Griz in the Playoffs

[catatac]

When was the last time there was no Montana team in the playoffs! At the end of the 3rd quarter of the EWU vs griz looks like that is pretty likely.

If the griz lose today but beat UNC and MSU, I'm sure they're in. And they'll be heavy favorites in both those games.

UNC is out if they lose to the Griz (or the Griz are out if they lose to the Bears, but I'm not holding my breath). NAU is already out of the playoffs with 4 losses (and one of their 4 wins is against a D2 school).

Weber still has games against NAU & Cal Poly. Weber-Poly is loser out for sure. If Poly loses to EWU, Poly is on the bubble, even with a win over Weber.

EWU could lose 3 in a row and still get in. UND could lose both remaining games & still get in.

So, 2 playoff spots go for sure to UND & EWOO. If Poly, Weber, or the Fizz win out, they are in. Griz might even make it in if they lose one. A Griz team with 7 D1 wins in in every day of the week and twice on Sunday, with a home game to boot.

If I were a betting man, I'm going with EWOO, UND, and UM as playoff locks. Weber or Poly are both a coin toss at this point. No way the BSC get 5 team in though.

No. If that were somehow a mathematic possibility, which I don't think it is, then that is a deeply troubling scenario. Having four league losses and making the playoffs would flat out be sick and wrong.

[iaafan]

It will take some work for UM to get in at 7-4.

The league would probably need to get four at-large berths, which isn't likely. If not that they'd need Cal Poly to lose all three remaining games or WSU to lose two of its three remaining games.

[Grizaddict]

The league, UM and the NCAA don't count it.

UM finishes in the past seven years are:
2010 - Tied for 3rd with WSU and SSU
2011 - 2nd
2012 - Tied for 8th with UND and UC-Davis
2013 - 3rd
2014 - Tied for 2nd with ISU and MSU.
2015 - Tied for 2nd with PSU.
2016 - ? Currently 8th.

So the drumming of the then #1 Cats on their own field followed by a trip to the semis was all a figment of my imagination? Can you truly say with a straight face none of that happened? Like I said, that will tell me a lot about you.

[iaafan]

No I can't tell you that didn't happen with a straight face. UM did win that game, but 'upon further review' that win was taken away.

Quid pro quo: Can you tell me with a straight face that UM wasn't sanctioned by the NCAA and as part of its penalty was forced to vacate its conference championship that year for using ineligible players? Can you tell me with a straight face that the BSC, UM and NCAA have UM listed as conference champions?

The BSC website has UM listed last in 2011 with a 5-1 record. UM is not allowed to show the 2011 team as league champions or it will violate its probation and be penalized further by the NCAA.

[Grizaddict]

No I can't tell you that didn't happen with a straight face. UM did win that game, but 'upon further review' that win was taken away.

Quid pro quo: Can you tell me with a straight face that UM wasn't sanctioned by the NCAA and as part of its penalty was forced to vacate its conference championship that year for using ineligible players? Can you tell me with a straight face that the BSC, UM and NCAA have UM listed as conference champions?

The BSC website has UM listed last in 2011 with a 5-1 record. UM is not allowed to show the 2011 team as league champions or it will violate its probation and be penalized further by the NCAA.

Yea I get that, and all of what you said is true. I just can't handle anyone who wants to pretend it didn't happen. I have more respect for you for admitting that you couldn't say it with a straight face. My bobcat buds give me crap about that, too, but at the end of the day they will admit that was a good team who steamrolled the cats and a few others on that march to the semis. The ones who truly want to say it never happened because it isn't recognized are only fooling themselves.

[91catAlum]

No I can't tell you that didn't happen with a straight face. UM did win that game, but 'upon further review' that win was taken away.

Quid pro quo: Can you tell me with a straight face that UM wasn't sanctioned by the NCAA and as part of its penalty was forced to vacate its conference championship that year for using ineligible players? Can you tell me with a straight face that the BSC, UM and NCAA have UM listed as conference champions?

The BSC website has UM listed last in 2011 with a 5-1 record. UM is not allowed to show the 2011 team as league champions or it will violate its probation and be penalized further by the NCAA.

Yea I get that, and all of what you said is true. I just can't handle anyone who wants to pretend it didn't happen. I have more respect for you for admitting that you couldn't say it with a straight face. My bobcat buds give me crap about that, too, but at the end of the day they will admit that was a good team who steamrolled the cats and a few others on that march to the semis. The ones who truly want to say it never happened because it isn't recognized are only fooling themselves.

