FB: Liberty League

[Frank Rossi]

Cragg coaches better from behind (i.e., with low expectations), so that's why I think 8-2 is feasible.  When his team was expected to perform and win certain games, it seemed like his coaching decisions were atypical for him.  However, the Alfred and Rowan games appeared to be coached in a more Cragg-like fashion.  I feel bad because, technically, going for two backfired on Cragg, even though Hobart converted...it put the onus on Rowan, a team that might well have played more conservative for a chance at overtime.  I think the lesson from Cragg's decision is to go for two in that situation only with < 1 minute left and with the opponent having less than two timeouts.

However, for next year, I doubt that 8-2 will get him into the NCAAs, unless it's 8-2 Liberty League Champs.  The Liberty League team at 8-2 will almost never go ahead of the OAC team at 7-2/8-2.  I think RPI and one of the non-league opponents beat Hobart, to be honest -- and I'm not sure about the Union game yet.  I liked some of their new prospects, but it will depend on whether the team can put it together by Week 9.

I don't think this is true. I think this is evidenced by the USMMA game. This year was a bit strange. I think there were some things that just did not work out, in terms of consistant performance week to week, as evidenced by the Union game, compared to some of the others. Coming from behind and winning is a good skill to have, but that was not what he had in mind.

You took me literally when I meant "from behind" to mean as an underdog or pick'em.

[superman57]

you missed one of my posts then...I said that Miami has some great programs...but overall they are not a top tier school... Fisher has some great programs...some of them are better than RPI or Ithaca or Union but on a whole Fisher is not even in the same academics ball park

[radiomike]

 However, the Alfred and Rowan games appeared to be coached in a more Cragg-like fashion.  I feel bad because, technically, going for two backfired on Cragg, even though Hobart converted...it put the onus on Rowan, a team that might well have played more conservative for a chance at overtime.  I think the lesson from Cragg's decision is to go for two in that situation only with < 1 minute left and with the opponent having less than two timeouts.

Going for 2 was the right decision. I think there were three problems that occurred. The first, is that Hobart did not contain the over the middle passes that well at the end, nor bottle up Edwards too well. By going for 2, it put more pressure on Rowan, to have to score, rather than having the option to score to win, but if they don't , they get another chance in OT. It was a huge call, and the right call. It would have been better had there been less time on the clock.
The second was missed opportunities. Two missed field goals, one five yards longer due to a penalty (hit the upright), and a touchdown that was disallowed (and rightly so) due to the receiver stepping out of bounds and back in on the pattern before he caught the ball.
The third problem, was the fumble ruled down at the end of the game. It seemed from our vantage point, which was almost directly in front of us,  that the ball popped out before the player was down and before the whistle blew. If the ball was ruled a fumble, game over, Hobart holds on for the win. I am not going to harp on this one play, but overall, it was in the Statesmen's reach to put the game away.

[PBR...]

my point was there are many div I schools that are very strong academically and believe it or not academics do play a part usually a big part in div I recruits on where they choose to attend. they are smart enough to realize that the chances of them going onto the next level are less than 1%....dont really know anything about fisher academically

['gro]

PBR is right...

119 DI schools x 125 on a roster = 14,875
32 NFL team x 60 (ish) on a roster = 1920

a lot of kids go DI because it's FREE. They might have a shot at the pro's but most know it's not a given.

[radiomike]

You took me literally when I meant "from behind" to mean as an underdog or pick'em.

Naw, I knew what you were getting at. I know that it does give him some incentive (as it would most coaches and teams) when they are picked not to win or in the case of last week, so many picked Hobart to lose as badly or worse than Union did to Fisher.
Coach Cragg plays to win. Always has. Look at last year's fake punt on 4th and long from deep in their own end of the field against Cortland. One of the gutsiest plays I have ever seen called.

[radiomike]

Just to deviate the topic, with Susquehanna coming into the league, and finishing 2-8 (2-7 MAC), will they be at the bottom next year, or will they give some competition? They look to have some pretty significant losses as well coming into their first LL season.

[lewdogg11]

LD, gro used to whup your arse in NFL blitz and Goldeneye... what what?

you can take your response to the LL board.

Dude, you beat me like once...ever...in either of those...And I punched you when I lost...

LD11 is embarking on a 15 hour drive through this horrid weather.  I am off.  Happy Thanksgiving to all...

Gro - If you're serious about the Pats in Miami, gimme a buzz tonight...

['gro]

SusQ will know the full meaning of the term monkey stomp by the end of next season.


LD, you are a trooper. Safe travels.

