FB: Liberty League

[ITH radio]

My bad, you are correct.

Fisher beat them pretty soundly that year 49-21.

[Bombers798891]

I've always believed their are two reasons to fire a D-III coach

1. If they're not handling their business outside of wins and losses. While this is true at all levels, I think D-III coaches should have a shorter leash for that stuff—If a D-III coach looked as clueless and out of touch with player safety as Brady Hoke did with Shane Morris—I'd be all for their ouster. But this could also include player academics, conflicts within the athletic department, etc.

2. If the program has regressed to the point where you feel you're not competitive. To me, at a school like Union, even with their rich history, not making the playoffs for 10 years isn't enough. Heck, even some of the OOC struggles, I'm okay with when you're going 11-2 in your conference. I'm probably in the minority, possibly because I never played sports in college, and I'm attached to IC as an academic, but I think if a D-III coach has got their house in order, for me, it's going to take a bad on the field product to get me to make a change. Not a mediocre or disappointing or frustrating one.

For every sports fan that would anger, I bet you'd earn the approval of a larger faction of the campus by saying "Coach X is a good man, his impact extends beyond the sport, and that's what we're about here at School Y"

So the question for me is, has the Union football program fallen far enough on-the-field to warrant it? I could see people leaning that way. If they go 3-7 this year, that would be three seasons of 3 or fewer wins in the past five. That's right around the borderline where I would start to make some noise. I'd still give him another year, but the leash would be short

[PBR...]

I've always believed their are two reasons to fire a D-III coach

1. If they're not handling their business outside of wins and losses. While this is true at all levels, I think D-III coaches should have a shorter leash for that stuff—If a D-III coach looked as clueless and out of touch with player safety as Brady Hoke did with Shane Morris—I'd be all for their ouster. But this could also include player academics, conflicts within the athletic department, etc.

2. If the program has regressed to the point where you feel you're not competitive. To me, at a school like Union, even with their rich history, not making the playoffs for 10 years isn't enough. Heck, even some of the OOC struggles, I'm okay with when you're going 11-2 in your conference. I'm probably in the minority, possibly because I never played sports in college, and I'm attached to IC as an academic, but I think if a D-III coach has got their house in order, for me, it's going to take a bad on the field product to get me to make a change. Not a mediocre or disappointing or frustrating one.

For every sports fan that would anger, I bet you'd earn the approval of a larger faction of the campus by saying "Coach X is a good man, his impact extends beyond the sport, and that's what we're about here at School Y"

So the question for me is, has the Union football program fallen far enough on-the-field to warrant it? I could see people leaning that way. If they go 3-7 this year, that would be three seasons of 3 or fewer wins in the past five. That's right around the borderline where I would start to make some noise. I'd still give him another year, but the leash would be short

Really good points. Also in a sense related to what its like to replace a legendary coach at a school like fsu/penn state went through with bowden/paterno. Both those coaches in their later years struggled and had average teams and years with limited recruiting success. There were some alumni who wanted them gone immediately and some who said based on their previous success they should get to pick when they leave and others with many other opinions like naming a head coach in waiting etc... no easy answer. I see all sides and don't envy Union and their alumni. It is a very difficult time to measure all of that. Mostly comes down to what you want in a program. Wins/Losses vs. academics vs. off field problems etc.

[Bombers798891]

I see all sides and don't envy Union and their alumni. It is a very difficult time to measure all of that. Mostly comes down to what you want in a program. Wins/Losses vs. academics vs. off field problems etc.

I bolded this because a couple of weeks ago it really hit me: I was at the IC-Hartwick game, and sitting next to some students. The only time I heard a thing about the game from them was the following:

"What are we doing tonight? We're winning, so that means the football guys are going to want to party"

As big fans, it's easy to forget that there are a lot of people at almost every D-III school who just do not care if your football team goes 4-6 or 8-2, never mind what you're doing in relation to what you were 10, 20, 30 years ago. And even the ones who will notice may not care enough to create the kind of pressure you sometimes need to fire a longtime university employee.

[Doid23]

I think what's keeping Union fans on Audino's side is his longstanding service and dedication to the school. He's a great guy and, at least in the case of this season, is that the losses were all very close (TD or less) and to good teams (combined 16-3 mark). That said if they go 3-4 in the LL (or worse), like last season, there's not much to support the "tougher schedule" argument. The playoff absence is since 2005 is looking like it'll extend to 10 years which is pretty hard to believe.

It would only help the league is Union returned to form, but it doesn't seem like that's happening in 2014. Unless HOB is toppled, either SC, SLU or RPI are fighting for 8-2 and maybe 2-3 of them get an ECAC game.

