East Region Fan Poll

[lewdogg11]

OK, there are some very off-base comments flying here.  Let me state for now the umpteenth time that Hobart was ranked above Fisher in the final rankings.  I went back and listened to the Selection Chair interview -- she specifically stated that Fisher "lost to two teams that were above them" when they looked at the positioning for Fisher.  It does not follow that somehow Fisher jumped Hobart at any point.  My view continues to be that Hobart is a 5/6, and Fisher is a 6/7.  The best that we can consider for Fisher is that they ended up with equal seedings.

Also, she specifically said that the Hobart eight-game schedule DID NOT play a role in the views of Hobart from the best of her recollection.  Hobart was viewed as a one-loss team -- they did not read into it further.  Remember that some teams actually play less in-region games than Hobart, so it didn't necessitate a special treatment in the end.

Finally, this Dickinson issue completely misses the reasons for the game.  A good amount of the desire to keep that series is the Pennsylvania exposure the team and school want.  Look at Hobart's location on a map, and you'll understand why they like to keep a Pennsylvania school.  Dickinson plays in a very good conference, and navigates the middle of it most of the last five years.  I have no problem with that game, especially from the recruiting and exposure benefits the school receives from retaining it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of this is stemming from Wesley's reputation vs. Johnnie Hopkins' reputation.

[Frank Rossi]

OK, there are some very off-base comments flying here.  Let me state for now the umpteenth time that Hobart was ranked above Fisher in the final rankings.  I went back and listened to the Selection Chair interview -- she specifically stated that Fisher "lost to two teams that were above them" when they looked at the positioning for Fisher.  It does not follow that somehow Fisher jumped Hobart at any point.  My view continues to be that Hobart is a 5/6, and Fisher is a 6/7.  The best that we can consider for Fisher is that they ended up with equal seedings.

Also, she specifically said that the Hobart eight-game schedule DID NOT play a role in the views of Hobart from the best of her recollection.  Hobart was viewed as a one-loss team -- they did not read into it further.  Remember that some teams actually play less in-region games than Hobart, so it didn't necessitate a special treatment in the end.

Finally, this Dickinson issue completely misses the reasons for the game.  A good amount of the desire to keep that series is the Pennsylvania exposure the team and school want.  Look at Hobart's location on a map, and you'll understand why they like to keep a Pennsylvania school.  Dickinson plays in a very good conference, and navigates the middle of it most of the last five years.  I have no problem with that game, especially from the recruiting and exposure benefits the school receives from retaining it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of this is stemming from Wesley's reputation vs. Johnnie Hopkins' reputation.

Agreed, but did you see the season Hopkins had?  Wesley lost a game... it pushed Wesley behind Hopkins in the South Rankings both weeks they were released.  Upstate isn't beating a dead horse here.  He's beating a dead unicorn since the rationale just doesn't exist.

[Yanks 99]

OK, there are some very off-base comments flying here.  Let me state for now the umpteenth time that Hobart was ranked above Fisher in the final rankings.  I went back and listened to the Selection Chair interview -- she specifically stated that Fisher "lost to two teams that were above them" when they looked at the positioning for Fisher.  It does not follow that somehow Fisher jumped Hobart at any point.  My view continues to be that Hobart is a 5/6, and Fisher is a 6/7.  The best that we can consider for Fisher is that they ended up with equal seedings.

Also, she specifically said that the Hobart eight-game schedule DID NOT play a role in the views of Hobart from the best of her recollection.  Hobart was viewed as a one-loss team -- they did not read into it further.  Remember that some teams actually play less in-region games than Hobart, so it didn't necessitate a special treatment in the end.

Finally, this Dickinson issue completely misses the reasons for the game.  A good amount of the desire to keep that series is the Pennsylvania exposure the team and school want.  Look at Hobart's location on a map, and you'll understand why they like to keep a Pennsylvania school.  Dickinson plays in a very good conference, and navigates the middle of it most of the last five years.  I have no problem with that game, especially from the recruiting and exposure benefits the school receives from retaining it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of this is stemming from Wesley's reputation vs. Johnnie Hopkins' reputation.

