D3boards.com

Due to some discussion on some of the boards, I just wanted to get a consensus on whom everyone felt would be the team of the decade?

Based on the representation on these boards, Im going to guess Hobart is going toget very few votes, but I have that team in the top three - yet voted for 2006 Fisher.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare the all east region brackets from pre 2007, or around there,  with post when you got more mixed brackets in general. If you buy what mgt here is selling (and with more evidence, I'm skeptical outside of about 3-4 conferences), then the 7 sees in most other regions would take a 1-2 seed in a pure east bracket.  I junk there's always excuses and hypocrisy in these comments as people get anchored on their worldviews and are incapable of flexibility (citing John Carroll in the East at this point is just plain stupid - for example).

By the way, what I said on the E8 board was in reference programs not individual seasons.

Quote from: pumkinattack on August 29, 2013, 07:06:52 AM
Based on the representation on these boards, Im going to guess Hobart is going toget very few votes, but I have that team in the top three - yet voted for 2006 Fisher.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare the all east region brackets from pre 2007, or around there,  with post when you got more mixed brackets in general. If you buy what mgt here is selling (and with more evidence, I'm skeptical outside of about 3-4 conferences), then the 7 sees in most other regions would take a 1-2 seed in a pure east bracket.  I junk there's always excuses and hypocrisy in these comments as people get anchored on their worldviews and are incapable of flexibility (citing John Carroll in the East at this point is just plain stupid - for example).

By the way, what I said on the E8 board was in reference programs not individual seasons.

Well, lets just do that.

Well, if you change the question, I'd change my vote. Kind of voids the voting that's taken place already.

Don't see how you  leave Trinity off this list

Quote from: lumbercat on August 29, 2013, 10:49:45 AM
Don't see how you  leave Trinity off this list

They haven't beaten one of the teams listed in the poll.  I'd say that's a good reason to leave them off the list.

lumbercat---please tell us you were kidding.....

Quote from: lumbercat on August 29, 2013, 10:49:45 AM
Don't see how you  leave Trinity off this list

Quote from: lumbercat on August 29, 2013, 10:49:45 AM
Don't see how you  leave Trinity off this list

You tell me why they should be on the list?

Quote from: lumbercat on August 29, 2013, 10:49:45 AM
Don't see how you  leave Trinity off this list

How many NCAA tournament games have they won?

I don't think I can vote for them simply because they have beaten Hamilton 10 years in a row...

Quote from: D3MAFAN on August 29, 2013, 11:48:47 AM

Quote from: lumbercat on August 29, 2013, 10:49:45 AM
Don't see how you  leave Trinity off this list

You tell me why they should be on the list?

Because they are an East Region team that has gone something like 73-7 in the last 10 years?
Why wouldn't you? Because we have no idea if that makes them any good or not. But certainly a team that legitimately could be part of the discussion, even if there is no way to actually include them in an answer

Fisher alum- dead serious 74-6 in last 10 years

Johnny u- no one on the list has beaten Trinity

Quote from: lumbercat on August 29, 2013, 12:11:36 PM
Fisher alum- dead serious 74-6 in last 10 years

Johnny u- no one on the list has beaten Trinity

No one on the list has beaten South Boston High School either, but everyone on the list has made the playoffs.

I was just wondering what Rowan is doing in that list.. They haven't been relevant since Keeler left..
I vote to replace Rowan with Middlebury!

Quote from: pumkinattack on August 29, 2013, 07:06:52 AM
Based on the representation on these boards, Im going to guess Hobart is going toget very few votes, but I have that team in the top three - yet voted for 2006 Fisher.

I don't think it's reasonable to compare the all east region brackets from pre 2007, or around there,  with post when you got more mixed brackets in general. If you buy what mgt here is selling (and with more evidence, I'm skeptical outside of about 3-4 conferences), then the 7 sees in most other regions would take a 1-2 seed in a pure east bracket.  I junk there's always excuses and hypocrisy in these comments as people get anchored on their worldviews and are incapable of flexibility (citing John Carroll in the East at this point is just plain stupid - for example).

