FB: Empire 8

Started by admin, August 16, 2005, 04:58:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bombers798891

Quote from: sjfcards on March 16, 2015, 02:21:02 PM
Getting back on the boards for the first time in a while prompted me to do a little research on Fisher for next year. I have to admit I hadn't thought about D3 football in a while, but from my very quick look at the roster Fisher's offense should be pretty strong next year. The loss of Fenti will hurt, no doubt, but either Matt Naton or Danny Catan will have lots of options with Collichio, Campese, Fusco, and Chambers all coming back. The O line will have Khari Demos, Kyle Gensler, and Bilal Green back and the running game (Fusco and Chambers) was a huge part of the offense last year. I think I heard somewhere that Nigolian has another year, and if he comes back the offense could be special. Hopefully Naton can spread the ball around, but the running game should help that.

On Defense I have not looked at the defense yet, but I know Jordan Andrews (All east region 3rd team) Mark Guarino-Hyde (hurt most of last year) and Brandon Fuentes are back. Not sure who I am missing there, but having looked at this I think it could be a good year for Fisher.

Fisher's probably the favorite, so the question naturally becomes: On whose field do the Bombers get to celebrate winning the E8 title this season? That Buffalo State game sounds about right.

(Come on, after seven years, I have to take it while I can get it)

In a related story, the IC football Facebook page posted an update that concluded with a #burntheships hashtag. This seems like a reference to Cortes' conquest of the Aztecs, so apparently, the season will require the quelling of mutinies. Let that one sink in.

sjfcards

Quote from: Bombers798891 on March 16, 2015, 05:29:43 PM
Fisher's probably the favorite, so the question naturally becomes: On whose field do the Bombers get to celebrate winning the E8 title this season? That Buffalo State game sounds about right.

(Come on, after seven years, I have to take it while I can get it)

Well it won't be at Growney if for no other reason than Fisher goes to IC this year. Thank god. That was painful to watch this past season.
GO FISHER!!!

sjfcards

Any word out of spring practice as to who will be the starting QB next year for Fisher? I think the offense is going to be good, but I am interested to see who will be taking the snaps.
GO FISHER!!!

Bombers798891

Interesting front page survey regarding how many AQs is too many in D-III football. I figured it's a bit slow so it could be a talking point.

My stance on this is unscientific, but generally it's as follows: As soon as we run the risk of leaving out a legit national title contender who finds themselves in a Pool C situation, we've got too many. I remember a year Ithaca's lacrosse team went 14-1 in the regular season, was ranked 3rd, and had a road win over then #2 Cortland State. They lost in the conference tournament and missed the NCAAs altogether because of a bunch of other upsets. Cortland won the national title.

I remember thinking at that point: "Why even bother with a regular season? If one loss can undo everything an elite team has done and prevent it from making the NCAAs, what's the point?"

This is a bit trickier in football since Mount and Whitewater make it hard to argue a potential national champion is left out, but I think if those two teams ever loosen their stranglehold a bit, we could run into that problem if we're at 27/28 AQ teams.

Honestly, I'm less concerned than I used to be about strengthening the playoff field. If a 5-5 St. Lawrence gets in some year and some 8-2, Top 20-25 team whose ceiling was the quarters gets left out, meh, I'm okay with it. But the more the field shrinks, the more I worry we're eventually going to leave out some Top 5-10 team who lost to another elite program on some last-second field goal.

D3MAFAN

Quote from: Bombers798891 on April 21, 2015, 12:34:15 PM
Interesting front page survey regarding how many AQs is too many in D-III football. I figured it's a bit slow so it could be a talking point.

My stance on this is unscientific, but generally it's as follows: As soon as we run the risk of leaving out a legit national title contender who finds themselves in a Pool C situation, we've got too many. I remember a year Ithaca's lacrosse team went 14-1 in the regular season, was ranked 3rd, and had a road win over then #2 Cortland State. They lost in the conference tournament and missed the NCAAs altogether because of a bunch of other upsets. Cortland won the national title.

I remember thinking at that point: "Why even bother with a regular season? If one loss can undo everything an elite team has done and prevent it from making the NCAAs, what's the point?"

This is a bit trickier in football since Mount and Whitewater make it hard to argue a potential national champion is left out, but I think if those two teams ever loosen their stranglehold a bit, we could run into that problem if we're at 27/28 AQ teams.

Honestly, I'm less concerned than I used to be about strengthening the playoff field. If a 5-5 St. Lawrence gets in some year and some 8-2, Top 20-25 team whose ceiling was the quarters gets left out, meh, I'm okay with it. But the more the field shrinks, the more I worry we're eventually going to leave out some Top 5-10 team who lost to another elite program on some last-second field goal.

I think there is a model that encourage teams/programs/schools to up their strength of schedule or face losing their AQ bid and get thrown into Pool C status, I think that may be the route or the NCAA adds a week and does a play-in type game, which is highly unlikely due to cost restraint. 

Bombers798891

Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on April 21, 2015, 02:18:15 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on April 21, 2015, 12:34:15 PM
Interesting front page survey regarding how many AQs is too many in D-III football. I figured it's a bit slow so it could be a talking point.

My stance on this is unscientific, but generally it's as follows: As soon as we run the risk of leaving out a legit national title contender who finds themselves in a Pool C situation, we've got too many. I remember a year Ithaca's lacrosse team went 14-1 in the regular season, was ranked 3rd, and had a road win over then #2 Cortland State. They lost in the conference tournament and missed the NCAAs altogether because of a bunch of other upsets. Cortland won the national title.

I remember thinking at that point: "Why even bother with a regular season? If one loss can undo everything an elite team has done and prevent it from making the NCAAs, what's the point?"

This is a bit trickier in football since Mount and Whitewater make it hard to argue a potential national champion is left out, but I think if those two teams ever loosen their stranglehold a bit, we could run into that problem if we're at 27/28 AQ teams.

Honestly, I'm less concerned than I used to be about strengthening the playoff field. If a 5-5 St. Lawrence gets in some year and some 8-2, Top 20-25 team whose ceiling was the quarters gets left out, meh, I'm okay with it. But the more the field shrinks, the more I worry we're eventually going to leave out some Top 5-10 team who lost to another elite program on some last-second field goal.

I think there is a model that encourage teams/programs/schools to up their strength of schedule or face losing their AQ bid and get thrown into Pool C status, I think that may be the route or the NCAA adds a week and does a play-in type game, which is highly unlikely due to cost restraint.

I'd be stunned if they added a week. If anything, the playoffs are too long already (I know we'd need 32 teams because of the access ratio, but I think it's ridiculous that the playoffs are half as long as the regular season. It's also why I think playoff stats should not count towards career totals; it's one thing to add a game or two to career totals, it's a whole other thing when it turns into the equivalent of a season—or potentially two)

But I always wondered: What if we applied some sort of criteria to evaluating if a conference winner deserves the autobid? Maybe that you need to be regionally ranked, or something else that might get at these 3/4/5 loss teams, or teams with really bad SOS's. You could even apply some sort of "the same conference can't lose its autobid X years in a row" if you wanted.

This wouldn't eliminate the AQ, or be applied only to whatever conference we think is traditionally weak/new. It would allow us to look at, for example, the 2010 St. Lawrence team or last year's Ithaca team and say that their combination of losses/SOS just doesn't merit an autobid this year.


Pat Coleman

That's something I've advocated for before on these boards -- some type of relaxed earned access, like D-II has but more forgiving.
Publisher. Questions? Check our FAQ for D3f, D3h.
Quote from: old 40 on September 25, 2007, 08:23:57 PMLet's discuss (sports) in a positive way, sometimes kidding each other with no disrespect.

Jonny Utah

Quote from: Bombers798891 on April 22, 2015, 11:41:59 AM
Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on April 21, 2015, 02:18:15 PM
Quote from: Bombers798891 on April 21, 2015, 12:34:15 PM
Interesting front page survey regarding how many AQs is too many in D-III football. I figured it's a bit slow so it could be a talking point.

My stance on this is unscientific, but generally it's as follows: As soon as we run the risk of leaving out a legit national title contender who finds themselves in a Pool C situation, we've got too many. I remember a year Ithaca's lacrosse team went 14-1 in the regular season, was ranked 3rd, and had a road win over then #2 Cortland State. They lost in the conference tournament and missed the NCAAs altogether because of a bunch of other upsets. Cortland won the national title.

I remember thinking at that point: "Why even bother with a regular season? If one loss can undo everything an elite team has done and prevent it from making the NCAAs, what's the point?"

This is a bit trickier in football since Mount and Whitewater make it hard to argue a potential national champion is left out, but I think if those two teams ever loosen their stranglehold a bit, we could run into that problem if we're at 27/28 AQ teams.

