FB: Empire 8

[Bombers798891]

I dont think SJF should necessarily be ranked ahead of AU.  To do so ignores the fact that SJF was poor enough to lose by 32 at home on homecoming to a team not wearing purple.  It seems everyone gets caught up in the "if you beat someone you must be ranked ahead of them" syndrome.  We know that it is impossible when teams start knocking eachother off later in the season.  If AU were to show further signs of struggle against Wick this week and SJF handles IC, then an argument could  and should be made.

The tricky thing with this, as we've seen in the NJAC, is that how a team plays and the end result sometimes differ. Fisher put together an amazing defensive performance, but offensively, they were pretty bad. If you want to take the simple fact that Fisher won by 14 as enough evidence to put them on top, okay, there's nothing wrong with that. But, I can also see the argument that, prior to that game, Alfred was comfortably ahead in the rankings, and Fisher's performance, while certainly a huge win, wasn't a performance that makes me entirely re-evaluate the Cardinals or Saxons. Certainly, it makes me re-think the Cardinals defensive prowess, but there still seem to be major issues offensively. (Which will no doubt not be present at Butterfield when Francis and Schmidt are running away from Conti and White)

Here's something I *have* thought about when thinking about the AU-SJF game: Is anyone else surprised Secky's not been better, career-wise?

2008: 59.1% completion, 2869 yards, 27 TD, 14 INT
2009: 63.8% completion, 1941 yards, 26 TD, 11 INT
2010: 58.6% completion, 2762 yards, 27 TD, 15 INT
2011: 57.3% completion, 716 yards, 6 TD, 5 INT

Now, don't sic your kazoos on me, guys. Secky has been a very good quarterback for four seasons, and Alfred's never going to be a team that runs up the score on people, and they've been blessed with some great running backs. And this seasons numbers are skewed because of that one bad game. But all that aside. I can't help shake this feeling that, back in 2008 and 2009, Secky was going to be the new standard bearer for E8 quarterbacks. Okay, he was never going to put up Boltus-like numbers, simply because Alfred wasn't that kind of team, but I thought, after his 2009 season, that he'd have a Tim Bailey '10, or a Josh Felliceti '05 or something similar these last two years. Some year where you just thought, "We better keep scoring, because we'll never stop Tom Secky." And that's never really materialized.

Of course, maybe that's just a failure on the part of me (us) as fans. We always tend to assume guys naturally will get better, even if they don't really. Some guys just play at a consistent, high level. Secky kind of reminds me of Jamie Donovan, one of my favorite Bombers. Donovan was so dominant at the tail end of 2004 when he became the full-time starter, but kind of got banged up and never really played at that level consistently again. He was always a very good back, and wound up IC's all-time leading rusher, but he never really made the leap. Again, this isn't a slight on either Donovan or Secky. Just a thought on a slow Tuesday

Talent wise I think he is with the top QB's this conference has seen in the last several years, but stats are stats, and they don't lie to often.

Yeah, I think I'd put him 6th over the last decade, behind (in no particular order) Boltus, Felliceti, Suchyna, Bailey, and Kramer--I'm excluding Springfield QB's for obvious reasons. That's a lofty perch, but I remember thinking he could have been top 2 or 3

[SJFF82]

which Kramer? 

[Bombers798891]

I chose to combine the two

[Old IC Voice]

I dont think SJF should necessarily be ranked ahead of AU.  To do so ignores the fact that SJF was poor enough to lose by 32 at home on homecoming to a team not wearing purple (and with all due respect to AU, I dont mean Alfred).  It seems everyone gets caught up in the "if you beat someone you must be ranked ahead of them" syndrome.  We know that it is impossible when teams start knocking eachother off later in the season.  If AU were to show further signs of struggle against Wick this week and SJF handles IC, then an argument could  and should be made.

It's what we have right now, though, especially given that it's early in the season. When matched up with one another, SJF was better than Alfred. As a result, they're ranked higher in my rankings. Simple stuff; when Oregon got beat by LSU, did pollsters keep ranking the Ducks higher than the Tigers? No, and that's the way it should be.

Later in the season, when certain teams separate themselves from the pack, I'm fine with changing the rankings and going with the teams that deserve them. For now, though, when we're only 4 games into the season, this is what's here; no more, no less.

[Saxon73]

For all interested I just happened on Whitewater game on Cablevision channel FCSC

[SJFF82]

I dont think SJF should necessarily be ranked ahead of AU.  To do so ignores the fact that SJF was poor enough to lose by 32 at home on homecoming to a team not wearing purple (and with all due respect to AU, I dont mean Alfred).  It seems everyone gets caught up in the "if you beat someone you must be ranked ahead of them" syndrome.  We know that it is impossible when teams start knocking eachother off later in the season.  If AU were to show further signs of struggle against Wick this week and SJF handles IC, then an argument could  and should be made.

It's what we have right now, though, especially given that it's early in the season. When matched up with one another, SJF was better than Alfred. As a result, they're ranked higher in my rankings. Simple stuff; when Oregon got beat by LSU, did pollsters keep ranking the Ducks higher than the Tigers? No, and that's the way it should be.

Later in the season, when certain teams separate themselves from the pack, I'm fine with changing the rankings and going with the teams that deserve them. For now, though, when we're only 4 games into the season, this is what's here; no more, no less.

