The Big Dance

[Flying Weasel]

For those of us who are unable to watch the games in peace without distractions and interruptions (four kids 6 and under will do that!), having an announcer to listen to while having to turn your attention (and eyes) away from the game, maybe even go into other rooms, is very helpful.  Likewise when trying to multi-task.  You can always mute an announcer you don't like, but there's no way to listen to an announcer that doesn't exist.

The Buffalo St. announcer got overly excited any time it even looked like a player was going to try to shoot.  Name and mastery of Spanish suggested a Hispanic background and his excitability was consistent with the style of announcing that predominates throughout Latin America. He did great with (and seemed to derive great joy from saying) names like Ruiz Plaza, Alejos, etc. even if the abrupt change of accent isn't as smooth on the ears.  (side note: having lived in Brazil for several years, I've repeatedly experienced this in reverse where the Brazilian announcers break their native accent to say an American, English, etc. name leaving me both (a) impressed with the skill to accurately switch accents for a single word (name) while talking a mile a minute, and (b) finding it a little jolting to the ear.)  On the goal call, the announcer just seemed to be trying a little too hard to mimic the goal calls that you'd hear from announcers throughout Latin America.

I can only imagine what people have thought the few times I have stepped in to do play-by-play or color commentary for broadcasts.  Of course, I don't have a lick of training or education or background in this field, so going in I know I'm not going to measure up very well and can only hope that more people are thinking that "any announcer is better than no announcer" instead of thinking that "silence would be better than having to listen to this guy".

I think this is mainly what I was trying to get at. I understand it can be very helpful to have things on in the background, as it's not possible to watch every second of every game -- I am quite guilty of switching tabs when it seems like there's nothing going on, and use the announcer to know when I should be getting back. (Of course, I've missed goals, as sometimes they happen quicker than the announcer can say, and I take full responsibility for that.) So I am grateful for announcers in those circumstances.

That said, I've heard this Buff. St. announcer before, particularly on his call of the goal from the Rochester game, and it just seems that he is trying wayyyyyyyyyy too hard with the "golllllllllllll" schtick, and it seems that he does so in other clips. Considering these are usually the highlights that are presented, rather than run-of-the-mill commentary, perhaps my perspective is distorted and he isn't like that all of the time, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from. And while all of this might make me sound like a "get off my lawn" curmudgeon, I promise I do like to see people having fun on broadcasts, and I recognize one person's idea of fun may be different than others. I would even say that the call is funny (if I had to hear it just once). That said, there are certain things that I'd rather tune out, and this is one of them (perhaps a moot point since Buff. St. is out).

I appreciated the guys enthusiasm. Not dull at all like many announcers I have heard.  I hate total silence..put a friggin mic on the field at least if no  commentator.  And clearly the goal call was from his Hispanic heritage. Hear that all the time watching the Spanish soccer games. Good fun. Also considering neither team.playing was the home team he did his best to get the names of the players on both sides.

Just imagine, a decade ago this discussion wouldn't have been possible!

[Dave B]

For those of us who are unable to watch the games in peace without distractions and interruptions (four kids 6 and under will do that!), having an announcer to listen to while having to turn your attention (and eyes) away from the game, maybe even go into other rooms, is very helpful.  Likewise when trying to multi-task.  You can always mute an announcer you don't like, but there's no way to listen to an announcer that doesn't exist.

The Buffalo St. announcer got overly excited any time it even looked like a player was going to try to shoot.  Name and mastery of Spanish suggested a Hispanic background and his excitability was consistent with the style of announcing that predominates throughout Latin America. He did great with (and seemed to derive great joy from saying) names like Ruiz Plaza, Alejos, etc. even if the abrupt change of accent isn't as smooth on the ears.  (side note: having lived in Brazil for several years, I've repeatedly experienced this in reverse where the Brazilian announcers break their native accent to say an American, English, etc. name leaving me both (a) impressed with the skill to accurately switch accents for a single word (name) while talking a mile a minute, and (b) finding it a little jolting to the ear.)  On the goal call, the announcer just seemed to be trying a little too hard to mimic the goal calls that you'd hear from announcers throughout Latin America.