I smoked pot with Johnny Hopkins...it was Johnny Hopkins, and Sloan Kettering, and they were blazing that $hit up everyday...

[pumkinattack]

JU, I know many of those guys from the 80's that think they should go back to DIII and run the table (if the landscape is the same, all the DIII guys insist they'd be mediocre if they went back down, but I'm not interested in the "what if" there), but many of them don't understand how the landscape has changed and you can't play mixed schedules anymore.  It wasn't just Cuse and Cornell, they were playing UNC, PSU, etc, etc. 

And either way, the fact that it gives it national exposure (and I went to the Bellarmine game and Louisville's a cool town, even hooked up w/Ol' Saints Fan while in the area) which helps when you're charging $50k+ for what's comparable to 30 other schools in the Northeast.  And having lived in DC and Atlanta (with a stop in NY in between), the school's name is there if not 100%, at least 98% because of lacrosse.  There's a lot of value in that.  If you have a competitive advantage in that (current program in shambles thanks to Hanna, but I mean the reputation/history), you invest in it nuture and milk it for what it's worth.  Look at that list of recruits again.  None of them are at Hobart because it's a cool place to be (perhaps that is the case, but only in the context of the other lacrosse schools that recruit them). 

I'm not looking at this from a sports/competitive situation, I care much more about the institution and am looking at it like a banker with an MBA and how you maximiaze value.  And for all those 70's and 80's guys that pine for winning D3 championships, we had a full referendum in 2008 and the clear winner was to stay in DI, so that debate is over and done with no matter how much pride those alums are assigning to winning all the time vs. competing at the highest level.  I went from 96-01 and all the guys I know from those years and more recent love that they get to go to a small school, not have scholarships to give out and compete with the best. 

If people want to live in a bubble and only think of these things about what does on in the D3 football world, but Hobart's working to build a national presence.  Get some of that Cheddar that RPI has (we're at around $200MM, RPI has ONE BILLION DOLLARS in respective endowments, Union's like $400-$500MM, I think). 

[MasterJedi]

OK, there are some very off-base comments flying here.  Let me state for now the umpteenth time that Hobart was ranked above Fisher in the final rankings.  I went back and listened to the Selection Chair interview -- she specifically stated that Fisher "lost to two teams that were above them" when they looked at the positioning for Fisher.  It does not follow that somehow Fisher jumped Hobart at any point.  My view continues to be that Hobart is a 5/6, and Fisher is a 6/7.  The best that we can consider for Fisher is that they ended up with equal seedings.

Also, she specifically said that the Hobart eight-game schedule DID NOT play a role in the views of Hobart from the best of her recollection.  Hobart was viewed as a one-loss team -- they did not read into it further.  Remember that some teams actually play less in-region games than Hobart, so it didn't necessitate a special treatment in the end.

Finally, this Dickinson issue completely misses the reasons for the game.  A good amount of the desire to keep that series is the Pennsylvania exposure the team and school want.  Look at Hobart's location on a map, and you'll understand why they like to keep a Pennsylvania school.  Dickinson plays in a very good conference, and navigates the middle of it most of the last five years.  I have no problem with that game, especially from the recruiting and exposure benefits the school receives from retaining it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of this is stemming from Wesley's reputation vs. Johnnie Hopkins' reputation.

I smoked pot with Johnny Hopkins...it was Johnny Hopkins, and Sloan Kettering, and they were blazing that $hit up everyday...

+K for the Step Brothers reference!

[lewdogg11]

OK, there are some very off-base comments flying here.  Let me state for now the umpteenth time that Hobart was ranked above Fisher in the final rankings.  I went back and listened to the Selection Chair interview -- she specifically stated that Fisher "lost to two teams that were above them" when they looked at the positioning for Fisher.  It does not follow that somehow Fisher jumped Hobart at any point.  My view continues to be that Hobart is a 5/6, and Fisher is a 6/7.  The best that we can consider for Fisher is that they ended up with equal seedings.

