FB: Liberty League

[dlippiel]

Bombers the answer to that question has more layers than a Big Mac. There are so many pieces to this Union College Football puzzle to look at when wondering about the OOC results.

Honestly dlip is somewhat perplexed himself. What is hard for dlip is that as he grows closer to the program and the wonderful people around it, it becomes more challenging to objectively assess the program and where it's at. What he can say for certain is two things: 1.) He wholeheartedly supports and believes in the coaching staff and players at Union College unconditionally and will never waiver in that belief and support no matter what. 2.) a loss to a one dimensional 1-4 NEFC team (now 2-4) is just not acceptable for a program that has the history and tradition of Union College Football. With those two things being said at this point dlip does not know what else to say. He would honestly defer to Frank Rossi here and ask Frank himself what his thoughts are on this poor OOC record.

[dlippiel]

dlip thinks one thing to consider is the parity that is becoming more and more evident in our region. As much as we complain about teams from the NEFC, MASCAC, and ECFC bringing down the east (and rightfully so to a point) dlip would have to argue that the gap between the traditionally weaker schools from these conferences and the LL, E8, MAC, and NJAC has decreased somewhat in the past 7 to 8 years (when looking at the losses to WNEC and Salve Regina).

[ExTartanPlayer]

Bombers the answer to that question has more layers than a Big Mac. There are so many pieces to this Union College Football puzzle to look at when wondering about the OOC results.

Honestly dlip is somewhat perplexed himself. What is hard for dlip is that as he grows closer to the program and the wonderful people around it, it becomes more challenging to objectively assess the program and where it's at. What he can say for certain is two things: 1.) He wholeheartedly supports and believes in the coaching staff and players at Union College unconditionally and will never waiver in that belief and support no matter what. 2.) a loss to a one dimensional 1-4 NEFC team (now 2-4) is just not acceptable for a program that has the history and tradition of Union College Football. With those two things being said at this point dlip does not know what else to say. He would honestly defer to Frank Rossi here and ask Frank himself what his thoughts are on this poor OOC record.

dlip, your unconditional support for the program is quite impressive and admirable.  No fair-weather fan in you.  Kudos for that.

When I think of Union, I think of a generally strong (or at least respectable) program dating to the time that I was in college (and thus became "aware" of D3 football), and I too am surprised by their struggles of late in OOC play.  Even the last two seasons, both of which came down to games against Hobart for the league title, they performed poorly OOC.  The Liberty League isn't terrific but nor is it a pushover, so I'm surprised by their ability to perform well in the league while struggling out of the conference.

*Edited to add: your last post makes a salient point.  Those conferences are still not totally up to snuff, but we have enough evidence over the last few years from schools like Framingham State, Salve Regina, and Curry (in various years) to say that the gap isn't AS large is at used to be.

[UfanBill]

A couple of comments about Union's OOC schedule and specifically the WNEC game.  In past years Union was commended for playing a tough OOC schedule.  Ithaca,Muhlenberg, Salisbury...no Beckers, Mt.Ida's or Castleton's here.  The historically weak 2010 team with losses to Ithaca, Salisbury and Springfield started the slide.  When losses to Utica and gasp! Salve Regina happened in 2011, Union had lost it's swagger.  Many of the OOC losses have been very close games, two now in OT, but doubt has set in.  Never has it been more evident than Saturday against WNEC.  An opening 15 play/8:48 drive ended in NO POINTS with another special teams failure, a blocked field goal.  I could almost hear the "Oh No, what next".  Well, what happened next was an inspired emboldened WNEC team out played "U" in the second half.  After a couple of injuries ( including qb Connor Eck) and an questionable ejection for targeting ( db Joshua Rose) Union found itself weakened, struggling and behind. Rb, Darnell Thomas did his best to carry the effort but in OT WNEC qb John Krafick and wr Andrew Walz made the plays that won the game.  A team questioning, yes doubting itself, again lost a game it should have won.  Now Union finds itself as the underdog. Can Union find the will to fight back or as in 2010 has Union won it's last game of this season.

