D3boards.com

Division III football (Post Patterns) => General football => Topic started by: K-Mack on June 13, 2007, 01:37:14 AM

Title: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on June 13, 2007, 01:37:14 AM
We've often had separate boards for Monon Bell or Cortaca Jug chatter, and we've posted rivalry stuff all over the place. This works for those in the know, but I'd like to assemble a D3 rivalry primer.

I've done some stuff for ATN and for USA Today that would work here, but I don't have the links handy.

I did want to share this though, and open the floor for people to post rivalry stories, history links and the link as they find them:

Football Digest: We go to Divison III for a look at the best rivalries (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCL/is_4_33/ai_110312200/pg_1)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: tmerton on June 14, 2007, 03:16:36 PM
Nice read, KM

Here's an article from the St. Thomas Magazine on the St. Thomas - Saint John's* rivalry (http://www.stthomas.edu/magazine/showarticle.cfm?ArticleID=158419296). 


* Note: For some reason St. Thomas seems to use the "St." abbreviatiation while Saint John's does not.  Just something else to distinguish them I guess. ;)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: DuffMan on June 14, 2007, 03:22:12 PM
Quote from: tmerton on June 14, 2007, 03:16:36 PM
* Note: For some reason St. Thomas seems to use the "St." abbreviatiation while Saint John's does not.  Just something else to distinguish them I guess. ;)

It's an institutional thing.  SJU wants Saint John's instead of St. John's.  Maybe to distinguish it from the big St. John's?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on June 14, 2007, 09:08:17 PM
Here's a couple of things we wrote about rivalries in the early days of D3football.com

www.d3football.com/atn.php?id=7

www.d3football.com/atn.php?id=23 this one has a link to a 1999 story Mark Simon wrote (the stories behind storied rivalries?) but the link is dead.

I'll see if I can find it. Google doesn't seem to be helping.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 14, 2007, 09:24:23 PM
http://www.d3football.com/features.php?feature=43 is the updated link for Mark's piece.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: 'gro on June 14, 2007, 09:55:59 PM
Union is THE rivalry, but RPI has 6 teams that it has played at least 50 times (5 are still on the schedule).

Union - 104 games since 1886
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn0.google.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AuQ8lqcJdUrAPSM%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rpifootball.com%2FIMG%2FSuggsEdPandTheShoes.jpg&hash=60cbcedab3a4fdc0ad1012e9e2303abeb211061c)
3rd oldest football rivalry in the US. Played for the Dutchman's Shoes Trophy since 1950.
Presented by student committees from the schools after much looting was done on both campuses following the 1949 contest between the two schools.

WPI - 100 games since 1894
Teams played for the Transit Trophy starting in 1980 (transit = something only engineers would fight over)
After the 1979 contest it was decided by the athletic directors of both schools to create a trophy for this long-standing rivalry. A transit was chosen since both schools are engineering schools.

Rochester - 65 games since 1906

Coast Guard - 60 games since 1938
Schools compete for the Shot Glass Trophy.
Last game in 2005, CGA joined the NEFC and the game was discontinued.
Presented to Coast Guard by Allan Colvin, an RPI alum living in Connecticut, and was purloined from a Troy hotel during his reunion in 1944 to show how small the drinks were. Admiral James Pim, then the superintendent of the academy, remarked that it should be awarded to the winner each year.

St. Lawrence - 52 games since 1916

Hobart - 50 Games since 1910


Series records were omitted since from 1886 to 1990 RPI football pretty much stunk.  Trophy origins obtained from RPI Football History (http://www.augenblick.org/rpi/f_index.html)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on June 14, 2007, 10:02:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 14, 2007, 09:24:23 PM
http://www.d3football.com/features.php?feature=43 is the updated link for Mark's piece.

This is why I post incorrect information at the board.

I know you're on it like Bluebonnet. (don't ask)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on June 14, 2007, 10:04:39 PM
I think there's a pretty solid best three rivalries.

After that, I like a bunch ... Bronze Turkey, The Game (RMC/HSC) and Union-RPI among them ... but those ones have been in varying states of competitiveness.

DePauw-Wabash is like 52-51-9 or something close to that.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Knightstalker on June 14, 2007, 10:12:02 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 14, 2007, 10:02:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 14, 2007, 09:24:23 PM
http://www.d3football.com/features.php?feature=43 is the updated link for Mark's piece.

This is why I post incorrect information at the board.

I know you're on it like Bluebonnet. (don't ask)

Showing your age KMack
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: PrideSportBBallGuy on June 15, 2007, 08:37:58 AM
Although this rivalry doesn't deserve the press as some of these storied rivalries already mentioned, it is the Guilford-Greensboro Rivalary.

It is a new one and 1997 was its start. The Gate City "Souper" Bowl.  Not only are the teams competing for a victory, so are the schools.  The schools run a can food drive for the Greensboro Urban Ministry and to date thier have been 21,937 cans raised.  Good Job!!

There is rivalry here and it is even at 5 games apiece with the last two certainly being quite memorable. However my favorite was in 2005.

10/01/2005

Guilford at Greensboro 7pm

I remeber sitting next to my dad and telling him this is going to be a high scoring game.  There was over 1,000 total yards in that game, but that isn't even the best part.  The first 3:34 seconds was probably the most exciting thing I have ever scene in football (Only if you like offense). 1Q: 14:04 70 yard TD pass for Greensboro.  13:42 77 yard TD pass for Guilford.  13:22 72 yard pass for Greensboro, plus a mised extra point.  12:26 48 yard run for Guilford.  14-13(Guilford) was the first 3:34, but after the first 1Q it was 25-21 in favor of Greensboro.

The final was 36-35 Guilford.  If only the extra point was made.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: labart96 on June 15, 2007, 12:22:21 PM
Hobart has been playing Rochester for about 100 yrs (I think 2007 will mark the 100th meeting between the schools), but for some reason it seems to lack the true "rivalry" feel to it.

I wonder whether that's because the school's are so different?

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on June 15, 2007, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 14, 2007, 10:02:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 14, 2007, 09:24:23 PM
http://www.d3football.com/features.php?feature=43 is the updated link for Mark's piece.

This is why I post incorrect information at the board.

I know you're on it like Bluebonnet. (don't ask)

There's no need to butter me up. :)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on June 15, 2007, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: 'gro on June 14, 2007, 09:55:59 PM
Union is THE rivalry, but RPI has 6 teams that it has played at least 50 times (5 are still on the schedule).

Union - 104 games since 1886
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn0.google.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AuQ8lqcJdUrAPSM%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rpifootball.com%2FIMG%2FSuggsEdPandTheShoes.jpg&hash=60cbcedab3a4fdc0ad1012e9e2303abeb211061c)
3rd oldest football rivalry in the US. Played for the Dutchman's Shoes Trophy since 1950.
Presented by student committees from the schools after much looting was done on both campuses following the 1949 contest between the two schools.

WPI - 100 games since 1894
Teams played for the Transit Trophy starting in 1980 (transit = something only engineers would fight over)
After the 1979 contest it was decided by the athletic directors of both schools to create a trophy for this long-standing rivalry. A transit was chosen since both schools are engineering schools.

Rochester - 65 games since 1906

Coast Guard - 60 games since 1938
Schools compete for the Shot Glass Trophy.
Last game in 2005, CGA joined the NEFC and the game was discontinued.
Presented to Coast Guard by Allan Colvin, an RPI alum living in Connecticut, and was purloined from a Troy hotel during his reunion in 1944 to show how small the drinks were. Admiral James Pim, then the superintendent of the academy, remarked that it should be awarded to the winner each year.

St. Lawrence - 52 games since 1916

Hobart - 50 Games since 1910


Series records were omitted since from 1886 to 1990 RPI football pretty much stunk.  Trophy origins obtained from RPI Football History (http://www.augenblick.org/rpi/f_index.html)

http://www.augenblick.org/rpi/f_06yr.html
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on June 19, 2007, 12:00:43 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 15, 2007, 12:28:44 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on June 14, 2007, 10:02:30 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on June 14, 2007, 09:24:23 PM
http://www.d3football.com/features.php?feature=43 is the updated link for Mark's piece.

This is why I post incorrect information at the board.

I know you're on it like Bluebonnet. (don't ask)

There's no need to butter me up. :)

In midseason form, I see.

(makes no jokes about Parkay floors, etc.)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: union89 on June 19, 2007, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: 'gro on June 14, 2007, 09:55:59 PM
Union is THE rivalry, but RPI has 6 teams that it has played at least 50 times (5 are still on the schedule).

Union - 104 games since 1886
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn0.google.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AuQ8lqcJdUrAPSM%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rpifootball.com%2FIMG%2FSuggsEdPandTheShoes.jpg&hash=60cbcedab3a4fdc0ad1012e9e2303abeb211061c)
3rd oldest football rivalry in the US. Played for the Dutchman's Shoes Trophy since 1950.
Presented by student committees from the schools after much looting was done on both campuses following the 1949 contest between the two schools.

WPI - 100 games since 1894
Teams played for the Transit Trophy starting in 1980 (transit = something only engineers would fight over)
After the 1979 contest it was decided by the athletic directors of both schools to create a trophy for this long-standing rivalry. A transit was chosen since both schools are engineering schools.

Rochester - 65 games since 1906

Coast Guard - 60 games since 1938
Schools compete for the Shot Glass Trophy.
Last game in 2005, CGA joined the NEFC and the game was discontinued.
Presented to Coast Guard by Allan Colvin, an RPI alum living in Connecticut, and was purloined from a Troy hotel during his reunion in 1944 to show how small the drinks were. Admiral James Pim, then the superintendent of the academy, remarked that it should be awarded to the winner each year.

St. Lawrence - 52 games since 1916

Hobart - 50 Games since 1910


Series records were omitted since from 1886 to 1990 RPI football pretty much stunk.  Trophy origins obtained from RPI Football History (http://www.augenblick.org/rpi/f_index.html)


Gro, just out of curiousity, what is RPI's overall record vs. Union??  Also, who is that goofy looking dood wearing #98 for RPI??
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: 'gro on June 19, 2007, 12:59:24 PM
Quote from: Union89 on June 19, 2007, 12:28:37 PM
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftbn0.google.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AuQ8lqcJdUrAPSM%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.rpifootball.com%2FIMG%2FSuggsEdPandTheShoes.jpg&hash=60cbcedab3a4fdc0ad1012e9e2303abeb211061c)
Gro, just out of curiousity, what is RPI's overall record vs. Union??  Also, who is that goofy looking dood wearing #98 for RPI??

Answer #1: Union has a slight 77-23-4 advantage in the series record. We weren't even trying for the 1st 100 years.

Answer #2: Don't know who that victorious engineer is wearing #98, but he looks like 225 lbs of twisted steel and sex appeal.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: PBR... on June 19, 2007, 02:48:00 PM
gro thx for clearing that up because pbr thought it was all about the frozen cat turd....
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 03, 2007, 02:37:24 AM
Reposted from the ODAC board, midway through a discussion about the R-MC/H-SC rivalry:

Quote from: K-Mack on July 03, 2007, 02:31:53 AMRe: R-MC/H-SC

I am definitely not always up for The Game. I respect the rivalry. I love the atmosphere, it's basically a better version of homecoming each year.

That said, there's something important to me about the competitive aspect in a rivalry, and The Game has lacked that for 12 years now.

The three rivalries I regard ahead of ours are Williams-Amherst, DePauw-Wabash and Cortland State-Ithaca. They each end the season with each other, which is key, and they are often both good in the same year. They have the history (although Cortaca isn't even 100) and they each have something unique, be it the Monon Bell, Cortaca Jug or the private/public rivalry.

Williams kind of dominated Amherst for a while, but given how that was the grand finale, no playoffs, that rivalry seems to maintain its tradition.

And Jacket Lawyer, the NCAA has compiled the list of longest rivalries.

I hate to give away my research secrets, so you think I work really really hard crunching these numbers, but it's in their D2/D3 record book.

I-A and II have no rivalries longer than III's longest. I-AA has a bunch of 100+ games like we do, Lafayette-Lehigh is the kind, Harvard-Yale is up there, even Richmond v. William & Mary.

Some of D3s longest apparently aren't great rivalries, like Oxy vs. Pomona-Pitzer, for example.

There are some great D3 ones not mentioned in this post however, like Monmouth-Knox, Coe-Cornell and such. I started a rivalries thread linking to stories we've written about D3 rivalries.

The record book link: http://www.ncaa.org/library/records/football/football_records_book_d2_d3/2006_d2_d3_football_records.pdf

Lotta great info in there. Start with Page 92 and browse around some. The secret to being an ATN expert is out!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 03, 2007, 08:17:52 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 03, 2007, 02:37:24 AM
Reposted from the ODAC board, midway through a discussion about the R-MC/H-SC rivalry:

Quote from: K-Mack on July 03, 2007, 02:31:53 AMRe: R-MC/H-SC
... The secret to being an ATN expert ...

More accurately, it is the function of being a guru, from whom one can learn great things! ;)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: frank uible on July 03, 2007, 09:18:52 AM
Oft times great things that ain't so.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ralph Turner on July 03, 2007, 10:09:53 AM
Quote from: frank uible on July 03, 2007, 09:18:52 AM
Oft times great things that ain't so.

I didn't say it.  He did!   :D
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 11:18:40 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 03, 2007, 02:37:24 AM
Reposted from the ODAC board, midway through a discussion about the R-MC/H-SC rivalry:

Quote from: K-Mack on July 03, 2007, 02:31:53 AMRe: R-MC/H-SC


Some of D3s longest apparently aren't great rivalries, like Oxy vs. Pomona-Pitzer, for example.


K-Mack,

All due respect and gratitude for the great work you, Pat and the rest do bud, but I must take exception to this comment.  Not sure what you mean by a "great" rivalry, but this one runs in the Tiger blood:

From the first paragraph of the Oxy football media guide:

Occidental's tradition of winning football dates back to 1894, when Oxy fielded one of the first college football teams in Southern California.  The Occidental-Pomona football game, first played in 1895, is one of the oldest college football rivalries west of the Mississippi River.  Annually the two squads battle for the coveted "Drum", an Indian drum on which the results of the yearly game are displayed.  (The upstart USC-UCLA game didn't begin until 1929.)  The 1895 squad completed its season undefeated (including
a 10-0 victory over USC), a feat repeated in 1912, 1913, and most memorably in 1948, when the Tigers went 9-0 and finished the season with a dramatic come from-behind victory over heavily favored Colorado A&M (now Colorado State University) in the 1949 Raisin Bowl.   
[emphasis added].

K-Mack, the Pomona rivalry runs deep in all Tiger football players and in the Oxy community.  The public perception of the intensity of that rivalry may not be as apparent to the D3 crowd with its relatively more recent history and a couple of factors that keep the PR aspect of the rivarly down.  I'd speculate that contributing to your [mis]impression are:

1.  Pomona's not too long ago temporary absence from the SCIAC which did, in all candor, dim the rivalry fire for a bit.  I think that this also contributed to the Pomona game no longer being Oxy's homecoming every other year;

2.  Oxy's recent success compared to the Sagehens which has made Redlands and Cal Lu the "big" games when it comes to determing the SCIAC championship and national playoff implications. The competitive impact of those games certainly gets more attention in the press and on the boards. In fact, as you well know the SCIAC board chatter from Pomona fans/alums is nearly non-existent

But don't let this temporary dynamic fool you, anyone with a sense of Oxy history knows the deep ties between these institutions, the great competitiveness between them, and that the fight for "the Drum" will always remain a critical and meaningful part of Oxy football.

"Don't send my boy to Harvard, the dying mother said.
Don't send my boy to U.S.C., I'd rather see him dead!
But send him to ol' Oxy, 'tis better than Cornell,
and rather than Pomona, I'd see my boy in...SCRIPPS!"


Io Triumphe!

tooth
8)

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: frank uible on July 03, 2007, 11:27:23 AM
Oxy, has the Pomona-Pitzer thing muddied the rivalry water between Occidental and Pomona?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 11:42:03 AM
Pity the Occidental fans don't generally give this rivalry the status you now claim for it.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: frank uible on July 03, 2007, 11:27:23 AM
Oxy, has the Pomona-Pitzer thing muddied the rivalry water between Occidental and Pomona?

Not a scintilla in my view.  We still look at Pomona as Pomona and Claremont and Claremont, notwithstanding that the Sagehens include Pitzer students and the Mudd and Scripps students are included w/ the Stags.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 11:42:03 AM
Pity the Occidental fans don't generally give this rivalry the status you now claim for it.

I'm not sure that's completely true.  Remember that you hear from only a particular, and very specific, slice of fans . . . web savvy so probably mostly younger (I could be wrong, have you done a survey?) and parents.

On these boards, OxyBob and I probably bring the longest/historical perspective of Oxy athletics, and I probably bring a more current perspective as well given some of my engagements with the college, that keep me in pretty close quarters.  Although Bob gets the attendance award as he gets to a lot more games than I.

As I said in my initial response to K-Mack, I think that there is a reason for the perception that you guys have, and part of that has to be driven by Oxy's recent history, which is certainly the focus of our discussions.

The Redlands rivalry is very high profile given the fact that ove the last couple of decades, Oxy and Redlands have, for the most part, been the contenders for the SCIAC championship and their graduates seem to dominate the board discussion.  When it comes to competitive football and meaning, the Oxy Redlands rivalry certainly gets a lot more attention these days . . . and it's an old one, but not as old or classic as Pomona.

Pomona's lack of competitiveness of late is a problem contributing to the impressions you have (imho) . . . but I confident in telling you that the roots run deep and are are appreciated by the fans, players and coaches. 

cheers,
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 12:47:26 PM
Admittedly, this entire subject turns on the question of what is a "great" rivalry . . . with the answer turning on one's definition of "great" . . . a rather nebulous term standing on its own.

"Great" in terms of media attention and PR?
"Great" in terms of the impact on conference races?
"Great" in terms of historical context?
"Great" in terms of school/fan spirit and engagement?
"Great" in terms of longevity?
"Great" compared to other local rivalries?  Regional?  National? Compared to what?

ad infinitum
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: PBR... on July 03, 2007, 01:18:46 PM
pbr has been to the LONGEST CONTINOUS RIVALRY in college football numerous times that would be Lehigh/Lafayette. I have to say the media attention is usually high, impact on conference races is almost always at stake, historical context...well that speaks for itself, spirit of the fans/communities is unbelievable. if anyone ever gets the chance go take the game in. since the schools are so close and in the same metropolis (allentown/bethlehem/easton) it is more than a fever pitch although it has calmed somewhat from the crazy 70s - 90s, when fraternities would rip down the wood goal posts and do full out battle for a piece of one and proudly display it that night at the parties. it truly is a great game and time.
i have been to both stadiums including the "old" lehigh stadium on campus and the "new" stadium a  few miles off campus and of course lafayettes stadium. great history and great academic schools.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 11:42:03 AM
Pity the Occidental fans don't generally give this rivalry the status you now claim for it.

I'm not sure that's completely true.  Remember that you hear from only a particular, and very specific, slice of fans . . . web savvy so probably mostly younger (I could be wrong, have you done a survey?) and parents.

Aren't those the people who define the modern sense of the rivalry, though?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Josh Bowerman on July 03, 2007, 01:55:02 PM
It's always nice to see DIII get coverage by the "outside" press, and this was a nice article. 

I should point out that, depending on one's perspective and historical interpretation of Cotton Mather's life work/writings, Yale actually DID defect from Harvard, contrary to the assertion in the article.   ;)

Thanks for sharing, Keith!

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 11:42:03 AM
Pity the Occidental fans don't generally give this rivalry the status you now claim for it.

I'm not sure that's completely true.  Remember that you hear from only a particular, and very specific, slice of fans . . . web savvy so probably mostly younger (I could be wrong, have you done a survey?) and parents.

Aren't those the people who define the modern sense of the rivalry, though?

They certainly seem to define it here in our virtual D3 community, granted . . . that's why I wanted to jump in w/ my admittedly more than 2 cents worth to give a broader perspective and maybe help "turn the ship" or at least give you and K-Mack something to think about.

And the rivalry is not exactly not known here on the left coast/so cal region.  Here are some blurbs from the past couple of years:

Los Angeles Daily News "For A Real Rivalry, See Oxy-Pomona"
Staff Writer Scott French notes that the UCLA-USC football rivalry is in its infancy compared to the Pomona-Occidental contest, which dates to 1895. "The Southland's oldest college football rivalry is, as might be expected, steeped in tradition and lore, firing up alumni from two great academic institutions in an annual showdown for, at the least, bragging rights," writes French. This year's Pomona-Oxy game is set for Oct. 29.


Occidental football was the subject of a major Los Angeles Times story that ran on the front page of the Nov. 9 sports section. The article, published under the headline "Un of a Kind," highlighted Oxy as having one of the only undefeated football programs – aside from USC – in Southern California. The Tigers' 63-21 loss to Linfield in the first round of the NCAA Division III playoffs was reported in the Nov. 20 editions of the Times and the Los Angeles Daily News. Occidental's historic rivalry with Pomona was the subject of stories in the Oct. 25 Daily News and the Oct. 28 edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education. Outside linebacker Alfredo Gamiz '06 was profiled in the Oct. 26 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in Ontario, and All-Conference honors for Ric Fukushima '06 and Derek Turbin '06 were reported in the Dec. 7 Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

I know that the Oxy/Pomona game has, over the years, gotten some nice write-ups in the L.A. Times, but I don't have time to do a search for them now.

I'm not faulting K-Mack's view based on his point of view . . . just trying to add a little information to the mix and to let you guys know that some of us think that Oxy-Pomona falls w/i the "great" rivalries category.

cheers,

tooth
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 09:33:38 PM
Lengthy doesn't automatically mean heated.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: theoriginalupstate on July 03, 2007, 09:53:18 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 09:33:38 PM
Lengthy doesn't automatically mean heated.

Word!

SJF vs UR and SJF vs IC are quickly becoming one of the better football rivalries....
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 04, 2007, 12:42:30 AM
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 11:42:03 AM
Pity the Occidental fans don't generally give this rivalry the status you now claim for it.

As I said in my initial response to K-Mack, I think that there is a reason for the perception that you guys have, and part of that has to be driven by Oxy's recent history, which is certainly the focus of our discussions

The reason I said that is because in the early years of ATN, I mentioned it among the great rivalries, probably because of its length and not really having any special knowledge one way or the other beyond what I'd read about the drum and such.

I got feedback saying that it wasn't much of a rivalry at all, and that Pomona-Pitzer considers CMS its rivalry game.

Until I read those messages, I don't really remember ever hearing, on my trips to Oxy or in conversations with Oxy fans, any comments that led me to believe the rivalry was on par with, say, DePauw-Wabash.

Not saying what was said then has to be true and what you're saying today is false, just explaining where I got that perception.

This is the rivalries thread, however, so campaign and explain away.

If I had to rank the rivalries today, based on a formula I am purely making up as I write this (history, tradition, competitiveness, atmosphere and significance to the team, team's season/schedule and alumni), I'd go:

1. Williams-Amherst
2. DePauw-Wabash (could probably meet the criteria for No. 1)
3. Cortland-Ithaca
4. Randolph-Macon / Hampden-Sydney (falling fast due to lack of competitiveness)
5. Monmouth-Knox
6. Union-RPI
7. Hanover-Franklin
8. St. John's-St. Thomas
9. Coe-Cornell
I'd also put up for consideration Coast Guard-Kings Point, Trinity-Wesleyan, CBB and the rest of the NESCAC ones, Wheaton-North Central and I guess either of the Pomona ones.

