Santa Clara 71 Montana 68

['68griz]

Okay, Baller -- if you want, you can say the Griz basketball team plays at a higher level than the football team (although that's another story on another day), but I definitely doubt you can say that, on a regular basis, the basketball team competes on a higher level. I'm sorry, but, year after year we consider getting basketball tickets -- and, for whaterever reason, we always put it off long enough that we end up deciding it was a good idea we did not buy tickets.

 

[Explosive 1]

If the football team played a top 10 team in the real rankings (the Bowl Division) it would be a blood-bath. The basketball team kept it somewhat respectable with the cream of the crop of the college basketball world (Duke).

 

['68griz]

But I have never, ever -- even for one second -- suggested that the Griz could or should try to compete with a Top 10 BCS school (or even at Top 25 school). It's a totally different playing field, different scholarship level, different support level. And, FWIW, I don't consider the BCS rankings the "real" ones, when you consider they are, ultimately, determined by computers, not by what happens on the field.

 

[General Disarray]

No I am not jealous of the football teams success.... I'm a born and raised Missoulian and have followed both sports closely my entire life and have enjoyed the success of BOTH programs over the years..... that being said there is no way you can compare a "Major" Div. 1-AA program with a Mid Major Div. 1 program from a talent stadpoint..... Football and basketball are so much defferent as it is.... a Div 1 basketball team has anywhere from 10-13 roster spots available? and football has how many? its just much easier to find individual athletic success on the football feild because of sheer numbers, combine that with playing in a SUB-Division...... Now I love our griz football team and will always support them..... but we play in a SUB-Division for a reason..... for many of you who have seen Mid to High Major Div. I football played there is just no argument and the difference between FCS and FBS teams is VERY clear just as it its with D-II and D-I basketball....its just a FACT..... The University of Montana competes at a higher level in basketball than it does football..... that is a FACT..... that is all i'm trying to get across in this thread after a cheap shot at the hoops team was thrown out there........ I'm not trying to take away from the success of the Football team..... and for some of you it may be a jagged pill to swollow.... although the football team provides an entertaining game-time atmosphere and winning tradition.... a large majority of the athletes out there on Saturdays are not playing Div I for a reason....just as a majority of the hoops players ARE playing Div. I for a reason.....

When you say there's a huge difference between FBS and FCS football, I am assuming you're talking about say . . . Montana and one of top teams in the country like USC. Which I would agree with. But if we're talking about Montana or Weber State and an average FBS team like Colorado State or Arizona, there is not. The same thing applies to basketball. There is a very clear difference between UM and the best of the best, North Carolina, and they are in the same "division."

To me the only difference is that in basketball there is a socially constructed sub-division, the mid-majors, and in football there is an NCAA constructed subdivision, FCS.

Furthermore, the "cheap shot" at the basketball team may not even be a cheap shot. All he said was "thank goodness they know how to play football at Montana". A rather obtuse statement. If it weren't for UM having one of the most profitable football teams in the country, keeping the athletic department and local economy above water, would little ol Montana send their team across the country in a recession to play Duke in the first place?

 

['68griz]

:clap: