FB: Liberty League

[JT]

Got really busy today:

Happy Veterans Day to the finest of Americans.

[superman57]

u89, I am very happy that I am not on your ignore list...

[Frank Rossi]

u89, I am very happy that I am not on your ignore list...

You're on a roll, Supe!  -k again!

[union89]

u89, I am very happy that I am not on your ignore list...

If I had a 'Most Entertaining' List......you would be in the Top 3.

ps...it's a 'Pay No Mind' List

[Frank Rossi]

• "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?

We're going in circles here, and I've already explained this -- but here's another try.  Show me what two-loss team is performing better than Husson nationally right now in the Regional Rankings.  In fact, Husson is performing better than some one-loss teams.  Yet, there's a limit here as to how well their schedule and numbers are going to be respected based on a look at the teams they've played and because they've only played seven Division III opponents (and have several other Division III schools within striking distance).  So, they are not going to be treated better than a school that has one loss but 9 or 10 Division III games against better opponents (and as JU said, OWP and OOWP may not confirm that schedule strength -- requiring a closer look at schedules of each team).  I don't think this is rocket science.  It's an explanation that the process is not mechanical in order to allow for the rewarding of playing strength.  Otherwise, the Committee would be rubber stamping teams that play cupcakes well while penalizing teams that play great teams well.  From his own assessment, Mr. Kaiser stated that the process in 2007 took 6 1/2 hours until 4:30am Sunday morning.

OWP and OOWP are not great measures, as I've said before, when you only have ten or less games played by each team since minor anomalies can cause those numbers, especially in OWP, to misrepresent a team's schedule.  OOWP is supposed to only be used to confirm a team's OWP strength since it is a much more esoteric measurement of such strength (in fact, the BCS dumped its use after a couple years).  If this were basketball, in which there are many more non-conference games, that's fine.  But as Mr. Kaiser said, since a grand majority of these teams' opponents are their conference opponents, their OWP will end up being around .500 until we add in only 1, 2, 3 or 4 non-conference games (depending on the conference).  Thus, OWP is only balancing up to four opponents (as few as one opponent) -- and there is no reasonability in weighing so little data to make final decisions when other data is available (such as scores, subjective evaluation of opponents, conference strength, etc.).  Your belief in the OWP and OOWP being the end-all, be-all is a little short-sighted.

[redswarm81]

• "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?

Show me what two-loss team is performing better than Husson nationally right now in the Regional Rankings.  In fact, Husson is performing better than some one-loss teams.

There are no two-loss teams that are regionally ranked higher than Husson--that's appropriate, since that's what the Selection Criteria dictate.

(We're not really going around in circles, because you didn't answer my question: less support than what?  If you're trying to say that a Selection Committee might properly select a lower regionally ranked team ahead of a higher regionally ranked team for an available Pool C slot, then I think you could say it better--but I doubt that's what you're trying to say.)

Yet, there's a limit here as to how well their schedule and numbers are going to be respected based on a look at the teams they've played and because they've only played seven Division III opponents (and have several other Division III schools within striking distance).  So, they are not going to be treated better than a school that has one loss but 9 or 10 Division III games¹ against better opponents²

Because

¹ Their in-Division Winning percentage will be better than Husson's and
² Their OWP/OOWP will be better than Husson's.

I know you want to use/excuse subjective criteria, but you don't have to.  I don't see the word "respect" anywhere in the Selection Criteria.

OWP and OOWP are not great measures, as I've said before, when you only have ten or less games played by each team since minor anomalies can cause those numbers, especially in OWP, to misrepresent a team's schedule.  OOWP is supposed to only be used to confirm a team's OWP strength since it is a much more esoteric measurement of such strength. . . . OWP is only balancing up to four opponents (as few as one opponent) -- and there is no reasonability in weighing so little data to make final decisions when other data is available (such as scores, subjective evaluation of opponents, conference strength, etc.).  Your belief in the OWP and OOWP being the end-all, be-all is a little short-sighted.

You've misunderstood me.  *I* have said before that OWP and OOWP are not great measures.   I agree with you that OWP and OOWP aren't great.  I think head-to-head, winning percentage, record v. common opponents, and record v. ranked opponents are all better than OWP/OOWP.

However, I do think that OWP and OOWP are probably better measures than subjective measures, since subjective measures can't really be measured.

All of the examples you've given me require no resorting to "subjective evaluation of opponents," whatever that means.  (Teams on double secret probation?  )

The Selection Criteria could include a criterion accounting for relative conference strength.  Does it matter that there is no such criterion?

All I'm asking for is Equal Justice Under Selection Criteria.

[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.

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

I couldn't find a definitive answer in the FAQs (I should mention that I only  looked quick before Pat scolds me) but does the NCAA have to take a specific number of pool B bids?  Or can they lump them all together with the pool C bids?

Never mind I read it again.  So we are looking at only a pool B bid for Husson?

[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.

I couldn't find a definitive answer in the FAQs (I should mention that I only  looked quick before Pat scolds me) but does the NCAA have to take a specific number of pool B bids?  Or can they lump them all together with the pool C bids?

Never mind I read it again.  So we are looking at only a pool B bid for Husson?

Unselected Pool B teams have access to Pool C.

[dlippiel]

SRT I know you don't care but I think I am beginning to like you

Very cool SRT I am hearing a Barry Manilow song right now"......LOOKS LIKE WE MADE IT!"

[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.

