ECACs

[Frank Rossi]

I think Pat's point is meant to support mine -- that despite the complaints, it helped make the NE teams better because they realized what it took to improve (and began to up the ante with full-time coaches, better facilities, and better recruiting).  The next logical step to getting a better top-to-bottom East Region is to create crossovers that match up teams of supposed equal relative strength (at least based on ECAC regions) to assess where the teams fall and what they can do to improve.  Why are we matching up North #1 against North #6?  What does that really accomplish?  Mock real Bowls here and help make the Region better.

That said, to Gordon and Dave, I think the important answer we're overlooking is to the fifth question we asked about the ECAC's future in D3 athletics generally.  They made it clear that this move is being used as a template for other sports.  I question that move -- football didn't need this as much as the other sports that Dave pointed out.  Why not try this in basketball first to show it can salvage a tournament that may have had waning interest when it was placed always at the #1-seeds site with no real compensation for the traveling teams?  When you show the higher application rates/interest in a less expensive sport, then you prove there can be success in this Bowl maneuver that will improve an already decently robust number of applicants.  While they can indeed change it back next year, there is always a slight amount of permanent damage you can do to the event if you're not careful with what you're changing and the taste you leave in the membership's mouths.  As our question suggested, this move cannot be viewed in a vacuum based on the ECAC's position in D3 after the hockey debacle.  That, too, needs to be fleshed out when we have a chance to ask follow-up questions.  At least, for now, the ECAC has shown an understanding about the prior cost structure teams generally didn't like and are trying to fix that issue.  That's a good start, but like we said on the show, we're not sure about how effective this move will be absent large sponsors.  Stay tuned.

[gordonmann]

Here are the results from crossover ECAC games between East and Northeast region teams, going back to the start of the current set up in 2002. The results were pretty ugly for the Northeast Region early on. While the games have been closer in recent years, the Northeast teams have just two wins (Framingham over RPI last year; Springfield over Alfred in 2012) and one if you drop Liberty League member Springfield.

2014
Framingham State 42, RPI 36 OT
St. John Fisher 28, Western Connecticut 14

2013
None

2012
St. John Fisher 63, Castleton 7
Springfield 31, Alfred 8

2011
Alfred 41, Bridgewater State 10

2010
None

2009
None

2008
St. John Fisher 17, Husson 7

2007
None

2006
None

2005
Alfred 63, Maine Maritime 20

2004
Alfred 36, Norwich 17
Ithaca 36, Mass-Dartmouth 19

2003
Hobart 34, Norwich 18

2002
Hartwick 69, Curry 14
RPI 55, Worcester State 29
Cortland State 30, Westfield State 7

[Pat Coleman]

I think Pat's point is meant to support mine -- that despite the complaints, it helped make the NE teams better because they realized what it took to improve (and began to up the ante with full-time coaches, better facilities, and better recruiting). 

Actually, no, I'm sorry. It was meant to demonstrate that the schools in New England wanted to duck the upstate teams and the ECAC organization allowed it.

Thanks for the digging, Gordon. I thought it was more like 2006 or 2007. You can see the lack of crossover matchups since 2002.

[Frank Rossi]

That leaves out the regular season scheduling by teams like Salve Regina, Framingham St., and others who performed well in the last five years, though.  Again, you can't look at such matchups in a vacuum.  The risks have either been successful or close to it generally as the mindset of NE football has changed since the days of Curry's domination.

[Pat Coleman]

That leaves out the regular season scheduling by teams like Salve Regina, Framingham St., and others who performed well in the last five years, though.  Again, you can't look at such matchups in a vacuum.  The risks have either been successful or close to it generally as the mindset of NE football has changed since the days of Curry's domination.

No doubt, but those are decisions by schools. I'm talking about the ECAC organization.

[gordonmann]

That leaves out the regular season scheduling by teams like Salve Regina, Framingham St., and others who performed well in the last five years, though.

Sure. I was intentionally focusing on ECAC games because that was the context for Pat's remarks and the questions that followed it. I'm not intentionally picking those results to make the Northeast teams look bad.

