The Joke that IS the Unbalanced Schedule

[PlayerRep]

Why does this matter so much to some of you? Teams in different conferences play different teams than UM does, and they get ranked and go to the playoffs. Yes, I understand that it's tougher to win the conference for a team that is playing more of the tougher teams. But, for me, going to the playoffs and beating the Cats is more important than winning the conference. And I'd rather play more of the tougher teams than the lower level teams.

Why does it matter to you that it matters to some of us?

How many "soft" conference champs or playoff representatives have we had that went and got rolled in the first round in recent years? Hell, we've had TWO get beaten by the University of San Diego in consecutive years. MSU (with a shitty resume) getting blasted by NDSU last year and SUU getting rolled a couple years ago in the first round.

I'd rather everyone play everyone like it was for 40 years so that at the end of the day an actual champion could be crowned instead of this "everybody gets a trophy" thing.

To be fair, if Montana, Sac & Weber get co-champs, any/all are deserving of the autobid and I think all three will represent the BSC well THIS year in the playoffs...that's not always the case.

I don't like a conference where four teams could go undefeated.

It doesn't matter to me. I just asked a simple question..

Soft conference champs are going to the playoffs anyway, so they would just get beaten by more if they played a tougher team.

Almost everyone gets clobbered by NDSU in the early rounds. Like UM too.

In my view, the playoff losses you cite had little or nothing to do with the unbalanced conf schedule. In my view, the Big Sky schedule complaints thing is largely for people who have nothing better to do, don't understand the game, and in fact are everyone gets a ribbon people (because they think their posts and views should be valued).

My view is that teams should just try to beat everyone they play, and everything will work out fine.

But I don't care; continue.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

So, if
Weebs beats SAC, which is SAC's only conference loss.
We beat Weebs, and that is Weebs' only conference loss.
SAC beat us, and that is our only conference loss.

Then, 1 and 2 get us nowhere, right? I don't see any common non-conference opponents between the three teams, so no go on 3. So, the Sagarin Rating could determine the auto bid this year.

Current:
UM 96
SAC 102
Weebs 106

Number 2 would mean moving through the standings for results. For example, let's say NAU finishes #4, they would see how each team did against them. Weber would be (1-0), UM would be (0-0), and Sac would be (1-0) in the scenario. UM would be out and the auto would be decided by the head-to-head game between Weber and Sac. So realistically in the 3-way tie scenario, you should be hoping NAU loses some games.

Your scenario is incorrect. As you posted above, the tie-breaker includes comparison of records against COMMON opponents. Since UM doesn't play NAU, the Jacks wouldn't be used in any comparison.

Yeah, I was looking at that, but an example that I read said "regardless if they played". But this is the BSC, so who knows.

That would be really wild! You could have a team in the three-way tie be disqualified from the analysis because they didn't play a certain team the other two played, but beat one of the tied teams HTH.

"Common" and "regardless if they played" can't be reconciled.

 

[SWeberCat02]

Auto bid means very little in a multi-bid conference like the Big Sky. If there's a two-way or three-way tie all two or three are getting into the playoffs, no question about it. And the committee won't care who got the auto bid when it comes to seeding, etc.

 

[grizindabox]

Number 2 would mean moving through the standings for results. For example, let's say NAU finishes #4, they would see how each team did against them. Weber would be (1-0), UM would be (0-0), and Sac would be (1-0) in the scenario. UM would be out and the auto would be decided by the head-to-head game between Weber and Sac. So realistically in the 3-way tie scenario, you should be hoping NAU loses some games.

Your scenario is incorrect. As you posted above, the tie-breaker includes comparison of records against COMMON opponents. Since UM doesn't play NAU, the Jacks wouldn't be used in any comparison.

Yeah, I was looking at that, but an example that I read said "regardless if they played". But this is the BSC, so who knows.

That would be really wild! You could have a team in the three-way tie be disqualified from the analysis because they didn't play a certain team the other two played, but beat one of the tied teams HTH.

"Common" and "regardless if they played" can't be reconciled.

I think what it boils down to is if UM runs the table, they should be fine in any scenarios to break a tie unless it is head-to-head with Sac.

 

[grizindabox]

And the committee won't care who got the auto bid when it comes to seeding, etc.

I think it could make a difference in the 3-way tie scenario discussed.

 

[SWeberCat02]

I found it interesting that many of the coaches really dislike the large conference and the unbalanced schedule. The two Montana coaches seen to be most vocal about it. But when the players were asked about it at media day, they acted like it wasn't a big deal. In fact, many of the players liked playing so many different teams in so many different places. Gives the schedule some variety and keeps you on your toes preparing differently each week. As a fan I can see it both ways. While a balanced schedule would be great to crown a "real" champion, I also kind of like the variety of teams you play with a large conference.