By the way, what I said on the E8 board was in reference programs not individual seasons.

Yea if you compared Hobarts and SJF seasons, I would rate them like this:

2003- SJF
2004- Even
2005- Hobart
2006- SJF
2007- SJF
2008- Hobart
2009- Even
2010- SJF
2011- Hobart
2012- Hobart

I think you might be able to give SJF a slight nod in 2009, since they played MUC and could have gone 8-2 if they had played a regular team instead?  But basically that's 4 for Hobart and 4 for SJF.  Hobart probably had a few more dud seasons in there, and the 9 game thing sticks in my mind as well.  I think SJF did better on the national scene overall, but Hobart always seems to beat the teams they need to beat, while SJF seems to shock the world with one loss to a very crappy team every year or so.

Doesn't mean they can't compete with those on the list Johnny- Sure we don't have a direct comparison but go watch a Trinity game and then watch Curry and see what you think as an astute D3 observer.
Locally Everett is a fine High School program but I don't think they would beat Don Bosco of NJ-------oh but I forgot, they have never beaten or played Don Bosco so there's absolutely no way to form an opinion.
Amherst may belong on the list as well.

Well Everett does play a few MA Catholic Conference schools, who usually fare pretty poorly against NJ teams.  You and I probably both know this so we can base our opinions on this.  We also can see the talent coming out of these other High Schools and can see where players are going.

I'm half joking about my previous comments.  I usually catch about 1 or 2 Tufts games a year, and I haven't seen any other nescac games in a long time.  Trinity is a good team, but really only has a chance to lose 1 or 2 games a year, since the other 6 or 7 teams are simply not that good.  If they played in the E8, LL or MAC, I would see them being 6-4 during most years (If they filled their non-conference games with solid teams).

lumbercat-we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Trinity has chosen to be in its league and only play those games.
So what you have run buckshot over it?
The fact is that you will NEVER know how good you are until you step outside the confines of your league.
Until then you cant be compared to NCAA playoff teams on any level.
Is Trinity good?  I have no idea....And neither does anybody else outside of that league.

Because the NESCAC imposes it's own ban on playing teams from outside of the conference, they really shouldn't be in the final conversation/vote.

Maybe an honorable mention...but I agree with JU, as I have seen a few games at Hamilton against the best/better NESCAC teams over the past few years...and never saw a team from the NESCAC where I thought "that team is flat out scary...and would beat anyone in the E8, LL, MAC, or NJAC..hands down."

Fisher alum and Yanks99-
I see where you guys are coming from and respect your opinions.
I only want to make that the point that I feel strongly that in the last 10 years years Trinity would be most competitive with those on the list.
It's unfortunate that it can't be resolved on the field but that is whole different issue that may never change (much to the chagrin of most involved in NESCAC athletics)
I'm not sure from the sound of the posts how many times you have seen Trinity play in the last 10 years, if a all.  My thought is if you saw them in a game against one of the better NESCAC teams like Amherst or Middlebury I think you would agree that they belong on the list.

Caught a Trinity game at Hamilton  few years back.
Honestly....No disrespect, but they didn't show me any superior talent than any of the E8.

Quote from: bman on August 29, 2013, 12:39:26 PM
I was just wondering what Rowan is doing in that list.. They haven't been relevant since Keeler left..

This isn't actually true. I was reminded as I was putting a breakout box together for our Passing the torch story in Kickoff that after Keeler left in 2001, Rowan made the semifinals in 2004 and 2005, including a respectable 19-7 loss to the Purple Raiders. The 2005 team would have nobody who played for Keeler. Then the quarters in 2006 and the bottom falls out in 2007.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on August 29, 2013, 02:22:13 PM

Quote from: bman on August 29, 2013, 12:39:26 PM
I was just wondering what Rowan is doing in that list.. They haven't been relevant since Keeler left..

