ONLY in the bsc...

[EverettGriz]

CDA, are we somehow not being clear that the totally strange part is not only did two bsc teams play a non-conference game, but that also one of those very same bsc team played a non-bsc team in a game that counted as a conference game? Is there a better way we can describe this screwy scenario?

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

I have said it before but will say it again. The current BSC configuration sucks. The unbalanced scheduling sucks. Since the powers that be obviously aren't reading egriz for an answer to the problem, I don't know what else there is to say. And yet it will still be discussed ad nauseam as if we can do something about it.

What is the answer, split and have 2 conferences on the verge of collapsing when some team either gives up football or decides to try to move up. It makes complete sense for long term stability to have all of these western teams in one conference. It makes absolutely no sense to have divisions since you cant have a Conference Championship. So what is the solution that works for all the teams in the west and not just for um

It sucks but it is what it is.... Short of kicking 1/3 of the conference to the curb which we know isn't going to happen there are no easy fixes so we might as well just deal with it. I thought that's what I was saying above.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

CDA, are we somehow not being clear that the totally strange part is not only did two bsc teams play a non-conference game, but that also one of those very same bsc team played a non-bsc team in a game that counted as a conference game? Is there a better way we can describe this screwy scenario?

I can't think of one. I think, with the stroke of a pen, the BSC could've avoided this well before the season began. Could've gone like this:

*February 2019*
"Oops, that shit doesn't make any sense at all. Hey, Idaho/EWU, that's a conference game. Hey, EWU/[Literally any team not in the conference, including the LA Rams], that's not a conference game. Cool? Make sense? Cool."
*Scene*

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Right. But did either one play Auburn in a conference game?

Now you're really grasping at straws. North Dakota is not in another conference, they are INDY. By leaving the way they did they not only screwed over the Big Sky who already had schedules made for two more seasons, they also screwed over themselves because now they had to fill two seasons worth of schedules when most schools' schedules were already complete. So they made a deal with the Big Sky to allow them to keep their Big Sky Schedules under the condition they counted for the Big Sky teams they were screwing over. Do you understand now?

this is the last season it'll even be a thing and honestly it isnt even that big of a deal.

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.

 

[The.Real.2506]

I have said it before but will say it again. The current BSC configuration sucks. The unbalanced scheduling sucks. Since the powers that be obviously aren't reading egriz for an answer to the problem, I don't know what else there is to say. And yet it will still be discussed ad nauseam as if we can do something about it.

What is the answer, split and have 2 conferences on the verge of collapsing when some team either gives up football or decides to try to move up. It makes complete sense for long term stability to have all of these western teams in one conference. It makes absolutely no sense to have divisions since you cant have a Conference Championship. So what is the solution that works for all the teams in the west and not just for um

It sucks but it is what it is.... Short of kicking 1/3 of the conference to the curb which we know isn't going to happen there are no easy fixes so we might as well just deal with it. I thought that's what I was saying above.

I guess I misinterpreted "Since the powers that be obviously aren't reading egriz for an answer to the problem" to mean that you thought that egriz has the solution :thumb:

 

[WILDCATFAN]

Now you're really grasping at straws. North Dakota is not in another conference, they are INDY. By leaving the way they did they not only screwed over the Big Sky who already had schedules made for two more seasons, they also screwed over themselves because now they had to fill two seasons worth of schedules when most schools' schedules were already complete. So they made a deal with the Big Sky to allow them to keep their Big Sky Schedules under the condition they counted for the Big Sky teams they were screwing over. Do you understand now?

this is the last season it'll even be a thing and honestly it isnt even that big of a deal.

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.

 

[WILDCATFAN]

CDA, are we somehow not being clear that the totally strange part is not only did two bsc teams play a non-conference game, but that also one of those very same bsc team played a non-bsc team in a game that counted as a conference game? Is there a better way we can describe this screwy scenario?

No what you're whining about is clear enough, it's just a really petty thing to be whining about.

My question is why start whining about this now? This happened last year as well so why is it all of a sudden an issue?

 

[The.Real.2506]

CDA, are we somehow not being clear that the totally strange part is not only did two bsc teams play a non-conference game, but that also one of those very same bsc team played a non-bsc team in a game that counted as a conference game? Is there a better way we can describe this screwy scenario?

I can't think of one. I think, with the stroke of a pen, the BSC could've avoided this well before the season began. Could've gone like this:

*February 2019*
"Oops, that shit doesn't make any sense at all. Hey, Idaho/EWU, that's a conference game. Hey, EWU/[Literally any team not in the conference, including the LA Rams], that's not a conference game. Cool? Make sense? Cool."
*Scene*

Think about the timeline though.

UND got the MVC offer first and accepted, they informed the BSC and and said they would play independent for 2 years, the BSC had the schedule already made, so they decided to keep the UND games on the schedule meaning that UND and their BSC opponents wouldn't be scrambling to find games.

Then ISU decides to drop down, they had a standing invitation. the BSC upheld the agreement with UND and worked ISU into the schedule wherever they could. ISU and EWU were left with a common week open, since they were to become BSC rivals anyway they set up a game. It makes complete sense when you consider how it went down. It saved both EWU and ISU finding another game, it was a short trip, and it fit into maintaining the BSC rivalry.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

CDA, are we somehow not being clear that the totally strange part is not only did two bsc teams play a non-conference game, but that also one of those very same bsc team played a non-bsc team in a game that counted as a conference game? Is there a better way we can describe this screwy scenario?