It would really be big if the Dutchmen can take out WNEC to break the OOC loss streak. Still, this season looks like 5-5 best case, and I am not convinced they will beat the Golden Eagles or RPI for that matter.

Great assessment, along with some others. Dino is a good man, whom I like and respect. If I didn't know him and hold him in high regard, the results would have pointed to a change being needed.

The only thing I know for sure is that a change is needed, and probably overdue. What that change is, I am not close enough to the situation to determine. I'm not sure if admissions is a problem, financial aid, etc.  I've long ago realized that being a national championship contender in football is probably an unrealistic expectation. But I don't think it's too much to ask to go 7-3 or 6-4 and be in the hunt for the LL title. The hockey team is the obvious example (and somewhat apples to oranges), but the lacrosse team has had a lot of success recently, and I think that level (making the NCAA's several times and winning some playoff games over the past few years) is a fair expectation for the football team.

[jackson5]

I think what's keeping Union fans on Audino's side is his longstanding service and dedication to the school. He's a great guy and, at least in the case of this season, is that the losses were all very close (TD or less) and to good teams (combined 16-3 mark). That said if they go 3-4 in the LL (or worse), like last season, there's not much to support the "tougher schedule" argument. The playoff absence is since 2005 is looking like it'll extend to 10 years which is pretty hard to believe.

It would only help the league is Union returned to form, but it doesn't seem like that's happening in 2014. Unless HOB is toppled, either SC, SLU or RPI are fighting for 8-2 and maybe 2-3 of them get an ECAC game.

It would really be big if the Dutchmen can take out WNEC to break the OOC loss streak. Still, this season looks like 5-5 best case, and I am not convinced they will beat the Golden Eagles or RPI for that matter.

Great assessment, along with some others. Dino is a good man, whom I like and respect. If I didn't know him and hold him in high regard, the results would have pointed to a change being needed.

The only thing I know for sure is that a change is needed, and probably overdue. What that change is, I am not close enough to the situation to determine. I'm not sure if admissions is a problem, financial aid, etc.  I've long ago realized that being a national championship contender in football is probably an unrealistic expectation. But I don't think it's too much to ask to go 7-3 or 6-4 and be in the hunt for the LL title. The hockey team is the obvious example (and somewhat apples to oranges), but the lacrosse team has had a lot of success recently, and I think that level (making the NCAA's several times and winning some playoff games over the past few years) is a fair expectation for the football team.

The issue is the demographics of Hockey and Lacrosse vs demographics of football players is different. Its easier to get hockey and lax players to go to Union than football players. Don't under estimate how much more difficult it has gotten to win at a school whose tuition has skyrocketed compared to a decade ago when Union was winning.

[lewdogg11]

I think what's keeping Union fans on Audino's side is his longstanding service and dedication to the school. He's a great guy and, at least in the case of this season, is that the losses were all very close (TD or less) and to good teams (combined 16-3 mark). That said if they go 3-4 in the LL (or worse), like last season, there's not much to support the "tougher schedule" argument. The playoff absence is since 2005 is looking like it'll extend to 10 years which is pretty hard to believe.

It would only help the league is Union returned to form, but it doesn't seem like that's happening in 2014. Unless HOB is toppled, either SC, SLU or RPI are fighting for 8-2 and maybe 2-3 of them get an ECAC game.

It would really be big if the Dutchmen can take out WNEC to break the OOC loss streak. Still, this season looks like 5-5 best case, and I am not convinced they will beat the Golden Eagles or RPI for that matter.

Great assessment, along with some others. Dino is a good man, whom I like and respect. If I didn't know him and hold him in high regard, the results would have pointed to a change being needed.

The only thing I know for sure is that a change is needed, and probably overdue. What that change is, I am not close enough to the situation to determine. I'm not sure if admissions is a problem, financial aid, etc.  I've long ago realized that being a national championship contender in football is probably an unrealistic expectation. But I don't think it's too much to ask to go 7-3 or 6-4 and be in the hunt for the LL title. The hockey team is the obvious example (and somewhat apples to oranges), but the lacrosse team has had a lot of success recently, and I think that level (making the NCAA's several times and winning some playoff games over the past few years) is a fair expectation for the football team.

The issue is the demographics of Hockey and Lacrosse vs demographics of football players is different. Its easier to get hockey and lax players to go to Union than football players. Don't under estimate how much more difficult it has gotten to win at a school whose tuition has skyrocketed compared to a decade ago when Union was winning.