Probably forgetting a few.

Definitely willing to hear arguments to tweak these rankings. I'm pretty solid on my top 3, and likely on the top 5, but I really didn't give it a lot of thought after that ... just threw something out there to get people talking.

There are other rivalries which are rather lengthy which don't seem to rile up the crowds (Albion-Kalamazoo, Hamline-Macalester) ... and some younger trophy games (Soup Bowl, Regents Cup) which seem to be up and coming.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 04, 2007, 12:57:52 AM
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 12:47:26 PM
Admittedly, this entire subject turns on the question of what is a "great" rivalry . . . with the answer turning on one's definition of "great" . . . a rather nebulous term standing on its own.

"Great" in terms of media attention and PR?
"Great" in terms of the impact on conference races?
"Great" in terms of historical context?
"Great" in terms of school/fan spirit and engagement?
"Great" in terms of longevity?
"Great" compared to other local rivalries?  Regional?  National? Compared to what?

ad infinitum

We certainly can discuss the criteria for great rivalry.

It was definitely an offhand comment, but based only on comments from out your way.

I definitely think longevity/history is a factor, but longest doesn't mean best.

I think the best rivalries are the ones which the team/school community looks forward to all year, where a season can be salvaged in an upset, when the game practically functions as homecoming if it's not the real homecoming. Where it is in the schedule (same week each year, preferably end of regular season) is a factor. Competitiveness is a major factor, as it would be with any game ... the tighter it is, or is expected to be, the more exciting it generally is. Significance, as in meaning to the school's alums or as in impact on conference races or playoff bids, is another huge factor. In Amherst and Williams' case, it IS the playoffs. Many an undefeated season has been preserved or spoiled in that game.

The trophies are nice, but they alone don't make the game.

I think atmosphere, anticipation, meaning, significance help define "best."

Feel free to agree/disagree.

I also like Muhlenberg-Moravian in the top 10 above.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 04, 2007, 01:40:08 AM
For anyone who is interested, allsky7, jacketlawyer and I (and others) are discussing the R-MC/H-SC rivalry in depth, and what made it great and why it's been falling off lately.

Maybe some more perspective there on what makes a rivalry great.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on July 04, 2007, 11:15:28 AM
K-Mack

What about Wesley/Salisbury st.  a lot of those kids actually come from the same towns. Or Kings/Wilkes the schools are across the street from each other.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: INQBScout on July 04, 2007, 06:47:20 PM
QuoteLengthy doesn't automatically mean heated.

excellent point...
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:24:30 AM
Quote from: PA_wesleyfan on July 04, 2007, 11:15:28 AM
K-Mack

What about Wesley/Salisbury st.  a lot of those kids actually come from the same towns. Or Kings/Wilkes the schools are across the street from each other.

King's/Wilkes is a good one.

Wesley/Salisbury State I would personally file under competitive rivalries, a la Rowan/Montclair State or Linfield/Pacific Lutheran.

You know, there are rivalries, and then there are rivalry games.

Willing to listen to compelling arguments for any game though.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on July 05, 2007, 10:08:27 AM
whats the average attendence for the Wabash/Depaw game?  And how long has it been going on?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 05, 2007, 10:49:01 AM
Drew 11,669 last year at Wabash. DePauw limits ticket sales in recent years.

Wabash leads the series 53-51-9.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on July 05, 2007, 10:58:02 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 05, 2007, 10:49:01 AM
Drew 11,669 last year at Wabash. DePauw limits ticket sales in recent years.

Wabash leads the series 53-51-9.

This limiting ticket sales is hogwash.  Was there an SI article on that game about 10 years ago?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on July 05, 2007, 11:00:35 AM
Probably.

The ticket limit at DePauw is 8,000. Looked it up.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:12:20 PM
Maybe they feel that's all they can hold (though I remember plenty of open area around the end zones) and all they can provide security for, which is a significant consideration at games of this magnitude.

On my visit, all the Wabash people said "Thanks for coming, but it's better in Crawfordsville."
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on July 05, 2007, 06:26:01 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:12:20 PM
Maybe they feel that's all they can hold (though I remember plenty of open area around the end zones) and all they can provide security for, which is a significant consideration at games of this magnitude.

On my visit, all the Wabash people said "Thanks for coming, but it's better in Crawfordsville."

Do they need a whole barracks of State Troopers like at the cortland/Ithaca game?  Are there people literally puking in the parking lot ouside the game?

I think if you show an ID at these games and you are like 23+ or 25+ you should get in at the gate.  I would have to assume that some money is being made at this game for security.

And theres plenty of room at Cortland too for extra people instead of limiting ticket sales to 10,000 or 12,000 or what ever they limit it too.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: wabashcpa on July 05, 2007, 10:38:21 PM
I don't know about a whole barracks worth, but there are certainly no shortage of police at the games (or puking for that matter).  I do know that we have freshmen guarding the campus all week to keep out unwanted guests from the south (unless they are female!!).

And Keith, the game IS better in Crawfordsville! :)  It's not even close.

The SI article was mentioned earlier - I believe one thing that helps the rivalry has been the media.  Between magazine articles and televised games, I believe the Monon Bell game has benefited greatly from the exposure.  That may be what gives it a slight edge over some of the other regional rivalries.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ryan Tipps on July 06, 2007, 12:48:31 AM
My understanding is that the battalions of police officers really hit full stride about 10 years ago, roughly my freshman year (though there's no connection, of course ;) ).

Wabash had won the Bell for four or five years in a row in the early '90s, but then DePauw went on a streak. In '96 and '98, years the game was at Wabash, DePauw won the game and fans -- on BOTH sides -- stormed the field. There were fights and stadium damage, and several people, including friends of mine, were pepper-sprayed.

That seemed to be when people really started noticing things and wondering why a bunch of liberal arts students were tearing at each other's throats each year in November. If I remember right, The New York Times and Indianapolis Star wrote stories to that effect in the late '90s, and the administration started talking about "what if" the rivalry was suspended.

Things have toned down since then....there hasn't been any significant brawls in recent years, though the security is still pretty hefty. The worst part is that, yes, alcohol has contributed to violence, but I think people would still have fought even if they were stone sober.

I'll finish by recollecting a Wabash/DePauw basketball game I went to at DePauw's campus...circa 1999. There were as many Wabash students as DePauw students packed into that gym, and between us was a menacing cadre of SWAT officers decked out in riot gear. This wasn't even the football game, but seeing them with their helmets, body armor and batons really put the rivalry's intensity into perspective for me.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: wally_wabash on July 06, 2007, 02:03:26 PM
'96 and '98 were definitely not good years for the Monon Bell series.  I think the behavior of the fans has gotten much better since '98...due in part to the seriously beefed up security and also to the alleged rumblings of possibly postponing the series altogether....nobody wants that.  I think a lot of nerves about the future of the series were set at ease in the '01 game which ended with the hail mary touchdown pass for a Wabash victory...Wabash students poured on to the field, but stayed away from any destructive behavior.  It was such a huge moment that really just about anything could have been possible (especially given that the Bell was changing hands based on that play), but the fans kept their fists to themselves, both teams shook hands after the game and all has been well ever since. 

I remember those Wabash/DePauw hoops games from '96-'00...those games could get downright nasty.  Rivalry hoops is a LOT of fun.  A lot of the intensity of the Wabash/DePauw hoops rivalry has been taken away since DePauw left for the SCAC.  That they're in a different conference now means that the games themselves don't pack as much meaning, we only play once per season, those games are usually falling at bad times for spectators (on holiday breaks or finals weeks), and DePauw has had control of the series for a little while now. 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on July 07, 2007, 08:56:56 AM
( I know Im being lazy) but how far apart are the two schools?

And I think if Wabash wins on the road, the student body should have the nation's biggest pantyraid across campus to let off whatever steam I can only imagine those guys have. 

I think it would be acceptable.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on July 07, 2007, 09:12:17 AM
They're only 27 miles apart, and there's no need to let off steam. Wabash men usually date the Dannie women anyway!

In the 80's there were some pretty ugly scenes as well, mainly at DePauw. I think the layout of their stadium and the need for some crowd control limits their ticket sales more than at Wabash.

And no Wally pukes in the parking lot because they know how to hold their liquor!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on July 07, 2007, 09:13:21 AM
Quote from: smedindy on July 07, 2007, 09:12:17 AM
They're only 27 miles apart, and there's no need to let off steam. Wabash men usually date the Dannie women anyway!

In the 80's there were some pretty ugly scenes as well, mainly at DePauw. I think the layout of their stadium and the need for some crowd control limits their ticket sales more than at Wabash.

Ok whats a 'dannie'?

And that would still make a great movie (no matter how true it is).  All mens school wins the football game and the entire team just runs out of the stadium and starts harrassing women! (not mysoginistic like but like "animal house" like)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on July 07, 2007, 09:14:02 AM
Dannie - someone from DePauw. Wally Wabash - Danny DePauw.

It's also a "dandy", you know, like Dan Quayle!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: wally_wabash on July 07, 2007, 02:55:46 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on July 07, 2007, 09:13:21 AM
Ok whats a 'dannie'?

The important thing to know is that you don't want to be one.   :)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 10, 2007, 08:17:12 PM
Well, Wabash being the all-men's side of the rivalry, I guess I'm a DePauw guy by extension. Randolph-Macon went co-ed in '72, and we rock the black and gold. All-men's Hampden-Sydney wears the garnet and gray (not far from red & White)

H-SC has its own "sister" schools when it comes to women though; the ride from Farmville to Ashland is a little longer than 27 miles.

In any case, on the ODAC board, we've been discussing the decline of the R-MC/H-SC rivalry, basically because of dual six-game winning streaks for each side, and a lack of competitiveness the past four years. As conference rivals, something DePauw and Wabash don't share, the game is often more fun when the ODAC title is on the line.

Anyway, the intensity is through the roof at R-MC/H-SC, Wabash-DePauw and Cortland-Ithaca, and by intensity I mostly mean "violence" ... I wonder if our higher-browed brethren at Williams and Amherst have this same issues (thinks so)

Fight stories aren't really much to be proud of, but I'll copy mine over here from the ODAC board just to show you where the rivalry stands. Or stood.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 10, 2007, 08:20:23 PM
It may be a little out of context if you pick up in the middle like this, and there are a few insider references ... but you should get the gist:

Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 02:06:41 PM
Quote from: allsky7 on July 05, 2007, 01:50:11 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 01:32:27 AM
Quote from: willierobin on July 04, 2007, 11:59:54 AM
Quote from: yellow jacket on July 04, 2007, 09:49:47 AM
I think the H-SC rivalry has gotten a little less intense, but honestly, in some ways, its better (I'll explain one why it is).  I don't know if any of you were there, but the HSC-RMC game in 2003 (freshman year for me), HSC ran into the locker room through our warm-ups.  Our coaches that year had told us not to take any crap from them, so as they came back on the field, through our warm-ups again, all hell broke loose. 

I mean, everyone started fighting.  Coaches, refs, players.  To me at that point it was defending our honor, and, as a player that didn't play, quite fun.  Looking at it now, and at other similar incidents (Miami, FIU; Clemson, SC), it was a stupid move by both teams.  Although the rivalry is still strong, and I still won't hire an HSC grad or hang out with one  ;), I'm glad both coaches have tried to turn down the physical intensity off of the field between us. 

That was stupid. R-M got a starting senior lb ejected, got whipped 53-21 and Boone was fired in the off-season.

I was at that game. I have a vague memory of that now that you mention it, but I think I was a little slow getting over from the tailgate for kickoff so I didn't see the whole thing.

But I can tell you that it's nothing new. In '95, we met up in the same end zone, before there was a Brock Center at that end. No blows were thrown, but it was crazy heated. I knew I wasn't starting that day, so I went right to the front of the pack. The main guy I was jawing with was a guy who had stayed with my roommate and I the year before on a prospective visit, Vipperman was the name. He had picked H-SC over us.

That may be a better indication of the closeness of the rivalry than the fact we were jawing at each other.

There's a million R-MC/H-SC fight stories, you should find out about how the teams used to tear the goalposts down if they won on the road, til they started surrounding the goalposts with state police. The basketball game has its stories too, slashed tires on the H-SC team van one year after they won in Crenshaw. They poured grass killer in the shape of an HSC on our field in '95, I think ... idiots though, they ran out before they could finish the C.

Do the history, or maybe we really do need to get on that book, Jacket Lawyer. The old stories are great. There used to be an RMC contingent that would go down and try to paint the old War Eagle or whatever it was called. Or steal it.

The best R-MC story I heard from one of the old timers was one year some HSC kids came up to vandalize the campus, went through with it and were pretty thrilled with themselves until they returned to their car and found the engine dismantled.

Course, they probably tell that same story at H-SC, only flipped.

Back in the all-men days at R-MC too, all freshmen had to wear beanies first semester, but if they beat H-SC, they could take them off.

All that fight stuff does indicate that something heated is there, but that's really nothing to be proud of. Competitiveness is healthy, violence not so much. I know both administrations and parts of the student body have gone to great lengths over the years to bring positive benefits out of the rivalry, like the blood drive (whoever donates more ... gets something, a point in the week-long competition, I forget)

Of course, some of us still prefer the grass-killing and engine dismantling. And 49-18 wins.

     K-Mack...as I understand it,that eagle was donated by an H-S alum and came from a rail station  in Philly. That's your stomping grounds isn't it? Not sure who's bright idea it was to put it right next to the football field.  :o I would be more than happy to offer a more appropriate place.  ;D I remember it being painted many times over the years. I think they finally coated it with something so they didn't have to sand blast the thing every year.  It was rapidly heading toward nothingness.  :D
     They tried doing the blood drive/intramural football/Tigers vs Jackets thing to try to get the focus away from all the other stuff. Again, as I understand it, they quit doing the intramural football game because all it did was give everybody an extra 3 or 4 hours to get loaded. (as if they needed assistance)
     There have been so many stories over the years. I just don't remember all this stuff being done years ago with malice. They were just pranks. The world has changed. We live in such a litigious world that everyones "pucker factor" is so much higher than it used to be. As far as I know, nobody was ever seriously hurt as a result of these pranks.  Obviously, now that we are older, wiser, and more mature adults,  8) we can't condone this type of negative behavior. On the other hand, I doubt very seriously, that a 20 year old college student gives a flip about what I think.  :o

Funny, as always.

I get a kick out of the pranks, but I guess there's a fine line between 'good, clean fun' and causing real harm.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on July 10, 2007, 09:56:33 PM
Yea Ive played in and  been to about 10 Cortland/Ithaca games and I can say that nothing has ever happened between the two teams.  Coaches on both sides have always been classy and would never have their team run through another teams warmups or do something like that.

The fans are another story though.  People bringing whistles to games (actually helped Cortland in 97'), fans comming up to players after the game and throwing stuff them, fans comming up before the game and hurling insults, kids getting pepper sprayed, kids getting attacked by the state police k-9 unit!, and worst of all people going to the hospital.

Im the first one to love seeing a 19 year old girl with a tank top in Novmber puke in a barrell, but when people get hurt its another story.

Some day they will probably have a 2 second breathalyzer and you will have to blow before you go in the game!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 10, 2007, 10:46:59 PM
Don't give 'em any ideas (not that I drink. much.)

I've never seen R-MC run through any warmups either. Not even really sure if H-SC did, just coming over the same end zone by using the same entrance to the field ... you know, you put two unleashed dogs next to each other, there might be a biting incident.

Most of the trouble at those games has been goalpost-related, but the state police had things on lock the last two times I saw a game at death valley. They surrounded the goalposts with police, and maybe even a few horses. I've also seen them break up fights by mauling one particular dude while most of the participants scatter.

But the rivalry is much, much more than fights and stuff. Over time, some of the great games and great moments make for much better storytelling.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: realistic on July 11, 2007, 11:52:53 AM
yeah - JU is right.  The players (for the most part) in the Cortland - Ithaca games are well behaved.  The fans were getting progressively worse...which was on of the main reasons behind limiting tickets.

As for the K-9 units, I have to say that those idiots usually have what was coming to them.  I was calling play-by-play in the 2001 game and had the Sheriff Dept spotter right next to me.  I kept getting distracted as he called in locations for the ground units to go to....but I had the pleasure of being in a break for the dog attack, watched it develop from the beginning.  quite amusing.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on July 11, 2007, 10:16:51 PM
Yeah, the fan (of beer, if not football) I saw get mushed face-first into the ground by state police was definitely starting trouble. However, I thought it was slightly unfair that he got several cops on him while everyone else scattered, but those are the chances you take.

I remember one year after we won down there, it appeared our fans and H-SC's were scuffling by the goalposts. With the season over, I was in a group of a few players that went sprinting to join the action. Well, we never quite got up to full sprint. Our DA* coach saw the looks in our eyes and move toward that end zone and immediately said something along the lines of "Oh hell naw, you, you and you get your (expletive)s in that locker room.

And so we did, no questions asked.

* DA = A theory developed by a teammate, The Chief, who believed you always had to have at least one coach on staff willing to be the designated a-hole. He was the guy who told you you sucked, made you run laps, etc. The enforcer, if you will. Marty White happened to be a nice guy, but he was very believeable in that role for us.

I guess that was really a story about the power of the DA than the rivalry.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: DPU3619 on July 12, 2007, 10:51:28 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 05, 2007, 12:12:20 PM
Maybe they feel that's all they can hold (though I remember plenty of open area around the end zones) and all they can provide security for, which is a significant consideration at games of this magnitude.

On my visit, all the Wabash people said "Thanks for coming, but it's better in Crawfordsville."

I don't think it's better, truthfully.  Although my bias is due to being harassed with the same insults and flying beer bottles (didn't know they sold PBR in a bottle) that I'm sure those folks get when they come to Greencastle.  And there's actually a place to park within the county line.

Great to have you a couple years back, Keith.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: PBR... on July 12, 2007, 12:31:53 PM
i am not sold in a bottle...(well cheap anyway since i do have my pride)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: wally_wabash on July 12, 2007, 02:37:01 PM
Quote from: DPU3619 on July 12, 2007, 10:51:28 AM
I don't think it's better, truthfully.  Although my bias is due to being harassed with the same insults and flying beer bottles (didn't know they sold PBR in a bottle) that I'm sure those folks get when they come to Greencastle.  And there's actually a place to park within the county line.

You just have to get there a little earlier...for the Bell game, you can find some parking near the stadium if you show up sometime around Thursday afternoon.   :)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: ACRULZ on July 21, 2007, 10:12:05 PM
There is a pretty good rivalry up in Michigan as well.  It would be Adrian - Albion.  These schools are only about an hour apart.  They many heated battles in recruiting as well.  But it is not just a football rivalry.  These two schools love to beat each other in ANY sport!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: gordonmann on July 23, 2007, 08:36:25 PM
Fun story on the Williams/Amherst rivalry.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2945751

I particularly enjoyed the Rubber Chicken story.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: dc_has_been on August 06, 2007, 11:48:31 PM
I want to add a rivalry that will have their 83rd meeting this year between Defiance College & Bluffton College both in Northwest Ohio about 40 minutes between the two HCAC schools.  As of recently the game is scheduled  the last game of the regular season too. 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on August 06, 2007, 11:51:19 PM
Cool.

Anything about it that makes it unique, since that length of time and playing at the end of the year is not umatched in Division III?

Those two schools haven't always been HCAC. Have they maintained the rivalry through the conference changes, for instance? (sounds like they have, duh)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: dc_has_been on August 07, 2007, 06:33:25 PM
K-Mack, We played them my freshman year while we (DC) were independent & obviously picked them back up on the schedule my senior year when we were in the same conference (HCAC). 
I especially like the rivalry b/c of what I alreay mentioned on the location of the two schools & both playing their last regular season game of the year against eachother. 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Trin9-0 on August 17, 2007, 09:12:34 AM
Everyone knows about the Williams-Amherst rivalry, and rightfully so. That game truly does determine the success of a season for the students and alumni of both schools.

However, more often than not it is the Trinity-Williams game that determines who wins the NESCAC title and therefore has just as much significance (if only to the players/coaches).

Here's a link to a CSTV documentary from the 2005 season in which Trinity played Williams in an attempt to break the New England record for consecutive wins. (At the time the record was held by Willams with 22 wins).

http://www.cstv.com/video/?s=videohub&vid=1274

It's very well done and offers a lot of history and backround information about the rivalry.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: raiderguy on August 18, 2007, 11:23:33 PM
Trin8-0,

Can you come out and play with the rest of us please? ;)

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: ADL70 on September 20, 2007, 08:23:25 PM
CWRU and Wooster contend for the Fish Stringer Saturday.  Spartans might actually be favored to win this year.

http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/2581451

http://www.case.edu/athletics/varsity/fall/football/misc/baird%20trophy.htm

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: billrt66 on October 02, 2007, 12:25:16 PM
I can promise you one thing.....the rivalry between Hanover and Franklin always played the last game of season for the Victory Bell is as heated as any I can imagine.  For both schools, it is an absolute war!  All of the typical trappings with stealing the Bell, painting the Ben Franklin statue, to having to postpone the game for almost 10 years because it became so heated.  These two teams simpy hate one another and the rivalry, except for the "halt in play" of the early 90's goes back almost a century.  There are thousands of fans that turn out for this game, whether at Franlin or Hanover.....this years game with the retirement of Hanovers coach after a 30 year career there will be at the boiling point....the intensity of this game every year is simply "off the chart"!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: kubiack78 on October 07, 2007, 04:32:37 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 04, 2007, 12:42:30 AM
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 11:42:03 AM
Pity the Occidental fans don't generally give this rivalry the status you now claim for it.

As I said in my initial response to K-Mack, I think that there is a reason for the perception that you guys have, and part of that has to be driven by Oxy's recent history, which is certainly the focus of our discussions

The reason I said that is because in the early years of ATN, I mentioned it among the great rivalries, probably because of its length and not really having any special knowledge one way or the other beyond what I'd read about the drum and such.

I got feedback saying that it wasn't much of a rivalry at all, and that Pomona-Pitzer considers CMS its rivalry game.

Until I read those messages, I don't really remember ever hearing, on my trips to Oxy or in conversations with Oxy fans, any comments that led me to believe the rivalry was on par with, say, DePauw-Wabash.

Not saying what was said then has to be true and what you're saying today is false, just explaining where I got that perception.

This is the rivalries thread, however, so campaign and explain away.

If I had to rank the rivalries today, based on a formula I am purely making up as I write this (history, tradition, competitiveness, atmosphere and significance to the team, team's season/schedule and alumni), I'd go:

1. Williams-Amherst
2. DePauw-Wabash (could probably meet the criteria for No. 1)
3. Cortland-Ithaca
4. Randolph-Macon / Hampden-Sydney (falling fast due to lack of competitiveness)
5. Monmouth-Knox
6. Union-RPI
7. Hanover-Franklin
8. St. John's-St. Thomas
9. Coe-Cornell
I'd also put up for consideration Coast Guard-Kings Point, Trinity-Wesleyan, CBB and the rest of the NESCAC ones, Wheaton-North Central and I guess either of the Pomona ones.

Probably forgetting a few.

Definitely willing to hear arguments to tweak these rankings. I'm pretty solid on my top 3, and likely on the top 5, but I really didn't give it a lot of thought after that ... just threw something out there to get people talking.

There are other rivalries which are rather lengthy which don't seem to rile up the crowds (Albion-Kalamazoo, Hamline-Macalester) ... and some younger trophy games (Soup Bowl, Regents Cup) which seem to be up and coming.