I can't think of one. I think, with the stroke of a pen, the BSC could've avoided this well before the season began. Could've gone like this:

*February 2019*
"Oops, that shit doesn't make any sense at all. Hey, Idaho/EWU, that's a conference game. Hey, EWU/[Literally any team not in the conference, including the LA Rams], that's not a conference game. Cool? Make sense? Cool."
*Scene*

Think about the timeline though.

UND got the MVC offer first and accepted, they informed the BSC and and said they would play independent for 2 years, the BSC had the schedule already made, so they decided to keep the UND games on the schedule meaning that UND and their BSC opponents wouldn't be scrambling to find games.

Then ISU decides to drop down, they had a standing invitation. the BSC upheld the agreement with UND and worked ISU into the schedule wherever they could. ISU and EWU were left with a common week open, since they were to become BSC rivals anyway they set up a game. It makes complete sense when you consider how it went down. It saved both EWU and ISU finding another game, it was a short trip, and it fit into maintaining the BSC rivalry.

Only it wasn’t a BSC game. Makes perfect sense.

 

[The.Real.2506]

CDA, are we somehow not being clear that the totally strange part is not only did two bsc teams play a non-conference game, but that also one of those very same bsc team played a non-bsc team in a game that counted as a conference game? Is there a better way we can describe this screwy scenario?

I can't think of one. I think, with the stroke of a pen, the BSC could've avoided this well before the season began. Could've gone like this:

*February 2019*
"Oops, that shit doesn't make any sense at all. Hey, Idaho/EWU, that's a conference game. Hey, EWU/[Literally any team not in the conference, including the LA Rams], that's not a conference game. Cool? Make sense? Cool."
*Scene*

Think about the timeline though.

UND got the MVC offer first and accepted, they informed the BSC and and said they would play independent for 2 years, the BSC had the schedule already made, so they decided to keep the UND games on the schedule meaning that UND and their BSC opponents wouldn't be scrambling to find games.

Then ISU decides to drop down, they had a standing invitation. the BSC upheld the agreement with UND and worked ISU into the schedule wherever they could. ISU and EWU were left with a common week open, since they were to become BSC rivals anyway they set up a game. It makes complete sense when you consider how it went down. It saved both EWU and ISU finding another game, it was a short trip, and it fit into maintaining the BSC rivalry.

Only it wasn’t a BSC game. Makes perfect sense.

never said it was,
Cats played EWU a couple of times in non-BSC games, what difference does it make if its "BSC game" or non-BSC

 

[garizzalies]

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

 

[EverettGriz]

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

Weeeell....

 

[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.

 

[garizzalies]

I struggle with trying to tell when a C.A.T.roll is trolling or just plain stupid. I think most are probably, relatively intelligent (for an ag head); but they suck so bad at communicating that they sound dumb AF.

 

[Da Boyz Mom]

If only we had a conference where every team played all the other teams every year this would not even be a point of discussion. Imagine that.

 

[kemajic]

If only we had a conference where every team played all the other teams every year this would not even be a point of discussion. Imagine that.

You mean like we had before Fullerton?

 

[bgbigdog]

Not supporting the practice or suspending my disbelief, but let’s get more practical. CPSLO isn’t playing 12 this season because they didn’t want a seventh road game. They took two FCS games & were on the road for the first three. Coach cited difficulties in travel contributing to a reluctance for teams to schedule - where have you heard that before, in terms of finding teams to play. It makes more sense for an FCS team to play one of these kinds of games in the BSC than it is to play Frostburg State or any little sisters of D2/D3 or NAIA. It’s just dam tough to find games outside of conference out west.

 

[The.Real.2506]

If only we had a conference where every team played all the other teams every year this would not even be a point of discussion. Imagine that.

You mean like we had before Fullerton?

Such short memories. If you recall, at the time the BSC looked very unstable, the P5 and G5 conferences were expanding, some FCS schools were moving up, um was making moving up noises, rumors existed that um couldn't do it unless it was a package deal with MSU, PSU was about to throw the towel in on FB, the GW dies with 3 Dakota moving to MVC. It was a move made to save the BSC from destruction. A lot didnt come to pass, but the BSC was on very shaky ground for awhile.

PS: Not a fan of Foolerton either but the expansion of the BSC by absorbing the remnants of the GW was not an illogical decision given the existing situation at the time.

 

[mcg]

So, I'm going to chime in:

In my opinion the 13 teams (is that what it is?) BSC is insurance against one or two teams leaving. The BSC doesn't want to get "WAC'd". This is the root cause of the scheduling shenanigans.

Unbalanced schedules are common, most FBS conferences have them. They usually sort it out with a championship game, which brings it's own issues (anybody want to see Washington vs. Utah in Santa Clara? How about a rematch of two teams that played earlier in the season). For a number of years the Big 12 played an unbalanced schedule with no championship game.

OOC games between conference members is unusual, but it does happen. UNC vs. Wake Forest and Colorado vs. Cal a few years ago. Seems to me an EWU/Idaho is a pretty sensible thing, given the distances between them and the cost of the game compared to cross country travel.

I can't really think of a better way to 'outplace' North Dakota, certainly an odd scenario but once they decided to leave it seems logical to keep the games on the schedule. I suppose the BSC could have simply kicked them aside then reshuffled the conference schedule. It's debatable whether that's a better answer.

I agree that none of this is ideal, and as much as anybody I'd prefer and 8 team BSC, but not sure it really matters much or how realistic that is. Just be good enough to finish fourth and you make the playoffs and you can go prove how good you really are. (BTW, remember when in the pre-expansion BSC Weber finished 1st, but had to come to Missoula in the playoffs?, there is no perfect scheduling world and we all thought that was great).

 

[CDAGRIZ]

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?