FB: Empire 8

[Upstate]

Mervis' big problem is that he found out about UofR's potential departure from people not associated with the UofR...

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20111020/SPORTS09/110200341/UR-may-planning-bow-out-Courage-Bowl?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Sports

Here's an updated version of the article about the situation.

[SJFF82]

Yeh, i threw this 'story' out there a couple weeks ago.  It seems to me that whatever the scheduling issue might be, etc, if UR was committed to the game they would play...period.  UR now sees they have nothing to gain from the game....from a football perspective. 

UR is 'like that'.  Back in 91-92, our program tried relentlessly to schedule UR, when we were trying to establish the program just after Vosburgh took over.  They resisted but when they did agree to the game, they drubbed us twice and moved on from us because they had nothing to gain by whipping lowly SJF. We just wanted to establish a local rivalry game and test ourselves annually against an established program

Now, they have everything to lose locally as a football program by getting drubbed annually, so they are moving on....

just my opinion

I know you ended your post with "just my opinion," but that's an opinion that, if there were more UR posters on here, I'd like to think would be called out for being almost totally conjecture. I'm not sure what you have to back up your claim about them in the 90s, and I know you have what all of us have to back up your last claim: nothing but speculation (although it surely partly seems that way). Not to mention that, logically, you're taking two opposite behaviors and attributing them to the same impulse, which I think requires a little more than what you're giving us here.

I guess I'm stepping in partially as a UR "legacy," but also because I know if you had said these things about Ithaca, or RPI, or Alfred, etc, you'd probably be getting ripped right now.
It's not that I think you're lying, and not that I even necessarily don't believe you, but this post irks me in that it makes a pretty large character statement about a University (as large a statement as "they are 'like that'" can be), presents no evidence, and reeks of sour grapes (90s) followed up by schadenfreude (today).

I would not say these things about AU, RPI, IC etc, not because they have posters here, but because I do not recall the last time either of those schools were skeptical about playing Fisher in a local rivalry game, then played them for 2 years, then refused to play anymore, then 15 yrs later committed to an annual charity game for little kids with cancer at a huge downtown venue, then after getting whipped for 7 years, they backed out.  Do you perceive that I have ever posted such that my concern was "getting ripped"  Have you seen my Karma level?

It is my opinion.  I did play UR in the early 90's when I am 'speaking' of, and I do recall that us players got a sense from our coaches that UR was very hesitant about a committment to playing us because they didnt feel they had anything to gain by beating us and they could only suffer should they lose to a local team who had placed a target on them. (I suppose it could have just been the coaches planting 'incentive/motivation' in our heads) At the time, UR was a pretty decent team, and Vos had just taken over the Fisher program.  He always preached....first 'we' become the best team in the City of Rochester, then in the County (ie beat Brockport....which took a long time), then in New York State (he always referred to Ithaca here), then in the East (Rowan)....and so on.

Obviously, SJF is far past UR as a football program at this point, and it looks as if they dont like it too much.  I heard that the AD "ran up to" Mervis right after the game and said "we are done".  That to me does not sound like a scheduling issue.

[SJFF82]

....well it looks like what I heard about the AD running up to Mervis after the game is inconsistent with Mervis' attitude in the news.  It sounds from the news that he had no idea until he saw the open date on their schedule.  But why was he looking at that? He knew something was up....?

[maxpower]

82 I didn't mean to suggest that you only posted it because you knew you were safe... I know that's not your style! I'm also probably still peeved at people's wild speculation for why IC hasn't played in ECAC games, and this seemed similar is all. I do admit that it looks very much like what you're suggesting, but I also agree with Bombers' post.

[Bombers798891]

Yeh, i threw this 'story' out there a couple weeks ago.  It seems to me that whatever the scheduling issue might be, etc, if UR was committed to the game they would play...period.  UR now sees they have nothing to gain from the game....from a football perspective. 

UR is 'like that'.  Back in 91-92, our program tried relentlessly to schedule UR, when we were trying to establish the program just after Vosburgh took over.  They resisted but when they did agree to the game, they drubbed us twice and moved on from us because they had nothing to gain by whipping lowly SJF. We just wanted to establish a local rivalry game and test ourselves annually against an established program

Now, they have everything to lose locally as a football program by getting drubbed annually, so they are moving on....

just my opinion

I know you ended your post with "just my opinion," but that's an opinion that, if there were more UR posters on here, I'd like to think would be called out for being almost totally conjecture. I'm not sure what you have to back up your claim about them in the 90s, and I know you have what all of us have to back up your last claim: nothing but speculation (although it surely partly seems that way). Not to mention that, logically, you're taking two opposite behaviors and attributing them to the same impulse, which I think requires a little more than what you're giving us here.

I guess I'm stepping in partially as a UR "legacy," but also because I know if you had said these things about Ithaca, or RPI, or Alfred, etc, you'd probably be getting ripped right now.
It's not that I think you're lying, and not that I even necessarily don't believe you, but this post irks me in that it makes a pretty large character statement about a University (as large a statement as "they are 'like that'" can be), presents no evidence, and reeks of sour grapes (90s) followed up by schadenfreude (today).

