FB: Liberty League

[pumkinattack]

Well, it's four or five on three, but it's an interesting comparison.  No doubt that every league has poor teams at the bottom.  The E8, with six teams kind of has the luxury of a stronger bottom, but their strength lies in having that 4th team that can compete for a championship.  The depth issue, IMO, isn't really about the bottom or top of a league, it's the middle.  And then the ability of that middle class to have big years.  WPI and UofR haven't finished above 3rd in the league ever.  Hasn't the OAC had some downright awful teams at the bottom in the past?  

So the question I'd be interested in, turning it around on you, is:

How would RPI/Bart/UofR/WPI (this year not historically) fare against Rowan, TCNJ, Willy P and Brockport (just using standings to take 4-7 from the NJAC)?

This is why I find the ECAC games so compelling.  

[Frank Rossi]

Just looking at 2005:

UofR lost to JHU 9-7, lost at SJF 58-32 and won at Gettysburg 41-20
MMA lost at Kean by 8, at Claremont Mudd Scripps by 7 and beat Dickinson in OT by 3
WPI won all their OOC games.  In fact, looking up WPI, they've never lost an OOC game since joining the LL. 
SLU did poorly and CGA did poorly.

So CGA is gone and that's good because they were a drag, but SLU is the same program they've been, I don't see MMA as being any better and same for UofR and WPI.  If the league's better, it's only because CGA left (and SSQ is better, but they're gone after this year).

I have a slight advantage this year, having attended all the games for Union and by being in the mix with the "In the HuddLLe" show.  So, this is part of the reason I'm making these claims so boldly.  For instance, Rochester has never had a combination as strong as Subick and Onyiriuka in my time calling Union games (15 years).  They may not be the most consistent tandem, but they are definitely a great catalyst for Rochester this year (regardless of the Alfred score) and have outpaced expectations for 2009 by a longshot.

As for USMMA, which I have not seen yet personally, the inconsistency is still there based on the general size issues we see with that school -- yet, from all discussions I've had, the school has some better pure athletes since joining the LL, like Karl Heimbrock and their offensive line generally.  

SLU has had one huge problem in both 2008 and 2009 -- Micahel Baraldi.  At quarterback, he showed glimmers of hope for that team in both years before suffering season-ending injuries early.  JP Kearney is not the same quarterback as most anyone will tell you.  Yet, anyone that's watched Connor Hackett will tell you that he's a heck of a player and would've been able to achieve a lot more success if Baraldi was there to take more attention of defenses away from Hackett.

WPI -- I wish for Ed Zaloom's sake that the LL schedule for that team was flipped in the other direction.  I think they start with such a hellish one-two punch that they lose their mojo before they even get to the halfway point of the season (RPI then Union).  That said, WPI has always pretty much manhandled two of their local rivals every year.  The difference this year was that the defense shut them both out instead of giving up 3 touchdowns to the teams.  Everyone around Union and RPI has pretty much said the same thing:  "I can't understand why WPI is 0-5 with the talent they have this year.  They're a much better team than this.  Swanton is great on offense, and that Boudreau kid is a great athlete on defense."  The team just hasn't been able to put it back together after playing RPI and Union close without W's in the end.

My point is this:  in 15 years of doing this, I've never been able to name so many true athletes on so many teams in the UCAA or LL.  The overall talent level IS much higher right now.  Throw in Susquehanna's Paveletz and Palazzi tandem, and it gets even more interesting.  Alfred and Case Western Reserve have gotten much better since 2005 (and SJF is a tough call since they've added MUC and SAL since 2005, making their W/L record a little fickle for comparison's sake).  That's why I have trouble just using OOC results right now to measure the LL in 2009 -- and why I'm going team by team and looking at the talent, general performances and the comparisons I have of the same teams and talent levels from having seen them over the past decade and a half.

Again, the overall premise I'm making is this:  for all the anxiety Union has caused us in 2009 as fans, there are some pretty good explanations as to why it hasn't been easy for this team to sail through their schedule.  And if we're going to compare recent past Union teams, then we need to be aware that those teams didn't have much success just blowing out every opponent in years when the LL was potentially a lesser league from top to bottom.  I am not calling this Union team a great team -- or even a "very good" team yet.  But it is definitely a good team and has the potential to get a lot better as the defense continues to shine and the offense regains its step in the next couple weeks.  I will not bow down to those calling this year's team "mediocre."  Save that term for 5-5 and 5-4 teams.

[lewdogg11]

for all the anxiety Union has caused us in 2009 as fans, there are some pretty good explanations as to why it hasn't been easy for this team to sail through their schedule.  

Dude, not only have they NOT blown out mediocre teams, they've lost to 2 of them!

