ECACs

[Div3Fan]

Because I have way too much time on my hands, I took a look at the mapquest times from the schools who played in ECAC games last year to New Britan, CT---

Beyond Fisher's trip, there's nothing too terrible for the "North teams"

Disagree. Let's take Utica's 3-hour, 22-minute trip. You've got the following possibilities if you live in Utica:

1. If they get the 4 p.m. Friday game: Take time off from work
2. If they get the 8 p.m. Friday game: Either spend the night, or drive until about 2 a.m.
3. If they get the 5 p.m. Sunday game: Get home at about 11:30.

All of this in the Northeast, in the winter, where weather can easily add a lot of time to the equation.

The more I think about this, the more I think it's going to not going to work. That doesn't mean the attempt was a bad idea.As jkenezek said, the ECAC games are stale, there's nothing to lose by trying to shake things up. But overall, I don't think this is going to bring lifeblood to the games

For the most part, I agree with you. That being said, what can they do? We all can attest to the games becoming stale, so how can they remedy the situation?

[Bombers798891]

For the most part, I agree with you. That being said, what can they do? We all can attest to the games becoming stale, so how can they remedy the situation?

Look, if this is just for the players, run it any way you want, but if we're talking about getting support for it from fans, if I were running it:

1. Two games, both on Saturday. Let's eliminate the absurdity of a 5 p.m. Sunday start or a 4 p.m. Friday start. We're D-III. An overwhelming majority of our games are played on Saturday. Let's not ask people to get home at midnight or take off work. One matchup of North teams, one of South. This would also help with:

2. Fewer teams playing I think part of what can make these games lose their luster are things like, I don't know, taking every E8 team that meets the qualifications. You're trying to sell me this is special and notable, but is it really if you're taking 14 (now 12) teams from a potential pool of what, 30? 40?

3. Work a bit to find storylines I'm sure there's some of this, but I'd do some digging to see "Hey, what else might be interesting in this matchup"?

Like, Fisher-Morrisville would be interesting, in part, because the Morrisville coach is a former Fisher QB. (I know they're conference mates, but the general principle here is more important than the specifics). Maybe there are two teams who both have all-region/conference QBs. Maybe the two teams met in the playoffs somewhat frequently over the years. Maybe there are two teams that always wanted to play each other, but never could.

You have to figure most students are a no go either way and most parents/family friends are a yes. So your untapped market is probably

(1) Longtime program supporters, who might get sucked in if you find the right storyline. For example, when Ithaca played Union in 1999, it was a big deal to some fans because they remembered the playoff games and how Ithaca had wanted for years for Union to play them. (I'm not sure what the attendance was—Frank, do you?)

(2) General football fans, who are going to want the best possible matchup you can deliver. That might mean the best teams, it might mean some all-americans or guys who are at the tops in D-III in something notable.

If you're putting 6-4 teams against each other, or teams with no history/connection to each other, well, of course you're going to draw flies.

If I'm being 100% realistic, we should just channel Mean Girls and stop trying to make the ECACs a thing. They're probably not ever going to be (for fans, at least. As ETP has pointed out, the game may have meaning for players.) It's the week of Thanksgiving, the weather can suck...like, it's okay if it stops.

[Div3Fan]

I really like the idea of less teams playing, and of course the games should be on Saturday.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

ITH Radio:

Nice job on the Q&A with the ECAC President. Given Frank's professional background, he doesn't need my advice on asking good follow up questions and you couldn't do any follow up questions with a written Q&A. But if you get a chance to follow up with McGuiness, I'd be curious to hear more about how much support this move has among South region members. His written response indicated that the Board supports the move. But if that's the ECAC general Board of Directors, there's not a single representative on the board who has a Division III football program.

http://www.ecacsports.com/inside/about/committees/board/index

I'd hope that they have a broader level of support among Division III than representatives from Southern Maine, Rutgers-Newark, Penn State-Altoona and the CUNYAC for moves involving football.

I accept all the advice I can get, Gordon!  That said, that South-based line of questioning was definitely sitting out there for further discussion.  Thank you for quantifying the amount of South football member representation on the ECAC Board -- saves us some legwork for later on.  And thanks to NED3Guy for the mapping of last year's participants.  When we have the scheduling of the ECAC President firmed up, we'll seek questions from here and on Twitter for the interview.  For now, as I suggested on the podcast, the jury is out based on the amount of $$ sponsors chip in and the willingness of teams to drive many hours, even if the costs are defrayed.  I'm curious as to the ECAC's promised future announcements concerning some of these issues.

