ONLY in the bsc...

[get'em_griz]

what difference does it make if its a "BSC game" or non-BSC

What? Please tell me you are trolling and not actually that dumb

What effect does it have on you or um football if 2 other bsc teams decide to have a non-conference game with each other? Why should it be prohibited? Maybe you dont like it because it seems unorthodox, but I don't get what is wrong with it. the Cats played EWU in 14' & 15' in non-conference games and despite losing both games I think it was a good thing for both teams.

Bud, so, Facts:
1. The schedules were set;
2. EWU had to play Idaho and UND;
3. Idaho is a BSC member;
4. UND is not a BSC member;
5. EWU-Idaho is a purported BSC "Rivalry"; and
6. Nobody cares if a BSC team plays a non-BSC game against a BSC team.

Therefore:
Maybe the game against the BSC "Rival" should count toward BSC standings instead of the game against the non-BSC "Rival" that is NOT a BSC member.

In simpler terms:
COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME, AND DON'T COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE NON-CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME.

Does this make sense to anyone else? Or am I just off the rails, here?

It makes sense. It'd be easy to do. Let's look at EWU's schedule with Idaho and UND:

Current format:
9.21 @ Idaho -- non-conference game
9.28 vs UND -- *conference game

Easy Fixed Format:
9.21 @ Idaho -- *conference game
9.28 vs UND -- *non-conference game

Pretty much just switching the type of game that it is. No different than playing a non-conference matchup in the middle of the season. This would work for any other Big Sky team who plays UND and also played a Big Sky program in non-conference. But for teams who do play UND but didn't have a non-conference matchup with another Big Sky program, I guess it is what it is.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

And I am the one grasping?? There's more tap dancing here than in all the Fred Astaire movies added together!

Look, the bottom line is that a bsc team played a league member in a non-league game. They then play non-bsc team as a conference game. If you don't find that remarkably ridiculous, I cannot help you.

Yes you are.

And honestly, I find people making mountains out of molehills for no reason more ridiculous than two Big Sky teams playing a non conf series against each other.

Weber played Cal Poly in a non conf game and will also play North Dakota in a conference game that only counts as such for Weber and you dont see me carrying on about it.

It's not about the non-conference games against conference teams so much as it's about conference games against non-conference teams that not every team in the conference plays. I'm not sure how else to explain it. I'm sorry you don't seem able to see the ridiculousness. I really am.

Isnt any less ridiculous than Montana playing Eastern and Weber not playing them. Is it dumb, yeah it is but it's also not as big a deal as a select few here try to portray it as. The conference is unbalanced and there's no reason for divisions without a conf championship. So unless the conference splits, or some teams leave its just gonna remain that way. My advice, accept it and move on.

As for UND, North Dakota really screwed the Big Sky with their move, in my opinion this is a suitable alternative for the ONLY TWO YEARS ITS EVEN A THING to make up to the teams they were screwing out of conf games.

Dont worry next season UND will be in the Mo Valley and this issue (which isnt even that big of an issue) will be over.

So, UND "screwed" teams out of conference games, but those teams had non-conference games against conference teams on schedule. Why wouldn't the BSC just make the latter games conference games? A fucking alien who landed on Earth seven minutes ago would understand that a game between conference members should count toward conference standings before an OOC game.

 

[bgbigdog]

Um...

 

[CDAGRIZ]

What? Please tell me you are trolling and not actually that dumb

What effect does it have on you or um football if 2 other bsc teams decide to have a non-conference game with each other? Why should it be prohibited? Maybe you dont like it because it seems unorthodox, but I don't get what is wrong with it. the Cats played EWU in 14' & 15' in non-conference games and despite losing both games I think it was a good thing for both teams.

Bud, so, Facts:
1. The schedules were set;
2. EWU had to play Idaho and UND;
3. Idaho is a BSC member;
4. UND is not a BSC member;
5. EWU-Idaho is a purported BSC "Rivalry"; and
6. Nobody cares if a BSC team plays a non-BSC game against a BSC team.

Therefore:
Maybe the game against the BSC "Rival" should count toward BSC standings instead of the game against the non-BSC "Rival" that is NOT a BSC member.