I'd throw Whitewater- LaCrosse into that top 10 somewhere
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: runyr on October 07, 2007, 05:34:16 PM
John Carroll U vs Baldwin-Wallace College is an intense rivalry.
Eastside vs Westside of Cleveland area means a lot to players and fans of both schools.
http://jcusports.com/Sports/football/2007/CuyGoldBowl.asp
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 08, 2007, 01:48:26 AM
Quote from: kubiack78 on October 07, 2007, 04:32:37 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on July 04, 2007, 12:42:30 AM
Quote from: Sabretooth Tiger on July 03, 2007, 12:20:47 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on July 03, 2007, 11:42:03 AM
Pity the Occidental fans don't generally give this rivalry the status you now claim for it.

As I said in my initial response to K-Mack, I think that there is a reason for the perception that you guys have, and part of that has to be driven by Oxy's recent history, which is certainly the focus of our discussions

The reason I said that is because in the early years of ATN, I mentioned it among the great rivalries, probably because of its length and not really having any special knowledge one way or the other beyond what I'd read about the drum and such.

I got feedback saying that it wasn't much of a rivalry at all, and that Pomona-Pitzer considers CMS its rivalry game.

Until I read those messages, I don't really remember ever hearing, on my trips to Oxy or in conversations with Oxy fans, any comments that led me to believe the rivalry was on par with, say, DePauw-Wabash.

Not saying what was said then has to be true and what you're saying today is false, just explaining where I got that perception.

This is the rivalries thread, however, so campaign and explain away.

If I had to rank the rivalries today, based on a formula I am purely making up as I write this (history, tradition, competitiveness, atmosphere and significance to the team, team's season/schedule and alumni), I'd go:

1. Williams-Amherst
2. DePauw-Wabash (could probably meet the criteria for No. 1)
3. Cortland-Ithaca
4. Randolph-Macon / Hampden-Sydney (falling fast due to lack of competitiveness)
5. Monmouth-Knox
6. Union-RPI
7. Hanover-Franklin
8. St. John's-St. Thomas
9. Coe-Cornell
I'd also put up for consideration Coast Guard-Kings Point, Trinity-Wesleyan, CBB and the rest of the NESCAC ones, Wheaton-North Central and I guess either of the Pomona ones.

Probably forgetting a few.

Definitely willing to hear arguments to tweak these rankings. I'm pretty solid on my top 3, and likely on the top 5, but I really didn't give it a lot of thought after that ... just threw something out there to get people talking.

There are other rivalries which are rather lengthy which don't seem to rile up the crowds (Albion-Kalamazoo, Hamline-Macalester) ... and some younger trophy games (Soup Bowl, Regents Cup) which seem to be up and coming.

I'd throw Whitewater- LaCrosse into that top 10 somewhere

I always got the sense that that was a competitive rivalry, a la Rowan-Montclair, but not necessarily the historical rival in all sports or the team that battles for a lot of the same recruits ... Plus in the D3football.com era, at least the early half, there were no dominant WIAC games because they were basically all important. Only the past few years have I been able to tell there's one game that stands above the others, and even though it looked that way two weeks ago, it looks like the ol' wacky WIAC is back.

One thing all the rivalries mentioned above (plus Moravian-Muhlenberg) have is a level of competition that goes on beyond the field, and beyond Game Week. Sometimes it's some historical milestone, or a trophy, turkey, jug or pair of shoes. Sometimes its competition among alumni and/or the feeling that the certain game can define/salvage a season, no matter how the other games have gone.

These games tend to work best at the end of the regular season, IMHO.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: altor on October 09, 2007, 09:07:53 PM
About the Defiance/Bluffton game:
I don't know that there is anything that sets it apart from the other rivalries that have been mentioned.  The proximity of the schools is the main reason for the rivalry.  Though in recent years, I believe they have played for "The Hammer."  But hey, not every rivalry can compare to Woody and Bo, right?

According to the NCAA Records book, both schools are playing their 85th season of football.  They will meet for the 83rd time in November, which is an interesting feat, especially when you consider all the conference changes the two schools have gone through over the years...the Hoosier-Buckeye League, the AMC, the HCAC, just to name a few.  Heck, there was even a time not too long ago when they weren't even in the same conference (DC was in the MIAA).

Bluffton did ruin a couple of DC postseason expectations a few years back.  In 2000, DC needed a win to win a share of the conference championship and the AQ.  Bluffton won the game and the share (though they didn't get the AQ).  The next year, DC already had the share and the AQ wrapped up going into rivalry week.  Bluffton upset them again, which was probably the reason DC had to go on the road to Augustana the next week instead of possibly getting a home game.

But, the main reason this game carries a special place in my heart is because I'm a DC grad and my sister is a Bluffton grad, and I know we aren't the only family like that.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: billrt66 on October 12, 2007, 12:20:29 PM
I have to say it again.....I've been to rivalry games in my life....several of them.... and I have never seen anything like Franklin and Hanover!!!!  These two teams and their fan bases just simply don't like each other and the fan following and support for both schools in every sport they play is really "off the chart".  Attendance at each school for the game is easily 5000-6000 and there is no ticket limit!!!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 12, 2007, 02:06:10 PM
Have you been to Wabash/DePauw? Amherst/Williams? Cortland State/Ithaca?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on October 12, 2007, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: billrt66 on October 12, 2007, 12:20:29 PM
I have to say it again.....I've been to rivalry games in my life....several of them.... and I have never seen anything like Franklin and Hanover!!!!  These two teams and their fan bases just simply don't like each other and the fan following and support for both schools in every sport they play is really "off the chart".  Attendance at each school for the game is easily 5000-6000 and there is no ticket limit!!!

Bill -

You need to come see the Hate Fest of the Monon Bell game. Last year over 11,000 at Wabash to see that sucker.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 12, 2007, 02:55:08 PM
Really quite amazing how civil the Monon discussion has been the last coupla years, to be honest.  It was pretty ugly (as you might expect given the intensity of the rivalry) the first few years Pat had the site going. 

Also about the only regular-season D3 game to be broadcast nationally (HDNet, Mark Cuban being good for something for once).
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on October 12, 2007, 03:34:04 PM
Quote from: Ron Boerger on October 12, 2007, 02:55:08 PM
Really quite amazing how civil the Monon discussion has been the last coupla years, to be honest.  It was pretty ugly (as you might expect given the intensity of the rivalry) the first few years Pat had the site going. 

Also about the only regular-season D3 game to be broadcast nationally (HDNet, Mark Cuban being good for something for once).

Here's my theory on why:

Up until the mid 90's, there wasn't much security at the stadium, so during the Bell game people crossed over to the other side (on both sides) and caused mayhem and trouble. Of course, that led to bloodshed. The worst of it came when DePauw won at Wabash, stormed the field to get the Bell, which was on Wabash's side, and then their fans proceeded to try to tear down our goalposts. Well, you can tell that didn't set too well and it got ugly.

But the last several Bell games the fans have been separated by security measures. The fans even enter on opposite sides, and there is an official Bell handoff procedure. So, I think the bad feelings from the mid 90's have subsided, so now it's a respectful kind of hate.

Sort of like Ann Coulter and Al Franken.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 12, 2007, 04:14:49 PM
Quote from: smedindy on October 12, 2007, 03:34:04 PM
So, I think the bad feelings from the mid 90's have subsided, so now it's a respectful kind of hate.

Sort of like Ann Coulter and Al Franken.

ROFL  ... not much respect, then!   :D
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: billrt66 on October 14, 2007, 10:22:51 PM
K Mack: Thanks very much for the response.  I mean that.  You are absolutely correct about my enthusiasm for the Grizzly program and it may well be that when I attended Franklin, football was a real powerhouse....we played at that time many schools that are now Div. II ( Butler, Evansville, Morehead State, Georgetown (NAIA)....those were the days of Red Faught, who passed away a couple of years ago after a long illness.  Those years produced players like Terry Hoeppner, the coach at Indiana who recently lost his battle with cancer.  Since then, the program has honestly been a bit of a roller coaster....some very good years, and some very mediocre ones.  The late 90s were particularly bad.  In 1998 we recommitted the program to focus on better student athletes, better citizens and facilities that at least were as good as or better than our competition.  Slowly this vision has come to fruition with the success of last season and the successes so far this year.  Franklin is a very small school ( +/- 1100 students) and the athletic program is I think appropriately in "its place" in terms of priorities, as it should be.  The school is experiencing some its "best history" in terms of student quality, endowment growth, academic reputation, etc. and admittedly my enthusiasm may be "gushing out" a little too much!  I will endeavor to be more containbed in my posts so that they don't appear to be a cheerleading session.  Being one of two schools left out of last year's playoffs has made me wna to be a sort of one man lobby!!  Hope you understand!  I really enjoy D3.com....I know it is a labor of love by those of yoou who contribute so much to its success.  BTW, I'm sure you noticed that Franklin did go on the raod yesaterday and knock of Mt. St. Joe 28-19....hope they finally get a little respect!
Bill
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 15, 2007, 02:02:37 AM
All:
Just for the record, I sent billrt66 a private message that more or less said he brings great enthuisasm to the board, but I didn't want to see the value of his insight (since there are few other Franklin posters I've seen) get lost in that enthusiasm.

I guess in a sense saying that the gratutitous love for Franklin could eventually cause some people to not take bill as seriously as he probably deserves to be taken.

Perspective is key.

So for everyone out there, keep in mind that most Post Patterns readers often don't know much about your school and the best thing you can do to help/gain the attention of the rest of us is explain what seems unique and exceptional about your neck of the woods.

The above post is a great, great example. I learned a bunch.

Anyway, glad that didn't come off the wrong way.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on October 15, 2007, 01:21:39 PM
Quote from: gordonmann on July 23, 2007, 08:36:25 PM
Fun story on the Williams/Amherst rivalry.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2945751

I particularly enjoyed the Rubber Chicken story.

That funny Rubber Chicken story has some parallels to the saga of RPI and the Union end zone cannon in 1978 - 1979:

In the fall of 1978, RPI was suffering a miserable season.  Going into the away "Dutchman's Shoes" Game against Union, RPI was 1-3, with two of the losses by shutout (to Coast Guard on opening day, and to Canisius 40-0).  The team's only win--it was to be RPI's only win of the season--was a 15-9 "barn burner" against Plattsburgh.  If memory serves, Plattsburgh had already announced that its football program would be dropped at the end of the 1978 season.  (Trivbit: Plattsburgh's head coach that final year was Dale Sprague, who had been an assistant at  RPI the year before.)

The weather was miserable in Schenectady on the day of the RPI - Union game, pouring rain all day long.  But soon after the game started, the discomfort of the rain took a back seat to the most irritating aspect of the first half: the boom from Union's cannon, which sounded at all Union scores and kickoffs.  Union shot off the cannon at the opening kickoff, and they shot it off several times after that, as they were heading toward an eventual 27-0 shutout win.

At halftime, both teams headed for the locker room, and the stands emptied as people headed for shelter from the pouring rain.

When play resumed in the second half, Union continued to dominate play, but oddly enough, there were no reports from the cannon.  As it turns out, when the  Union fans returned to the field for the start of the second half, the cannon was nowhere to be found.

A year later, RPI was off to a dramatically improved start, and had a record of 2-0-1 heading into the Battle for the Dutchman's Shoes, which was to be played on the newly reopened '86 Field.  (The construction of the J. Erik Jonsson Engineering Center had forced the football team to play its 1977 and 1978 home games on the soccer field where the Ned Harkness Track and Field currently stands, adjacent to the Houston Field House, home of the RPI hockey team.)  On Saturday October 13, 1979, the weather was clear and sunny in Troy for the big game.

After a slow start by both teams, RPI managed to kick a field goal in the first half, and necks snapped as heads swiveled toward the end zone under the scoreboard, where the sound of a cannon had greeted the kick's pass between the uprights!  From a distance, the cannon looked familiar to Union fans.  They could only look from a distance, however, since the cannon was surrounded by RPI fraternity men standing several deep.

At halftime, the teams left the field, and the  Union undergrads headed in a group toward the cannon.  The closer the Union students got to the cannon, though, the more the RPI men tried to impede their progress.

As many posts on the Liberty League board have attested, neither RPI nor Union students are stupid (although based on many Union posters' grammar and usage I dispute that claim by Union, but I digress  ;) )--both sets of students knew that any actual violence would result in everyone getting kicked off the field.  Thus, the world's quietest and least violent "rumble" ensued: a lot of tugging and pulling, some pushing, but not a single punch thrown, and virtually no words were exchanged.  "It was more like a 'scrum,'" according to one participant who has elected to remain anonymous.

Eventually, inevitably, the commotion caught the attention of Dean of Students Dave Thompson, who directed campus security to confiscate the cannon.  Union won the game 13-3, but for the second consecutive year, there was no cannon during the second half of the RPI - Union football game.

With the cannon safely locked in the equipment cage at the '87 Gym, on Monday October 15 RPI's AD Bob Ducatte contacted Union's AD and arranged for Union to pick up the cannon the following morning.  But the story's not over: when the equipment cage was opened on Tuesday morning, there was no cannon inside(!)

Every gym employee was interrogated--student part-time gym employees most thoroughly--but there were no clues to the cannon's whereabouts.  Campus scuttlebutt spoke of an "interfraternity underground railroad," but no hard evidence was ever collected, and no charges were ever pressed.

Union officials were upset, apparently.  Eventually, the mystery reached the ears of RPI President (and former NASA Apollo Mission Director) George Low.  President Low announced that if the cannon were not returned to Union by noon on Friday October 19, the October 20th home game v. Fairleigh Dickinson would be canceled.  The RPI coaches and athletic staff made requests and threats, but there was still no sign of the cannon on Thursday night.

Then, as dawn broke on the campus of Union College Friday morning October 19, 1979, the first rays of sunshine lit upon a cannon, perched on the 50 yard line of the football field.

I should compose some poetic conclusion to this story, but I'm feeling like Michael Crichton must feel at the end of his novels--that's it.  The end.

A writer for the Albany Times Union/Troy Times Record picked up the story and wrote a pretty good column about it a week or two later.  If anyone in the Capital District were so inclined, he might be able to find a copy of the column on microfilm.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 15, 2007, 01:49:09 PM
J Erik Jonsson...

Philanthropist renowned.  One of the founders of Texas Instruments.

Former Mayor of Dallas and the member of the braintrust behind DFW airport, and the creation of the research university that is now UT-Dallas (http://www.utdallas.edu/).

A truly great American!

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on October 15, 2007, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 15, 2007, 01:21:39 PM

(Trivbit: Plattsburgh's head coach that final year was Dale Sprague, who had been an assistant at  RPI the year before.)

More trivia : Sprague later was the head BASEBALL coach at Wabash for a few years while I was in school!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 02:19:18 AM
Who needs a column or Crichton, that story was riveting.

I'm gonna hafta do a D3 rivalry book one of these years.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on October 16, 2007, 09:23:03 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 02:19:18 AM
Who needs a column or Crichton, that story was riveting.

I'm gonna hafta do a D3 rivalry book one of these years.

Thanks, it was a fun story to live through as well.

. . . but it hasn't slowed my negative karma.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 08:17:11 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 16, 2007, 09:23:03 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 02:19:18 AM
Who needs a column or Crichton, that story was riveting.

I'm gonna hafta do a D3 rivalry book one of these years.

Thanks, it was a fun story to live through as well.

. . . but it hasn't slowed my negative karma.

I got the sense that you may have witnessed, let's say, some of the ongoings in that story.

I'll give you a +1
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on October 16, 2007, 08:50:49 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 08:17:11 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on October 16, 2007, 09:23:03 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 02:19:18 AM
Who needs a column or Crichton, that story was riveting.

I'm gonna hafta do a D3 rivalry book one of these years.

Thanks, it was a fun story to live through as well.

. . . but it hasn't slowed my negative karma.

I got the sense that you may have witnessed, let's say, some of the ongoings in that story.

I'll give you a +1

Obviously, I don't care about the karma.

But on the advice of my attorney, I can neither confirm nor deny your other, . . . senses.   :-X

Hey, F. Lee--when's the statute gonna run?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: KentATM on October 17, 2007, 02:27:22 AM
I really don't like Trinity (Tx).  Most students at Austin College (especially athletes) seem to share that view.  I have no idea if they actually count us as a rival though (mainly b/c we have been terrible at most everything the last oh, i dunno, 20 years)

I watched us take on their #1 rated soccer team the other day and I have never heard a more mouthy team that was expected to win easily.  I mean come on!  We haven't won one game this year and they cried about damn near everything!

They will get payback come homecoming! 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ralph Turner on October 17, 2007, 07:35:58 AM
Trinity and Austin College is one of the oldest "D3" rivalries in Texas.

The first game (http://www.trinity.edu/departments/athletics/Football/archives/arch-wl1900.htm) was played in 1904, a 23-6 win for Trinity.  Trinity leads the 71-game series 36-29-6 (http://www.trinity.edu/departments/athletics/Football/archives/arch-series.htm).

Other Texas series of interest in include:
Austin College-McMurry (66 games, AC leads 34-30-2 since 1934 (http://athletics.mcm.edu/Pdfs/football/2007/8/18/webmg07fb.pdf)).
Hardin-Simmons/Howard Payne (60th game this year since 1917. HSU leads 31-24-4. (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/hsim/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/fbmg.pdf)).
Howard Payne/McMurry (70 games, HPU leads 43-25-2 since 1927 (http://athletics.mcm.edu/Pdfs/football/2007/8/18/webmg07fb.pdf)).
McMurry/Sul Ross State (78th game this weekend since 1923, McMurry leads 42-33-2 (http://athletics.mcm.edu/Pdfs/football/2007/8/18/webmg07fb.pdf)).

In Texas these schools have been up and down. Hardin-Simmons was "major college", but dropped football after 1963, re-instating it in 1990.  The other four have been in various conferences, together and apart or as independents.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 17, 2007, 10:01:12 AM
Ralph, I'd say AC-TU is more of a long-lasting series, not a rivalry - and Trinity too was Division I (small college) into the late 60s/early 70s. 

Kent, I think the game the last week of the regular season will be very interesting, especially if there are still playoff implications for your much-disliked opponent. 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: dewcrew88 on October 17, 2007, 01:24:26 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 16, 2007, 02:19:18 AM
Who needs a column or Crichton, that story was riveting.

I'm gonna hafta do a D3 rivalry book one of these years.

Keith -- If you're writing a book, I'd love to help! ;)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: billrt66 on October 17, 2007, 05:10:56 PM
K Mack:  I would STRONGLY suggest that you do a D III rivalry book.  You could travel on sort of the "blue road" kind of tour and pick maybe 10 or 20 that just have to be done! It would take a couple of years since all the games are on Saturday, but you could be the new GAMEDAY guy!! ( God Knows you'd be better than Corso and Herbstreet)  My guess is you could get some sponsors at every stop who would love to see your perspective in print!! I know I would.
Bill
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 17, 2007, 10:29:26 PM
Here's the deal.

I've been knowing I'm eventually going to write one for several years. As to when and how, not quite sure, but I'm getting closer.

Certainly I've seen a good portion of the D3 hot spots, and will see St. John's later in the year, for a more general book, but I also haven't taken in color specifically for a book on those trips. Would probably need to do a lot of background and follow-up in the preseason and offseason.

As for the rivalries themselves, yeah, with most of them being that same weekend in November each year, I would either have to write it over several years or write it without seeing them all. I think there are enough anecdotes and interviews and people who would point me in the right direction that it could be done, but I think I would have to see Cortland-Ithaca in a good year and of course Amherst-Williams. Although with video documentaries and team promotion/recruiting DVDs growing in popularity, there might be ways to get a substitute "feel" for a game :)

Also, I haven't the first clue about getting published.

Also not terribly sure how I'd survive while devoting the time to it. Would love to be full-time, if even just for one fall.

Also, there could be multiple volumes. Don't have to stop at one since there are so many of us and we are ever-changing.

Once I do one, I imagine the others would come easier.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on October 18, 2007, 01:11:49 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 17, 2007, 10:29:26 PM
Here's the deal.

I've been knowing I'm eventually going to write [a book about D3 football] for several years. As to when and how, not quite sure, but I'm getting closer.
* * *
Also not terribly sure how I'd survive while devoting the time to it. Would love to be full-time, if even just for one fall.


I assume that you've read Austin Murphy's masterpiece "The Sweet Season?"  In it, Murphy talks some about how difficult it is to write a book while keeping all the rest of life's balls in the air at the same time.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 18, 2007, 01:01:10 PM
Yeah,
I've read The Sweet Season.

When I said survive though, I meant like actually have money to go grocery shopping. :)

Once I set up that kind of nest egg and/or figure out how to take a sabbatical, then I've got a shot.

Until then, wishful thinking. Unless I can squeeze in a few chapters in between work, kids and writing ATN :)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: billrt66 on October 18, 2007, 01:50:48 PM
K Mack:  write me an email off the message board.  I have a close friend who is in the business of publishing specialty books.  He has already done a number of what are commonly referred to as "coffee table" kinds of books for colleges and universities.....this might really be something he would want to get his teeth into. I'll get back to you with some more specific information if you have have an interest.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: fossywriter8 on October 19, 2007, 04:22:48 PM
I remember back when I played (and I use the word "played" very loosely) for Central from 1987-90. Our two big rivalry games were against William Penn (which was not very good at the time, though they had been in the past) and Simpson (which was very tough). Both were located close to Pella, which only helped the rivalries.

I remember my senior year (1990) when a writer on the William Penn newspaper wrote some kind of column about how Central was full of rich kids named Skippy and Buffy, how we would make the playoffs and choke every year and that our players used steroids. He was trying to be funny, but it was William Penn's misfortune that the article came out right before our game.

Judas Priest, it got so bad I got in the game and actually had a carry! The coaches tried to keep it in check, but once a play started, it was all out war.

The games with Simpson were always big ones and usually decided the conference championship. I remember the Simpson faithful having a cement truck with LOUD horn they would sound off whenever they did something good.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: KentATM on October 20, 2007, 10:36:21 AM
Ralph, thanks for the info.  I had no idea AC was that close to Trinity all time.  Coming here is starting to make me want to get on the school to go a bit more in depth with our website.  We don't even mention that we won an NAIA title in 81 on our site.

Ron, maybe being in the SCAC will make it a bit more of a rivalry.  Especially after we ruin their season November 10.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: jekelish on October 20, 2007, 10:40:28 AM
Kent, it's not just the students at AC that dislike Trinity...there's definitely a dislike/envy/rivalry type of thing with a lot of the staff.

From being around that vibe a lot, and from having Sox friends and Yankees friends (and family) and living in Boston during the 04 ALCS, I can tell you that the way AC people view Trinity is pretty darn similar to the way Sox fans, at that time, viewed the Yankees.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: tmerton on October 22, 2007, 12:50:46 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 17, 2007, 10:29:26 PM
Certainly I've seen a good portion of the D3 hot spots, and will see St. John's later in the year, ...


KM - We're looking forward to your visit with Pat this weekend.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 22, 2007, 01:41:11 AM
Quote from: tmerton on October 22, 2007, 12:50:46 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 17, 2007, 10:29:26 PM
Certainly I've seen a good portion of the D3 hot spots, and will see St. John's later in the year, ...


KM - We're looking forward to your visit with Pat this weekend.

As am I.

And then I plan to not fly for a long, long time.

