FB: Liberty League

[lewdogg11]

Yea, bring your show shovel.  Its the only chance you have....

I don't have a show shovel...jerk.

[redswarm81]

check out the pic on the front page

For the past couple of days, U89 has been pissed off at this picture every time he enters D3football.com. 

It's like when you went to the Dr. as a kid and would open up that 'Spotlight' magazine . . . .

You mean Highlights?

[Jonny Utah]

Jonny -

Let me put this as nicely as I can...

IT AIN'T HAPPENING, ASSUMING SoS AND RANKINGS DON'T CHANGE...DROP IT.

You're basically saying the NCAA Committee is going to sit there and say, "Well, just because it's primary doesn't mean it really matters."  Your team bests Montclair in only one category.  Unless the Ithaca Bomber himself is sitting in that Committee, they'll be looking at several criteria, not just that one.  If this were head-to-head results, I'd say you have a better leg to stand on, as we all agree that head-to-head results are probably the best comparison of teams.  However, we don't here -- and you're being pig-headed about a scenario that won't happen.  If you want this to happen so bad, then start rooting against Wesley, Montclair, Hobart, SJF and Alfred and start rooting for Hartwick and Cortland.

So Ithaca knocks off the second place NJAC team, after beating the second place E8 team, and the third place NJAC team (now in second thanks to Ithaca) would make the playoffs because Montclair beat a team in week 3 that no one else in the east even played?  Thats while Cortland lost to Brockport?

And you telling me that head to head is an equal category to SOS???

Your new name is Frank "the speculator" Rossi.  So you drop it and get your orange marker and excuse for this years Hobart loss......


_{Frank pratices for this years Union/Hobart game}

while.........


_{RPI gets their field ready for the first round of the playoffs....}

[lewdogg11]

Jonny -

Let me put this as nicely as I can...

IT AIN'T HAPPENING, ASSUMING SoS AND RANKINGS DON'T CHANGE...DROP IT.

You're basically saying the NCAA Committee is going to sit there and say, "Well, just because it's primary doesn't mean it really matters."  Your team bests Montclair in only one category.  Unless the Ithaca Bomber himself is sitting in that Committee, they'll be looking at several criteria, not just that one.  If this were head-to-head results, I'd say you have a better leg to stand on, as we all agree that head-to-head results are probably the best comparison of teams.  However, we don't here -- and you're being pig-headed about a scenario that won't happen.  If you want this to happen so bad, then start rooting against Wesley, Montclair, Hobart, SJF and Alfred and start rooting for Hartwick and Cortland.

So Ithaca knocks off the second place NJAC team, after beating the second place E8 team, and the third place NJAC team (now in second thanks to Ithaca) would make the playoffs because Montclair beat a team in week 3 that no one else in the east even played?  Thats while Cortland lost to Brockport?

And you telling me that head to head is an equal category to SOS???

Your new name is Frank "the speculator" Rossi.  So you drop it and get your orange marker and excuse for this years Hobart loss......


_{Frank pratices for this years Union/Hobart game}

while.........


_{RPI gets their field ready for the first round of the playoffs....}

JU, get your 'show shovel' ready.

[lewdogg11]

Jonny Utah and the Ithaca faithful play in the endzone during the ECAC game vs. Plymouth St.

[redswarm81]

'Hey there boys.  It's me Danny Gans.  I don't know if you heard, but the votes just came in, and I was voted 'Entertainer of the Year' again in Las Vegas.  Too bad LD11 and his buddies left here.  I was having a good time heckling those losers.  Who goes to Hooters in Vegas at 8am?  Seriously, what a bunch of losers.  Anyway, just so you know, next time you're out in Vegas, with a ticket to my show, you get a free appointment to 'The Clinic'(If you know what I mean)...I heard some of you have been out with some doozies lately.  Yeah I mean you, Union89.  Gro', you really need to start re-evaluating your life...loser.  Hey Regulator, why don't you go buy another boat money bags.  RT, grow up.  get off myspace...nerd.'

........Welcome to my world....Everywhere we went in Vegas, Danny Gans was staring at us, laughing, and calling us losers.  I HATE DANNY GANS!!!

Hey--you're calling out losers, and not even a thump on the back of the head for me?

I mean, where's the hate, bro?

[lewdogg11]

'Hey there boys.  It's me Danny Gans.  I don't know if you heard, but the votes just came in, and I was voted 'Entertainer of the Year' again in Las Vegas.  Too bad LD11 and his buddies left here.  I was having a good time heckling those losers.  Who goes to Hooters in Vegas at 8am?  Seriously, what a bunch of losers.  Anyway, just so you know, next time you're out in Vegas, with a ticket to my show, you get a free appointment to 'The Clinic'(If you know what I mean)...I heard some of you have been out with some doozies lately.  Yeah I mean you, Union89.  Gro', you really need to start re-evaluating your life...loser.  Hey Regulator, why don't you go buy another boat money bags.  RT, grow up.  get off myspace...nerd.'

........Welcome to my world....Everywhere we went in Vegas, Danny Gans was staring at us, laughing, and calling us losers.  I HATE DANNY GANS!!!

