The Joke that IS the Unbalanced Schedule

[CDAGRIZ]

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....

Exactly. Tie breaker #2 should include results against common BSC teams in descending order, regardless if played as a conference game. Maybe it does.

 

[grizindabox]

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....

One counts in determining the Champion (Conference) and one doesn't (NonConference) would be my guess.

 

[EverettGriz]

This same issue nearly arose a few years back when the bsc fucked up the basketball schedule as well, and not all teams played every other team twice.

Every decision this league makes is just big cluster fuck looking for a place to happen.

 

[Griz#64]

Don't worry about the mule going blind. Keep pulling the wagon. Cream Rises.. Go Griz

 

[AZGrizFan]

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.

Your view is wrong.

The playoff losses mentioned were because we're routinely sending teams that aren't worthy of a playoff spot, but get one because they play an OVC-like BSC schedule during the regular season. When a team beats "everyone they play", but everyone they play isn't very good, we end up sending an NAU or Cal Poly to the playoffs to get fucking WAXED by a non-schollie team and embarrassing the BSC in the process.

I guess we can be thankful PSU scheduled two P5 schools and two NAIA schools this year, so they won't be in consideration despite their relatively easy waltz through the bottom half of the conference.
And I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence.

 

[WILDCATFAN]

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.

Why? So Montana fans can go from complaining about everyone not playing everyone to complaining about other Big Sky schools playing other Big Sky schools as ooc games?

 

[AZGrizFan]

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.

Why? So Montana fans can complain about other Big Sky schools playing other Big Sky schools as ooc games?

that's an ancillary discussion to the main point: teams skating through conference play without playing anyone difficult, claiming a mythical conference championship, then getting blown out in the playoffs.

 

[rocklobster]

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.

In the end-even though the schedule things is stupid and unbalanced-WHERE YOU ARE SEEDED, by the committee-will be the only thing that matters! Therefore, if you played a tougher schedule than the conference champion, who won on a stupid tie breaker, you’d get a higher seed in the brackets! You just take care of business, and everything will fall into place...EVEN THOUGH, the unbalanced schedule thing is stupid!

 

[MikeyGriz]

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

#WAFJ

That’s what I want to know.

We have had (and been part of) 3 co-champions before.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

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.

In the end-even though the schedule things is stupid and unbalanced-WHERE YOU ARE SEEDED, by the committee-will be the only thing that matters! Therefore, if you played a tougher schedule than the conference champion, who won on a stupid tie breaker, you’d get a higher seed in the brackets! You just take care of business, and everything will fall into place...EVEN THOUGH, the unbalanced schedule thing is stupid!

Absolutely. :thumb:
I hope the BSC never becomes a 2 or 1 bid conference in this format. I don't think that will ever happen, but it would be nice to see some advanced planning for a change. At present, it's academic, I agree.

 

[mcg]

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.

Why? So Montana fans can go from complaining about everyone not playing everyone to complaining about other Big Sky schools playing other Big Sky schools as ooc games?

Hey - we can complain about whatever we want to complain about.

My view is that they should make the schedule by pulling team names from a goldfish bowl. Turn it into a big media who-ha; mascots, cheerleaders, bands and coaches. You'd likely get some teams playing each other twice, but who cares?!? It would be fun!

 

[CDAGRIZ]

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.

Why? So Montana fans can go from complaining about everyone not playing everyone to complaining about other Big Sky schools playing other Big Sky schools as ooc games?

Hey - we can complain about whatever we want to complain about.

My view is that they should make the schedule by pulling team names from a goldfish bowl. Turn it into a big media who-ha; mascots, cheerleaders, bands and coaches. You'd likely get some teams playing each other twice, but who cares?!? It would be fun!

Some might argue we are closer to that than something that makes sense.
The UM/MSU thing about having only two common conference opponents is puzzling.

 

[IdaGriz01]

I’ll start this with what is an inescapable fact – one that many on here will agree with (and some will violently dispute):
Under the current setup, there is no meaningful “Big Sky Championship” in football. The only thing that really matters is who gets the FCS auto-bid to the playoffs, by whatever arcane rules the BSC biggies use. Yes, that does mean that a “co-championship” is “mythical” for many people.

