FB: Liberty League

[Knightstalker]

KS is one F-ing pissed off person this week.  KS gets a phone call late Monday afternoon from his banks fraud protection contractors.  It seems that somehow some lowlife $hit eating scumbag got a copy of KS debit card and proceeded to wipeout KS checking account over the weekend.  MKS has had to put a stop payment on several checks (why there are still doctors that won't take plastic KS can't figure out), KS has had to fill out claims reports, police reports and still has a negative balance in his account.  Bank says it will 7 to 10 days before KS gets a new debit card, up to a month or more for all the monies to be refunded. 

KS figures most likely some database got hacked.  KS has always been careful how he uses his debit card, never uses stand alone ATM's like in 7-11 and place such as that.  Never throws out receipts.

Anyone in LLPP ever deal with this, any hints for getting the wheels rolling faster to get KS money back?

Your bank should make you whole faster than that.  Did they say why it would tak so long?

KS just looked fraud protection up, the bank should refund within 10 business days.  Most likely talking to people at the bank that don't know ish.

JT hasn't experienced the ATM problem KS has, but 10 days sounds more like it.  Some do it with 24 hours.  Talk to a supervisor.

They won't do anything until the claim form and police report are filed, then they will refund at least part.  MKS is taking both to bank today.  Two of the charges were at gas stations, KS doesn't have much hope from them, but the other two were a liquor store and a Rite Aid, KS figures at least the Rite-Aid has security cameras and should have the scumbag/s on video, hopefully the liquor store also.

[Jonny Utah]

Port had a rough start this year but seem to be climbing back to respectability with 3 straight wins.  They'll likely make themselves eligible for the ECAC's this year.

Port vs SJF in the ECAC's anyone???

Two teams separated by 30 miles could equal big time numbers at the gate...

ECAC bowls are like minor league playoffs - nobody knows about them, everyone has previous plans, and the seats are half full.

I agree. I posted this on the E8 board, but I've always hated them. They're often played during Thanksgiving break, so a lot of kids aren't there. Half the time, you've got a disinterested team who's so dissappointed by the regular season, they phone it in.The other half of the time, one team is so angry and being left out of the NCAA's they obliterate their opponent. I've yet to see IC play a moderately entertaining ECAC game. 1998 and 2004 they were angry and destroyed people and in 1999 they had no desire to play and lost. Cortland also famously phoned one in one season after missing out following a 9-1 season.

So let me see if I read that right....

When Ithaca wins an ECAC game, they are pissed off, and when they lose an ECAC game, they have no desire to play and mail it in...Is that about right?

That's the way U89 read it as well......and chuckled.

I think being "dissappointed by the regular season" and being "so angry and being left out of the NCAA's" are kind of the same thing aren't they?

I think the difference between those years is that Union might have had a good team in 1999, while in 1996, 1998, and 2004, Worcester St., Hartwick and Umass Dartmouth had bad teams. (edit: ok, not bad, but not as good as Ithaca)

I did hear that the team packed it in vs. Union in 1999 though.  Thats not acceptable to me either way.

I spoke about my experience vs. Worcester St.  I think if it were a regular season game that meant something (and if we had our starting QB), we would have smoked them.

[Frank Rossi]

So FR did some non-legal research today and has a question for U89, since something was bothering him after the ECAC discussion last night:

U89, what season was your story regarding ECAC internal controversy from?  I'm guessing that your last year of playing was 1989, but maybe I'm mistaken?

1986:  NCAA Appearance
1987:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1988:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1989:  NCAA Appearance (Stagg Bowl Year)

You said late 1980s, right?

I'm still trying to figure out this one, let alone Ithaca's supposed "mailing it in" policy in the ECACs.

[Frank Rossi]

Folks, as of yesterday, here is a list of Northeast/Northwest schools that have filed for ECAC consideration.  If you do not see your school on this list, a subtle reminder to the SIDs/ADs/Football Coaches of the respective schools might be in order since the deadline for submission is the close of business on Thursday, November 6 (8 days from today):

St. John Fisher -- Empire 8 -- Northeast
Plymouth State University -- NEFC -- Northeast

Note:  SJF should have filed as a "Northwest" team.  I'm not going to touch that one any more than that

[union89]

As a Union fan I don't really want that game.....I could easily see Union coming out flat and uninterested while Curry would be pumped up for a second big regional win in as many years.