[UfanBill]

It occurred to me in re-reading my previous post that I had not addressed the problem.  Going forward, what can/should Union do to improve it's OOC results.  The obvious answer would be ...schedule weaker OOC opponents.  Well at first glance that could be the answer but it brings to question what is the Union objective in it's current OOC schedule.  Is it just to win more games and fatten up the won/lost column or is it to prepare the team for the Liberty League schedule? Since games are  scheduled sometimes years in advance it is nearly impossible to predict how strong a Utica team for example may be this year.  I believe Union schedules OOC games based on interest,availability, and circumstance.  In recent years Union has had games against  Franklin & Marshall,Muhlenburg and Salisbury, attempts to test itself against out of state opponents...Springfield, which lead to their entry in the LL and neighbors Hartwick and Utica.  A series with Ithaca was long talked about and continues since 2009. Was thought given to "will we win these games"? For past Union teams the belief was that every game was a win.  With the current struggles any game can be a loss.  When Utica, Salve Regina and Western New England were scheduled, wins were certainly expected.  It can be shown that Union's OOC schedule has helped it compete for the LL title, 11-2 the past two years  The OOC  failures have decimated the w/l column and killed that swagger. Union fans relished the tough OOC games now should we dread them?  I don't think weakening the schedule is an answer.  Union is now losing to weaker teams. Help the team regain that swagger with better preparation, compete with the teams already ON the schedule... after all a coaches primary function is to give your team the best chance to win the game. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

It occurred to me in re-reading my previous post that I had not addressed the problem.  Going forward, what can/should Union do to improve it's OOC results.  The obvious answer would be ...schedule weaker OOC opponents.  Well at first glance that could be the answer but it brings to question what is the Union objective in it's current OOC schedule.  Is it just to win more games and fatten up the won/lost column or is it to prepare the team for the Liberty League schedule? Since games are  scheduled sometimes years in advance it is nearly impossible to predict how strong a Utica team for example may be this year.  I believe Union schedules OOC games based on interest,availability, and circumstance.  In recent years Union has had games against  Franklin & Marshall,Muhlenburg and Salisbury, attempts to test itself against out of state opponents...Springfield, which lead to their entry in the LL and neighbors Hartwick and Utica.  A series with Ithaca was long talked about and continues since 2009. Was thought given to "will we win these games"? For past Union teams the belief was that every game was a win.  With the current struggles any game can be a loss.  When Utica, Salve Regina and Western New England were scheduled, wins were certainly expected.  It can be shown that Union's OOC schedule has helped it compete for the LL title, 11-2 the past two years  The OOC  failures have decimated the w/l column and killed that swagger. Union fans relished the tough OOC games now should we dread them?  I don't think weakening the schedule is an answer.  Union is now losing to weaker teams. Help the team regain that swagger with better preparation, compete with the teams already ON the schedule... after all a coaches primary function is to give your team the best chance to win the game.

No, I agree.  The goal shouldn't be to get a better OOC record by scheduling weaker opponents; Union should be taking on Empire 8 teams and that ilk in OOC games.  Utica, Ithaca, et al make very nice OOC opponents for Union.  The concern is that now, as you've said, they're starting to lose to even the lesser OOC opponents, particularly puzzling in years that they compete for the LL title to see losses to NEFC/MASCAC-type teams.  Those leagues are getting better, to be sure, but Union should still be winning those games.

[dlippiel]

Some great thoughts/points by all on this topic thus far. Dlip's two cents regarding the Dutchmen's scheduling thus far is simple. Stay the course. The change here has to come from within the program...and the college for that matter. Dlip knows Audino will not back down from this recent adversity and nor should he IDHO for whatever that is worth. Dlip believes the Dutchmen will right this ship in the future. Honestly they could start on Saturday in Rochester. For dlip it is about maybe putting more emphasis on these OOC games and the belief by each and every player that they can change this pattern of losing that seems to be growing. Listen, it's so easy to get negative here. Dlip is sure there are certain Alums right now losing their minds. However that's not what is important. The student athletes, the coaching staff, and the culture that is here now is what matters most. If we all want the results on the field to change it must take a unified effort to make this happen. Audino and company will do it. Let's hope in their quest they continue to keep the scheduling the same quality opponents and rise to the challenge of winning the games they should and aiming to turn around their recent OOC struggles.