I would not say these things about AU, RPI, IC etc, not because they have posters here, but because I do not recall the last time either of those schools were skeptical about playing Fisher in a local rivalry game, then played them for 2 years, then refused to play anymore, then 15 yrs later committed to an annual charity game for little kids with cancer at a huge downtown venue, then after getting whipped for 7 years, they backed out.  Do you perceive that I have ever posted such that my concern was "getting ripped"  Have you seen my Karma level?

It is my opinion.  I did play UR in the early 90's when I am 'speaking' of, and I do recall that us players got a sense from our coaches that UR was very hesitant about a committment to playing us because they didnt feel they had anything to gain by beating us and they could only suffer should they lose to a local team who had placed a target on them. (I suppose it could have just been the coaches planting 'incentive/motivation' in our heads) At the time, UR was a pretty decent team, and Vos had just taken over the Fisher program.  He always preached....first 'we' become the best team in the City of Rochester, then in the County (ie beat Brockport....which took a long time), then in New York State (he always referred to Ithaca here), then in the East (Rowan)....and so on.

Obviously, SJF is far past UR as a football program at this point, and it looks as if they dont like it too much.  I heard that the AD "ran up to" Mervis right after the game and said "we are done".  That to me does not sound like a scheduling issue.

Why should a school schedule an OOC game against another school it's not on equal footing with, regardless of who's on top? I'm speaking generally here, not specific to this game. I mean, it seems to me that if these two teams did not have the Camp Good Days angle, this would make perfect sense. Rochester wants to play teams in a competitive environment, not teams that will kill it every year, or in the early 90's, that they would kill. That's hardly an indefensible position for a program to take.

So then we get to the charity angle, but like I said in my earlier post, neither school has a moral obligation to play in the game, as much as we may want them to. There are countless other ways UR can, and most likely does, contribute to local charitable causes. Why does one of those ways have to be this game? As I said, how many local rivalries don't tie in charities that could? I don't hear criticism levied at them. So maybe it's the act of stopping the charity game that bugs people. Sort of an "It's okay if you don't want to start doing it, but if you are currently doing it, don't back out." But then that serves as a trap, which I think is manipulative.

So maybe it is how he heard it. And yeah, I can understand why that would anger him. But how does this reaction help? If I were a local team, I'd be hesitant to do attach my name to it if I thought he'd rip us in the press if we did something not to his liking, no matter how good the cause.

[SJFF82]

82 I didn't mean to suggest that you only posted it because you knew you were safe... I know that's not your style! I'm also probably still peeved at people's wild speculation for why IC hasn't played in ECAC games, and this seemed similar is all. I do admit that it looks very much like what you're suggesting, but I also agree with Bombers' post.

gotcha....

....and answer:  because they wont qualify for one this year 

[Bombers798891]

82 I didn't mean to suggest that you only posted it because you knew you were safe... I know that's not your style! I'm also probably still peeved at people's wild speculation for why IC hasn't played in ECAC games, and this seemed similar is all. I do admit that it looks very much like what you're suggesting, but I also agree with Bombers' post.

gotcha....

....and answer:  because they wont qualify for one this year 

+K

[maxpower]

82 I didn't mean to suggest that you only posted it because you knew you were safe... I know that's not your style! I'm also probably still peeved at people's wild speculation for why IC hasn't played in ECAC games, and this seemed similar is all. I do admit that it looks very much like what you're suggesting, but I also agree with Bombers' post.

gotcha....

....and answer:  because they wont qualify for one this year 

brrrrrrrn. double +k.

[Frank Rossi]

Again, this has been missing from the evaluation of the potential move -- the Springfield effect for Rochester is an important issue that I believe may be at least somewhat at play here.  Springfield adds another mandatory overnight travel game to the schedule for Rochester every other year.  In years where Rochester plays 4 of their 7 LL games on the road, keeping the Courage Bowl (a neutral field game) and either Alfred or Case (or both) would mean potentially only 4 home games and 6 games away from home.  If the Courage Bowl wasn't a neutral field game, they could make that 5/5.  Football can be a very expensive sports for a school like Rochester, and the costs just went up with the entry of Springfield.  Revenue from tickets, apparel, concession, etc., do defray those expenses, but that requires having home games.  I think the math is more at play here than the height of the opposition.

[sjfcards]

I can understand Mervis being upset. Especically if he has not had the opportunity to discuss the matter with U of R at this point. However, I do agree that making it seem like U of R does not care for the kids at Camp Good Days is not the best way to go. I would venture a guess that U of R wants out of the game, and the kids are probably the only thing keeping them in at the moment.

If an AD ran up to Mervis after the game this year and said "we are done", I could understand him being upset at the drubbing his team just took, but eventually cooler heads would prevail. Something else has to be going on.

I still don't think I have seen a real good reason why U of R would want to get out of the game (Other than getting beat every year). They do have something to gain from the game if they beat Fisher. It is a quality experience for the players and coaches to learn a valuable lesson, it puts U of R in the spotlight as a school that cares about these types of things, and it is something the football team has that most other DIII schools don't. I guess it just comes down to if the program is in a better position by not playing Fisher every year. I don't know if they are.