In simpler terms:
COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME, AND DON'T COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE NON-CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME.

Does this make sense to anyone else? Or am I just off the rails, here?

It makes sense. It'd be easy to do. Let's look at EWU's schedule with Idaho and UND:

Current format:
9.21 @ Idaho -- non-conference game
9.28 vs UND -- *conference game

Easy Fixed Format:
9.21 @ Idaho -- *conference game
9.28 vs UND -- *non-conference game

We couldn't do that, because the schedules were set, and UND "screwed" the conference, and everyone was behind the 8-ball, and nothing could be done about it, and teams play OOC games against conference teams all the time, and it's only for this year.
Those are the actual arguments. For real.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Um...

Understood. Say no more.
I'll take a lap.

 

[The.Real.2506]

what difference does it make if its a "BSC game" or non-BSC

What? Please tell me you are trolling and not actually that dumb

What effect does it have on you or um football if 2 other bsc teams decide to have a non-conference game with each other? Why should it be prohibited? Maybe you dont like it because it seems unorthodox, but I don't get what is wrong with it. the Cats played EWU in 14' & 15' in non-conference games and despite losing both games I think it was a good thing for both teams.

Bud, so, Facts:
1. The schedules were set;
2. EWU had to play Idaho and UND;
3. Idaho is a BSC member;
4. UND is not a BSC member;
5. EWU-Idaho is a purported BSC "Rivalry"; and
6. Nobody cares if a BSC team plays a non-BSC game against a BSC team.

Therefore:
Maybe the game against the BSC "Rival" should count toward BSC standings instead of the game against the non-BSC "Rival" that is NOT a BSC member.

In simpler terms:
COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME, AND DON'T COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE NON-CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME.

Does this make sense to anyone else? Or am I just off the rails, here?

Why would anybody want a non-conference game to count in conference? EWU and ISU would have an extra conference game.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

What? Please tell me you are trolling and not actually that dumb

What effect does it have on you or um football if 2 other bsc teams decide to have a non-conference game with each other? Why should it be prohibited? Maybe you dont like it because it seems unorthodox, but I don't get what is wrong with it. the Cats played EWU in 14' & 15' in non-conference games and despite losing both games I think it was a good thing for both teams.

Bud, so, Facts:
1. The schedules were set;
2. EWU had to play Idaho and UND;
3. Idaho is a BSC member;
4. UND is not a BSC member;
5. EWU-Idaho is a purported BSC "Rivalry"; and
6. Nobody cares if a BSC team plays a non-BSC game against a BSC team.

Therefore:
Maybe the game against the BSC "Rival" should count toward BSC standings instead of the game against the non-BSC "Rival" that is NOT a BSC member.

In simpler terms:
COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME, AND DON'T COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE NON-CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME.

Does this make sense to anyone else? Or am I just off the rails, here?

Why would anybody want a non-conference game to count in conference?

You mean like EWU versus UND?

 

[The.Real.2506]

What effect does it have on you or um football if 2 other bsc teams decide to have a non-conference game with each other? Why should it be prohibited? Maybe you dont like it because it seems unorthodox, but I don't get what is wrong with it. the Cats played EWU in 14' & 15' in non-conference games and despite losing both games I think it was a good thing for both teams.

Bud, so, Facts:
1. The schedules were set;
2. EWU had to play Idaho and UND;
3. Idaho is a BSC member;
4. UND is not a BSC member;
5. EWU-Idaho is a purported BSC "Rivalry"; and
6. Nobody cares if a BSC team plays a non-BSC game against a BSC team.

Therefore:
Maybe the game against the BSC "Rival" should count toward BSC standings instead of the game against the non-BSC "Rival" that is NOT a BSC member.

In simpler terms:
COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME, AND DON'T COUNT THE GAME AGAINST THE NON-CONFERENCE TEAM AS A CONFERENCE GAME.

Does this make sense to anyone else? Or am I just off the rails, here?

Why would anybody want a non-conference game to count in conference?

You mean like EWU versus UND?

No, thats a conference game for BSC teams, why would you not count a conference game