  I was saying other regions (South and North regions) get a pass, when in reality, they have done nothing to really distinguish themselves from any of the stronger teams in the East.   

[AUKaz00]

Rams,
I think that in an ideal world there would be an upstate superconference.
We have had that discussion many times.
Just dont see it happening.
Not in my lifetime anyway.

JQV and I have had the discussion about whether IC should have stayed independent all those years ago... it makes me wonder about whether adding another possibility for the playoffs (pool A) led to a certain lax-ness on Ithaca's part. I mean, you can afford to let Lycoming beat you by 3 on the road if you know you will run the table in-conference (which in the early 2000s pre-Mark Robinson was practically a guarantee). I wonder if someone can comment on whether the switch to conference play may have affected recruiting and/or preparation in such away that hurt Ithaca's performance regionally and nationally....

After the screw job the NCAA laid on them in 1998, I'm happy to see them in a conference.

Remember, none of those independent Bomber teams ran the table even under Butterfield, and they were pretty mediocre in the mid-late 90's. I also think the administration changed, and the tuition increase has made it tougher to get certain athletes. There's a multitude of issues.

The only thing I miss is Cortaca playoff implications. Yes, it can happen now, but imagine the 2008 game if we were an independent, at 8-1, fighting for that last spot. Cortland would have come out with more intensity. They had to love doing it to us in 1997 and 1999 and almost doing it in 2003. As it was, we were both already in the playoffs (I think we had clinched, but maybe not) and the game felt anticlimactic

I think the draw of the AQ for all the other schools in the E8 has drained some of the talent that would have ended up at Ithaca when there weren't as many ways of getting to the postseason.

[sjfcards]

I think I'd just like some sample sizes taken into account. It's meaningful (to me) to say that through hundreds/thousands of regular season games in the past four years, the East has failed to distinguish itself. That's why I agree with Pat's premise that the East is down and disagree with the idea that he's biased. I don't always agree with Pat, but read his posts (even ones not related to the E8) and I've never thought he showed bias.

But a dozen or so games against MUC seems to be a bad piece of supporting evidence for that premise. I think MUC and UWW are too good to really use as barometers for anything nation-wide. And even though I've done it myself, comparing scores is tricky. If the 2007 Bombers game MUC their closest game of the year to that point, does that mean they're better than the rest of the OAC? Doubtful, but how can we know either way?

I agree...using MUC as the barometer is not a great example...but it is the only one we really have, and the one that Pat brings up often.  Again...as I have stated a few times today already...I think it is the North Region that gets the biggest pass in all of this.  Yes...the East Region teams have not been successful against MUC.  Their record against them in the past 11 years is 1-12.  But the North Region teams have a record of 1-122 during this same timeframe.  That is a pretty big freaking sample of lack of success.

That's because you're not putting that stat into context. You keep trotting it out, but it's not a valid comparison, which is why people ignore it. That 122 losses includes dozens of losses against mediocre and bad OAC teams and not playoff teams which is all they get from the East.

You need to compare similar teams. I doubt that the North Region playoff record against MUC is that much worse than the East. Which again, pretty much proves what? That no-one can expect to have sustained success against MUC but Whitewater

If MUC was in the NJAC, the East would be 1-122 against them too (depending on how Rowan did). Would anyone from the E8 have taken them? Maybe 2006 Fisher if they were at home, but after that? Not likely. Who in the Liberty League would have beaten them? No-one.

I understand...and I could pull the numbers against "playoff teams".  I am almost certain that it would be something like 1-30 then.  I''l take a look.  It still doesn't explain their overall lack of success against a team they see every single year.

Bombers...just to make sure I have my "facts" correct...I dig a little digging.  As stated before, the North Region teams (which MUC belongs to) are 1-122 against MUC in the past 11 years.  Amazingly, and I may be off by one or two here...but by my count playoff teams during this timeframe (including regular season and playoff games) from the North Region are, in fact, 1-30 against MUC. 

So it's 1-12 vs. 1-30. I would suspect that very few East teams in the past 10 years would have done anything different. '06 Fisher maybe. '03 RPI, eh. '03 IC? Never. I don't think you can say the North's really done any worse. But they've certainly done no better

I guess that was kind of the point.  I was saying other regions (South and North regions) get a pass, when in reality, they have done nothing to really distinguish themselves from any of the stronger teams in the East.   

