FB: Liberty League

[Pat Coleman]

You guys keep pushing.

[Naked Nott Run]

Now that U89 is in hiding, I'd like to congratulate U of R on the win today -- especially Coach Greene, who joined us on "In the HuddLLe" last week for our inaugural show.  As Senor RT pointed out on the show, Greene seemed pretty pumped up about the game in a take-no-prisoners kind of way, and that showed during the late fourth quarter when he went for 4th & 1 on U of R's own 45-yard line, up only by 4.  It paid off after a controversial penalty for a blow to the head to the Rochester QB (ball was tipped and the QB was technically an eligible receiver at that point because the ball did not travel far -- somewhat subjective call there).  What it in essence did was chewed up enough time off the clock so that Union's final drive was cut short -- so while that drive led to no points for U of R, it was a clock-eater.

Been quite a day in college football in general... I'm exhausted already...

- Frank

it sickens me to see Frank sending woohoo's and weee's!!! to U of R... really... U of R... my how far we are falling . Good game Jackets

[labart96]

warning
LL related post:

Hobart 27 - Susquehanna 14

Hobart (3-0, 1-0) won it's Liberty League opener against the Susquehanna University Crusaders (1-3, 0-1) last Saturday.  Hobart went up 20-0 and pretty much cruised to an easy win at Boswell Field.  The Statesmen D must have read TGP's post from last week because they played with a vengeance Saturday.  The Hobart D smothered the SU offense, causing two fumbles that set up the first two TDs of the game.  At the half, the hapless Crusaders looked lost having only gained a measly 56 yards, only two first downs and going 0-8 on third down.

Other highlights included SO RB Andrew Marlier's career best of 97 yards rushing and a TD, SR RB Anthony Hobaica scampering 35 yards for the longest scoring play of the season (so far) and SR LB Justin Hager having another 10+ tackle game.   Hager is currently ranked second in tackles by the NCAA in all of Division III.

For more info on the game see the link below:

http://web.hws.edu/athletics/hobart/football/showrelease.asp?id=4827

TGP's two cents:

Although this week's defensive effort was a big improvement to the prior two, "SUC" (credit going to TGP's classmate and buddy WB for that one) wasn't exactly lighting it up coming into this game.  The yardage gained against the Statesmen by the Crusaders (about 225 total yards) was pretty close to their season average.  Still, Hobart really got after it and made good plays on both sides of the ball.

However, for the second week in a row, the Hobart offense committed several turnovers (three INTs by QB Rich Doyle and three fumbles by Statesmen ball carriers, two which were recovered by SUC).  Only three games into the 2008 campaign, the Statesmen have committed eight turnovers and already have exceeded the number of turnovers (seven) from the entire 2007 season!  Overall, the Statesmen are -1 in the take-away category - a stat that will need to improve if Hobart is going to have success against the tougher teams remaining on their LL schedule.

Then again, three games into 2007 Hobart was 1-2 and this year they are 3-0, so maybe TGP shouldn't be worrying about it?  Time will tell, but in general you have to be really lucky or playing weaker competition if you can cough up the rock that many times and still win football games. 

Going for 17.....

Hobart vs. Saint Lawrence

Hobart's longest active winning streak will be on the line this Saturday when the Statesmen travel to Southern Canada - sorry, TGP meant Canton, NY - to face the St. Lawrence Saints (0-4, 0-1).  Former Hobart offensive coordinator and now SLU head coach Chris Phelps was probably hoping to improve upon 2007's 4-5 mark, but so far 2008 is proving to be a tough year (again) for the Saints.  SLU had only scored one TD all season until last weekend's 23-17 loss to the Merchant Marine (2-2, 1-0) down in Kings Point, Long Island.

Hobart has not lost to St Lawrence since before TGP was a student at the Pumpkin Patch and last season Hobart rang up 56 points on the Saints.  This year TGP expects Hobart will win their 17th straight against the Larries, but not in a blow out. 

The Statesmen are averaging about 24 points a game, so this week TGP is going to predict a 24-10 win for Hobart. 

The only thing that could potentially trip up Hobart this weekend is if they look past SLU to the following week's show down against rival Union College (1-2, 0-1). 

Hopefully Coach Cragg will keep his team focused on SLU by pointing out facts like the Saints rank second in the league in total defense and rank first in sacks (11 for -82 yards) and that the Hobart offense looked less than stellar against SUC.