I can only imagine what people have thought the few times I have stepped in to do play-by-play or color commentary for broadcasts.  Of course, I don't have a lick of training or education or background in this field, so going in I know I'm not going to measure up very well and can only hope that more people are thinking that "any announcer is better than no announcer" instead of thinking that "silence would be better than having to listen to this guy".

I think this is mainly what I was trying to get at. I understand it can be very helpful to have things on in the background, as it's not possible to watch every second of every game -- I am quite guilty of switching tabs when it seems like there's nothing going on, and use the announcer to know when I should be getting back. (Of course, I've missed goals, as sometimes they happen quicker than the announcer can say, and I take full responsibility for that.) So I am grateful for announcers in those circumstances.

That said, I've heard this Buff. St. announcer before, particularly on his call of the goal from the Rochester game, and it just seems that he is trying wayyyyyyyyyy too hard with the "golllllllllllll" schtick, and it seems that he does so in other clips. Considering these are usually the highlights that are presented, rather than run-of-the-mill commentary, perhaps my perspective is distorted and he isn't like that all of the time, but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from. And while all of this might make me sound like a "get off my lawn" curmudgeon, I promise I do like to see people having fun on broadcasts, and I recognize one person's idea of fun may be different than others. I would even say that the call is funny (if I had to hear it just once). That said, there are certain things that I'd rather tune out, and this is one of them (perhaps a moot point since Buff. St. is out).

I appreciated the guys enthusiasm. Not dull at all like many announcers I have heard.  I hate total silence..put a friggin mic on the field at least if no  commentator.  And clearly the goal call was from his Hispanic heritage. Hear that all the time watching the Spanish soccer games. Good fun. Also considering neither team.playing was the home team he did his best to get the names of the players on both sides.

I also thought he did a good job overall.   He was definitely into the game.  I also like it when he rolled the R in Ruiz-Plaza.

But, I thought the GOOOOOOOOOOL call was over the top.  Might be ok for a home goal in a regular season Buff St. game, but not so good for a tournament game. 

[blooter442]

Just imagine, a decade ago this discussion wouldn't have been possible!

Question: when did colleges -- Messiah, for example -- start doing broadcasts (whether audio or video)? I must admit I am quite spoiled having started following D3 soccer in 2010 and generally having access to some way to follow the game beyond the livestats, but I recognize that this has not always been the case. (And when did live stats come around?)

[Falconer]

Was anyone else not that impressed w/ Lycoming throughout the season? Saw them 3 times and each time I thought the same thing; solid team with great athleticism but ZERO discipline. Although CWRU is a good side and is probably the best team in the country that is never ranked, that loss against them showed me what I had been thinking the whole time was in fact correct. I have been far from perfect with my predictions for the tournament, specifically with Rowan, but to me, this Lycoming side never had a shot.

Lycoming is very talented--and, as I pointed out, if they get a referee who lets them mug people without throwing cards and doesn't call many ordinary fouls, they can dominate a better team. This is clearly their style, and we have to assume it comes from the top. If however the fouls are being called (as apparently they were vs Drew), they aren't nearly as effective.

As you say, zero discipline. That's plainly obvious to anyone who studies the number of cards they receive (in games officiated competently), especially cards on the bench or individual players for bitching about appropriate calls that they seem to resent. Not to mention cards for outright fighting, such as that given to Tueno near the end of the game vs Drew. He is a splendid all-around player who can beat teams by playing well within the rules. So, why does he do that? It speaks volumes about team discipline and attitude.

Most good teams aren't like this, regardless of how physically they play. They accept that when they foul people, it's likely to be called, and if they take cheap shots they will probably find themselves on the sidelines pretty quickly. If officiating at D3 level were more consistent, even fewer good teams would be like this.

I want to start this post by saying I do agree with a majority of your post but I will point out that the officials could have doubled the foul count of that game. It was a poorly officiated game from all aspects of the game. I disagree with "zero discipline" comment though and judging that solely off card accumulation totals.   