Mulhenburg (2-6)
Salisbury (4-4)

And Salisbury would probably go undefeated in the LL.  Comparing how tough the conference is, which it isn't this year, or comparing it to 2005, which you can't do, are just ways to keep the dream alive.

As I said, I hope Union pulls it all together and can beat some chumps in the playoffs, it just doesn't look promising.

[Frank Rossi]

Comparing how tough the conference is, which it isn't this year, or comparing it to 2005, which you can't do, are just ways to keep the dream alive.

I've done it and continue to do it.  You FAIL.

[union89]

My point is to go beyond the "Big Three" -- Union beat RPI by 7 in 2005... AND 2009.  Union beat Hobart by 10 in 2005... AND 2009.  I'm asking you to balance the strength of the teams below Union, Hobart and RPI.  You can't ignore the top-to-bottom strength when you begin comparing teams and calling other teams mediocre, especially basing these terms on the past for each of them.

When you look at strength of a conference, you can't say...."but disregard the Top 3".  When people compare the SEC to the PAC10, they are not comparing Vandy to Washington St. and saying....let's go beyond Florida, Alabama, LSU USC & Oregon.

In '05, Union & 'Bart won 1st Round NCAA games & RPI beat Fisher in an ECAC game....they only lost to each other in the regular season....4th place WPI had only 3 losses, to the 'Big 3'.  You can't say let's get beyond them and look to Coast Guard & St. Lawrence.  That debate is a waste of time and reserved for those looking to deflect away from the point at hand.

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.  No one (except U89) said "but disregard the Top 3."

I think the Tank's point is well taken, as is the Poohbah's.   On one of these boards around here, someone mentioned a couple of weeks ago that the NJAC gets plenty of favorable attention on account of Rowan and Cortland St., but at the same time the NJAC has some truly sucky teams--we're talking sucky at the organic level.  Cellular suckiness.  Molecular suck.  Take a look at Buff St.'s and WestConn's record for the past 8 or 9 years--institutional suck.  Mo'ville St. hasn't been around all that long, but they're showing no signs of mediocre, much less good.

On the other hand, the LL's traditional bottom dwellers (a group that does NOT include WPI) have all shown either improvement over the past several years, or at least an ability to win a few games in most years.

I think part of the reason Frank's argument may be difficult for some to accept is that he's making it largely based on Union (properly, since he knows U better than any other team), and he's doing so in the shadow of the Dutchman's Shoes.  As he (correctly) mentioned early on, Shoesapalooza means nothing relative to anything other than to the Engineers and the Dutchmen on that day only.  It is a rivalry game, one of the best, and all bets--and all comparisons--are off.

Nothing explains the Muhlenberg loss, though.

Or St. Lawrence OT or Rochester 'Hail Mary' as time expires.  

I agree with earlier statements that to go undefeated, you often times need the ball to bounce your way.  In '05, Union showed flashes of dominance in the regular season....the '09 team has 2 losses which they could have/should have won and have had to rely on good fortune in EVERY game.

[pumkinattack]

Well hell, Hobart's way more talented than they were ten years ago.  I wouldn't play on these teams.  

I said pages ago that Union's got the talent to win a game or two in the playoffs or get beaten like a red-headed stepchild in the first round.  The D has a good pass rush, but not strong against the run and Connelly is no more consistent than Marotti with less overall talent around him (Gallo is nasty, but I'd take Tom A/Angiletta/Twitchell/Marotti over Connelly/Coney/Gallo/Gourrier right now and didn't U have a good tall TE back then too?).

For U to do well, they have to control the LOS and Connelly can't make mistakes (like the Hobart game).

I think WPI has the same problem RPI has had.  Hobart had great success in game three against RPI for a number of years where RPI would play weak OOC competition then Bart and lose, but then improve all year after that.  You don't need to play UWW and MUC beginning, but at least some .500 competition who can hold their own outside of a bottom 3-5 conference.   Again, though, the logistics make it logical for WPI to schedule the way they do.  

I'm also looking at Hobart's season, and they've struggled to find their identity on O, but over the last few weeks they've beaten SLU 33-10, MMA 28-0 and WPI (on the road for their homecoming) 41-20 (with a tough loss to Union  at Union thrown in).  That's versus losing badly on the road to Dickinson  (7-1, but not world beaters), beating CMU in a tough one at home and losing on the road to SSQ where they didn't score for the last 35-40 mintues of the game.  Tells me the only differences are that a senior laden home team that has some modicum of talent can beat Hobart, but not these same teams that haven't all these years.  If they lose at UofR at the end of the year I might re-evaluate it all, but even then it'd be on the road to a team with experience on offense and some talent.  

[Frank Rossi]

And by the way, have you actually looked at the Salisbury results this year?  Two very close games against the leaders of the USAC, a loss to the #3 team in the country and a loss to a D-2 school.  Salisbury's record to me is meaningless based on the awkward scheduling that school is forced to do right now.  That is a tough team, period.

