Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Here is the bracket, a little late at night but, since the bracket show is later than usual, it should be soon enough for some discussion tomorrow morning/afternoon. UMass won the CAA auto-bid on a coin flip, though it doesn't really matter since both teams are definitely in the field. There are things I expect to be different in the real bracket tomorrow. Namely, I'm pretty sure Montana will get a seed—possibly #2—though I have them ranked fifth. There are only 4 seed spots, but I believe 6 teams have seed-worthy credentials, though I'd certainly be surprised if Delaware State got a seed (& I didn't give them one this week). I also have two 4-loss teams in the field, though you might see one of them excluded in the real bracket for 8-3 Eastern Illinois or Norfolk State. Given the depth of playoff candidates, I don't think there will be any egregious snubs. There just aren't enough spots to go around. I'm afraid Villanova might get "Portlanded" this year, but if they are, they won't be replaced by a clearly unworthy team like what Montana State was last year.

Here are my bracket's disclaimers:

1. These are the teams I think should be in the field & how they should be seeded, not necessarily who I think the committee will choose.
2. I use a points system to determine playoff credentials (that's what the "+#" & "-#" next to the teams in the power rankings are). You can find an explanation of my system in this thread: http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... ?f=4&t=877.

• Auto-Bid Rankings
  
  1. Northern Iowa (11-0)
  2. Massachusetts (9-2)
  3. McNeese St. (11-0)
  4. Montana (11-0)
  5. Delaware St. (10-1)
  6. Eastern Kentucky (9-2)
  7. Wofford (8-3)
  8. Fordham (8-3)
  
  
  At-Large Rankings
  
  1. Richmond (9-2)
  2. James Madison (8-3)
  3. Southern Illinois (10-1)
  4. Appalachian St. (9-2)
  5. Villanova (7-4)
  6. Delaware (8-3)
  7. New Hampshire (7-4)
  8. Eastern Washington (8-3)

• • • • • • • • Bracket
                
                
                New Hampshire (7-4)
                @ (1) Northern Iowa (11-0)
                
                James Madison (8-3)
                @ Appalachian St. (9-2)
                
                Villanova (7-4)
                @ Eastern Kentucky (9-2)
                
                Eastern Washington (8-3)
                @ (4) McNeese St. (11-0)
                
                Fordham (8-3)
                @ (3) Massachusetts (9-2)
                
                Delaware St. (10-1)
                @ Delaware (8-3)
                
                Southern Illinois (10-1)
                @ Montana (11-0)
                
                Wofford (8-3)
                @ (2) Richmond (9-2)

• Bids by conference:
  
  6 - CAA
  2 - Big Sky, Gateway, SoCon
  1 - Southland, OVC, Patriot, MEAC

Playoff Power Rankings
Here you can see where your team stands, and where they may move based on this week's results.
(Bold - Denotes Auto-Bid)
(15. Team - Denotes At-Large cutoff line)
(* - Cannot get 7 DI wins)

1. Northern Iowa (11-0) +17
2. Richmond (9-2) +14
3. Massachusetts (9-2) +14
4. McNeese St. (11-0) +14
5. Montana (11-0) +15
6. Delaware St. (10-1) +13
7. Eastern Kentucky (9-2) +11
8. James Madison (9-2) +11
9. Southern Illinois (10-1) +11
10. Appalachian St. (9-2) +10
11. Wofford (8-2) +8
12. Villanova (7-4) +6
13. Delaware (8-3) +8
14. New Hampshire (7-4) +5
15. Eastern Washington (8-3) +5
16. Norfolk St. (8-3) +5
17. South Carolina St. (7-4) +5
18. Eastern Illinois (8-3) +3
19. Dayton (10-1) +4
20. Hofstra (7-4) +1
21. Fordham (8-3) +1
22. Holy Cross (7-4) +2
23. Prairie View A&M (7-3) 0
24. Colgate (7-4) -1
25. Albany (8-3) -1
26. Alabama A&M (8-3) 0
27. San Diego (9-2) -1
28. Lafayette (7-4) -3

