FB: Empire 8

[lewdogg11]

Even when Fisher literally was a top 10 team for a couple of seasons they would still lose to teams they were better than.  Hartwick in 2007 stands out in my mind.  It was the only regular season loss for that 11 win team.  To me just because you finish a season undefeated doesn't mean you've arrived - it could just mean your conference isn't that strong.  Heck even two years ago Fisher beat previously undefeated Johns Hopkins and Delaware Valley in the playoffs with relative ease. 

So I think if Fisher were to lose to a W&J and still end up winning 12 or 13 games...they are at the level they wish to be     

I was just saying they SHOULD beat those 3 teams, but still can afford to drop 1. Although a 2 loss Fisher with losses to say W&J and Salisbury, likely gets them in with that schedule.  If they have 2 cupcakes OOC and 1 tough game that they lose, I feel differently. So strength of opponents does matter to me and I like what they are doing. Tough games but not un- winnable.

[boobyhasgameyo]

Agreed my friend. 

[Pat Coleman]

Even when Fisher literally was a top 10 team for a couple of seasons they would still lose to teams they were better than.  Hartwick in 2007 stands out in my mind.  It was the only regular season loss for that 11 win team.  To me just because you finish a season undefeated doesn't mean you've arrived - it could just mean your conference isn't that strong.  Heck even two years ago Fisher beat previously undefeated Johns Hopkins and Delaware Valley in the playoffs with relative ease. 

So I think if Fisher were to lose to a W&J and still end up winning 12 or 13 games...they are at the level they wish to be     

I was just saying they SHOULD beat those 3 teams, but still can afford to drop 1. Although a 2 loss Fisher with losses to say W&J and Salisbury, likely gets them in with that schedule.  If they have 2 cupcakes OOC and 1 tough game that they lose, I feel differently. So strength of opponents does matter to me and I like what they are doing. Tough games but not un- winnable.

There are only five at-large bids this year. I am not sure about any 2-loss team getting one of them.

[Bombers798891]

Tough scheduling is overrated IMO as a way to "build your team." Coaches/players talk about it, but if your team is good, it's good. Here were the OOC schedules for the 2006 and 2007 Fisher teams

2006: 6-5 King's, 5-4 Mt. Ida, 7-4 Rochester, 4-6 Brockport
2007: 1-9 King's, 2-8 Buffalo State, 5-5 Brockport, 6-5 Rochester

Did it matter that neither of these OOC slates were as good as this year's?

The dearth of two loss teams in the NCAAs makes tough scheduling illogical, unless you play in a creampuff conference. I disagree with LewDogg: losing a tough OOC game doesn't mean you're NOT there. All it does is run you the risk of being the best 8-2 team in an ECAC game and then hoping that next season's recruits pan out, you don't lose too much to graduation, no one really important gets hurt, someone doesn't beat you on a hail mary, etc.

Did it matter that Buffalo State won its two toughest games of the season last year, both of which were OOC? No, they still managed to be relatively average in the conference with no real dominating wins, and really only one butt-kicking, which was really more of a 2nd half meltdown. They were who they were, rough OOC slate or no.

Sure, you run the risk of being 9-1 and overlooked for a Pool C due to a weak OOC, but is that any more of a risk than losing one of those tough OOC games and trying to get in with two losses? I doubt it. Get your team into the playoffs.

[lewdogg11]

Tough scheduling is overrated IMO as a way to "build your team." Coaches/players talk about it, but if your team is good, it's good. Here were the OOC schedules for the 2006 and 2007 Fisher teams

2006: 6-5 King's, 5-4 Mt. Ida, 7-4 Rochester, 4-6 Brockport
2007: 1-9 King's, 2-8 Buffalo State, 5-5 Brockport, 6-5 Rochester

Did it matter that neither of these OOC slates were as good as this year's?

The dearth of two loss teams in the NCAAs makes tough scheduling illogical, unless you play in a creampuff conference. I disagree with LewDogg: losing a tough OOC game doesn't mean you're NOT there. All it does is run you the risk of being the best 8-2 team in an ECAC game and then hoping that next season's recruits pan out, you don't lose too much to graduation, no one really important gets hurt, someone doesn't beat you on a hail mary, etc.