I'd have more respect for griz fans on this subject if they admitted that the griz deserved to have those wins vacated. So far I haven't met a single one who will. Not 1. Most believe they were unfairly persecuted because they win so much... All they want to talk about is Bobcat fans "pretending" that the loss in Bozeman didn't happen. I don't know a single Cat fan who says it didn't happen; just that it no longer counts. I think it's just the griz fans way of deflecting from the real issue, which was their team broke the rules and deserved their punishment.

[onceacat]

When was the last time there was no Montana team in the playoffs! At the end of the 3rd quarter of the EWU vs griz looks like that is pretty likely.

If the griz lose today but beat UNC and MSU, I'm sure they're in. And they'll be heavy favorites in both those games.

UNC is out if they lose to the Griz (or the Griz are out if they lose to the Bears, but I'm not holding my breath). NAU is already out of the playoffs with 4 losses (and one of their 4 wins is against a D2 school).

Weber still has games against NAU & Cal Poly. Weber-Poly is loser out for sure. If Poly loses to EWU, Poly is on the bubble, even with a win over Weber.

EWU could lose 3 in a row and still get in. UND could lose both remaining games & still get in.

So, 2 playoff spots go for sure to UND & EWOO. If Poly, Weber, or the Fizz win out, they are in. Griz might even make it in if they lose one. A Griz team with 7 D1 wins in in every day of the week and twice on Sunday, with a home game to boot.

If I were a betting man, I'm going with EWOO, UND, and UM as playoff locks. Weber or Poly are both a coin toss at this point. No way the BSC get 5 team in though.

No. If that were somehow a mathematic possibility, which I don't think it is, then that is a deeply troubling scenario. Having four league losses and making the playoffs would flat out be sick and wrong.

It has nothing to do with conference losses, and everything to do with 7 wins (and 24,000 seats). With 24 playoff spots, a handful of 4 loss teams are going to make the cut. The Cats made the playoffs 2 years ago with 7 wins, and the Griz are the only BSC team with a playoff win (2 of them) in the past 4 years ( I think). There is no doubt in my mind that a 4 loss UM team is the #3 Big Sky team in the playoffs. UM has been in the top 20 all season long (right or wrong). The ONLY way that UM doesn't get in is if Weber or Poly win out, and the committee doesn't take 4 BSC teams, but I don't think that is very likely.

Edit: Maybe if Poly beats EWOO AND Weber beats Poly, you see those 4, but that is a highly unlikely scenario.

[Grizaddict]

No I can't tell you that didn't happen with a straight face. UM did win that game, but 'upon further review' that win was taken away.

Quid pro quo: Can you tell me with a straight face that UM wasn't sanctioned by the NCAA and as part of its penalty was forced to vacate its conference championship that year for using ineligible players? Can you tell me with a straight face that the BSC, UM and NCAA have UM listed as conference champions?

The BSC website has UM listed last in 2011 with a 5-1 record. UM is not allowed to show the 2011 team as league champions or it will violate its probation and be penalized further by the NCAA.

Yea I get that, and all of what you said is true. I just can't handle anyone who wants to pretend it didn't happen. I have more respect for you for admitting that you couldn't say it with a straight face. My bobcat buds give me crap about that, too, but at the end of the day they will admit that was a good team who steamrolled the cats and a few others on that march to the semis. The ones who truly want to say it never happened because it isn't recognized are only fooling themselves.

I'd have more respect for griz fans on this subject if they admitted that the griz deserved to have those wins vacated. So far I haven't met a single one who will. Not 1. Most believe they were unfairly persecuted because they win so much... All they want to talk about is Bobcat fans "pretending" that the loss in Bozeman didn't happen. I don't know a single Cat fan who says it didn't happen; just that it no longer counts. I think it's just the griz fans way of deflecting from the real issue, which was their team broke the rules and deserved their punishment.

I gotta admit, that's a tough one for me. Hear me out on this a bit. I think there are proper levels of punishment. In other words, the time should fit the crime.