Surprisingly it was Drew who lacked discipline and were the more aggressive team this time. And if you would like to say it starts at the top then look no further than the Drew HC who got a red card for dissent. I don't believe there were any cards for dissent on Lycoming in this match, only on Drew which happened twice. Fouls were pretty even in this game so to say one was more dirty than the other can't apply in this game. Drew also had more cards in this game.

Sure you can reference cards for dissent etc but I watched quite a few games of Lycoming this year and I do not really recall too many times they received cards for a "lack of discipline" as you phrase it. Did they receive cards for fouls? Of course and plenty of them but if I had to guess maybe only 3 or 4 cards for dissent all year at least from the from games I watched. That's fairly normal for most teams I watched around this region and throughout the country. Drew has 31 cards this year and Dickinson has 37 but nobody has complained about either of those teams or classified them as "borderline dirty." Why such a stigma for one team but not others that have similar card counts?

Lycoming had 37 cards this year and their opponents had 30 which is a similar ratio. They had 2 reds and their opponents had 3. Hard to say they were better or worst in that department compared to the teams they faced this year. For comparison, Lycoming had 36 yellow cards in 2016 which was their worst season in the last half decade, 43 in 2015 when they went to the 3rd round of NCAA's, 33 in 2014 when they lost in the conference finals, and 28 in 2013 when they went to the 2nd round of NCAA's. A majority of these cards come from playing a high pressure/intensity game and as a result of that they can get caught and foul the opponent and sometimes end up getting a yellow card. It's soccer, it's going to happen. To further emphasize this point, Lycoming isn't even in the top 20 in the country for # of cards this year and they played more games then most other teams. I have never really understood the arguments on this message board in terms of fouls and cards etc. I enjoyed the one post from earlier in the year which referenced OWU's coach (I think) stating that if they are losing in fouls they are most likely losing the game. It seems Lycoming plays to that mindset and there is nothing wrong with it or playing high pressure and physical. When it becomes dirty then complaining is justifiable but when they pick up a yellow for a hard tackle that they were half a second late for let's not get too carried away.

MAF: I didn't see this game at all, and I accept your account of it. Thank you for the detailed summary, which is appreciated.

As for my comments about chippy play, I certainly leveled that charge at Lycoming recently, but I haven't singled them out. I often complain about chippiness in games that I've seen in person or over a high quality stream. That is one of my two biggest complaints about D3 soccer; the other one is the great disparity in quality and type of playing surfaces (which isn't the topic here). Usually I connect my comments with poor officiating--which is exactly I what I said in my analysis of the MAC Commonwealth title game. Sometimes officials can't be blamed for chippiness: they call most of the fouls and card the ones that should be carded, yet the number of fouls is still very high b/c that's how a team plays. But, IMO, competent officiating keeps the number of fouls lower and minimizes chippiness as a general rule. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but it lies behind my complaints.

Fouls per se are obviously related to physical play, but most fouls are not cheap shots, so cards are a much better indicator. Every team will collect some fouls, every year--that's almost universally true, although if someone wants me to show them an exception I think could do that. Even the most disciplined teams will receive cards for mistimed tackles, for example. But, disciplined teams should get almost no fouls for complaining. Almost none, and many years none at all, and almost never a red for complaining. It's their own fault, no one else's, if they receive non-negligible numbers of them.

Would you agree with these thoughts, MAF?

An extreme example of having no discipline, noticed by many, was the infamous MSU-RUN game last year: http://montclairathletics.com/boxscore.aspx?path=&id=7422

As you say, Lycoming received 37 Yellows this year--and three reds. Their average of 1.68 YCG is at the top of the MAC Commonweath, but not by a large margin. Two bottom dwellers (Stevenson and Albright) were fairly close in that category, and over the years I've seen some players from one of those two clubs (I won't say which one) make extremely dangerous plays against Messiah that in some instances resulted in straight reds. The better Commonwealth teams this year were well below Lycoming in this statistic. LVC came in at .95, Arcadia at .67, and Messiah at .32. Just one season's numbers, of course, but it would be easy to look back for more comparisons.

