NESCAC

Started by LaPaz, September 11, 2011, 05:54:52 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

hiyasoccer

Quote from: d4_Pace on June 29, 2021, 01:05:32 PM
Yeah that field would be disappointing for a middle school glad to see they are finally fixing it.

Hiya what was your ranking of best fields in the NESCAC?

I'll give mine a shot for nostalgia sake...

1) Williams-nice, massive grass field. Downside I was always distracted looking at the mountains. For me easily the best setup.
2) Bowdoin-another nice grass field. Downside never winning there.
3) Trinity-New trinity very nice. Old trinity field had the whole tree trunk that was technically inbounds. So that lead to some interesting scenarios
4) Tufts-Solid average turf field. I think given the money being invested in the school and the success of the program the field should be upgraded to a more soccer specific turf without all the other lines. We'll see.
5) Middlbebury-similar turf to Tufts, with worse weather and a much better view.
6) Hamilton-Solid, pretty average. Not much stands out
7) Colby-never played on the new field so may be higher now.
8) Amherst-Intentionally grow the grass way too long and made the field as small as possible. Watching them run down the hill screaming was entertaining at least.
9) Conn Field is absolutely terrible but they always had awesome crowds for homecoming
10) Bates-This field is an embarrassment to the conference and I'm sure plenty of players have gotten hurt there as a result.
11) Wesleyan-somehow was even worse than Bates

Ha I think I've commented about this before, and definitely thought about it a bit too much for fun. I'll take some liberties with the format.

Borderline Pro Quality

Fields don't quite match my memory of some of the better grass facilities I played on, particularly in Florida and Dallas, but you can't really find anything better than these around here. Good size and very good surface.

1) Bowdoin - downside: didn't have covered benches until after I graduated, which was unfortunate. Upside: d4_pace not getting results here.
2) Williams - upside: best view, really awesome place to play. Usually a good game too, and at least a couple fans. Downside: Long-ish walk from locker room.

I never played on the new Trinity field, but I watched a game there and it might take the number 1 spot. Certainly in this group.

Can't Complain Much

Not amazing fields, but perfectly reasonable ones to play on. Not gonna really gonna change the game.

3) Tufts turf - the newest in the conference, and the nicest. The ridiculous number of lines is annoying, but it's not a killer, and a turf field isn't going to beat out Bowdoin or Williams anyways.
4) Bates turf field - played a night game there, it was a little narrow and again there were too many lines, but it's a fine playing surface. I might just be used to this kind of field from high school/club
4+5) Hamilton/Colby - Just decent grass fields from what I remember. Good size, surface wasn't great, but also wasn't terrible. My second game at Colby was extremely wet so less confident in that view.
6) Amherst at the beginning of the season - a little small, but the playing surface was usually reasonable at the start of the season. Not too chunky with grass at the start. Locker rooms annoyingly far away, and just kind of weirdly a lot of students around. Feel like i got lost in the hallways there at least once looking for the training room. Solid tailgate spot, and frequently good crowds. On the other hand, you had to play Amherst there... not fun. This should maybe be in the next tier.

Just bad

Bad to the point that they affected the game, but like reasonably mangeable. You'd certainly have to account for the field in your game plan, and probably curse it a number of times throughout the game.

7) Old trinity field - the tree sticking out over the field gets a lot of attention, but the ****ty surface and small size should probably get more. Having the fans right there was cool. Shagging balls behind the goal in the middle of people tailgating before the football game was annoying. As was having to go into the football stadium to use the bathroom during halftime.
8) Middlebury - on the bright side it was consistent. On the downside it was consistently ****ty carpet turf that was as much field hockey turf as soccer. Somewhat hard to get under the ball if you were wearing true spikes. Surprised d4_pace rated it so highly... maybe it's because he's got a good first touch. If I remember correctly one year we practiced on our field hockey field after they were done to prepare for the experience. Also their warmup tape was always a bit odd. I know it's not part of the field technically, but it was part of the "field atmosphere".
9) Conn - I think this varied year to year, probably similar to Amherst got much worse as the season went on? It was definitely bad, but I don't know if it even got completely unplayable... and at least it had reasonable dimensions? Location was awesome though, homecoming crowds were a lot of fun. More schools should ditch football teams. Locker rooms being a bus ride away was annoying.
10) Bates grass - our second game at Bates was on the turf, so I only vaguely remember this field. I remember there not being much grass though. And I think it was a little small? Also the parents said the commentators were hilariously bad and almost categorically refused to discuss the game.

Embarassing/Un-playable

These fields were so bad they were a main factor, if not the main factor for how the games went. I mean if you were technical like Tufts you could probably manage to knock the ball around on some of them, but we were... not.