Did it matter that Buffalo State won its two toughest games of the season last year, both of which were OOC? No, they still managed to be relatively average in the conference with no real dominating wins, and really only one butt-kicking, which was really more of a 2nd half meltdown. They were who they were, rough OOC slate or no.

Sure, you run the risk of being 9-1 and overlooked for a Pool C due to a weak OOC, but is that any more of a risk than losing one of those tough OOC games and trying to get in with two losses? I doubt it. Get your team into the playoffs.

I get it and I kind of agree and it's also a little different in the E8 too since its a good conference and a tough schedule already. Tough scheduling I think is important to up and coming programs and Those from conferences who we all think are a joke anyway. It's the only way for a program to get better. I guess Fisher has done it for long enough now that they don't have to. But it still could be a boost to a team winning a game or 2 in the playoffs vs making a serious run.

[jknezek]

I guess I just look at it differently. It doesn't really matter what your OOC schedule is if you win your conference. If you aren't capable of winning your conference, then it does matter how your OOC looked and whether you ran the table. Especially this year with a minimal amount of C selections, 2 losses probably will kill you. So if you can't win your conference, you better go undefeated OOC and hope your conference gives you enough cred to get through the committee.

On the other hand, if you believe you can win your conference, a strong OOC can help by getting you better prepared. It can also give you an idea of your strengths or weaknesses as a team before it becomes critical in conference play, things a weak OOC would often hide.

Since I highly doubt too many playoff caliber teams are coming into the season expecting to finish second in their conference (ASC and OAC are possible exceptions, but I doubt you'd find a coach or fan base who would own up to it), you are better off scheduling hard for OOC. If I was in the same conference as say UMU or UMHB, I might consider a cupcake for one or two OOCs. If you need 3, you better play at least someone legit, or your SOS probably buries you.

That was neither a comprehensive list of conferences with solid front runners nor an attempt at finger pointing, just a couple examples that came to mind that I'm sure could be debated.

When I look at the E8, or my "home" conference the ODAC, there are multiple teams in a year with a legit chance to win the conference. I'd rather schedule up OOC and go after that AQ then dumb down and hope to finish at worst a one-loss second. Of course, W&L has basically played the same OOC type schedule for a decade, and two of the current 3 OOC opponents for the better part of 60 years. So we're at the mercy of our traditional opponents rather than any purposeful scheduling...

[Jonny Utah]

Tough scheduling is overrated IMO as a way to "build your team." Coaches/players talk about it, but if your team is good, it's good. Here were the OOC schedules for the 2006 and 2007 Fisher teams

2006: 6-5 King's, 5-4 Mt. Ida, 7-4 Rochester, 4-6 Brockport
2007: 1-9 King's, 2-8 Buffalo State, 5-5 Brockport, 6-5 Rochester

Did it matter that neither of these OOC slates were as good as this year's?

The dearth of two loss teams in the NCAAs makes tough scheduling illogical, unless you play in a creampuff conference. I disagree with LewDogg: losing a tough OOC game doesn't mean you're NOT there. All it does is run you the risk of being the best 8-2 team in an ECAC game and then hoping that next season's recruits pan out, you don't lose too much to graduation, no one really important gets hurt, someone doesn't beat you on a hail mary, etc.

Did it matter that Buffalo State won its two toughest games of the season last year, both of which were OOC? No, they still managed to be relatively average in the conference with no real dominating wins, and really only one butt-kicking, which was really more of a 2nd half meltdown. They were who they were, rough OOC slate or no.

Sure, you run the risk of being 9-1 and overlooked for a Pool C due to a weak OOC, but is that any more of a risk than losing one of those tough OOC games and trying to get in with two losses? I doubt it. Get your team into the playoffs.

The E8 is a little better in 2013 than it was in 2006, and there are more teams.  That is a huge factor when we are talking about OOC as well.

Let's face it, the NCAA wants to have 32 conferences with 32 pool A bids. 

[fisheralum91]

I know that Im a Fisher homer, but they call a great game!