FYI - some of that southern representation may have changed, but isn't official on the ECAC site. There are a number of individuals listed as having their terms expire in "Fall 2015." Four of them in fact with two of those being Division III institutions. The ECAC just had their executive meetings a few weeks ago (the week the hockey announcements were being made), so those four seats could easily have been replaced then (I don't know the exact nature of ECAC executive meetings, but that's usually when board memberships run out - see NCAA Convention as an example) and haven't updated their website (shocking! I know!). Just those two DIIIs could have been replaced with Southern schools... though, again, not sure how two members would make for an indication of support from across the ECAC.

[Frank Rossi]

Bombers, I hope you got excited on October 10th when Fisher played Morrisville.   

[jknezek]

I wonder if by standardizing where they are playing they can make better match ups. Seems to me some of the more intriguing match ups in the past might have been distance prohibitive. Now that they don't have that problem, maybe the match ups can be improved? Or maybe you can shift to a north versus south format and generate intrigue that way?

One way I'd try and do it is to try and create conference rivalries. I know it's hard because not everyone belongs and not all who belong apply, but if you could every year take the best team from say the E8 who agrees to play and always pit them against the best Centennial team or PAC team after a while it might become a conference brag issue and gain intensity that way. Figure you could try and create a New England Championship, or maybe a NY State ECAC championship, etc.

Just a thought.

[Bombers798891]

Bombers, I hope you got excited on October 10th when Fisher played Morrisville.   

Why would I? I'm not a Fisher fan. If Josh Felicetti were coaching Morrisville, I'd be much more interested when Ithaca plays them.

My point wasn't necessarily that Fisher-Morrisville would be a great matchup. It's just that, if you're trying to sell these games, you might want to look at something beyond the quality of the teams themselves. Are there other aspects to the game that might intriguing for fans of the teams playing? That was just an example I could come up with off the top of my head.

[gordonmann]

FYI - some of that southern representation may have changed, but isn't official on the ECAC site. There are a number of individuals listed as having their terms expire in "Fall 2015." Four of them in fact with two of those being Division III institutions. The ECAC just had their executive meetings a few weeks ago (the week the hockey announcements were being made), so those four seats could easily have been replaced then (I don't know the exact nature of ECAC executive meetings, but that's usually when board memberships run out - see NCAA Convention as an example) and haven't updated their website (shocking! I know!). Just those two DIIIs could have been replaced with Southern schools... though, again, not sure how two members would make for an indication of support from across the ECAC.

Sure, though I don't know how involved the new board members would have been in reviewing and approving something released last week. I assume this was in the works for a least a few months.

FWIW I don't have a problem with the ECAC trying something different to pump life into the games. If it doesn't work, they can always go back to the old way later if they want to.

My take away from the written Q&A is that the ECAC will try very hard to get corporate sponsors to defray the additional travel costs.  I think they clearly understand the financial limitations of their members.

But I was less convinced by the response to the question whether this initiative has support among the southern or western most members of ECAC. The answer to that question sounded like someone responding to the question they wanted to answer (Does your board support it?) instead of the one that was actually asked (Do your members support it?). And if it's the same board as the one posted above -- the one with zero Division III football members on it -- citing board support is an extremely weak proxy for members support.

I also am not convinced the organization as a whole isn't trying to retrench its position and bolster support among New England members, given its historic strength there.  That's not something they could admit publicly and it may not even be a conscious decision at this point. But it's a reasonable strategy if they're trying redefine themselves in a changing landscape where schools and conferences have more ability to handle things like publicity and scheduling independent of the ECAC.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Lot of interesting chatter on the last page here. 

Bombers, great points as always.  Just want that recognized.  I think you're onto something with the idea of just inviting fewer teams and looking for storylines, but I actually like jknezek's idea of trying to create conference rivalries a little better.  Maybe some people would find that corny.  Maybe SJF would take a crap in the ECAC's every other year because they're too cool for school after just missing the playoffs.  It does have its own issues, like not every team being a member, but if this was a serious consideration I think that would be cool. 

