Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - miz

#16
Quote from: wrighthall220 on November 03, 2006, 11:58:22 AM
I'm a BC fan and I know we lost 2 games but they were pretty close games (not making excuses) and I think that if they were to be replayed BC would fair pretty well.  (not saying we SHOULD have won either)   I'm proud of the guys this year.. they took their lumps, didn't make excuses and came out and played hard against W&L and I think they will play well the next two weeks.   It's funny how a potential 8-2 season is disappointing. ;)

Yeah, I just wish we could have that EHC game back.  It is one of those things that was just a complete organizational failure that day:

  The players didn't play well.  The coaches didn't coach well.  The cheerleaders probably didn't cheer well.  Hell, I grilled like sh*t at the tailgate.  Just wasn't our day. 
#17
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2006, 08:41:12 PM
I think what they're saying is they're not going to hold a school responsible for a kid flat-out lying to them. Call me crazy.

Based on my limited knowledge of the situation and of NCAA bylaws, I would agree.  But what is your take on Kid's point about the clearinghouse?

If the kid lied and Guilford reasonable could not have know, I have no problem with the ruling.  But if Guilford failed to do due diligence using information that they had (or should have had) that's another story.  Again, I'm not farmiliar with the clearinghouse or it's expected role in a D-3 program, thus my request for your perspective on this one point.........
#18
Quote from: Matt Barnhart (kid) on October 30, 2006, 08:20:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 30, 2006, 08:06:03 PM
Here's the statement we received this afternoon from ODAC commissioner Brad Bankston in response to our request:

"The Guilford situation was thoroughly investigated by the league with Guilford's
full cooperation. We consulted with the NCAA enforcement services and reviewed the
case. Based on the facts the conference will impose no penalties on Guilford's
program and is working with GC to report the incident to the NCAA as a secondary
violation. After review of all the materials submitted the conference believes no
one at Guilford had knowledge of the student-athlete's previous participation and/or
prior enrollment. In addition, based on the circumstances the school had no
materials that would have led them to believe the student had triggered transfer
status. Thus, the final conclusion by the executive committee and presidents'
executive council."

I hope this puts this to rest. Since no action was taken, I do not believe this merits a news story, but I post it to this board in the hopes of ending the complaining and allegations of misconduct against Guilford, the ODAC office and the NCAA.

Roughly what I expected from the ODAC.  Makes sense.

Here is something I do find interesting (that the ODAC might not have learned about) ...

There is something called the National Student Clearinghouse.  I know this because the Bridgewater admissions office uses it and has been a member since the mid-90s.

In looking at the list of schools across the country that use this organization, Guilford happens to be a member.  They are one of 2,920 colleges and universities that use it.  If they are a member, why didn't they catch this kid?

So I guess what we're saying here is you can cheat........as long it can't be proven that you knew you cheated.........even if there are reasonable grounds to deduce that you probably should have known that you cheated........o.k., cool :P

(Sorry Rambo...........)
#19
Quote from: Matt Barnhart (kid) on October 30, 2006, 04:01:39 PM
Quote from: WLU78 on October 30, 2006, 03:59:26 PM
Let me ask this, does anybody really expect the ODAC to do something at this point?

I'd be very surprised.

Guess that all depends on who else (besides us knuckleheads) are talking about the incident right now ;)
#20
Quote from: hasanova on October 30, 2006, 02:34:20 PM
Quote from: Matt Barnhart (kid) on October 30, 2006, 01:57:16 PMFYI, I'm still discussing this issue NOT to drag Guilford through the mud or because I think Bridgewater should or can still get the GC-BC game forfeited.  I just think it's a facinating case that's worth discussing.  That's why I'd like to hear the ODAC and/or NCAA's reasoning for not taking action.
I do appreciate that and I also think it's fascinating.  Consider this scenario:  

1.  BC wins out and was also awarded a forfeit to finish 5-1.
2.  W&L beats E&H to finish 5-1.
3.  BC would be the champ by virtue of their win over the Generals.

What a dilemma.  Don't tell me that wouldn't cause an uproar in Lexington!  