The CAA might get 5, I doubt they get 6.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:Here is the bracket, a little late at night but, since the bracket show is later than usual, it should be soon enough for some discussion tomorrow morning/afternoon. UMass won the CAA auto-bid on a coin flip, though it doesn't really matter since both teams are definitely in the field. There are things I expect to be different in the real bracket tomorrow. Namely, I'm pretty sure Montana will get a seed—possibly #2—though I have them ranked fifth. There are only 4 seed spots, but I believe 6 teams have seed-worthy credentials, though I'd certainly be surprised if Delaware State got a seed (& I didn't give them one this week). I also have two 4-loss teams in the field, though you might see one of them excluded in the real bracket for 8-3 Eastern Illinois or Norfolk State. Given the depth of playoff candidates, I don't think there will be any egregious snubs. There just aren't enough spots to go around. I'm afraid Villanova might get "Portlanded" this year, but if they are, they won't be replaced by a clearly unworthy team like what Montana State was last year.
Here are my bracket's disclaimers:

1. These are the teams I think should be in the field & how they should be seeded, not necessarily who I think the committee will choose.
2. I use a points system to determine playoff credentials (that's what the "+#" & "-#" next to the teams in the power rankings are). You can find an explanation of my system in this thread: http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... ?f=4&t=877.

• Auto-Bid Rankings
  
  1. Northern Iowa (11-0)
  2. Massachusetts (9-2)
  3. McNeese St. (11-0)
  4. Montana (11-0)
  5. Delaware St. (10-1)
  6. Eastern Kentucky (9-2)
  7. Wofford (8-3)
  8. Fordham (8-3)
  
  
  At-Large Rankings
  
  1. Richmond (9-2)
  2. James Madison (8-3)
  3. Southern Illinois (10-1)
  4. Appalachian St. (9-2)
  5. Villanova (7-4)
  6. Delaware (8-3)
  7. New Hampshire (7-4)
  8. Eastern Washington (8-3)

• • • • • • • • Bracket
                
                
                New Hampshire (7-4)
                @ (1) Northern Iowa (11-0)
                
                James Madison (8-3)
                @ Appalachian St. (9-2)
                
                Villanova (7-4)
                @ Eastern Kentucky (9-2)
                
                Eastern Washington (8-3)
                @ (4) McNeese St. (11-0)
                
                Fordham (8-3)
                @ (3) Massachusetts (9-2)
                
                Delaware St. (10-1)
                @ Delaware (8-3)
                
                Southern Illinois (10-1)
                @ Montana (11-0)
                
                Wofford (8-3)
                @ (2) Richmond (9-2)

• Bids by conference:
  
  6 - CAA
  2 - Big Sky, Gateway, SoCon
  1 - Southland, OVC, Patriot, MEAC

Playoff Power Rankings
Here you can see where your team stands, and where they may move based on this week's results.
(Bold - Denotes Auto-Bid)
(15. Team - Denotes At-Large cutoff line)
(* - Cannot get 7 DI wins)

1. Northern Iowa (11-0) +17
2. Richmond (9-2) +14
3. Massachusetts (9-2) +14
4. McNeese St. (11-0) +14
5. Montana (11-0) +15
6. Delaware St. (10-1) +13
7. Eastern Kentucky (9-2) +11
8. James Madison (9-2) +11
9. Southern Illinois (10-1) +11
10. Appalachian St. (9-2) +10
11. Wofford (8-2) +8
12. Villanova (7-4) +6
13. Delaware (8-3) +8
14. New Hampshire (7-4) +5
15. Eastern Washington (8-3) +5
16. Norfolk St. (8-3) +5
17. South Carolina St. (7-4) +5
18. Eastern Illinois (8-3) +3
19. Dayton (10-1) +4
20. Hofstra (7-4) +1
21. Fordham (8-3) +1
22. Holy Cross (7-4) +2
23. Prairie View A&M (7-3) 0
24. Colgate (7-4) -1
25. Albany (8-3) -1
26. Alabama A&M (8-3) 0
27. San Diego (9-2) -1
28. Lafayette (7-4) -3

After an absolutely asinine statement like that, how do you expect anybody to give any credibility to any of the rest of your post? Or any post of yours, for that matter? I could review the FACTS from last year with you but you're clearly an idiot so, as the saying goes, never argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience. Just another "M & S" griz fan.

soul man wrote:The CAA might get 5, I doubt they get 6.

