FB: Empire 8

[lewdogg11]

And I want to clarify that when I say "not the number 1 team"  I'm not referring to any Poll, just that overall, I think UWW is considered the best team in the nation right now. 

Now we all know you're just poking fun now because geographically, moving UWW here just wouldn't make sense now would it? 

I know they wouldn't bring UWW, but I'm saying the move of MU isn't necessarily right either.  Is it fair to give MU an easier road?  (Now I know, fairness doesn't matter when it comes to NCAA bracketing)

I've never really looked at it that way.  They have shipped 2 teams to the 'East' bracket a few times in past years.  I just think geographically it makes sense, rather than 'rewarding' MUC, they just have too many teams in neighboring regions that deserve to be in the playoffs more than the 'East'.  If the 'East' ever has a deserving 1 seed, it won't happen.

[pg04]

And I want to clarify that when I say "not the number 1 team"  I'm not referring to any Poll, just that overall, I think UWW is considered the best team in the nation right now. 

Now we all know you're just poking fun now because geographically, moving UWW here just wouldn't make sense now would it? 

I know they wouldn't bring UWW, but I'm saying the move of MU isn't necessarily right either.  Is it fair to give MU an easier road?  (Now I know, fairness doesn't matter when it comes to NCAA bracketing)

I've never really looked at it that way.  They have shipped 2 teams to the 'East' bracket a few times in past years.  I just think geographically it makes sense, rather than 'rewarding' MUC, they just have too many teams in neighboring regions that deserve to be in the playoffs more than the 'East'.  If the 'East' ever has a deserving 1 seed, it won't happen.

Well they could always move "lesser" northern teams over or "lesser" southern teams, but I do agree that MU won't be moved over with a deserving team in this region.  And Actually, I think this year it will happen.  Either with SJF at 10-0 or DVC at 9-1 (I think if Fisher faultered DVC will get number 1 seed with one loss, since the loss was out of region to a probable #1 seed)

[lewdogg11]

And I want to clarify that when I say "not the number 1 team"  I'm not referring to any Poll, just that overall, I think UWW is considered the best team in the nation right now. 

Now we all know you're just poking fun now because geographically, moving UWW here just wouldn't make sense now would it? 

I know they wouldn't bring UWW, but I'm saying the move of MU isn't necessarily right either.  Is it fair to give MU an easier road?  (Now I know, fairness doesn't matter when it comes to NCAA bracketing)

I've never really looked at it that way.  They have shipped 2 teams to the 'East' bracket a few times in past years.  I just think geographically it makes sense, rather than 'rewarding' MUC, they just have too many teams in neighboring regions that deserve to be in the playoffs more than the 'East'.  If the 'East' ever has a deserving 1 seed, it won't happen.

Well they could always move "lesser" northern teams over or "lesser" southern teams, but I do agree that MU won't be moved over with a deserving team in this region.  And Actually, I think this year it will happen.  Either with SJF at 10-0 or DVC at 9-1 (I think if Fisher faultered DVC will get number 1 seed with one loss, since the loss was out of region to a probable #1 seed)

That was actually the next question I just thought of...Do you think Del Valley would get a 1 seed with a loss?(If SJF isn't undefeated)

I think they deserve it, but would be skeptical seeing a team with a loss get a top seed.(especially after seeing RPI get a 1 seed just because they were undefeated in 2001)

[pg04]

If DVC didn't get a number 1 seed at 9-1 (if FIsher lost) then I would become even more skeptical of the selection process.  I think if you lose close to the #3 team you should still be considered one of the top teams in the nation. 

The way fisher is going though, they may not even get the chance.  Then we'd have two pretty powerful teams in the region. 

[Bombers798891]

If DVC didn't get a number 1 seed at 9-1 (if FIsher lost) then I would become even more skeptical of the selection process.  I think if you lose close to the #3 team you should still be considered one of the top teams in the nation. 

The way fisher is going though, they may not even get the chance.  Then we'd have two pretty powerful teams in the region. 

I agree. Other than the possibility Springfield just has one of those days with the triple option and keeps Bailey on the sideline, I see Fisher at 10-0. Don't screw it up, fellas 

[theoriginalupstate]

If DVC didn't get a number 1 seed at 9-1 (if FIsher lost) then I would become even more skeptical of the selection process.  I think if you lose close to the #3 team you should still be considered one of the top teams in the nation. 

The way fisher is going though, they may not even get the chance.  Then we'd have two pretty powerful teams in the region. 