I do think that if U of R leaves the game that is the end of the Courage Bowl. Playing Brockport may keep it alive for a while, but it won't be the same. Brockport probably doesn't want to play what is essentially a road game against Fisher every year, without ever getting Fisher at it's own stadium. Any other team just won't travel well enough to make it work.

I don't know...I really like the Courage Bowl, and this kind of bums me out.

[sjfcards]

Again, this has been missing from the evaluation of the potential move -- the Springfield effect for Rochester is an important issue that I believe may be at least somewhat at play here.  Springfield adds another mandatory overnight travel game to the schedule for Rochester every other year.  In years where Rochester plays 4 of their 7 LL games on the road, keeping the Courage Bowl (a neutral field game) and either Alfred or Case (or both) would mean potentially only 4 home games and 6 games away from home.  If the Courage Bowl wasn't a neutral field game, they could make that 5/5.  Football can be a very expensive sports for a school like Rochester, and the costs just went up with the entry of Springfield.  Revenue from tickets, apparel, concession, etc., do defray those expenses, but that requires having home games.  I think the math is more at play here than the height of the opposition.

This is the only reason I can think of to make a change. I almost wonder if U of R has something else that they are not letting on. An annual game with a UAA team or something.

[Pat Coleman]

Again, this has been missing from the evaluation of the potential move -- the Springfield effect for Rochester is an important issue that I believe may be at least somewhat at play here.  Springfield adds another mandatory overnight travel game to the schedule for Rochester every other year.  In years where Rochester plays 4 of their 7 LL games on the road, keeping the Courage Bowl (a neutral field game) and either Alfred or Case (or both) would mean potentially only 4 home games and 6 games away from home.  If the Courage Bowl wasn't a neutral field game, they could make that 5/5.  Football can be a very expensive sports for a school like Rochester, and the costs just went up with the entry of Springfield.  Revenue from tickets, apparel, concession, etc., do defray those expenses, but that requires having home games.  I think the math is more at play here than the height of the opposition.

Unless they replace Case on the schedule. If money is the only object, better to cut loose the overnight non-region non-conference game.

[Bombers798891]

Again, this has been missing from the evaluation of the potential move -- the Springfield effect for Rochester is an important issue that I believe may be at least somewhat at play here.  Springfield adds another mandatory overnight travel game to the schedule for Rochester every other year.  In years where Rochester plays 4 of their 7 LL games on the road, keeping the Courage Bowl (a neutral field game) and either Alfred or Case (or both) would mean potentially only 4 home games and 6 games away from home.  If the Courage Bowl wasn't a neutral field game, they could make that 5/5.  Football can be a very expensive sports for a school like Rochester, and the costs just went up with the entry of Springfield.  Revenue from tickets, apparel, concession, etc., do defray those expenses, but that requires having home games.  I think the math is more at play here than the height of the opposition.

Okay, but what are you losing, money-wise, from one home game? According to the UR Website, the attendance for the one home game this season was 1,000. While I'm sure this is too round to be anything but a ballpark estimate, here were the numbers from last season:

1612
1253
2321
1150

So while it may depend on who plays, 1,500 fans doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption. So now, what do tickets cost at UR? Are they free for students and faculty (they are at IC) because if so, that will eat into it significantly. How much food and apparel can you sell to 1,500 people?

Now, you have to figure game day costs like staffing. After all, someone's got to be running those concession stands/apparel stands. So subtract that as well.

I mean, honestly, we're not talking Michigan here. U of R's athletic budget would hardly feel a massive impact from losing one home game. (Although, if someone knows the specific numbers and I'm wrong, let me know.)

Then, even if you come away with a decent profit after all that, you have to factor in the cost of no longer being in the Courage Bowl. Does it decrease the visibility of the program in the community? Does it mean there are sponsorship or advertising opportunities you will no longer get? What if an alum has the same reaction as the organizer and decides the football program won't be getting his $100 donation anymore? These things come into play.

All in all, I just don't see the revenue generated/lost by one football home game for a program like U of R to be that significant.

[Frank Rossi]

Again, this has been missing from the evaluation of the potential move -- the Springfield effect for Rochester is an important issue that I believe may be at least somewhat at play here.  Springfield adds another mandatory overnight travel game to the schedule for Rochester every other year.  In years where Rochester plays 4 of their 7 LL games on the road, keeping the Courage Bowl (a neutral field game) and either Alfred or Case (or both) would mean potentially only 4 home games and 6 games away from home.  If the Courage Bowl wasn't a neutral field game, they could make that 5/5.  Football can be a very expensive sports for a school like Rochester, and the costs just went up with the entry of Springfield.  Revenue from tickets, apparel, concession, etc., do defray those expenses, but that requires having home games.  I think the math is more at play here than the height of the opposition.

Unless they replace Case on the schedule. If money is the only object, better to cut loose the overnight non-region non-conference game.

It's still a home game every other year and acknowledges the UAA affiliation in other sports.  They re-added Case for a reason last decade after ditching the UAA football affiliation.

[Pat Coleman]

I get that but it isn't necessary. They could easily not play that game. They could also go back to scheduling 10 games if the lack of home games is a burden.