But that pisses off, and rightly so, a lot of fans … because it makes a lot of Griz football history (essentially) irrelevant. We have been Griz fans for over a quarter century, but our fandom is peripheral … through family = faculty links, rather than actual alumni status. But for truly connected, old-time die-hard fans, it must be frustrating to crown a “champion” that played none, or only one or two, of the best other teams. And comparing those honors to a championship earned when every contender played every other contender … is just wrong. And we sympathize.

But that is also reality. The Big Sky, like the other really big conferences, is just a conglomerate of schools assembled for scheduling convenience. Win enough games -- whatever they may be -- and you get into the playoffs. Play and win against a tough schedule and, as “lobster” points out, you might get a top seed. The “championship” is a minor trinket you get on the way to the “real” prize.

If it’s any consolation, the FBS is pretty much the same, even when they are allowed a “conference championship” game. The top teams in the SEC (for example) may pay lip service to their “championship,” but their real goal is the FBS playoff or a “glamor” bowl game. Teams in the non-P5 conferences may value the championship a bit more, but they are also striving for a prestige, big-money bowl.

As to the strength of schedule (or lack thereof): Irrelevant … not because of the Big Sky structure, but because of the NCAA selection process. Really, really crappy conferences like the NEC, Patriot, Pioneer, etc. get auto-bids, despite the fact that they are largely non-competitive. Basically those are participation ribbons … validated by the (very) occasional upset in the first round. When weak BSC teams get auto-bids and are blown out … Does it really matter? Only to the fans of that team. Also ... Get away from “regionalization” in the early playoffs, and even “weak” BSC teams might make it out of the first round.

 

[rocklobster]

I’ll start this with what is an inescapable fact – one that many on here will agree with (and some will violently dispute):
Under the current setup, there is no meaningful “Big Sky Championship” in football. The only thing that really matters is who gets the FCS auto-bid to the playoffs, by whatever arcane rules the BSC biggies use. Yes, that does mean that a “co-championship” is “mythical” for many people.

But that pisses off, and rightly so, a lot of fans … because it makes a lot of Griz football history (essentially) irrelevant. We have been Griz fans for over a quarter century, but our fandom is peripheral … through family = faculty links, rather than actual alumni status. But for truly connected, old-time die-hard fans, it must be frustrating to crown a “champion” that played none, or only one or two, of the best other teams. And comparing those honors to a championship earned when every contender played every other contender … is just wrong. And we sympathize.

But that is also reality. The Big Sky, like the other really big conferences, is just a conglomerate of schools assembled for scheduling convenience. Win enough games -- whatever they may be -- and you get into the playoffs. Play and win against a tough schedule and, as “lobster” points out, you might get a top seed. The “championship” is a minor trinket you get on the way to the “real” prize.

If it’s any consolation, the FBS is pretty much the same, even when they are allowed a “conference championship” game. The top teams in the SEC (for example) may pay lip service to their “championship,” but their real goal is the FBS playoff or a “glamor” bowl game. Teams in the non-P5 conferences may value the championship a bit more, but they are also striving for a prestige, big-money bowl.

As to the strength of schedule (or lack thereof): Irrelevant … not because of the Big Sky structure, but because of the NCAA selection process. Really, really crappy conferences like the NEC, Patriot, Pioneer, etc. get auto-bids, despite the fact that they are largely non-competitive. Basically those are participation ribbons … validated by the (very) occasional upset in the first round. When weak BSC teams get auto-bids and are blown out … Does it really matter? Only to the fans of that team. Also ... Get away from “regionalization” in the early playoffs, and even “weak” BSC teams might make it out of the first round.

Yeah! The regionalization thing is another one of those nuggets! You get teams from the same conference playing each other in the second round! Third round, ok! But seed the teams, 1-24
and set up your brackets accordingly-without teams from the same conference playing each other in the second round. Of course, in the BSC, you don’t play equal teams or schedules! What a cluster phuque!

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I’ll start this with what is an inescapable fact – one that many on here will agree with (and some will violently dispute):
Under the current setup, there is no meaningful “Big Sky Championship” in football. The only thing that really matters is who gets the FCS auto-bid to the playoffs, by whatever arcane rules the BSC biggies use. Yes, that does mean that a “co-championship” is “mythical” for many people.