Except for maybe in the playoffs.  ;)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: 'gro on November 07, 2007, 03:29:17 PM
It's Shoes Week in upstate NY.  RPI and Union meet for the 106th time.

this is the best part about the series:
"Rensselaer claims an 11-4 win in 1886, the first meeting of the series, while Union says the Dutchmen won, 4-0, that year"

a game from 121 years ago is still being disputed!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 07, 2007, 10:31:44 PM
I think I've heard that in a couple rivalries. Not sure those early records were very well kept.

What a crappy year for ESPN to pick Williams (5-2) and Amherst (4-3).

Those two are usually in the title mix alongside Trinity (Conn.)

I guess there was nowhere they wanted to be this week. Interested to hear why D3 suddenly interested them.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: labart96 on November 07, 2007, 10:41:15 PM
For what it's worth Hobart will be playing the U of Rahchacha for the 100th time (series dates back to 1892 with the Jackets holding a slight 45-47-7 edge in the 99 previous meetings).

Funny thing is that eventhough this is Hobart's oldest active "rivalry", I would place Union above UofR in the rivalry category. 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2007, 11:55:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2007, 10:31:44 PM
I think I've heard that in a couple rivalries. Not sure those early records were very well kept.

What a crappy year for ESPN to pick Williams (5-2) and Amherst (4-3).

Those two are usually in the title mix alongside Trinity (Conn.)

I guess there was nowhere they wanted to be this week. Interested to hear why D3 suddenly interested them.

With all due respect to the NESCAC in other sports, can they even really be said to be in d3 for football?  Spurning the playoffs is one thing; playing NO non-conference games seems to me to turn it into glorified intramurals.

As to why Amherst-Williams: why does Harvard-Yale get an annual national broadcast virtually a century after either played big-time football?  Answer: check the college affiliation (or 'wanna-be' affiliation ;)) of the top execs, sponsors, and 'most desired' customers of same.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: frank uible on November 08, 2007, 12:11:26 AM
If anyone cares, Ivy League football teams received national major college rankings during the 1950s - that's less than 60 years ago..
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2007, 12:24:42 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 08, 2007, 12:11:26 AM
If anyone cares, Ivy League football teams received national major college rankings during the 1950s - that's less than 60 years ago..

My bad - I thought it was more like the 20s.  I should have said "more than half a century ago" to be safe! :-[
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: usee on November 08, 2007, 12:38:01 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 08, 2007, 12:24:42 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 08, 2007, 12:11:26 AM
If anyone cares, Ivy League football teams received national major college rankings during the 1950s - that's less than 60 years ago..

My bad - I thought it was more like the 20s.  I should have said "more than half a century ago" to be safe! :-[

Ypsi, you could have just said "back when I was in college".  ;D ;D ;)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: wally_wabash on November 08, 2007, 01:49:05 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2007, 10:31:44 PM
I think I've heard that in a couple rivalries. Not sure those early records were very well kept.

What a crappy year for ESPN to pick Williams (5-2) and Amherst (4-3).

Those two are usually in the title mix alongside Trinity (Conn.)

I guess there was nowhere they wanted to be this week. Interested to hear why D3 suddenly interested them.

I say let's not look a gift horse in the mouth.  I hope this starts a precedent where the worldwide leader takes their signature college football program to a D-III rivalry once a year (one is enough...I'm not too greedy). 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 08, 2007, 02:01:29 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2007, 01:49:05 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2007, 10:31:44 PM
I think I've heard that in a couple rivalries. Not sure those early records were very well kept.

What a crappy year for ESPN to pick Williams (5-2) and Amherst (4-3).

Those two are usually in the title mix alongside Trinity (Conn.)

I guess there was nowhere they wanted to be this week. Interested to hear why D3 suddenly interested them.

I say let's not look a gift horse in the mouth.  I hope this starts a precedent where the worldwide leader takes their signature college football program to a D-III rivalry once a year (one is enough...I'm not too greedy). 

Gee, I wonder who might be next up to bat ...

I've got an open mind, but I'm not going to get too excited about someone who very rarely shows any interest suddenly showing some. Given that there's I-AA and II and NAIA, I don't even know if one D3 a year is a reasonable expectation. Could just as likely be a one-time thing, which is well and good, but if we go back to being virtually ignored after Sunday, then we have to keep it in proper perspective. I don't want to be the "Hey Chester, whaddya want to do today, Chester" dog from the cartoons anytime someone with a camera comes calling.

I've got a take on it in ATN ... which will be out today. I promise.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: runyr on November 08, 2007, 09:20:00 PM
Quote from: wally_wabash on November 08, 2007, 01:49:05 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2007, 10:31:44 PM
I think I've heard that in a couple rivalries. Not sure those early records were very well kept.

What a crappy year for ESPN to pick Williams (5-2) and Amherst (4-3).

Those two are usually in the title mix alongside Trinity (Conn.)

I guess there was nowhere they wanted to be this week. Interested to hear why D3 suddenly interested them.

I say let's not look a gift horse in the mouth.  I hope this starts a precedent where the worldwide leader takes their signature college football program to a D-III rivalry once a year (one is enough...I'm not too greedy). 
How about nationwide Rep & Dem presidential nominees' teams? 
With Giuliani and Clinton you'd have two D3 schools, but no football.  They'd have to choose something like women's volleyball:
Manhattan College vs Wellesley College
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Danimal814 on November 09, 2007, 02:17:41 AM
The past two years the Bell rivalry has taken a hit.  Last year the security was so strong that Wabash students were prevented from rushing their own field until the football team came over and undid the gates.  The people who crossed early were arrested.  This year the game only has 8000 tickets which has really created a ticket crunch here at Wabash (tickets selling for 25-50 dollars on E-bay).  I really wish we'd get more tickets and let us actually be college students.  Also this year the Monon Keg Game, the rugby game between Wabash and Depauw should have security.  Usually this game is full of a lot of taunting and a lot of just misses with giant fights between the two schools.  It usually involves Wabash Sphinx club holding off both sides to avoid a giant Melee.  Further more, Depauw banned their anti-Wabash shirt this year (although Wabash has 5).  Despite this, I'd still say the best rivalry in sports.  BTW, Dannies if you read this the bell is on the chapel steps until 11AM Saturday morning.  Come and get it.  The bell will remain here.

If the words of the late Mike Bachner '70, "The Monon Bell game may only be one day a year, but we hate Depauw the other 364 days."

Final word, besides partying with the Depauw football manager last year after the game, we also had a few Franklin girls come and they said the hatred and atmosphere was a lot more intense here. 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 09, 2007, 08:08:17 AM
I think you can have a good healthy hate without drunken lunacy and fisticuffs.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: wally_wabash on November 09, 2007, 11:58:56 AM
Danimal, I don't know if you were at the games in '96 and '98, but what happened after those games really can't happen again.  I believe there were murmurs of putting the game on hold...I don't know how close that ever came to happening (I would guess that one more incident like the '96 and '98 incidents probably would have turned the volume way up on that conversation), but the fact that it was even being whispered about is plenty serious. 

I'll agree that DPU should up the limit on the number of tickets they're selling as Wabash has done over the last three games in C'ville, but it's their house so we pretty much have to play by their rules.  I expected Wabash's allotment of tickets to sell out well before they actually did...people had over two weeks to get their hands on tickets.  More tickets would help, but these games sell out every single year so people really ought to be tuned in to the fact that they can't wait until Wednesday of Bell Week to find a ticket. 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 10, 2007, 11:56:17 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 07, 2007, 11:55:42 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2007, 10:31:44 PM
What a crappy year for ESPN to pick Williams (5-2) and Amherst (4-3).

I guess there was nowhere they wanted to be this week. Interested to hear why D3 suddenly interested them.

With all due respect to the NESCAC in other sports, can they even really be said to be in d3 for football?  Spurning the playoffs is one thing; playing NO non-conference games seems to me to turn it into glorified intramurals.


I don't understand why I seem to be the only one who thinks of the phrase "academics before athletics" when he thinks about NCAA Division III.   With all due respect to you, Dr. Ypsi, your post seems to imply that D3 stands for post season playoffs uber alles.

The NESCAC comprises the most prestigious academic institutions outside of Division 1 schools (and let's face it, they are academically more prestigious than all but a few Division 1 schools). Regarding non-conference games, are there any NCAA Division III membership rules related to non-conference scheduling, or for that matter, are there any NCAA Division III membership rules related to conferences (other than for playoff purposes)?  If there are, I'd like to talk to some conference commissioners, and ask them why they don't suggest that the NCAA mind its own business with respect to individual colleges voluntarily aligning themselves in conferences.  In other words, it seems to me that your complaint about non-conference scheduling is irrelevant to d3.

NESCAC member schools choose not to participate in the d3 football playoffs, as the NCAA Division III membership rules permit, I'm willing to bet.  So their refusal to participate in a national football playoff isn't a violation of their Division III membership, is it?

I suspect that everything else about NESCAC intercollegiate athletics complies with the requirements of NCAA Division III membership.  Are you suggesting then, that NCAA Division III member schools should be required to participate in national playoffs?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2007, 12:00:22 AM
I actually read Mr. Ypsi's post and he said it's one thing to spurn the playoffs but something else entirely to play no non-conference games.

Some reading before spewing rhetoric might help you, redswarm.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 12:30:40 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2007, 12:00:22 AM
I actually read Mr. Ypsi's post and he said it's one thing to spurn the playoffs but something else entirely to play no non-conference games.

Some reading before spewing rhetoric might help you, redswarm.

So much for playing the academic card! ;D

[I suspect the UAA may have some other issues with his post as well.]
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 11, 2007, 12:58:28 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 12:30:40 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2007, 12:00:22 AM
I actually read Mr. Ypsi's post and he said it's one thing to spurn the playoffs but something else entirely to play no non-conference games.

Some reading before spewing rhetoric might help you, redswarm.

So much for playing the academic card! ;D

[I suspect the UAA may have some other issues with his post as well.]

I think that U.S. News and World Report has come down on the side of NESCAC v. UAA.

I meant no disrespect, Doc, and I didn't mean to spew, Guru.

But as Pat said, Ypsi mentioned "one thing" (spurning playoffs), which I addressed; and he mentioned "something else entirely" (playing no non-conference games whatsoever), which I also addressed.


Thus, if "something else entirely" is truly irrelevant, then we're left with only "one thing:"  Spurning playoffs.  I don't think that spurning a five week playoff following an eight week season is sufficient reason to question a conference's NCAA Division III bona fides.

But that's just my opinion.  Ypsi has a different opinion.  I don't think you lack academic rigor just because you hold a different opinion, Doc.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 01:08:24 AM
My phrasing of 'something else entirely' was meant to suggest that THAT was my real quibble.  If they play NO other d3 teams EVER, are they really a part of d3 football?  Seems to me they are (contra Donne) an island unto themselves.

They have that right, of course, and I am not questioning their d3 bona fides overall, but (IMO) they have chosen NOT to be in d3 football.

[I've also got a quibble with their SINGLE round-robin in basketball, but that awaits a different season! :D]
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 11, 2007, 01:59:55 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 01:08:24 AM
My phrasing of 'something else entirely' was meant to suggest that THAT was my real quibble.  If they play NO other d3 teams EVER, are they really a part of d3 football?  Seems to me they are (contra Donne) an island unto themselves.

They have that right, of course, and I am not questioning their d3 bona fides overall, but (IMO) they have chosen NOT to be in d3 football.


As I say, I have a different reaction than most when I think of NCAA Division III.  I don't understand why my reaction is such a minority, but it is, as my karma totals attest.  Academics come before athletics in NCAA Division III.

The NCAA has no say in conference makeup or in scheduling, as far as I'm aware.   The NESCAC adheres to the NCAA Division III membership requirements.  Of course they are really a part of d3 for football.

I don't see how NESCAC's adherence to the Division III membership requirements leads to the conclusion that NESCAC is not really a part of d3 for anything, including football.

I can understand the desire for the entertainment value of a national playoff, but I don't see any reason to grant the NCAA such dictatorial power to restrict individual Division III member schools' conference membership and scheduling choices.

Time to watch Rollerball (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073631/) again.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 11, 2007, 02:02:31 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 01:08:24 AM
My phrasing of 'something else entirely' was meant to suggest that THAT was my real quibble.  If they play NO other d3 teams EVER, are they really a part of d3 football?  Seems to me they are (contra Donne) an island unto themselves.

They have that right, of course, and I am not questioning their d3 bona fides overall, but (IMO) they have chosen NOT to be in d3 football.

[I've also got a quibble with their SINGLE round-robin in basketball, but that awaits a different season! :D]
Nice touch!  Three zingers in one post!

Mr Ypsi, I still owe you 2 more Karmas!  ;)


Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 02:29:01 AM
Thanks, Ralph. :)

Redswarm, you seem to be (stubbornly?) missing my point.  I'm not suggesting that NESCAC is not 'qualified' for d3 football, or that d3 has (or should have) evicted them.  I'm saying that NESCAC has seemingly, of their own free will, chosen to secede from d3 football.  That is their right (and in no way affects their overall membership), and since d3 football is (slightly ;)) less important than the Union, I have no interest in waging a Civil War over the issue.

And so to bed.  I await your reply (if you so choose) tomorrow.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 11, 2007, 05:57:28 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 07, 2007, 10:31:44 PM
I think I've heard that in a couple rivalries. Not sure those early records were very well kept.

What a crappy year for ESPN to pick Williams (5-2) and Amherst (4-3).

Those two are usually in the title mix alongside Trinity (Conn.)

I guess there was nowhere they wanted to be this week. Interested to hear why D3 suddenly interested them.

Was anyone able to watch it?  How was the crowd behind the espn desk?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 11, 2007, 07:58:36 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 02:29:01 AM
Thanks, Ralph. :)

Redswarm, you seem to be (stubbornly?) missing my point.  I'm not suggesting that NESCAC is not 'qualified' for d3 football, or that d3 has (or should have) evicted them.  I'm saying that NESCAC has seemingly, of their own free will, chosen to secede from d3 football.  That is their right (and in no way affects their overall membership), . . .

Got it.  The NESCAC member schools have, of their own free will, chosen to behave in a manner completely within their rights as members of NCAA Division III, and consistent with their requirements of NCAA Division III membership.  I don't see how you consider that tantamount to secession from d3 football.

You seem to be missing my point--non-conference play is irrelevant to membership in NCAA Division III.  Your point is an irrelevancy with respect to d3 football, with respect to d3 anything.  I understand that you don't like it, but I don't understand why you think it has anything to do with the label "d3 football."

Maybe that's what you meant by "seemingly."

Ralph must be so proud.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: HScoach on November 11, 2007, 08:10:38 AM
UGH.  That's 2 minutes of my life I'll never get back.  Sounded like my kids arguing.

FWIW, I'm with Mr. Ypsi on this one.  What rings odd with me is their non-participation in the playoffs in football, but full participation in every other sport.  Sure seems like cross-campus intramurals to me.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: met_fan on November 11, 2007, 09:26:28 AM
I'm not sure I understand why redswarm is getting so bent out of shape here.  Mr. Ypsi points out (rightly) that NESCAC football has chosen to go play by themselves and don't quite see where he is wrong.  That is certainly their right, but even the Ivies, while choosing not to participate in the playoffs for football, still manage to schedule some play outside of conference.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 11, 2007, 09:39:50 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 11, 2007, 12:58:28 AM
I think that U.S. News and World Report has come down on the side of NESCAC v. UAA.


Except that the UAA and the NESCAC are in totally different categories in the US News rankings, and that the NESCAC rankings are usually inflated in those rankings due to the many problems associated with them.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 11, 2007, 11:04:58 AM
I mean it is really just each schools individual choice to play who they want to.  I think its simply why they are in the NCAA for football though.  They want the same rules, and its easier to get officials.  Not a huge deal.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 12, 2007, 01:09:25 AM
Quote from: met_fan on November 11, 2007, 09:26:28 AM
I'm not sure I understand why redswarm is getting so bent out of shape here.  Mr. Ypsi points out (rightly) that NESCAC football has chosen to go play by themselves and don't quite see where he is wrong.  That is certainly their right, but even the Ivies, while choosing not to participate in the playoffs for football, still manage to schedule some play outside of conference.

I'm not bent out of shape.  I just don't see a reason discuss the term of art "NCAA Division III" as anything other than what it is--a collection of colleges and universities who voluntarily abide by the membership requirements, that are set out by the NCAA.

It seems to me that Mr. Ypsi speaks for a lot of people when he says that NESCAC "isn't really"  participating in d3 for football.  I think that's nonsense.  NCAA Division III is NCAA Division III.  NESCAC member schools haven't violated any of the NCAA's Division III membership requirements.

If Ypsi or anyone else wants to define a new term, he's welcome to do so, and I'll be happy to discuss it.  But I don't understand why I'm considered to be "bent out of shape" just because I point out that Ypsi (and everyone else)'s complaints are not relevant to NESCAC schools' Division III status--really.

(None of this relates to the fact that I am the only person on the planet--outside of NESCAC, I suspect--who believes that NESCAC schools' football schedules are more consistent with the principle of "academics before athletics" than NESCAC's other sports schedules, where NESCAC teams participate in national playoffs.)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2007, 01:49:12 AM
redswarm,

I admire your consistency of principle (I'm not being sarcastic - I really do).  In your last paragraph you say that withdrawing ALL sports from the playoffs would be more consistent with 'academics over athletics'.  I don't really agree, but I recognize your viewpoint, and admire your consistent stance.

But at that point, why worry about d3 standards and principles (or even membership) - why not (to suggest the alternative term) just speak of NESCAC standards and principles?  It is not nonsense to say NESCAC "isn't really" participating in d3 football; forget the 'really' part - NESCAC is NOT participating in d3 football since they play no other d3 football teams!  They are members of d3, and following all attendant rules, but they are participating only in NESCAC football.  There is nothing wrong with that (it can even be argued, as you have, that it is admirable), but it is what it is.

And I suspect you might get some flak from Williams about ceasing post-season competition in all sports - I get the impression they are rather fond of their seemingly permanent ownership of the Presidents Cup! ;)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Knightstalker on November 12, 2007, 10:19:41 AM
Basically the NESCAC schools are acting like hypocritical spoiled children.  They want to play with everyone else and bragg about how great their programs are and how they are so much superior to everyone else.  Then football season comes around and like the spoiled child they say, It's my ball and I am going home and not playing with you anymore.  :P  nyah, nyah, nyah.

They want to be the Ivy league so bad they are copying how they do things.  I am willing to bet that if the Ivy League started to allow their schools to participate in the playoffs the NESCAC would quickly follow.

I am not saying that the Ivy League schools are better but they more identifiable and I feel the NESCAC is envious.

Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 10:51:40 AM
Except the Ivies also schedule out of conference. The Ivies this year played:

Duquense
Fordham
Bucknell
Colgate
Holy Cross
Lafayette
Lehigh
Georgetown
New Hampshire
Marist
Villanova
Rhode Island
Hampton

Are you telling me the NESCAC couldn't come out and play with schools in the East if the Ivies can?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Knightstalker on November 12, 2007, 10:55:59 AM
Possibly this is the NESCAC' way of saying they are better than the Ivies.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: frank uible on November 12, 2007, 11:26:42 AM
Nescac was formed in 1971. Before that date all Nescac-to-be colleges played non-Nescac-to-be colleges, including (for some Nescac-to-be colleges) Ivies, and for a few years after that date some and possibly all Nescac colleges played non-Nescac colleges.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 12, 2007, 10:33:24 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2007, 01:49:12 AM
redswarm,

I admire your consistency of principle (I'm not being sarcastic - I really do).  In your last paragraph you say that withdrawing ALL sports from the playoffs would be more consistent with 'academics over athletics'.  I don't really agree, but I recognize your viewpoint, and admire your consistent stance.

But at that point, why worry about d3 standards and principles (or even membership) - why not (to suggest the alternative term) just speak of NESCAC standards and principles?  It is not nonsense to say NESCAC "isn't really" participating in d3 football; forget the 'really' part - NESCAC is NOT participating in d3 football since they play no other d3 football teams!  They are members of d3, and following all attendant rules, but they are participating only in NESCAC football.  There is nothing wrong with that (it can even be argued, as you have, that it is admirable), but it is what it is.

And I suspect you might get some flak from Williams about ceasing post-season competition in all sports - I get the impression they are rather fond of their seemingly permanent ownership of the Presidents Cup! ;)


However, NESCAC schools do no such things.  NESCAC schools, each one a member of NCAA Division III, play eight game schedules against the other NESCAC schools.  Of course NESCAC schools are participating in d3 football.

I confess to being definitionally challenged, Doc.  NCAA Division III is what it says in its definition, because . . . well, because . . . that's its definition.  I said similar things to the US Supreme Court when they defined "commerce among the several states" as "growing and consuming wheat entirely within the bounds of your own private property" (Wickard v. Filburn), and again when they defined "public use" as "private development" (Kelo v. New London).

You are crafting a fine distinction between NESCAC schools being "members of d3 and following all attendant rules;" and NESCAC schools "participating" in d3.  I don't have good enough vision to see any substantive distinction.   But then again, I don't see how universities can claim to encourage the free exchange of ideas while simultaneously enforcing onerously restrictive campus speech codes.

This part of my argument isn't principle, Doc--it's tautology.  I do make many arguments in defense of NESCAC based on principle, though, and I appreciate your astuteness in recognizing it.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 12, 2007, 10:43:19 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 12, 2007, 10:19:41 AM
Basically the NESCAC schools are acting like hypocritical spoiled children.  They want to play with everyone else and bragg about how great their programs are and how they are so much superior to everyone else.  Then football season comes around and like the spoiled child they say, It's my ball and I am going home and not playing with you anymore.  :P  nyah, nyah, nyah.

Let's stipulate that the motivation you ascribe to NESCAC schools is correct.  They want to brag about their great programs and about how superior they are.  That begs the question why wouldn't they want to brag about how great their football program is?

Whether we stipulate or not, it seems obvious to me that the way to remove hypocrisy from the NESCAC schools is to withdraw from all postseason playoffs, not to add football playoffs.  That is, if the hypocrisy is at all related to their academic prestige.

Edit:  I can understand my proposed solution to hypocrisy being a minority solution, but I can't understand why not a single person in the country seems to agree with me, even if he doesn't support the proposal.  I would more easily understand the argument "yes, that would eliminate the hypocrisy, but a little hypocrisy is permissible, especially in those sports with few players and short playoffs, since it provides a potentially more meaningful and exciting collegiate experience."
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ralph Turner on November 12, 2007, 11:40:17 PM
I like the way that the Index service, Lazindex, describes his dealing with the NESCAC.

"D3 Disconnected" (http://www.lazindex.com/CFD3.htm)

Please scroll to the very bottom of the page.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2007, 11:45:33 PM
"This part of my argument isn't principle, Doc--it's tautology."  Mainly, it is irrelevant!  No one (at least certainly not me) has accused you of violating any d3 rules.  So far as I know, I am not violating any laws of France, but that doesn't mean I am 'participating' in French culture!  If I attend a poker tournament and sit at the table playing solitaire, I'm probably not violating any rules, but am I 'participating'?  I would suggest that NESCAC never playing football against any d3 teams means they are playing solitaire.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: ADL70 on November 12, 2007, 11:56:53 PM
Who has the picture of the deceased equine?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 13, 2007, 12:02:10 AM
Check the MIAA MBB board.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 13, 2007, 12:16:00 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 12, 2007, 11:45:33 PM
"This part of my argument isn't principle, Doc--it's tautology."  Mainly, it is irrelevant!  No one (at least certainly not me) has accused you of violating any d3 rules.  So far as I know, I am not violating any laws of France, but that doesn't mean I am 'participating' in French culture!  If I attend a poker tournament and sit at the table playing solitaire, I'm probably not violating any rules, but am I 'participating'?  I would suggest that NESCAC never playing football against any d3 teams means they are playing solitaire.