I had the same thought.

Hard to give UMass a #2 seed with two losses.

lifesapuntreturn wrote: After an absolutely asinine statement like that, how do you expect anybody to give any credibility to any of the rest of your post? Or any post of yours, for that matter? I could review the FACTS from last year with you but you're clearly an idiot so, as the saying goes, never argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience. Just another "M & S" griz fan.

I like how argue that facts will prove your point, yet you just insult me (using a tired, cliched insult) & provide absolutely no facts to support that point. Next time, use rationality rather than blind emotional love for team & hatred for the Griz.

There were about 5 other teams with clearly better credentials than the Bobcats last year, including Portland. Montana State only had 7 DI wins last year because they lost to their DII opponent. I created a bracket using essentially the same system & Montana State was the 6th. team left out. Of teams that didn't make it, I had Portland State, Wofford, San Diego, Northern Iowa, Monmouth, & South Carolina State all ahead of the Bobcats. Using the +/-, last year I had Montana State at a 0. For the others: Portland State +7, Northern Iowa +4, San Diego +4, Wofford +5, Monmouth +2, SC State 0.

MrTitleist wrote:Hard to give UMass a #2 seed with two losses.

I didn't, I gave them the #3 seed. I gave Richmond the #2 seed.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

lifesapuntreturn wrote: After an absolutely asinine statement like that, how do you expect anybody to give any credibility to any of the rest of your post? Or any post of yours, for that matter? I could review the FACTS from last year with you but you're clearly an idiot so, as the saying goes, never argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience. Just another "M & S" griz fan.

I like how argue that facts will prove your point, yet you just insult me (using a tired, cliched insult) & provide absolutely no facts to support that point. Next time, use rationality rather than blind emotional love for team & hatred for the Griz.

There were about 5 other teams with clearly better credentials than the Bobcats last year, including Portland. Montana State only had 7 DI wins last year because they lost to their DII opponent. I created a bracket using essentially the same system & Montana State was the 6th. team left out. Of teams that didn't make it, I had Portland State, Wofford, San Diego, Northern Iowa, Monmouth, & South Carolina State all ahead of the Bobcats. Using the +/-, last year I had Montana State at a 0. For the others: Portland State +7, Northern Iowa +4, San Diego +4, Wofford +5, Monmouth +2, SC State 0.

If you knew anywhere near as much as you pretend to, you'd know that MSU beat PSU head to head last year. That's all the fact needed and obviously was the fact that mattered to the selection committee. Who cares about your bracketology crap? Obviously the selection committee didn't, which is all that matters. How's that for rationality?

I like how you make an absolutely asinine statement about MSU based on your hatred for the Cats, and think you can justify it with your "analysis".

Before you start your condescending lecture, take a look in the mirror.

skinny_uncle wrote:

EHH 5 CAA Teams.
2 GFC Teams....

Go Southern Illinois and Northern Iowa. Show the Nation what the true #1 conference is, even on a down year!

lifesapuntreturn wrote: If you knew anywhere near as much as you pretend to, you'd know that MSU beat PSU head to head last year. That's all the fact needed and obviously was the fact that mattered to the selection committee. Who cares about your bracketology crap? Obviously the selection committee didn't, which is all that matters. How's that for rationality?

I like how you make an absolutely asinine statement about MSU based on your hatred for the Cats, and think you can justify it with your "analysis".

Before you start your condescending lecture, take a look in the mirror.

OK, even if PSU should have been behind the Cats in your mind, how do you explain how they got in ahead of UNI, Wofford, or any of the others. Montana State obviously didn't beat them head to head, & they clearly had better credentials. Face it, you know I'm not the only one that was confused by the Bobcats getting last year. Nobody thought the Bobcats should have gotten in last year, even Bobcat fans. And, if you'd read my first bracket this year, you would know that I pick the way I think it should be, not the way I think the committee will pick. The committee always makes puzzling selections that are clearly unfair, like putting in the Bobcats last year, not putting in Wofford in 2002, putting in Bethune-Cookman over Lehigh in 2003, putting in Lehigh over Cal Poly in 2004. I'm sure there are more.