[Frank Rossi]

 However, the Alfred and Rowan games appeared to be coached in a more Cragg-like fashion.  I feel bad because, technically, going for two backfired on Cragg, even though Hobart converted...it put the onus on Rowan, a team that might well have played more conservative for a chance at overtime.  I think the lesson from Cragg's decision is to go for two in that situation only with < 1 minute left and with the opponent having less than two timeouts.

Going for 2 was the right decision. I think there were three problems that occurred. The first, is that Hobart did not contain the over the middle passes that well at the end, nor bottle up Edwards too well. By going for 2, it put more pressure on Rowan, to have to score, rather than having the option to score to win, but if they don't , they get another chance in OT. It was a huge call, and the right call. It would have been better had there been less time on the clock.
The second was missed opportunities. Two missed field goals, one five yards longer due to a penalty (hit the upright), and a touchdown that was disallowed (and rightly so) due to the receiver stepping out of bounds and back in on the pattern before he caught the ball.
The third problem, was the fumble ruled down at the end of the game. It seemed from our vantage point, which was almost directly in front of us,  that the ball popped out before the player was down and before the whistle blew. If the ball was ruled a fumble, game over, Hobart holds on for the win. I am not going to harp on this one play, but overall, it was in the Statesmen's reach to put the game away.

The two-point conversion statement was an aside -- I am isolating it to discuss the Cragg conservatism/liberalness this season and to state that his liberalism sometimes can be a boon and a bust.  Going for 2 with 2 minutes left, I think, isn't the right call, no matter how many field goals you missed.  Rowan now KNOWS it must go for it on 4th down no matter where the ball is located.  In a tie game, Rowan punts and Hobart has a chance to win in OT much like Rowan.  Going for 2 in that situation is somewhat counterintuitive (it says, "we need to steal this game right here right now 'cause we won't get another chance.").  WPI knew it was an underdog and wanted to win it away from a Union team with a tad bit of momentum at the end of the game.  It was Hobart that had the momentum at that point.  My point is this:  go for two only at the VERY end of the game if you think you need to get out of dodge.  There are ramifications to going for 2 too early, whether you make it or not -- and Cragg's use of it proves that to me even more.

[Frank Rossi]

You took me literally when I meant "from behind" to mean as an underdog or pick'em.

Naw, I knew what you were getting at. I know that it does give him some incentive (as it would most coaches and teams) when they are picked not to win or in the case of last week, so many picked Hobart to lose as badly or worse than Union did to Fisher.
Coach Cragg plays to win. Always has. Look at last year's fake punt on 4th and long from deep in their own end of the field against Cortland. One of the gutsiest plays I have ever seen called.

When he did that to Union, whether anyone wants to believe it or not, that was a punt fake option for the punter, with an intentional safety as the out.  I'd bet a lot on that.  Gutsy only to a degree, methinks.

[radiomike]

SusQ will know the full meaning of the term monkey stomp by the end of next season.
LD, you are a trooper. Safe travels.

Perhaps we can get the League to incorporate something like this to ward off all would be teams thinking they won't get stomped:

[radiomike]

When he did that to Union, whether anyone wants to believe it or not, that was a punt fake option for the punter, with an intentional safety as the out.  I'd bet a lot on that.  Gutsy only to a degree, methinks.

I only see that "safety" option used one time, and it was at or within a few yards of the goal line. It was intentional from the start. In the situations in the recent years of the punt fake, a safety was not an option.

[radiomike]

[The two-point conversion statement was an aside -- I am isolating it to discuss the Cragg conservatism/liberalness this season and to state that his liberalism sometimes can be a boon and a bust.  Going for 2 with 2 minutes left, I think, isn't the right call, no matter how many field goals you missed.  Rowan now KNOWS it must go for it on 4th down no matter where the ball is located.  In a tie game, Rowan punts and Hobart has a chance to win in OT much like Rowan.  Going for 2 in that situation is somewhat counterintuitive (it says, "we need to steal this game right here right now 'cause we won't get another chance.").  WPI knew it was an underdog and wanted to win it away from a Union team with a tad bit of momentum at the end of the game.  It was Hobart that had the momentum at that point.  My point is this:  go for two only at the VERY end of the game if you think you need to get out of dodge.  There are ramifications to going for 2 too early, whether you make it or not -- and Cragg's use of it proves that to me even more.

I have a feeling it was the kicking game that was in question. However, I think the use of the two, to take the lead, puts all the pressure on the other team, and gives the defense a chance to hold for the win, rather than hold for another chance. It puts the game into your hands, rather than hoping for another chance in OT or in the case of a score, as happened in this game, one or two plays to win on a long shot.

[Pat Coleman]

For those of you wondering if Hobart will have 10 games, next year's schedule has 10!

About time.