Whether we admit it or not (and btw., I admit it....) that scenario has been in the back of every BC fans mind since the story broke. 
#21
Quote from: muchacho on October 30, 2006, 01:26:06 PM
QuoteCatholic going from 2-8 to 3-7 with a forfeit win is a little different from BC going from 6-2 to 7-1 with two weeks to go.  Sure, we wouldn't feel right about it (seeing we got it handed to us on the field), but the kid was the third-leading tackler on the team in the game - so he certainly played a part.

The only difference there is in the record of the teams. Regardless of your team's record, you shouldn't want to accept a foreit win. How many times have people heard, "one person doesn't win or lose a game...its a team effort." I think that applies in situations like this. Giving a team a loss because of the inappropriate actions of one player isn't right. The NCAA might decide to give Guilford's opponents a win on paper, but my point is that it doesn't matter. BC knows they got beat, and its not because Guilford was cheating. They were playing by the rules as far as they knew, and its not like it was an issue that affected more than one player.

I kind of agree with you.  And if we were awarded a forefit win it would be bittersweet at best.  But, somehow I think opinions would be a lot different if Bridgewater were the team using an ineligible player who was making an impact in games that we were winning.  I know that's somewhat of an unfair speculation, but I just don't think we could (or would) get away with it.  At least not on this message board.........
#22
Quote from: portgrad2004 on October 29, 2006, 08:46:55 PM
Note:  If you want to be heard, you don't write long non-spaced entries like the one oline mom had...It gets people disinterested pretty quickly. 

Then don't read it. 
#23
Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 29, 2006, 05:08:55 AM
Quote from: Matt Barnhart (kid) on October 29, 2006, 02:34:24 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 29, 2006, 02:27:56 AM
Sorry if that crushes dreams, but you don't want to be living on false hopes, do you?

You're unreal.  I'm done talking with you.

Wow. Reality hurting a little today.

Yes, the reality hurts for us BC fans.  No doubt, it sucks.  We haven't been here for a while and we don't like it. 

But it doesn't help that your collegue seems to have a personal agenda to come on here and stir the pot.  I'm done talking to him too.  I realize I posted one 3rd grade response to him last night, so I'll give him the one 3rd grade response to my response.  But factor that out and go back and read the babbling garbage he posted last night.  He's a journalist?
#24
Quote from: K-Mack on October 28, 2006, 11:01:13 PM
Quote from: miz on September 22, 2006, 12:27:28 PM
- As far as the rest of the ODAC, I'm suprised to see HSC at 0-2.  To me, Guilford is still Guilford until they prove otherwise.  They have a nice quarterback but I don't seem them as being tough enough, experienced enough, or balanced enough to compete with us in a big-game setting.  Of course, there was a gime when the same could have been said about bridgewater.  I agree with kid that, for now, W&L still shapes up to be our toughest test.  I will be interested to see how the Guilford-HSC game unfolds this weekend.  Emory, RMC, and CUA all look to be non-factors again.  

Oops, miz ... that analysis is looking about as good as my beloved Jackets' chances at an ODAC win this year.



All right "K-Mack", you let me know who had EHC beating BC and I'll personally send each of them a prize.....

If you disagreed with the analysis, you should have done so on September 22nd.  Anybody can play monday-morning quarterback after the fact.  

But, to your point, I was wrong.  My "analysis" was way off.  The EHC game totally hit me by suprise.  Hell, I still can't believe it.  So good work pointing that out.  I wonder how many years you've been waiting for that chance?  

So "K-Mack" (I have to giggle every time I write that), see you in Ashland Saturday???
 


#25
Listening to the BC postgame interview with Clark they were talking about Guilford using an ineligible player earlier in the year.  Anyone know the scoop on this?  From the interview, it appears that Guilford won't have to forfit any games. 

More importantly, GREAT JOB TODAY BC!!!  W&L will probably go to the playoffs, and the way we played earlier in the month BC doesn't really deserve to go I don't think.  BUT.............I think everyone who was a the game today understands that there is still a lot of life left in this program.  I think RMC and CUA are in for some pretty bad beatings the next two weeks.  W&L is good I guess this year, but they ran into a buzzsaw today.  Total domination. 

Again, great job Eagles.  Way to bounce back. 
#26
To this years seniors:

Thanks guys.  You have been a part of a special time in Bridgewater Collge Football history.  You have given us "old guys" an avenue to "live vicariously" through your effots the last four years.  It's been a great ride.  I think I speak for many alumni that have been blessed to be able to re-connect with Bridgwater College through the football community.  It's a really great thing, and something that I think few small colleges can share.  Again, thank you. 

