Quote from: Gregory Sager on November 10, 2025, 11:54:53 PMI'm not sure why it would be embarrassing for the CCIW if Wash U represents the league in the Isthmus Bowl. After all, the Bears have done so twice before; that means that half of the Isthmus Bowl's four-year history has featured Wash U as the CCIW's representative. The Bears have finished in the top third in five of the six years that they've been in the league, and in the 2025 preseason coaches poll the CCIW braintrust forecast that the Bears would make it six out of seven by slotting them -- you guessed it -- third behind North Central and Wheaton.
If the CCIW's nine full members thought it was relevant to consider where the Bears were going to finish this season, they wouldn't have shown Wash U the door in the first place. But they didn't, so they did.Quote from: WUPHF on November 10, 2025, 05:57:15 PMMore embarrassing for the CCIW is the record against Washington University.
7-0 vs. Carroll
6-1 vs. Illinois Wesleyan
7-0 vs. Carthage
7-0 vs. Elmhurst
6-1 vs. Millikin
7-0 vs. North Park
5-1 vs. Augustana
I'm not sure why this is embarrassing, either. While the jury was out as to how well Wash U would compete in the CCIW when it first came in, the Bears immediately disabused CCIW football fans of the notion that the Bears would be anything other than an upper-tier team. And because that was established quickly and then maintained, again, it's hard to see why anyone should be red-faced about the likelihood of an Isthmus Bowl bid for Wash U that was so predictable that the coaches, in fact, went right ahead and predicted it.![]()
Ok ---I will change it to this---the Institutions that voted to rid themselves of WashU should be embarrassed and ashamed of themselves. (since it looks like they are ducking competition i.e. "if you can't beat them ---kick them out"). IMHO.
I know, I know, there are sooooo many reasons to bring in a full member, that dismissing an academically elite very competitive football program makes sense.