As usual, the game will be available via WEOS, ECAC.tv and live stats (hopefully back this week after not working during the SUC game) will be on the Hobart Football website.

One other thing......

TGP would be remiss if he didn't give a couple of props to Hobart's unbeaten and nationally ranked Soccer team.  These futbollers just beat St Lawrence's soccer team last weekend to improve to 9-0 (2-0 in the LL).  The Statesmen are currently ranked #6 in the country.

[Apple Jack]

I don't know if he ever did it when first proposed but now might be a good time for Mark Cuban to launch his gambing hedge fund with the current state of things.

If they out LD on the "investing" team I would be in....

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/01/funds/cuban_gambling/

[union89]

3 missed PAT's for Union??  Rediculas.......

The live stats feature on Unionathletics.com is AWSOME.

The difference in the game....Union could have kicked a 20 yard field goal for the win if even 2 of 3 PAT's were successful.

Actually, you can't make that simple statement:

Union missed 3 PATs.  Rochester missed 1 PAT and a 2PtConv.  Rochester would not have gone for 2 if Union made their PATs early.  Best-case scenario is that +2 PATs would have meant Overtime (30-27).  If both teams had made all of their PATs, the score would have been 31-28 at that point.  

So, don't point the gun at the kicker fully here.  Rochester did get 29 points against Union, including a kickoff return for a TD.  There were a lot of differences in that game.  Rochester was able to march down the field when Union had a lead at the end in one minute... That's where I'm focusing some of my dismay here.  

Frank,
I'm not placing all the blame on the kicker at all...I think the final PAT was blocked....he owns part of the blame along with the rest of that special teams unit.

I most certainly can say that the missed PAT's were a major factor which cost them the game....PAT's are more of a gimme than free throws in basketball....no reason for you to convolute the situation with hypotheticals.  A missed PAT is a missed PAT.....3 in one game is inexcusable.

OK, but then give U of R the same scrutiny for their calls - There is no reason to go for 2 that early, and they missed an extra point.  That's my point -- let's look at the aspects of Union's game that are shaky beyond just the kicking game.  Feel free to call in tomorrow night and debate this when we open up the phones.

I'm a Union fan.....what U of R does makes no difference to me....the Yellowjackets going for 2 had no impact whatsoever on Union missing 3 PAT's.....the two situations do not corrolate.  If Union went for 2, you could debate your point....

Your point is that Union's missing of 3 PATs lost them the game.  Your point is wrong.

Read and learn, my friend.....

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/sep/28/928_union/

[dlippiel]

Congrats to Del Val for breaking into the top 25! They clearly deserve it! LL still not in the top 25 and I think rightfully so for now. With RPI's games played so far even though I think they deserve to be close still need a win over U, Rochester and/or Bart to have any shot and/or valid argument to crack top 25. Bart I just don't know, I was impressed with their first two OOC victories but still think they need a victory over U, Rochester  and/or RPI to crack top 25. Hopefully one of these teams will crack the top 25 and represent the LL. Was very impressed last night with WPI coach and the player from Bart. Dude on Bart is also on the lax team. Playing D1 lax at that school and football on top of being a solid student speaks volumes! I truly wish him the best! Even mentioned him to my students today as an example of a solid role model.

[labart96]

Congrats to Del Val for breaking into the top 25! They clearly deserve it! LL still not in the top 25 and I think rightfully so for now. With RPI's games played so far even though I think they deserve to be close still need a win over U, Rochester and/or Bart to have any shot and/or valid argument to crack top 25. Bart I just don't know, I was impressed with their first two OOC victories but still think they need a victory over U, Rochester  and/or RPI to crack top 25. Hopefully one of these teams will crack the top 25 and represent the LL. Was very impressed last night with WPI coach and the player from Bart. Dude on Bart is also on the lax team. Playing D1 lax at that school and football on top of being a solid student speaks volumes! I truly wish him the best! Even mentioned him to my students today as an example of a solid role model.

dude from bart is #40 ilb justin hager.

tgp agrees with your assessment about hobart.  on one hand tgp thinks they have the team that could end up in the NCAAs and possibly ranked, but they really haven't put together a solid game together yet.  defense looked spotty vs. dickinson and cmu then good vs. susquehanna.  offense looked good vs. dickinson and then less than stellar vs. cmu and sus.

still a lot more football to be played though.....

[Frank Rossi]

3 missed PAT's for Union??  Rediculas.......

The live stats feature on Unionathletics.com is AWSOME.

