FB: Empire 8

[mattvsmith]

I just realized how many typos I make when posting using my iPhone. Good lord. I'm going to blame Apple's goofy spellcheck for thing like changing "sober" to "snort".

[Bombers798891]

Driving drunk is not a mistake. It's a conscious choice a person makes, and it's one that occurs over a period of time, not a momentary lack of judgment. Putting other's lives at risk is inexcusable IMO. Does this make him a bad person? No. But criticizing a choice that puts others lives as risk, is not out of line, nor does it imply the person making the criticism has never made a mistake

[fisheralum91]

Now that the Bills have broken camp- I look forward to hearing some good stuff out of Cardinal Camp!
Heard rumors, whispers and what not....Now I want to see what pans out for what could be a very promising year!

[sjfcards]

Now that the Bills have broken camp- I look forward to hearing some good stuff out of Cardinal Camp!
Heard rumors, whispers and what not....Now I want to see what pans out for what could be a very promising year!

Are any Fisher fans going to make it out to the Fisher Scrimmage? A trip to Buffalo is a bit much for me and Mrs. Cards, but I would love some report on what Fisher has.

[AUPepBand]

Salisbury picked to three-peat Empire 8 by E8 Coaches:

http://www.empire8.com/news/2013/8/23/FB_0823133255.aspx

1. Salisbury
2. Fisher
3. Alfred
4. Buffalo State, Ithaca (tie)
6. Utica
7. Frostburg
8. Hartwick

Stay tuned!

[sjfcards]

Salisbury picked to three-peat Empire 8 by E8 Coaches:

http://www.empire8.com/news/2013/8/23/FB_0823133255.aspx

1. Salisbury
2. Fisher
3. Alfred
4. Buffalo State, Ithaca (tie)
6. Utica
7. Frostburg
8. Hartwick

Stay tuned!

I don't think anyone can argue against Salisbury being picked to win it. Is this the year someone can knock them out of the top spot? I don't know if I am convinced.

[D3MAFAN]

Salisbury picked to three-peat Empire 8 by E8 Coaches:

http://www.empire8.com/news/2013/8/23/FB_0823133255.aspx

1. Salisbury
2. Fisher
3. Alfred
4. Buffalo State, Ithaca (tie)
6. Utica
7. Frostburg
8. Hartwick

Stay tuned!

I don't think anyone can argue against Salisbury being picked to win it. Is this the year someone can knock them out of the top spot? I don't know if I am convinced.

Without a doubt they should be first place, but with all but one first place vote, kind of threw me off, I really thought the 1st place votes would have been spreaded between a couple teams. Regarding Salisbury, with them having some new faces behind the center and a new FB, I would think they would have some problems this upcoming season. However, I did some research and the last time they really lost a outstanding QB and FB in the same year was back in 2009 and they went 5-6, but they did beat St. John Fisher by a good margin and St. John Fisher was not the best that year, but were considerably contending for the E 8 championship. 

Nevertheless, I think there are going to be some surprises this year. For some reason, my gut is telling me that Alfred may be the biggest surprise. Even with the off-season histeria, if St. John Fisher can get it going early in the season, we may be looking at a tie-breaker situation at the end of the season.

I have it:

1. Salisbury
2. Alfred, St. John Fisher (tie)
4. Ithaca
5. Buff St., Utica, Frostburg St. (tie)
8. Hartwick

[fisheralum91]

I think that you give SU the first place nod based upon years past and I have no problem with that.
What I do think is that if Fisher can shore up its O line, this could be a very very good team.
Transitioning to a traditional passing attack and using Ryan as a rb/wr can only lead to great things.
I like Fisher to go far this year!

[AUKaz00]

I think that you give SU the first place nod based upon years past and I have no problem with that.
What I do think is that if Fisher can shore up its O line, this could be a very very good team.
Transitioning to a traditional passing attack and using Ryan as a rb/wr can only lead to great things.
I like Fisher to go far this year!

As far as Westerville and Salisbury, at least.

[fisheralum91]

Nice Kaz....
I would hope for a deep run in the NCAA's!

[Pat Coleman]

Kickoff 2013 is live!

I feel like this is our best Kickoff yet: We made a nice transition to the PrestoSports platform for Kickoff last year and this year we've taken that knowledge and tweaked it. Plus we got some new writers involved and really made sure our continuing writers elevated their game. And ours.

This is the only time we ask you guys for money for anything, as I'm sure you realize. It's more than 300 pages of Division III preseason football knowledge and it's the only place you can get all this stuff: Our previews, our rankings, Keith's analysis, the whole 10 yards. http://www.d3football.com/notables/2013/08/get-kickoff-2013

$11, or $7 if you still have access to a .edu email address. (Meant for active players/students and coaches but hey, we know you guys on this board are loyal to D3football.com and we appreciate it.)

