FB: Liberty League

[Frank Rossi]

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)

Well, that leaves open Husson.

[Frank Rossi]

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

When did you graduate from Union again? 

[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......

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

once again, RT keeping it real for TGP......

zing!

[Frank Rossi]

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"......

once again, RT keeping it real for TGP......

zing!

Ummm... Right now, you're "The 'Frank Rossi' of Hobart" -- So start hitting the weight room

[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"......

once again, RT keeping it real for TGP......

zing!

[Jonny Utah]

RS the subjective stuff is just there so common sense will prevail if the numbers dont add up.

Lets say SJF beat Mt. Union this year 40-0 but then lost to Ithaca by 3 and ended up 9-1 and looking for a pool C spot.

Now, lets say the other pool C teams were other east 9-1 teams with better SOS numbers, percentages, OWP, OOWP, etc that SJF did.

It would probably only be fair to have SJF getting that pool C spot over a Curry even if Curry's criteria numbers look better.

[Frank Rossi]

RS the subjective stuff is just there so common sense will prevail if the numbers dont add up.

Lets say SJF beat Mt. Union this year 40-0 but then lost to Ithaca by 3 and ended up 9-1 and looking for a pool C spot.

Now, lets say the other pool C teams were other east 9-1 teams with better SOS numbers, percentages, OWP, OOWP, etc that SJF did.

It would probably only be fair to have SJF getting that pool C spot over a Curry even if Curry's criteria numbers look better.

Wow.  That may have been your greatest, most sensible and most intellectual post I've ever seen.  First Superman, now you?!  I'm getting scared now

[Jonny Utah]

RS the subjective stuff is just there so common sense will prevail if the numbers dont add up.

Lets say SJF beat Mt. Union this year 40-0 but then lost to Ithaca by 3 and ended up 9-1 and looking for a pool C spot.

Now, lets say the other pool C teams were other east 9-1 teams with better SOS numbers, percentages, OWP, OOWP, etc that SJF did.

It would probably only be fair to have SJF getting that pool C spot over a Curry even if Curry's criteria numbers look better.

Wow.  That may have been your greatest, most sensible and most intellectual post I've ever seen.  First Superman, now you?!  I'm getting scared now

Well thanks Frank.  I think Ive posted every year (Ive even argued with Pat a while back) at how the playoff committee has to look at d2 games and other subjective factors when trying to determine a pool C bid.  There simply are too many teams that dont play enough common opponents to use a number based system that is outlined in the primary and secondary criteria.  I always brought up that word "reviewed" as the basis of what I always thought was going on.  Im not sure if this is a new thing, but Im glad its out in the open (and true)

[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

When did you graduate from Union again? 

pbr's senior pic from union class of '90....

[redswarm81]

RS the subjective stuff is just there so common sense will prevail if the numbers dont add up.

Lets say SJF beat Mt. Union this year 40-0 but then lost to Ithaca by 3 and ended up 9-1 and looking for a pool C spot.

Now, lets say the other pool C teams were other east 9-1 teams with better SOS numbers, percentages, OWP, OOWP, etc that SJF did.

It would probably only be fair to have SJF getting that pool C spot over a Curry even if Curry's criteria numbers look better.

How likely is it that a 9-1 team whose schedule includes Mount Union will wind up with OWP/OOWP numbers worse than two or three other Pool C candidates?   I say it's highly unlikely.

There are also Secondary Criteria that would help SJF big time in your scenario, so I think that a careful consideration of those secondary criteria would accomplish the same result that you (and I) desire.  Bettery yet, they're backed up by tangible evidence, so no one has to ignore the Selection Criteria to pick 9-1 SJF over 9-1 Curry.

There might be cases where "the numbers don't add up," but I don't think your scenario is one of them.  2008 Husson is a better case where the numbers might not add up--but my concern with Husson is that some people don't seem to be adding up all the numbers.

[Jonny Utah]

RS the subjective stuff is just there so common sense will prevail if the numbers dont add up.

Lets say SJF beat Mt. Union this year 40-0 but then lost to Ithaca by 3 and ended up 9-1 and looking for a pool C spot.

Now, lets say the other pool C teams were other east 9-1 teams with better SOS numbers, percentages, OWP, OOWP, etc that SJF did.

It would probably only be fair to have SJF getting that pool C spot over a Curry even if Curry's criteria numbers look better.

How likely is it that a 9-1 team whose schedule includes Mount Union will wind up with OWP/OOWP numbers worse than two or three other Pool C candidates?   I say it's highly unlikely.

There are also Secondary Criteria that would help SJF big time in your scenario, so I think that a careful consideration of those secondary criteria would accomplish the same result that you (and I) desire.  Bettery yet, they're backed up by tangible evidence, so no one has to ignore the Selection Criteria to pick 9-1 SJF over 9-1 Curry.

There might be cases where "the numbers don't add up," but I don't think your scenario is one of them.  2008 Husson is a better case where the numbers might not add up--but my concern with Husson is that some people don't seem to be adding up all the numbers.

Its not likely, but it could happen if SJFs in region wins were against Buff St and Rochester while RPI beat a few 8-2 NEFC teams.

Husson's numbers?  Two close games against Norwich and Utica tell me enough about Husson this year.  They shouldn't lose any sleep if they do not get a pool C bid.