Do you have evidence of my bias against Montana State, other than the fact I'm a Montana fan? Can you find any evidence of "anti-Cat bias" in any of my posts on this site. If I'm so pro-Griz & anti-Cat as you suggest, why did I rank Montana fifth & not even give them a seed; lower than most any non-Griz fan ranked them.

Who cares about your bracketology crap?

Well, most FCS fans care about their bracketology "crap". And you obviously care about my bracket picks since you read it & took the time to post a reply & obviously took great offense at something I said that dared to disagree with you.

I'd tell you to quit while you were ahead, but you never were. None of your points have any validity at all & I believe I've shown that.

skinny_uncle wrote:

I'm amazed. I spend a lot more time figuring out who should be in the field than I do figuring out the pairings/bracket. Yet I actually picked five of the first-round matchups the same as the committee did.

As for who got in, I'm not surprised Villanova was left out. However, I figured if Villanova was left out, New Hampshire (& possibly Delaware, since they lost to Nova) would be as well. I'm surprised the committee put in a 7-4 New Hampshire, but left out a 7-4 Villanova given how well the Wildcats have played lately.

Also, another note about the committee: there always seems to be notable inconsistency from year to year. In 2006, Portland State was seemingly excluded entirely because they lost to Montana State, making a head-to-head win/loss seem like the be-all & end-all. However, in 2007, Delaware gets in over Villanova even though the Hens lost to the Wildcats, making a head-to-head win seem relatively worthless.

Delaware packs the stands, Nova doesn't.. economics.

I'd like to know how you guys are justifying keeping UM out of the seeds, other than ECB. SOS doesn't work, because UM was at or near the top the entire season. If SOS were to enter into it, that would have been seen before the season, and UM would have been much lower. They took care of business with what was placed before them.

As it stands, ESPN is reporting that UM DID, in fact, get a seed. The Griz are #3 behind McNeese and the Warners. SIU sneaks in at #4.

Incidentally, while just about EVERYONE had Delaware finally being forced to play Del St, who the cr@p could have foreseen Wofford in WA-Griz? Now, THAT'll be a game, I can assure you. Griz still win, but it's going to be a good game nonetheless.

SuperHornet wrote:I'd like to know how you guys are justifying keeping UM out of the seeds, other than ECB. SOS doesn't work, because UM was at or near the top the entire season. If SOS were to enter into it, that would have been seen before the season, and UM would have been much lower. They took care of business with what was placed before them.

As it stands, ESPN is reporting that UM DID, in fact, get a seed. The Griz are #3 behind McNeese and the Warners. SIU sneaks in at #4.

Incidentally, while just about EVERYONE had Delaware finally being forced to play Del St, who the cr@p could have foreseen Wofford in WA-Griz? Now, THAT'll be a game, I can assure you. Griz still win, but it's going to be a good game nonetheless.

The main reason I didn't give the Griz a seed is because they didn't have an all-DI schedule (and no FBS opponent either). The selection committee criteria specifically mentions favoring teams with all-DI schedules. Of the other seed candidates, only McNeese did not have an all-DI schedule. They did however play an FBS team (& won) and had a noticeably better GPI than Montana. I actually thought Montana & UMass should have received the top 2 seeds last year ahead of Appalachian. The Griz & Minutemen had all-DI schedules while the Mountaineers did not.

You mention strength of schedule not working, but how can you possibly say strength of schedule isn't important? The Griz were at or near the top of the polls the whole season, but the committee isn't supposed to use the top-25 to determine the playoffs.

My system isn't so much based on how "good" a team is. That's a more subjective & intangible determination better suited for the top-25 polls. Mine is a more mathematical approach (though not as blindly mathematical as the computers) that determines how good a team's wins are, & how bad their losses are.