This isn't actually true. I was reminded as I was putting a breakout box together for our Passing the torch story in Kickoff that after Keeler left in 2001, Rowan made the semifinals in 2004 and 2005, including a respectable 19-7 loss to the Purple Raiders. The 2005 team would have nobody who played for Keeler. Then the quarters in 2006 and the bottom falls out in 2007.

I was thinking the same thing.  Rowan was probably the best team in the east for 2 or 3 of the last 10 years.

Quote from: bman on August 29, 2013, 12:39:26 PM
I was just wondering what Rowan is doing in that list.. They haven't been relevant since Keeler left..
I vote to replace Rowan with Middlebury!

I think the list originally named teams from specific seasons, so it might have specifically been Rowan's 2004 or 2005 team that was named.  The poll has now changed to reflect success over a decade rather than naming the best single-season team.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on August 29, 2013, 03:14:43 PM

Quote from: bman on August 29, 2013, 12:39:26 PM
I was just wondering what Rowan is doing in that list.. They haven't been relevant since Keeler left..
I vote to replace Rowan with Middlebury!

I think the list originally named teams from specific seasons, so it might have specifically been Rowan's 2004 or 2005 team that was named.  The poll has now changed to reflect success over a decade rather than naming the best single-season team.

EXTARTAN, you would be correct.

Now with all due respect to those whom felt that a NESCAC team should have been listed, I believe that both Trinity and Amherst are very respectable programs. However, using eye-test to judge them against the other programs wouldn't be fair. Though these teams do have great success within their conference, we have no way of comparing them against the others, it would be like throwing a random prep team in the discussion. I would have like to put them on the poll, but as I aforementioned, where do I compare, stats? Stats can be inflated. I have watch a few of the NESCAC games, but I prefere watching other conferences to see how they would do in terms of championship play. I think that Trinity and Amherst would hold their own, but to say that they would be the top dogs, is out of the question. Now, as far as looking as what program has dominated their perspective conference, then it would be a different story.

I think DVC should be right up there in the discussion.

92-24 over the past decade.
3 undefeated regular seasons.
Ran the table in their conference 4 times.
Missed "Post Season" only once.

Listen dlip has a ton of respect for the student athletes playing football in the NESCAC. To dlip the level of play in the league is decent. However with the decision the league has made to play in conference only removes any team from realistic comparison to the remainder of D3 when talking about the best teams in the region. Just dlip's opinion minus his typical pot shot at the NESCAC. When it comes to it dlip would love to see them play other ER teams. Yet he knows the end of the world will come before that happens.

Very interesting poll.  Good topic.

I cast my vote for St. John Fisher without any kind of quantified evidence.  But they've been the best team several years in the Empire 8, which is the East region's best conference.  Sa SJF has the distinction of playing Mount Union well, going to playoffs several times and winning in the NCAA postseason on the road.  Plus they have come closest among the East teams I've seen to building the size along the offensive line that you need to compete at the elite (i.e. Mount Union) level.

In no particular order, I'd say second is between...

* Rowan who was a monster in the early part of this decade.  Remember the Del Val team that beat SJF in super dramatic fashion in 2004?  They got obliterated by Rowan the following week.  The Rowan team that lost to Mount Union in 2005 was also really good, though limited offensively by an injured starting QB.  And last year's Rowan team was also good, though not at the same level.

* Salisbury who is tough to evaluate because they can really handle good teams easily.  But Salisbury was a South region team until two years ago.  If Salisbury is an East region team for this period, then Wesley arguably close to being one, too (essentially the same schedule from 2003-2010).  And if Wesley is an East region team, this poll isn't close.

* Delaware Valley, whom I have trouble evaluating objectively.  I'm a big Aggies guy and have loved covering them since 2004.  But they've never been the best team in the region, even in years where they were favored to be so (2005, 2010, 2011).