The difference in the game....Union could have kicked a 20 yard field goal for the win if even 2 of 3 PAT's were successful.

Actually, you can't make that simple statement:

Union missed 3 PATs.  Rochester missed 1 PAT and a 2PtConv.  Rochester would not have gone for 2 if Union made their PATs early.  Best-case scenario is that +2 PATs would have meant Overtime (30-27).  If both teams had made all of their PATs, the score would have been 31-28 at that point.  

So, don't point the gun at the kicker fully here.  Rochester did get 29 points against Union, including a kickoff return for a TD.  There were a lot of differences in that game.  Rochester was able to march down the field when Union had a lead at the end in one minute... That's where I'm focusing some of my dismay here.  

Frank,
I'm not placing all the blame on the kicker at all...I think the final PAT was blocked....he owns part of the blame along with the rest of that special teams unit.

I most certainly can say that the missed PAT's were a major factor which cost them the game....PAT's are more of a gimme than free throws in basketball....no reason for you to convolute the situation with hypotheticals.  A missed PAT is a missed PAT.....3 in one game is inexcusable.

OK, but then give U of R the same scrutiny for their calls - There is no reason to go for 2 that early, and they missed an extra point.  That's my point -- let's look at the aspects of Union's game that are shaky beyond just the kicking game.  Feel free to call in tomorrow night and debate this when we open up the phones.

I'm a Union fan.....what U of R does makes no difference to me....the Yellowjackets going for 2 had no impact whatsoever on Union missing 3 PAT's.....the two situations do not corrolate.  If Union went for 2, you could debate your point....

Your point is that Union's missing of 3 PATs lost them the game.  Your point is wrong.

Read and learn, my friend.....

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/sep/28/928_union/

I read it -- Not sure what I was supposed to learn, although Bob Weiner is a friend and great beat writer for the Dutchmen (which I already knew).

[Jonny Utah]

3 missed PAT's for Union??  Rediculas.......

The live stats feature on Unionathletics.com is AWSOME.

The difference in the game....Union could have kicked a 20 yard field goal for the win if even 2 of 3 PAT's were successful.

Actually, you can't make that simple statement:

Union missed 3 PATs.  Rochester missed 1 PAT and a 2PtConv.  Rochester would not have gone for 2 if Union made their PATs early.  Best-case scenario is that +2 PATs would have meant Overtime (30-27).  If both teams had made all of their PATs, the score would have been 31-28 at that point.  

So, don't point the gun at the kicker fully here.  Rochester did get 29 points against Union, including a kickoff return for a TD.  There were a lot of differences in that game.  Rochester was able to march down the field when Union had a lead at the end in one minute... That's where I'm focusing some of my dismay here.  

Frank,
I'm not placing all the blame on the kicker at all...I think the final PAT was blocked....he owns part of the blame along with the rest of that special teams unit.

I most certainly can say that the missed PAT's were a major factor which cost them the game....PAT's are more of a gimme than free throws in basketball....no reason for you to convolute the situation with hypotheticals.  A missed PAT is a missed PAT.....3 in one game is inexcusable.

OK, but then give U of R the same scrutiny for their calls - There is no reason to go for 2 that early, and they missed an extra point.  That's my point -- let's look at the aspects of Union's game that are shaky beyond just the kicking game.  Feel free to call in tomorrow night and debate this when we open up the phones.

I'm a Union fan.....what U of R does makes no difference to me....the Yellowjackets going for 2 had no impact whatsoever on Union missing 3 PAT's.....the two situations do not corrolate.  If Union went for 2, you could debate your point....

Your point is that Union's missing of 3 PATs lost them the game.  Your point is wrong.

Read and learn, my friend.....

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/sep/28/928_union/

I read it -- Not sure what I was supposed to learn, although Bob Weiner is a friend and great beat writer for the Dutchmen (which I already knew).

I think there is a miscommunication between U89 and FR.  JU will try to mitigate....

-U89 feels that the special teams lost the game for Union, and he used the examples of missed kicks and the fact that a kick at the end of the game would have won it if those early kicks are made.

-FR also points out that Rochester also made some bad special teams decisions, and those bad decisions were in direct relation to Unions mistakes.  These Rochester mistakes kind of negate Unions mistakes. Frank also points out that more important than those mistakes, was the last drive where Unions defense was more of a reason for the loss.  FR also points out that he doesnt want to place a lot of blame on the kicker.