Also, she specifically said that the Hobart eight-game schedule DID NOT play a role in the views of Hobart from the best of her recollection.  Hobart was viewed as a one-loss team -- they did not read into it further.  Remember that some teams actually play less in-region games than Hobart, so it didn't necessitate a special treatment in the end.

Finally, this Dickinson issue completely misses the reasons for the game.  A good amount of the desire to keep that series is the Pennsylvania exposure the team and school want.  Look at Hobart's location on a map, and you'll understand why they like to keep a Pennsylvania school.  Dickinson plays in a very good conference, and navigates the middle of it most of the last five years.  I have no problem with that game, especially from the recruiting and exposure benefits the school receives from retaining it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of this is stemming from Wesley's reputation vs. Johnnie Hopkins' reputation.

I smoked pot with Johnny Hopkins...it was Johnny Hopkins, and Sloan Kettering, and they were blazing that $hit up everyday...

+K for the Step Brothers reference!

Jesus H, i've posted the movie clip twice now!!!  :-)


Frank, i'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm just saying that historically, Wesley are some bad dudes.  Johns Hopkins may have been a higher ranking in the tournament, but I doubt they are anywhere near the same caliber.  Look at the d3 top 25.  Wesley is 7 and Hopkins is 13.  If Hopkins had a single loss, they'd probably be in the 20-25 range.  Wesley carries a lot of clout.


***and personally, i'd rather be playing Hopkins than Wesley.

[Jonny Utah]

JU, I know many of those guys from the 80's that think they should go back to DIII and run the table (if the landscape is the same, all the DIII guys insist they'd be mediocre if they went back down, but I'm not interested in the "what if" there), but many of them don't understand how the landscape has changed and you can't play mixed schedules anymore.  It wasn't just Cuse and Cornell, they were playing UNC, PSU, etc, etc. 

And either way, the fact that it gives it national exposure (and I went to the Bellarmine game and Louisville's a cool town, even hooked up w/Ol' Saints Fan while in the area) which helps when you're charging $50k+ for what's comparable to 30 other schools in the Northeast.  And having lived in DC and Atlanta (with a stop in NY in between), the school's name is there if not 100%, at least 98% because of lacrosse.  There's a lot of value in that.  If you have a competitive advantage in that (current program in shambles thanks to Hanna, but I mean the reputation/history), you invest in it nuture and milk it for what it's worth.  Look at that list of recruits again.  None of them are at Hobart because it's a cool place to be (perhaps that is the case, but only in the context of the other lacrosse schools that recruit them). 

I'm not looking at this from a sports/competitive situation, I care much more about the institution and am looking at it like a banker with an MBA and how you maximiaze value.  And for all those 70's and 80's guys that pine for winning D3 championships, we had a full referendum in 2008 and the clear winner was to stay in DI, so that debate is over and done with no matter how much pride those alums are assigning to winning all the time vs. competing at the highest level.  I went from 96-01 and all the guys I know from those years and more recent love that they get to go to a small school, not have scholarships to give out and compete with the best. 

If people want to live in a bubble and only think of these things about what does on in the D3 football world, but Hobart's working to build a national presence.  Get some of that Cheddar that RPI has (we're at around $200MM, RPI has ONE BILLION DOLLARS in respective endowments, Union's like $400-$500MM, I think).

Good stuff pa, but I still think that most of Hobarts reputation comes from it being a great school and that the lax programs infuence as a whole is overated.  I think Hobarts reputation would be just as good if it stayed d3.  On the other hand I understand why they went d1.  If you can get an exception to the rule like that, you may as well keep it.  (Unions endowment was under 300 millioin last year FYI)

(I do have to admit that I've never heard of Bellarmine until they started a d1 lax program)

[ExTartanPlayer]

Upstate isn't beating a dead horse here.  He's beating a dead unicorn since the rationale just doesn't exist.

