• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Can't wait

ElrodGrizzly said:
The Big Sky also had 1/2 the teams in the semi-finals and 3/8ths of the quarterfinals. Tough to say that is a weak conference.
Click to expand...
One Big Sky team deserved to be in the playoffs. I don't really care if 10 Big Sky teams get in, that doesnt make the conference any better. In any given year there are 2 teams with above .500 records, 2 or 3 that try to be around .500 and 8 garbage teams that should just fold their football programs.
 
Dont Kick 2 Bergen said:
One Big Sky team deserved to be in the playoffs. I don't really care if 10 Big Sky teams get in, that doesnt make the conference any better. In any given year there are 2 teams with above .500 records, 2 or 3 that try to be around .500 and 8 garbage teams that should just fold their football programs.
Click to expand...
It is hard for me to accept the premise that a team that makes the playoffs and wins games in the playoffs didn't deserve to be there. Montana and Davis were ranked teams, of course they should be there. Are you saying the playoffs should only have been a 4 team playoff if you are going to exclude Montana and Davis?

As to your last point, that math just isn't real. No offense, but it is not. When was the last year there were only two teams with above a .500 overall record in the Big Sky? I cannot remember one.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
It is hard for me to accept the premise that a team that makes the playoffs and wins games in the playoffs didn't deserve to be there. Montana and Davis were ranked teams, of course they should be there. Are you saying the playoffs should only have been a 4 team playoff if you are going to exclude Montana and Davis?

As to your last point, that math just isn't real. No offense, but it is not. When was the last year there were only two teams with above a .500 overall record in the Big Sky? I cannot remember one.
Click to expand...
He might have meant only 2 teams with above a .500 record when conference play starts. I am not sure how often that happens.
 
5280Griz said:
He might have meant only 2 teams with above .500 when conference play starts. I am not sure how often that happens.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure what that would prove, though. This year the Cats were only .500 when the season started, and they seemed to recover pretty well, lol.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
It is hard for me to accept the premise that a team that makes the playoffs and wins games in the playoffs didn't deserve to be there. Montana and Davis were ranked teams, of course they should be there. Are you saying the playoffs should only have been a 4 team playoff if you are going to exclude Montana and Davis?

As to your last point, that math just isn't real. No offense, but it is not. When was the last year there were only two teams with above a .500 overall record in the Big Sky? I cannot remember one.
Click to expand...
The FCS is weaker than its ever been, I would be happy with a 3 team playoff because there are only 3 or 4 teams that can win a NC most years and we are not one of them
 
Dont Kick 2 Bergen said:
The FCS is weaker than its ever been, I would be happy with a 3 team playoff because there are only 3 or 4 teams that can win a NC most years and we are not one of them
Click to expand...
I mean, you're welcome to your opinion. The Griz were ranked #3.

I agree, the FCS is weaker with less top tier teams than there were in the 90's and early 2000's. That was my point to the above poster, and the Big Sky is actually a superior conference to all but one.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
I mean, you're welcome to your opinion. The Griz were ranked #3.

I agree, the FCS is weaker with less top tier teams than there were in the 90's and early 2000's. That was my point to the above poster, and the Big Sky is actually a superior conference to all but one.
Click to expand...
Key thing you are missing in your statement is that one conference that is superior to the Big Sky wasn’t in the FCS as a whole in the 90s and early 2000s.
 
ElrodGrizzly said:
It is hard for me to accept the premise that a team that makes the playoffs and wins games in the playoffs didn't deserve to be there. Montana and Davis were ranked teams, of course they should be there. Are you saying the playoffs should only have been a 4 team playoff if you are going to exclude Montana and Davis?

As to your last point, that math just isn't real. No offense, but it is not. When was the last year there were only two teams with above a .500 overall record in the Big Sky? I cannot remember one.
Click to expand...
If memory serves me right UM won the ‘82 conference championship with a .500 overall record. Idaho finished below us but with a better overall record and they were ranked higher. I have no idea about the rest of the conference team records.
 
Ursa Major said:
If memory serves me right UM won the ‘82 conference championship with a .500 overall record. Idaho finished below us but with a better overall record and they were ranked higher. I have no idea about the rest of the conference team records.
Click to expand...
Boise State, Montana State and Nevada all finished with above .500 records that year.
 
Ursa Major said:
If memory serves me right UM won the ‘82 conference championship with a .500 overall record. Idaho finished below us but with a better overall record and they were ranked higher. I have no idea about the rest of the conference team records.
Click to expand...
What an odd year for the conference. Including Idaho State having only 1 win after being the national champion the previous year.

If anyone is curious, the standings are on page 8/26

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top