Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
Oh, I see you are taking the D1B approach and taking the one team that wins it all as being the good team. Good logic hen cuz it really can't go wrong for you. Doesn't change the fact that you got owned by kalm in his statement. That good enough for me.
So cute when you guys stick together against all odds (and facts).
So cute when you cling to facts and can't see the freight train your way like EWU. Keep an eye on the rear vies mirror hen and remember how much you thought you knew.
89Hen wrote:
So cute when you guys stick together against all odds (and facts).
So cute when you cling to facts and can't see the freight train your way like EWU. Keep an eye on the rear vies mirror hen and remember how much you thought you knew.
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
Exactly. Same shit every time. They don't worry about looking at the fact that there are teams like this on the edge of being able to do what a team like EWU did this year. You see that's their weakness is that they pull out some overall record over the past 5 yrs. and take that as the only tool of discovery.
Some real fucking thinkers out that way.
We've heard SUU was on the verge the last three years. If you keep saying it, eventually you may be right.
Yeah and they keep making progress don't they? They may fall back...it's a possibility. The other one is that they keep playing tougher schedules than you guys and keep having a loss or two extra on the record. Does not change the fact that are in fact a good team which is what you are arguing against. You have your head up your ass and there's nothing new there.
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
So cute when you cling to facts and can't see the freight train your way like EWU. Keep an eye on the rear vies mirror hen and remember how much you thought you knew.
I just found it humerous...the whole Weber / Cal Poly thing....I'm just thankful EWU won it this year as they are the only reason I pushed Big Sky into top tier status...a conference can't be top tier unless they've had multiple NC winners within a respectable time frame IMO....saves me a lot of arguing with BSC fans who I like on this site..
“It’s like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.” - The Buffalo Beast commenting on Glenn Beck
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
Oh, I see you are taking the D1B approach and taking the one team that wins it all as being the good team. Good logic hen cuz it really can't go wrong for you. Doesn't change the fact that you got owned by kalm in his statement. That good enough for me.
So cute when you guys stick together against all odds (and facts).
Against all odds... isn't that like being down 19-0 late in the 3rd to a team from the CAA?
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Yeah and they keep making progress don't they?
I don't see much difference between 2009 and 2010.
Lost to: EWU, NAU, Dixie State and two I-A's both years
Beat: San Diego, Davis and UND both years
Improved on beating CP, but declined losing to TxSt.
Provided San Jose State with their only win this year.
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
How is that a "doh" Appa?
I just found it humerous...the whole Weber / Cal Poly thing....I'm just thankful EWU won it this year as they are the only reason I pushed Big Sky into top tier status...a conference can't be top tier unless they've had multiple NC winners within a respectable time frame IMO....saves me a lot of arguing with BSC fans who I like on this site..
That's one thing I just never understood though. Since I respect ya and know you'll just let me in on the thinking...what does it matter that there is more than one?
I mean seriously the best team from any conference is the best team from that conference no matter if the name on the jersey changes or not right? Why would it have an effect on how good that particular conference is considered?
It doesn't have a thing to do with whether the 2nd, 3rd, and so forth are worse than the parallel level of the SoCon, or the MVFC, or the CAA just because those teams are shuffling around does it?
When the Griz are making runs in the playoffs or even have won NC's they have had much tougher games in conference that they have in most playoff games so I don't see the logic on the top spot not changing for a period of time being the factor. That's a complete honest question and not trying to stir up some other debate.
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
So cute when you cling to facts and can't see the freight train your way like EWU. Keep an eye on the rear vies mirror hen and remember how much you thought you knew.
Like I said... 11 of 12 for me. 1 of 12 for you.
Wait, so every year that a team doesn't win the NC, they're just not that good? Guess that makes UD 1 for 12 in the same time span huh?
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Yeah and they keep making progress don't they?
I don't see much difference between 2009 and 2010.