[sjfcards]

I guess I just look at it differently. It doesn't really matter what your OOC schedule is if you win your conference. If you aren't capable of winning your conference, then it does matter how your OOC looked and whether you ran the table. Especially this year with a minimal amount of C selections, 2 losses probably will kill you. So if you can't win your conference, you better go undefeated OOC and hope your conference gives you enough cred to get through the committee.

Right, but when you play in a conference like the E8 that has a lot of respect around the region, having three easier games and one loss in a really tough/balanced conference has to be a strong resume. If you lose two games in conference you should be done either way (since you probably finish in third place).

I understand both sides of it, and I appreciate the challenge as a fan. But, I don't think the tougher schedules the past few years has really benefited Fisher.

Would the team from two years ago that went deep into the playoffs not have done that if they had not played and lost to a good Hobart team? If they had played someone like SLU or Morrisville that year I think they get into the playoffs with a lot more breathing room. No one would have been shocked if the NCAA had left Fisher out of the tournament with those two losses, and that team was obviously capable of beating playoff teams. 

[Bombers798891]

I guess for me (if we're discussing playoff-caliber teams, and not a team trying to grow) it's about maximizing options. Winning your conference is one option, and of course it's the one all coaches would prefer. But even if no coach wants to admit that his team isn't going to win the conference, they have to be aware that, hey, sometimes Hartwick 2007 happens and you drop a game to a team you're better than. Or maybe you need to admit, even if it's just privately, that yeah, the winner of Salisbury/Fisher will probably beat you too. What's going to give you the best chance at getting in if that happens? It just seems to me that a light OOC schedule that allows you to go 9-1 is the answer.

But maybe, as much as I hate the thought of it, Utah's "32 team, 32 AQ's" will lead to that. Maybe then, rather than trying to ensure they finish 9-1, schools will figure that with nothing to lose by going 0-for-whatever out of conference, why not challenge your team more? Playing Wesley's going to do more to help you than Moravian, and if you're not going to hurt your playoff chances by losing to Wesley, what's the drawback?

[jknezek]

But maybe, as much as I hate the thought of it, Utah's "32 team, 32 AQ's" will lead to that. Maybe then, rather than trying to ensure they finish 9-1, schools will figure that with nothing to lose by going 0-for-whatever out of conference, why not challenge your team more? Playing Wesley's going to do more to help you than Moravian, and if you're not going to hurt your playoff chances by losing to Wesley, what's the drawback?

This year with 5 "C" teams, we're pretty much here already, but I can see both sides as well. I don't think there is an answer, just a "what do I think is best for my team". Personally, I'd rather schedule up. Winning the national title is the goal of every team, reasonable or, as in the case of at least 230+ D3 programs in any given year, NOT. After that, winning your conference should be your goal. Going to the playoffs should be secondary to taking at least 1 title a year. I want the ring, not just the bragging that we got to the dance. But I freely admit conferences are still important to me, so winning one has more credit than just finding a way to play an extra game.

Of course, as comes up at least once a year, I also freely admit to believing in the automatic qualifiers. I do know that doesn't make for the 32 best teams, just those who have already proven they can win, instead of those who have proven they can already finish second to someone.

[Dr. Acula]

Nice jump for the Cardinals in the rankings this week!
Another tester against a very hungry W&J team that looks to avenge a tough loss to Fisher at home last year.
Much will depend defensively on the "targeting" call that took place Sat. in Ohio.
Here is hoping that there is some appeal process as it seemed to be a bad call.

W&J will be totally different test for Fisher this week. The team likes to air it out, and will test that young secondary. Otterbein seemed content to stick with the run game, even though they got nothing from it. The D-line will need to put some pressure on the QB this week to assist that secondary with a very different test.

For the Fisher Offense we will need to see some steady improvement. I didn't think the Otterbein D was all that bad, and Fisher moved the ball fairly well. Coaching out some of the penalties may make life easier for Fisher this week.

For the SJF folks...