[AlfredSaxon8]

The number of deaths by drunk drivers are small compared to the number of drunk drivers. If every incident of drinking and driving were fatal, or even if a majority of them were fatal, I'd be more bent out of shape about it. And really, if there is vehicular manslaughter, does being drunk really make it worse? I speak heresy. But the number is really not that great. Certainly not as much of an epidemic as MADD insists.

But this is precisely what I mean by modern Puritanism. We have a law, we will defend the purity of our society by publicly castigating anyone who breaks that law, and most of all: there can be no forgiveness. It's not enough to put the guy in the slammer for a week or two. Not enough to fine him a few thousand dollars. It's not enough to take his job away. No. No, we have to glory in our righteousness. And for what...because he drove from the bar to home without doing any damage to anything but his liver. The guy didn't kill anyone or even cause property damage. "Oh but he could have..." And so could you, too, even without alcohol. And since I've had friendship and killed by both drunk and non-drunk drivers; friends who have died driving drunk and driving snort, I can tell you that at least usi g logic, there is no difference between the deaths. One is not more or less tragic because drink or lack of drink. Thus, I find this bit about drink being an aggregating factor entirely false. But that's just me. I've been told I have no conscience, so take it for what it's worth.

I liked drunk driving back when it was a little misdemeanor and the driver had the pay the farmer for running his fence, or the neighbors for plowing thorough their bushes. This modern hysteria of "zero tolerance" and taking away a guys job is for the birds. What a bunch of histrionic fairies. May as well get a bunch of kids to wave around Mao's Little Red Book.

So, yes, I call him a "poor guy" because he's just been given a Scarlet Letter. He may never work a decent job again. That's a punishment disproportionate to his crime. That's not justice.

I agree he doesn't deserve to be given a "scarlet letter" that prevents him from working a decent job again. 

But I think a lot of what you posted is incredibly irresponsible and naive.  Work a late night shift in any law enforcement capacity and tell me that the prevalence of drunk driving is hearsay.  I just had a call two nights ago where a drunk driver took the lives of 3 young children coming home from pee-wee football practice.  The driver was completely fine. And it was his 3rd offense in 2 years. 

There's no happy medium.  Does he deserve to get punished for life? No.  But you are so incredibly off base if you think that alcohol is not a mitigating factor in driving fatalities.  You may have taken out a farmer's fence or bushes but in a lot of other scenarios, those bushes or fences are human lives.  Driving is a privilege not a right. There are plenty of other dangers while driving just as serious and consequential as alcohol but it is a devastating variable that ruins lives. Did he deserve to get fired? Debatable.  I personally don't think so.  But he does deserve to get punished and not just a slap on the wrist. 

I'm not here to play moral Oral but to downplay the seriousness of his offense is just plain ignorant.

[mattvsmith]

Maybe he should get a punishment commensurate to the damage he caused. That would be just. Can anyone point out what harm or damage he caused? I'm not talking potential harm or potential damage, I mean actual harm or actual damage. In the absence of harm or damage to persons or property I'm having a tough time figuring out what he did that deserves punishment.
This wouldn't pass the muster with Socrates or St Thomas Aquinas.

I have an idea: before kick off at the first game, have the ref go through and assign penalties to players. That way they can sit the bench and not commit the penalties that they may have committed had they played. Someone's life could be saved because one of those guys may have chop blocked someone. Good thing we benched him. Look at the lives we saved!

As for me, I don't drink anymore. I woke up behind a dumpster at the baseball stadium in Seoul with no recollection how I got there. I smelled like crap, but my team won so it wasn't all that bad. But I figured if I could get drunk enough to ride a train for five hours (ot was it a bus or plane...who knows?) to Seoul and sleep in a pile of KFC scraps, it might be time to give up the demon rum. I now max out at two beers every few months or so.

[Bombers798891]

Punishments are often about deterrence. You're trying to make it solely about repaing damages caused. We punish people harshly for driving drunk because we don't want them to continue to do so because it puts people's lives at risk every time it occurs. Yes, there's risk inherent in everything. But driving drunk increases that risk to a level that we're not willing to allow.

[pumkinattack]

More people die crossing the street in crosswalks than by jaywalking.  Punishment as a deterrence is just a cheap way to score easy points with idiot voter bases and antithetical to the concept of liberty (and total BS IMO).

Don't agree with all of Rev's inflammatory language on this topic, but I do agree that we've gone way overboard in the criminalization of society - including cheap, new/tougher DUI laws to score easy points with people that don't consider long term opportunity costs of their behavior (classic agency problem that's growing in the US).

Unless you enjoy supervision from an increasingingly parochial, redistributive, nanny state....