By comparison, the Midwest Conference (which isn't very good overall) had two teams close to Lycoming in YCG (Lawrence and Illinois College) and one greatly exceeding Lyco (Knox, the national leader in total cards, comes in with 2.55). I picked that conference without knowing a thing about any of the teams and I had no idea what I'd get. On the other hand, if we compare the NJAC numbers, where I expect to see high YCG based on their reputation, that's exactly what we find: Kean at 2.00, RUC at 1.91, followed by three more teams between 1.43 and 1.56. The two best teams this year, Rowan and RUN, were well below Lyco at 1.36 and 1.21 respectively. The NESCAC doesn't calculate YCG, but the largest number of YC is 21 in 18 games for Amherst, a team that some here have said can be chippy or bitchy--I have not said that myself since I almost never get to see them play, but others have certainly said such things. By comparison, Tufts (said to be a side that can play very physically, but I don't recall anyone complaining about chippiness) has just 14 yellows in 19 games.

Nationally I can't find a # for YCG, just an overall total from the NCAA. Lycoming comes in this week tied for 21st with 36 yellows (perhaps this difference of one from the conference stats is a clerical error)--just outside the top 20 (the group you picked for comparison). If the number is really 37 they would be in the top 20. They are tied for 22nd (with many others, including Drew) in total reds with 3.

I recall data in previous years being roughly similar.

To sum up, I do think Lyco has been a chippy team in recent seasons, but I do not by any means single them out. I comment on this aspect whenever I see it, regardless of which teams are playing. IMO, cards are a relevant indicator, since many of them do not involve unintentional late tackles or badly executed tackles that otherwise would be clean plays. They tend to involve deliberate fouling--something that should be called in each and every instance, IMO, b/c if not called the games can easily get out of hand, people can be hurt, and the team doing it is obtaining an unfair advantage (that is, an advantage not resulting from superior talent or better strategy or making better plays).

Sorry for the long song and dance. I'll try to give this pet peeve a rest now.

[Mr.Right]

Just caught the highlight of Messiah's winner against Hobart. That is really tough for Hobart. That ball had to be dealt with better. Very unfortunate.

A first impression would lead one to say that the keeper dealt with that shot poorly, since it beat him to the short side, the opening wasn't very large, and the shot came from about 18 yards out. However, if you replay it (look for the clip in Messiah's recap), you can make a case that the keeper was at least partially screened from the shooter, so he doesn't react as quickly as you would expect from a skilled veteran on an excellent side (which he is). I think that's what happened.

I am not talking about the GK. I am talking about the defender. With under a minute remaining the defender must clear that out. You can even make a case that the CB coming over to help his wingback out after the wingback got burned should have closed that faster as to not allow even the cross to get hit.

[Mid-Atlantic Fan]

Was anyone else not that impressed w/ Lycoming throughout the season? Saw them 3 times and each time I thought the same thing; solid team with great athleticism but ZERO discipline. Although CWRU is a good side and is probably the best team in the country that is never ranked, that loss against them showed me what I had been thinking the whole time was in fact correct. I have been far from perfect with my predictions for the tournament, specifically with Rowan, but to me, this Lycoming side never had a shot.

Lycoming is very talented--and, as I pointed out, if they get a referee who lets them mug people without throwing cards and doesn't call many ordinary fouls, they can dominate a better team. This is clearly their style, and we have to assume it comes from the top. If however the fouls are being called (as apparently they were vs Drew), they aren't nearly as effective.

As you say, zero discipline. That's plainly obvious to anyone who studies the number of cards they receive (in games officiated competently), especially cards on the bench or individual players for bitching about appropriate calls that they seem to resent. Not to mention cards for outright fighting, such as that given to Tueno near the end of the game vs Drew. He is a splendid all-around player who can beat teams by playing well within the rules. So, why does he do that? It speaks volumes about team discipline and attitude.