Wow, those are some pretty tenuous analogies, Doc.

If you were seated at the poker tournament table and not playing poker, I'd think you were not abiding by the rules of the tournament.  But poker tournament is probably a particularly difficult analogy, since it's the NCAA post-season tournament that is the root of most anti-NESCAC sentiment, it seems to me.

You're not under the jurisdiction of French law--you're in the US.  But NESCAC schools are d3 members (under the jurisdiction of d3 "law"), playing football against other d3 members, adhering to d3 football requirements related to length of schedule, permissible preseason practices, and athletic scholarships.  As I say, I don't see how that's not participating in d3 football, since the definition of d3 football includes nothing about required participation in post season tournaments, or even about conference membership and interconference scheduling.

I think you need to define a new term, because "NCAA Division III" has a definition, and NESCAC follows/participates/abides by that definition.

I'm not NESCAC, Doc.  Even if I were violating d3 rules, NESCAC shouldn't suffer any consequences.   :D  I'm just an admirer of NESCAC's consistent adherence to principle in its approach to intercollegiate football.

I often wonder if other teams and conferences envy NESCAC's wealth of fantastic rivalries.  On this score, I think K-Mack has a good take.  Amherst-Williams is the nation's best college rivalry, but I also think you'll not find better rivalries than Colby-Bates-Bowdoin or Trinity-Wesleyan, either.  Right there, you're talking about three of the top rivalries in the country, involving seven teams, all in a single conference.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2007, 12:50:33 AM
redswarm,

When they start threatening the deceased equine, I'm outta here!  Send me a PM if you wish to continue, but if you can't grasp the meaning of participation, we seem to be at a stalemate.

BTW, I have property within 25 miles of both Bates and Bowdoin, so I am not unfamiliar with the rivalry.  But for intensity of rivalries you may wish to check the Monon Bell thread, or the board with the dead horse for Calvin-Hope (among numerous others).  Try to be a tad less NESCAC-centric.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2007, 12:53:30 AM
Why would the OAC envy the NESCAC rivalries? Why would the MIAC or WIAC or IIAC? Those are pretty stout rivalries. Why would Wabash / DePauw care a HOOT about the pure NESCAC? How about Hardin Simmons and UMHB? Do they care? Does Linfield / PLU/ Whitworth care about it? How about the SCIAC? Is that in their mind when they're knocking each other around.

Heck, the MIAA had a big ol' clusterflop this year. Many  of those schools have played each other for eons. Are they JEALOUS of the NESCAC, or is Albion more concerned with beating Hope and Alma?

If the NESCAC cared about the purity of D3 sports they'd get off their high horse and play some games against other conferences. Playoffs are another thing, but not deigning to schedule other conferences smack of elitism that I think is counter to the ideal that the NCAA is for student / athletes.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2007, 12:57:20 AM
Oh, and ask Wheaton, Illinois Wesleyan, and North Central  if they cared about the NESCAC's purity while they were knocking heads for the CCIW title and the playoffs. I think they cared not. But I do think the athletes cared about getting to game 11, and in the classroom they also cared and continued to care about their studies.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 13, 2007, 01:15:28 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 13, 2007, 12:50:33 AM
redswarm,

When they start threatening the deceased equine, I'm outta here!  Send me a PM if you wish to continue, but if you can't grasp the meaning of participation, we seem to be at a stalemate.

BTW, I have property within 25 miles of both Bates and Bowdoin, so I am not unfamiliar with the rivalry.  But for intensity of rivalries you may wish to check the Monon Bell thread, or the board with the dead horse for Calvin-Hope (among numerous others).  Try to be a tad less NESCAC-centric.

You can go away Doc, but you don't have to go away mad.   :D

I grasp the meaning of participation.  I don't grasp the meaning of  participation in d3 football that is somehow different from d3 members playing football against each other.

I admire the NESCAC for its plethora of rivalries.  Don't you?  I'm aware of other individual rivalries that are as good, and hell, my own RPI-Union Battle for the Dutchman's Shoes deserves mention in any discussion of top ten rivalries.  But I don't think I could scare up three rivalries in the Liberty League, let alone three rivalries as high quality as the three NESCAC rivalries I mentioned.  I wish there were three or more such rivalries in every conference.  Don't you?

In this MTV generation, by the time any printed sentence gets halfway through the verb, audience attention wanders.  I can't help that.  I'm glad you stick with sentences all the way to the object, and even dependent clauses.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2007, 01:38:07 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 12:30:40 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 11, 2007, 12:00:22 AM
I actually read Mr. Ypsi's post and he said it's one thing to spurn the playoffs but something else entirely to play no non-conference games.

Some reading before spewing rhetoric might help you, redswarm.

So much for playing the academic card! ;D

[I suspect the UAA may have some other issues with his post as well.]

(also had the UAA thought)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2007, 01:42:38 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 11, 2007, 12:58:28 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 12:30:40 AM
[I suspect the UAA may have some other issues with his post as well.]

I think that U.S. News and World Report has come down on the side of NESCAC v. UAA.

Although that's the standard that the general public, myself included, often seems to go by, there are those within the academic community who believe that -- gasp! -- the magazine's rankings are not the final word on quality of institution.

Particularly with regard to some of the factors in the rankings regarding prestige and some of the methodology US News & World Report uses.

However, only if you are really interested in such matters should you further divert this thread from Division III rivalries.

I believe there's a Future of Division III board under General Division III issues which might be a better home for this type of blather. And I mean that in a nice way.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2007, 01:46:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 10:51:40 AM
Except the Ivies also schedule out of conference. The Ivies this year played:

Duquense
Fordham
Bucknell
Colgate
Holy Cross
Lafayette
Lehigh
Georgetown
New Hampshire
Marist
Villanova
Rhode Island
Hampton

Are you telling me the NESCAC couldn't come out and play with schools in the East if the Ivies can?

I meant to post about this when I read about it.

The Princeton-Hampton game was supposed to be significant in that it was one of the first in years, if not the first ever, to match an Ivy and an HBCU.

And immediately I thought the same thing, well if the Ivies can do that -- and the quote from the Princeton AD was something along the lines of wanting his players to have a varied experience that they'd appreciate -- the NESCAC most certainly can.

Now if it doesn't want to, that's fine, that's their business. They are still D3 in every other way.

The real hypocrisy I see with them is that their other teams in other sports can chase championships and play non-conference.

I think the smartest kids in D3 could manage however many football games their school scheduled, plus the rigors of academia, but that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2007, 01:58:24 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 01:08:24 AM
My phrasing of 'something else entirely' was meant to suggest that THAT was my real quibble.  If they play NO other d3 teams EVER, are they really a part of d3 football?  Seems to me they are (contra Donne) an island unto themselves.

They have that right, of course, and I am not questioning their d3 bona fides overall, but (IMO) they have chosen NOT to be in d3 football.

That's fair.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 13, 2007, 02:02:35 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 12, 2007, 11:26:42 AM
Nescac was formed in 1971. Before that date all Nescac-to-be colleges played non-Nescac-to-be colleges, including (for some Nescac-to-be colleges) Ivies, and for a few years after that date some and possibly all Nescac colleges played non-Nescac colleges.

So confused. And so done with this discussion.

(is not NESCAC material)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: frank uible on November 13, 2007, 05:11:26 AM
It is proposed that from a football standpoint each Nescac college withdraw from both Nescac and the NCAA, both of which are controlling abominations, and independently of each other do what they damn well please.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on November 13, 2007, 07:00:14 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2007, 01:42:38 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on November 11, 2007, 12:58:28 AM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on November 11, 2007, 12:30:40 AM
[I suspect the UAA may have some other issues with his post as well.]

I think that U.S. News and World Report has come down on the side of NESCAC v. UAA.

Although that's the standard that the general public, myself included, often seems to go by, there are those within the academic community who believe that -- gasp! -- the magazine's rankings are not the final word on quality of institution.

Particularly with regard to some of the factors in the rankings regarding prestige and some of the methodology US News & World Report uses.

However, only if you are really interested in such matters should you further divert this thread from Division III rivalries.

I believe there's a Future of Division III board under General Division III issues which might be a better home for this type of blather. And I mean that in a nice way.

What?  Isn't NESCAC v. UAA just the kind of rivalry that the NCAA Division III ought to promote?   :D
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: hickory_cornhusker on November 13, 2007, 12:20:37 PM
i see the NESCAC like puerto rico. puerto rico obeys the laws of the United States, they are part of the United States but they do not particpate in the United States Government nor are they considered a state. the NESCAC is certainly part of d3 but they are not really the same as a normal conference of d3 football because they do not particpate with other conference in the playoffs or the regualar season. they're different like puerto rico is different.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Knightstalker on November 13, 2007, 12:31:36 PM
NESCAC = NCAA DIII territory, I like that analogy.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 13, 2007, 09:32:01 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on November 13, 2007, 01:46:27 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 12, 2007, 10:51:40 AM
Except the Ivies also schedule out of conference. The Ivies this year played:

Duquense
Fordham
Bucknell
Colgate
Holy Cross
Lafayette
Lehigh
Georgetown
New Hampshire
Marist
Villanova
Rhode Island
Hampton

Are you telling me the NESCAC couldn't come out and play with schools in the East if the Ivies can?

I meant to post about this when I read about it.

The Princeton-Hampton game was supposed to be significant in that it was one of the first in years, if not the first ever, to match an Ivy and an HBCU.

And immediately I thought the same thing, well if the Ivies can do that -- and the quote from the Princeton AD was something along the lines of wanting his players to have a varied experience that they'd appreciate -- the NESCAC most certainly can.

Now if it doesn't want to, that's fine, that's their business. They are still D3 in every other way.

The real hypocrisy I see with them is that their other teams in other sports can chase championships and play non-conference.

I think the smartest kids in D3 could manage however many football games their school scheduled, plus the rigors of academia, but that's just my opinion.

BINGO! The winter sports lose more important class time since they straddle two semesters, and I know baseball and other spring sports sometimes have elongated schedules and also play in both the FALL and the SPRING.

So don't go there with this football purity - it's purely elistism - otherwise none of the NESCAC would be in post-season competition.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: frank uible on November 14, 2007, 09:16:15 AM
Now that we have thoroughly flogged Nescac, can we move to some subordinate concern on our agenda like attacking world starvation?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Knightstalker on November 14, 2007, 11:44:53 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 14, 2007, 09:16:15 AM
Now that we have thoroughly flogged Nescac, can we move to some subordinate concern on our agenda like attacking world starvation?

Lets kick them a few times first to make sure they are down and out.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: runyr on November 14, 2007, 02:02:27 PM
Quote from: hickory_cornhusker on November 13, 2007, 12:20:37 PM
i see the NESCAC like puerto rico. puerto rico obeys the laws of the United States, they are part of the United States but they do not particpate in the United States Government nor are they considered a state. the NESCAC is certainly part of d3 but they are not really the same as a normal conference of d3 football because they do not particpate with other conference in the playoffs or the regualar season. they're different like puerto rico is different.
+k for that brilliant analogy.  I like it.  Kick, kick, yeah, I think they're down and out for this discussion.
Wait, it should be mentioned that caught cheater like Bill Belichick attended an NESCAC school.  I assume he learned to cheat there, right?  [kick] ::)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: HScoach on November 14, 2007, 03:41:36 PM
Quote from: frank uible on November 14, 2007, 09:16:15 AM
Now that we have thoroughly flogged Nescac, can we move to some subordinate concern on our agenda like attacking world starvation?

Sure.  Don't live in a desert.

NEXT PROBLEM?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Knightstalker on November 14, 2007, 04:02:03 PM
Quote from: hscoach on November 14, 2007, 03:41:36 PM
Quote from: frank uible on November 14, 2007, 09:16:15 AM
Now that we have thoroughly flogged Nescac, can we move to some subordinate concern on our agenda like attacking world starvation?

Sure.  Don't live in a desert.

NEXT PROBLEM?

Or the frozen artic tundra.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 20, 2007, 10:03:12 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 13, 2007, 12:31:36 PM
NESCAC = NCAA DIII territory, I like that analogy.

Yeah, the PR thing was good.

And right on Smedindy.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: DagarmanSpartan on November 21, 2007, 10:06:03 AM
Gang,

I realize that the NESCAC may not participate in the playoffs, ostensibly for "academic elitism" reasons, but my question there is........WHY NOT???

In my view, the UAA is an academically VERY strong conference, and its champions have participated in the playoffs each of the last two seasons, without diminishing either school's academic prestige.  Given that, why would the NESCAC schools believe that participating in the Division III playoffs is somehow beneath their stations as academic institutions?

As for rivalries, I personally am partial to the annual Case v. Carnegie-Mellon grudge match.  Cleveland vs. Pittsburgh in the so-called "Academic Bowl."
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 21, 2007, 10:22:32 AM
Quote from: MajorSpartan on November 21, 2007, 10:06:03 AM
Gang,

I realize that the NESCAC may not participate in the playoffs, ostensibly for "academic elitism" reasons, but my question there is........WHY NOT???

In my view, the UAA is an academically VERY strong conference, and its champions have participated in the playoffs each of the last two seasons, without diminishing either school's academic prestige.  Given that, why would the NESCAC schools believe that participating in the Division III playoffs is somehow beneath their stations as academic institutions?

As for rivalries, I personally am partial to the annual Case v. Carnegie-Mellon grudge match.  Cleveland vs. Pittsburgh in the so-called "Academic Bowl."

Im going to say theres 3 reasons in this order.

1) History. (They have never done it and like that.  They even used to list the standings in alphabetical order!)

2) The Ivy leagues don't do it. That's who they want to compare themselves too.

3) Puts too much of an emphasis on a sport, in terms of a long season (in terms of the entire first semester being dedicated to one sport)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 21, 2007, 10:24:58 AM
Do they participate in volleyball and cross country championships?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: DagarmanSpartan on November 21, 2007, 11:30:02 AM
I might buy the "semester" reason, IF (and only if):

the NESCAC doesn't participate in the playoffs in ANY Fall sport (and if they do, then they show just hypocritical they are by considering football a bigger distraction than other sports, despite the fact that those other sports' playoffs would undboutedly eat up nearly as much of the Fall Semester as the football playoffs would).

Otherwise, I'd say that they'd have a hard time making that case.

As for the Ivy League and Tradition reasons, those are plausible.

But even there, I think that the Ivy League looks a bit foolish for not participating in the post-season in Football, while participating in the post-season in just about every other sport (the Ivy League champ gets an automatic bid to the Big Dance, for example).
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: repete on November 21, 2007, 11:35:40 AM
Paging redswarm ... a pitch is nearing your wheelhouse.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 21, 2007, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: MajorSpartan on November 21, 2007, 11:30:02 AM
I might buy the "semester" reason, IF (and only if):

the NESCAC doesn't participate in the playoffs in ANY Fall sport (and if they do, then they show just hypocritical they are by considering football a bigger distraction than other sports, despite the fact that those other sports' playoffs would undboutedly eat up nearly as much of the Fall Semester as the football playoffs would).

Otherwise, I'd say that they'd have a hard time making that case.

As for the Ivy League and Tradition reasons, those are plausible.

But even there, I think that the Ivy League looks a bit foolish for not participating in the post-season in Football, while participating in the post-season in just about every other sport (the Ivy League champ gets an automatic bid to the Big Dance, for example).

I think they also like to think of football as kind of an "activity" that is just for fun.  No champions, no playoffs, just a bunch of guys from each school playing in 8 contests each year against each other.

One other reason I think is that if some of these schools started going to the football playoffs, many alumni will place HUGE amounts of pressure on the football team being the best in the country.  The school does not want such an emphasis on winning national championships.  They want students there that play football, not football players that take classes.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 21, 2007, 12:45:54 PM
And how is that different from the pressure on Williams and Amherst to do well in basketball?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 21, 2007, 03:07:57 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2007, 12:45:54 PM
And how is that different from the pressure on Williams and Amherst to do well in basketball?

I dont think the alumni cares as much about basketball.  They get 10,000-15,000 fans for that final football game against each other.

Plus, now you have to find 80+ football players to have national championhsip team.  Thats almost 10% of the male population.  Basketball you need 10 guys, 15 max.  They dont want that.

They also dont want to compete with other nescac schools that may be able to get in more athletes on a larger scale than them. 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 21, 2007, 03:47:26 PM
Amherst has 77 players on its football roster. So does Williams. So they are getting the numbers to compete. That argument doesn't wash.

Wabash and DePauw get 11,000 plus at Wabash, plus many more around the country at viewing parties. And frankly, the academics at Wabash and DePauw are comparable to Williams and Amherst. The reputations and perceptions of the New England schools are long standing, but the fact is that many small liberal arts colleges change the lives of their students just as much.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 21, 2007, 04:16:43 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2007, 03:47:26 PM
Amherst has 77 players on its football roster. So does Williams. So they are getting the numbers to compete. That argument doesn't wash.

Wabash and DePauw get 11,000 plus at Wabash, plus many more around the country at viewing parties. And frankly, the academics at Wabash and DePauw are comparable to Williams and Amherst. The reputations and perceptions of the New England schools are long standing, but the fact is that many small liberal arts colleges change the lives of their students just as much.

I guess Im trying to say that Williams and Amherst will need 80+ championship players (not including the 50+ that are recruited and dont pan out that Im sure MUC has) to compete at the next level.  One of the reasons I think MUC is so good is that they get so many players (300 right?), that they basically get a bunch of high school players that got overlooked.  Now these players end up doing very well at the d3 level.

I think Williams and Amherst would do ok now nationally, but far from playoff caliber.

And Williams and Amherst people want to be #1 on those top american college lists (they are #1 and #2), not #49 and #51 like Wabash and DePauw are. (Im not knocking them, I went to Ithaca).  I think they probably feel that championship football teams might lower that ranking?  Im not saying its right, but thats what those people would probably tell you.  (Its what coaches and others from there tell me)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 21, 2007, 04:31:17 PM
Of course, those lists are now subject to scrutiny and actual revolt from many college presidents. Having a college football team doesn't hurt or help their cause.

Having a team in the MIAC competing against St. John's hasn't hurt Carleton's rankings. Competing in the ODAC still means Washington & Lee is a top 15 school.

Having a DIVISION 1 athletic program hasn't hurt Davidson. Davidson competes in a conference with such academic heavyweights Western Carolina and UNC - Greensboro (not in football, but still, hoops is big time business at Davidson).

Comparing anyone in D-3 to MUC is just ludicrous as well.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 21, 2007, 04:37:49 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2007, 04:31:17 PM
Of course, those lists are now subject to scrutiny and actual revolt from many college presidents. Having a college football team doesn't hurt or help their cause.

Having a team in the MIAC competing against St. John's hasn't hurt Carleton's rankings. Competing in the ODAC still means Washington & Lee is a top 15 school.

Having a DIVISION 1 athletic program hasn't hurt Davidson. Davidson competes in a conference with such academic heavyweights Western Carolina and UNC - Greensboro (not in football, but still, hoops is big time business at Davidson).

Comparing anyone in D-3 to MUC is just ludicrous as well.

You are right about your first three points but I have a feeling that Williams alumni would not tolerate it's football team being like Carleton's football team.  I know nothing about Carleton football, but I do know that Williams football is a very storied program, and its alumni is pushy.  Maybe Carleton doesnt care about dropping admissions standards to let in football players?  I dont know.  But it would have to be done at a school like Williams.  And again, I think the presidents feel that there is enough of that already.

And you can't compart basketball to football in this either.  You could bring up Princeton basketball, etc etc.

And I wasnt comparing anyone in d3 to MUC, but MUC is doing what it takes to be a national champion, and thats having 300 football players to choose from.  By joining the playoffs, Williams might be pressured to have even more football players in the school.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 21, 2007, 04:50:06 PM
See, I don't think so. I don't think Carleton drops its admissions requirements. I think its a myth that some schools drop admissions requirements for football players. Some may, many do not.

I bring up Davidson because it's D-1 scholarship hoops. Princeton is non-scholarship. Davidson has been to the NCAA tourney. Heck, Lefty Driesell used to coach at Davidson!

MUC has only 200+ players on its initial roster, not 300+. (Not that it's a huge difference, really). Other schools have a whole boatload, too, but they're using football to try to boost male enrollment. But some schools don't need to play that card.

The point is that they can make all of the arguments they want about not playing other schools except their conference, or not being in the playoffs, and there are counter arguments refuting their case.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: repete on November 21, 2007, 07:40:17 PM
My brother played at Carleton and they didn't drop standards then ... but that was pre-MIAC. I'd be surprised if they do, though.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 21, 2007, 07:54:46 PM
Stanford's Rose Bowl wins, and Cal-Berkeley's flirtation with the national title game this year, don't seem to have turned them into Podunk U's (even at US Snooze).

If that really is the concern of Williams, et. al., it is fantasy elitism, not reality.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: DagarmanSpartan on November 22, 2007, 07:08:39 AM
I go back to the UAA, a conference with every bit as much academic prestige as the NESCAC.

Here the US News national rankings of the UAA members:

University of Chicago #9
Wash U.-St. Louis #12
Emory U. #17
Carnegie-Mellon #22
Brandeis #31
New York University #34
University of Rochester #35
Case Western Reserve U. #41

Of those, the #12 ranked university in the country, the #22 ranked university in the country, and the #41 ranked university in the country have played in the Division III playoffs as UAA champions........WITHOUT diminishing their academic prestige.

Like the previous poster said.  If they're not participating because of "elitism," then it's fantasy elitism.

There are plenty of schools that are just as elite that DO participate, with no adverse effect on their elitism.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 22, 2007, 07:17:50 AM
You all have valid points that I agree with, Im just trying to use their arguments here.

Still though, If you looked every football players SAT, gpa, class rank etc at Cal, Stanford, Williams....you would see a difference between them and the regular student body.  Its surely not enought to call any of them "podunk u" of course, but it is there.

And there is a lot of elitism going on at those schools, "fantasy" or not.

And Williams and Amherst are different than the other nescac schools still.  They want to be #1 and #2.  There would be probably be people fired if those schools ever got down to the #9 spot.  Silly as it sounds, they want to be #1.

And I wasnt saying Carleton drops admissions standards, I have no idea.  But Williams and Amherst do to some extent (as does the Ivys) to get athletes into schools.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 22, 2007, 11:16:30 AM
I would gather that every group outside of the normal demo for those schools look different than the 'normal' student body though. Admissions is complicated - schools look to balance the classes in many different ways and give some students a 'chance' as it were if they see something in them.

It's an art, not a science.

But really, those schools aren't admitting schlubs who can't or won't do the work. There are no Katzenmoyer's at Cal or Williams.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Spence on November 24, 2007, 10:45:15 PM
Quote from: smedindy on November 22, 2007, 11:16:30 AM
I would gather that every group outside of the normal demo for those schools look different than the 'normal' student body though. Admissions is complicated - schools look to balance the classes in many different ways and give some students a 'chance' as it were if they see something in them.

It's an art, not a science.

But really, those schools aren't admitting schlubs who can't or won't do the work. There are no Katzenmoyer's at Cal or Williams.

Don't fool yourself. There are plenty of people at Cal playing football that have no business there. There are very very few D-I schools that don't have stooges standing in for student-athletes. Even your Magnolia League schools like Vandy, Wake Forest, etc. have their share of chuckleheads, and under Tedford, Cal isn't even in *that* class. Much like Duke in basketball, the school sold its soul to football when they hired Tedford and gave him free reign as far as academics go.