Lost to: EWU, NAU, Dixie State and two I-A's both years
Beat: San Diego, Davis and UND both years
Improved on beating CP, but declined losing to TxSt.
Provided San Jose State with their only win this year.
Am I missing something?
Yeah, you're missing that they have a future NFL caliber QB (transfer from BYU), and have the 9th ranked offense in FCS. Glad I could open your eyes buddy!
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Yeah and they keep making progress don't they?
I don't see much difference between 2009 and 2010.
Lost to: EWU, NAU, Dixie State and two I-A's both years
Beat: San Diego, Davis and UND both years
Improved on beating CP, but declined losing to TxSt.
Provided San Jose State with their only win this year.
Am I missing something?
Yes you are. You can't see them getting better. You don't watch what they are doing and that they are pressing some very good teams. You are much like Matt Damon in that movie...you can tell me all about the past scores and you can cling to whatever stats you want but you don't have any experience with actually seeing it.
As I said they may fall back off but the team I saw play the last couple of year is pretty decent but you don't know that cuz you haven't seen it and don't trust those of us that have to be giving you proper information. That's cool.
Appaholic wrote:
I just found it humerous...the whole Weber / Cal Poly thing....I'm just thankful EWU won it this year as they are the only reason I pushed Big Sky into top tier status...a conference can't be top tier unless they've had multiple NC winners within a respectable time frame IMO....saves me a lot of arguing with BSC fans who I like on this site..
That's one thing I just never understood though. Since I respect ya and know you'll just let me in on the thinking...what does it matter that there is more than one?
I mean seriously the best team from any conference is the best team from that conference no matter if the name on the jersey changes or not right? Why would it have an effect on how good that particular conference is considered?
It doesn't have a thing to do with whether the 2nd, 3rd, and so forth are worse than the parallel level of the SoCon, or the MVFC, or the CAA just because those teams are shuffling around does it?
When the Griz are making runs in the playoffs or even have won NC's they have had much tougher games in conference that they have in most playoff games so I don't see the logic on the top spot not changing for a period of time being the factor. That's a complete honest question and not trying to stir up some other debate.
No, it's a fair question & there's obviously no right answer, just my opinion based upon my own perception. I think Montana's dominance of your conference over such an extended period hurt the perception on the BSC nationally. Not because Montana has dominated the conference, but because no other team from the BSC made any noise in the playoffs besides Montana. I think it helps a conferences strength perception to have multiple teams make noise in the playoffs. While an App team won the NC's for the SoCon in last 10 yrs, we've had Furman & Ga South in the semis & had Wofford knock off a seeded BSC champ on the road in the opening round. Now Montana also won multiple NC's during the same time frame, but the only other team from the BSC to make any noise was EWU knocking off a seeded McNeese on the road. So EWU's winning a title this year legitimizes the BSC IMO as a consistent top tier conf. But, like i said that's just the perspective of an ECB hillbilly
“It’s like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.” - The Buffalo Beast commenting on Glenn Beck
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
That's one thing I just never understood though. Since I respect ya and know you'll just let me in on the thinking...what does it matter that there is more than one?
I mean seriously the best team from any conference is the best team from that conference no matter if the name on the jersey changes or not right? Why would it have an effect on how good that particular conference is considered?
It doesn't have a thing to do with whether the 2nd, 3rd, and so forth are worse than the parallel level of the SoCon, or the MVFC, or the CAA just because those teams are shuffling around does it?
When the Griz are making runs in the playoffs or even have won NC's they have had much tougher games in conference that they have in most playoff games so I don't see the logic on the top spot not changing for a period of time being the factor. That's a complete honest question and not trying to stir up some other debate.