-U89 reads FRs statememnt as putting words in U89s mouth in saying that the Kicker was a main reason for the loss.  U89 simply wanted to blame the special teams.

-FR doesnt want to blame the special teams as much as U89 does.

-U89 cites an article where Audino says "Today, our special teams let us down".  This leads U89 to feel that Audino is also placing a lot of blame on the special teams.

-FR feels that he already knew that the special teams were bad, and there is nothing new in this article that makes him feel any different.

JU looks at it this way.

-If everything went as planned in this game (everyone making easy XPs) Union could have kicked a FG at the end of the game to TIE it.  Or, since Rochesters missed XP had no correlation on what happened to Unions XPs, Union might have been able to win it with a FG at the end. So U89 is kind of right on this point, but.....

-Rochester also missed an extra point on their own as well.  So FR is right in saying that Unions special teams should not get as much blame because this XP would have been missed either way.

-If Rochester did not have a 16-12 lead, they would not have gone for 2 points.  To me, this situation is like in blackjack when the dealer is showing a 10 and you have 16.  You have to hit.  It may not work out the way you wanted to in the end, but odds show you (not as much in the football 2 pt chart I will admit) that going for two is the right decision there.  So FR's point is a little weakened here.  But this is also an opinion as well.  Many coaches (and frank) do not go for 2 points this early in the game.  They want the points.  I think however that this is the minority though.

-This leads to U89s point that the two situations do not correlate (Union missing 3 XPs and Rochester going for 2).  I think they absoutly correlate.  Rochester would not have gone for two if Union did not miss the XPs.  Here is where FR puts the blame on Rochester for even going for 2 this early in the game (knowing the outcome, FR is right in that sense) although, Rochester needed a TD either way to win the game.

After reading both sides, JU has come to the conclusion that the game had to many complexities to judge decisions that effected the outcome.  Seeing that both U89 and FR are Union grads, they are probably both wrong.

[lewdogg11]

As much as I run my mouth about RPI's schedule, do the voters really think if RPI were to play Curry, RPI wouldn't win by 3 TD's minimum?  I understand throwing an NEFC team a bone and getting a few votes, but seriously?  That is just retarded. 

2002 - Hartwick 69 Curry 14
2003 - RPI 34 Curry 20
2004 - Hobart 35 Curry 16
2005 - Delaware Valley 37 Curry 22
2006 - Springfield 42 Curry 14
2007 - Curry 42 Hartwick 21
2007 - SJF 38 Curry 7

I mean, other than a win against a Hartwick team who should not have sniffed the playoffs, Curry can't compete outside of their conference.  Are the voters really that anxious to get an NEFC team in the poll.  Does that make it fare to the NEFC?  Does everyone feel bad if they don't get votes.  Poor Curry!  Is there a group of half retarded voters?  I just don't get it.

[Pat Coleman]

I mean, other than a win against a Hartwick team who should not have sniffed the playoffs, Curry can't compete outside of their conference. 

Except that was the most recent Curry playoff trip, so it's not easily discounted.

[lewdogg11]

I mean, other than a win against a Hartwick team who should not have sniffed the playoffs, Curry can't compete outside of their conference. 

Except that was the most recent Curry playoff trip, so it's not easily discounted.

I TOTALLY understand that 100%.  I think Curry DOES deserve some votes.  But, to put it into perspective, the closest thing we can get to apples to apples this year is:(and I HATE when people do this)

Curry 28 Worcester St 21 OT
WPI 31 Worcester St 10
RPI 35 WPI 21

I mean, they are getting more votes than RPI and Hobart COMBINED!

[Knightstalker]

Now for a really important post, todays TOTD , this gives a full recap of September, KS is quite fond of Sept. 24.

[unionfan]

3 missed PAT's for Union??  Rediculas.......

The live stats feature on Unionathletics.com is AWSOME.

The difference in the game....Union could have kicked a 20 yard field goal for the win if even 2 of 3 PAT's were successful.

Actually, you can't make that simple statement:

Union missed 3 PATs.  Rochester missed 1 PAT and a 2PtConv.  Rochester would not have gone for 2 if Union made their PATs early.  Best-case scenario is that +2 PATs would have meant Overtime (30-27).  If both teams had made all of their PATs, the score would have been 31-28 at that point.  

So, don't point the gun at the kicker fully here.  Rochester did get 29 points against Union, including a kickoff return for a TD.  There were a lot of differences in that game.  Rochester was able to march down the field when Union had a lead at the end in one minute... That's where I'm focusing some of my dismay here.  