If you guys are saying that Union doesn't have a ton of talent you are completely crazy.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I've always believed their are two reasons to fire a D-III coach

1. If they're not handling their business outside of wins and losses. While this is true at all levels, I think D-III coaches should have a shorter leash for that stuff—If a D-III coach looked as clueless and out of touch with player safety as Brady Hoke did with Shane Morris—I'd be all for their ouster. But this could also include player academics, conflicts within the athletic department, etc.

2. If the program has regressed to the point where you feel you're not competitive. To me, at a school like Union, even with their rich history, not making the playoffs for 10 years isn't enough. Heck, even some of the OOC struggles, I'm okay with when you're going 11-2 in your conference. I'm probably in the minority, possibly because I never played sports in college, and I'm attached to IC as an academic, but I think if a D-III coach has got their house in order, for me, it's going to take a bad on the field product to get me to make a change. Not a mediocre or disappointing or frustrating one.

For every sports fan that would anger, I bet you'd earn the approval of a larger faction of the campus by saying "Coach X is a good man, his impact extends beyond the sport, and that's what we're about here at School Y"

So the question for me is, has the Union football program fallen far enough on-the-field to warrant it? I could see people leaning that way. If they go 3-7 this year, that would be three seasons of 3 or fewer wins in the past five. That's right around the borderline where I would start to make some noise. I'd still give him another year, but the leash would be short

I'm 100% in agreement with this. 

[ExTartanPlayer]

I see all sides and don't envy Union and their alumni. It is a very difficult time to measure all of that. Mostly comes down to what you want in a program. Wins/Losses vs. academics vs. off field problems etc.

I bolded this because a couple of weeks ago it really hit me: I was at the IC-Hartwick game, and sitting next to some students. The only time I heard a thing about the game from them was the following:

"What are we doing tonight? We're winning, so that means the football guys are going to want to party"

As big fans, it's easy to forget that there are a lot of people at almost every D-III school who just do not care if your football team goes 4-6 or 8-2, never mind what you're doing in relation to what you were 10, 20, 30 years ago. And even the ones who will notice may not care enough to create the kind of pressure you sometimes need to fire a longtime university employee.

And the bolded section here, too.  Certainly there are exceptions, but at my alma mater maybe 20 percent of the undergraduate student body went to any particular game and most of them didn't really care whether we won or lost.  The faculty were even less represented; to my knowledge, hardly any of my professors ever attended a game.

[AUPepBand]

I see all sides and don't envy Union and their alumni. It is a very difficult time to measure all of that. Mostly comes down to what you want in a program. Wins/Losses vs. academics vs. off field problems etc.

I bolded this because a couple of weeks ago it really hit me: I was at the IC-Hartwick game, and sitting next to some students. The only time I heard a thing about the game from them was the following:

"What are we doing tonight? We're winning, so that means the football guys are going to want to party"

As big fans, it's easy to forget that there are a lot of people at almost every D-III school who just do not care if your football team goes 4-6 or 8-2, never mind what you're doing in relation to what you were 10, 20, 30 years ago. And even the ones who will notice may not care enough to create the kind of pressure you sometimes need to fire a longtime university employee.

Pep is well aware that he is likely one of only a handful of Saxon fans at Yunevich Stadium who watches games from the historic perspective of the Saxons under Alex the Great much like Ithaca was under Jim Butterfield. There are a few of us who will bring up the "Miracle at Merrill" that happened fifty years ago like it was yesterday and students around us will get a puzzled look on their faces and say, "Huh?"

'Tis true that the majority of students are thinking about their plans for Saturday night, which are most assuredly dependent on the day's outcome. Some aren't even watching the game. It's a social event, a time out with friends, or perhaps a chance to see a friend perform a dance routine at halftime. Die-hard fans are wondering how the results will affect their team's ranking, a playoff bid, the recruiting wars with the rivals or trends in their longstanding series, or, god forbid, what other posters will be saying on the forum!

Pep loves the game of football because it is one sport that remarkably parallels life itself with all of its ups and downs, gains and losses, victories and defeats. Wabash always fights. DePauw never quits. ...On Saxon Warriors, o'er every adversity, fight, fight for Alfred!  Facing adversity on the field is helpful to build the perseverance to never quit, to keep fighting when, likewise in life, one is dealt a bum hand.

Perspective. Sometimes Pep must be reminded that it's a game. It's no fun to lose, true. But now that college football has an overtime scheme that works, 50% of the teams that play every Saterday are going to lose.

