FB: Empire 8

[Frank Rossi]

So what Frank's really saying is that Fisher, Ithaca and Hartwick can save us all a headache by forfeiting to Alfred and thus making the October 18th Saxons-Pioneers game the default E8 Championship game...

Ummm...uhhh....yeah, something like that.

[Bombers798891]

Frank, if SJF wins out they'll have a 7-1 in region record with an 8-2 overall record...

If SJF losses to SU and no one else they'll still have a 7-1 in region record and a 7-3 overall record...

correct?

You missed my point.  Assume Hartwick loses one game.  SJF controls its own destiny in the E8.  Thus, the Pool C bid analysis is moot at that point.  I think very few people think Hartwick runs the table from here on out, so I continue my analysis.

If SJF doesn't win the E8, that means they lose a second in-region game.  Regardless of the Salisbury result, the best SJF finishes without the AQ (and assuming one Hartwick loss) is 6-2 in-region.  This ignores the MUC game since MUC is out of region.  Thus, 6-2 in-region SJF would be vying for a Pool C bid since we're assuming it has:  A) lost another E8 game; and B) doesn't still find a way to win the E8 at two league losses.  My point is that a 6-2 (7-3 or 6-4 overall) team would have a tough time winning a Pool C bid without a really quality win to prop up their SoS in the longrun.  Ithaca is a good win, yes, assuming Ithaca keeps winning.  Alfred would be a good win, too, assuming Alfred keeps winning.  However, 6-2 will be placed against several 7-2 teams in Pool C. 

They have a big hurdle if that's how the season plays out.  Thus, again, I view Salisbury as a playoff positioning game instead of a playoff-creating game for SJF -- I'm hard-pressed to see SJF being a serious Pool C contender based on this, barring a real upheaval nationally in 1- and 2-loss teams nationally vying for Pool C bids.

Frank-- nice post. I'd give you a +k if I was cool enough to...

The only logic point I think you missed was this:

"Alfred would be a good win, too, assuming Alfred keeps winning."

If Fisher beats Alfred, they're pretty much locked into winning the E8, unless

A) They get upset by someone or
B) Hartwick runs the table and Ithaca drops one to Alfred

I personally don't find either scenario likely. Honestly, Fisher should go 5-1 if they beat Alfred because, let's face it, Springfield, Norwich and Utica aren't going to do it. And it would be a stretch--to me at least--that Alfred loses to Hartwick AND beats Ithaca, although I suppose it could happen. I think Alfred will win both of those games and the Conference champ will be Fisher after they beat Alfred.

I suppose IC could help them in a Pool C by finishing 9-1 with a win over Cortland (That'll be the day)

Anyone got any thoughts on IC's Pool C chances? Is it 9-1 or bust? Or could they squeeze in at 8-2 with say, a win over a possibly undefeated Cortland team? Would a 9-1 IC be better served if SJF won the conference--thus making their loss less damaging--or Alfred---giving the Bombers a more impressive victory? How about 8-2 with a loss to Cortland?

[Frank Rossi]

The only logic point I think you missed was this:

"Alfred would be a good win, too, assuming Alfred keeps winning."

I considered discussing that, but thought it'd muddle the issue even more.  However, since you brought it up -- If SJF loses once more in the E8, it means, as you said, they have either beaten Alfred and lost to a poor team or they have lost to Alfred.  Thus, the quality wins (Ithaca and Alfred) would be outshined by the quality losses (Hartwick and ______) -- or the sole quality win (Ithaca) would be outweighed by losses to Hartwick and Alfred.  There would be no positive differentiation that I could see that would propel SJF over 7-2 and 8-2 in-region teams should these scenarios play out. 

Simply stated:  SJF needs to win all remaining E8 games -- one more loss in the E8 would spell likely disaster to any playoff hopes.  And, the Salisbury game only matters in this equation assuming Hartwick wins out.

[dewcrew88]

Let me stir up the homer juice:

I think Utica could beat Hartwick. It's definitely going to be a tough road, especially at Hartwick in the "Cage", but I think they can do it.

I mean, they just beat Springfield on the road, didn't let the triple option get rolling, and held the Pride to 12 points. That's a feat.

I think they could do it.

Union beat Springfield, too.  Union and Utica are both 1-3.  Union went 0-3 after a Springfield win.  If Utica is hanging its hat on 2008 Springfield -- oof. 