Dude, if that's the case, I would love to see them get another win....I just look at it as a letdown situation.

Dude, stop being such a clown.....where have I been negative here?  This is just you saying I'm negative and trying to stur up crap.  I try to give you the benefit of the doubt and let bygones be bygones, but you can't help yourself to start stuff up again.

Do you actually READ what you write??  I mean seriously?  The most frequent question I get asked at Union games these days is, "Who is that Union89 guy on the message boards?  What the hell is up his azz?"  

The quotes I pulled out are just from this thread.  There's a feature on here to read your own posts inside your profile -- take a day and re-read the last 1 1/2 months of your posts.  

And I don't view those as negative!!  An ECAC bid is a letdown for any team hoping for a bid to the NCAA tournament.  How often do sportswriters talk of letdowns when basketball teams go to the NIT's instead of the NCAA's??  Same thing....how that's negative is a figment of your twisted mind.

You know what I think of you and I know what you think of me....let's just agree to ignore each other.

And this was my final post to you a couple days ago....can't deal with your twisting of words and convenient interpretations.....

[redswarm81]

So FR did some non-legal research today and has a question for U89, since something was bothering him after the ECAC discussion last night:

U89, what season was your story regarding ECAC internal controversy from?  I'm guessing that your last year of playing was 1989, but maybe I'm mistaken?

1986:  NCAA Appearance
1987:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1988:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1989:  NCAA Appearance (Stagg Bowl Year)

You said late 1980s, right?

I'm still trying to figure out this one, let alone Ithaca's supposed "mailing it in" policy in the ECACs.

I'm still trying to figure out where there's a shred of evidence that any ECAC playoff/championship team "phones it in."  The closest that we have is U89's testimony about his tailback teammate.  I sure don't see any teams saying that they're not interested before they accept the invitation or before they play the game.

Every firsthand account has been consistent--players want to play.

The Pat Coleman "phone it in" theory might be correct, there's just no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to contradict it.  Maybe Dan Rather can get the documents to prove it.

[Frank Rossi]

As a Union fan I don't really want that game.....I could easily see Union coming out flat and uninterested while Curry would be pumped up for a second big regional win in as many years.

Dude, if that's the case, I would love to see them get another win....I just look at it as a letdown situation.

Dude, stop being such a clown.....where have I been negative here?  This is just you saying I'm negative and trying to stur up crap.  I try to give you the benefit of the doubt and let bygones be bygones, but you can't help yourself to start stuff up again.

Do you actually READ what you write??  I mean seriously?  The most frequent question I get asked at Union games these days is, "Who is that Union89 guy on the message boards?  What the hell is up his azz?"  

The quotes I pulled out are just from this thread.  There's a feature on here to read your own posts inside your profile -- take a day and re-read the last 1 1/2 months of your posts.  

And I don't view those as negative!!  An ECAC bid is a letdown for any team hoping for a bid to the NCAA tournament.  How often do sportswriters talk of letdowns when basketball teams go to the NIT's instead of the NCAA's??  Same thing....how that's negative is a figment of your twisted mind.

You know what I think of you and I know what you think of me....let's just agree to ignore each other.

And this was my final post to you a couple days ago....can't deal with your twisting of words and convenient interpretations.....

Agreements require mutuality -- I did not respond in kind.

Anyway, I'm asking you to verify something you stated yourself.  If you can't do that, I don't understand -- it seems odd that you'd not want to correct my mistake if I made one below?!

[Frank Rossi]

So FR did some non-legal research today and has a question for U89, since something was bothering him after the ECAC discussion last night:

U89, what season was your story regarding ECAC internal controversy from?  I'm guessing that your last year of playing was 1989, but maybe I'm mistaken?

1986:  NCAA Appearance
1987:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1988:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1989:  NCAA Appearance (Stagg Bowl Year)

You said late 1980s, right?

I'm still trying to figure out this one, let alone Ithaca's supposed "mailing it in" policy in the ECACs.

I'm still trying to figure out where there's a shred of evidence that any ECAC playoff/championship team "phones it in."  The closest that we have is U89's testimony about his tailback teammate.  I sure don't see any teams saying that they're not interested before they accept the invitation or before they play the game.

Every firsthand account has been consistent--players want to play.

The Pat Coleman "phone it in" theory might be correct, there's just no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to contradict it.  Maybe Dan Rather can get the documents to prove it.