No, it's a fair question & there's obviously no right answer, just my opinion based upon my own perception. I think Montana's dominance of your conference over such an extended period hurt the perception on the BSC nationally. Not because Montana has dominated the conference, but because no other team from the BSC made any noise in the playoffs besides Montana. I think it helps a conferences strength perception to have multiple teams make noise in the playoffs. While an App team won the NC's for the SoCon in last 10 yrs, we've had Furman & Ga South in the semis & had Wofford knock off a seeded BSC champ on the road in the opening round. Now Montana also won multiple NC's during the same time frame, but the only other team from the BSC to make any noise was EWU knocking off a seeded McNeese on the road. So EWU's winning a title this year legitimizes the BSC IMO as a consistent top tier conf. But, like i said that's just the perspective of an ECB hillbilly
So I guess these don't count...
2003 NAU over McNeese on the road
2004 EWU over SIU on the road
2006 MSU over Furman
2008 WSU over Cal Poly on the road
There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. - Coach Finstock
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
That's one thing I just never understood though. Since I respect ya and know you'll just let me in on the thinking...what does it matter that there is more than one?
I mean seriously the best team from any conference is the best team from that conference no matter if the name on the jersey changes or not right? Why would it have an effect on how good that particular conference is considered?
It doesn't have a thing to do with whether the 2nd, 3rd, and so forth are worse than the parallel level of the SoCon, or the MVFC, or the CAA just because those teams are shuffling around does it?
When the Griz are making runs in the playoffs or even have won NC's they have had much tougher games in conference that they have in most playoff games so I don't see the logic on the top spot not changing for a period of time being the factor. That's a complete honest question and not trying to stir up some other debate.
No, it's a fair question & there's obviously no right answer, just my opinion based upon my own perception. I think Montana's dominance of your conference over such an extended period hurt the perception on the BSC nationally. Not because Montana has dominated the conference, but because no other team from the BSC made any noise in the playoffs besides Montana. I think it helps a conferences strength perception to have multiple teams make noise in the playoffs. While an App team won the NC's for the SoCon in last 10 yrs, we've had Furman & Ga South in the semis & had Wofford knock off a seeded BSC champ on the road in the opening round. Now Montana also won multiple NC's during the same time frame, but the only other team from the BSC to make any noise was EWU knocking off a seeded McNeese on the road. So EWU's winning a title this year legitimizes the BSC IMO as a consistent top tier conf. But, like i said that's just the perspective of an ECB hillbilly
I get that. It just seems pretty unlikely that more than one BSC team will be in a position to make any sort of run until we can get them on opposite sides of the bracket cuz there is normally only gonna be two (may change now) so our chances at that are very slim with the way the it is set up. Not saying we haven't had opportunities but the BSC doesn't get an opportunity year in and year out.
Appaholic wrote:
No, it's a fair question & there's obviously no right answer, just my opinion based upon my own perception. I think Montana's dominance of your conference over such an extended period hurt the perception on the BSC nationally. Not because Montana has dominated the conference, but because no other team from the BSC made any noise in the playoffs besides Montana. I think it helps a conferences strength perception to have multiple teams make noise in the playoffs. While an App team won the NC's for the SoCon in last 10 yrs, we've had Furman & Ga South in the semis & had Wofford knock off a seeded BSC champ on the road in the opening round. Now Montana also won multiple NC's during the same time frame, but the only other team from the BSC to make any noise was EWU knocking off a seeded McNeese on the road. So EWU's winning a title this year legitimizes the BSC IMO as a consistent top tier conf. But, like i said that's just the perspective of an ECB hillbilly
I get that. It just seems pretty unlikely that more than one BSC team will be in a position to make any sort of run until we can get them on opposite sides of the bracket cuz there is normally only gonna be two (may change now) so our chances at that are very slim with the way the it is set up. Not saying we haven't had opportunities but the BSC doesn't get an opportunity year in and year out.