Got hang onto something. UC is on the up arrow. Even if it is a win against 2008 Springfield.

[dewcrew88]

The only logic point I think you missed was this:

"Alfred would be a good win, too, assuming Alfred keeps winning."

I considered discussing that, but thought it'd muddle the issue even more.  However, since you brought it up -- If SJF loses once more in the E8, it means, as you said, they have either beaten Alfred and lost to a poor team or they have lost to Alfred.  Thus, the quality wins (Ithaca and Alfred) would be outshined by the quality losses (Hartwick and ______) -- or the sole quality win (Ithaca) would be outweighed by losses to Hartwick and Alfred.  There would be no positive differentiation that I could see that would propel SJF over 7-2 and 8-2 in-region teams should these scenarios play out. 

Simply stated:  SJF needs to win all remaining E8 games -- one more loss in the E8 would spell likely disaster to any playoff hopes.  And, the Salisbury game only matters in this equation assuming Hartwick wins out.

I don't think the Salisbury game matters that much to begin with. It's out of region. I don't think the committee takes that into effect for playoff position until everything else is tied way down the list.

[Frank Rossi]

The only logic point I think you missed was this:

"Alfred would be a good win, too, assuming Alfred keeps winning."

I considered discussing that, but thought it'd muddle the issue even more.  However, since you brought it up -- If SJF loses once more in the E8, it means, as you said, they have either beaten Alfred and lost to a poor team or they have lost to Alfred.  Thus, the quality wins (Ithaca and Alfred) would be outshined by the quality losses (Hartwick and ______) -- or the sole quality win (Ithaca) would be outweighed by losses to Hartwick and Alfred.  There would be no positive differentiation that I could see that would propel SJF over 7-2 and 8-2 in-region teams should these scenarios play out. 

Simply stated:  SJF needs to win all remaining E8 games -- one more loss in the E8 would spell likely disaster to any playoff hopes.  And, the Salisbury game only matters in this equation assuming Hartwick wins out.

I don't think the Salisbury game matters that much to begin with. It's out of region. I don't think the committee takes that into effect for playoff position until everything else is tied way down the list.

I think the debate has always given a little more credibility to a win against a quality out-of-region opponent than a loss, to be honest.  For example, a win vs. MUC wouldn't have been completely ignored until a tiebreaker was needed, in the case of SJF.

[gobombers15]

Frank, if SJF wins out they'll have a 7-1 in region record with an 8-2 overall record...

If SJF losses to SU and no one else they'll still have a 7-1 in region record and a 7-3 overall record...

correct?

You missed my point.  Assume Hartwick loses one game.  SJF controls its own destiny in the E8.  Thus, the Pool C bid analysis is moot at that point.  I think very few people think Hartwick runs the table from here on out, so I continue my analysis.

If SJF doesn't win the E8, that means they lose a second in-region game.  Regardless of the Salisbury result, the best SJF finishes without the AQ (and assuming one Hartwick loss) is 6-2 in-region.  This ignores the MUC game since MUC is out of region.  Thus, 6-2 in-region SJF would be vying for a Pool C bid since we're assuming it has:  A) lost another E8 game; and B) doesn't still find a way to win the E8 at two league losses.  My point is that a 6-2 (7-3 or 6-4 overall) team would have a tough time winning a Pool C bid without a really quality win to prop up their SoS in the longrun.  Ithaca is a good win, yes, assuming Ithaca keeps winning.  Alfred would be a good win, too, assuming Alfred keeps winning.  However, 6-2 will be placed against several 7-2 teams in Pool C. 

They have a big hurdle if that's how the season plays out.  Thus, again, I view Salisbury as a playoff positioning game instead of a playoff-creating game for SJF -- I'm hard-pressed to see SJF being a serious Pool C contender based on this, barring a real upheaval nationally in 1- and 2-loss teams nationally vying for Pool C bids.

I suppose IC could help them in a Pool C by finishing 9-1 with a win over Cortland (That'll be the day)

Anyone got any thoughts on IC's Pool C chances? Is it 9-1 or bust? Or could they squeeze in at 8-2 with say, a win over a possibly undefeated Cortland team? Would a 9-1 IC be better served if SJF won the conference--thus making their loss less damaging--or Alfred---giving the Bombers a more impressive victory? How about 8-2 with a loss to Cortland?