Most good teams aren't like this, regardless of how physically they play. They accept that when they foul people, it's likely to be called, and if they take cheap shots they will probably find themselves on the sidelines pretty quickly. If officiating at D3 level were more consistent, even fewer good teams would be like this.

I want to start this post by saying I do agree with a majority of your post but I will point out that the officials could have doubled the foul count of that game. It was a poorly officiated game from all aspects of the game. I disagree with "zero discipline" comment though and judging that solely off card accumulation totals.   

Surprisingly it was Drew who lacked discipline and were the more aggressive team this time. And if you would like to say it starts at the top then look no further than the Drew HC who got a red card for dissent. I don't believe there were any cards for dissent on Lycoming in this match, only on Drew which happened twice. Fouls were pretty even in this game so to say one was more dirty than the other can't apply in this game. Drew also had more cards in this game.

Sure you can reference cards for dissent etc but I watched quite a few games of Lycoming this year and I do not really recall too many times they received cards for a "lack of discipline" as you phrase it. Did they receive cards for fouls? Of course and plenty of them but if I had to guess maybe only 3 or 4 cards for dissent all year at least from the from games I watched. That's fairly normal for most teams I watched around this region and throughout the country. Drew has 31 cards this year and Dickinson has 37 but nobody has complained about either of those teams or classified them as "borderline dirty." Why such a stigma for one team but not others that have similar card counts?

Lycoming had 37 cards this year and their opponents had 30 which is a similar ratio. They had 2 reds and their opponents had 3. Hard to say they were better or worst in that department compared to the teams they faced this year. For comparison, Lycoming had 36 yellow cards in 2016 which was their worst season in the last half decade, 43 in 2015 when they went to the 3rd round of NCAA's, 33 in 2014 when they lost in the conference finals, and 28 in 2013 when they went to the 2nd round of NCAA's. A majority of these cards come from playing a high pressure/intensity game and as a result of that they can get caught and foul the opponent and sometimes end up getting a yellow card. It's soccer, it's going to happen. To further emphasize this point, Lycoming isn't even in the top 20 in the country for # of cards this year and they played more games then most other teams. I have never really understood the arguments on this message board in terms of fouls and cards etc. I enjoyed the one post from earlier in the year which referenced OWU's coach (I think) stating that if they are losing in fouls they are most likely losing the game. It seems Lycoming plays to that mindset and there is nothing wrong with it or playing high pressure and physical. When it becomes dirty then complaining is justifiable but when they pick up a yellow for a hard tackle that they were half a second late for let's not get too carried away.

MAF: I didn't see this game at all, and I accept your account of it. Thank you for the detailed summary, which is appreciated.

As for my comments about chippy play, I certainly leveled that charge at Lycoming recently, but I haven't singled them out. I often complain about chippiness in games that I've seen in person or over a high quality stream. That is one of my two biggest complaints about D3 soccer; the other one is the great disparity in quality and type of playing surfaces (which isn't the topic here). Usually I connect my comments with poor officiating--which is exactly I what I said in my analysis of the MAC Commonwealth title game. Sometimes officials can't be blamed for chippiness: they call most of the fouls and card the ones that should be carded, yet the number of fouls is still very high b/c that's how a team plays. But, IMO, competent officiating keeps the number of fouls lower and minimizes chippiness as a general rule. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but it lies behind my complaints.

Fouls per se are obviously related to physical play, but most fouls are not cheap shots, so cards are a much better indicator. Every team will collect some fouls, every year--that's almost universally true, although if someone wants me to show them an exception I think could do that. Even the most disciplined teams will receive cards for mistimed tackles, for example. But, disciplined teams should get almost no fouls for complaining. Almost none, and many years none at all, and almost never a red for complaining. It's their own fault, no one else's, if they receive non-negligible numbers of them.

Would you agree with these thoughts, MAF?