Obviously as a Griz fan, I'm not bitter that the committee gave Montana the #3 seed. And I still would have considered UM my favorite to win it all—other than Northern Iowa—even if they hadn't gotten a seed. Looking at the current bracket, I believe Montana will end up playing UNI in the title game.

lifesapuntreturn wrote:

Mvemjsunpx wrote:Here is the bracket, a little late at night but, since the bracket show is later than usual, it should be soon enough for some discussion tomorrow morning/afternoon. UMass won the CAA auto-bid on a coin flip, though it doesn't really matter since both teams are definitely in the field. There are things I expect to be different in the real bracket tomorrow. Namely, I'm pretty sure Montana will get a seed—possibly #2—though I have them ranked fifth. There are only 4 seed spots, but I believe 6 teams have seed-worthy credentials, though I'd certainly be surprised if Delaware State got a seed (& I didn't give them one this week). I also have two 4-loss teams in the field, though you might see one of them excluded in the real bracket for 8-3 Eastern Illinois or Norfolk State. Given the depth of playoff candidates, I don't think there will be any egregious snubs. There just aren't enough spots to go around. I'm afraid Villanova might get "Portlanded" this year, but if they are, they won't be replaced by a clearly unworthy team like what Montana State was last year.
Here are my bracket's disclaimers:

1. These are the teams I think should be in the field & how they should be seeded, not necessarily who I think the committee will choose.
2. I use a points system to determine playoff credentials (that's what the "+#" & "-#" next to the teams in the power rankings are). You can find an explanation of my system in this thread: http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... ?f=4&t=877.

• Auto-Bid Rankings
  
  1. Northern Iowa (11-0)
  2. Massachusetts (9-2)
  3. McNeese St. (11-0)
  4. Montana (11-0)
  5. Delaware St. (10-1)
  6. Eastern Kentucky (9-2)
  7. Wofford (8-3)
  8. Fordham (8-3)
  
  
  At-Large Rankings
  
  1. Richmond (9-2)
  2. James Madison (8-3)
  3. Southern Illinois (10-1)
  4. Appalachian St. (9-2)
  5. Villanova (7-4)
  6. Delaware (8-3)
  7. New Hampshire (7-4)
  8. Eastern Washington (8-3)

• • • • • • • • Bracket
                
                
                New Hampshire (7-4)
                @ (1) Northern Iowa (11-0)
                
                James Madison (8-3)
                @ Appalachian St. (9-2)
                
                Villanova (7-4)
                @ Eastern Kentucky (9-2)
                
                Eastern Washington (8-3)
                @ (4) McNeese St. (11-0)
                
                Fordham (8-3)
                @ (3) Massachusetts (9-2)
                
                Delaware St. (10-1)
                @ Delaware (8-3)
                
                Southern Illinois (10-1)
                @ Montana (11-0)
                
                Wofford (8-3)
                @ (2) Richmond (9-2)

• Bids by conference:
  
  6 - CAA
  2 - Big Sky, Gateway, SoCon
  1 - Southland, OVC, Patriot, MEAC

Playoff Power Rankings
Here you can see where your team stands, and where they may move based on this week's results.
(Bold - Denotes Auto-Bid)
(15. Team - Denotes At-Large cutoff line)
(* - Cannot get 7 DI wins)

1. Northern Iowa (11-0) +17
2. Richmond (9-2) +14
3. Massachusetts (9-2) +14
4. McNeese St. (11-0) +14
5. Montana (11-0) +15
6. Delaware St. (10-1) +13
7. Eastern Kentucky (9-2) +11
8. James Madison (9-2) +11
9. Southern Illinois (10-1) +11
10. Appalachian St. (9-2) +10
11. Wofford (8-2) +8
12. Villanova (7-4) +6
13. Delaware (8-3) +8
14. New Hampshire (7-4) +5
15. Eastern Washington (8-3) +5
16. Norfolk St. (8-3) +5
17. South Carolina St. (7-4) +5
18. Eastern Illinois (8-3) +3
19. Dayton (10-1) +4
20. Hofstra (7-4) +1
21. Fordham (8-3) +1
22. Holy Cross (7-4) +2
23. Prairie View A&M (7-3) 0
24. Colgate (7-4) -1
25. Albany (8-3) -1
26. Alabama A&M (8-3) 0
27. San Diego (9-2) -1
28. Lafayette (7-4) -3

After an absolutely asinine statement like that, how do you expect anybody to give any credibility to any of the rest of your post? Or any post of yours, for that matter? I could review the FACTS from last year with you but you're clearly an idiot so, as the saying goes, never argue with an idiot because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with their experience. Just another "M & S" griz fan.