I agree. Other than the possibility Springfield just has one of those days with the triple option and keeps Bailey on the sideline, I see Fisher at 10-0. Don't screw it up, fellas 

Eh, Springfield doesn't scare me.  It took a herculean effort by Sharp for SC to beat SJF (as well as Kramer and Stepnick missing the game) and I don't think Carter is nearly as good as Sharp was. 

I think AU has the best chance at knocking off SJF, but that's just me.

[AUKaz00]

If DVC didn't get a number 1 seed at 9-1 (if FIsher lost) then I would become even more skeptical of the selection process.  I think if you lose close to the #3 team you should still be considered one of the top teams in the nation. 

The way fisher is going though, they may not even get the chance.  Then we'd have two pretty powerful teams in the region. 

I agree. Other than the possibility Springfield just has one of those days with the triple option and keeps Bailey on the sideline, I see Fisher at 10-0. Don't screw it up, fellas 

Eh, Springfield doesn't scare me.  It took a herculean effort by Sharp for SC to beat SJF (as well as Kramer and Stepnick missing the game) and I don't think Carter is nearly as good as Sharp was. 

I think AU has the best chance at knocking off SJF, but that's just me.

If that's going to happen, the Saxons will need to rely more heavily on Dwyer (which looks like they have begun to do last week), the young wideouts need to step up and Secky needs to play like he's been there before.  And that doesn't even address whether the secondary has progressed since last year. Quite a tall order for the next three weeks, but at this point I'll be very happy if it's a meeting of undefeateds at Merrill on the 23rd.

[gordonmann]

Del Val was 9-1 last year and didn't get a No. 1 bid.  I'm not sure why this year would be any different.

And, for what it's worth, sitting here today I don't think Del Val will finish 9-1.  I think they'll win the MAC but pick up a loss along the way.

[PBR...]

Del Val was 9-1 last year and didn't get a No. 1 bid.  I'm not sure why this year would be any different.

And, for what it's worth, sitting here today I don't think Del Val will finish 9-1.  I think they'll win the MAC but pick up a loss along the way.

bite your tongue...we won't tolerate that kinda talk around here mr.....

[AUPepBand]

Wow, I don't look at the boards all of Wednesday and I miss 10 pages since my last post!  Nice conversation to all. 

One thing I'm wondering is that Mount Union may not be considered the number 1 team going into the playoffs like they usually are... Does that change their likelihood of being moved?  I mean, if they are the second best team, should they be rewarded by getting the #1 seed in the "easiest" region?

So now we've resorted to calling the "East" Region easy? Where's the dignity? Where's the respect?

[Doid23]

Interesting idea, Jonny, but I am going to take issue with one thing; isn't Brookline one of the wealthier(est?) cities in the Boston area? Perhaps it's more of a class thing; football isn't seen as a rich kid's sport, like hockey or something else. As far as liberalism I'm pretty liberal and love sports, and most of the other liberals I know either like all or no sports (unforunately, mostly the latter. save me!), they don't really discriminate from sport to sport.

I'm not sure what the things you're describing (that I've bolded) have to do with either liberalism or football players. What you're describing sounds an awful lot like my girlfriend's hometown in orange county, CA, one of the wealthiest and most republican counties in california, where NOBODY talks to their neighbors (i know, i've tried!). i think the liberal focus on education over sports is a valid point, but republicans in OC anyway are just as standoffish--and produce a LOT of pro athletes.

In sum, I guess I'd say as far as Mass goes I'd blame it on less focus on sports at that age, and let's not forget the weather.

I used to think it was about wealth, until I moved down to Texas, when I realized that success at HS sports is about culture. I used to think that Texas football was about small towns out in the middle of nowhere, where the only thing to to was play and watch football. Now I realize that EVERY town is crazy about football. I live in a very wealthy town (Highland Park), yet Highland Park High School has the most wins in Texas HS football history. EVERY adult talks about the last HP game, or the upcoming opponent, what the rest of the state looks like, etc. ALL THE TIME. These are successful lawyers, doctors, businessmen, etc., yet they live and breath HS football.

So I agree, it's about focus, or culture, and not about wealth. It's why lacrosse is so big in Baltimore, Metro NYC, and Upstate NY.  Frankly, the focus of kids in the Northeast is on academics, with sports seen as an integral part of helping to teach children life lessons. In Texas, sports is the focus, especially football.

[lewdogg11]

Interesting idea, Jonny, but I am going to take issue with one thing; isn't Brookline one of the wealthier(est?) cities in the Boston area? Perhaps it's more of a class thing; football isn't seen as a rich kid's sport, like hockey or something else. As far as liberalism I'm pretty liberal and love sports, and most of the other liberals I know either like all or no sports (unforunately, mostly the latter. save me!), they don't really discriminate from sport to sport.