[pumkinattack]

Is it possible that there might have been a hint of accuracy in what U89 was preaching a little while back?  I already know FR's answer but I also know that he is biased, no matter how much he might protest. 

Now, in college, I'm not for giving anyone their walking papers for any deficiency in winning % as long as the program is putting out solid citizens that are holding their own in the classroom and offering all types of diversity to the institution (even in D1).  But I think it's fair to ask the question.  If guys like Phil Fulmer and Bobby Bowden can lose their mojo as time passes by, is it unreasonable to think it can't happen at our level (and will probably one day w/Coach Cragg as well, but I know we'd take his leadership over W/L, so he's good there IMO).  Is there a tradeoff between more success and retaining the current regime and if so, that's a choice that the stakeholders at Union will have to address and make a decision on one day. 

I also think the league success has to do with the fact that it's been "down" since around 2009.  We can celebrate the years that SLU & Susquehanna won the LL and I'd love to have real parity, but in watching all the Hobart games and a number of the other conference ones, it's clear that our champs those years weren't as good as league champs in other years.  2005 was the high water benchmark for the league and I don't think we've seen that or even close since (I'd like to say 2007, but didn't RPI blow a very winnable first round playoff game that year and Hobart also lost in the first round to a good, not their best, Fisher team on the road). 

[lewdogg11]

Is it possible that there might have been a hint of accuracy in what U89 was preaching a little while back?  I already know FR's answer but I also know that he is biased, no matter how much he might protest. 

Now, in college, I'm not for giving anyone their walking papers for any deficiency in winning % as long as the program is putting out solid citizens that are holding their own in the classroom and offering all types of diversity to the institution (even in D1).  But I think it's fair to ask the question.  If guys like Phil Fulmer and Bobby Bowden can lose their mojo as time passes by, is it unreasonable to think it can't happen at our level (and will probably one day w/Coach Cragg as well, but I know we'd take his leadership over W/L, so he's good there IMO).  Is there a tradeoff between more success and retaining the current regime and if so, that's a choice that the stakeholders at Union will have to address and make a decision on one day. 

I also think the league success has to do with the fact that it's been "down" since around 2009.  We can celebrate the years that SLU & Susquehanna won the LL and I'd love to have real parity, but in watching all the Hobart games and a number of the other conference ones, it's clear that our champs those years weren't as good as league champs in other years.  2005 was the high water benchmark for the league and I don't think we've seen that or even close since (I'd like to say 2007, but didn't RPI blow a very winnable first round playoff game that year and Hobart also lost in the first round to a good, not their best, Fisher team on the road).

Bingo!  I got Bingo!

[ITH radio]

If we're really objective, and this doesn't factor in a number of influencers, but The stats say Union is a slightly above average program based on winning percentage.  Average record since 2003 is 6-4.  Take out their 11-1 2005 and 8-3 season and it's 5-4 (basically the same, i.e., one win above .500). 

The East has expanded, NEFC and MASCAC teams (which are less expensive, selective than pretty much every LL school) finally have full time coaches and can recruit the same MA/CT/NY kids that always went to a U or IC as hard as the next guy.  Not to mention Union has a strong overlap with NESCAC which is tough too.  Other programs like SJF and HOB stepped up their game in the 2000s which also has an effect. 

Still, it's not like the Dutchmen don't have the athletes, especially in skill positions.  Connolly, Coney, Gallo Bros, etc.  Even kids like Thomas are still coming and doing well FB wise at Union.  I think part of the issue is expectations and fans harkening back to "good old days" (like the 90s) when their teams smoked everyone.

To PA's point, the LL is only starting to come into its own.  Put it this way, the league has only had two teams advance past the second round in 10 seasons (RPI in 03 and Bart in 12).  05-08 was solid with some first round wins and decent showings against top teams (e.g., Hobart playing MUC tough for a half+).  The league did regress a bit in 09&10, but I do think the LL is heading in a stronger direction.

Union's struggles aren't that unique.  Look at programs like Ithaca, Rowan, an some of the MAC teams.  Programs' dominant runs have a shelf life (well except For UMU).  I guess another way to put is time will tell.