In this case, Trumaine Johnson and Gerald Kemp got into an argument with police following a party that got busted up and it turned physical, to the point one of them was tasered. They were both arrested and booked into jail. Kemp's grandmother bailed them out to the tune of like $350. They sat out a quarter (I'll admit that was too light in my opinion) and charges were later lessened to misdemeanors.

NCAA determined that the grandmother was actually a booster (for having season tix) and this violated NCAA regulations. The Griz were then forced to vacate all 5 of their wins that those players participated in. They were also provided legal counsel (and I agree that is wrong and should not have been provided free of charge).

Now this is where it's hard for me. Does that punishment fit the crime? Was it a little harsh of a penalty? I think so but I'm a bit of a Griz homer so I have unconscious bias. There are incidents in football programs all across the country that are probably worse than this, with lesser punishments or consequences. Heck you can look at your own program, where you had a few kids egg houses then break into the mayor house. Now in my opinion, those are kids doing some dumb things and deserve some type of punishment, but I don't think it should be too excessive. I think Ash made these guys knock on doors and apologize to homeowners who were affected. I think they also were put on probation to not screw up again. IMO, that punishment fits the crime. The Thomas kid who made pot brownies....he was suspended for a year and was welcomed back to the program. I think that punishment fit the crime. The Griz trio who hung out at what they thought was an empty house under construction and got misdemeanor trespassing, I think that punishment fit the crime.

To have to vacate 5 wins, playoff wins, and a conference title all over a grandmother being viewed as a booster, I'm not sure you can convince me that the punishment fit the crime. Seems a bit harsh in my opinion. But, it is what it is and is in the past now. Just wanted to reply since you quoted my thread.

[Grizaddict]

When was the last time there was no Montana team in the playoffs! At the end of the 3rd quarter of the EWU vs griz looks like that is pretty likely.

If the griz lose today but beat UNC and MSU, I'm sure they're in. And they'll be heavy favorites in both those games.

UNC is out if they lose to the Griz (or the Griz are out if they lose to the Bears, but I'm not holding my breath). NAU is already out of the playoffs with 4 losses (and one of their 4 wins is against a D2 school).

Weber still has games against NAU & Cal Poly. Weber-Poly is loser out for sure. If Poly loses to EWU, Poly is on the bubble, even with a win over Weber.

EWU could lose 3 in a row and still get in. UND could lose both remaining games & still get in.

So, 2 playoff spots go for sure to UND & EWOO. If Poly, Weber, or the Fizz win out, they are in. Griz might even make it in if they lose one. A Griz team with 7 D1 wins in in every day of the week and twice on Sunday, with a home game to boot.

If I were a betting man, I'm going with EWOO, UND, and UM as playoff locks. Weber or Poly are both a coin toss at this point. No way the BSC get 5 team in though.

No. If that were somehow a mathematic possibility, which I don't think it is, then that is a deeply troubling scenario. Having four league losses and making the playoffs would flat out be sick and wrong.

It has nothing to do with conference losses, and everything to do with 7 wins (and 24,000 seats). With 24 playoff spots, a handful of 4 loss teams are going to make the cut. The Cats made the playoffs 2 years ago with 7 wins, and the Griz are the only BSC team with a playoff win (2 of them) in the past 4 years ( I think). There is no doubt in my mind that a 4 loss UM team is the #3 Big Sky team in the playoffs. UM has been in the top 20 all season long (right or wrong). The ONLY way that UM doesn't get in is if Weber or Poly win out, and the committee doesn't take 4 BSC teams, but I don't think that is very likely.

Edit: Maybe if Poly beats EWOO AND Weber beats Poly, you see those 4, but that is a highly unlikely scenario.

In many years, you are spot on a 7-4 Griz team, Cats team, NAU team etc has a very good shot at playoffs. This year, I'm afraid it would be a tough sell for the committee to put in a 7-4 Griz team. The committee looks at overall record, quality wins, and strength of schedule. They use what they call a " simple rating system" for their playoff invites. Due to a weaker strength of schedule and the absence of any legit quality wins (Mabe UNI on road depending where they end up and the possibility of SFU making playoffs) I really think the Griz have to win out and get to 8-3 to get in. At 8-3 it's a lock and even would host a playoff game based on the bidding system in the first round. 7-4 would be too big of a stretch to the committee IMO.

[iaafan]

UM at 7-4 is very unlikely to get into the playoffs unless the BSC is given five total (one for automatic berth, four for at-large berths) spots, but that isn't likely.