11) Amherst in the post season - We played Amherst away during the regular season on our first road trip, which wasn't fun but the field was usually reasonable condition. By the time the post season rolled around though... I mean idk if it was the Amherst style of play, or them hosting NESCAC's basically every year, or poor drainage or what. But by the post season it was very patchy with long grass, and given the insanity that was trying to play against Amherst on a reasonable field, this made it almost impossible. (okay, I'll admit this ranking might be colored by how the games on that field went...)
12) Tufts old grass field - it's a really tough call on this vs. Wesleyan grass field. Both were tiny and just horrific playing surfaces. The really confusing part was that it was a clear hindrance to Tuft's desired style of play... I mean can't complain too much since we definitely benefited from it, but it was like the opposite of home field advantage. At least they got to practice on it? I guess that's why they could knock it around on the Amherst field too lol, it that field was bigger and in better condition. This field was just an atrocity, the Turf upgrade was very necessary.
13) Wesleyan old grass field - stupid tiny field, and somehow a worse surface that Tufts - even in the beginning of the season when we'd play there. The literal only redeeming factors were the nearby bathrooms in that art building or whatever, good netting behind one of the goals (although god help you if you managed to hit it around the netting), and decent warmup music. Every pass bounced, you were almost better off just trying to land the ball on your target's feet. And nothing like defending corners coming from 2/3 of the distance you normally do. The boxes were particularly horrible with the degree of patchiness to the grass, so much so that Weslayan literally scored a winning goal on me as a result of it. I've never seen anything like that shot before, guy struck a low volley from around the edge of the box towards the low corner, not a ton of juice in it, looks like a comfortable save diving to my right on the hop. Except when it bounces, it catches the edge of a tuft of grass, and bounces maybe 4-5 feet in the air over me and in, and we lose the game. Didn't help that the first goal we conceded was also dumb, although that one was our fault... Anyways, that field sucks, I'm glad it's gone and will curse no other goalies in the future.

nescac1

Williams just announced that Erin Sullivan will be stepping down as coach and moving into an administrative role.  Obviously, an enormously desirable job, one of the best soccer traditions in D3.  Unlike when Sullivan was hired, there is not (to me at least) an obvious choice from the Williams coaching tree, so I imagine the search should be wide ranging and attract a ton of great candidates.  With no knowledge whatsoever of who those might be, a few ideas who comes to mind, I'm sure there are a lot more that I'm not thinking of right away (and the pool of finalists will certainly look more diverse than this, given recent NESCAC trends) ...

Jordie Ciuffetelli, Harvard assistant - Shapiro's number two guy seems like the most obvious candidate, if he has an interest ...
Charles Rodriguez, Yale assistant -- enormously successful assistant at Stanford and Yale
Steve Danbusky, Executive Director, Beach FC - a less traditional background but long soccer history and an Eph
.... or, would Dan Calichman have any interest in leaving MLS to return to the collegiate ranks at his alma mater?  Seems like a long shot ...

Another Mom

Sullivan was not great with recruiting.  He seemed to rely heavily on the Williams name, and not much else. Unlike the other super elite NESCAC, Amherst, whose recruiting is a well oiled machine.

I know little about coaching but think any assistant coach at a strong program that's been there for 5+ years is probably itching for a Head coaching position.  Accordingly, I throw out Jon Freeman's name, assistant at Washington and Lee.

d4_Pace

Not to be rumor mongering... but this seems like weird timing with the season a month out.

nescac1

d4_Pace, it's a fair question to ask, definitely strange timing, especially because now Williams is doing two coaching searches, one for an interim coach, and then a permanent search for the following season ... seems unlikely we will get any answers here.  The only poster who seemed to have some insider-y insight into the Williams soccer program seems not to come around anymore ... still, it's a really great situation because if the administration is willing to give the right coaching hire the right kind of support, there is no reason that Williams, with its tremendous soccer tradition, facilities, and alumni base, can't be roughly what Amherst has been in recent years (Tufts, that's another story, that was a pretty unique kind of coaching job to turn a good-but-not-remarkable program into one that dominates everyone nationally for a five-year stretch). 

Another Mom


SpringSt7

You mean at the tail end of not coaching a game for nearly 2 years he didn't voluntarily step down to be the director of intramurals at a school that has about 1400 non athletes?

d4_Pace

Its just an odd time to be fired. If thats the case it means it is due to something off the field that occurred recently. 

Another Mom

It is an odd time, but if he did something egregious he would have been fired outright,  not moved internally.

My son was recruited by him, and had an offer, but did not accept as he did not like how Sullivan treated him during the run up to the offer.

PaulNewman

Based on the info offered the difference between fired and transitioned to intramurals seems negligible.  Maybe Williams is being kind and allowing him some time to find new employment.

Wrt to the NESCAC "super elite" schools being reduced to Williams and Amherst, that pov is a good example of why the NESCAC in general turns the stomachs of many affiliated with D3 schools from other parts of the country, not to mention no doubt annoying fans of Middlebury and Bowdoin, fans of surging Colby, and maybe Hamilton.  And of course mentioning that next group will draw the attention of the Wesleyan, Tufts, and Bates folks.