Fifty years ago, Alex Yunevich's boys hit rock bottom. The Saxons won their first two games in 1963 but injuries took their toll on that small squad. After a a 33-20 loss to Union College, AU failed to score a point in its final five games that season... SLU 14, AU 0; Hobart 3, AU 0; Upsala 6, AU 0; Susquehanna 68, AU 0; and CW Post 27, AU 0. The Saxons picked up where they left off in 1964, playing their sixth straight game without scoring a point in a 15-0 loss at Cortland State. As the 1964 season progressed, the Saxon sophomores (freshmen were not permitted to play on varsity then) improved as AU beat Brockport State, tied Union, beat St. Lawrence and Hobart before dropping a game at Rochester in the final seconds. Then Susquehanna, ranked among the nation's finest small college teams, riding a 14-game winning streak (Coach Jim Garrett, father of Cowboy Coach Jason Garrett, was 38-2-1 over a five-year stretch including a win over Temple), came to Merrill Field Saturday, Oct. 31, 1964. The Crusaders met their match in a feisty Saxon squad that, after looking suspect early as SU took an 8-0 early lead, gained confidence as the game went on, entered the old field house trailing 8-6 at the break. In the only game Pep has witnessed at Merrill Field where every student and fan had their eyes glued to the field, the students at halftime formed a funnel at the fieldhouse door and cheered the Saxons as they came out for the second half. The crowd of about 3,500 roared its approval with every Saxon advance and AU prevailed, 18-16. As the clock ran out, Alex and Assistant Coach Hal Hackett ran out onto the field to celebrate with his Saxons, joined by about 3,000 students. Everyone was simply ecstatic. It was as if they had won the world championship.

Coach Alex Yunevich's boys, many of whom were part of Alfred's humiliating 68-0 loss at Susquehanna only a year earlier, were part of arguably Alfred University's finest moment in intercollegiate athletics, as the boys redeemed the good name of Coach Alex Yunevich and the Alfred Saxons. From that point, Alfred finished 4-4-1 in 1964, 5-4 in 1965, then went 6-1-1 in 1966 and 6-1 in 1967. SU, meanwhile, finished 7-2 in 1964, then started 0-7 in 1965 at which point Coach Garrett was forced to resign or face an arrest for assault (by the uncle of a player he allegedly struck during a game) and his staff went with him, leaving the University president to coach the last two games of the 1965 season (0-9-0). The tide can turn, although it hasn't reached Alliance, OH just yet.

On Saxon Warriors!

[jackson5]

I think what's keeping Union fans on Audino's side is his longstanding service and dedication to the school. He's a great guy and, at least in the case of this season, is that the losses were all very close (TD or less) and to good teams (combined 16-3 mark). That said if they go 3-4 in the LL (or worse), like last season, there's not much to support the "tougher schedule" argument. The playoff absence is since 2005 is looking like it'll extend to 10 years which is pretty hard to believe.

It would only help the league is Union returned to form, but it doesn't seem like that's happening in 2014. Unless HOB is toppled, either SC, SLU or RPI are fighting for 8-2 and maybe 2-3 of them get an ECAC game.

It would really be big if the Dutchmen can take out WNEC to break the OOC loss streak. Still, this season looks like 5-5 best case, and I am not convinced they will beat the Golden Eagles or RPI for that matter.

Great assessment, along with some others. Dino is a good man, whom I like and respect. If I didn't know him and hold him in high regard, the results would have pointed to a change being needed.

The only thing I know for sure is that a change is needed, and probably overdue. What that change is, I am not close enough to the situation to determine. I'm not sure if admissions is a problem, financial aid, etc.  I've long ago realized that being a national championship contender in football is probably an unrealistic expectation. But I don't think it's too much to ask to go 7-3 or 6-4 and be in the hunt for the LL title. The hockey team is the obvious example (and somewhat apples to oranges), but the lacrosse team has had a lot of success recently, and I think that level (making the NCAA's several times and winning some playoff games over the past few years) is a fair expectation for the football team.

The issue is the demographics of Hockey and Lacrosse vs demographics of football players is different. Its easier to get hockey and lax players to go to Union than football players. Don't under estimate how much more difficult it has gotten to win at a school whose tuition has skyrocketed compared to a decade ago when Union was winning.

If you guys are saying that Union doesn't have a ton of talent you are completely crazy.