I'm not sure what the things you're describing (that I've bolded) have to do with either liberalism or football players. What you're describing sounds an awful lot like my girlfriend's hometown in orange county, CA, one of the wealthiest and most republican counties in california, where NOBODY talks to their neighbors (i know, i've tried!). i think the liberal focus on education over sports is a valid point, but republicans in OC anyway are just as standoffish--and produce a LOT of pro athletes.

In sum, I guess I'd say as far as Mass goes I'd blame it on less focus on sports at that age, and let's not forget the weather.

I used to think it was about wealth, until I moved down to Texas, when I realized that success at HS sports is about culture. I used to think that Texas football was about small towns out in the middle of nowhere, where the only thing to to was play and watch football. Now I realize that EVERY town is crazy about football. I live in a very wealthy town (Highland Park), yet Highland Park High School has the most wins in Texas HS football history. EVERY adult talks about the last HP game, or the upcoming opponent, what the rest of the state looks like, etc. ALL THE TIME. These are successful lawyers, doctors, businessmen, etc., yet they live and breath HS football.

So I agree, it's about focus, or culture, and not about wealth. It's why lacrosse is so big in Baltimore, Metro NYC, and Upstate NY.  Frankly, the focus of kids in the Northeast is on academics, with sports seen as an integral part of helping to teach children life lessons. In Texas, sports is the focus, especially football.

I agree with this.  People used to be proud to be from Brookline, or Waltham, or Weymouth, or Malden, or Medford, or Somerville, or Melrose, or Woburn, or Lowell, or Lawrence, or Billerica, or Chelmsford, etc etc etc....Now, everyone cares more about having a nicer car than their neighbor and could care less if their HS sports teams beat their ancient rival neighboring towns.  Yuppies have taken over the Northeast.

[lewdogg11]

And who the F keeps coming in and sniping?  Show yourself you pathetic loser.  It's a conversation!!!

[lewdogg11]

+K to everyone to offset said sniper.

<See picture below>

[maxpower]

Interesting idea, Jonny, but I am going to take issue with one thing; isn't Brookline one of the wealthier(est?) cities in the Boston area? Perhaps it's more of a class thing; football isn't seen as a rich kid's sport, like hockey or something else. As far as liberalism I'm pretty liberal and love sports, and most of the other liberals I know either like all or no sports (unforunately, mostly the latter. save me!), they don't really discriminate from sport to sport.

I'm not sure what the things you're describing (that I've bolded) have to do with either liberalism or football players. What you're describing sounds an awful lot like my girlfriend's hometown in orange county, CA, one of the wealthiest and most republican counties in california, where NOBODY talks to their neighbors (i know, i've tried!). i think the liberal focus on education over sports is a valid point, but republicans in OC anyway are just as standoffish--and produce a LOT of pro athletes.

In sum, I guess I'd say as far as Mass goes I'd blame it on less focus on sports at that age, and let's not forget the weather.

I used to think it was about wealth, until I moved down to Texas, when I realized that success at HS sports is about culture. I used to think that Texas football was about small towns out in the middle of nowhere, where the only thing to to was play and watch football. Now I realize that EVERY town is crazy about football. I live in a very wealthy town (Highland Park), yet Highland Park High School has the most wins in Texas HS football history. EVERY adult talks about the last HP game, or the upcoming opponent, what the rest of the state looks like, etc. ALL THE TIME. These are successful lawyers, doctors, businessmen, etc., yet they live and breath HS football.

So I agree, it's about focus, or culture, and not about wealth. It's why lacrosse is so big in Baltimore, Metro NYC, and Upstate NY.  Frankly, the focus of kids in the Northeast is on academics, with sports seen as an integral part of helping to teach children life lessons. In Texas, sports is the focus, especially football.

I agree with this.  People used to be proud to be from Brookline, or Waltham, or Weymouth, or Malden, or Medford, or Somerville, or Melrose, or Woburn, or Lowell, or Lawrence, or Billerica, or Chelmsford, etc etc etc....Now, everyone cares more about having a nicer car than their neighbor and could care less if their HS sports teams beat their ancient rival neighboring towns.  Yuppies have taken over the Northeast.

Okay, you guys have been laboring this, so i'm going to say that is just bull****. Don't tell me people in suburban Dallas, where football is huge, don't care as much about their cars than people in Brookline. Bull****! There are assholes everywhere, rich and poor, country and city, sports and academics, liberal and conservative, whatever.

Stop pushing this line of BS about how people that don't like football must be different then you, then draw all these conclusions about how they must be the same people that do completely unrelated **** you don't like. These categories and assignation of geographical personality is just bull****!


PS- I don't do -k so don't even think it was me.