At 7-4 UM is likely tied or behind Cal Poly, which would need to lose all three games to fall behind a 7-4 UM. If UM is behind and 8-3 CP, then CP gets in, if tied at 7-4 then CP has better league record and a head-to-head win, so no way UM moves ahead of them.

The other option is to get ahead of Weber, which has NAU and CP at home, and ISU on the road. They would have to lose two of those three to fall below UM. If they win two they finish at 7-4, like UM, but they would be 6-2 in the league to UM's 4-4.

[Joe Bobcat]

The punishment of vacating games etc. from NCAA was for the dUMb actions of UM, and much less what Grandma did.
Put another way the NCAA punished the team for the violations team officials had committed.

What TJ and GK did only set the whole thing in motion, and their punishment was handled in the court system and they got a slap on the wrist from the coaching staff which was only for show really.

Does anyone remember what they punishment was from the court?

[91catAlum]

No I can't tell you that didn't happen with a straight face. UM did win that game, but 'upon further review' that win was taken away.

Quid pro quo: Can you tell me with a straight face that UM wasn't sanctioned by the NCAA and as part of its penalty was forced to vacate its conference championship that year for using ineligible players? Can you tell me with a straight face that the BSC, UM and NCAA have UM listed as conference champions?

The BSC website has UM listed last in 2011 with a 5-1 record. UM is not allowed to show the 2011 team as league champions or it will violate its probation and be penalized further by the NCAA.

Yea I get that, and all of what you said is true. I just can't handle anyone who wants to pretend it didn't happen. I have more respect for you for admitting that you couldn't say it with a straight face. My bobcat buds give me crap about that, too, but at the end of the day they will admit that was a good team who steamrolled the cats and a few others on that march to the semis. The ones who truly want to say it never happened because it isn't recognized are only fooling themselves.

I'd have more respect for griz fans on this subject if they admitted that the griz deserved to have those wins vacated. So far I haven't met a single one who will. Not 1. Most believe they were unfairly persecuted because they win so much... All they want to talk about is Bobcat fans "pretending" that the loss in Bozeman didn't happen. I don't know a single Cat fan who says it didn't happen; just that it no longer counts. I think it's just the griz fans way of deflecting from the real issue, which was their team broke the rules and deserved their punishment.

I gotta admit, that's a tough one for me. Hear me out on this a bit. I think there are proper levels of punishment. In other words, the time should fit the crime.

In this case, Trumaine Johnson and Gerald Kemp got into an argument with police following a party that got busted up and it turned physical, to the point one of them was tasered. They were both arrested and booked into jail. Kemp's grandmother bailed them out to the tune of like $350. They sat out a quarter (I'll admit that was too light in my opinion) and charges were later lessened to misdemeanors.

NCAA determined that the grandmother was actually a booster (for having season tix) and this violated NCAA regulations. The Griz were then forced to vacate all 5 of their wins that those players participated in. They were also provided legal counsel (and I agree that is wrong and should not have been provided free of charge).

Now this is where it's hard for me. Does that punishment fit the crime? Was it a little harsh of a penalty? I think so but I'm a bit of a Griz homer so I have unconscious bias. There are incidents in football programs all across the country that are probably worse than this, with lesser punishments or consequences. Heck you can look at your own program, where you had a few kids egg houses then break into the mayor house. Now in my opinion, those are kids doing some dumb things and deserve some type of punishment, but I don't think it should be too excessive. I think Ash made these guys knock on doors and apologize to homeowners who were affected. I think they also were put on probation to not screw up again. IMO, that punishment fits the crime. The Thomas kid who made pot brownies....he was suspended for a year and was welcomed back to the program. I think that punishment fit the crime. The Griz trio who hung out at what they thought was an empty house under construction and got misdemeanor trespassing, I think that punishment fit the crime.

To have to vacate 5 wins, playoff wins, and a conference title all over a grandmother being viewed as a booster, I'm not sure you can convince me that the punishment fit the crime. Seems a bit harsh in my opinion. But, it is what it is and is in the past now. Just wanted to reply since you quoted my thread.

Thanks for the civil response, I appreciate it. I certainly understand your position. And I'm glad you mentioned the free legal counsel, as in my opinion that was the most egregious thing that happened, and also the thing least likely to be brought up by griz fans in this discussion. Gotta give you props for that.
Anyway, it's 5 years gone now, but I just wanted to respond when the subject came up about how Cats fans see things.