I haven't seen them in person yet this year, but I don't see them as a team with overwhelming talent that Audino is getting in the way of. The truth is that small private schools like Union are having issues attracting students. Not just football players but students as a whole. Cost of education has gone up and its made state schools and schools with lower tuition more attractive to students. Yeah you get schools like Hobart and St John Fisher who are exception to the rule. But the truth is that Union's talent pool is smaller now than it was 10 years ago. Talk to any basketball or football coach at the private schools and ask them how much harder its gotten to recruit compared to how it was in the 90's and 00's. Maybe another coach will do better than Audino. But to simply say Union had success 10 years ago, therefore they should be able to have success now is off-base.

[jackson5]

I see all sides and don't envy Union and their alumni. It is a very difficult time to measure all of that. Mostly comes down to what you want in a program. Wins/Losses vs. academics vs. off field problems etc.

I bolded this because a couple of weeks ago it really hit me: I was at the IC-Hartwick game, and sitting next to some students. The only time I heard a thing about the game from them was the following:

"What are we doing tonight? We're winning, so that means the football guys are going to want to party"

As big fans, it's easy to forget that there are a lot of people at almost every D-III school who just do not care if your football team goes 4-6 or 8-2, never mind what you're doing in relation to what you were 10, 20, 30 years ago. And even the ones who will notice may not care enough to create the kind of pressure you sometimes need to fire a longtime university employee.

And the bolded section here, too.  Certainly there are exceptions, but at my alma mater maybe 20 percent of the undergraduate student body went to any particular game and most of them didn't really care whether we won or lost.  The faculty were even less represented; to my knowledge, hardly any of my professors ever attended a game.

I thought this was common knowledge. Surprised how many of you guys have to point it out. That's why as long as your players aren't getting arrested and you are winning multiple games a year it's tough to get fired as a D-3 coach. Truth is most of these schools are just looking for someone who they can pay 30-70K and bring in 150 students who happen to play football. I wish it was different, maybe not as drastic as USC or Alabama coaching where if you lose one game you're on the hot seat, but still coaches would be held accountable for poor performance. It's why I think this talk of firing Audino is out of line. He had Union tied for best record in the Liberty League just a couple years ago, that's more than enough to keep his job.

[lewdogg11]

Looks like there is a lot of complacency over at Union.  Guess we'll have to hope St. Lawrence, Springfield, and Rochester improve and strive for better.

[lewdogg11]

It actually sounds like the whole new age 'everyone bats, no one strikes out, all games end in a tie' mentality may have been invented at Union College. Well done.

<somewhere in the depths of Charlestown, Union89 just threw something at the wall>

[Doid23]

I think what's keeping Union fans on Audino's side is his longstanding service and dedication to the school. He's a great guy and, at least in the case of this season, is that the losses were all very close (TD or less) and to good teams (combined 16-3 mark). That said if they go 3-4 in the LL (or worse), like last season, there's not much to support the "tougher schedule" argument. The playoff absence is since 2005 is looking like it'll extend to 10 years which is pretty hard to believe.

It would only help the league is Union returned to form, but it doesn't seem like that's happening in 2014. Unless HOB is toppled, either SC, SLU or RPI are fighting for 8-2 and maybe 2-3 of them get an ECAC game.

It would really be big if the Dutchmen can take out WNEC to break the OOC loss streak. Still, this season looks like 5-5 best case, and I am not convinced they will beat the Golden Eagles or RPI for that matter.

Great assessment, along with some others. Dino is a good man, whom I like and respect. If I didn't know him and hold him in high regard, the results would have pointed to a change being needed.

The only thing I know for sure is that a change is needed, and probably overdue. What that change is, I am not close enough to the situation to determine. I'm not sure if admissions is a problem, financial aid, etc.  I've long ago realized that being a national championship contender in football is probably an unrealistic expectation. But I don't think it's too much to ask to go 7-3 or 6-4 and be in the hunt for the LL title. The hockey team is the obvious example (and somewhat apples to oranges), but the lacrosse team has had a lot of success recently, and I think that level (making the NCAA's several times and winning some playoff games over the past few years) is a fair expectation for the football team.

The issue is the demographics of Hockey and Lacrosse vs demographics of football players is different. Its easier to get hockey and lax players to go to Union than football players. Don't under estimate how much more difficult it has gotten to win at a school whose tuition has skyrocketed compared to a decade ago when Union was winning.

If you guys are saying that Union doesn't have a ton of talent you are completely crazy.

I haven't seen them play in 4-5 years, so I wouldn't know. And as I stated, I don't know what going on with financial aid, admissions, etc.

But I don't buy the "hard to recruit", tuition, demographics, locusts, etc. Again, I'm not looking to compete with Mt Union, Whitewater, etc., so maybe I have lowered my expectations (but not my hopes) But Hobart, RPI, Ithaca, SJF, etc? Why not?