Upstate, I'm well aware that there are REASONS why SJF scheduled Buff State, Frostburgh, et cet.  However, you keep perpetuating this idea that Hobart is running from competition while SJF gallantly takes on the world.  It's just not true - with the exception of the Mount Union game in 2008-09, the quality of Hobart's nonconference opponents is essentially on par with SJF's over the last decade.

SJF plays a terrible King's team for several years running?  No problem, Upstate points out that King's was really good when that series was started.  However, if I point out that Hobart started the series with CMU the year after CMU won a playoff game, somehow this logic isn't allowed to extend to them. 

I understand SJF's long-running series with UR is for other reasons - I'm more familiar with UR than you might think (UR was the other in my "final two" before I announced a national press conference to say that I was taking my talents to Forbes Avenue).  However, as Frank eloquently points out, Hobart has maintained a long-running series with Dickinson for "other reasons" as well - it's good recruiting exposure for them to keep a series with a school in Pennsylvania, and Dickinson is a fairly similar institution from a fairly similar conference of schools.  Again, Upstate, you slam Hobart here while giving SJF a free pass.

I guess my point, Upstate, is that you can't have it both ways.  If SJF gets to keep a series with mediocre Rochester for "other reasons" then you have to give that same leeway to Hobart for keeping the series with Dickinson (a program that's roughly equivalent to Rochester over the past decade).  If SJF gets credit for playing King's when they "used to" be good, then you have to give that same credit to Hobart for scheduling CMU coming off a playoff appearance (who is not nearly the chopped liver that you're making them out to be; CMU went 63-39 in the 2000's, while King's went 53-53).

[boobyhasgameyo]

Upstate isn't beating a dead horse here.  He's beating a dead unicorn since the rationale just doesn't exist.

Upstate, I'm well aware that there are REASONS why SJF scheduled Buff State, Frostburgh, et cet.  However, you keep perpetuating this idea that Hobart is running from competition while SJF gallantly takes on the world.  It's just not true - with the exception of the Mount Union game in 2008-09, the quality of Hobart's nonconference opponents is essentially on par with SJF's over the last decade.

SJF plays a terrible King's team for several years running?  No problem, Upstate points out that King's was really good when that series was started.  However, if I point out that Hobart started the series with CMU the year after CMU won a playoff game, somehow this logic isn't allowed to extend to them. 

I understand SJF's long-running series with UR is for other reasons - I'm more familiar with UR than you might think (UR was the other in my "final two" before I announced a national press conference to say that I was taking my talents to Forbes Avenue).  However, as Frank eloquently points out, Hobart has maintained a long-running series with Dickinson for "other reasons" as well - it's good recruiting exposure for them to keep a series with a school in Pennsylvania, and Dickinson is a fairly similar institution from a fairly similar conference of schools.  Again, Upstate, you slam Hobart here while giving SJF a free pass.

I guess my point, Upstate, is that you can't have it both ways.  If SJF gets to keep a series with mediocre Rochester for "other reasons" then you have to give that same leeway to Hobart for keeping the series with Dickinson (a program that's roughly equivalent to Rochester over the past decade).  If SJF gets credit for playing King's when they "used to" be good, then you have to give that same credit to Hobart for scheduling CMU coming off a playoff appearance (who is not nearly the chopped liver that you're making them out to be; CMU went 63-39 in the 2000's, while King's went 53-53).

Fisher also scheduled a home and home with Salisbury the past couple of years...also not a bad team. 

[AUKaz00]

Fisher also scheduled a home and home with Salisbury the past couple of years...also not a bad team.

Salisbury sucks.  If they were in the E8 they'd be lucky to finish 4th!

Ah, crap.

[Frank Rossi]

Fisher also scheduled a home and home with Salisbury the past couple of years...also not a bad team.

Salisbury sucks.  If they were in the E8 they'd be lucky to finish 4th!

