Big Dance

[Mr.Right]

Second and this speaks to 2016 as well but as d3 athletes you don't get to do many press conferences so when you do guys fall into a lot of cliches to avoid rocking the boat. They also are going to try and be complimentary and deferential to the opponent, so citing how they wanted to get another shot after X team beat us last time is a natural response.

yup...deer in headlights type deal..still there is a way to finesse a jaw drop here or there without losing minutes. i'll give it to you its risky maybe we can put it on the list of team goals for Tufts 2020..

[Saint of Old]

To chime in on Serpone's press conference I have several views.

First I agree with Mr. R...
This man did not sleep like a baby after losing the final, I think he massaged his true feelings for the benefit of two kids he loved who were next to him as well as the rest of the senior class.

He had to put the season in context and he knew these boyz were hurting alot after failing to climb the mountain after coming so very close.

Also, I do think he he was not hugely perturbed because he has already won a championship.

Losing in the dance hurts seniors  a whole lot more than it does coaches, who must quickly switch to next season while seniors  must master the game of transitioning from a good player to a good alumni.

Even seniors who have climbed the mountain before are destroyed when losing in the dance, and the closer they get to that chip the more it will hurt.

Bottom line is the boys from Amherst have alot to be sooo very proud of.
They are an undisputed National power who have a great tradition.

I have always questioned their playing style, but this season I saw some good football, and it seems they are evolving in a real ball playing teram.
Dont get me wrong, once you win a national championship, it matters not what style you play because you have proved yourself a winner and Amherst has.

Now, they still have to get that 2nd championship to be seen on the same level as Wheaton/OWU other programs that have won more than one title, then again so do my boyz from Canton and Trinity Texas and maybe a couple more programs I forgot.

[Mr.Right]

As long as the field meets the NCAA minimum, they are fine. Minimum is 70x115. Max 75x120 - unless built before 1995 ... but I think those are usually not allowed to host (unless extenuating circumstances).

If we are talking about weather making a grass field unplayable ... that happens. The weather in New England this weekend was ... well ... wicked! Not much one can do about that and I don't expect a committee to say, "well since weather could be lousy, Amherst shouldn't host."

The field hockey championships were played after snow was pushed off the field in Penn. this past weekend.

The field is part of the elements one has to adapt to in soccer ... it actually sucks, IMO, that there are so many turf fields now (with countless lines; side note, Sager ... you were seeing soccer, FH, and both lacrosse lines - the worst is when football is also on full display).

Per hosting, there are other things involved in hosting other than geography and "seeding." That doesn't mean Amherst didn't qualify.

Question: Would you know what happens if a "legacy" Head Coach decides to switch his field dimensions and then someday eventually leaves the program....Is the "legacy" program allowed to go back to the pre-1995 dimensions it originally had?

[irapthor]

Speaking of the announcers -- who I commend for being honest when they don't know something or when they missed exactly what happened on a play and do an excellent job overall -- a really interesting moment in the Calvin-Tufts tilt was about 20+ minutes in McHugh commented that Calvin seemed to be dictating play and had an edge with Tufts scrambling a bit.  I agreed with him but at the same time did not think Calvin was necessarily in good shape long term.  Thor responded to McHugh's  observation by hesitating and saying he needed a little more time to decide...and sure enough Tufts scored in the next 3-4 minutes.  I didn't think Calvin was out of it then but by the second goal the game seemed over.  The last time Calvin was down 2 goals was probably in a Sweet 16 game 2-3 years ago against Chicago.

Anyway, Tufts is very interesting that way and I assume it is intentional.. Whereas Amherst tries to overwhelm and steamroll you right out of the gate, Tufts seems to take their time, maybe engaging in a bit of rope-a-dope, and then gradually turns the screws like last night to the point that Calvin had zero space to operate.  And it's at that point, I think versus Amherst and Tufts, that the other team looks like they are from a lower division and can hardly get the ball off their feet being suffocated.  Maybe when all of this over Mr. Zinner can give us some insight into whether there is an overt strategy of "OK, let's do this the first 15-20 minutes and then hit this switch, and at 60 minutes hit this other switch, etc."  Tufts' depth (where the 2nd 11 might well be a Sweet 16 team) is a key obviously, and to exaggerate just a tad the Jumbos seem to have at least one kid score every game that you didn't even know was on the roster.