* Hobart, whom I haven't seen enough to evaluate thoughtfully.  My only in person view of them was the good team that lost at Del Val in 2005.  That certainly wasn't the best Hobart team of the bunch. I think the Liberty League is a notch below the Empire 8 and maybe the MAC and NJAC in depth, so winning that conference has less weight for me.  But I could be missing the 'bart, er boat, here.


And despite my ongoing loan payments to my alma mater, I don't know where Trinity should rank so nowhere is okay with me. :)

Fisher alum-

In that Trinity-Hamilton game you caught a "few years back" did you summize that Trinity could not compete in your conference?

Against Hamilton, Trinity typically leaves their starters in until about the 3rd quarter, ..... that's just not a valid look for you. Hamilton struggles in the NESCAC - too bad you couldn't have seen Trinity against the better competition in the NESCAC over the past 10 years.

At the end of the day you are basing everything on actual comparative scores and NCAA results which I understand but you can't assume victory in games never played.

I have coached and I have scouted. Very often you do not have the benefit of comparative scores or measured performance to evaluate a team or an individual athlete. Sometimes you stand on the field or in the the pressbox and you evaluate a team or a player based on your observations of their individual performance based on your direct observations.

It is possible to make a reasonable, accurate evaluation of the talent level of an individual athlete or a team by watching that team in a number of situations. Team speed, execution, size and toughness etc can be well evaluated by viewing that team only. Similarly, evaluation of individual athletes often takes place visually without benefit of their prior performance in competitve situations(film).

In other words, if a team or player is good you can make a reasonable evaluation of their talent level  without seeing them playing RPI or Utica or Ithaca.

I've seen Trinity, and I've seen you, they can play with you.

(No agenda here- no allegiance to Trinity- but respect their program they are good)

Another gauge is where players come from and their success at where they go.  There are a number of players that I watched in High School who were not superstars and have been inserted into their NESCAC teams as freshman and sophmores.  And others who were superstars that have just started to become involved at the teams in the LL, E8 in their upper classman years......

I usually catch 1 or 2 NESCAC games for an hour or so every week because the team I watch is in a different time zone.  Been watching a couple boys who played with my son in Prep School or against him (and one is at Trinity, Budness).  From an eye test there is a difference......

NESCAC is hampered by their academic requirements.  But that should be a badge of honor.  But I also believe they would not be as competitive as you think......

Quote from: lumbercat on August 29, 2013, 11:33:22 PM
Fisher alum-

In that Trinity-Hamilton game you caught a "few years back" did you summize that Trinity could not compete in your conference?

Against Hamilton, Trinity typically leaves their starters in until about the 3rd quarter, ..... that's just not a valid look for you. Hamilton struggles in the NESCAC - too bad you couldn't have seen Trinity against the better competition in the NESCAC over the past 10 years.

At the end of the day you are basing everything on actual comparative scores and NCAA results which I understand but you can't assume victory in games never played.

I have coached and I have scouted. Very often you do not have the benefit of comparative scores or measured performance to evaluate a team or an individual athlete. Sometimes you stand on the field or in the the pressbox and you evaluate a team or a player based on your observations of their individual performance based on your direct observations.

It is possible to make a reasonable, accurate evaluation of the talent level of an individual athlete or a team by watching that team in a number of situations. Team speed, execution, size and toughness etc can be well evaluated by viewing that team only. Similarly, evaluation of individual athletes often takes place visually without benefit of their prior performance in competitve situations(film).

In other words, if a team or player is good you can make a reasonable evaluation of their talent level  without seeing them playing RPI or Utica or Ithaca.

I've seen Trinity, and I've seen you, they can play with you.