Now, as far as a pep talk....................

Guys, you still have an opportunity to cement your impression in the "annals" of BC football.  Whatever happpens with playoff bids and whatnot, these last three games will speak to your contributions and your legacy.  Get fired up, let it all hang out, and make it your mission to go 3-0 over the last three games.  The chips will fall where they may, but you guys have earned a special place in the hearts of us die-hards.  You also set the tone for the future of BC football next year and beyond.  Let's go guys, BC............ODAC.........

Lets go guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!  We'll all be there cheering with all we got. 

Sincerely,

Miz

p.s.:  Kid, do you think you can "normalize" those sack totals to reflect opponents number of passing attempts when I played?  I think I should rank higher on the list due to the fact that teams we played in the mid-90's ran the ball 70+% of the time.......................... Oh well, it was worth a try.........

#27
Quote from: Snakehandler on October 24, 2006, 01:40:09 PM
miz, I have no Karma to give you. You'll have to settle for a........




Ahh, and those will be flowing Saturday morning around 9am......
#28
My take on the "BC is too predictable on offense" and "we simplify our offense to keep Highfill from getting hurt" discussions:

First, I agree with both statements (not in principle, but I agree that's what we are doing).  I think it is the wrong approach, and something we need to change now if we don't want to be staring at 7-3 or 6-4 season. 

Second, the option has always been a staple of our offense.  It keeps defenses honest by making them pay for the run blitz, and also forces them to practice and play assignment football.  The option puts a lot of pressure on the preparation and game planning of a defense, especially if an offense can do other things well also. 

Third, the "keep the QB healthy" arguement vs. running option is troublesome to me.  I mean, at what cost?  We have just lost two very winnable games and have only a remote chance at accomplishing our goals for the season.  What if he did get hurt in the 2nd or 3rd game.  Would we really be any worse off at this point?  One of Jeff's biggest strengths is his running ability and we don't even force teams to take that away.  I mean, Nick Lincoln can hand off two time and throw on third and long.  In reality, that's all we're asking from the QB position right now. 

Forth, Highfill is pressing right now and seems to be trying to be perfect on every play.  Putting him in situations where the majority of his passing attempts are on 3rd and long is only going to add to the pressure he is already putting on himself.  Not to make a direct comparison, but Jason Lutz was the same way.  He would often get off to slow starts in games, and he was always at his best when he was involved in every phase of the offense.  The coaches need to take the reigns off of Jeff and let him play.  I have a feeling the results will be very positive.  IMO the playcalling that is aimed at "protecting" him is only adding undue pressure and stunting his development as a player. 

My thoughts.........
#29
Quote from: new_era on October 22, 2006, 07:06:40 PM
RONNIE CHEEKS

RONNIE CHEEKS

RONNIE CHEEKS

Welcome back a**hole!! (Just kidding, I have always felt you are one of the most entertaining posters on this board.)

Is "The Cheeks" going to make an appearance at Jopson this week?  If so, slide by Stone Station.  I'll be the guy in the green pickup blaring "Monsters of Rock" 8)  If you come by I'll have a cold one waiting.  The 'Gennies look really tough this year.  Should be a great game. 
#30
Quote from: EHCPride on October 21, 2006, 08:22:00 PM
 

BC has excellent players, it just seems that they couldn't get it together for all 60:00. 


Great observation EHCPride, I couldn't have said it better.  

Cliff note version of my thoughts:

1.  Our OL misses way too many assignments (do we miss Colbert?).
2.  Highfill needs to play a lot better.
3.  Our playcalling is too predictable.  The third time we lined up in the shotgun with Winston and Carter flanking Highfill, the E&H coaches in the press box called the inside give to Carter (probably b/c it's the same play we'd run the 1st two times in that formation).  Of course, that's exactly what we did, for negative one yard.  (Do we miss Colbert?)

Bottom line.  Colbert is gone.  This season is basically shot in terms of what our goals were.  What I'd really like to see the rest of the way is some heart and pride from BC.  We need to fight, scratch, and establish a new identitiy to carry us into next season and beyond.  Which players (and coaches) are going to step up and take this charge?

We need to re-claim the ODAC, and we need to start next week against W&L.