An extreme example of having no discipline, noticed by many, was the infamous MSU-RUN game last year: http://montclairathletics.com/boxscore.aspx?path=&id=7422

As you say, Lycoming received 37 Yellows this year--and three reds. Their average of 1.68 YCG is at the top of the MAC Commonweath, but not by a large margin. Two bottom dwellers (Stevenson and Albright) were fairly close in that category, and over the years I've seen some players from one of those two clubs (I won't say which one) make extremely dangerous plays against Messiah that in some instances resulted in straight reds. The better Commonwealth teams this year were well below Lycoming in this statistic. LVC came in at .95, Arcadia at .67, and Messiah at .32. Just one season's numbers, of course, but it would be easy to look back for more comparisons.

By comparison, the Midwest Conference (which isn't very good overall) had two teams close to Lycoming in YCG (Lawrence and Illinois College) and one greatly exceeding Lyco (Knox, the national leader in total cards, comes in with 2.55). I picked that conference without knowing a thing about any of the teams and I had no idea what I'd get. On the other hand, if we compare the NJAC numbers, where I expect to see high YCG based on their reputation, that's exactly what we find: Kean at 2.00, RUC at 1.91, followed by three more teams between 1.43 and 1.56. The two best teams this year, Rowan and RUN, were well below Lyco at 1.36 and 1.21 respectively. The NESCAC doesn't calculate YCG, but the largest number of YC is 21 in 18 games for Amherst, a team that some here have said can be chippy or bitchy--I have not said that myself since I almost never get to see them play, but others have certainly said such things. By comparison, Tufts (said to be a side that can play very physically, but I don't recall anyone complaining about chippiness) has just 14 yellows in 19 games.

Nationally I can't find a # for YCG, just an overall total from the NCAA. Lycoming comes in this week tied for 21st with 36 yellows (perhaps this difference of one from the conference stats is a clerical error)--just outside the top 20 (the group you picked for comparison). If the number is really 37 they would be in the top 20. They are tied for 22nd (with many others, including Drew) in total reds with 3.

I recall data in previous years being roughly similar.

To sum up, I do think Lyco has been a chippy team in recent seasons, but I do not by any means single them out. I comment on this aspect whenever I see it, regardless of which teams are playing. IMO, cards are a relevant indicator, since many of them do not involve unintentional late tackles or badly executed tackles that otherwise would be clean plays. They tend to involve deliberate fouling--something that should be called in each and every instance, IMO, b/c if not called the games can easily get out of hand, people can be hurt, and the team doing it is obtaining an unfair advantage (that is, an advantage not resulting from superior talent or better strategy or making better plays).

Sorry for the long song and dance. I'll try to give this pet peeve a rest now.

I don't disagree with that assessment Falconer. I am just relaying from what I saw in watching them play throughout the season and I don't think they are a dirty team at all. I believe they play hard and aggressive soccer and press hard which results in many of the fouls and cards they receive. In the Drew game specifically, I think you would have been surprised that Lycoming arguably was the least aggressive or physical of the two teams until the undisciplined play at the end. With that said, I can't imagine any coach being okay with that play or any coach teaching that kind of behavior to a player. It was certainly a result of frustration and not deemed appropriate by anybody. As such the red card for the Drew coach who now has hurt his team drastically in the next round.   

[Mr.Right]

I must say I kind of like the GOOOOOLLLLLL call...That is not easy to do

[Gregory Sager]

As you say, Lycoming received 37 Yellows this year--and three reds. Their average of 1.68 YCG is at the top of the MAC Commonweath, but not by a large margin. Two bottom dwellers (Stevenson and Albright) were fairly close in that category, and over the years I've seen some players from one of those two clubs (I won't say which one) make extremely dangerous plays against Messiah that in some instances resulted in straight reds. The better Commonwealth teams this year were well below Lycoming in this statistic. LVC came in at .95, Arcadia at .67, and Messiah at .32. Just one season's numbers, of course, but it would be easy to look back for more comparisons.