I agree Yanks. I think, on several occassions teams from other regions have been given elevated status due to the fact that MUC or UWW are on the schedule.

[lewdogg11]

This is getting out of hand here.  I read through some of this debate, and there are a few guys in here that definitely just don't see the big picture, or they just don't want to believe it.  There have been some East teams that maybe could have had a major impact(Rowan for a bunch of years, '03 RPI, a few SJF teams, etc) in other regions against other powers outside of UWW and MUC, but for the most part, as a whole, the East can NOT hold a candle to the rest of the country.  

Go to a HS game in Upstate NY, or MA, or in the Northeast...Then check one out in OH, NC, FL, CA, TX...  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the talent as a whole is way different.  For East Region d3 teams, most recruits come from the Northeast, so they just don't have the pool of talent that other states and regions have.  And the best players go D1 or somewhere bigger.  Maybe it's the snow, maybe it's the water, maybe it's the youth coaching being sucky, I just don't know...But those are the facts.  

(On a side note, my pick as the top team to actually have been able to make a run at some top tier teams was Springfiled '03, but they dropped the ball to RPI.  That team was flat out scary)

[Yanks 99]

LD...you aren't incorrect.  In all reality there is MUC, UWW, and then everyone else.  Even #3 - #20 is really subjective, and usually cannot even come close to competing with the two powerhouses.

I thought it was a good debate.  What else are we supposed to talk about on a discussion board?  How we all agree with each other?  Where is the fun in that?

[maxpower]

This is getting out of hand here.  I read through some of this debate, and there are a few guys in here that definitely just don't see the big picture, or they just don't want to believe it.  There have been some East teams that maybe could have had a major impact(Rowan for a bunch of years, '03 RPI, a few SJF teams, etc) in other regions against other powers outside of UWW and MUC, but for the most part, as a whole, the East can NOT hold a candle to the rest of the country.  

Go to a HS game in Upstate NY, or MA, or in the Northeast...Then check one out in OH, NC, FL, CA, TX...  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the talent as a whole is way different.  For East Region d3 teams, most recruits come from the Northeast, so they just don't have the pool of talent that other states and regions have.  And the best players go D1 or somewhere bigger.  Maybe it's the snow, maybe it's the water, maybe it's the youth coaching being sucky, I just don't know...But those are the facts.  

(On a side note, my pick as the top team to actually have been able to make a run at some top tier teams was Springfiled '03, but they dropped the ball to RPI.  That team was flat out scary)

+k, that's another thing that's being overlooked with MUC; football in Ohio is just a different thing, it's like Texas in that way. and the MUC roster is, i'd say, about half native ohioans, which is pretty remarkable when you consider how much places like OSU, U Ohio, Miami of Ohio, or Dayton must draw...

[Knightstalker]

This is getting out of hand here.  I read through some of this debate, and there are a few guys in here that definitely just don't see the big picture, or they just don't want to believe it.  There have been some East teams that maybe could have had a major impact(Rowan for a bunch of years, '03 RPI, a few SJF teams, etc) in other regions against other powers outside of UWW and MUC, but for the most part, as a whole, the East can NOT hold a candle to the rest of the country.  

Go to a HS game in Upstate NY, or MA, or in the Northeast...Then check one out in OH, NC, FL, CA, TX...  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the talent as a whole is way different.  For East Region d3 teams, most recruits come from the Northeast, so they just don't have the pool of talent that other states and regions have.  And the best players go D1 or somewhere bigger.  Maybe it's the snow, maybe it's the water, maybe it's the youth coaching being sucky, I just don't know...But those are the facts.  

(On a side note, my pick as the top team to actually have been able to make a run at some top tier teams was Springfiled '03, but they dropped the ball to RPI.  That team was flat out scary)

+k, that's another thing that's being overlooked with MUC; football in Ohio is just a different thing, it's like Texas in that way. and the MUC roster is, i'd say, about half native ohioans, which is pretty remarkable when you consider how much places like OSU, U Ohio, Miami of Ohio, or Dayton must draw...

Mount also seems to have developed a pipeline for FL kids.  LD is right about northeast US football actually it is Northeast and Mid-atlantic football is just not as good as the southeast, southwest or midwest with the exception of PA.  We have good kids playing in the schools in this region but not nearly enough for the local D-III schools to get the trickle down of good players that other schools get.