Mvemjsunpx wrote:

lifesapuntreturn wrote: If you knew anywhere near as much as you pretend to, you'd know that MSU beat PSU head to head last year. That's all the fact needed and obviously was the fact that mattered to the selection committee. Who cares about your bracketology crap? Obviously the selection committee didn't, which is all that matters. How's that for rationality?

I like how you make an absolutely asinine statement about MSU based on your hatred for the Cats, and think you can justify it with your "analysis".

Before you start your condescending lecture, take a look in the mirror.

OK, even if PSU should have been behind the Cats in your mind, how do you explain how they got in ahead of UNI, Wofford, or any of the others. Montana State obviously didn't beat them head to head, & they clearly had better credentials. Face it, you know I'm not the only one that was confused by the Bobcats getting last year. Nobody thought the Bobcats should have gotten in last year, even Bobcat fans. And, if you'd read my first bracket this year, you would know that I pick the way I think it should be, not the way I think the committee will pick. The committee always makes puzzling selections that are clearly unfair, like putting in the Bobcats last year, not putting in Wofford in 2002, putting in Bethune-Cookman over Lehigh in 2003, putting in Lehigh over Cal Poly in 2004. I'm sure there are more.

Do you have evidence of my bias against Montana State, other than the fact I'm a Montana fan? Can you find any evidence of "anti-Cat bias" in any of my posts on this site. If I'm so pro-Griz & anti-Cat as you suggest, why did I rank Montana fifth & not even give them a seed; lower than most any non-Griz fan ranked them.

Who cares about your bracketology crap?

Well, most FCS fans care about their bracketology "crap". And you obviously care about my bracket picks since you read it & took the time to post a reply & obviously took great offense at something I said that dared to disagree with you.

I'd tell you to quit while you were ahead, but you never were. None of your points have any validity at all & I believe I've shown that.

You're double talking in triplicate now, thinking that's going to bail you out of this - it isn't. Go back and read your first post I quoted and emphasized - you reference Villanova by referring to "Portlanded" (it's Portland STATE, by the way - the University of Portland doesn't even have a football team) and Montana State and last year's selections. An asisnine statement that I challenged you on. You claim I insulted you - . You fired the first insult, I fired back. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

The evidence of your anti-Cat bias is extremely evident in the above referenced emphasized quote from your first post. You take a year old FACT (you really hate that word, I know) and try to spin it to fit your misguided THEORY. And it just happens to involve the Cats. What a coincidence. Since you've now decided to run from me with your tail between your legs regarding the MSU comment by now trying to drag other schools into the discussion, why weren't those other schools (UNI, Wofford, Lehigh, Cal Poly) that you now mention actually mentioned in your initial post instead of just MSU? Another coincidence, right?
Then, you go back to the Cats and claim you're not the only one "confused" by the Cats getting in last year so now you're not only trying to muddy the waters with other schools but trying to drag "others" into this, including other Cat fans. Nice try, doesn't fly. Your comment about the Cats getting in last year was all about the fact you can't stand that the Cats got in last year and had nothing else to do with any of the other schools and you know it. It was a cheap shot that I called you on - stop denying it and come clean.

And no, although this will be a blow to your ego, I don't read your bracketology crap. I started reading the first one I saw earlier this year, got part way through and laughed at it. What I did with your post is scan it, in this case your narrative at the end of your post, because that's where conclusions/commentary appears, which is why I saw your comment about the Cats and responded to it. Sorry, but your attempt to be the next Sagarin isn't working.