 

[hilinegrizfan]

I found it interesting that many of the coaches really dislike the large conference and the unbalanced schedule. The two Montana coaches seen to be most vocal about it. But when the players were asked about it at media day, they acted like it wasn't a big deal. In fact, many of the players liked playing so many different teams in so many different places. Gives the schedule some variety and keeps you on your toes preparing differently each week. As a fan I can see it both ways. While a balanced schedule would be great to crown a "real" champion, I also kind of like the variety of teams you play with a large conference.

:stupid:

 

[reinell30]

With 13 teams in the big sky, there is no need for any Big Sky team to play D-II or NAIA or FBS. Play all your 12 games in the Big Sky with your last 8 counting as conference games.

 

[get'em_griz]

I found it interesting that many of the coaches really dislike the large conference and the unbalanced schedule. The two Montana coaches seen to be most vocal about it. But when the players were asked about it at media day, they acted like it wasn't a big deal. In fact, many of the players liked playing so many different teams in so many different places. Gives the schedule some variety and keeps you on your toes preparing differently each week. As a fan I can see it both ways. While a balanced schedule would be great to crown a "real" champion, I also kind of like the variety of teams you play with a large conference.

Every team in a conference should play every team in that conference. You want variety? Schedule it in non-conference or make the playoffs.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

Sac State 4-0, 6-2
Weber 4-0, 6-2
Montana 3-1, 6-2
PSU 3-2, 5-4
MSU 2-2, 5-3
NAU 2-2, 4-4
EWU 2-2, 3-5
UCD 2-3, 4-5
ISU 2-3, 3-5
Idaho 1-3, 3-5
UNC 1-3, 1-7
Cal Poly 1-4, 2-6
SUU 1-4, 2-7

So, 8 games into a 12 game season, and by season's end we will have played #'s 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10. The ONLY team in the top half of the conference we don't play is NAU, and we DON'T get to play #'s 11, 12, or 13. I realize it's a crapshoot from one season to the next, but PSU on the other hand has played #6, 9, 10, 11 & 13, but finish with #'s 2, 3 & 8. Montana and MSU have exactly TWO common opponents (Sac & UCD). And we play in the same f***[*] conference????

I really hate this conference. It REALLY needs to split, or dump the football only schools or something. Not sure what the answer is, but the current environment sure ain't it.

Dumping the football only schools would be a good start.

 

[EverettGriz]

So, if
Weebs beats SAC, which is SAC's only conference loss.
We beat Weebs, and that is Weebs' only conference loss.
SAC beat us, and that is our only conference loss.

Then, 1 and 2 get us nowhere, right? I don't see any common non-conference opponents between the three teams, so no go on 3. So, the Sagarin Rating could determine the auto bid this year.

Current:
UM 96
SAC 102
Weebs 106

Number 2 would mean moving through the standings for results. For example, let's say NAU finishes #4, they would see how each team did against them. Weber would be (1-0), UM would be (0-0), and Sac would be (1-0) in the scenario. UM would be out and the auto would be decided by the head-to-head game between Weber and Sac. So realistically in the 3-way tie scenario, you should be hoping NAU loses some games.

Your scenario is incorrect. As you posted above, the tie-breaker includes comparison of records against COMMON opponents. Since UM doesn't play NAU, the Jacks wouldn't be used in any comparison.

Yeah, I was looking at that, but an example that I read said "regardless if they played". But this is the BSC, so who knows.

:lol:

 

[grizindabox]

With 13 teams in the big sky, there is no need for any Big Sky team to play D-II or NAIA or FBS. Play all your 12 games in the Big Sky with your last 8 counting as conference games.

In theory, wouldn't that still be unbalanced? And if that was the approach, why not count all 12? Also, there are probably 10 schools that wouldn't want to give up there money game, since those pretty much keep those schools athletic programs afloat.

 

[hilinegrizfan]

I found it interesting that many of the coaches really dislike the large conference and the unbalanced schedule. The two Montana coaches seen to be most vocal about it. But when the players were asked about it at media day, they acted like it wasn't a big deal. In fact, many of the players liked playing so many different teams in so many different places. Gives the schedule some variety and keeps you on your toes preparing differently each week. As a fan I can see it both ways. While a balanced schedule would be great to crown a "real" champion, I also kind of like the variety of teams you play with a large conference.

Every team in a conference should play every team in that conference. You want variety? Schedule it in non-conference or make the playoffs.

:agree:

 

[SWeberCat02]

I found it interesting that many of the coaches really dislike the large conference and the unbalanced schedule. The two Montana coaches seen to be most vocal about it. But when the players were asked about it at media day, they acted like it wasn't a big deal. In fact, many of the players liked playing so many different teams in so many different places. Gives the schedule some variety and keeps you on your toes preparing differently each week. As a fan I can see it both ways. While a balanced schedule would be great to crown a "real" champion, I also kind of like the variety of teams you play with a large conference.

:stupid:

So the players, including your own Donte Olson, who feel this way, are they stupid too?