Who do you think is the better team?  It appears your ranking now is based on who "deserves" it.

Personally I still think AU is the better overall team.

[SJFF82]

....more importantly.....


ITHACA SUCKS!!!!

[Bombers798891]

....more importantly.....


ITHACA SUCKS!!!!

Meh. Can't argue with that, at least not as it relates to you guys. Scoreboards don't like (At least not for five years in a row, in such an outlandish manner)

[boobyhasgameyo]

I think 82 was trying to incite some spirited smack talk during Fishaca or Itascher week.  When you just agree with him it falls kind of flat lol

[sjfcards]

I dont think SJF should necessarily be ranked ahead of AU.  To do so ignores the fact that SJF was poor enough to lose by 32 at home on homecoming to a team not wearing purple (and with all due respect to AU, I dont mean Alfred).  It seems everyone gets caught up in the "if you beat someone you must be ranked ahead of them" syndrome.  We know that it is impossible when teams start knocking eachother off later in the season.  If AU were to show further signs of struggle against Wick this week and SJF handles IC, then an argument could  and should be made.

It's what we have right now, though, especially given that it's early in the season. When matched up with one another, SJF was better than Alfred. As a result, they're ranked higher in my rankings. Simple stuff; when Oregon got beat by LSU, did pollsters keep ranking the Ducks higher than the Tigers? No, and that's the way it should be.

Later in the season, when certain teams separate themselves from the pack, I'm fine with changing the rankings and going with the teams that deserve them. For now, though, when we're only 4 games into the season, this is what's here; no more, no less.

Who do you think is the better team?  It appears your ranking now is based on who "deserves" it.

Personally I still think AU is the better overall team.

As do I, and most other people I would think, but all rankings are based on who deserves it in some way or another. Really talented teams that lose a game early have an uphill battle to get ranked ahead of a team that is slightly below them, but doesn't lose? In Division I, doesn't Boise State get ranked way up when SEC teams are clearly "better". And, taking that furhter, don't we all get upset when a 1 loss big conference team gets a BCS bid over an undefeated Boise Team? Boise may be better, but the other team has earned the bid based on one loss in a much tougher conference.

I think AU is a better team than Fisher this year, but I don't think you would have a problem with Fisher jumping them in the conference rankings (especially if the rankings are handicapping the eventual AQ winner).

[Jonny Utah]

That Alfred/SJF game was science.

Hobart just took SJF to the woodshed, and Alfred was already looking towards the playoffs.  Another reason why I think Ithaca actually has a chance this weekend.  SJF might come down a little after a big win.

[boobyhasgameyo]

You shut your dirty mouth Jonny




Boom.  Smack talk. 

[sjfcards]

That Alfred/SJF game was science.

Hobart just took SJF to the woodshed, and Alfred was already looking towards the playoffs.  Another reason why I think Ithaca actually has a chance this weekend.  SJF might come down a little after a big win.

I would make the same argument about the Hobart game for Fisher. Just came off a huge win in a rivalry game, and playing a HUGE game against a conference rival that you havce not beat in a few years the following week. It was bound to happen...right?

[Old IC Voice]

I dont think SJF should necessarily be ranked ahead of AU.  To do so ignores the fact that SJF was poor enough to lose by 32 at home on homecoming to a team not wearing purple (and with all due respect to AU, I dont mean Alfred).  It seems everyone gets caught up in the "if you beat someone you must be ranked ahead of them" syndrome.  We know that it is impossible when teams start knocking eachother off later in the season.  If AU were to show further signs of struggle against Wick this week and SJF handles IC, then an argument could  and should be made.

It's what we have right now, though, especially given that it's early in the season. When matched up with one another, SJF was better than Alfred. As a result, they're ranked higher in my rankings. Simple stuff; when Oregon got beat by LSU, did pollsters keep ranking the Ducks higher than the Tigers? No, and that's the way it should be.

Later in the season, when certain teams separate themselves from the pack, I'm fine with changing the rankings and going with the teams that deserve them. For now, though, when we're only 4 games into the season, this is what's here; no more, no less.

Who do you think is the better team?  It appears your ranking now is based on who "deserves" it.

Personally I still think AU is the better overall team.

As do I, and most other people I would think, but all rankings are based on who deserves it in some way or another. Really talented teams that lose a game early have an uphill battle to get ranked ahead of a team that is slightly below them, but doesn't lose? In Division I, doesn't Boise State get ranked way up when SEC teams are clearly "better". And, taking that furhter, don't we all get upset when a 1 loss big conference team gets a BCS bid over an undefeated Boise Team? Boise may be better, but the other team has earned the bid based on one loss in a much tougher conference.

I think AU is a better team than Fisher this year, but I don't think you would have a problem with Fisher jumping them in the conference rankings (especially if the rankings are handicapping the eventual AQ winner).

This.

[Jonny Utah]

That Alfred/SJF game was science.

Hobart just took SJF to the woodshed, and Alfred was already looking towards the playoffs.  Another reason why I think Ithaca actually has a chance this weekend.  SJF might come down a little after a big win.

I would make the same argument about the Hobart game for Fisher. Just came off a huge win in a rivalry game, and playing a HUGE game against a conference rival that you havce not beat in a few years the following week. It was bound to happen...right?

Not sure I'm following you.  Who is the conference rival?