I'd wager a lot that the quality of student on the Williams FB team far outstrips that of Cal.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: DagarmanSpartan on November 25, 2007, 12:43:38 AM
I went to law school at the University of Houston, and I must say that MANY of their football and men's basketball players are VERY marginal students, and I'd be willing to bet that less than half graduate.

Division I Bowl Subdivision teams routinely make all sorts of exceptions to their normal admissions policies when it comes to scholarship athletes, particularly in the big revenue sports of football and men's basketball.

Don't assume that an athlete at Stanford, Northwestern, Cal-Berkeley, Vandy, Rice, or Georgia Tech is on the same level as a regularly admitted student at one of those schools.  Although all of those schools have some players that could be admitted as regular students, most of the football and men's basketball players at those schools probably would not have been admitted if it weren't for their athletic prowess.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: 2sportdevil on November 25, 2007, 01:20:38 PM
I am posting this as a Div 1 FB fan. Yesterday I took the opportunity to attend the Div 3 playoff game between the Wabash Cannonballs and the CWRU Rough Cats(as they should be named) at Case Field at the corner of E.115 and Bellflower(what a neighborhood to be raised in!). Whatever happened to Finegan Field? I found it to be as entertaining as any Div 1 game. Of course the talent wasn't equal but the execution was as good as many of the higher Div. games(i.e. Duke/Notre Dame game)  Two pluses for Div 3 games are the lack of head bobbing, chest thumping and trash talking of Div. 1. Also, without the omnipresent TV timeouts the game flowed better and the time of the game was cut by 30 to 45 minutes. Unfortunately Div 3 games don't get their deserved recognition for pure FB enjoyment. I might even become a fan.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 25, 2007, 01:34:51 PM
Quote from: 2sportdevil on November 25, 2007, 01:20:38 PM
I am posting this as a Div 1 FB fan. Yesterday I took the opportunity to attend the Div 3 playoff game between the Wabash Cannonballs and the CWRU Rough Cats(as they should be named) at Case Field at the corner of E.115 and Bellflower(what a neighborhood to be raised in!). Whatever happened to Finegan Field? I found it to be as entertaining as any Div 1 game. Of course the talent wasn't equal but the execution was as good as many of the higher Div. games(i.e. Duke/Notre Dame game)  Two pluses for Div 3 games are the lack of head bobbing, chest thumping and trash talking of Div. 1. Also, without the omnipresent TV timeouts the game flowed better and the time of the game was cut by 30 to 45 minutes. Unfortunately Div 3 games don't get their deserved recognition for pure FB enjoyment. I might even become a fan.

Funny.  I had great seats at the Miami/Boston College game yesterday (10 rows up from the field).  Sold out, (45k?) great crowd and a good game the whole way through.

But I enjoyed the Mt. Union/Ithaca game and the Curry/Coast Guard games just as much.

Higher level d3 games are very good football games.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 25, 2007, 02:41:16 PM
Quote from: MajorSpartan on November 25, 2007, 12:43:38 AM
I went to law school at the University of Houston, and I must say that MANY of their football and men's basketball players are VERY marginal students, and I'd be willing to bet that less than half graduate.

Division I Bowl Subdivision teams routinely make all sorts of exceptions to their normal admissions policies when it comes to scholarship athletes, particularly in the big revenue sports of football and men's basketball.

Don't assume that an athlete at Stanford, Northwestern, Cal-Berkeley, Vandy, Rice, or Georgia Tech is on the same level as a regularly admitted student at one of those schools.  Although all of those schools have some players that could be admitted as regular students, most of the football and men's basketball players at those schools probably would not have been admitted if it weren't for their athletic prowess.

However, Houston ain't Rice. The missions are different, for sure. But a kid going to Rice or Stanford, even to play football, has expectations that kids at Houston don't have.

Spence - the 'chuckleheads' at Cal are probably better students than the majority of D-1, and have a great opportunity at an education.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: BTEXPRESS on November 26, 2007, 01:47:00 PM
To jump into this whole NESCAC debate( which by the way has been going on since July on the NESCAC board) The Football fans agree. Hey at this point, most fans would be happy with a 9th game to at least play EVERY school in the conference, let alone play outside conference members and play in the NCAA playoffs. So far this fall ,the NESCAC has won NATIONAL DIVISION III CHAMPIONSHIPS in X Country, Field Hockey and Men's soccer. For whatever reasons, which no one on the NESCAC board can explain, the presidents will let every other sport participate in the NCAA playoffs but Football. How they feel this will take away from the Football players studies is beyond me. It makes absolutely no sense at all.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2007, 01:55:47 PM
I really think it's very simple -- this is the way the Ivy League does it, therefore the NESCAC must copy.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on November 26, 2007, 02:07:39 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2007, 01:55:47 PM
I really think it's very simple -- this is the way the Ivy League does it, therefore the NESCAC must copy.

Spurning the playoffs - yes.  Spurning ALL non-conference games - no.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2007, 02:10:53 PM
I am more focused on the former, to be sure.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 26, 2007, 02:43:26 PM
I posted this a few pages back.   I know a lot of coaches and former players in the Nescac, and the common theme seem to be these three issues in order of importance.

Im going to say theres 3 reasons in this order.

1) History. (They have never done it and like that.  They even used to list the standings in alphabetical order!)

2) The Ivy leagues don't do it. That's who they want to compare themselves too.

3) Puts too much of an emphasis on a sport, in terms of a long season (in terms of the entire first semester being dedicated to one sport)


And to add to this list, it seems that the Ivys all seem to be on one page when it comes to athletics.  The nescac schools still seem to have a more competitive nature about them that includes academics.  I get a feeling that Williams and Amherst people love being ranked above Trinity and Middlebury, while Harvard alum could care less what happens to Dartmouth.  They are going to think Harvard is better regardless. 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Trin9-0 on November 26, 2007, 03:01:07 PM
I am a former NESCAC football player and when I was playing I would have loved an opportunity to play an out of conference opponent and/or compete in the DIII playoffs.

However, I don't understand why anyone outside of the NESCAC bubble would care? We have our little 8 game schedule and our little rivalries that we care so much about. And you have your own rivalries and your playoffs that mean so much to you.

Why is it elitist that NESCAC football doesn't go to the playoffs? Does it really bother any of you that much?

If it bothers anyone is would be NESCAC football players. They work just as hard if not harder than their classmates who play basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. Those athletes have the chance to participate in the NCAA playoffs. However, football players at NESCAC schools do not even have the opportunity to see how they stack up againt the rest of the country.

With that said, I can say that many of my former teammates thought that 8 games was more than enough. For those who don't want football to consume more than 3 months of their year the NESCAC is a great place to play football.

This is not a knock on the Mt. Union's of the DIII world who practice and play games for up to 5 months. It is simply an alternative way to view intercollegiate football.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: smedindy on November 26, 2007, 03:21:10 PM
It gives the impression of elitism because they have decided they do not want to associate with the rest of D-3, thus separating themselves.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2007, 03:57:46 PM
Quote from: Trin8-0 on November 26, 2007, 03:01:07 PM
I am a former NESCAC football player and when I was playing I would have loved an opportunity to play an out of conference opponent and/or compete in the DIII playoffs.

However, I don't understand why anyone outside of the NESCAC bubble would care? We have our little 8 game schedule and our little rivalries that we care so much about. And you have your own rivalries and your playoffs that mean so much to you.

Why is it elitist that NESCAC football doesn't go to the playoffs? Does it really bother any of you that much?

If it bothers anyone is would be NESCAC football players. They work just as hard if not harder than their classmates who play basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. Those athletes have the chance to participate in the NCAA playoffs. However, football players at NESCAC schools do not even have the opportunity to see how they stack up againt the rest of the country.

With that said, I can say that many of my former teammates thought that 8 games was more than enough. For those who don't want football to consume more than 3 months of their year the NESCAC is a great place to play football.

This is not a knock on the Mt. Union's of the DIII world who practice and play games for up to 5 months. It is simply an alternative way to view intercollegiate football.

For a long time it bothered me because the NESCAC's isolation kept us from getting to 32 teams. But it also bothers me because the NESCAC may well be good and become title contenders within a few years after coming out of isolation. Why wouldn't we want increased competitiveness?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on November 26, 2007, 04:20:52 PM
I think these schools would almost be ok if the NCAA told them that they either join the playoff system, or call themsleves "club" teams.  I bet the nescac would have not problem simply being "club" teams.  The only difference is that they would want to borrow the ECAC refs.....
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: BTEXPRESS on November 26, 2007, 04:44:01 PM
Everyone is stuck on the playoffs, I am more concerned about playing every team in the conference which does not happen now. Another way to look at it ,is that every other Division III Football team plays 10 regular season games without playoffs. That is 40 regular games over a 4 year period while the NESCAC teams play 32, that is 8 less regular season games, almost an entire season of games is lost.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: tmerton on December 04, 2007, 02:08:04 PM
Quote from: Trin8-0 on November 26, 2007, 03:01:07 PM
I am a former NESCAC football player and when I was playing I would have loved an opportunity to play an out of conference opponent and/or compete in the DIII playoffs.

However, I don't understand why anyone outside of the NESCAC bubble would care? We have our little 8 game schedule and our little rivalries that we care so much about. And you have your own rivalries and your playoffs that mean so much to you.

Why is it elitist that NESCAC football doesn't go to the playoffs? Does it really bother any of you that much?

If it bothers anyone is would be NESCAC football players. They work just as hard if not harder than their classmates who play basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. Those athletes have the chance to participate in the NCAA playoffs. However, football players at NESCAC schools do not even have the opportunity to see how they stack up againt the rest of the country.

With that said, I can say that many of my former teammates thought that 8 games was more than enough. For those who don't want football to consume more than 3 months of their year the NESCAC is a great place to play football.

This is not a knock on the Mt. Union's of the DIII world who practice and play games for up to 5 months. It is simply an alternative way to view intercollegiate football.

I agree.  I do think it's too bad that football in the NESCAC gets the poor stepchild treatment by the school presidents in comparison to the other varsity sports, but ultimately it's a matter for the schools.  Given the hostility to football that is so pervasive in some corners of their campuses, I suspect the way they're doing it now is probably the only way they can play football without one or more members pulling a Swarthmore and dropping the sport altogether.  From a football perspective (i.e., from the perspective of those in NESCAC who support playing football), I think what they're doing is anything but elitist.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: BTEXPRESS on December 07, 2007, 12:33:55 PM
tmerton, Excellent points. It does kind of put things into perspective.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on December 26, 2007, 02:06:18 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on November 14, 2007, 11:44:53 AM
Quote from: frank uible on November 14, 2007, 09:16:15 AM
Now that we have thoroughly flogged Nescac, can we move to some subordinate concern on our agenda like attacking world starvation?

Lets kick them a few times first to make sure they are down and out.

Don't know why I just stumbled upon this again, but it cracked me up this time around.

(Also adds "pulling a Swarthmore" to lexicon)

Also, BT, good points ... but this debate has been going on since forever, practically, not just July :)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Knightstalker on December 26, 2007, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on November 26, 2007, 04:20:52 PM
I think these schools would almost be ok if the NCAA told them that they either join the playoff system, or call themsleves "club" teams.  I bet the nescac would have not problem simply being "club" teams.  The only difference is that they would want to borrow the ECAC refs.....

Nah, they won't need to "borrow refs" it would only be club football.  Just pull a couple of dads from the stands to be refs. ;D
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ralph Turner on December 26, 2007, 08:01:15 PM
Quote from: Knightstalker on December 26, 2007, 07:53:39 PM
Quote from: Jonny Utah on November 26, 2007, 04:20:52 PM
I think these schools would almost be ok if the NCAA told them that they either join the playoff system, or call themsleves "club" teams.  I bet the nescac would have not problem simply being "club" teams.  The only difference is that they would want to borrow the ECAC refs.....

Nah, they won't need to "borrow refs" it would only be club football.  Just pull a couple of dads from the stands to be refs. ;D
A genuine question, how many NESCAC alumni are referees at the D-1A (aka F. B. S.) level or in the NFL?

I would not be surprised if they could get a full crew easily.



How come, everytime I type the acronym, FBS, a different meaning comes to mind?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 09:09:50 AM
Quote from: smedindy on November 21, 2007, 04:50:06 PM

The point is that [NESCAC] can make all of the arguments they want about not playing other schools except their conference, or not being in the playoffs, and there are counter arguments (implied by NESCAC's own actions) refuting their case.

Point taken.

Everyone recognizes that NESCAC is behaving hypocritically by permitting NCAA playoff participation in all sports except football, when its argument opposing football playoffs is based on a sense of academic purity that is consistent with Division III's "Prime Directive," i.e. placing academics ahead of athletics.

Most believe that the proper way to eliminate the hypocrisy is for NESCAC to enter the DIII football playoffs.  A tiny minority of us -- me -- believes that the proper way to eliminate the hypocrisy is for NESCAC to withdraw all teams in all sports from extended NCAA playoffs.  (I could see a reasonable exception for such sports as swimming or track and field, where the national championship is not decided by a multi-week playoff, but rather by a two day event held over a single weekend.)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 09:30:38 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2007, 03:57:46 PM
Quote from: Trin8-0 on November 26, 2007, 03:01:07 PM
I am a former NESCAC football player and when I was playing I would have loved an opportunity to play an out of conference opponent and/or compete in the DIII playoffs.

However, I don't understand why anyone outside of the NESCAC bubble would care? We have our little 8 game schedule and our little rivalries that we care so much about. And you have your own rivalries and your playoffs that mean so much to you.

Why is it elitist that NESCAC football doesn't go to the playoffs? Does it really bother any of you that much?

If it bothers anyone is would be NESCAC football players. They work just as hard if not harder than their classmates who play basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. Those athletes have the chance to participate in the NCAA playoffs. However, football players at NESCAC schools do not even have the opportunity to see how they stack up againt the rest of the country.

With that said, I can say that many of my former teammates thought that 8 games was more than enough. For those who don't want football to consume more than 3 months of their year the NESCAC is a great place to play football.

This is not a knock on the Mt. Unions of the DIII world who practice and play games for up to 5 months. It is simply an alternative way to view intercollegiate football.

For a long time it bothered me because the NESCAC's isolation kept us from getting to 32 teams. But it also bothers me because the NESCAC may well be good and become title contenders within a few years after coming out of isolation. Why wouldn't we want increased competitiveness?

To your last question Pat, I think the NESCAC has a compelling and apropos response, i.e. that a 5 week playoff extending into final exams places too high an emphasis on athletics relative to academics for 80 or more student athletes and managers and trainers.

Trin8-0, NESCAC does have its defenders--er, . . . defender (and at least one devil's advocate, in Jonny Utah) on this and other boards.  I too have long puzzled at the controversy--at the animosity, even.  One of my pet theories is that there's an element of envy involved.  With the longstanding Williams-Amherst rivalry, the "Little Three," Trinity-Wesleyan, and Colby-Bates-Bowdoin, NESCAC has some of the fiercest and most competitive rivalries anywhere, in any sport, on any level.   MAYBE the Pac-10 can claim to have as many rivalries, but not as many of them are as competitive as the NESCAC rivalries are, year in and year out, . . . for centuries.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 09:40:25 AM
I just noticed (or maybe I just remembered, what with Alzheimer's setting in) that RPI has not just one, but TWO teams against which it has played over 100 games, Union and WPI, as chronicled by the sports historians at augenblick.org. (http://www.augenblick.org/rpi/f_rvo.html) 

I wonder how many other teams have 100+ game series v. more than one other team.

Round up the usual suspects: NESCAC?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on September 21, 2008, 10:32:56 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 09:30:38 AM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on November 26, 2007, 03:57:46 PM
Quote from: Trin8-0 on November 26, 2007, 03:01:07 PM
I am a former NESCAC football player and when I was playing I would have loved an opportunity to play an out of conference opponent and/or compete in the DIII playoffs.

However, I don't understand why anyone outside of the NESCAC bubble would care? We have our little 8 game schedule and our little rivalries that we care so much about. And you have your own rivalries and your playoffs that mean so much to you.

Why is it elitist that NESCAC football doesn't go to the playoffs? Does it really bother any of you that much?

If it bothers anyone is would be NESCAC football players. They work just as hard if not harder than their classmates who play basketball, baseball, hockey, etc. Those athletes have the chance to participate in the NCAA playoffs. However, football players at NESCAC schools do not even have the opportunity to see how they stack up againt the rest of the country.

With that said, I can say that many of my former teammates thought that 8 games was more than enough. For those who don't want football to consume more than 3 months of their year the NESCAC is a great place to play football.

This is not a knock on the Mt. Unions of the DIII world who practice and play games for up to 5 months. It is simply an alternative way to view intercollegiate football.

For a long time it bothered me because the NESCAC's isolation kept us from getting to 32 teams. But it also bothers me because the NESCAC may well be good and become title contenders within a few years after coming out of isolation. Why wouldn't we want increased competitiveness?

To your last question Pat, I think the NESCAC has a compelling and apropos response, i.e. that a 5 week playoff extending into final exams places too high an emphasis on athletics relative to academics for 80 or more student athletes and managers and trainers.

Trin8-0, NESCAC does have its defenders--er, . . . defender (and at least one devil's advocate, in Johnny Utah) on this and other boards.  I too have long puzzled at the controversy--at the animosity, even.  One of my pet theories is that there's an element of envy involved.  With the longstanding Williams-Amherst rivalry, the "Little Three," Trinity-Wesleyan, and Colby-Bates-Bowdoin, NESCAC has some of the fiercest and most competitive rivalries anywhere, in any sport, on any level.   MAYBE the Pac-10 can claim to have as many rivalries, but not as many of them are as competitive as the NESCAC rivalries are, year in and year out, . . . for centuries.

Envy? Meh.

It smacks of elitism, that "we're too busy to play with you guys," that "our tradition is too important to be bothered" and "our studies are so much more important than yours that we can only handle 8 weeks." That's why people react they way they do initially.

Once you get past the arrogance factor and give it some thought, I think people look at what NESCAC teams do in basketball and other sports and would like to take a crack at them in football, and if the reasoning wasn't so suspect and hypocrisy so obvious, people wouldn't be so eager to discuss it.

The notion that the length of the postseason, which is 5 weeks in only the rarest of circumstances,  would reduce the focus on academics is kind of silly once you chip beyond the surface of the argument. First off, the focus on academics is whatever you put on it. In environments that thrive on being academically challenging, if student-athletes can manage the challenge of academics and athletics for 8-10 weeks, they can do it for 13-15, finals week or not. Then you consider these are already some of our nation's most qualified students, and it's not clear what the administration is protecting them from. There is no doubt these students could handle whatever challenges are thrown their way.

It seems from afar that it's not really about academics at all. It's about tradition, it's about we've always done it this way so that's how we're going to continue to do it.

That said, if the NESCAC is happy, then there's no reason why everyone else shouldn't be happy. They're not ruining the fun by skipping it, they're missing out. If the NESCAC doesn't miss being in the playoffs, the playoffs don't really miss the NESCAC. I feel for the kids who would benefit from the experience and the opportunity to test themselves against the best, which is what competitors thrive on.

Not that I really feel like joining this discussion for the 10th year in a row ...
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on September 21, 2008, 10:43:36 AM
 Don't most spring sports playoffs run through finals???  Kind of defeats that argument doesn't it?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on September 21, 2008, 10:32:56 AM
Quote from: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 09:30:38 AM
I think the NESCAC has a compelling and apropos response, i.e. that a 5 week playoff extending into final exams places too high an emphasis on athletics relative to academics for 80 or more student athletes and managers and trainers.

Trin8-0, NESCAC does have its defenders--er, . . . defender (and at least one devil's advocate, in Johnny Utah) on this and other boards.  I too have long puzzled at the controversy--at the animosity, even.  One of my pet theories is that there's an element of envy involved.  With the longstanding Williams-Amherst rivalry, the "Little Three," Trinity-Wesleyan, and Colby-Bates-Bowdoin, NESCAC has some of the fiercest and most competitive rivalries anywhere, in any sport, on any level.   MAYBE the Pac-10 can claim to have as many rivalries, but not as many of them are as competitive as the NESCAC rivalries are, year in and year out, . . . for centuries.

Envy? Meh.

It smacks of elitism, that "we're too busy to play with you guys," that "our tradition is too important to be bothered" and "our studies are so much more important than yours that we can only handle 8 weeks." That's why people react they way they do initially.

I understand--many respond with animosity, as I say.  But why is it any conference's duty to offer its teams for interconference play?

Which is worse: Meh, or Feh?   ::)

Quote from: K-Mack on September 21, 2008, 10:32:56 AM
Once you get past the arrogance factor (your opinion, to which you're entitled) and give it some thought, I think people look at what NESCAC teams do in basketball and other sports and would like to take a crack at them in football, and if the reasoning wasn't so suspect and hypocrisy so obvious, people wouldn't be so eager to discuss it.

As I've said countless times, I agree it's hypocritical to permit NCAA playoff participation all sports except football.  Where I disagree with the majority is how to remedy the hypocrisy.  My solution would be to withdraw all NESCAC teams from multi-week NCAA playoffs.  My solution is the only one that is consistent with the NESCAC schools' (arrogant, elite, to some) attitude that academics are a higher priority than athletics.

Quote from: K-Mack on September 21, 2008, 10:32:56 AMThe notion that the length of the postseason, which is 5 weeks in only the rarest of circumstances,  would reduce the focus on academics is kind of silly once you chip beyond the surface of the argument. (Your opinion, to which you're entitled.)  First off, the focus on academics is whatever you put on it.  In environments that thrive on being academically challenging, if student-athletes can manage the challenge of academics and athletics for 8-10 weeks, they can do it for 13-15, finals week or not.

And tell me, whose authority is it to declare that principle?  NESCAC schools seem to believe that they ought not endorse 13 - 15 weeks of continuous athletic competition for 80+ student-athletes at a time.  You wouldn't deny them the authority to enforce that policy, would you?

The point that many either overlook or fail to recognize is that managing the challenge of academics and athletics involves both the student-athlete and the school administration.  The issue isn't one of simply how much time that the student has available for academics, but how much time the administration-sponsored activity takes away from academics.  Many students thrive in rigorous academic environments while playing Madden09 and Halo for 6 hours a day, but the administration isn't scheduling PS3 practices, regular season games, and tournaments, and it isn't paying faculty members to coach PS3 players.  However, in the case of football, each NESCAC school is supplying expensive facilities and paid faculty to coach 80+ student-athletes for 11 weeks or so.  I think any administration that says such a commitment is as far as its willing to go in providing a sanctioned distraction from academics ought to be praised at least as much as it is criticized.

I recognize that my opinion is a tiny minority--outside the NESCAC.  As your (typically terrific) ATN column on the subject revealed, the NESCAC student-athletes don't disagree with my position as often as Post Patternizers do.

Quote from: K-Mack on September 21, 2008, 10:32:56 AMIt seems from afar that it's not really about academics at all. It's about tradition, it's about we've always done it this way so that's how we're going to continue to do it.

Were I a NESCAC school administrator, I'd point out that I don't administer my school from afar.

Quote from: K-Mack on September 21, 2008, 10:32:56 AMThat said, if the NESCAC is happy,1 then there's no reason why everyone else shouldn't be happy.2 They're not ruining the fun by skipping it, they're missing out. If the NESCAC doesn't miss being in the playoffs, the playoffs don't really miss the NESCAC. I feel for the kids who would benefit from the experience and the opportunity to test themselves against the best, which is what competitors thrive on. (Why?  Those kids can get in anywhere--they've obviously made their choices.)