“It’s like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.” - The Buffalo Beast commenting on Glenn Beck
Appaholic wrote:
No, it's a fair question & there's obviously no right answer, just my opinion based upon my own perception. I think Montana's dominance of your conference over such an extended period hurt the perception on the BSC nationally. Not because Montana has dominated the conference, but because no other team from the BSC made any noise in the playoffs besides Montana. I think it helps a conferences strength perception to have multiple teams make noise in the playoffs. While an App team won the NC's for the SoCon in last 10 yrs, we've had Furman & Ga South in the semis & had Wofford knock off a seeded BSC champ on the road in the opening round. Now Montana also won multiple NC's during the same time frame, but the only other team from the BSC to make any noise was EWU knocking off a seeded McNeese on the road. So EWU's winning a title this year legitimizes the BSC IMO as a consistent top tier conf. But, like i said that's just the perspective of an ECB hillbilly
I get that. It just seems pretty unlikely that more than one BSC team will be in a position to make any sort of run until we can get them on opposite sides of the bracket cuz there is normally only gonna be two (may change now) so our chances at that are very slim with the way the it is set up. Not saying we haven't had opportunities but the BSC doesn't get an opportunity year in and year out.
The counter to that argument, though, is that it's not really come up as a problem. 89 can correct me, but I think there's only been two years over the past 10 or so where two Big Sky teams were going to be matched up with each other and there's only been one instance in the past decade where a Big Sky team has beaten another Big Sky team in the playoffs (Montana/Weber in '08). Being paired up against conference mates has not been a significant road block.
Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
I get that. It just seems pretty unlikely that more than one BSC team will be in a position to make any sort of run until we can get them on opposite sides of the bracket cuz there is normally only gonna be two (may change now) so our chances at that are very slim with the way the it is set up. Not saying we haven't had opportunities but the BSC doesn't get an opportunity year in and year out.
The counter to that argument, though, is that it's not really come up as a problem. 89 can correct me, but I think there's only been two years over the past 10 or so where two Big Sky teams were going to be matched up with each other and there's only been one instance in the past decade where a Big Sky team has beaten another Big Sky team in the playoffs (Montana/Weber in '08). Being paired up against conference mates has not been a significant road block.
I see your saying the same thing I did. I also said we normally get one or two so it doesn't happen very often and when it does once in a while we play each other. It hasn't happened that often but even if it did the run would end normally before the semi's came around. When you have less it's tougher to get an equal amount as far.
Appaholic wrote:
No, it's a fair question & there's obviously no right answer, just my opinion based upon my own perception. I think Montana's dominance of your conference over such an extended period hurt the perception on the BSC nationally. Not because Montana has dominated the conference, but because no other team from the BSC made any noise in the playoffs besides Montana. I think it helps a conferences strength perception to have multiple teams make noise in the playoffs. While an App team won the NC's for the SoCon in last 10 yrs, we've had Furman & Ga South in the semis & had Wofford knock off a seeded BSC champ on the road in the opening round. Now Montana also won multiple NC's during the same time frame, but the only other team from the BSC to make any noise was EWU knocking off a seeded McNeese on the road. So EWU's winning a title this year legitimizes the BSC IMO as a consistent top tier conf. But, like i said that's just the perspective of an ECB hillbilly
So I guess these don't count...
2003 NAU over McNeese on the road
2004 EWU over SIU on the road
2006 MSU over Furman
2008 WSU over Cal Poly on the road
Did any of those teams make it as far as the semis or finals? That's my point. Some of those games probably weren't even telvised outside of their regions. I don't mean this as a knock, just a perception from a fellow fan of FCS football. I keep up with FCS & none of those victory's ring a bell. But I do know UMass beat Montana in WaGriz to go to the finals & Montana beat JMU In Bridgeforth to go to the finals. But no one else in the conference has made it that far until this year. That's why EWU's win is good for the conference as it helps justify the conference's standing within FCS. No smack intended...
“It’s like someone found a manic, doom-prophesying hobo in a sandwich board, shaved him, shot him full of Zoloft and gave him a show.” - The Buffalo Beast commenting on Glenn Beck
So cute when you guys stick together against all odds (and facts).