[onceacat]

UM at 7-4 is very unlikely to get into the playoffs unless the BSC is given five total (one for automatic berth, four for at-large berths) spots, but that isn't likely.

At 7-4 UM is likely tied or behind Cal Poly, which would need to lose all three games to fall behind a 7-4 UM. If UM is behind and 8-3 CP, then CP gets in, if tied at 7-4 then CP has better league record and a head-to-head win, so no way UM moves ahead of them.

The other option is to get ahead of Weber, which has NAU and CP at home, and ISU on the road. They would have to lose two of those three to fall below UM. If they win two they finish at 7-4, like UM, but they would be 6-2 in the league to UM's 4-4.

I agree that there is no way the BSC gets 5 teams. And remember: Conference standings have no bearing whatsoever on playoff berths.

If Poly wins out, that means Weber doesn't have a win against a team with a winning record. The Wildcats finish with a 7-4 record, in which case, UM wins the tiebreaker for sure. Poly will be a big underdog at EWU, a 50-50 game against Weebs, and a should-win against UNC. 2 losses puts them at 7-4, and if I were the Mustangs, I wouldn't want to let the committee flip that coin. You could be right, but I'm willing to bet that 24,000 tickets outweighs the head-to-head every single time.

FWIW, if UNC beats UND, UM, and Poly to finish the season, they could be 8-3, and the whole equation gets a whole lot weirder.

Its all academic if UM wins out. To sum it up, I think the committee invites UM at 7-4 with the other BSC school (either Weebs or Poly) staying home with a 7-4 record. If UM finishes 8-3, it wouldn't surprise me to have both Weebs and Poly stay home. Of course, it also depends on which other schools in which conferences are on that 7-4 bubble. (6--5 & in the MVFC might make it again...)

[catatac]

Again, no way in hell UM would make it in with 4 league losses.

[iaafan]

No, onceacat (btw, what does 'once a cat' mean?), conference standings do not have no bearing on the playoff berths. In the scenario you've described they will have some bearing on it. If Weber loses to Poly, and finishes 7-4 it will have 6-2 league record compared to UM's 4-4 league record. That's a decisive difference because it points to Weber having an edge vs. common opponents. They will be 5-1 against common opponents, while UM will be 4-2 at best, or 3-3 if their 4th loss is to MSU. If so, Weber would have wins over NAU and MSU and UM would have losses to both. You mentioned that WSU wouldn't have a win over a team with a winning record. The only team UM will have a win over with a winning record is St. Francis. WSU's lone conference loss is to undefeated UND on the road by 8 points. UM's conference losses are by 1, 12, and 19.

As for Cal Poly, they can lose two of their next three games and still finish ahead of UM if they're tied at 7-4. Simply due to the head-to-head win.

It isn't academic if UM finishes 8-3 either. They will still be behind EWU, UND, CP and WSU in either record vs. common opponent or head to head. They would only get in if the league decides to take five teams.

[JDoub]

No I can't tell you that didn't happen with a straight face. UM did win that game, but 'upon further review' that win was taken away.

Quid pro quo: Can you tell me with a straight face that UM wasn't sanctioned by the NCAA and as part of its penalty was forced to vacate its conference championship that year for using ineligible players? Can you tell me with a straight face that the BSC, UM and NCAA have UM listed as conference champions?

The BSC website has UM listed last in 2011 with a 5-1 record. UM is not allowed to show the 2011 team as league champions or it will violate its probation and be penalized further by the NCAA.

Yea I get that, and all of what you said is true. I just can't handle anyone who wants to pretend it didn't happen. I have more respect for you for admitting that you couldn't say it with a straight face. My bobcat buds give me crap about that, too, but at the end of the day they will admit that was a good team who steamrolled the cats and a few others on that march to the semis. The ones who truly want to say it never happened because it isn't recognized are only fooling themselves.

I'd have more respect for griz fans on this subject if they admitted that the griz deserved to have those wins vacated. So far I haven't met a single one who will. Not 1. Most believe they were unfairly persecuted because they win so much... All they want to talk about is Bobcat fans "pretending" that the loss in Bozeman didn't happen. I don't know a single Cat fan who says it didn't happen; just that it no longer counts. I think it's just the griz fans way of deflecting from the real issue, which was their team broke the rules and deserved their punishment.