By comparison, the Midwest Conference (which isn't very good overall) had two teams close to Lycoming in YCG (Lawrence and Illinois College) and one greatly exceeding Lyco (Knox, the national leader in total cards, comes in with 2.55). I picked that conference without knowing a thing about any of the teams and I had no idea what I'd get. On the other hand, if we compare the NJAC numbers, where I expect to see high YCG based on their reputation, that's exactly what we find: Kean at 2.00, RUC at 1.91, followed by three more teams between 1.43 and 1.56. The two best teams this year, Rowan and RUN, were well below Lyco at 1.36 and 1.21 respectively. The NESCAC doesn't calculate YCG, but the largest number of YC is 21 in 18 games for Amherst, a team that some here have said can be chippy or bitchy--I have not said that myself since I almost never get to see them play, but others have certainly said such things. By comparison, Tufts (said to be a side that can play very physically, but I don't recall anyone complaining about chippiness) has just 14 yellows in 19 games.

I'm not sure why you brought the Midwest Conference into the conversation, since you didn't even bother to make performance comparisons among the MWC teams cited the way that you did for the Commonwealth and NJAC teams, but Knox is one of only three MWC teams among the ten in the circuit that can be deemed competent by reasonable national standards. In fact, the Prairie Fire were MWC co-champs this season with St. Norbert, finishing with a 13-3-4, 8-0-1 record. In terms of the two squads close to Lycoming in YCG, Illinois College was middle-of-the-pack for that league (9-8-1, 4-4-1) and Lawrence was the cellar-dweller (which, given the MWC's lower-tier status as a circuit, makes Lawrence particularly dreadful; Massey has Lawrence ranked 391st out of the 415 D3 men's soccer teams), finishing with a record of 2-14-1, 0-8-1.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Just imagine, a decade ago this discussion wouldn't have been possible!

Question: when did colleges -- Messiah, for example -- start doing broadcasts (whether audio or video)? I must admit I am quite spoiled having started following D3 soccer in 2010 and generally having access to some way to follow the game beyond the livestats, but I recognize that this has not always been the case. (And when did live stats come around?)

Mainly in the last ten years or so... give or take exact start years as it where. Many, like Messiah, have also transitioned from one mode of delivery to others. It continues to evolve on a yearly, even monthly, basis. But primarily it has been something that has existed in the last ten years or so.

[firstplaceloser]

I think the guy was great but went over the top with the GOLLL call. other than that he was awesome. the whole R accent he had going was interesting but at least he know the game of futbol. i'm not even sure RUC has live video yet(usually at the games) so I wouldn't know. but it has definitely made D3 soccer a lot more accessiable. don't take it for granted either bc I only have 2 games I can watch from our season and none of them are regular season games.

[Mr.Right]

Do we know why Messiah is playing the day games on Saturday instead of at night?

[2xfaux]

I am curious about field surfaces.  I know in the past teams that played on grass and teams that played on turf seemed to have an advantage when they played on a surface they were more comfortable with.  Is that still true or has turf technology advanced to the point where it is not an issue today? 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Do we know why Messiah is playing the day games on Saturday instead of at night?

I highly suspect because men's and women's basketball have tournaments that weekend with games throughout the day on Saturday... maybe it took less of a burden on staff and resources to do day games instead of night games. It appears the soccer games are early enough to keep the overlap at a minimum.

[Mr.Right]

2017 National Championship Odds:

Calvin                    4-1
Tufts                      8-1
Chicago                  10-1
Messiah                  10-1
Brandeis                 12-1
Amherst                 16-1
St.Thomas              18-1
M.H.B.                    18-1
Rochester               20-1
Emory                    22-1
North Park              22-1
W & L                     26-1
Hopkins                  26-1
Drew                      30-1
Otterbein                50-1
Stevens                  50-1

[Mr.Right]

Do we know why Messiah is playing the day games on Saturday instead of at night?

I highly suspect because men's and women's basketball have tournaments that weekend with games throughout the day on Saturday... maybe it took less of a burden on staff and resources to do day games instead of night games. It appears the soccer games are early enough to keep the overlap at a minimum.

Your kidding me right? Are you saying Basketball/ staffing is dictating this? There must be another reason