That's tough. I thought the committee made a gaffe by excluding the 2004 Bombers that went 8-2 (both L's in OT) and were playing as well as anyone in the region at the end of the season. In contrast, it could be argued that the 2007 team with two conference losses (Fisher, Hartwick) should have been excluded. I was surprised with both calls.

To answer your question, I'd say, "it depends." If Cortland is 10-0 and IC loses a close game at their place, they may have a good argument, especially if Fisher runs the table from here.  The margin of loss in the Fisher game hurts Ithaca (how many guys on the committee do you think will realize it was 9-6 with 3 mins left in the 3rd qtr before Ithaca forgot how to play football? Zero.). If Ithaca isn't competitive with Cortland, I'd guess they'd be excluded.

As I predicted in my post-Fisher game post, Ithaca will enter the game with Cortland at 8-1. Ithaca will likely be leading 20-17 late in the 3rd quarter, only to watch Juvan and Welch wet themselves: Cortland wins, 31-23. It's sad that this will so clearly be the outcome.

[Frank Rossi]

[
nyone got any thoughts on IC's Pool C chances? Is it 9-1 or bust? Or could they squeeze in at 8-2 with say, a win over a possibly undefeated Cortland team? Would a 9-1 IC be better served if SJF won the conference--thus making their loss less damaging--or Alfred---giving the Bombers a more impressive victory? How about 8-2 with a loss to Cortland?

I think we'll have a much better take on how Pool C looks after this weekend since this will be the halfway point for most teams.  Let's revisit this question next Tuesday and I'd be happy to begin looking at the Pool C national breakdown to that point.

[dewcrew88]

The only logic point I think you missed was this:

"Alfred would be a good win, too, assuming Alfred keeps winning."

I considered discussing that, but thought it'd muddle the issue even more.  However, since you brought it up -- If SJF loses once more in the E8, it means, as you said, they have either beaten Alfred and lost to a poor team or they have lost to Alfred.  Thus, the quality wins (Ithaca and Alfred) would be outshined by the quality losses (Hartwick and ______) -- or the sole quality win (Ithaca) would be outweighed by losses to Hartwick and Alfred.  There would be no positive differentiation that I could see that would propel SJF over 7-2 and 8-2 in-region teams should these scenarios play out. 

Simply stated:  SJF needs to win all remaining E8 games -- one more loss in the E8 would spell likely disaster to any playoff hopes.  And, the Salisbury game only matters in this equation assuming Hartwick wins out.

I don't think the Salisbury game matters that much to begin with. It's out of region. I don't think the committee takes that into effect for playoff position until everything else is tied way down the list.

I think the debate has always given a little more credibility to a win against a quality out-of-region opponent than a loss, to be honest.  For example, a win vs. MUC wouldn't have been completely ignored until a tiebreaker was needed, in the case of SJF.

You're correct. But I don't think a out-of-region loss hurts as much as an out-of-region win helps. Does that make sense? It did when I typed it. 

[Frank Rossi]

I think the debate has always given a little more credibility to a win against a quality out-of-region opponent than a loss, to be honest.  For example, a win vs. MUC wouldn't have been completely ignored until a tiebreaker was needed, in the case of SJF.

You're correct. But I don't think a out-of-region loss hurts as much as an out-of-region win helps. Does that make sense? It did when I typed it. 

That's what I said, DC.

[boobyhasgameyo]

Yeah all of this talk is going on a little early, God bless Fisher but they could lose out and finish 3-7...that would put an end to the playoff scenarios. 

[superman57]

Yeah all of this talk is going on a little early, God bless Fisher but they could lose out and finish 3-7...that would put an end to the playoff scenarios. 

I still think that a 3-7 fisher deserves a playoff spot

[boobyhasgameyo]

haha nice, -k supes for your loyalty to the cause

[maxpower]

Yeah all of this talk is going on a little early, God bless Fisher but they could lose out and finish 3-7...that would put an end to the playoff scenarios. 

I still think that a 3-7 fisher deserves a playoff spot

Does a 9-1 IC team get in over a 3-7 SJF team?

[SJFF82]

Yeah all of this talk is going on a little early, God bless Fisher but they could lose out and finish 3-7...that would put an end to the playoff scenarios. 

I still think that a 3-7 fisher deserves a playoff spot

Does a 9-1 IC team get in over a 3-7 SJF team?

Of course not, SJF would have the head to head tiebreaker....duh