I gotta admit, that's a tough one for me. Hear me out on this a bit. I think there are proper levels of punishment. In other words, the time should fit the crime.

In this case, Trumaine Johnson and Gerald Kemp got into an argument with police following a party that got busted up and it turned physical, to the point one of them was tasered. They were both arrested and booked into jail. Kemp's grandmother bailed them out to the tune of like $350. They sat out a quarter (I'll admit that was too light in my opinion) and charges were later lessened to misdemeanors.

NCAA determined that the grandmother was actually a booster (for having season tix) and this violated NCAA regulations. The Griz were then forced to vacate all 5 of their wins that those players participated in. They were also provided legal counsel (and I agree that is wrong and should not have been provided free of charge).

Now this is where it's hard for me. Does that punishment fit the crime? Was it a little harsh of a penalty? I think so but I'm a bit of a Griz homer so I have unconscious bias. There are incidents in football programs all across the country that are probably worse than this, with lesser punishments or consequences. Heck you can look at your own program, where you had a few kids egg houses then break into the mayor house. Now in my opinion, those are kids doing some dumb things and deserve some type of punishment, but I don't think it should be too excessive. I think Ash made these guys knock on doors and apologize to homeowners who were affected. I think they also were put on probation to not screw up again. IMO, that punishment fits the crime. The Thomas kid who made pot brownies....he was suspended for a year and was welcomed back to the program. I think that punishment fit the crime. The Griz trio who hung out at what they thought was an empty house under construction and got misdemeanor trespassing, I think that punishment fit the crime.

To have to vacate 5 wins, playoff wins, and a conference title all over a grandmother being viewed as a booster, I'm not sure you can convince me that the punishment fit the crime. Seems a bit harsh in my opinion. But, it is what it is and is in the past now. Just wanted to reply since you quoted my thread.

Just think if you guys would've won a National Championship over NDSU.

And had that vacated[emoji15]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Grizaddict]

No, onceacat (btw, what does 'once a cat' mean?), conference standings do not have no bearing on the playoff berths. In the scenario you've described they will have some bearing on it. If Weber loses to Poly, and finishes 7-4 it will have 6-2 league record compared to UM's 4-4 league record. That's a decisive difference because it points to Weber having an edge vs. common opponents. They will be 5-1 against common opponents, while UM will be 4-2 at best, or 3-3 if their 4th loss is to MSU. If so, Weber would have wins over NAU and MSU and UM would have losses to both. You mentioned that WSU wouldn't have a win over a team with a winning record. The only team UM will have a win over with a winning record is St. Francis. WSU's lone conference loss is to undefeated UND on the road by 8 points. UM's conference losses are by 1, 12, and 19.

As for Cal Poly, they can lose two of their next three games and still finish ahead of UM if they're tied at 7-4. Simply due to the head-to-head win.

It isn't academic if UM finishes 8-3 either. They will still be behind EWU, UND, CP and WSU in either record vs. common opponent or head to head. They would only get in if the league decides to take five teams.

I think you're confused, or maybe just confusing me. You are putting all your eggs in one basket by putting all the emphasis on conference standings and conference records and who finishes in front of who.

The committee doesn't look at conference standings at all, except for one thing.....choosing the automatic bid from each conference. There is a very good reason for that in the fact with the Big Sky having 13 teams and an unbalanced schedule. On a good year, a team in the Big Sky may only share 5 common opponents in conference matchups. In fact, the only time the committee dives into common opponents is when there is a tie for the conference title and they are determining a tie breaker for the auto bid. It's exactly why UND will probably win the conference, yet be playing a first round playoff game while EWU gets an at large bid but will be seeded, have a bye, and be hosting a second round game.