[Frank Rossi]

RS the subjective stuff is just there so common sense will prevail if the numbers dont add up.

Lets say SJF beat Mt. Union this year 40-0 but then lost to Ithaca by 3 and ended up 9-1 and looking for a pool C spot.

Now, lets say the other pool C teams were other east 9-1 teams with better SOS numbers, percentages, OWP, OOWP, etc that SJF did.

It would probably only be fair to have SJF getting that pool C spot over a Curry even if Curry's criteria numbers look better.

How likely is it that a 9-1 team whose schedule includes Mount Union will wind up with OWP/OOWP numbers worse than two or three other Pool C candidates?   I say it's highly unlikely.

There are also Secondary Criteria that would help SJF big time in your scenario, so I think that a careful consideration of those secondary criteria would accomplish the same result that you (and I) desire.  Bettery yet, they're backed up by tangible evidence, so no one has to ignore the Selection Criteria to pick 9-1 SJF over 9-1 Curry.

There might be cases where "the numbers don't add up," but I don't think your scenario is one of them.  2008 Husson is a better case where the numbers might not add up--but my concern with Husson is that some people don't seem to be adding up all the numbers.

Except that Husson is doing the best out of any "two-loss" teams in any regional poll.

[redswarm81]

RS the subjective stuff is just there so common sense will prevail if the numbers dont add up.

Lets say SJF beat Mt. Union this year 40-0 but then lost to Ithaca by 3 and ended up 9-1 and looking for a pool C spot.

Now, lets say the other pool C teams were other east 9-1 teams with better SOS numbers, percentages, OWP, OOWP, etc that SJF did.

It would probably only be fair to have SJF getting that pool C spot over a Curry even if Curry's criteria numbers look better.

How likely is it that a 9-1 team whose schedule includes Mount Union will wind up with OWP/OOWP numbers worse than two or three other Pool C candidates?   I say it's highly unlikely.

There are also Secondary Criteria that would help SJF big time in your scenario, so I think that a careful consideration of those secondary criteria would accomplish the same result that you (and I) desire.  Bettery yet, they're backed up by tangible evidence, so no one has to ignore the Selection Criteria to pick 9-1 SJF over 9-1 Curry.

There might be cases where "the numbers don't add up," but I don't think your scenario is one of them.  2008 Husson is a better case where the numbers might not add up--but my concern with Husson is that some people don't seem to be adding up all the numbers.

Except that Husson is doing the best out of any "two-loss" teams in any regional poll.

Is that because of the Selection Criteria, or because of subjective standards?

The way I read the Selection Criteria, Husson ought to be doing the best of any "two-loss" teams.

[Frank Rossi]

RS the subjective stuff is just there so common sense will prevail if the numbers dont add up.

Lets say SJF beat Mt. Union this year 40-0 but then lost to Ithaca by 3 and ended up 9-1 and looking for a pool C spot.

Now, lets say the other pool C teams were other east 9-1 teams with better SOS numbers, percentages, OWP, OOWP, etc that SJF did.

It would probably only be fair to have SJF getting that pool C spot over a Curry even if Curry's criteria numbers look better.

How likely is it that a 9-1 team whose schedule includes Mount Union will wind up with OWP/OOWP numbers worse than two or three other Pool C candidates?   I say it's highly unlikely.

There are also Secondary Criteria that would help SJF big time in your scenario, so I think that a careful consideration of those secondary criteria would accomplish the same result that you (and I) desire.  Bettery yet, they're backed up by tangible evidence, so no one has to ignore the Selection Criteria to pick 9-1 SJF over 9-1 Curry.

There might be cases where "the numbers don't add up," but I don't think your scenario is one of them.  2008 Husson is a better case where the numbers might not add up--but my concern with Husson is that some people don't seem to be adding up all the numbers.

Except that Husson is doing the best out of any "two-loss" teams in any regional poll.

Is that because of the Selection Criteria, or because of subjective standards?

The way I read the Selection Criteria, Husson ought to be doing the best of any "two-loss" teams.

It means the numbers are getting Husson into the discussion, but further review of the numbers and the teams behind the numbers are providing a little less support for Husson -- and that makes perfect sense to most people in this situation.

[redswarm81]

Husson is doing the best out of any "two-loss" teams in any regional poll.

Is that because of the Selection Criteria, or because of subjective standards?

The way I read the Selection Criteria, Husson ought to be doing the best of any "two-loss" teams.

It means the numbers are getting Husson into the discussion, but further review of the numbers and the teams behind the numbers are providing a little less support for Husson -- and that makes perfect sense to most people in this situation.

I'm not trying to be a pain in the neck Frank, I'm really not.  I'm just trying to figure out what your words mean.

• "further review of the numbers and the teams behind the numbers are providing a little less support for Husson."

Less support than what?  Do you mean that Husson isn't doing the best out of any "two-loss" teams?

It looks to me that the way the numbers add up, Husson is positioned pretty much where the Selection Criteria directs them to be.  I think Mr. Kaiser's knee-jerk "they're a two-loss team" comment isn't reflected in the Regional Rankings the same way that your report implied--and I don't think that's a bad thing.

Neither is that a criticism of your report.