FB: Liberty League

[Frank Rossi]

Why do all the Union Posters hate each other?  

Anyway, I'm going to be non-conventional and say I liked Jessie.  Brains and the look!  

bigdvs is loved and hated by all equally, like switzerland.

I'm glad you didn't say "Geneva" because... I think we all hate Geneva right now   Five years in a row, perhaps?  I'm not bitter...NOOOOOOOOOOO. 

OK, congrats Hobart.  You better win that first round game if you make it past Rochocho.

[unionfan]

I think if you look at on the field performance, Union has pretty much stayed even with RPI, with no clear winner, though RPI has clearly been more consistent on a WL record basis (but that may be a function of schedule). 

Since 2001.....RPI 5 Wins, Union 3 Wins

2001 Oct. 13   RPI*   W 32-29   Troy
2001 Oct. 12   Union*   W14-32   Schenectady
2003 Oct. 11   RPI*   W 33-7   Troy
2004 Nov. 13   Union*   W 13-18   Troy
2005 Nov. 12   Union*   W 42-49   Schenectady
2006 Nov. 11   RPI*   W 24-19   Troy
2007 Nov. 10   RPI*   W 20-14   Schenectady

2008 Nov 1   RPI   W25-12   Troy

Umm, that seems pretty even to me.  The two teams actually have identical league records over that time period.

[unionfan]

Why do all the Union Posters hate each other?  

Anyway, I'm going to be non-conventional and say I liked Jessie.  Brains and the look!  

We don't--I think other than the U89/Rossi feud, everybody gets along just fine.

[redswarm81]

As I've told Keith on the Top 25 Board, I'm uncomfortable when someone looks at all that objective information and decides that hunches are more valuable.

But that's not what I relayed here yesterday.

It's not?

I spoke with Dick Kaiser, the Division III Committee Chair, . . .

Mr. Kaiser was very forthcoming during our brief discussion, . . .

- When I brought up Husson, his reaction was, "Well, they're a two-loss team."  He went on to discuss that the Committee cannot simply stop at Primary Criteria in general when deciding teams for the Football Championships because there are simply not enough games played to allow such a low number of statistics to control the selection.  Stated differently, Secondary Criteria are going to apply just as much and as quickly as Primary Criteria.  In . . . football, his belief is that they need to enter into a full discussion immediately, even weighing criteria like scores and some subjective standards when looking at Pool B and Pool C teams.  This would explain the treatment of Husson and SJF in the Regional Rankings thus far.

- At the same time, we talked a bit about strength of schedule issues.  He was pretty blunt during this discussion, in terms of stating that strength of schedule -- not just the numbers, but the subjective review of a team's schedule -- is crucial in this process.  Paraphrasing his comments accurately, his reaction was that if a team plays a soft out-of-conference schedule, they're not going to experience an easy selection process.  My point in bringing this up is that we should not underestimate the objective and subjective review of a team's out-of-conference schedule at this point when we consider these issues.

There will be a lot more discussion of this on Sunday night, but I walk away from my brief conversation with Mr. Kaiser feeling that he is truly on top of the situation (he spit out a good number of stats about the number of teams in line for consideration and the task the Committee faces) and wants to give fair treatment to these teams both objectively and subjectively (since the objective numbers are not comprehensive enough to allow for full faith and credit with just 7-10 regional games played).

I must have misinterpreted what you relayed yesterday.  I thought that you were relaying the idea that all of the objective information isn't sufficient, and the Committee will necessarily make a subjective review.

What exactly are "subjective standards," anyway?  If there are such things as subjective standards, can't they be defined?

The numbers form the basis for the initial discussions in the first place.

I hope someday to understand what that means.

As I read the Selection Criteria, the discussion can only be about the numbers.  The Committee can assign priority to specific numbers, but I see no leeway to leave the Selection Criteria.

This will seem nitpicky to all (except perhaps you, Frank):  Mr. Kaiser's immediate response that "Husson is a two-loss team" implies strongly that he's completely overlooking one Primary Criterion (Win-loss percentage against regional opponents) and one Secondary Criterion (Overall Division III won-loss percentage) in order to get to the Secondary Criterion of Overall win-loss percentage.

However, once teams are legitimately on the table is when more than mere numbers are discussed because of the paucity of differentiating information that might be available.

"More than mere numbers."  Again, what does that mean?  How can a team--Husson, for example--prepare for a season that will produce "more than mere numbers," so that it can be evaluated fairly according to the subjective standards?

[Senor RedTackle]

As I've told Keith on the Top 25 Board, I'm uncomfortable when someone looks at all that objective information and decides that hunches are more valuable.

But that's not what I relayed here yesterday.

It's not?

I spoke with Dick Kaiser, the Division III Committee Chair, . . .

Mr. Kaiser was very forthcoming during our brief discussion, . . .