Well, I'm trying to get to the bottom of that, too.  Like I said, I'd like to know what Union team(s) in the past had this philosophy to try to understand why it existed in the first place.  In 1996, Coast Guard was selected over Union -- and on that selection Sunday, there was that mentality of "This sucks" -- I remember seeing one player in tears at the College Center (basically how I figured out the news after a huge comeback against Carnegie Mellon the prior day).  Yet, as the week progressed, there was more of an angry intensity that was showing through for the team -- they wanted to tear apart the final team they'd play and did so.  So my only evidence is a short-lived knee-jerk reaction which explains why the filing date is ten days before the selection date (Monday, November 17). 

[union89]

So FR did some non-legal research today and has a question for U89, since something was bothering him after the ECAC discussion last night:

U89, what season was your story regarding ECAC internal controversy from?  I'm guessing that your last year of playing was 1989, but maybe I'm mistaken?

1986:  NCAA Appearance
1987:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1988:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1989:  NCAA Appearance (Stagg Bowl Year)

You said late 1980s, right?

I'm still trying to figure out this one, let alone Ithaca's supposed "mailing it in" policy in the ECACs.

I'm still trying to figure out where there's a shred of evidence that any ECAC playoff/championship team "phones it in."  The closest that we have is U89's testimony about his tailback teammate.  I sure don't see any teams saying that they're not interested before they accept the invitation or before they play the game.

Every firsthand account has been consistent--players want to play.

The Pat Coleman "phone it in" theory might be correct, there's just no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to contradict it.  Maybe Dan Rather can get the documents to prove it.

Hasn't Ithaca stated on a few occasions that they were not interested in playing in an ECAC game....I may be incorrect here, but I think they had a team vote on the matter.

JU, any info on this??

[Frank Rossi]

So FR did some non-legal research today and has a question for U89, since something was bothering him after the ECAC discussion last night:

U89, what season was your story regarding ECAC internal controversy from?  I'm guessing that your last year of playing was 1989, but maybe I'm mistaken?

1986:  NCAA Appearance
1987:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1988:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1989:  NCAA Appearance (Stagg Bowl Year)

You said late 1980s, right?

I'm still trying to figure out this one, let alone Ithaca's supposed "mailing it in" policy in the ECACs.

I'm still trying to figure out where there's a shred of evidence that any ECAC playoff/championship team "phones it in."  The closest that we have is U89's testimony about his tailback teammate.  I sure don't see any teams saying that they're not interested before they accept the invitation or before they play the game.

Every firsthand account has been consistent--players want to play.

The Pat Coleman "phone it in" theory might be correct, there's just no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to contradict it.  Maybe Dan Rather can get the documents to prove it.

Hasn't Ithaca stated on a few occasions that they were not interested in playing in an ECAC game....I may be incorrect here, but I think they had a team vote on the matter.

There were always rumors about this, but Ithaca has generally always filed from my memory.  Pulling out after filing requires some penalties -- so, I doubt they backed out after the fact.

[Pat Coleman]

Of course there is going to be evidence on both sides, because I am only arguing that it sometimes happens, not that it only happens.

[Senor RedTackle]

When RT was a junior at RPI in 1992, Rochester voted not to go to the ECACs. UR was gunning for an NCAA slot but were upset by Union and didn't make the dance. UR beat RPI that year and RPI had beaten Union. That paved the way for RPI to make its first-ever postseason appearance which turned out to be a thrilling come-from-behind win against Bridgewater St. (MA). At the time, the ECAC game was viewed by the RPI community as a major accomplishment because of the lack of any kind of post-season presence in the school's history. While an ECAC game these days in  Troy could be considered a "letdown" to some, it still gives the kids a chance to play another game. That's the purest perspective RT thinks that we need to take on this arguement. These guys aren't on scholarship to play yet put in a full year of work and preparation to play football. If someone has a chance to step on the field and compete one more time in a season, especially seniors, then the opportunity should be embraced because we only have so many snaps in our lifetime. Perhaps RT's stance as softened in his "old age"....hey, RT just likes to strap on the helmet and play football. Call him crazy.....

[Garnet]

So FR did some non-legal research today and has a question for U89, since something was bothering him after the ECAC discussion last night:

U89, what season was your story regarding ECAC internal controversy from?  I'm guessing that your last year of playing was 1989, but maybe I'm mistaken?