Good observation Paul. I felt as if Tufts wasn't being outplayed but rather allowing its defense to contain Calvin until its offense could find an opening...which they did. And again. And again and then it was over. Tufts was too good to allow any team to truly dictate play; rather it was a chess match and they were waiting for one piece to make an imperfect move.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

As long as the field meets the NCAA minimum, they are fine. Minimum is 70x115. Max 75x120 - unless built before 1995 ... but I think those are usually not allowed to host (unless extenuating circumstances).

If we are talking about weather making a grass field unplayable ... that happens. The weather in New England this weekend was ... well ... wicked! Not much one can do about that and I don't expect a committee to say, "well since weather could be lousy, Amherst shouldn't host."

The field hockey championships were played after snow was pushed off the field in Penn. this past weekend.

The field is part of the elements one has to adapt to in soccer ... it actually sucks, IMO, that there are so many turf fields now (with countless lines; side note, Sager ... you were seeing soccer, FH, and both lacrosse lines - the worst is when football is also on full display).

Per hosting, there are other things involved in hosting other than geography and "seeding." That doesn't mean Amherst didn't qualify.

Question: Would you know what happens if a "legacy" Head Coach decides to switch his field dimensions and then someday eventually leaves the program....Is the "legacy" program allowed to go back to the pre-1995 dimensions it originally had?

Once the field is changed, the grandfather clause allowing them to have the smaller size is gone.

It has nothing to do with the program (or coach) it has to do with the facility.

Gallaudet used to be 100x50. They eventually have gone to a more modern set-up. They can't go back to the 100x50 field.

[Gregory Sager]

50 x 100? Holy cow!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

50 x 100? Holy cow!

Yeah ... it was insane to play on that field every other year. Us goalies were one-bouncing the opposing penalty box pretty often (or in my friend's case, the first bounce was sometimes in the opposing box).

[Gregory Sager]

It's not the short length that freaks me out, since 100 yards is still legal and I've seen D3 games played on such a short field -- it's the narrow width. Fifty yards is only two-thirds of the standard width. Heck, it's practically Lil Kickers width.

[Caz Bombers]

It's not the short length that freaks me out, since 100 yards is still legal and I've seen D3 games played on such a short field -- it's the narrow width. Fifty yards is only two-thirds of the standard width. Heck, it's practically Lil Kickers width.

"anything wider than 30 yards is just showing off" - New York City FC

[jknezek]

It's not the short length that freaks me out, since 100 yards is still legal and I've seen D3 games played on such a short field -- it's the narrow width. Fifty yards is only two-thirds of the standard width. Heck, it's practically Lil Kickers width.

"anything wider than 30 yards is just showing off" - New York City FC

Yes. The Yankee Stadium field is a joke. MLS did so well for a while getting teams into their own stadiums. Then they started to regress. NYFC's field situation is a joke and I really think Charlotte is a mistake. It's going to look more like New England than Atlanta in that football stadium...

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

It's not the short length that freaks me out, since 100 yards is still legal and I've seen D3 games played on such a short field -- it's the narrow width. Fifty yards is only two-thirds of the standard width. Heck, it's practically Lil Kickers width.

Yeah ... my freshman year we had the widest field at least in the Mid-Atlantic Region (I swear we measured if off many times to 80 yards, though that feels extreme). We would love having teams who liked to run or played on narrower fields come to our place ... because we would spread it out and wear the hell out of them. Gallaudet at our place was funny to watch sometimes.

Yeah, the narrow field was tough to play on. It also could have been slightly more than 50 yards, but it wasn't more than 60. It was like playing on a postage stamp.

[Mr.Right]

Copied from my post on NESCAC thread:
A strange day at Amherst, having to switch fields at halftime. If I'm Serpone, I definitely dig in and insist on playing on my home field as the home team. No faulting the decision, as Hitchcock Field--although tricky in spots--was deemed playable by officials before kick-off. Good job by all crews to get game going again on Gooding. Amherst deserved the win today. Congrats to RPI on a strong season.

RPI/Adam Clinton does not agree......The ref really put himself in a spot here.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pTpTTnQMT0