- When I brought up Husson, his reaction was, "Well, they're a two-loss team."  He went on to discuss that the Committee cannot simply stop at Primary Criteria in general when deciding teams for the Football Championships because there are simply not enough games played to allow such a low number of statistics to control the selection.  Stated differently, Secondary Criteria are going to apply just as much and as quickly as Primary Criteria.  In . . . football, his belief is that they need to enter into a full discussion immediately, even weighing criteria like scores and some subjective standards when looking at Pool B and Pool C teams.  This would explain the treatment of Husson and SJF in the Regional Rankings thus far.

- At the same time, we talked a bit about strength of schedule issues.  He was pretty blunt during this discussion, in terms of stating that strength of schedule -- not just the numbers, but the subjective review of a team's schedule -- is crucial in this process.  Paraphrasing his comments accurately, his reaction was that if a team plays a soft out-of-conference schedule, they're not going to experience an easy selection process.  My point in bringing this up is that we should not underestimate the objective and subjective review of a team's out-of-conference schedule at this point when we consider these issues.

There will be a lot more discussion of this on Sunday night, but I walk away from my brief conversation with Mr. Kaiser feeling that he is truly on top of the situation (he spit out a good number of stats about the number of teams in line for consideration and the task the Committee faces) and wants to give fair treatment to these teams both objectively and subjectively (since the objective numbers are not comprehensive enough to allow for full faith and credit with just 7-10 regional games played).

I must have misinterpreted what you relayed yesterday.  I thought that you were relaying the idea that all of the objective information isn't sufficient, and the Committee will necessarily make a subjective review.

What exactly are "subjective standards," anyway?  If there are such things as subjective standards, can't they be defined?

The numbers form the basis for the initial discussions in the first place.

I hope someday to understand what that means.

As I read the Selection Criteria, the discussion can only be about the numbers.  The Committee can assign priority to specific numbers, but I see no leeway to leave the Selection Criteria.

This will seem nitpicky to all (except perhaps you, Frank):  Mr. Kaiser's immediate response that "Husson is a two-loss team" implies strongly that he's completely overlooking one Primary Criterion (Win-loss percentage against regional opponents) and one Secondary Criterion (Overall Division III won-loss percentage) in order to get to the Secondary Criterion of Overall win-loss percentage.

However, once teams are legitimately on the table is when more than mere numbers are discussed because of the paucity of differentiating information that might be available.

"More than mere numbers."  Again, what does that mean?  How can a team--Husson, for example--prepare for a season that will produce "more than mere numbers," so that it can be evaluated fairly according to the subjective standards?

seriously RS....the board has been drained from the FT/U89 war. Do you really need to open up a 2nd front with Frank??

[Pat Coleman]

This board is in major scroll-down mode for me now.

[pumkinattack]

First of all, Kelly Kapowski was the Mt. Union of my dreams back in the day.  In fact, I had Lisa second.  Jessi was good in the one where she gets "hooked" on caffeine pills ("I'm so excited, I'm so excited, I'm so...scared!). 

Secondly, Frank, how can you hate Geneva?  You can get lots of red wine in the area (caveat:  I love the Finger Lakes and will probably buy a lake house there in the next 2 - 3 years, but actually believe, in general, that California red's are superior). 

Third, is anyone else as excited as I am for cnbc's special tonight on high priced, educated prostitutes? 

[unionfan]

As I've told Keith on the Top 25 Board, I'm uncomfortable when someone looks at all that objective information and decides that hunches are more valuable.

But that's not what I relayed here yesterday.

It's not?

I spoke with Dick Kaiser, the Division III Committee Chair, . . .

Mr. Kaiser was very forthcoming during our brief discussion, . . .

- When I brought up Husson, his reaction was, "Well, they're a two-loss team."  He went on to discuss that the Committee cannot simply stop at Primary Criteria in general when deciding teams for the Football Championships because there are simply not enough games played to allow such a low number of statistics to control the selection.  Stated differently, Secondary Criteria are going to apply just as much and as quickly as Primary Criteria.  In . . . football, his belief is that they need to enter into a full discussion immediately, even weighing criteria like scores and some subjective standards when looking at Pool B and Pool C teams.  This would explain the treatment of Husson and SJF in the Regional Rankings thus far.

- At the same time, we talked a bit about strength of schedule issues.  He was pretty blunt during this discussion, in terms of stating that strength of schedule -- not just the numbers, but the subjective review of a team's schedule -- is crucial in this process.  Paraphrasing his comments accurately, his reaction was that if a team plays a soft out-of-conference schedule, they're not going to experience an easy selection process.  My point in bringing this up is that we should not underestimate the objective and subjective review of a team's out-of-conference schedule at this point when we consider these issues.

There will be a lot more discussion of this on Sunday night, but I walk away from my brief conversation with Mr. Kaiser feeling that he is truly on top of the situation (he spit out a good number of stats about the number of teams in line for consideration and the task the Committee faces) and wants to give fair treatment to these teams both objectively and subjectively (since the objective numbers are not comprehensive enough to allow for full faith and credit with just 7-10 regional games played).