(No agenda here- no allegiance to Trinity- but respect their program they are good)

I kind of mentioned it before, but the bottom 3-4 teams in the nescac would be automatic wins for the top teams in the E8, LL, NJAC, or MAC (as they are for Trinity).  There is no chance a SJF, Cortland, Hobart or Del Val would lose to any of those teams.  But Trinity plays them every year.  Put Trinity in the other leagues and they are losing 1 or 2 games a year to the Hartwicks and Rochesters of the d3 world.  They might be able to beat an SJF or Ithaca any given year, but overall I don't see them being one of the best teams in the east over the last 10 years.

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on August 30, 2013, 08:10:20 AM

Quote from: lumbercat on August 29, 2013, 11:33:22 PM
Fisher alum-

In that Trinity-Hamilton game you caught a "few years back" did you summize that Trinity could not compete in your conference?

Against Hamilton, Trinity typically leaves their starters in until about the 3rd quarter, ..... that's just not a valid look for you. Hamilton struggles in the NESCAC - too bad you couldn't have seen Trinity against the better competition in the NESCAC over the past 10 years.

At the end of the day you are basing everything on actual comparative scores and NCAA results which I understand but you can't assume victory in games never played.

I have coached and I have scouted. Very often you do not have the benefit of comparative scores or measured performance to evaluate a team or an individual athlete. Sometimes you stand on the field or in the the pressbox and you evaluate a team or a player based on your observations of their individual performance based on your direct observations.

It is possible to make a reasonable, accurate evaluation of the talent level of an individual athlete or a team by watching that team in a number of situations. Team speed, execution, size and toughness etc can be well evaluated by viewing that team only. Similarly, evaluation of individual athletes often takes place visually without benefit of their prior performance in competitve situations(film).

In other words, if a team or player is good you can make a reasonable evaluation of their talent level  without seeing them playing RPI or Utica or Ithaca.

I've seen Trinity, and I've seen you, they can play with you.

(No agenda here- no allegiance to Trinity- but respect their program they are good)

I kind of mentioned it before, but the bottom 3-4 teams in the nescac would be automatic wins for the top teams in the E8, LL, NJAC, or MAC (as they are for Trinity).  There is no chance a SJF, Cortland, Hobart or Del Val would lose to any of those teams.  But Trinity plays them every year.  Put Trinity in the other leagues and they are losing 1 or 2 games a year to the Hartwicks and Rochesters of the d3 world.  They might be able to beat an SJF or Ithaca any given year, but overall I don't see them being one of the best teams in the east over the last 10 years.

Utes makes a good point here. On the other hand, having taken a look at the 11 teams included in the poll, Pep has observed that four of the teams are in the E8, three in the NJAC, two in the LL, one in the MAC and one in the NEFC. Given the fact that the four E8 teams must play each other head-to-head every year, it would seem to Pep that it would be most difficult for an E8 team to post gaudy records over the past decade.

Therefore, Pep is going with Fisher (90-27) of the E8 as the East Decade Team (2003-2012). Fisher is 3-1 in head-to-head with Hobart (79-25) of the LL over the decade, but is 0-4 in head-to-head with Salisbury (81-29), 8-2 in head-to-head with Ithaca (74-33), and 5-5 in head-to-head with Alfred (77-32).

Looking at the Saxons' 2013 schedule, Pep is fascinated that AU must play FIVE of the 11 teams listed in this poll. That's five more than Trinity will face this season.  ;)

Trinity is most likely a very good football team. But to sort of add to/echo something Pep wrote, one of the ways in which we determine relative strengths is by comparing things that are similar.

There's no common ground between Trinity and any of these teams. They may as well be a West Region team for all we know about how they perform against these East teams.

Yes, they have a great record. So? Norwich has a significantly better record than Ithaca these last four years, and I don't think a single person would make any of those Ithaca teams any less than a two-touchdown favorite against the Cadets.

We can use the eye test all we want to talk about the quality of their athletes, etc. But that's not a substitute for actual information based on games that were played between the schools in question, or even common opponenets.

Very interesting poll. I think you can cut the poll in half and try to go from there.