Honestly, I'm less concerned than I used to be about strengthening the playoff field. If a 5-5 St. Lawrence gets in some year and some 8-2, Top 20-25 team whose ceiling was the quarters gets left out, meh, I'm okay with it. But the more the field shrinks, the more I worry we're eventually going to leave out some Top 5-10 team who lost to another elite program on some last-second field goal.

I think there is a model that encourage teams/programs/schools to up their strength of schedule or face losing their AQ bid and get thrown into Pool C status, I think that may be the route or the NCAA adds a week and does a play-in type game, which is highly unlikely due to cost restraint.

I'd be stunned if they added a week. If anything, the playoffs are too long already (I know we'd need 32 teams because of the access ratio, but I think it's ridiculous that the playoffs are half as long as the regular season. It's also why I think playoff stats should not count towards career totals; it's one thing to add a game or two to career totals, it's a whole other thing when it turns into the equivalent of a season—or potentially two)

But I always wondered: What if we applied some sort of criteria to evaluating if a conference winner deserves the autobid? Maybe that you need to be regionally ranked, or something else that might get at these 3/4/5 loss teams, or teams with really bad SOS's. You could even apply some sort of "the same conference can't lose its autobid X years in a row" if you wanted.

This wouldn't eliminate the AQ, or be applied only to whatever conference we think is traditionally weak/new. It would allow us to look at, for example, the 2010 St. Lawrence team or last year's Ithaca team and say that their combination of losses/SOS just doesn't merit an autobid this year.

What you propose would ensure the best teams make the playoffs, but the NCAA has made it pretty clear that they don't really care about that.  It's all about access, equity, pool A bids, and less human decision making.

As for your examples of ST. Lawrence and Ithaca, I'm not sure that would be the right move either.  I'd say there were probably 3-4 teams that weren't as good as ithaca last year.  It also might not be fair to St. Lawrence either.  It's almost like the NCAA would be saying, "the LL deserves a bit of Hobart or union or RPI make it, but if anyone else wins the league, they don't deserve it"

I mean realistically, he NCAA should only take 4 teams.  It's been pretty clear that only 4 teams have a chance to win it anyway. So you might as well let everyone get in right?

jknezek

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on April 22, 2015, 03:11:14 PM
I mean realistically, he NCAA should only take 4 teams.  It's been pretty clear that only 4 teams have a chance to win it anyway. So you might as well let everyone get in right?

This is my issue as well. DIII football is, and has been for a long time, the domain of a few elites and a lot of goods. Only the elites really have a shot at winning the tournament, everyone else is playing "how far can I get?". While I think you could expand the pool of possible elites to 6 teams, or reasonably downsize it to two, so long as those teams always get in the rest of the bids can go to the conference champs. So having as few as two Pool B/C options is pretty much fine with me as a legitimate "just in case." I really don't care if a 5-5 conference champ gets in during an odd year leaving out a 9-1 good team, because even that 9-1 good team doesn't really have a shot at affecting the championship outcome.

To put it in perspective, did it really matter that UWW killed Macalaster in the first game while UWO, who they beat by 17 earlier in the year was probably one of the last teams left out? Can't imagine that it did.

D3MAFAN

Quote from: jknezek on April 22, 2015, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on April 22, 2015, 03:11:14 PM
I mean realistically, he NCAA should only take 4 teams.  It's been pretty clear that only 4 teams have a chance to win it anyway. So you might as well let everyone get in right?

This is my issue as well. DIII football is, and has been for a long time, the domain of a few elites and a lot of goods. Only the elites really have a shot at winning the tournament, everyone else is playing "how far can I get?". While I think you could expand the pool of possible elites to 6 teams, or reasonably downsize it to two, so long as those teams always get in the rest of the bids can go to the conference champs. So having as few as two Pool B/C options is pretty much fine with me as a legitimate "just in case." I really don't care if a 5-5 conference champ gets in during an odd year leaving out a 9-1 good team, because even that 9-1 good team doesn't really have a shot at affecting the championship outcome.

To put it in perspective, did it really matter that UWW killed Macalaster in the first game while UWO, who they beat by 17 earlier in the year was probably one of the last teams left out? Can't imagine that it did.

What if this team is a traditional juggernaut such as UW-Whitewater or Mount Union?

jknezek

Quote from: D3MAFAN-MG on April 22, 2015, 04:29:24 PM
Quote from: jknezek on April 22, 2015, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on April 22, 2015, 03:11:14 PM
I mean realistically, he NCAA should only take 4 teams.  It's been pretty clear that only 4 teams have a chance to win it anyway. So you might as well let everyone get in right?