I must have misinterpreted what you relayed yesterday.  I thought that you were relaying the idea that all of the objective information isn't sufficient, and the Committee will necessarily make a subjective review.

What exactly are "subjective standards," anyway?  If there are such things as subjective standards, can't they be defined?

The numbers form the basis for the initial discussions in the first place.

I hope someday to understand what that means.

As I read the Selection Criteria, the discussion can only be about the numbers.  The Committee can assign priority to specific numbers, but I see no leeway to leave the Selection Criteria.

This will seem nitpicky to all (except perhaps you, Frank):  Mr. Kaiser's immediate response that "Husson is a two-loss team" implies strongly that he's completely overlooking one Primary Criterion (Win-loss percentage against regional opponents) and one Secondary Criterion (Overall Division III won-loss percentage) in order to get to the Secondary Criterion of Overall win-loss percentage.

However, once teams are legitimately on the table is when more than mere numbers are discussed because of the paucity of differentiating information that might be available.

"More than mere numbers."  Again, what does that mean?  How can a team--Husson, for example--prepare for a season that will produce "more than mere numbers," so that it can be evaluated fairly according to the subjective standards?

Gee, I'm glad you spent all that time pulling out Rossi quotes, none of which course state that subjectives are "more valuable" than objectives.  Well done!

[redswarm81]

seriously RS....the board has been drained from the FT/U89 war. Do you really need to open up a 2nd front with Frank??

I forgot that RT and FR signed a Non-Aggression Pact.   

I don't see the free exchange of ideas as a bad thing.

[labart96]

First of all, Kelly Kapowski was the Mt. Union of my dreams back in the day.  In fact, I had Lisa second.  Jessi was good in the one where she gets "hooked" on caffeine pills ("I'm so excited, I'm so excited, I'm so...scared!). 

Secondly, Frank, how can you hate Geneva?  You can get lots of red wine in the area (caveat:  I love the Finger Lakes and will probably buy a lake house there in the next 2 - 3 years, but actually believe, in general, that California red's are superior). 

Third, is anyone else as excited as I am for cnbc's special tonight on high priced, educated prostitutes? 

As the pending "Hobart King of California," TGP obviously is biased, but he can't actually believe that anything from Upstate NY - wine or otherwise - would ever be preferred over California......

[Reno Hightower]

U89, got your PM......tried to reply but it wouldnt let me.

I just want to ask 1 question: Are you against ECACs or do you just prefer a Non-NEFC Opponent?

[Senor RedTackle]

First of all, Kelly Kapowski was the Mt. Union of my dreams back in the day.  In fact, I had Lisa second.  Jessi was good in the one where she gets "hooked" on caffeine pills ("I'm so excited, I'm so excited, I'm so...scared!). 

Secondly, Frank, how can you hate Geneva?  You can get lots of red wine in the area (caveat:  I love the Finger Lakes and will probably buy a lake house there in the next 2 - 3 years, but actually believe, in general, that California red's are superior). 

Third, is anyone else as excited as I am for cnbc's special tonight on high priced, educated prostitutes? 

As the pending "Hobart King of California," TGP obviously is biased, but he can't actually believe that anything from Upstate NY - wine or otherwise - would ever be preferred over California......

get it right, please. It's "California King of Hobart"......

[union89]

U89, got your PM......tried to reply but it wouldnt let me.

I just want to ask 1 question: Are you against ECACs or do you just prefer a Non-NEFC Opponent?

100% for a strong opponent with some upside for Union (ie., almost anyone outside the NEFC)

[PBR...]

First of all, Kelly Kapowski was the Mt. Union of my dreams back in the day.  In fact, I had Lisa second.  Jessi was good in the one where she gets "hooked" on caffeine pills ("I'm so excited, I'm so excited, I'm so...scared!). 

Secondly, Frank, how can you hate Geneva?  You can get lots of red wine in the area (caveat:  I love the Finger Lakes and will probably buy a lake house there in the next 2 - 3 years, but actually believe, in general, that California red's are superior). 

Third, is anyone else as excited as I am for cnbc's special tonight on high priced, educated prostitutes? 

As the pending "Hobart King of California," TGP obviously is biased, but he can't actually believe that anything from Upstate NY - wine or otherwise - would ever be preferred over California......

well said...pbr downed a nice silver oak cabernet on sat. night.... then finished the evening off w/ a port and cigar damn life was good right then

[Reno Hightower]

U89, got your PM......tried to reply but it wouldnt let me.

I just want to ask 1 question: Are you against ECACs or do you just prefer a Non-NEFC Opponent?

100% for a strong opponent with some upside for Union (ie., almost anyone outside the NEFC)

Okay good, misunderstanding then. I disagree but I certainly accept your opinion better now!