My top 7 would be:

1. SJF- Most consistent and best postseason performances. 90-27
2. Del Val- Pre 2003 very bad so pool dates help them alot.

The next 5 can go in any order. Salisbury is a curve ball since they really didn't play many east teams in the early years.

3. MSU- 3 NJAC titles (7-3 vs Rowan; 3-7 vs Cortland; 2-0 vs Salisbury)(no losing seasons) 75-30
4. Salisbury- Lost to MSU in 2005 and 2006/ Beat Rowan last year/2-2 vs Del Val/3-0 vs SJF/  81-29
5. Rowan- 4 NJAC titles (6-4 vs Cortland) (1 losing season) 77-31
6. Cortland- 4 NJAC titles (1 season at 0-4 for illegal player use caused 1 losing season) 73-29
7. Hobart-  (1-3 SJF; 0-2 Rowan;0-1 Del Val; 1-0 vs Cortland) 79-25

I dont think Rowan and Salisbury can be put ahead of MSU based on Head to Head. Could easily put Cortland at 3 then push every1 down a spot.

8. Ithaca 74-33 (6-4 vs Alfred)
9. RPI 67-32 (3-7 vs Hobart; 3-1 vs Alfred)
10. Alfred 77-32 (5-5 vs SJF; 4-6 vs Ithaca)
11. Curry- losses to RPI; Hobart; Del Val; SJF; Cortland all by double digits (87-26) record is over inflated

Quote from: redhawks on August 30, 2013, 11:18:13 AM
Very interesting poll. I think you can cut the poll in half and try to go from there.

My top 7 would be:

1. SJF- Most consistent and best postseason performances. 90-27
2. Del Val- Pre 2003 very bad so pool dates help them alot.

The next 5 can go in any order. Salisbury is a curve ball since they really didn't play many east teams in the early years.

3. MSU- 3 NJAC titles (7-3 vs Rowan; 3-7 vs Cortland; 2-0 vs Salisbury)(no losing seasons) 75-30
4. Salisbury- Lost to MSU in 2005 and 2006/ Beat Rowan last year/2-2 vs Del Val/3-0 vs SJF/  81-29
5. Rowan- 4 NJAC titles (6-4 vs Cortland) (1 losing season) 77-31
6. Cortland- 4 NJAC titles (1 season at 0-4 for illegal player use caused 1 losing season) 73-29
7. Hobart-  (1-3 SJF; 0-2 Rowan;0-1 Del Val; 1-0 vs Cortland) 79-25

I dont think Rowan and Salisbury can be put ahead of MSU based on Head to Head. Could easily put Cortland at 3 then push every1 down a spot.

8. Ithaca 74-33 (6-4 vs Alfred)
9. RPI 67-32 (3-7 vs Hobart; 3-1 vs Alfred)
10. Alfred 77-32 (5-5 vs SJF; 4-6 vs Ithaca)
11. Curry- losses to RPI; Hobart; Del Val; SJF; Cortland all by double digits (87-26) record is over inflated

Let's take our homer hats off for one second with Montclair.

MSU has basically done nothing nationally in the last 10 years.  They generally don't play a tough out of conference schedule, and the NJAC hasn't done much recently either (including being a conference with a lot of easy wins each year).  How you can rank them over Hobart is beyond me, and according to what I'm looking at, they have had 3 .500 seasons in that decade. 

(You also forgot to mention that Ithaca has a similar record in that decade, and are 1-0 vs. MSU)

You also have to remember that many of these teams records vs. Rowan (like Hobarts), were in seasons where Rowan was national ranked and these games were playoff games.  So comparing MSUs 7-3 record vs. Rowan vs. Hobarts 0-2 record vs. Rowan is sort of misleading.

I am an NJAC homer but I can't pick any of the NJAC teams at the top.  In my opinion it is between Hobart and SJF and Salisbury should not be on this list as they were a South team until a couple of years ago. 