That is due to the fact the committee looks at your overall body of work taking into account mainly:
- overall record (they are looking at teams with 7 D1 wins regardless of conference standings....recall they took a 6-5 team in last year because of their strength of schedule/SRS scoring)
- strength of schedule
- quality wins
- simple rating system (this is their "sagarin" type system that they never release any info on until usually after the playoff field is set, which drives me a little nuts)

There is a good website that looks weekly at what the brackets would be if the season ended today. He has picked 95% of the playoff field correctly since 2008 because he uses similar criteria from the playoff committee. That link is below and you can see he will list the 10 auto qualifiers from each conference, the 14 at large, the bubble burst (first 4 out) and then the next 4 out. He has UND, EWU, CP, and UM going from the Big Sky. In fact Weber isnt even part of the bubble burst convo and is instead listed as next 4 out. I think this will better demonstrate how the committee chooses at large bids and really ignores overall conference standings and placement.

http://nobowls.com

[LTown Cat]

No, onceacat (btw, what does 'once a cat' mean?), conference standings do not have no bearing on the playoff berths. In the scenario you've described they will have some bearing on it. If Weber loses to Poly, and finishes 7-4 it will have 6-2 league record compared to UM's 4-4 league record. That's a decisive difference because it points to Weber having an edge vs. common opponents. They will be 5-1 against common opponents, while UM will be 4-2 at best, or 3-3 if their 4th loss is to MSU. If so, Weber would have wins over NAU and MSU and UM would have losses to both. You mentioned that WSU wouldn't have a win over a team with a winning record. The only team UM will have a win over with a winning record is St. Francis. WSU's lone conference loss is to undefeated UND on the road by 8 points. UM's conference losses are by 1, 12, and 19.

As for Cal Poly, they can lose two of their next three games and still finish ahead of UM if they're tied at 7-4. Simply due to the head-to-head win.

It isn't academic if UM finishes 8-3 either. They will still be behind EWU, UND, CP and WSU in either record vs. common opponent or head to head. They would only get in if the league decides to take five teams.

I think you're confused, or maybe just confusing me. You are putting all your eggs in one basket by putting all the emphasis on conference standings and conference records and who finishes in front of who.

The committee doesn't look at conference standings at all, except for one thing.....choosing the automatic bid from each conference. There is a very good reason for that in the fact with the Big Sky having 13 teams and an unbalanced schedule. On a good year, a team in the Big Sky may only share 5 common opponents in conference matchups. In fact, the only time the committee dives into common opponents is when there is a tie for the conference title and they are determining a tie breaker for the auto bid. It's exactly why UND will probably win the conference, yet be playing a first round playoff game while EWU gets an at large bid but will be seeded, have a bye, and be hosting a second round game.

That is due to the fact the committee looks at your overall body of work taking into account mainly:
- overall record (they are looking at teams with 7 D1 wins regardless of conference standings....recall they took a 6-5 team in last year because of their strength of schedule/SRS scoring)
- strength of schedule
- quality wins
- simple rating system (this is their "sagarin" type system that they never release any info on until usually after the playoff field is set, which drives me a little nuts)

There is a good website that looks weekly at what the brackets would be if the season ended today. He has picked 95% of the playoff field correctly since 2008 because he uses similar criteria from the playoff committee. That link is below and you can see he will list the 10 auto qualifiers from each conference, the 14 at large, the bubble burst (first 4 out) and then the next 4 out. He has UND, EWU, CP, and UM going from the Big Sky. In fact Weber isnt even part of the bubble burst convo and is instead listed as next 4 out. I think this will better demonstrate how the committee chooses at large bids and really ignores overall conference standings and placement.

http://nobowls.com

I think everyone agrees with you if the Griz finish 5-3 (and that is what your link shows them at). If I'm following this close enough, I believe IAA's argument is if the Griz slip up in another game and finish 7-4/4-4.

[Grizaddict]

No, onceacat (btw, what does 'once a cat' mean?), conference standings do not have no bearing on the playoff berths. In the scenario you've described they will have some bearing on it. If Weber loses to Poly, and finishes 7-4 it will have 6-2 league record compared to UM's 4-4 league record. That's a decisive difference because it points to Weber having an edge vs. common opponents. They will be 5-1 against common opponents, while UM will be 4-2 at best, or 3-3 if their 4th loss is to MSU. If so, Weber would have wins over NAU and MSU and UM would have losses to both. You mentioned that WSU wouldn't have a win over a team with a winning record. The only team UM will have a win over with a winning record is St. Francis. WSU's lone conference loss is to undefeated UND on the road by 8 points. UM's conference losses are by 1, 12, and 19.

As for Cal Poly, they can lose two of their next three games and still finish ahead of UM if they're tied at 7-4. Simply due to the head-to-head win.

It isn't academic if UM finishes 8-3 either. They will still be behind EWU, UND, CP and WSU in either record vs. common opponent or head to head. They would only get in if the league decides to take five teams.