[lewdogg11]

And by the way, have you actually looked at the Salisbury results this year?  Two very close games against the leaders of the USAC, a loss to the #3 team in the country and a loss to a D-2 school.  Salisbury's record to me is meaningless based on the awkward scheduling that school is forced to do right now.  That is a tough team, period.

OK Frank, you win.  But next time you give DC a hard time about being a homer, go look in the mirror.

[redswarm81]

Well, it's four or five on three, but it's an interesting comparison.  No doubt that every league has poor teams at the bottom.  The E8, blah blah blah . . . .  The depth issue, IMO, blah blah blah . . . .  WPI and UofR haven't finished above 3rd in the league ever.  Hasn't the OAC . . . blah blah blah . . . in the past?  

Blah blah blah . . .

This is why I find the ECAC games so compelling.  

So how do WPI, SLU, UofR, MMA (and CGA, for that matter) compare to WestConn, Buffalo St., and Morrisville St?

[Frank Rossi]

And by the way, have you actually looked at the Salisbury results this year?  Two very close games against the leaders of the USAC, a loss to the #3 team in the country and a loss to a D-2 school.  Salisbury's record to me is meaningless based on the awkward scheduling that school is forced to do right now.  That is a tough team, period.

OK Frank, you win.  But next time you give DC a hard time about being a homer, go look in the mirror.

The point I was making with DC was that it was in published pieces in a non-partisan website.  I've never said I'm not a Union fan and supporter, Lew.  DC and I are still friends -- he knew I was ribbing him a bit just to be an ass.

[EDIT:  And honestly, I'm not sure how your statement fits here.  I'm not saying Union is better than X, Y and Z teams in the country.  I'm comparing the 2009 Dutchmen and 2009 LL to prior years.  The discussion hasn't been focused on bashing teams or over-propping other teams.  In fact, Susquehanna could still end Union's playoff hopes without a doubt in my mind.  That's a tough, tough team.]

[lewdogg11]

Well then I guess we can just agree to disagree and wait and see what happens come playoff time.  I know I can't win this discussion otherwise.

[union89]

And by the way, have you actually looked at the Salisbury results this year?  Two very close games against the leaders of the USAC, a loss to the #3 team in the country and a loss to a D-2 school.  Salisbury's record to me is meaningless based on the awkward scheduling that school is forced to do right now.  That is a tough team, period.

Pace stinks (1 win, losses to the likes of St. A's), Christopher Newport (OT win) is average, Newport News stinks, then they beat Fisher & Union.  

Those results more prove that the East is weak than disproves it.......

[pumkinattack]

Well, it's four or five on three, but it's an interesting comparison.  No doubt that every league has poor teams at the bottom.  The E8, blah blah blah . . . .  The depth issue, IMO, blah blah blah . . . .  WPI and UofR haven't finished above 3rd in the league ever.  Hasn't the OAC . . . blah blah blah . . . in the past?  

Blah blah blah . . .

This is why I find the ECAC games so compelling.  

So how do WPI, SLU, UofR, MMA (and CGA, for that matter) compare to WestConn, Buffalo St., and Morrisville St?

My best guess is that U of R is better, the others are roughly the same and CGA is worse.  But again, I don't define league strength looking at the top and bottom, barbell style.  I think conference strength is defined by the middle teams relative strength and that's where I don't see the parity, upward mobility (SSQ I'm calling an anomoly in a down year for the conference).  

If you want to define league strength by those at the bottom, fine, but where's the mobility and where's the OOC wins?  This season isn't unique in that the 3rd place and 4th place teams can lose to the bottom, it's just that RPI and Hobart are those 3rd and 4th place teams instead of UofR/RPI/Union voer the past 5-6 (this isn't a jab, Hobart's literally been in the top 2 every year since the formation of the LL until this year).  

[Frank Rossi]

Well then I guess we can just agree to disagree and wait and see what happens come playoff time.  I know I can't win this discussion otherwise.

I never said you didn't have some good points.  It's just the negative tone that sort of propelled me into this discussion in the first place.  It always bugs me when you and U89 bash your own schools' teams.  It REALLY bugs me when it happens in a year that those teams are enjoying a certain level of respect and success.  

[lewdogg11]

Well then I guess we can just agree to disagree and wait and see what happens come playoff time.  I know I can't win this discussion otherwise.

I never said you didn't have some good points.  It's just the negative tone that sort of propelled me into this discussion in the first place.  It always bugs me when you and U89 bash your own schools' teams.  It REALLY bugs me when it happens in a year that those teams are enjoying a certain level of respect and success.  

You gotta drag me back in.  I'm not bashing, i'm being realistic, with a twist of common sense.