Ah, crap.

Well, the 2009 team that beat Fisher might have been lucky since they finished 5-6 that year.  Union had them on the ropes in Maryland that year -- Salisbury has definitely improved over the two years.

[SJFF82]

Dickinson- 3 seasons with more than 6 wins since 2000
F&M- 2 seasons with more than 6 wins since 2000
CMU- 3 seasons with more than 6 wins since 2000

Those are some really impressive teams...

I took the liberty of looking up a few SJF nonconference opponents.

2011

Buff State - 1 season with 6+ wins since 2000 (and that was all the way back IN 2000)
Rochester - 3 seasons with 6+ wins since 2000 (2000, 2006, 2007)
Hobart (covered here)

2010

Brockport State - 6 seasons with 6+ wins, but NONE since going 7-4 in 2008
Buff State (covered above)
Rochester (covered above)
Hobart (covered above)
Frostburg State - 2 seasons with 6+ wins, none since going 6-5 in 2005

If you go back to 2007, we can include King's, a doormat from the MAC.

SJF deserves a lot of credit for having the balls to schedule Mount Union in 2008-09.  Other than that, their nonconference scheduling has been pretty similar to Hobart's over the past five years.  Playing Buff State, Rochester, Frostburg State is certainly no more impressive than Dickinson, F & M, Carnegie Mellon and arguably less so.

I think part of it though is that SJF will play teams close just to get games.  Why wouldn't they play Brockport, Rochester and Buff State?  Those are the closes d3 schools to them.  Hobart seems to play or not play schools based on other things.  SJF doesn't care about who they play, as long as they have 10 games.  It now seems like the NCAA approves of that mentality.

Would like to point out that Buff State is joining the E8 and Frostburg joined the E8 this year as well so it's not like there wasn't a reason for playing them..

It's been covered 100x over in the east but the UR game isn't about football at least for Fisher it wasn't...it was about Camp Good Days.  Apparently UR has had enough of getting their heads kicked in though, and yes their pompous asses are "like that" especially when their HC (before Greene) said he'd rather lose his first born than lose to SJF...

Regards to Kings they were coming off 4 straight 7+ win seasons and 3 straight post season appearances when SJF scheduled them...

Brockport kicked the hell out of SJF like 13 years in a row but they still kept Brockport on the schedule, Fisher was Ports cupcake back then.  When they moved to the NJAC they had to cancel the long standing series between state school & a private school...

SJF was always playing the top area schools that would kick the hell out of them.  Regardless of conference and school. Why? Because they wanted 10 games and didn't care who they played, SJF didn't hide behind it's private school status.  In fact IC & SJF are the only two private institutions that played state schools year in and year out...

Actually, Port crushed SJF like 17 or 18 straight before Hail Katherine.  Vosburgh has always gone out and tried to schedule the best.  It was RPI/Buff State/Brockport/Catholic/BART in the 90's.  Also he hounded and chased UR until they finally agreed to play SJF.  He got trounced by Cortland 71-0 in '91.  I believe he wanted Ithaca as well in the 90's but no dice. We travelled all over the East and South to play.  Of course that was pre- E8, but that doesnt mean we had to play the likes of the above. 

It is apples and oranges trying to compare 'Bart and SJF OOC scheduling, because you cannot just ignore their conference grind in doing so.  In the face of already having IC/AU/SC and Boltus led Wick on the schedule, SJF went and scheduled MUC...then replaced that with Salisbury....come on....match that?

[SJFF82]

....and how the hell did you get your 'Upstate' account back?

[Pat Coleman]

He asked -- it's not quite the same because his old posts aren't on it but you can change your name whenever you like and I gave him his old post total.

[SJFF82]

He asked -- it's not quite the same because his old posts aren't on it but you can change your name whenever you like and I gave him his old post total.

yeh...when I went on 'sabbatical' for a bit and came back you told me my accnt was kuput...can 82 get his old post total back...man I was up near 2000 when I had my last meltdown