Hey--you're calling out losers, and not even a thump on the back of the head for me?

I mean, where's the hate, bro?

Danny Gans said you were at the show.

[redswarm81]

dude, dont talk about peoples mothers.  too far. 

Oh, but it's okay for illiterate clods like Supe to suggest that someone can only get a tranny "prositute?"

I never insulted SuperHeinz57, but he can't make the same claim.

He threw out a tasteless insult of me, in a discussion where I wasn't even involved.  I responded.  I'm not proud, but at least my response neither unprovoked nor irrelevant.

[Jonny Utah]

_{RPI's 2008 opener during preseason pratice...}

[redswarm81]

Yea, bring your show shovel.  Its the only chance you have....

I don't have a show shovel...jerk.

Show shovel.  I'm laughing my a** off.

Despite all your misguided rantifications, I love you, men.

[Jonny Utah]

I couldnt think of any context to put this picture under.........so Im just going to throw it out there....

[redswarm81]

Dont you see the ambiguity with the wording regarding the criteria here? 

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed


I mean that says nothing like " If team A has more of the following factors than team B, then team A will get in"

Am I right here?

It's worded in a way that gives the Committee some leeway to be subjective, if need be.  However, each of the criteria are called "PRIMARY" criteria for a reason -- they are to be reviewed together.  If you have one team leading in two criteria, the other team leading in one, and ties or no data in the remaining two, then I don't think the subjectivity would allow the Committee to go to the next step.  Subjectivity is more in the comparisons of results against regional ranked teams, since there's no calculus for that -- but here, there's a clear lead by Montclair through its win against Wesley.  If there's only a slight bias in one direction or the other in some of the criteria, then that/those criteria/criterion can be downplayed by the Committee, if they so choose.

I'm in near total agreement with the Tank, but I haven't heard anyone address Jonny U's concern the way I would express it:  The Manual uses the word "priority."  My concern is that since the word "priority" is used, AND there is no indication of the relative weight of each of the primary criteria, that the Committee could choose to assign priority to one or more of the primary criteria, and use that priority to conclude that say, one team's advantage in SoS is more valuable by virtue of higher priority than another team's advantage in both common opponents and wins v. regional competition.

Fortunately, I think that each of the primary criteria is sufficiently weighty that such overt manipulation is unlikely, which is why I'm with the Counselor on the ultimate application of the criteria.

But I'm still squeamish about that use of the word "priority."

[Jonny Utah]

Dont you see the ambiguity with the wording regarding the criteria here? 

The following primary criteria (not in priority order) will be reviewed


I mean that says nothing like " If team A has more of the following factors than team B, then team A will get in"

Am I right here?

It's worded in a way that gives the Committee some leeway to be subjective, if need be.  However, each of the criteria are called "PRIMARY" criteria for a reason -- they are to be reviewed together.  If you have one team leading in two criteria, the other team leading in one, and ties or no data in the remaining two, then I don't think the subjectivity would allow the Committee to go to the next step.  Subjectivity is more in the comparisons of results against regional ranked teams, since there's no calculus for that -- but here, there's a clear lead by Montclair through its win against Wesley.  If there's only a slight bias in one direction or the other in some of the criteria, then that/those criteria/criterion can be downplayed by the Committee, if they so choose.

I'm in near total agreement with the Tank, but I haven't heard anyone address Jonny U's concern the way I would express it:  The Manual uses the word "priority."  My concern is that since the word "priority" is used, AND there is no indication of the relative weight of each of the primary criteria, that the Committee could choose to assign priority to one or more of the primary criteria, and use that priority to conclude that say, one team's advantage in SoS is more valuable by virtue of higher priority than another team's advantage in both common opponents and wins v. regional competition.

Fortunately, I think that each of the primary criteria is sufficiently weighty that such overt manipulation is unlikely, which is why I'm with the Counselor on the ultimate application of the criteria.

But I'm still squeamish about that use of the word "priority."

And how do you feel that "head to head" is simply a category like "SOS"?

[lewdogg11]

I couldnt think of any context to put this picture under.........so Im just going to throw it out there....

Danny Gans said he could make me dissapear during his show...Entertainer of the year my ass

[redswarm81]

I'm in near total agreement with the Tank, but I haven't heard anyone address Jonny U's concern the way I would express it:  The Manual uses the word "priority."  My concern is that since the word "priority" is used, AND there is no indication of the relative weight of each of the primary criteria, that the Committee could choose to assign priority to one or more of the primary criteria, and use that priority to conclude that say, one team's advantage in SoS is more valuable by virtue of higher priority than another team's advantage in both common opponents and wins v. regional competition.

Fortunately, I think that each of the primary criteria is sufficiently weighty that such overt manipulation is unlikely, which is why I'm with the Counselor on the ultimate application of the criteria.

But I'm still squeamish about that use of the word "priority."

And how do you feel that "head to head" is simply a category like "SOS"?

Who is "you?"  What do you mean by "category?"  Do you mean primary criterion?