Not that I really feel like joining this discussion for the 10th year in a row ...

1, 2 Points well taken.

And yet you're not happy, you're sad.  You're sad for those kids who--according to Trin8-0 and your ATN column-quoted players--are happy.   ???  :D  ???
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Trin9-0 on September 22, 2008, 03:06:27 PM
Personally I've always wanted to see the NESCAC extend the schedule to 10 games (playing all conference teams along with one out of conference game) and be playoff eligible.

Unfortunately, I don't ever see it happening. Is it hypocritical that other sports are NCAA playoff eligible? Yes, will any of the NESCAC presidents take action on it? Not a chance.

They have other priorities to worry about (primarily fundraising) and expanding the football program would probably be very low on their list IF they even wanted to change it. The message of expanding athletics runs counter to everything NESCAC schools claim to represent and there would be a backlash to any member school president who tried to change the current set-up.

In my estimation it would take a strong campaign from alums/current players to protest the unfairness. However, that is unlikely because not all alums/current players want an extended season and/or playoff eligibility.

As I said, I'm all for 10 games + playoffs, but I know other alums/current players who don't so we will likely be stuck with 8 games for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on September 22, 2008, 10:47:40 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 12:30:49 PM
And yet you're not happy, you're sad.  You're sad for those kids who--according to Trin8-0 and your ATN column-quoted players--are happy.   ???  :D  ???

I'm not sad, if you thought I said that, you're incorrect.

Please don't inject emotions in this on my behalf. It's an issue I've long been intrigued by but I am not particularly emotional about. In the above, I was speaking more generally and not even really for myself, since you seemed to be searching for someone to engage you on this well-worn topic, and I am a sucker.

I did say I feel for the kids who want to compete and don't get the chance to, and having gone up there and spoken to a few on this subject (not all on the record) and reported other NESCAC stories by phone, it's fair to say the competitor in all of them would like to play on. On the flipside, some recognize the tradition of ending the season with the same team each year and the emphasis that puts on that particular game.

Philosophically, you could ask why sports fans are obsessed with the finality of the playoffs, although that sort of runs to why we like sports at all, because there are dramatic highs and lows and an absolute outcome, a finality that we get in few other arenas in life. With regard to how that impacts the NESCAC, Chuck Priore, in the article you subtly referenced above, recalled his season with Union when they lost in the Stagg Bowl and feeling dejected about the whole thing where he can feel great joy about the 8-0 seasons at Trinity, and apparently no wonder over how that team would have fared.

Personally, as I said the first time, if the players commit to play football at NESCAC schools knowing playoffs aren't part of the plan and they are happy with that, I wouldn't have any reason to be unhappy for them. They're not ruining my experience by not participating, the playoffs are and will be plenty of fun with or without NESCAC teams.

However, if you talked to head coaches and players after every week of the playoffs like I do, and you see the joy they get out if it, and you listened to them talk about the educational experiences of traveling to different regions and experiencing different (American) cultures and climates and dialects, and the bonding experiences they get from being on the road together, taking on a challenge that is apt to either end abruptly or carry on for another week, you might agree with me that it's not the fans who are missing out.

Our desire to see how a NESCAC team would stack up is a minor curiosity at best.

The playoffs do fine without the NESCAC and the NESCAC does fine without the playoffs. The hypocrisy we agree on. We seem to agree that if the NESCAC is happy doing what the NESCAC does, no one is worse for the wear.

My personal thoughts:
-- I happen to be a believer that education often happens outside the classroom and academic realm, and the playoffs are a one-time experience that -- if you believe in the mission of athletics -- is an extension of that education, rather than "a sanctioned distraction" from it.

It's hammered home every postseason ... the joy of the Division III playoffs are the experience, and the reward is not so much winning as it is earning another week to continue that journey, that one-time bonding experience and to get additional opportunities to travel and to push yourself to your own extremes, individually and team-wise.

-- I don't buy that the nation's most talented students can't handle the challenge, nor do I buy that competing for a playoff spot changes the focus on academics or the relationship between it and athletics. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps, Pomona-Pitzer, Wash. U., Chicago, Carleton and all the other schools that get mentioned in the same breath as NESCAC schools are able to compete for playoff spots and maintain their standing. I've never heard of mass flunkings by athletes at Carnegie Mellon or Washington & Lee or whatever other nationally-known schools have made the postseason. I'm guessing that it's not hurting the NESCAC basketball teams, cross country teams, crews and what have you.

Realistically you're probably looking at 2 extra weeks a year most years for one of the 10 teams -- the other nine proceed with business as usual.

-- If you ask people who have played for, worked at and attended NESCAC schools, they seem to be divided over whether it's more about keeping academics in proper perspective and devoting the proper time to study during the weeks leading up to finals, or whether it's more about making a statement, standing out, maintaining tradition and frankly, being like the Ivy League.

Personally, I have no stake in it. If the NESCAC and their players are happy, then I am happy for them.

I can certainly see why having eight games and eight games only can be exhilarating. I played nine and ten game seasons and never made the playoffs and still cherish every minute of it, and most of the best memories aren't from game action at all.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on September 22, 2008, 10:57:59 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on September 21, 2008, 10:32:56 AM
Once you get past the arrogance factor (your opinion, to which you're entitled) and give it some thought, I think people look at what NESCAC teams do in basketball and other sports and would like to take a crack at them in football, and if the reasoning wasn't so suspect and hypocrisy so obvious, people wouldn't be so eager to discuss it.

Like here for instance. Not MY Opinion. Speaking generally for the side opposite yours, after years of following this discussion on the message boards and elsewhere, as you no doubt have as well.

Sorry that wasn't clear when I wrote "That's why people react they way they do initially."

Don't make it me vs. you. It's a discussion that's rather complex. Personally, I see various shades of grey moreso than black and white. :)

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on September 23, 2008, 11:56:16 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on September 22, 2008, 10:47:40 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 12:30:49 PM
And yet you're not happy, you're sad.  You're sad for those kids who--according to Trin8-0 and your ATN column-quoted players--are happy.   ???  :D  ???

I'm not sad, if you thought I said that, you're incorrect.

Please don't inject emotions in this on my behalf. It's an issue I've long been intrigued by but I am not particularly emotional about. In the above, I was speaking more generally and not even really for myself, since you seemed to be searching for someone to engage you on this well-worn topic, and I am a sucker.

I did say I feel for the kids who want to compete and don't get the chance to, . . .

Okay, I'll take your word for it that when you said you feel for the kids who want to compete in playoffs but don't get the chance to, you didn't mean that you feel sad for them.

(In my line of work, that'd be a tough distinction to make.  ;) )

Quote from: K-Mack on September 22, 2008, 10:47:40 PM
Philosophically, . . .

Personally, . . .

The playoffs do fine without the NESCAC and the NESCAC does fine without the playoffs. The hypocrisy we agree on.  We seem to agree that if the NESCAC is happy doing what the NESCAC does, no one is worse for the wear.

I think we both recognize where the other stands, and that's good.  I also recognize that my opinion is the minority, and as we both understand, kids who are smart enough to attend [e.g. Willams/Amherst/Wesleyan] and who are good enough football players to play football at [e.g. Middlebury/Colby/Tufts] are smart enough to know what they're getting.  As Trin8-0 and one of your ATN-quoted players attested, many NESCAC players don't even want more competition (although I think most people outside the NESCAC undervalue the competition that the multiple and overlapping NESCAC rivalries represent, so their 8 game seasons have a higher "competitiveness quotient" than many other teams' 10 game seasons).  Good for them that they have a place to get what they want from football, along with a top shelf liberal arts degree.

Quote from: K-Mack on September 22, 2008, 10:47:40 PM
My personal thoughts:

-- I don't buy that the nation's most talented students can't handle the challenge, nor do I buy that competing for a playoff spot changes the focus on academics or the relationship between it and athletics. Claremont-Mudd-Scripps, Pomona-Pitzer, Wash. U., Chicago, Carleton and all the other schools that get mentioned in the same breath as NESCAC schools are able to compete for playoff spots and maintain their standing. I've never heard of mass flunkings by athletes at Carnegie Mellon or Washington & Lee or whatever other nationally-known schools have made the postseason.  I'm guessing that it's not hurting the NESCAC basketball teams, cross country teams, crews and what have you.


I don't think anyone--not even the NESCAC presidents--has ever suggested that NESCAC students can't handle the challenge of managing the distraction from academics that the NCAA D-III football playoffs represent.   However, the NESCAC presidents have made it clear that they're not willing to offer that sort of a distraction from academics to the 80+ student athletes, managers and trainers involved in the program.  I'm too staunch a believer in the First Amendment freedom of association to criticize NESCAC or any of its member schools for making that choice for themselves.

Heck, *I* envy the NESCAC for its 120+ meeting rivalries, and its threeway rivalries, and the competitiveness and intensity of those rivalries, even though I have been lucky enough to participate in a storied top ten rivalry against the (vile) Union Dutchmen.  If I'd known how longstanding the series against WPI was, I'd have tried to make a much bigger deal about that--even though there is a trophy established for the game (featuring an obsolete piece of hardware), it never felt like that big a deal.  The Shotglass Trophy game v. Coast Guard was a bigger event, but that trophy has been retired.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on September 24, 2008, 12:06:24 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on September 22, 2008, 10:57:59 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on September 21, 2008, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on September 21, 2008, 10:32:56 AM
Once you get past the arrogance factor (your opinion, to which you're entitled) and give it some thought, I think people look at what NESCAC teams do in basketball and other sports and would like to take a crack at them in football, and if the reasoning wasn't so suspect and hypocrisy so obvious, people wouldn't be so eager to discuss it.

Like here for instance. Not MY Opinion. Speaking generally for the side opposite yours, after years of following this discussion on the message boards and elsewhere, as you no doubt have as well.

Sorry that wasn't clear when I wrote "That's why people react they way they do initially."

Don't make it me vs. you. It's a discussion that's rather complex. Personally, I see various shades of grey moreso than black and white. :)

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "arrogance factor."  I thought you were accusing the NESCAC schools of being arrogant by electing not to participate in both non-league play and playoffs for football.   If that's what you meant, I wasn't criticizing you for that opinion, I was just noting that it is an opinion.

I also didn't know that you were offering opinions of others besides yourself.

I must have misunderstood what you meant, since I wasn't being critical at all.  I enjoy it when you (and people) have and express your (and their) opinions.   :)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: formermule on September 25, 2008, 11:21:34 AM
As a former player (as most of you probably are, if not current) I thought I would share my thoughts on this matter that sparks so much controversy. First of all I want to correct one misconception that most people believe is the reason for the deans and presidents of NESCAC colleges keeping their football teams from competing in playoffs. Most believe the reason is the fact that in the NESCAC academics come first and the students should be "back in the classroom as soon as possible" as some have alluded to above. Hence the presidents and deans will vote to refrain from extending the football season and allowing the teams to compete in playoffs.

However, if this were the reason then why are all the other sports allowed to compete in playoffs? Are the deans stereotyping football players as being less intelligent than their peers? I think not. One simple reason may be the fact that the NESCAC just really wants to emulate the rules of the Ivy League, although most would argue that the presidents of NESCAC colleges are a little smarter and understand the reasons these Ivy League rules exist. And in understanding this, they also believe the rules make perfect sense in a league that prides itself on the elite nature of its academics. So the reason why Ivy's and NESCAC schools alike refrain from allowing their football teams from competing in NCAA playoffs is this. When a team is playoff eligible, much more pressure is now put on the team, and the school to perform. This will in turn mean recruiting better football players. The result of this will be the lowering of academic standards for football recruits. So then, say a team does make the playoffs. There now is even more pressure to continue their streaks of success and further deterioration of the academic credentials required of football recruits is observed. This can be seen in many D1A-AA schools.

Now switching over to my opinions as a former player in the NESCAC. Do I wish I had the opportunity to compete against non-league teams and in the NCAA playoffs? Sure I do. I, along with my team worked just as hard as any other team that did receive that opportunity (as someone noted above). But again reiterating another comment above, I also believe that student/athletes that were smart enough to be admitted to a NESCAC school was well aware that their season would be comprised of 8 games and 8 games only. When I was in the recruiting process I remember the length of the season was one of the concerns I had with NESCAC schools. Did it stop me from going to one? Not a chance. Coupling the highly competitive athletics with a top notch liberal arts education was a no brainer. That is the compromise that you make. And that is the reason why the presidents of NESCAC colleges continue to keep the rules the way they are. Because they also realize the niche the NESCAC has and also the prestige associated with it. An old quote comes to mind when I hear discussions about NESCAC receiving playoff eligibility, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Although I do think it would be cool to see how NESCAC schools stock up against other leagues among division 3, I don't think it is worth the possible implications in regard to academic standards. And like I said I'm pretty sure the NESCAC is and will continue to do well in providing top notch education/athletics without having to make any drastic rule changes.

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: frank uible on September 25, 2008, 07:30:40 PM
To my knowledge, no official representative of any NESCAC college has given an explanation of NESCAC's posture with respect to football - which, among other things, is stricter than the Ivy League in that it prohibits-out-of conference play and a 9th game in-conference and also imposes conference wide roster limits.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on September 25, 2008, 07:44:37 PM
I have no particular issues with NESCAC's policy on football participation - it is their decision to make.  I DO have issues with them even being considered d3 in football if they will play no other teams, nor participate in the playoffs.  Let's face it - they are NESCAC intramural teams (or whatever the term should be for those who play other schools, but only within a very restricted clique).

[Yet Williams still has permanent title to the all-sports trophy! :o]
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: PA_wesleyfan on September 25, 2008, 08:51:57 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 25, 2008, 07:44:37 PM
I have no particular issues with NESCAC's policy on football participation - it is their decision to make.  I DO have issues with them even being considered d3 in football if they will play no other teams, nor participate in the playoffs.  Let's face it - they are NESCAC intramural teams (or whatever the term should be for those who play other schools, but only within a very restricted clique).

[Yet Williams still has permanent title to the all-sports trophy! :o]

   Mr. Ypsi

I would agree. NO disrespect intended but how can these teams be compared to Mt.Union or Gallaudet? 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on September 25, 2008, 09:31:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 25, 2008, 07:44:37 PM
I have no particular issues with NESCAC's policy on football participation - it is their decision to make.  I DO have issues with them even being considered d3 in football if they will play no other teams, nor participate in the playoffs. 

I'm not being critical, I just don't understand.  Please help me out--you've stated a distinction where I can't see a difference.  You don't have an issue with NESCAC football being an exclusive regional competition, but you do have an issue with them being D-III.  The NCAA Policy Statement encourages regional competition, and even includes the following statement of purpose:

The purpose of the NCAA is to assist its members in developing the basis for consistent, equitable competition while minimizing infringement on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs.  The above statement articulates principles that represent a commitment to Division III membership and shall serve as a guide for the preparation of legislation by the division and for planning and implementation of programs by institutions and conferences.

By my reading, NESCAC is entirely in compliance with Division III's Policy.

Would you have issues if Division III playoffs were mandatory for all Division III schools?
Would you have issues with NESCAC if their schools awarded athletic scholarships to football players?
As long as NESCAC schools don't offer athletic scholarships, if NESCAC schools aren't permitted to be Division III for football, what ought they be permitted?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Mr. Ypsi on September 25, 2008, 09:49:58 PM
Quote from: redswarm81 on September 25, 2008, 09:31:49 PM
Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on September 25, 2008, 07:44:37 PM
I have no particular issues with NESCAC's policy on football participation - it is their decision to make.  I DO have issues with them even being considered d3 in football if they will play no other teams, nor participate in the playoffs. 

I'm not being critical, I just don't understand.  Please help me out--you've stated a distinction where I can't see a difference.  You don't have an issue with NESCAC football being an exclusive regional competition, but you do have an issue with them being D-III.  The NCAA Policy Statement encourages regional competition, and even includes the following statement of purpose:

The purpose of the NCAA is to assist its members in developing the basis for consistent, equitable competition while minimizing infringement on the freedom of individual institutions to determine their own special objectives and programs.  The above statement articulates principles that represent a commitment to Division III membership and shall serve as a guide for the preparation of legislation by the division and for planning and implementation of programs by institutions and conferences.

By my reading, NESCAC is entirely in compliance with Division III's Policy.

Would you have issues if Division III playoffs were mandatory for all Division III schools?
Would you have issues with NESCAC if their schools awarded athletic scholarships to football players?
As long as NESCAC schools don't offer athletic scholarships, if NESCAC schools aren't permitted to be Division III for football, what ought they be permitted?

I did not state that clearly, and apologize.

NESCAC schools are clearly d3 members in good standing, but if they are entirely a separate entity in football, they should not be counted (IN FOOTBALL) for any NCAA purposes (e.g., the playoff ratio, rankings or All America teams, etc. - and, yes, I realize the NCAA doesn't do the latter).

I'm not saying NESCAC  schools should be booted out of d3.  I'm just saying that IN FOOTBALL they (by their own choice) are not IN d3.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: retagent on September 25, 2008, 10:22:35 PM
I want to second K-Mack's alluding to the fact that learning occurs outside of the classroom. I've told many people in my life that I learned more outside the classroom during my college years than I did in the classroom. I don't mean to dismiss academics entirely, but I'm sure that the interactions with others has been more beneficial to me than some of the actual academic lessons which I have long since forgotten. I believe I learned how to think better in the classroom, but most of my life has been dealing with people, and learning to read, and analyze them, which is valuable whatever your life persuit may be. I actually think that the powers that be in the NESCAC are actually limiting the education of their student athletes by following the path they have selected.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on September 26, 2008, 12:20:53 AM
Quote from: retagent on September 25, 2008, 10:22:35 PM
I want to second K-Mack's alluding to the fact that learning occurs outside of the classroom. I've told many people in my life that I learned more outside the classroom during my college years than I did in the classroom. I don't mean to dismiss academics entirely, but I'm sure that the interactions with others has been more beneficial to me than some of the actual academic lessons which I have long since forgotten. I believe I learned how to think better in the classroom, but most of my life has been dealing with people, and learning to read, and analyze them, which is valuable whatever your life persuit may be. I actually think that the powers that be in the NESCAC are actually limiting the education of their student athletes by following the path they have selected.

I don't suppose that anyone, least of all the NESCAC school presidents, would disagree with K-Mack's point.

Do you think that Colby, Bowdoin and Bates football players learn less outside the classroom by "only" playing in 3 of the longest standing and most competitive rivalries in college football, than they might learn if they were also permitted to enter the NCAA playoffs?

I think this is what economists call "marginal utility."
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Jonny Utah on September 26, 2008, 07:34:03 PM
Quote from: retagent on September 25, 2008, 10:22:35 PM
I want to second K-Mack's alluding to the fact that learning occurs outside of the classroom. I've told many people in my life that I learned more outside the classroom during my college years than I did in the classroom. I don't mean to dismiss academics entirely, but I'm sure that the interactions with others has been more beneficial to me than some of the actual academic lessons which I have long since forgotten. I believe I learned how to think better in the classroom, but most of my life has been dealing with people, and learning to read, and analyze them, which is valuable whatever your life persuit may be. I actually think that the powers that be in the NESCAC are actually limiting the education of their student athletes by following the path they have selected.

They are doing better than the Swathmore and umass boston powers though....
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Trin9-0 on October 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
Quote from: formermule on September 25, 2008, 11:21:34 AM
...the reason why Ivy's and NESCAC schools alike refrain from allowing their football teams from competing in NCAA playoffs is this. When a team is playoff eligible, much more pressure is now put on the team, and the school to perform. This will in turn mean recruiting better football players. The result of this will be the lowering of academic standards for football recruits. So then, say a team does make the playoffs. There now is even more pressure to continue their streaks of success and further deterioration of the academic credentials required of football recruits is observed. This can be seen in many D1A-AA schools.

formermule: I understand your logic, but this hasn't happened in basketball, baseball, etc. NESCAC schools are routinely in the running for national championships in almost every other NCAA Division III sport. Yet there has been no "arms race" in recruiting that has lowered the academic standards of the member institutions.

To suggest that it would be different in football is hypocritical.  Just as it is hypocritical for football to be excluded from inter-conference play or participation in the NCAA playoffs while all other NESCAC sports are not.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 12, 2008, 11:56:44 PM
Quote from: Trin8-0 on October 10, 2008, 10:27:17 AM
Quote from: formermule on September 25, 2008, 11:21:34 AM
...the reason why Ivy's and NESCAC schools alike refrain from allowing their football teams from competing in NCAA playoffs is this. When a team is playoff eligible, much more pressure is now put on the team, and the school to perform. This will in turn mean recruiting better football players. The result of this will be the lowering of academic standards for football recruits. So then, say a team does make the playoffs. There now is even more pressure to continue their streaks of success and further deterioration of the academic credentials required of football recruits is observed. This can be seen in many D1A-AA schools.

formermule: I understand your logic, but this hasn't happened in basketball, baseball, etc. NESCAC schools are routinely in the running for national championships in almost every other NCAA Division III sport. Yet there has been no "arms race" in recruiting that has lowered the academic standards of the member institutions.

To suggest that it would be different in football is hypocritical.  Just as it is hypocritical for football to be excluded from inter-conference play or participation in the NCAA playoffs while all other NESCAC sports are not.

I agree with Trin 8-0, and I think most of us recognize that the NESCAC schools doing one thing in every sport but football, and doing another in football is the source of most of the confusion/discontent.

While I comprehend the arguments on all sides -- they are multi-faceted and not clear-cut -- I have yet to hear a really compelling reason as to the harm it would cause for one of the NESCAC's 10 teams each year to play an extra game or two. It's D3, you practice two hours a day, watch some film or lift on your free time, and maybe miss afternoon classes if you have to leave early for a road trip on Friday.

I don't believe the students' academics would be adversely affected in a significant way (although faculty might not appreciate the season's length). I don't believe the lure of being a powerful football school is more important in the NESCAC than being the highest-ranked USN&WR school, so admissions standards I doubt would be in danger. Some Division III schools need the exposure or the 100+ male students coming in every year, but no one in the NESCAC needs football for anything other than the joys of playing. I don't even think it would ruin the traditional season-ending rivalries. You telling me Amherst-Williams would be worse if there were a playoff bid for the winner?

I don't think a simple football game (or five) will alter the successful models of the NESCAC schools. Some tradition would go by the wayside. There would be side effects for sure. But the potential harm seems to me to be greatly outweighed by the potential positive experience each team and institution could enjoy each season, especially if you believe in the mission of athletics as an extension of the academic mission. A playoff game seems to me to only be a bonus, not a setback.

But if the folks in the NESCAC are happy, I'm happy. They don't seem to miss the playoffs, and the playoffs don't seem to miss them.

I also realize NESCAC students understand what they're getting and not many people on their campuses seem to be complaining, at least publically, and it's more a never-ending philsophical discussion on D3football.com than it is a true "controversy."

Remember when we used this thread to discuss rivalries?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Trin9-0 on October 15, 2008, 08:55:23 AM
The following is an excerpt from an interview with Trinity College president Jimmy Jones that appeared in the Trinity school paper The Tripod.  I think his anwers give a little insight into the thought process of NESCAC presidents as to the role athletics should play in the league.

The full interview can be read here: http://media.www.trinitytripod.com/media/storage/paper520/news/2008/09/30/Opinions/Jimmy.Gets.Carvd.Up.President.Jones.Discusses.The.Trinitys.Athletic.Image-3459415.shtml?reffeature=recentlycommentedstoriestab

Q: What would you say to people who are concerned about the growing emphasis that is being placed on athletics?

