Playoffs to Expand to 12 Teams

[rocklobster]

Money, money, money, money, money! NIL brought this on quicker. Time to creatively deal with the bowl games.

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

So, in essence it doesn’t matter WHAT CFB does, it won’t satisfy the “Never move uppers”….

Yeah. That seems to be the case. The whole, “but they don’t have playoffs” argument against moving up has officially ceased to hold water.

The new argument is that we shouldn’t move up because that would spell the end of Montanans on the roster :roll: it never ceases to amaze me. Some are just so dead set against progress and taking risks when it comes to the program.

 

[mthoopsfan]

So, in essence it doesn’t matter WHAT CFB does, it won’t satisfy the “Never move uppers”….

UM needs to move up. The Griz could immediately compete for the playoffs. UM has NIL now.

 

[EverettGriz]

To the ship!!!!!

 

[Spanky2]

Yeah. That seems to be the case. The whole, “but they don’t have playoffs” argument against moving up has officially ceased to hold water.

The new argument is that we shouldn’t move up because that would spell the end of Montans on the roster :roll: it never ceases to amaze me. Some are just so dead set against progress and taking risks when it comes to the program.

And their argument only applies to football. Take a look at the rosters of other sports such as basketball, softball, tennis, golf. Not too many from Montana. The argument is nonsense.

 

[mthoopsfan]

The new argument is that we shouldn’t move up because that would spell the end of Montans on the roster :roll: it never ceases to amaze me. Some are just so dead set against progress and taking risks when it comes to the program.

And their argument only applies to football. Take a look at the rosters of other sports such as basketball, softball, tennis, golf. Not too many from Montana. The argument is nonsense.

47 Montanans on the track rosters. Why don't you take a look?

 

[mthoopsfan]

Yeah. That seems to be the case. The whole, “but they don’t have playoffs” argument against moving up has officially ceased to hold water.

The new argument is that we shouldn’t move up because that would spell the end of Montanans on the roster :roll: it never ceases to amaze me. Some are just so dead set against progress and taking risks when it comes to the program.

You don't even go to games. You are not allowed to comment.

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

The new argument is that we shouldn’t move up because that would spell the end of Montanans on the roster :roll: it never ceases to amaze me. Some are just so dead set against progress and taking risks when it comes to the program.

You don't even go to games. You are not allowed to comment.

:roll: I go to plenty of games. Where the eff do you get off saying I don’t even go to games?

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

And their argument only applies to football. Take a look at the rosters of other sports such as basketball, softball, tennis, golf. Not too many from Montana. The argument is nonsense.

47 Montanans on the track rosters. Why don't you take a look?

You don’t even go to games; you don’t get to comment

 

[Spanky2]

And their argument only applies to football. Take a look at the rosters of other sports such as basketball, softball, tennis, golf. Not too many from Montana. The argument is nonsense.

47 Montanans on the track rosters. Why don't you take a look?

Maybe track will fulfill the quota for all sports, then the Regents won’t worry about football. Otherwise, they might have to regulate the number of Montana players on all UM rosters.Or———they could conclude if the Montana kid is good enough, he will play.

 

[mthoopsfan]

47 Montanans on the track rosters. Why don't you take a look?

Maybe track will fulfill the quota for all sports, then the Regents won’t worry about football. Otherwise, they might have to regulate the number of Montana players on all UM rosters.Or———they could conclude if the Montana kid is good enough, he will play.

Feel free to express your views to the Regents, i.e. that subsidizing sports at UM can be for mostly out of state players.

 

[mthoopsfan]

You don't even go to games. You are not allowed to comment.

:roll: I go to plenty of games. Where the eff do you get off saying I don’t even go to games?

Okay, let's pick an example. Will you be at the game in Missoula tomorrow?

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

:roll: I go to plenty of games. Where the eff do you get off saying I don’t even go to games?

Okay, let's pick an example. Will you be at the game in Missoula tomorrow?

Ahhhh, I see. So since I have young kids (5 & 3) and wife decided that we would not make the trip and attend the hottest game on record for their benefit (as well as ours) you extrapolate that I don’t go to games. Hmm, well there you’d be wrong. I will be attending, homecoming as well as the cal poly game, and will go on the road to see the Griz at Weber and at MSU. I might be able to get the time off to make it to the South Dakota game by myself without the family but it’s a bit in the air still. So there ya have it. I’ll be able to get the Time of work to attend 5 griz games this year, not too shabby with my schedule. That not enough for you? Is there a threshold that I must reach to have an opinion and post here?

 

[mthoopsfan]

Okay, let's pick an example. Will you be at the game in Missoula tomorrow?

Ahhhh, I see. So since I have young kids (5 & 3) and wife decided that we would not make the trip and attend the hottest game on record for their benefit (as well as ours) you extrapolate that I don’t go to games. Hmm, well there you’d be wrong. I will be attending, homecoming as well as the cal poly game, and will go on the road to see the Griz at Weber and at MSU. I might be able to get the time off to make it to the South Dakota game by myself without the family but it’s a bit in the air still. So there ya have it. I’ll be able to get the Time of work to attend 5 griz games this year, not too shabby with my schedule. That not enough for you? Is there a threshold that I must reach to have an opinion and post here?

Lighten up. I’m teasing you. I saw your prior post that you weren’t coming tomorrow.

 

[EverettGriz]

The Regents do not spend even 2 seconds considering how many Montanans are on UM’s (or msu’s or northern’s, etc) rosters. Sorry if that fact gets in the way of your narrative.

 

[kemajic]

12 is the number that FCS ought to have. The extra games just lose more money, the season gets too long for 63 schollie teams and I doubt a team ranked below 12 has ever won a NC.

 

[Spanky2]

The Regents do not spend even 2 seconds considering how many Montanans are on UM’s (or msu’s or northern’s, etc) rosters. Sorry if that fact gets in the way of your narrative.

I agree that the Regents shouldn’t be concerned. Another poster has indicated they are concerned, thus, my comments. I have always thought the Montana kids argument is nothing more than smoke screen by those in opposition to moving to FBS.

 

[MontanaJack2006]

12 is the number that FCS ought to have. The extra games just lose more money, the season gets too long for 63 schollie teams and I doubt a team ranked below 12 has ever won a NC.

Agreed

 

[mthoopsfan]

12 is the number that FCS ought to have. The extra games just lose more money, the season gets too long for 63 schollie teams and I doubt a team ranked below 12 has ever won a NC.

Agreed

Do you support reducing the NCAA basketball tourney to say 32 teams too?

Tournaments aren't just to find the team that is going to win. It's also about incentive/reward for teams during the season, to get to the tourney. It's about competition and upsets in the early stages. I don't see what the number of scholarships has to do with it; each team has many more players. There's no requirement to play with just your scholarship players. I agree that seasons are too long now, but that has nothing to do with the number of scholarships.It's not about making money for the NCAA.

In the FCS playoffs, I don't have a magic number, but what we have how is fine with me.

 

[MontanaJack2006]

Agreed

Do you support reducing the NCAA basketball tourney to say 32 teams too?

Tournaments aren't just to find the team that is going to win. It's also about incentive/reward for teams during the season, to get to the tourney. It's about competition and upsets in the early stages. I don't see what the number of scholarships has to do with it; each team has many more players. There's no requirement to play with just your scholarship players. I agree that seasons are too long now, but that has nothing to do with the number of scholarships.It's not about making money for the NCAA.

In the FCS playoffs, I don't have a magic number, but what we have how is fine with me.

No, I'm good with the basketball setup. I'd prefer the "old" FCS model for FB with 16 teams and the championship played in December.