I couldn't find a definitive answer in the FAQs (I should mention that I only  looked quick before Pat scolds me) but does the NCAA have to take a specific number of pool B bids?  Or can they lump them all together with the pool C bids?

Never mind I read it again.  So we are looking at only a pool B bid for Husson?

After the three Pool B bids are awarded, all Pool B candidates become Pool C candidates.

So four Pool B teams could receive bids, but one of the bids would be a Pool C bid.  The Regional Rankings don't distinguish between Pool B teams and Pool C teams (or Pool A teams, for that matter).

[Knightstalker]

KS had today off, he headed to his VFW post to help set up for hotdogs and beer after the Veterans Day ceremony in Secaucus this morning.  KS got to see some of the WWII vets that only come out for special occasions.  The sad thing is there is less of them each year.  KS had a few pops, had a good time, and is now watching war movies on TV in keeping with a tradition KS started as a kid with dad KS.

[dlippiel]

Well said Frank but what can be done about this? I know this school can be incredibly stubborn in the admissions area. Is there anything that can change? I would be very curious to hear Audino's thoughts on this. If this is the case it must be very frustrating for him year in and year out. This administration always seems to make boneheaded decisions. As a hockey fan also (heart will always be with the football team though) many ask how the hell U could go to division 1, expect to be successful, yet not do the things everyone knows need to be done to be successful. How can you compete without full athletic scholarships. **** the hockey team doesn't even have a ****ing band? I don't know this school can really piss me off some times.

First, I have no problem with Hockey being in Division 1.  I just think that the expectations need to chill a bit (no pun intended).  If the expectations of winning the ECAC every year would subside, there would be less need to throw ALL your resources in that direction.  Remember, UNION CANNOT GIVE SCHOLARSHIPS, as you said.  So it can never fully compete in the way that would allow for consistent success.  In the 1990s, there were two decent runs that the teams made that equaled the success of the 2007-08 Skating Dutchmen -- and we weren't throwing resources hand over fist into those programs.  Now, all twelve ECAC teams gain entry into the ECAC Tournament, so the fear of missing the tourney in 11th and 12th place doesn't exist anymore.  The sinking of all the time, money and commitment into that program has proven over and over to be a fool's game.

So, you asked, what can be done?  Spread some awareness with your Union alumni friends.  Many people don't recognize where the weak links exist right now.  They see the football record and assume that the coaches are to blame.  I can personally verify that this isn't the case; the coaching staff has been putting forth a herculean effort the past few years to try to match their 2005-06 success with recruiting to fill the gaps for players that have graduated off.  This is where U89 will attempt to say I am friends with the coaching staff and therefore should not be given any credit.  Well, unlike him, I ASK QUESTIONS to form my decisions, thoughts and eventual answers.  I don't just buy into a bunch of rhetoric being thrown at me, whether or not the person/people are friends of mine.  I've watched and asked for three years to understand what is going on, and you can take it from me right now that what I've stated is a very fair assessment.

Case in point:  Union goes 10-0 in 2005.  The electricity surrounding the program was unreal whenever I'd attend an alumni event in NYC that year.  Instead of taking the electricity and the excitement and turning that into money, better recruiting and more success, my best deduction is that the top of the food chain decided to instead give less commitment since the thought was that the program would carry itself for at least another one or two years -- so why waste resources on it at that point?  We're still paying the price for that decision.  I see some glimmers of hope right now with the season that the Dutchmen are trying to hatch together through some really committed play by this year's Union players.  However, the 2005 scenario must never play out again -- because 2006 and 2007 began a downturn that can do permanent harm to a program.  It will take strong commitment for another two years and then a consistent level every year after that before we see this program at the level it SHOULD be at.

So, get alumni involved, dl.  My hands are tied generally because I'm the Union radio guy who tries to take the silver lining whenever possible because my commitment is to the players on the field and highlighting their strengths while mentioning areas in which they need improvement.  Dwelling on issues like these would not accomplish my goal as Union's radio voice.  However, let me be open here:  these issues are clear and present and need to be dealt with in short order.

Seems to make sense Frank. I have been watching U football now for over 20 years and it just seems to me like this program still has the potential to reach great heights! These players just bust their asses everyday with academics and football to improve as players and people. They deserve more from the admin period. Anyway I don't want to keep beating this topic and since everyone has moved on from it today I will to. I appreciate your insight, thank you!

[dlippiel]

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!  

I LOVE ALL UNION FANS BABY! ****ing Kelly by a landslide, I would have kicked Zach's ass and tried to take her in a heartbeat!! On 90210 she became a women and just got hotter everyday. Easy question to answer. Anyone seen Husson play? How are they in person?

['gro]

good gravy mother fuffers, what is all this crazy sheet being spewed on the board lately? PC had it right, this is prime scroll down territory. Here's what I got out of the last 8 pages

Union needs some fixing, good thing ole cousin gro has a consulting business. Usually deals with financials, but since fundraising seems to be an issue gro thinks he can help.     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo3uxqwTxk0

Saved by the bell chicks? Kelly was hot, but she dated zack who was kind of a douche. Lisa may have been hot, but she wore some funky **** and never showed off the bod. Jessie had a bad case of long butt before I even knew what that meant. Maybe it was the high riding pants she wore, that must have chaffed the ham wallet. For your viewing pleasure   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bflYjF90t7c

['gro]

Attention PBR

How do you expect your Iggles to win any games when there are distractions like these prowling the sidelines?



_{click to enlarge, you know you want to}