This is my issue as well. DIII football is, and has been for a long time, the domain of a few elites and a lot of goods. Only the elites really have a shot at winning the tournament, everyone else is playing "how far can I get?". While I think you could expand the pool of possible elites to 6 teams, or reasonably downsize it to two, so long as those teams always get in the rest of the bids can go to the conference champs. So having as few as two Pool B/C options is pretty much fine with me as a legitimate "just in case." I really don't care if a 5-5 conference champ gets in during an odd year leaving out a 9-1 good team, because even that 9-1 good team doesn't really have a shot at affecting the championship outcome.

To put it in perspective, did it really matter that UWW killed Macalaster in the first game while UWO, who they beat by 17 earlier in the year was probably one of the last teams left out? Can't imagine that it did.

What if this team is a traditional juggernaut such as UW-Whitewater or Mount Union?

That's why I said you need 2

Bombers798891

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on April 22, 2015, 03:11:14 PM

What you propose would ensure the best teams make the playoffs, but the NCAA has made it pretty clear that they don't really care about that.  It's all about access, equity, pool A bids, and less human decision making.

As for your examples of ST. Lawrence...It also might not be fair to St. Lawrence either.  It's almost like the NCAA would be saying, "the LL deserves a bit of Hobart or union or RPI make it, but if anyone else wins the league, they don't deserve it"


1. Agree that the NCAA wants access. My question is: Doesn't the increased number of autobids limit access at some point? Is Pool A the only thing that matters when it comes to access?

2. That's a gross misappropriation of what I said. St Lawrence not deserving the autobid but Hobart deserving it has nothing to do with who the teams are. It has to with the fact that when St Lawrence won the autobid, they went 5-5 (and 0-4 OOC), whereas Hobart hasn't lost a regular season game of any kind since 2011.

Jonny Utah

Quote from: Bombers798891 on April 22, 2015, 05:33:18 PM
Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on April 22, 2015, 03:11:14 PM

What you propose would ensure the best teams make the playoffs, but the NCAA has made it pretty clear that they don't really care about that.  It's all about access, equity, pool A bids, and less human decision making.

As for your examples of ST. Lawrence...It also might not be fair to St. Lawrence either.  It's almost like the NCAA would be saying, "the LL deserves a bit of Hobart or union or RPI make it, but if anyone else wins the league, they don't deserve it"


1. Agree that the NCAA wants access. My question is: Doesn't the increased number of autobids limit access at some point? Is Pool A the only thing that matters when it comes to access?

2. That's a gross misappropriation of what I said. St Lawrence not deserving the autobid but Hobart deserving it has nothing to do with who the teams are. It has to with the fact that when St Lawrence won the autobid, they went 5-5 (and 0-4 OOC), whereas Hobart hasn't lost a regular season game of any kind since 2011.

1.  Yea, I think as long as there are 4 at large bids, that's probably enough without any serious complaints from teams not getting in.  Once it gets below a certain number, yea I think it becomes unfair.

2. Sorry, was on my phone and typing fast.  That particular year, St. Lawrence probably didn't deserve it, but what if Hobart was 9-1?  I just think there are too many what ifs.  Either way, I just don't see the NCAA changing that up.

In terms of extending the season or adding games, I don't see that either.  But you could start earlier, but limit the amount of games and start the playoffs earlier with a play in game maybe?  You could even have league championships that week if needed.

sjfcards

Quote from: jknezek on April 22, 2015, 03:26:45 PM
To put it in perspective, did it really matter that UWW killed Macalaster in the first game while UWO, who they beat by 17 earlier in the year was probably one of the last teams left out? Can't imagine that it did.

Tell that to th UWO fans...
GO FISHER!!!

jknezek

Quote from: sjfcards on April 23, 2015, 02:48:22 AM
Quote from: jknezek on April 22, 2015, 03:26:45 PM
To put it in perspective, did it really matter that UWW killed Macalaster in the first game while UWO, who they beat by 17 earlier in the year was probably one of the last teams left out? Can't imagine that it did.

Tell that to th UWO fans...

Someone is always going to be left out or the last one in. Other than the most rabid UWO fans, even they would have to admit that beating UWW once since 2002 doesn't bode well for having changed the outcome of the tournament last year.