We're entering an interesting era where so-called elite education in America may become increasingly insular in terms of who is impressed by it, reflecting privilege more so than academic excellence.  A shift in how these schools are viewed in a broader cultural context already seems to have occurred...the very exclusivity of them creates a vulnerability to a "finishing school" vibe that could morph into an anachronistic feel.  Certainly most of these schools have the wealth, resources, and potential creativity to meet new cultural challenges but there are going to be challenges to be sure.  I'm very curious to see what the landscape of higher education looks like in 15-20 years.

nescac1

#7510
Other than one anonymous poster here who is not, it appears, affiliated with Williams or Amherst, I've never of either referred to as "super elite" within Nescac.  There is no material difference between either and say Bowdoin. 

Regarding the broader question, Nescac is of zero relevance to the "broader cultural" conversation.  Maybe like 1-2 percent of people have ever even heard of a single Nescac school, and that is likely very generous.  But the people who do care tend to be exactly the same people who cared 30 years ago.  And will prob be the same people who care ten years hence.  There is no evidence that institutions that view themselves as elite / exclusive have stopped caring about haughty "paper" credentials.  And I'd say Nescac schools have much LESS of a finishing school vibe now than then.  They are certainly much harder to get into, and attract far more diverse student bodies (along any metric you want to choose) than they did in the 80s and 90s when they were more heavily focused on prep school grads. 

amh63

Looking for some positive soccer news here....August is approaching quickly and the It appears to be a full season ahead.  Lack of info on new/old players to be playing.  Hoping to get up to catch a few games.  One of my son's father in law was a great soccer player...played at UVA.  Hope to get him up to catch a live game at Amherst....on a grass field close up.  Best way to access players' skills....playing against other fine players.

nescacfan94

OK, I'm going to change the subject slightly.

I was on a college recruiting process Zoom call in January. It was one of those events that many youth clubs hold each year, and it was memorable for one thing. The now-former Williams coach was on the call, and a parent asked how the conference planned to deal with huge rosters. Would kids get cut? Will they limit the number of players at home or road games? The coach told those listening that it was likely there would be a JV-type of thing with some or all NESCAC teams this fall. Obviously this would be COVID-dependent, but he said this had been discussed and if he was going to bet, he would bet that it was going to happen. Because there were so many kids on the rosters of some of the schools (some at 40 or more), it was thought that there would be enough kids to make up 2nd teams that could play or scrimmage or do something informal to get some playing time for the 15-18 or so at the end of the roster. Maybe 4-6 games. That way, the younger and/or still developing kids can still improve and grow. Sounded like a great idea to me at the time, but sadly, it does not appear this is going to happen. Has anyone else heard anything about this? I can't imagine it would cost that much to do this.

I know of one program in the conference that is planning to make some cuts after preseason to get the roster to a more manageable 29-30. That means a good 6-8 guys, some (maybe all) who were recruited, won't be playing college soccer this fall. I am guessing this is going to be the case at most schools. All the more reason for the JV-thing to have happened. Oh well. On the flip side, that will force players to show up in great shape and ready to go on day 1 after hopefully playing some U23 this summer.

amh63

Gather nescacfan94 is a Williams grad...same time as my younger son....class of '95.  A little perspective wrt money/finance on the point raised by nescacfan94.  My class forum had a recent discussion between Amherst trustees on line dealing with Amherst's finance/investments, etc.  There is an annual report of about 700-800 American/Canadian universities Business Officers on the subject.  Williams and Amherst are in the top 50 with the Ivy schools leading the pack....along with MIT, JHU.  Anyway...both Amherst and Williams have multi-billions invested...though Williams had a negative return in FY2020.  The pandemic has clouded the issue on how Nescac schools respond to recruiting, etc. IMO. 

nescacfan94

Quote from: amh63 on July 23, 2021, 08:16:25 AM
Gather nescacfan94 is a Williams grad...same time as my younger son....class of '95.  A little perspective wrt money/finance on the point raised by nescacfan94.  My class forum had a recent discussion between Amherst trustees on line dealing with Amherst's finance/investments, etc.  There is an annual report of about 700-800 American/Canadian universities Business Officers on the subject.  Williams and Amherst are in the top 50 with the Ivy schools leading the pack....along with MIT, JHU.  Anyway...both Amherst and Williams have multi-billions invested...though Williams had a negative return in FY2020.  The pandemic has clouded the issue on how Nescac schools respond to recruiting, etc. IMO.

Not that it matters, but I am not a Williams grad, nor am I sure how my post above might have led you to believe that was the case. Those #$%^#s at Williams didn't want me! ;) ;D That said, ya, this all comes down to money. Same reason kids have to return their uniforms after the season so they can be used again. The bean counters continue to be in charge at D3! But that has nothing to do with the fact that for a few thousand dollars to rent a few busses, these schools can do right by the kids on the wrong side of the roster logjams. I believe it's a good investment to keep students happy with the hope that down the line, the happy graduates (and perhaps their families) are willing to write that big check to help keep their school in the $ top 50.

At least the conference realized that the preseason needs to be a few days longer because some of/most of these players have not played together in over 18 months. Add in the captains pre-preseason that I am sure all teams have, and there should be more than enough time to get rid of the rust and hopefully lead to quality play at the start of the season.