The MAC-NJAC bowl, the E8-LL bowl, the NEFC-ECFC bowl, and the PAC-Centennial bowl.  Something (roughly) like that seems viable (or you could totally switch the league matchups if you wanted to make it leagues that don't normally play each other much).  I haven't counted the number of leagues that have ECAC members, but if there were an even number of leagues like 8 or 10, all the better (and limiting it to one team per conference would slightly reduce the number of teams to a more reasonable ballpark).

[Frank Rossi]

Why limit yourself?  I'd like to see #1 North vs. #1 South, and so on.  If we're getting all these teams together under one roof, the traditional regional nature of the Bowls should be out the window to create a real out-of-conference and out-of-locality challenge.  Wouldn't that create the best value of these Bowls ultimately?  When we line traditional D1 Bowls up, we tend to see conferences offer up equivalent levels of schools based on standings.  That's what could drive real interest here, even in the #6 vs. #6 game.

[NED3Guy]

The MAC-NJAC bowl, the E8-LL bowl, the NEFC-ECFC bowl, and the PAC-Centennial bowl.  Something (roughly) like that seems viable (or you could totally switch the league matchups if you wanted to make it leagues that don't normally play each other much).  I haven't counted the number of leagues that have ECAC members, but if there were an even number of leagues like 8 or 10, all the better (and limiting it to one team per conference would slightly reduce the number of teams to a more reasonable ballpark).

Love that idea of limiting it to 1 bowl bid per conference....and while maybe not every league member is an ECAC member, it'd add some prestige to earn your conferences lone bowl bid.

Wouldn't mind seeing the pre determined conference match-ups. It works at the D1 level, so why not do it for d3? Every region has their own mini rivalries between conferences anyways and given the expected conference shuffle that is bound to continue in the coming years, there's bound to be further debate about what conferences are better than others.

One big downside to that format would be the fact that it's hard to justify making Hobart and say, Alfred travel to CT to play each other.

[Bombers798891]

The MAC-NJAC bowl, the E8-LL bowl, the NEFC-ECFC bowl, and the PAC-Centennial bowl.  Something (roughly) like that seems viable (or you could totally switch the league matchups if you wanted to make it leagues that don't normally play each other much).  .

Isn't this a bit of a catch-22 though? The LL is probably the natural rival to the E8, and the NEFC to the ECFC, so that would make for arguably the most compelling matchup...except that's probably why these teams tend to play each other in the regular season. Of course, the flip side is, if you try like and E8/NJAC and LL/NEFC matchup, you're left trying to create a rivalry between two conferences using teams that might have little/no history, which is pretty hard.

Other thoughts:

1. I know this is usually frowned upon because it provides BB material, but why not ask the schools "Hey, is there a team you think your players/fans would like to see you go up against?"

2. Don't be afraid to troll (Ithaca @ Curry! Salisbury @ anyone who plays on grass!)

3. Tie it into something charitable, like the Courage Bowl does. Honestly, it's win-win. Good publicity, someone else benefits, you can expand your audience.

[Pat Coleman]

Why limit yourself?  I'd like to see #1 North vs. #1 South, and so on.  If we're getting all these teams together under one roof, the traditional regional nature of the Bowls should be out the window to create a real out-of-conference and out-of-locality challenge.  Wouldn't that create the best value of these Bowls ultimately?  When we line traditional D1 Bowls up, we tend to see conferences offer up equivalent levels of schools based on standings.  That's what could drive real interest here, even in the #6 vs. #6 game.

Do you remember in the past how the New England schools complained when they were set up with crossover games vs. the New York Region and all lost? That ended quickly.

[Div3Fan]

Do you remember in the past how the New England schools complained when they were set up with crossover games vs. the New York Region and all lost? That ended quickly.

This was actually a thing? Wow.

[Bombers798891]

Why limit yourself?  I'd like to see #1 North vs. #1 South, and so on.  If we're getting all these teams together under one roof, the traditional regional nature of the Bowls should be out the window to create a real out-of-conference and out-of-locality challenge.  Wouldn't that create the best value of these Bowls ultimately?  When we line traditional D1 Bowls up, we tend to see conferences offer up equivalent levels of schools based on standings.  That's what could drive real interest here, even in the #6 vs. #6 game.

Do you remember in the past how the New England schools complained when they were set up with crossover games vs. the New York Region and all lost? That ended quickly.

When was this?

Do you think the attitude is the same today?