To answer an earlier question and support your point, I think that the gap between the top teams in the Northeast and the East has narrowed in recent years. Recent NCAA playoff results and the good regular season showings that you mentioned bear that out. To use the point of comparison I know best, a good team from New England would be very competitive with the second best team from the MAC this year, whomever that ends up being.

[Bombers798891]

That leaves out the regular season scheduling by teams like Salve Regina, Framingham St., and others who performed well in the last five years, though.  Again, you can't look at such matchups in a vacuum.  The risks have either been successful or close to it generally as the mindset of NE football has changed since the days of Curry's domination.

No doubt, but those are decisions by schools. I'm talking about the ECAC organization.

Yeah, but I don't really see why that's an issue. NE teams were playing upstate NY teams all the time in the regular season. Heck, W. Conn, Springfield, Norwich, and WPI were in leagues with them, never mind that teams like Utica and Hartwick were essentially building their OOC schedules around the Curry/Becker/Castleton/Husson's of the world.

If the NE schools (or any schools really) are saying they don't want to play upstate NY teams (or any schools really) not only should the ECACs not be criticized for allowing it, they should be praised.

What started this discussion, and a major problem the fans have with the ECACs is a perception (which is true to varying degrees)  that people and even teams don't care about the ECACs. Well, scheduling teams that don't want to play each other isn't going to help that.

[Pat Coleman]

Well, scheduling teams that don't want to play each other isn't going to help that.

Which is fine in a regular season game, but I think in a postseason game you shouldn't really have veto power over who you play. Wouldn't you think?

[Bombers798891]

Well, scheduling teams that don't want to play each other isn't going to help that.

Which is fine in a regular season game, but I think in a postseason game you shouldn't really have veto power over who you play. Wouldn't you think?

Except again, we're talking about a postseason game (really a series of them) that is struggling to generate interest and hype.  Not only that, it's totally voluntary. The ECAC can't order you to go, they have to hope you declare. Getting matchups teams are excited about is going to help with that.

Should there be a limit to how much bending over the ECAC does? Sure. And you may differ from me on where that limit is. But if I'm an AD, and I say to the ECAC, "We really don't want to play these schools" and you give one of them to us, I'm going to question if it's in our best interest to take part in it in the future.

[lewdogg11]

Some of the comments here sound like they are coming from a bunch of babies.(Talking about you Bombers)  While it may be a disappointment that a team doesn't make the NCAA tournament, the ability to play an additional game is an honor for the players, and also, in the grand scheme of things it's 1 additional time to lace up your shoes and also an additional time for a team to play together.  There's are many reasons why you see the same teams in the final 4 each year here, but part of it can be attributed to the fact that they are getting to play 4-5 more games than every other team every single year.  Any 4 year players who have graduated from Mt. Union over the past 7 year got to play 15 games a year.  Breaking out my Texas Instruments calculator, that comes out to 20 more games than a 10 game schedule team with no post season over the course of a career.  ultimately, they are playing 6 seasons in 4 years.  If you don't think that is valuable, you are absolutely crazy.  Regardless of the opponents, take a look at last year's ECAC teams.  Some of them are the teams actually making some noise this year.  Maybe that one extra game gave some additional experience, or knowledge, or broke down a mental barrier that they are closer than they thought.  You have Albright, Salisbury, RPI, Framingham, Western NE, Stevenson, and even teams like Buff St and Utica have had some big wins.  The ECAC's might not generate a ton of excitement and they may never, but they are important if you want your team to improve year over year and they can change the mind frame of an entire team.

[Frank Rossi]

An AD in a D1 school doesn't have that ability if the school is bound by a conference affiliation in a particular Bowl Game (PAC-12 #3 vs. SEC #4, for instance).  The idea here is that you: 1) picked your conference and the competition inside it knowingly; and 2) scheduled your OOC opponents.  So, you've played in your wheelhouse for 10-12 games already that year.  You also wouldn't have the option to pick and choose your competition in the NCAA Tournament like that.  The whole intent of Bowl Games is to create compelling matchups to create a level of interest that will get fan bases excited enough to show up and spend money at a distinct location (that's basically the notion the ECAC has suggested in their answers to us Sunday).  What would be a more compelling matchup?