You're busted so just admit it, quit while you're behind (and fading fast) and move on. You let your anti-Cat bias show blatantly and I called you on it and will continue to do so as time allows. I've made my points about your drivel in regard to the Cats and really have no inclination to continue wasting my time with you. But, if necessary, from time to time in order to re-iterate to you your Bobcat crap isn't going to fly with me, then I'll do so. Your call.

I thought Villanove might get in ahead of UNH, but they won't last long anyhow. UNI has a better D and the Dreaded Dome in their favor and should take them out of the field in the first round.

lifesapuntreturn wrote: You're double talking in triplicate now, thinking that's going to bail you out of this - it isn't. Go back and read your first post I quoted and emphasized - you reference Villanova by referring to "Portlanded" (it's Portland STATE, by the way - the University of Portland doesn't even have a football team) and Montana State and last year's selections. An asisnine statement that I challenged you on. You claim I insulted you - . You fired the first insult, I fired back. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

The evidence of your anti-Cat bias is extremely evident in the above referenced emphasized quote from your first post. You take a year old FACT (you really hate that word, I know) and try to spin it to fit your misguided THEORY. And it just happens to involve the Cats. What a coincidence. Since you've now decided to run from me with your tail between your legs regarding the MSU comment by now trying to drag other schools into the discussion, why weren't those other schools (UNI, Wofford, Lehigh, Cal Poly) that you now mention actually mentioned in your initial post instead of just MSU? Another coincidence, right?
Then, you go back to the Cats and claim you're not the only one "confused" by the Cats getting in last year so now you're not only trying to muddy the waters with other schools but trying to drag "others" into this, including other Cat fans. Nice try, doesn't fly. Your comment about the Cats getting in last year was all about the fact you can't stand that the Cats got in last year and had nothing else to do with any of the other schools and you know it. It was a cheap shot that I called you on - stop denying it and come clean.

And no, although this will be a blow to your ego, I don't read your bracketology crap. I started reading the first one I saw earlier this year, got part way through and laughed at it. What I did with your post is scan it, in this case your narrative at the end of your post, because that's where conclusions/commentary appears, which is why I saw your comment about the Cats and responded to it. Sorry, but your attempt to be the next Sagarin isn't working.

You're busted so just admit it, quit while you're behind (and fading fast) and move on. You let your anti-Cat bias show blatantly and I called you on it and will continue to do so as time allows. I've made my points about your drivel in regard to the Cats and really have no inclination to continue wasting my time with you. But, if necessary, from time to time in order to re-iterate to you your Bobcat crap isn't going to fly with me, then I'll do so. Your call.

If you'd actually bothered to read my first post, you'd have realized that Montana State was never the point. I was slamming the committee for making an inexplicable decision, not slamming the Bobcats. I used Portland State as example (I used "Portlanded" because it's simpler than "PortlandStated" & because everyone knows Portland U doesn't have a football team so it wasn't necessary to make that distinction) to compare to Villanova because they were also a 7-4 team with an extremely difficult schedule. Portland went 6-2 against FCS last year plus they had an FBS win, making them 7-2. Villanova went 7-3 against FCS with a win over Delaware & playing in the insanely tough CAA. Montana State was the team that got in instead last year (7-4 including an FBS win & a DII loss; plus a 45-0 loss to UC Davis in Bozeman), but I would have criticized the committee had they let in someone with better credentials like Wofford or Northern Iowa in place of the Vikings.

I read BobcatNation from time-to-time, and I know that most Bobcat fans on that board thought their season was definitely over after the 13-7 loss to Montana. A few fans thought Montana State would get selected, but many others chastized them for being unrealistic.

I still see you haven't provided any evidence of anti-Cat bias other than hearsay, supposition, & conjecture. You apparently think your team is above criticism & nobody should dare say anything even indirectly negative about them. Until you realize that the world does not revolve around Montana State football, I see no need to respond to you after this post.

Oh, and three things about message board usage:

1. This is not a smack forum, stop trying to turn it into one.
2. You don't need to quote every single previous quoted post in a long string of quotes that takes up multiple pages. All you need to do is delete everything other than the last post you're quoting.
3. Excessive use of smileys does not make you look smarter.