I think you're confused, or maybe just confusing me. You are putting all your eggs in one basket by putting all the emphasis on conference standings and conference records and who finishes in front of who.

The committee doesn't look at conference standings at all, except for one thing.....choosing the automatic bid from each conference. There is a very good reason for that in the fact with the Big Sky having 13 teams and an unbalanced schedule. On a good year, a team in the Big Sky may only share 5 common opponents in conference matchups. In fact, the only time the committee dives into common opponents is when there is a tie for the conference title and they are determining a tie breaker for the auto bid. It's exactly why UND will probably win the conference, yet be playing a first round playoff game while EWU gets an at large bid but will be seeded, have a bye, and be hosting a second round game.

That is due to the fact the committee looks at your overall body of work taking into account mainly:
- overall record (they are looking at teams with 7 D1 wins regardless of conference standings....recall they took a 6-5 team in last year because of their strength of schedule/SRS scoring)
- strength of schedule
- quality wins
- simple rating system (this is their "sagarin" type system that they never release any info on until usually after the playoff field is set, which drives me a little nuts)

There is a good website that looks weekly at what the brackets would be if the season ended today. He has picked 95% of the playoff field correctly since 2008 because he uses similar criteria from the playoff committee. That link is below and you can see he will list the 10 auto qualifiers from each conference, the 14 at large, the bubble burst (first 4 out) and then the next 4 out. He has UND, EWU, CP, and UM going from the Big Sky. In fact Weber isnt even part of the bubble burst convo and is instead listed as next 4 out. I think this will better demonstrate how the committee chooses at large bids and really ignores overall conference standings and placement.

http://nobowls.com

I think everyone agrees with you if the Griz finish 5-3 (and that is what your link shows them at). If I'm following this close enough, I believe IAA's argument is if the Griz slip up in another game and finish 7-4/4-4.

Im the first to say Griz don't get in at 7-4 due because they don't have the body of work to support it. They are a lock at 8-3, no questions asked. To your point on the 5-3 record, that link I provided shows the Griz current record of 5-3 (as they are looking at if the season ended today....another point they are looking at overall record and not caring about conference record or standings). That site is listing each team's overall record as it stands today. It seemed to me that iaafan and a few others were saying the Griz won't get in at 8-3 because they were looking at teams who would finish higher or in better standing in the conference, and I was simply pointing out the committee could care less who finished where in the conference. It's overall record and body of work.

[JDoub]

If the griz win out, what quality wins will they have??

I know UNI is actually a good football team, but they are 3-5, and likely won't be above .500 at season's end.

St. Francis cannot be a quality win, right?

those are the only two possible candidates, and they fall short of a 'quality win' IMO

I see SUU finishing anywhere from 4-7 at worst to 6-5 at best, I can't see them as a quality win

I see UNC finishing 5-6, or 6-5, same thing there

Currently, the teams the griz have beat have a combined record of 14-28, while the teams they've lost to are 17-7

Despite NO QUALITY WINS, if the griz win out they will still make the playoffs. WHY? - because they beat NDSU a year and a half ago, they get 20K seats filled, and they provide good TV exposure for the FCS, they have the brand.

Of all the Big Sky teams that could finish at 7-4, I think there are teams ahead of UM for an at-large birth:
NAU, Cal Poly, and SUU,
NAU because that would mean they beat UM, UND, WSU and SUU and quality losses Arizona State and WIU
SUU because that would mean they beat BYU and NAU (will NOT happen)
Cal Poly because they beat UM head-to-head, but even with that if they finish 7-4 that would mean late season 1-2 breakdown, but entirely possible if they falter against EWU and WSU/UNC - I think they lose at least one of those 3, all close teams

Weber SHOULD be considered above UM if they're both 7-4, but they won't. They'd have better 'quality losses' (Utah State and South Dakota 2OT) and would've beat at least one team UM lost to.

I think it'll be EWU, UND, and Cal Poly this year. I'd be surprised to see 4 Big Sky teams in, but it's possible. I see Big Sky bubble teams as NAU or WSU, and UM, but UNC can play spoiler for UM, and UNC makes it in if they can beat UND, UM, and Cal Poly in their last 3 games (they'd deserve to get in if they win out).

Bobcats can play spoiler this year