But that pisses off, and rightly so, a lot of fans … because it makes a lot of Griz football history (essentially) irrelevant. We have been Griz fans for over a quarter century, but our fandom is peripheral … through family = faculty links, rather than actual alumni status. But for truly connected, old-time die-hard fans, it must be frustrating to crown a “champion” that played none, or only one or two, of the best other teams. And comparing those honors to a championship earned when every contender played every other contender … is just wrong. And we sympathize.

But that is also reality. The Big Sky, like the other really big conferences, is just a conglomerate of schools assembled for scheduling convenience. Win enough games -- whatever they may be -- and you get into the playoffs. Play and win against a tough schedule and, as “lobster” points out, you might get a top seed. The “championship” is a minor trinket you get on the way to the “real” prize.

If it’s any consolation, the FBS is pretty much the same, even when they are allowed a “conference championship” game. The top teams in the SEC (for example) may pay lip service to their “championship,” but their real goal is the FBS playoff or a “glamor” bowl game. Teams in the non-P5 conferences may value the championship a bit more, but they are also striving for a prestige, big-money bowl.

As to the strength of schedule (or lack thereof): Irrelevant … not because of the Big Sky structure, but because of the NCAA selection process. Really, really crappy conferences like the NEC, Patriot, Pioneer, etc. get auto-bids, despite the fact that they are largely non-competitive. Basically those are participation ribbons … validated by the (very) occasional upset in the first round. When weak BSC teams get auto-bids and are blown out … Does it really matter? Only to the fans of that team. Also ... Get away from “regionalization” in the early playoffs, and even “weak” BSC teams might make it out of the first round.

I was with you until the last para. When it's logically possible for a team to get an autobid as the strongest team out of the BSC without having to play the actual strongest 3-4 teams in the BSC, it can matter to one of those 3-4 teams that doesn't get an at-large. Not saying it has happened; just saying it can. Based on scheduling.

 

[IdaGriz01]

... I was with you until the last para. When it's logically possible for a team to get an autobid as the strongest team out of the BSC without having to play the actual strongest 3-4 teams in the BSC, it can matter to one of those 3-4 teams that doesn't get an at-large. Not saying it has happened; just saying it can. Based on scheduling.

Not saying it can't happen, and can see it could be "theoretically" possible. But what's an answer? One might "demote" some western teams from D-I ... that's not gonna happen.

The only "logical" answer seems to be forming a new 1-AA conference with some split off Big Sky teams, plus some "regional" additions. But that's not going to happen unless the NCAA gives them an auto-bid, taking away an at-large bid. That would just knock out a "deserving" lower-rated team from ... somewhere. Or the NCAA could just expand the field even more (28? 32?), and I don't think any of us would want that.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Your view is wrong.

The playoff losses mentioned were because we're routinely sending teams that aren't worthy of a playoff spot, but get one because they play an OVC-like BSC schedule during the regular season. When a team beats "everyone they play", but everyone they play isn't very good, we end up sending an NAU or Cal Poly to the playoffs to get f***[*] WAXED by a non-schollie team and embarrassing the BSC in the process.

I guess we can be thankful PSU scheduled two P5 schools and two NAIA schools this year, so they won't be in consideration despite their relatively easy waltz through the bottom half of the conference.
And I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence.

Can you give any examples when the unbalanced schedule in the Big Sky ever made a difference in the playoffs?

My view is that the best teams rise to the top and get into the playoffs and generally get seeded and placed where they should be.

And if I am wrong, I suppose it was bound to happen someday. Two decades has been a pretty good run.

 

[behappp]

I want a coin flip :lol:

 

[AZGrizFan]

Yes, it was a nice run. But it’s now over.

I did give examples. Go back and read the post you commented on. If they’d been required to play everyone, SUU, NAU and CP (in just the past 2-3 years) wouldn’t have made the playoffs. The backed in due to soft schedules, then got blasted.

 

[PlayerRep]

Yes, it was a nice run. But it’s now over.

I did give examples. Go back and read the post you commented on. If they’d been required to play everyone, SUU, NAU and CP (in just the past 2-3 years) wouldn’t have made the playoffs. The backed in due to soft schedules, then got blasted.

No you didn’t. Why did it ever make a difference as to who got into the playoffs from the big sky? To be clear, when did the wrong big sky team get into the playoffs? Show us how they backed in.

By the way, San Diego was a good team those years. They probably deserved to win.

I am getting ready to run you out of the gym.