#1 North (Say, Hobart) vs. #6 North (Say, Western Connecticut)

Or

#1 North (Hobart) vs. #1 South (Rowan or DelVal)?

The first game could technically be scheduled any day based on location and school profile (Union scheduled WestConn).  The second game likely will never happen unless it were in the postseason.  Honestly, I'd like to see that second game.  The first game I wouldn't get very excited about if it were played in that scenario.  I think this can continue down the line for all six games with some level of excitement throughout, with Friday being the #4 and #3 matchups, Saturday showcasing the #5 and #2 matchups, and Sunday showcasing the #6 and #1 matchups to balance the weekend.

(EDIT: LD points out something we've discussed for years concerning why in a pool of 240 teams, we have seen such consistent dynasties in D3 over the years.  It's not just recruiting -- it's practice and level of play that continue to help those teams keep their locks on #1-#5 nationally.  Aside from Wesley, the East lacks any real cream rising to the top right now -- we have plenty of middle strength and depth, but nothing up top to get excited about.  If you want to get better as a region, you have to see teams step out of comfort zones and embrace strong opponents to help these teams kick it up a notch the next season.  This is coming from the guy who has been the biggest East Region cheerleader of the past decade on these boards -- some might be surprised about how down I am on the East right now.)

[Bombers798891]

Some of the comments here sound like they are coming from a bunch of babies.(Talking about you Bombers)  While it may be a disappointment that a team doesn't make the NCAA tournament, the ability to play an additional game is an honor for the players, and also, in the grand scheme of things it's 1 additional time to lace up your shoes and also an additional time for a team to play together. 

Well, hey, thanks for the unprompted personal attack.

As has been stated numerous times, what fans think of the game and what players think of the game can, and probably are, two different things. Players may be super pumped to go, and that's great for them. Fans generally don't appear to be, for any number of reasons, and that's okay too.

[lewdogg11]

An AD in a D1 school doesn't have that ability if the school is bound by a conference affiliation in a particular Bowl Game (PAC-12 #3 vs. SEC #4, for instance).  The idea here is that you: 1) picked your conference and the competition inside it knowingly; and 2) scheduled your OOC opponents.  So, you've played in your wheelhouse for 10-12 games already that year.  You also wouldn't have the option to pick and choose your competition in the NCAA Tournament like that.  The whole intent of Bowl Games is to create compelling matchups to create a level of interest that will get fan bases excited enough to show up and spend money at a distinct location (that's basically the notion the ECAC has suggested in their answers to us Sunday).  What would be a more compelling matchup?

#1 North (Say, Hobart) vs. #6 North (Say, Western Connecticut)

Or

#1 North (Hobart) vs. #1 South (Rowan or DelVal)?

The first game could technically be scheduled any day based on location and school profile (Union scheduled WestConn).  The second game likely will never happen unless it were in the postseason.  Honestly, I'd like to see that second game.  The first game I wouldn't get very excited about if it were played in that scenario.  I think this can continue down the line for all six games with some level of excitement throughout, with Friday being the #4 and #3 matchups, Saturday showcasing the #5 and #2 matchups, and Sunday showcasing the #6 and #1 matchups to balance the weekend.

(EDIT: LD points out something we've discussed for years concerning why in a pool of 240 teams, we have seen such consistent dynasties in D3 over the years.  It's not just recruiting -- it's practice and level of play that continue to help those teams keep their locks on #1-#5 nationally.  Aside from Wesley, the East lacks any real cream rising to the top right now -- we have plenty of middle strength and depth, but nothing up top to get excited about.  If you want to get better as a region, you have to see teams step out of comfort zones and embrace strong opponents to help these teams kick it up a notch the next season.  This is coming from the guy who has been the biggest East Region cheerleader of the past decade on these boards -- some might be surprised about how down I am on the East right now.)