Since I had some free time today, I broke down the teams on this list and how many times (games) from 2003-2012 each team lost a game by 15 points or more  (Not sure how much these stats mean but I took a look anyway):

6: SJF
7: Hobart and DelVall
8: Rowan and RPI
9: Cortland
10: Ithaca and Salisbury
12: Curry and Alfred
13: Montclair

Regular Season

3: Hobart
4: SJF and DelVal
6: Rowan, RPI and Cortland
7: Curry
8: Salisbury
9: Ithaca and Montclair
10: Alfred

Playoffs

1: Ithaca
2: SJF, Alfred, Salisbury, Rowan, RPI
3: Cortland and DelVal
4: Montclair and Hobart
5: Curry

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on August 30, 2013, 12:21:08 PM
Since I had some free time today, I broke down the teams on this list and how many times (games) from 2003-2012 each team lost a game by 15 points or more  (Not sure how much these stats mean but I took a look anyway):

6: SJF
7: Hobart and DelVall
8: Rowan and RPI
9: Cortland
10: Ithaca and Salisbury
12: Curry and Alfred
13: Montclair

Regular Season

3: Hobart
4: SJF and DelVal
6: Rowan, RPI and Cortland
7: Curry
8: Salisbury
9: Ithaca and Montclair
10: Alfred

Playoffs

1: Ithaca
2: SJF, Alfred, Salisbury, Rowan, RPI
3: Cortland and DelVal
4: Montclair and Hobart
5: Curry

How many of those were to Mount Union or Wesely?

Quote from: Knightstalker on August 30, 2013, 01:49:27 PM

Quote from: Jonny "Utes" Utah on August 30, 2013, 12:21:08 PM
Since I had some free time today, I broke down the teams on this list and how many times (games) from 2003-2012 each team lost a game by 15 points or more  (Not sure how much these stats mean but I took a look anyway):

6: SJF
7: Hobart and DelVall
8: Rowan and RPI
9: Cortland
10: Ithaca and Salisbury
12: Curry and Alfred
13: Montclair

Regular Season

3: Hobart
4: SJF and DelVal
6: Rowan, RPI and Cortland
7: Curry
8: Salisbury
9: Ithaca and Montclair
10: Alfred

Playoffs

1: Ithaca
2: SJF, Alfred, Salisbury, Rowan, RPI
3: Cortland and DelVal
4: Montclair and Hobart
5: Curry

How many of those were to Mount Union or Wesely?

Come on KS.  I have a lot of time on my hand, but not that much time!

But it looked like many of those playoff losses (and one of SJF regular season monkeystomps) was to MUC.  I'm going to guess 8 of them over all to MUC?

Fisher is a very lovely 0-4 against Mount Union with 3 monkey stomps attributed.  Two in the regular season and one in the playoffs. 

The only teams outside of Mount Union to beat Fisher by more than 15 in the past decade were:

Springfield in 2006 won by 17 defeating Fisher 55-38
Salisbury in 2009 wob by 18 defeating Fisher 38-20
Hobart in 2011 won by 36 defeating Fisher 56-20
Salisbury in 2011 won by 20 defeating Fisher 41-21
St. Thomas in 2011 won by 35 defeating Fisher 45-10

Basically our 2011 team was the only team in the past decade to get its teeth really kicked in by someone outside of Mount Union.  How nice of them to accomplish the dubious distinction a couple of times. 

 

Lumbercat- perhaps the game I say wasn't the best gauge of Trinity's talent.  I will say that the game was lop sided and that Hamilton is indeed a doormat, but still I was not overly impressed with Trinity.. Did they have talented players, yes. But I only have that game to judge. 
Quite frankly when it comes to comparisons....as stated before- we just don't have that ability because of the rules of the league.
Look- im not trying to argue with you, My opinion is what it is, as is yours.
We will agree to disagree.

Fisher alum -
All you points are fair and I know your program is excellent- one of the best.
I enjoyed the discussion. Hope you another great year.