I watched the entire W&J scrimmage at UMU and I was impressed with both their QB (Bliss) and RB (Wiegand).  Statistically neither was great last season, but Wiegand hits the hole quickly and runs hard.  He had 136 yds against Wooster so not a bad start (even if Woo is down).  He seemed to always gain a couple extra yards after being wrapped up.  Bliss threw the ball fairly well and it looked like he had a really nice game at Wooster (27/33, 312 yds).  The accuracy makes some sense as they seemed to stick largely with short, quick passes and runs in the scrimmage.  Also, Bliss is pretty athletic and ran for some decent yardage against Mount including a TD from a decent distance out.  If anything happens to him their backups looked like a large drop off though.  Defensively I would expect at best something similar to Otterbein.  Mount beat them deep numerous times and in general passed on them pretty easily.  Wooster ran on them pretty effectively last week for what that's worth too.

[dlippiel]

Dlip also sees both sides. He feels that scheduling should depend upon your program's realistic direction and/ or goals. Do you want to compete for a national championship? Do you feel with your resources that you can, at some point, compete for a national championship? Can you recruit the players necessary to accomplish this? If you think so dlip would feel it important to schedule the best teams you can to not only attract recruits but to gain respect and notoriety. Plus if you want to be the best you've got to beat the best.

On the other hand is it not realistic to compete with the UMU'S and U Dub's of D3. Is your goal the NCAA'S? First round, second tops...realistically speaking. Then maybe it is smart to just win your conference and not take any chances with tough OOC teams. Who knows? If dlip was at the helm of a program he would go after the best period. However with that choice he would have to accept the fact that his team may not even make the tourney for many years.

[sjfcards]

Nice jump for the Cardinals in the rankings this week!
Another tester against a very hungry W&J team that looks to avenge a tough loss to Fisher at home last year.
Much will depend defensively on the "targeting" call that took place Sat. in Ohio.
Here is hoping that there is some appeal process as it seemed to be a bad call.

W&J will be totally different test for Fisher this week. The team likes to air it out, and will test that young secondary. Otterbein seemed content to stick with the run game, even though they got nothing from it. The D-line will need to put some pressure on the QB this week to assist that secondary with a very different test.

For the Fisher Offense we will need to see some steady improvement. I didn't think the Otterbein D was all that bad, and Fisher moved the ball fairly well. Coaching out some of the penalties may make life easier for Fisher this week.

For the SJF folks...

I watched the entire W&J scrimmage at UMU and I was impressed with both their QB (Bliss) and RB (Wiegand).  Statistically neither was great last season, but Wiegand hits the hole quickly and runs hard.  He had 136 yds against Wooster so not a bad start (even if Woo is down).  He seemed to always gain a couple extra yards after being wrapped up.  Bliss threw the ball fairly well and it looked like he had a really nice game at Wooster (27/33, 312 yds).  The accuracy makes some sense as they seemed to stick largely with short, quick passes and runs in the scrimmage.  Also, Bliss is pretty athletic and ran for some decent yardage against Mount including a TD from a decent distance out.  If anything happens to him their backups looked like a large drop off though.  Defensively I would expect at best something similar to Otterbein.  Mount beat them deep numerous times and in general passed on them pretty easily.  Wooster ran on them pretty effectively last week for what that's worth too.

Thanks for the heads up Dr. Acula. I expect a real tough test for Fisher this weekend, so it should be fun to watch. The only down side to going to the games is not having Gene and Pete to listen to, and the board to post on.

[sjfcards]

Dlip also sees both sides. He feels that scheduling should depend upon your program's realistic direction and/ or goals. Do you want to compete for a national championship? Do you feel with your resources that you can, at some point, compete for a national championship? Can you recruit the players necessary to accomplish this? If you think so dlip would feel it important to schedule the best teams you can to not only attract recruits but to gain respect and notoriety. Plus if you want to be the best you've got to beat the best.

On the other hand is it not realistic to compete with the UMU'S and U Dub's of D3. Is your goal the NCAA'S? First round, second tops...realistically speaking. Then maybe it is smart to just win your conference and not take any chances with tough OOC teams. Who knows? If dlip was at the helm of a program he would go after the best period. However with that choice he would have to accept the fact that his team may not even make the tourney for many years.

Do recruits really know/care who you play. If you win 10 games every year and go deep in the playoffs does that hurt recruiting?