You know you are going to get the lash back here of, what good does it do a team to beat up on an inferior opponent?  As far as i'm concerned, that's just as valuable.  Aside from execution and repetition, it also can give the team some fire that they either have a chip on their shoulder that they were wronged by the NCAA, or maybe the realization that if they work a little harder and show up for every game they play, maybe they can make that next step.  The ECACs are not the evil some people make them out to be. 

[lewdogg11]

Some of the comments here sound like they are coming from a bunch of babies.(Talking about you Bombers)  While it may be a disappointment that a team doesn't make the NCAA tournament, the ability to play an additional game is an honor for the players, and also, in the grand scheme of things it's 1 additional time to lace up your shoes and also an additional time for a team to play together. 

Well, hey, thanks for the unprompted personal attack.

As has been stated numerous times, what fans think of the game and what players think of the game can, and probably are, two different things. Players may be super pumped to go, and that's great for them. Fans generally don't appear to be, for any number of reasons, and that's okay too.

It wasn't a personal attack, it was a friendly jab.  Take those little panties and unbunch them.   Thanks -Management

[Frank Rossi]

An AD in a D1 school doesn't have that ability if the school is bound by a conference affiliation in a particular Bowl Game (PAC-12 #3 vs. SEC #4, for instance).  The idea here is that you: 1) picked your conference and the competition inside it knowingly; and 2) scheduled your OOC opponents.  So, you've played in your wheelhouse for 10-12 games already that year.  You also wouldn't have the option to pick and choose your competition in the NCAA Tournament like that.  The whole intent of Bowl Games is to create compelling matchups to create a level of interest that will get fan bases excited enough to show up and spend money at a distinct location (that's basically the notion the ECAC has suggested in their answers to us Sunday).  What would be a more compelling matchup?

#1 North (Say, Hobart) vs. #6 North (Say, Western Connecticut)

Or

#1 North (Hobart) vs. #1 South (Rowan or DelVal)?

The first game could technically be scheduled any day based on location and school profile (Union scheduled WestConn).  The second game likely will never happen unless it were in the postseason.  Honestly, I'd like to see that second game.  The first game I wouldn't get very excited about if it were played in that scenario.  I think this can continue down the line for all six games with some level of excitement throughout, with Friday being the #4 and #3 matchups, Saturday showcasing the #5 and #2 matchups, and Sunday showcasing the #6 and #1 matchups to balance the weekend.

(EDIT: LD points out something we've discussed for years concerning why in a pool of 240 teams, we have seen such consistent dynasties in D3 over the years.  It's not just recruiting -- it's practice and level of play that continue to help those teams keep their locks on #1-#5 nationally.  Aside from Wesley, the East lacks any real cream rising to the top right now -- we have plenty of middle strength and depth, but nothing up top to get excited about.  If you want to get better as a region, you have to see teams step out of comfort zones and embrace strong opponents to help these teams kick it up a notch the next season.  This is coming from the guy who has been the biggest East Region cheerleader of the past decade on these boards -- some might be surprised about how down I am on the East right now.)

You know you are going to get the lash back here of, what good does it do a team to beat up on an inferior opponent?  As far as i'm concerned, that's just as valuable.  Aside from execution and repetition, it also can give the team some fire that they either have a chip on their shoulder that they were wronged by the NCAA, or maybe the realization that if they work a little harder and show up for every game they play, maybe they can make that next step.  The ECACs are not the evil some people make them out to be.

Understood, but my philosophy here is to assign teams to play teams that, at least on paper, are near them based on season performance.  It gives a good measure of who that team is at the end of the season and helps give coaches an assessment of what they're missing or whether or not their competition is strong enough in the regular season.  The 1 vs. 6 matchups just have never felt good because #1 can often be that team that felt slighted and is looking across at some school just excited to be included in the ECAC bunch.  You set up 1 vs. 1, and it automatically forces teams to shake off the hangover and get somewhat pumped about that next few days.  That's my thought, at least.