1982 BSC Championship

[John K]

The MSU coaching staff sent out a thank you letter to all the GF boosters who helped out with the Triangle Classic, which is a very nice touch, and much appreciated. In no way is this intended to be a criticism of the coaches. The letter lists all of MSU's national championships and BSC titles, but I noticed that 1982 is missing from the list of BSC championships. I believe I remember someone saying that 1982 also isn't included on the back of the scoreboard at the stadium, along with all of the other BSC titles. Is there a particular reason why 1982 is excluded? If it's just a mistake, you'd think someone would have pointed it out by now, and it would have been corrected. Just curious...

[TomCat88]

It's a long story, but Joe Glenn (an assistant coach at UM at the time) decided that MSU, which finished 5-2 with UM and Idaho, didn't deserve to have a share since it lost to both Idaho and UM. The league agreed and for a long time MSU wasn't listed as a champion that year.

Cut to 2005 when UM, MSU and EWU all finished at 5-2, but MSU and EWU both beat UM. UM got its share and there was no complaint from anyone at UM.

I've pointed it out. Numerous times. I see the BSC still doesnt recognize MSU's 1982 title on its mobile website.

[JDoub]

Tom, does the conference recognize all 3 as co-champs for 1982, despite what the website says?

It should either be all 3 with the same conference record, or one (UM that year) via tie-breaker, which as I understand it is only used for auto bid.

Anyway, it was good to see Dennis Erickson and Idaho get revenge in the 1982 playoffs and pounded the griz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PapaG]

It's a long story, but Joe Glenn (an assistant coach at UM at the time) decided that MSU, which finished 5-2 with UM and Idaho, didn't deserve to have a share since it lost to both Idaho and UM. The league agreed and for a long time MSU wasn't listed as a champion that year.

Cut to 2005 when UM, MSU and EWU all finished at 5-2, but MSU and EWU both beat UM. UM got its share and there was no complaint from anyone at UM.

I've pointed it out. Numerous times. I see the BSC still doesnt recognize MSU's 1982 title on its mobile website.

That is so awesome. I'm not sure how I didn't know this. Such a Griz thing to do.

[TomCat88]

Keep in mind the BSC is Bush League, so this kind of thing happens. It's not just a UM thing.

[77matcat]

Perhaps new BSC AD will not be afraid to address.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bobcatsinmso]

I don't think it's necessary to try to claim a co championship status for a three way tie in conference play some 30 years ago. Quite frankly it's a dead issue. Three way ties are just that, ties. Players, coaches, and I would say most fans say win it outright, then there can be no questions as to who the true champion is. I recall a few years back that the Griz football team refused to accept rings for a conference " championship" that they tied for, likely because they did not receive the automatic bid for the playoffs. Win the bid, then accept the accolades if you tie, if it pleases the masses, but let's not award everyone who ties a ribbon. That's what grade school soccer is for. Here is to the Bobcats winning the Big Sky Conference outright in 2016, and 2017, and beyond. Look to the future, learn from the past, but don't dwell in it.
Just my two pints worth. Go Bobcats! ESG.

[TomCat88]

I don't think it's necessary to try to claim a co championship status for a three way tie in conference play some 30 years ago. Quite frankly it's a dead issue. Three way ties are just that, ties. Players, coaches, and I would say most fans say win it outright, then there can be no questions as to who the true champion is. I recall a few years back that the Griz football team refused to accept rings for a conference " championship" that they tied for, likely because they did not receive the automatic bid for the playoffs. Win the bid, then accept the accolades if you tie, if it pleases the masses, but let's not award everyone who ties a ribbon. That's what grade school soccer is for. Here is to the Bobcats winning the Big Sky Conference outright in 2016, and 2017, and beyond. Look to the future, learn from the past, but don't dwell in it.
Just my two pints worth. Go Bobcats! ESG.

That's very noble of them, but there's a big difference between not being awarded something that every team in a similar situation was awarded and refusing as a team to accept something awarded to you.

[PapaG]

I don't think it's necessary to try to claim a co championship status for a three way tie in conference play some 30 years ago. Quite frankly it's a dead issue. Three way ties are just that, ties. Players, coaches, and I would say most fans say win it outright, then there can be no questions as to who the true champion is. I recall a few years back that the Griz football team refused to accept rings for a conference " championship" that they tied for, likely because they did not receive the automatic bid for the playoffs. Win the bid, then accept the accolades if you tie, if it pleases the masses, but let's not award everyone who ties a ribbon. That's what grade school soccer is for. Here is to the Bobcats winning the Big Sky Conference outright in 2016, and 2017, and beyond. Look to the future, learn from the past, but don't dwell in it.
Just my two pints worth. Go Bobcats! ESG.

That's very noble of them, but there's a big difference between not being awarded something that every team in a similar situation was awarded and refusing as a team to accept something awarded to you.

Plus I must have missed UM demanding that the Big Sky not list them as a champion, and not claiming that championship, either. Funny thing is as the Griz have become just another Big Sky contender each year, you have to wonder if some of those players who assumed they would always win conference titles outright at the time wish they had a ring. I'm sure some of them call themselves Big Sky Champions that year.

[Bobcatsinmso]

What would the consensus of the 82 team be on this issue? That to me would be the definitive answer as to pursue the accolades of the subject, and again that's my opinion. In any case carry on, and good luck. I am looking forward to the 2016 season. Go Bobcats!

[TomCat88]

What would the consensus of the 82 team be on this issue? That to me would be the definitive answer as to pursue the accolades of the subject, and again that's my opinion. In any case carry on, and good luck. I am looking forward to the 2016 season. Go Bobcats!

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I can see the players turning down the rings as that's their property and therefore their prerogative. However I can't see a league not recognizing one teams championship, but then recognizing another. That isn't a player, coach or fan decision, it's a league decision. If they don't want to recognize MSU's 1982 title, then they shouldn't recognize UM's 2005 title, along with any other teams with similar circumstances. I'm sure UM likes having won 12(?) straight BSC titles over 7 straight as I believe that 12(?) was some kind of NCAA record.

[TomCat88]

1982 is on the scoreboard.

[Bobcatsinmso]

Would the schools AD's have any input into these decisions? Maybe that would be something to consider going forward. I did not know who makes the final call on these matters. As you pointed out earlier, the BSC is indeed bush league. History has shown us that through the years. Lets hope that the next BSC commissioner can lead us out of the back woods. I doubt that any past decisions will ever be reversed, but perhaps they will improve going forward. Thanks for the information Tom. Yes the 1982 team is indeed on the scoreboard, so we have that going for us, which is nice....