Frank,
I'm not placing all the blame on the kicker at all...I think the final PAT was blocked....he owns part of the blame along with the rest of that special teams unit.

I most certainly can say that the missed PAT's were a major factor which cost them the game....PAT's are more of a gimme than free throws in basketball....no reason for you to convolute the situation with hypotheticals.  A missed PAT is a missed PAT.....3 in one game is inexcusable.

OK, but then give U of R the same scrutiny for their calls - There is no reason to go for 2 that early, and they missed an extra point.  That's my point -- let's look at the aspects of Union's game that are shaky beyond just the kicking game.  Feel free to call in tomorrow night and debate this when we open up the phones.

I'm a Union fan.....what U of R does makes no difference to me....the Yellowjackets going for 2 had no impact whatsoever on Union missing 3 PAT's.....the two situations do not corrolate.  If Union went for 2, you could debate your point....

Your point is that Union's missing of 3 PATs lost them the game.  Your point is wrong.

Read and learn, my friend.....

http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2008/sep/28/928_union/

I read it -- Not sure what I was supposed to learn, although Bob Weiner is a friend and great beat writer for the Dutchmen (which I already knew).

I think there is a miscommunication between U89 and FR.  JU will try to mitigate....

-U89 feels that the special teams lost the game for Union, and he used the examples of missed kicks and the fact that a kick at the end of the game would have won it if those early kicks are made.

-FR also points out that Rochester also made some bad special teams decisions, and those bad decisions were in direct relation to Unions mistakes.  These Rochester mistakes kind of negate Unions mistakes. Frank also points out that more important than those mistakes, was the last drive where Unions defense was more of a reason for the loss.  FR also points out that he doesnt want to place a lot of blame on the kicker.

-U89 reads FRs statememnt as putting words in U89s mouth in saying that the Kicker was a main reason for the loss.  U89 simply wanted to blame the special teams.

-FR doesnt want to blame the special teams as much as U89 does.

-U89 cites an article where Audino says "Today, our special teams let us down".  This leads U89 to feel that Audino is also placing a lot of blame on the special teams.

-FR feels that he already knew that the special teams were bad, and there is nothing new in this article that makes him feel any different.

JU looks at it this way.

-If everything went as planned in this game (everyone making easy XPs) Union could have kicked a FG at the end of the game to TIE it.  Or, since Rochesters missed XP had no correlation on what happened to Unions XPs, Union might have been able to win it with a FG at the end. So U89 is kind of right on this point, but.....

-Rochester also missed an extra point on their own as well.  So FR is right in saying that Unions special teams should not get as much blame because this XP would have been missed either way.

-If Rochester did not have a 16-12 lead, they would not have gone for 2 points.  To me, this situation is like in blackjack when the dealer is showing a 10 and you have 16.  You have to hit.  It may not work out the way you wanted to in the end, but odds show you (not as much in the football 2 pt chart I will admit) that going for two is the right decision there.  So FR's point is a little weakened here.  But this is also an opinion as well.  Many coaches (and frank) do not go for 2 points this early in the game.  They want the points.  I think however that this is the minority though.

-This leads to U89s point that the two situations do not correlate (Union missing 3 XPs and Rochester going for 2).  I think they absoutly correlate.  Rochester would not have gone for two if Union did not miss the XPs.  Here is where FR puts the blame on Rochester for even going for 2 this early in the game (knowing the outcome, FR is right in that sense) although, Rochester needed a TD either way to win the game.

After reading both sides, JU has come to the conclusion that the game had to many complexities to judge decisions that effected the outcome.  Seeing that both U89 and FR are Union grads, they are probably both wrong.

unionfan has reviewed the game tape and is happy to announce that it resolves the dispute entirely.  if you watch the tape in slo-mo it's very clear that a lightning fast jabberwocky ran onto the field for all four missed kicks and blocked them.  same jabberwocky also made two crucial blocks to spring the bees kickoff touchdown return.
totally the jabberwocky's fault.

['gro]

Gro doesn't want to jump into the Frank/U89 buzzsaw, but one point that should be made is that gro considers the special teams mistakes to be like turnovers.  In a game you want to limit turnovers entirely, but the stat that gets harped on later is TO margin.  In the Union/UR game the special teams TO margin was definetly in UR's favor.

Maybe if Audino would start jacking people up they wouldn't miss 3 XP's in a game.