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/sports/bobcats/football/number-of-teams-leaves-big-sky-with-uncertain-future/article_d6238bb4-3a16-5b29-8ff6-0e5f1a960684.html

 

[hilinegrizfan]

I found it interesting that many of the coaches really dislike the large conference and the unbalanced schedule. The two Montana coaches seen to be most vocal about it. But when the players were asked about it at media day, they acted like it wasn't a big deal. In fact, many of the players liked playing so many different teams in so many different places. Gives the schedule some variety and keeps you on your toes preparing differently each week. As a fan I can see it both ways. While a balanced schedule would be great to crown a "real" champion, I also kind of like the variety of teams you play with a large conference.

:stupid:

So the players, including your own Donte Olson, that feel this way are stupid too?

yes

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

And if Weber beats Sac and we beat Weber, we'll have THREE conference co-champions (assuming each wins out other than that).

#WAFJ

Who would get the auto bid in that scenario? I wonder which game would be the tie-breaker. It would be hilarious if Sac played UND (I don't think they do), and it came down to that somehow.

When two or more Conference members are tied in the final Conference standings, the tie shall be broken for purposes of determining the NCAA FCS automatic bid only, and shall be determined on the following basis:
1. Head-to-head Competition
2.Record against common CONFERENCE opponents in descending order
3. Record against common NON-CONFERENCE opponents
4. Sagarin Rating
5. Coin Flip

So, if
Weebs beats SAC, which is SAC's only conference loss.
We beat Weebs, and that is Weebs' only conference loss.
SAC beat us, and that is our only conference loss.

Then, 1 and 2 get us nowhere, right? I don't see any common non-conference opponents between the three teams, so no go on 3. So, the Sagarin Rating could determine the auto bid this year.

Current:
UM 96
SAC 102
Weebs 106

Wouldnt the irony be amazing if playing an unbalanced, way harder schedule than everyone else in our conference this year actually is what ends up winning us the conference......

Ohhh loooord please let this happen.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Auto bid means very little in a multi-bid conference like the Big Sky. If there's a two-way or three-way tie all two or three are getting into the playoffs, no question about it. And the committee won't care who got the auto bid when it comes to seeding, etc.

Yes, with the three teams that could find themselves in the situation this year. But it could lead to some wacky results in other years when we have teams playing conference members in non-conference games. The three teams could have a common BSC opponent, but not all played it as a conference game.

#2 on the list of tie-breakers should add "whether or not the game was played as a BSC conference game". Why drop it to a common non-conference game against a non-BSC member (which is extremely unlikely for three teams to have), and thus, to Sagarin, when they have a common opponent that is a BSC member? IDK, just interesting.

 

[Grizbballfan14]

There are a lot of people frustrated about this so I decided to look at what a potential realignment solution for the conference could be. One big issue is that a few of the schools which would be put in a new conference are full time members of the big sky and a few others are just football affiliates. This means creating a football only conference is the most likely solution but I dont know how the big sky would feel about having full time members compete in every sport but football. Not to mention those schools would feel devalued by the big sky.

Most people want a simple realignment that would end with 9 teams in the big sky (so everyone can play eachother) but that cut is difficult to make and would leave the other conference with only 7 teams. So I put 8 in both.

After a little bit of research this is what I came up with

Big sky :
Montana
MSU
Idaho
Idaho state
Eastern washington
Portland State
Northern Colorado
Weber State

Southwestern football conference:
UC Davis (Big West)
Cal Poly (Big West)
Sac State (Big Sky)
NAU (Big Sky)
Southern Utah (Big Sky)

San Diego (WCC) I think the Toreros would be the easiest to convince because they are no where near the rest of their football conference. Travel would be easier in the imaginary SWFC than in the Pioneer league

Dixie State - moving up in just a couple or years. Near southern utah would make sense for this conference

Tarleton - also moving up soon. I could see them preferring the Southland but this new conference could be appealing.

This is very unlikely. Schools like Cal Poly and UC Davis might be okay with it, but the full time schools like NAU and Sac State would likely take it to mean they're not as important in the conference's eye as Montana and Weber state.

Perhaps instead of 2 conferences we go with the 2 divisions idea and the winner of each division plays eachother in the final week of the regular season?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

And the committee won't care who got the auto bid when it comes to seeding, etc.

I think it could make a difference in the 3-way tie scenario discussed.

Agreed. How about this one?

-All teams are BSC members.
-Three-way tie, and each team’s only BSC conference loss is to one of the others, so A beat B, B beat C, and C beat A.
-All three teams played D (the #4 team in the BSC standings)
-A and B both lost to D 42-7, but played D as a non-conference game.
-C beat D 56-7, and played D as a conference game.

Wouldn’t it make sense to use the results against D to determine the auto bid?

 

[reinell30]

How does a nonconference game against' a big sky Opponent differ then a conference game against' a Big Sky opponent? It is only the name...If Montana, MSU, Weber, Sac St and UCD all played the same Big Sky opponents, who cares if it is conference or non conference? You either win or lose....