A: If they're worried about it in Division I, they're worried about one of the greatest problems in American higher education. But NESCAC is at the top of the moral and ethical stature of Division III, and I think we're impregnable. Every year admissions keeps raising the requirements in NESCAC schools. There is always a tension between coaches and admissions, but it's part of the process. I really think that if people are that worried about NESCAC, they are really worrying about the wrong end of the problem in America. The problem is huge, but it is in Division I and it is mainly in football and basketball. All you have to do is go look at the graduation rate for Oklahoma State in basketball; it's a national disgrace. Most of those students are students of color and it's no better than indentured servitude. The schools just use these kids because of their physical prowess, put them in "gut classes" and they never end up graduating.

Q: Do you think the current NESCAC regulations, especially in regards to offseason practices, are appropriate?

A: I was in Boston yesterday for the NESCAC presidents meeting. It's amazing to me, the tenor of the discussions that we had. If the rest of American collegiate athletics came anywhere close to the bar that the NESCAC sets, one wouldn't see these horrible abuses of the system in order to win games and get television contracts. Many times at these meetings I feel like I'm in 6th-century Athens, listening to the great scholars extol the value of sports in an educational environment. So I don't worry about it at all as long as Hazleton and Robin Sheppard keep bringing in the same caliber of coaches; all I have to do is go to the games and cheer.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 19, 2008, 12:35:20 AM
School yourselves.

http://www.rmc.edu/athletics/football/the_game.pdf

As far as the NESCAC, I will listen with great interest. The comments above, especially on indentured servitude, strike a chord.

On the other hand, I'd like to talk about rivalries here at some point. The Turkey. The Shoes. The Bell. Get a clue.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: HScoach on October 19, 2008, 01:59:43 PM
As long as a NESCAC school doesn't ever break Mount Union's 55 game winning streak record, then I could care less if they play only amongst themselves. 

If the OAC had chosen to opt out of the NCAA playoffs then MUC's record would have been 110 straight wins.  But would that carry the same weight if they weren't tested against the rest of the nation in the playoffs?  Not even close.

I realize this is an extremely self-centered attitude being a MUC guy, but at least I'm being honest. ;D
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Breckenridgebear on October 21, 2008, 02:09:40 PM
So, is anyone getting excited for the Monon Bell Game?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ron Boerger on October 21, 2008, 05:40:14 PM
Come back in a couple of weeks.   ;)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: wally_wabash on October 21, 2008, 09:06:41 PM
Quote from: Breckenridgebear on October 21, 2008, 02:09:40 PM
So, is anyone getting excited for the Monon Bell Game?

Conference title on the line this Saturday....after that we'll have a good three weeks to chat about the reclamation of the Monon Bell.   :)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 23, 2008, 12:35:37 PM
Why do you have to reclaim it? Shouldn't it have taken up permanent residency in Crawfordsville by now?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Schwami on October 23, 2008, 03:07:44 PM
It's rightful place is and always has been in Crawfordsville, but alas, it does not have permanent residency there.

Go Wabash, the Hampden-Sydney of the Midwest  ;D

Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2008, 12:35:37 PM
Why do you have to reclaim it? Shouldn't it have taken up permanent residency in Crawfordsville by now?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: wally_wabash on October 23, 2008, 04:12:07 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 23, 2008, 12:35:37 PM
Why do you have to reclaim it? Shouldn't it have taken up permanent residency in Crawfordsville by now?

Oh, if wishing made it so! 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 23, 2008, 04:12:26 PM
Quote from: Schwami on October 23, 2008, 03:07:44 PM
It's rightful place is and always has been in Crawfordsville, but alas, it does not have permanent residency there.

Go Wabash, the Hampden-Sydney of the Midwest  ;D

Now you see why I was getting a dig in there.

The similarities, right down to the colors (sorta) are uncanny.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: muledaddy on October 23, 2008, 06:54:15 PM

Mates,

How can I learn the history behind this week's Little Brown Bucket game between Gettysburg and Dickinson? Thanks for all help.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Breckenridgebear on October 27, 2008, 01:37:52 PM
Monon Tickets for sale at Depauw Bookstore today Oct 27.

(765) 658-4926
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on October 27, 2008, 02:00:49 PM
Quote from: Breckenridgebear on October 27, 2008, 01:37:52 PM
Monon Tickets for sale at Depauw Bookstore today Oct 27.

(765) 658-4926

>:(  :o  >:( And you wait until AFTER 1:37:51 pm to tell us??!?!?  :D
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: 'gro on October 29, 2008, 10:34:44 PM
(https://www.d3boards.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rpiathletics.com%2Fimages%2F2008%2F10%2F29%2Frp_primary_ShoesLuncheon.jpg&hash=c9e5c7025620ecb11123e5626df1d25ed6837194)

Saturday's Dutchman Shoes Trophy Game to be Televised (http://www.rpiathletics.com/news/2008/10/28/FB_1028084327.aspx)

TROY, N.Y. – For the fourth straight year, the oldest college football rivalry in New York State will be broadcast live in the Capital Region. This Saturday's game between Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) and Union College at Rensselaer's '86 Field in Troy will be aired live on Time Warner Cable beginning at 1pm.

Saturday's game, the 107th meeting between the two schools who play for the Dutchman Shoes Trophy, will be shown live on channel 3. The game will also be broadcast live on the radio at WRPI, 91.5 FM, and on the Internet at www.wrpi.org. A live webcast is available from www.rpiathletics.com.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 29, 2008, 11:16:06 PM
Can a brother get a dub of the Time Warner Cable broadcast?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: redswarm81 on October 29, 2008, 11:34:18 PM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 29, 2008, 11:16:06 PM
Can a brother get a dub of the Time Warner Cable broadcast?

Let's hope to heck the camera crew goes to the right place.   :D

From tonights Around the Nation column:

QuoteNo. 22 RPI (6-0, 4-0 LL) at (???)  Union (3-3, 2-2)
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 29, 2008, 11:41:19 PM
Good Jesus!

I had a feeling I messed one of those up, but I never went back to check.  >:(
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: 'gro on October 31, 2008, 09:00:35 AM
Quote from: K-Mack on October 29, 2008, 11:16:06 PM
Can a brother get a dub of the Time Warner Cable broadcast?

Holler at the LL board someone from the Capital District should be able to hook you up.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Breckenridgebear on November 10, 2008, 11:59:36 AM
Welcome to Monon Week.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: spikegrouchy on November 12, 2008, 09:20:01 AM

Westminster's(PA) most common opponent is Geneva as the two teams meet Saturday for the 111th time. Westminster leads the series 61-41-8. The two teams were archrivals back when they were NAIA teams but Westminster left for the NCAA in 1998 and Geneva followed last year. This rivalry game will be the final game of both teams' regular seasons for future games, as designed by the PAC's new rivarly game schedule.

The Presidents' Athletic Conference (PAC) has announced the debut of "PAC Football Rivalry Week," beginning in the 2008 regular season. The conference rivalry games have been moved to the final weekend of the regular season (Saturday, November 15 in 2008), where they will remain for the foreseeable future.

"One of the great features about PAC football is the number of long-standing traditions and rivalries
between our member institutions, with several dating back over 100 years," said PAC Executive Director
Joe Onderko. "Highlighting these games with a permanent spot on the final weekend will help build even
greater excitement on each PAC campus as the football season progresses."

The Westminster-Geneva rivalry began in 1891 when Geneva beat WC, 42-0.  Although Westminster leads the series, Geneva has won four out of the last five contests.  This year's game should be an exciting conclusion to the season.

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: frank uible on November 12, 2008, 11:39:40 AM
Bring back Bo McMillin and Cal Hubbard!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: spikegrouchy on November 16, 2008, 08:26:57 AM
Quote from: spikegrouchy on November 12, 2008, 09:20:01 AM

Westminster's(PA) most common opponent is Geneva as the two teams meet Saturday for the 111th time...

The Westminster-Geneva rivalry began in 1891 when Geneva beat WC, 42-0.  Although Westminster leads the series, Geneva has won four out of the last five contests.  This year's game should be an exciting conclusion to the season.



Final score:  Geneva 29, Westminster(PA) 26.  A good game for Golden Tornado fans.  WC gave up too many big plays, but they had their chances...just couldn't keep their drives going in the second half.  Oh well, there is always next year!

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: ADL70 on November 23, 2008, 07:55:40 PM
Anyone else see (hear) the Dutchman's Shoes mentioned on ESPN yesterday?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Teamski on November 23, 2008, 08:40:05 PM
Quote from: cwru70 on November 23, 2008, 07:55:40 PM
Anyone else see (hear) the Dutchman's Shoes mentioned on ESPN yesterday?

Yep, but I forgot if Lou Holtz got that one right.  I knew it sounded familiar....... :D

-Ski
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2010, 10:55:38 PM
Was thinking of running through the rivalries real quick in ATN, and got into this thread to make sure I wasn't leaving anyone out ... reading back through some of the early stuff is pretty funny actually. Stories of pranks and fights and what makes a rivalry great.

Got some weird NESCAC beef in the later pages, but overall this is good.

There's somewhere between 15 and 20 rivalries I would consider -- hmm, how to say this -- worth revisiting in ATN. Six are to be played this week, I think.

Not just trophy games, and not just competitive rivalries, but the true great rivalry games. Here's a test, if you (or I) know who plays in them just by the name:

Backyard Brawl
Secretaries' Cup
Courage Bowl
Battle for the Drum(?)
Tommie-Johnnie/Holy Grail
The Goat
Longest Small-College Rivalry West of the Misssissippi(?)
Dutchman's Shoes
Little Brass Bell
Bronze Turkey
This week:
Bridge Bowl
Victory Bell
Biggest Little Game in America
The Game aka Oldest Small-College Rivalry in the South
Cortaca Jug
Monon Bell

on the fence about adding
CBB
Lehigh River Rivalry (or whatever it's called)
Conestoga Wagon
Soup Bowl
Myron Claxton's Shoes
Cranberry Bowl
Stagg Hat

Anyway, not even sure I'm going to have time to do this anymore, now that I think of it ... so I guess I wanted to post so the idea doesn't die in my head.

Anything key missing?

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: BoBo on November 10, 2010, 11:18:03 PM
UW-Whitewater and UW-Platteville play in the annual George Chryst Memorial Bowl played in the memory of George Chryst who was UWP's head coach from 1979 until his sudden death in 1992 at age 55. This year was the 17th game. The winning team each year receives possession of the Memorial Miner's Pick patterned after Paul Bunyan's Axe that has gone to the winner of the Wisconsin-Minnesota football game.

Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: DoubleDomer on December 23, 2010, 03:45:05 PM
Two SCIAC worthies:

1. Battle for the Drum (you've got it right) is Oxy v. Pomona-Pitzer, which dates to 1894. Definitely include.
2. Battle for the Peace Pipe is Pomona-Pitzer v CMS. Nothing quite like a little internecine tangle between two squads that literally share the same campus and the same classroom. Like Carleton & St. Olaf battling for the goat--except that there's no river between campuses to keep the two sides apart. Plus the combined brainpower of the two squads is off the charts--second only to Amherst v Williams.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Ryan Tipps on December 23, 2010, 07:20:23 PM
Little Brown Bucket could be added -- though Dickinson would be double-dipping as it's already got a matchup on the list.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 17, 2011, 09:57:32 PM
Hi all,
Doing a little research on Division III rivalries. I've been asking about it in ATN but I'm not asking the question right. In the early pages of this thread are running lists, and we have written about rivalries many times.

For a fresh look at ANY rivalry you want to nominate, can you please tell me a story about the rivalry's greatest (in your opinion) on-the-field moment, and off-the-field moment.

For instance, in the case of R-MC/H-SC, someone might say back in 1978 there was a kickoff return by Macon's Jimmy Whoseewhatsit that clinched the game and ODAC title, where the guy did a backflip after scoring (that story is kind of true). And the best off-field moment could be when those chumpzillas from H-SC broke off their own goalpost after the 100th meeting and threw it in the lake next to the field.

Or it could be off-the-field stories like stealing of the Bronze Turkey or Victory Bell, or a touching moment from the Courage Bowl or Soup Bowl or Secretaries' Cup.

In any case, I need a fresh way to show people how important the rivalries are, and I'd love to hear some stories I haven't heard before, or hear some fresh re-tellings. This will also help me determine how intense these rivalries are by comparison (although Pat or I have been to most of the major ones, even one time is only a limited taste).

Thanks for your input. Will also tweet this, post in ATN and on the ATN board.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Bearcat Press on October 17, 2011, 11:27:42 PM
Some quick thoughts on a pair of rivalries I know fairly well:

Willamette/Linfield dates back to 1902, though it disappeared for the better part of the early 20th century when Linfield's Baptist leaders decided that football was too violent a sport for their school.  Once it resumed, there were some serious off-field shenanigans.  I once read an article - can't remember where offhand, but I could probably track it down - that at some point in the 1930s or 40s, a highly regarded football player from southern Oregon was recruited to play football for Linfield, but mistakenly got off the train in Salem.  When he came to Willamette for help (the campus is across the street from Salem's train station) Bearcat coach Spec Keene instead gave him a uniform and got him to start practicing with Willamette's team.  IIRC, after the Wildcats found out what happened, some Linfield players snuck down from McMinnville and brought him back to Linfield in the middle of the night.  The player later became an All-American for the Wildcats.

More recently, I can give some on-field moments: then-Willamette coach Dan Hawkins rubbing some serious salt in Linfield's wounds by bringing Liz Heaston on to kick PATs in a 27-0 win in 1997.  Linfield breaking Notre Dame's winning seasons streak in a come-from-behind win in McMinnville the next year (wildcat11's got video of that one).  A 1-3 Willamette team upsetting the #12 Wildcats on a field goal with 4 seconds left in 2007 (I was there for that).

The lesser-known rivalry, probably because it's been so much less competitive, is Willamette's trophy game with Lewis & Clark: The Wagon Wheel game.  Willamette's only lost the Wheel once in the last 20 or so years, but when they did lose it in 2000, the team spent the offseason rehearsing the ceremony they'd perform when they won it back the next year.  From what Speckman tells me, it was a success.  Now, with L&C on the rise, the Pioneers see the Wheel as a symbol for all their years of futility.  I've been hearing rumors - not sure if they're offhand or not - that if/when they get it back, they plan to burn it.  Which would really pour some gas on that rivalry.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 18, 2011, 01:18:02 AM
ooh, the burning ... that's a great start.

There's a list of the 42 or 52 trophy games in the D-III record book, and there's a long rivalries list too. I guess I realized what I was asking for left the door open for a lot of stuff I already knew about but not the stuff I don't already know that readers would love to share.

I've gotten maybe 20 or 30 e-mails about rivalries; now I have to reply to all of them and ask them WHY the specific rivalry is special, not just that it exists.

Hopefully this will make for fruitful reading.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Top Notch on October 18, 2011, 11:05:19 AM
I'll nominate an ASC game. LC vs ETBU, Battle for the Border Claw.

It's not well known outside of ASC but it means a lot to both teams. Both programs are fairly new so there isn't a long standing history. I think the series is tied at 6-6 with LC winning the last 4.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: ADL70 on October 18, 2011, 07:07:10 PM
Not historic, but unique, CWRU @ Wooster 10/21, the Baird Brothers Trophy, a fish stringer with a new fish added for each game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baird_Brothers_Trophy

Sadly the CWRU site no longer has the article on the game (althought it is in the media guide).  I really dislike PrestoSports.

Sadly this could be the penultimate year as the NCAC moves to a full round-robin with only one non-conference game in 2013.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 18, 2011, 08:52:33 PM
Any stories from those games that make it really stand out?

Or are they just games on the schedule with a neat little trophy that goes with it?
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: ADL70 on October 18, 2011, 11:28:39 PM
In the 1985 game CWRU allowed Wooster zero first downs.

http://www2.northcoast.org/football/records
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on October 19, 2011, 12:20:51 AM
Quote from: ADL70 on October 18, 2011, 07:07:10 PM
Not historic, but unique, CWRU @ Wooster 10/21, the Baird Brothers Trophy, a fish stringer with a new fish added for each game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baird_Brothers_Trophy

Sadly the CWRU site no longer has the article on the game (althought it is in the media guide).  I really dislike PrestoSports.

Sadly this could be the penultimate year as the NCAC moves to a full round-robin with only one non-conference game in 2013.

Don't go faulting PrestoSports. Schools can put any content they want to into the system.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: PurpleSuit on October 19, 2011, 03:50:34 PM
All of this talk about rivalries and trophy games makes me think of one match-up in particular.  Its a relatively young rivalry compared to most, but they meet every year and have a pretty neat trophy that is up for grabs.  The rivalry started back in 2002 and has been played each year since, with 2004 being the lone exception.  The trophy was added in 2005 and increased the competitiveness of the rivalry.  There have been too many exciting moments to single just one out.   

Here's a picture of the trophy:
http://concede330.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/trophy.png?w=589&h=335
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: 02 Warhawk on October 19, 2011, 03:54:51 PM
Quote from: PurpleSuit on October 19, 2011, 03:50:34 PM
All of this talk about rivalries and trophy games makes me think of one match-up in particular.  Its a relatively young rivalry compared to most, but they meet every year and have a pretty neat trophy that is up for grabs.  The rivalry started back in 2002 and has been played each year since, with 2004 being the lone exception.  The trophy was added in 2005 and increased the competitiveness of the rivalry.  There have been too many exciting moments to single just one out.   

Here's a picture of the trophy:
http://concede330.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/trophy.png?w=589&h=335

Damn....I wish I would have read your post BEFORE opening the link. My bad.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: jknezek on October 19, 2011, 04:34:33 PM
Quote from: PurpleSuit on October 19, 2011, 03:50:34 PM
All of this talk about rivalries and trophy games makes me think of one match-up in particular.  Its a relatively young rivalry compared to most, but they meet every year and have a pretty neat trophy that is up for grabs.  The rivalry started back in 2002 and has been played each year since, with 2004 being the lone exception.  The trophy was added in 2005 and increased the competitiveness of the rivalry.  There have been too many exciting moments to single just one out.   

Here's a picture of the trophy:
http://concede330.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/trophy.png?w=589&h=335

Great post. Very funny and a good set up. But I think plenty has been written about that rivalry lately!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on October 23, 2011, 09:36:40 PM
That took me a second to figure out. Makes sense. Probably should get added into the project I'm working on.

Although I have heard one side say it has no interest in a regular season game against the other.

Surprised I'm not getting better stories. I guess I need to ask more often. Tweet hard!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: K-Mack on November 10, 2011, 05:13:49 PM
A couple history pages I found I didn't have a place to link to in today's ATN.

http://library.rmc.edu/specialcollections/exhibits/rivalryhsc/rivalryhsc.html

http://www.athletics.rmc.edu/sports/fball/fball-history
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: 1837Tigers on November 11, 2011, 09:02:37 AM
11 years ago today --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMW2o7TNSwA
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: SUADC on November 11, 2011, 11:54:04 AM
As a proud Alumnus of Salisbury University, the "Regents Cup" game between two outstanding Universities from the state of Maryland, Salisbury University & Frostburg State has always been intense, regardless of the score or outcomes. I had the opportunity of playing in four games. I recorded my first collegiate interception against FSU my freshmen year and my last collegiate interception my senior year. This game has always had that big rivalry atmosphere and on many occasions had some type of playoff implication, either as a playoff berth or playoff seed. I can recall my coach telling me during my sophomore season when we were playoff bound, do not overlook Frostburg (it is a rivalry game for goodness sake), they have kept us from reaching the playoffs before (e.g. 2003) and prevented us from having a home playoff game (e.g. 2002). Each school basically recruits the same players; especially from the DMV area, each recruit basically decides either to go west into the cold mountains of western Maryland or go east to the beaches of the eastern shore of Maryland (I chose the ladder). Nevertheless, I am proud of each University and their perspective programs and only wish the best for each team this upcoming Saturday. I will be watching via internet. Above all the hype and intensity of the game and my obsession of bleeding "Maroon & Gold," my prayers go out to the Frostburg nation and the Family & Friends of Derek Sheely, who tragically lost his life early in the season due to head trauma. God Bless!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: DanPadavona on November 11, 2011, 04:32:08 PM
Being close to the Cortaca Jug rivalry for 25 years or so has been very special. It is a game I look forward to with great anticipation every season, and it rarely disappoints.

The Keystone Cup between Widener-DV has the most on the line in the East this season. They may in fact be the two best teams in Eastern Region in 2011.

Though it hasn't earned a name yet, I think there is a real, developing rivalry taking place between Kean and Montclair. Two very good teams separated by 15 or 20 miles on the map. Overlapping recruited players. Perennial contenders for the NJAC championship for the past several years. And to add to the intrigue, the head coach of Kean and 2 assistants played at Montclair.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: meadowdale on May 01, 2018, 08:43:40 AM
Being there are so many teams all over the country , was hoping everyone could throw there 2 cents in !!!
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 01, 2018, 04:03:33 PM
Bumping this to the top page.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: E.115 on May 09, 2018, 02:37:26 AM
Perhaps not the most intimidating or creative of names, but the annual battle between these two research institutions has been both intense and extremely entertaining in recent years...specifically the last two years have affected the playoffs.  Last year's ending was absolutely insane!

Academic Bowl - Carnegie Mellon Tartans vs Case Western Reserve Spartans

Over the years, the game has even received occasional shout outs from ESPN College Gameday...not sure if there are some Cleveland or Pittsburgh connections or what...

LINK:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Bowl_(college_football) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Bowl_(college_football))
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: SaintsFAN on May 09, 2018, 10:21:03 AM
Mount Saint Joseph University vs. Thomas More College
Washington & Jefferson College vs. Thomas More College


I don't know..
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: Pat Coleman on May 09, 2018, 01:44:18 PM
MSJ has Week 1, Week 2 and Week 11 open dates posted for 2019-2022.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: SaintsFAN on May 09, 2018, 02:34:28 PM
Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 09, 2018, 01:44:18 PM
MSJ has Week 1, Week 2 and Week 11 open dates posted for 2019-2022.

You mean they don't have their guarantee game picked out for those years??

:D
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: formerscot4 on August 30, 2018, 09:43:07 AM
I remember the Bronze Turkey games vividly when I played in the  late 80's early 90's. It was a very heated rivalry back then. My junior year was the 100th game and afterward the series tied 45-45-10. Of course this was when Knox was known by a different name (the Siwash) They have since became the Prairie Fire and I forget how many Monmouth has won in a row now. The atmosphere that was at the 100th game was incredible, just seems to have lost some luster until Knox can bring their program back up. With as many times as we have to play St Norbert lately we really should start a trophy with them.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: SJSUPhil on September 07, 2019, 08:09:53 AM
The Hoss Cartwright Rivalry - Sul Ross State University vs Hardin Simmons University. Actor Dan Blocker (of Bonanza fame) played football at both schools. He played one season at Hardin Simmons and then three at Sul Ross State where earned a bachelor's and a master's degree. It's not an official rivalry, but it's fun.
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: ADL70 on September 07, 2019, 05:00:17 PM
+K 
Title: Re: Division III football rivalries
Post by: SJSUPhil on November 17, 2019, 03:16:10 PM
The Secretaries Cup is a great old rivalry featuring the Coast Guard Academy and the Merchant Marine Academy. Yesterday's football game between the two programs was a barn burner with the Merchant Marine Mariners coming out on top over the Coast Guard Bears, 56-41. *Kudos to Coast Guard head football coach Bill George who just wrapped up his 21st and final season. Enjoy your retirement!