[mattvsmith]

Ni offense to my alma mater, but Hobart is only in the top quartile of second-rate schools. NESCAC schools are all in the top quartile of the first-rate schools. I hate them all for their politics, but the NESCAC is by far superior for teaching all the wrong things. At least they play football. Nothing on earth is pure evil.

Here's my ranking of how good the schools are. I should check out us news and world report and compare my unfounded opinions.

1. Rochester (ranked in the world)
2. RPI
3. Union
4. USMMA*
5. WPI
6. St Lawrence
7. Hobart
8. Springfield

* in maritime, it is probably number one in the world (or close to it)  but it's such a narrow curriculum that it's hard to judge against liberal arts colleges. Like comparing mixed nuts to cashews.

Of course, Hobart has the best school colors, which makes the asinine  tuition worth it.

[Jonny Utah]

Is it possible that there might have been a hint of accuracy in what U89 was preaching a little while back?  I already know FR's answer but I also know that he is biased, no matter how much he might protest. 

Now, in college, I'm not for giving anyone their walking papers for any deficiency in winning % as long as the program is putting out solid citizens that are holding their own in the classroom and offering all types of diversity to the institution (even in D1).  But I think it's fair to ask the question.  If guys like Phil Fulmer and Bobby Bowden can lose their mojo as time passes by, is it unreasonable to think it can't happen at our level (and will probably one day w/Coach Cragg as well, but I know we'd take his leadership over W/L, so he's good there IMO).  Is there a tradeoff between more success and retaining the current regime and if so, that's a choice that the stakeholders at Union will have to address and make a decision on one day. 

I also think the league success has to do with the fact that it's been "down" since around 2009.  We can celebrate the years that SLU & Susquehanna won the LL and I'd love to have real parity, but in watching all the Hobart games and a number of the other conference ones, it's clear that our champs those years weren't as good as league champs in other years.  2005 was the high water benchmark for the league and I don't think we've seen that or even close since (I'd like to say 2007, but didn't RPI blow a very winnable first round playoff game that year and Hobart also lost in the first round to a good, not their best, Fisher team on the road).

Bingo!  I got Bingo!

Bingo x3

As a HS coach in Massachusetts, I have seen kids go to all sorts of d3 schools, and know in many instances how much financial aid they get or don't get, and who gets into each type of school.  Some schools care about diversity, others don't. 

I think part of the problem that U89 used to mention, is that Union College (and many colleges for that matter) is no longer letting 30-40 football players pay 10K to 20K a year to go to school there.  Now I don't know this for certain, but I would bet a larger percentage of Union football players today are paying the full 60K a year it costs to go there.  Need blind admission policies are shrinking at many schools, and this could be one of the major reasons Union College isn't winning.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/24/even-economy-improves-colleges-lower-ambition-their-financial-aid-programs/A5Ly5bs77uBtke5HqrwMXL/story.html

Talent is 90% of the game, and although Union's coaching staff might not be the best in the country, I don't think they should get most of the blame, especially if they are playing league schools who aren't using the same need-blind admission policies that they might be (if that is the case)

[ITH radio]

Ni offense to my alma mater, but Hobart is only in the top quartile of second-rate schools. NESCAC schools are all in the top quartile of the first-rate schools. I hate them all for their politics, but the NESCAC is by far superior for teaching all the wrong things. At least they play football. Nothing on earth is pure evil.

Here's my ranking of how good the schools are. I should check out us news and world report and compare my unfounded opinions.

1. Rochester (ranked in the world)
2. RPI
3. Union
4. USMMA*
5. WPI
6. St Lawrence
7. Hobart
8. Springfield

* in maritime, it is probably number one in the world (or close to it)  but it's such a narrow curriculum that it's hard to judge against liberal arts colleges. Like comparing mixed nuts to cashews.

Of course, Hobart has the best school colors, which makes the asinine  tuition worth it.

Cmon Rev, you know HOB always gets dinged in the USNWR b/c of the low endowment, but you are right about the colors being dope, especially in October.

[Garnet]

As I was reading dlip's post above, I was thinking I should reply with this question, " Why don't you ask U89 what he thinks?"

I was pleasantly surprised as I scrolled down to see the others have not forgotten.

[pumkinattack]

Plus I think he got so mad he's not coming back.