1986:  NCAA Appearance
1987:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1988:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1989:  NCAA Appearance (Stagg Bowl Year)

You said late 1980s, right?

I'm still trying to figure out this one, let alone Ithaca's supposed "mailing it in" policy in the ECACs.

I'm still trying to figure out where there's a shred of evidence that any ECAC playoff/championship team "phones it in."  The closest that we have is U89's testimony about his tailback teammate.  I sure don't see any teams saying that they're not interested before they accept the invitation or before they play the game.

Every firsthand account has been consistent--players want to play.

The Pat Coleman "phone it in" theory might be correct, there's just no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to contradict it.  Maybe Dan Rather can get the documents to prove it.

Well, I'm trying to get to the bottom of that, too.  Like I said, I'd like to know what Union team(s) in the past had this philosophy to try to understand why it existed in the first place.  In 1996, Coast Guard was selected over Union -- and on that selection Sunday, there was that mentality of "This sucks" -- I remember seeing one player in tears at the College Center (basically how I figured out the news after a huge comeback against Carnegie Mellon the prior day).  Yet, as the week progressed, there was more of an angry intensity that was showing through for the team -- they wanted to tear apart the final team they'd play and did so.  So my only evidence is a short-lived knee-jerk reaction which explains why the filing date is ten days before the selection date (Monday, November 17). 

At the risk of putting words inot U89's mouth, perhaps I can shed some light on this.

1983 reg. season 1 loss and a loss in the Stagg Bowl
1984 reg. season 1 loss and a loss in NCAA semi-final
1985 reg. season 0 losses and NCAA 1st round last second loss to Ithaca
1986 reg. season 0 losses and NCAA 1st round OT loss to Ithaca

1987 5-5 record

It is clear that there was a change of direction in  1987.  My recollection is as follows:

The team vote was held way before the deadline of ten days.  The team voted yes to participate but it was a very close vote.  I think many players were disgusted with their performance and did not feel worthy of post season action based on the previous four seasons.  

Union then lost 2 of the last 3 games to make it a moot point anyway. NO invite to anything for  500 team.

Compare that to today's team and I see a team on the rise looking to prove something.

One more thing: This was over 20 years ago and I am sure things are different now.  It is very toough to cpmare the two different  teams. 

[Senor RedTackle]

So FR did some non-legal research today and has a question for U89, since something was bothering him after the ECAC discussion last night:

U89, what season was your story regarding ECAC internal controversy from?  I'm guessing that your last year of playing was 1989, but maybe I'm mistaken?

1986:  NCAA Appearance
1987:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1988:  At-or-near .500 record (wouldn't be sufficient in the old format to get an ECAC invite)
1989:  NCAA Appearance (Stagg Bowl Year)

You said late 1980s, right?

I'm still trying to figure out this one, let alone Ithaca's supposed "mailing it in" policy in the ECACs.

I'm still trying to figure out where there's a shred of evidence that any ECAC playoff/championship team "phones it in."  The closest that we have is U89's testimony about his tailback teammate.  I sure don't see any teams saying that they're not interested before they accept the invitation or before they play the game.

Every firsthand account has been consistent--players want to play.

The Pat Coleman "phone it in" theory might be correct, there's just no evidence to support it, and plenty of evidence to contradict it.  Maybe Dan Rather can get the documents to prove it.

maybe Worcester St "phoned it in" against RPI in 1995?...didn't RPI roll them like 60something to some low score?? RT was too sauced in the stands to remember the score. Maybe other teams "phone it in" as the Guru may suggest but bet a dollar-to-a-dougnut that RPI has never phoned it in for an ECAC game and decides to show up and give a best effort, regardless of the post-season venue. What bothers RT about the "phone it in" argument, at least as a former player, is that the pundits suggest that a player wouldn't go out and give his best effort, regardless of the circumstances. This isn't the NFL and there's no fat contracts...so RT doesn't see as much incentive to just go through the motions at our level. Maybe other players who've played in these games have stooped to the level of not giving it their 100%, but RT just has a hard time rationalizing why someone wouldn't have the pride and self motivation to always give 100% on the football field. It just doesn't dawn on RT to think any other way...oh well

[Garnet]

having said all the above, I am pretty sure that no Union player or coach ever 'phoned in' an ECAC game.