MSU's 4-loss case

[tampa_griz]

I do agree, though, that the head to head thing should be huge. I always hate to see other factors taken over head-to-head ... it flies in the face of the "decide it on the field" thing.

But we do have to be careful about throwing stones in glass houses when we start talking about other teams' losses.

The head-to-head part is huge and I like the "decide it on the field" measure to compare teams.

That said I think the first baramoter for getting in the POs is W/L record....which it is. Following that, if there are two teams on the bubble (MSU and PSU) with idential W/L records and then if a head-to-head result exists go with the winner.....unless the SOS (or other factors) difference for the loser compared to the winner was so extreme it would require re-examination. I'm not saying PSU's case is one of those extreme conditions but some might. I'm glad I wouldn't have to make the decision in that specific case.

I wasn't trying to smack about MSU's losses. Was just making an assessment about them compared to MSU's. I could have used other language if that was my intent.

[kmax]

I do agree, though, that the head to head thing should be huge. I always hate to see other factors taken over head-to-head ... it flies in the face of the "decide it on the field" thing.

But we do have to be careful about throwing stones in glass houses when we start talking about other teams' losses.

The head-to-head part is huge and I like the "decide it on the field" measure to compare teams.

That said I think the first baramoter for getting in the POs is W/L record....which it is. Following that, if there are two teams on the bubble (MSU and PSU) with idential W/L records and then if a head-to-head result exists go with the winner.....unless the SOS (or other factors) difference for the loser compared to the winner was so extreme it would require re-examination. I'm not saying PSU's case is one of those extreme conditions but some might. I'm glad I wouldn't have to make the decision in that specific case.

I wasn't trying to smack about MSU's losses. Was just making an assessment about them compared to MSU's. I could have used other language if that was my intent.

I don't think anyone was taking it as smack. Heck, for Cat/Griz week this type of actual rational debate between Cat and Griz fans is actually quite astounding!

[GreenDay17]

Go ahead and compare losses - it just makes a stronger case for PSU.
MSU's losses are ugly while PSU's are to legitimate programs.

MSU losses:
Chadron State (DII)
UC Davis (4-5 record -> 45-0 loss)
E Washington (3-8 record)


PSU losses:
Cal (8-2, #15 in BCS)
Montana (9-1, #2 in 1AA)
Montana State (7-3, #15 in 1AA)
Oregon (7-3, #24 in BCS)

[tampa_griz]

I just don't get this argument. Look, I'm not really going to say the Cats deserve it more than any other 4 loss team as we took some bad losses, but I don't get this whole strength of schedule boosts PSU thing. Their strength of schedule is high because of essentially 5 games. UM, MSU, New Mexico, Cal and Oregon. Let's see, they are 1-4 in those games and the only one of those 4 losses they were even close on was UM, and that really wasn't that close. So they played a tough schedule, so what, they got spanked by the very part of the schedule that everyone says should make them good. They have 1 quality win, that's it. Just because they played and lost to good teams doesn't make them a playoff team! Like I said, I'm not trying to argue MSU over PSU as right now MSU only has a couple quality wins and some very bad losses, I'm just saying that I really think the logic that everyone is using to say PSU is such a good team is really, really flawed.

You and I agree that just because a team schedules tough opponents and loses to them doesn't make them a great team. But as Grizlaw noted, when the two teams' losses are compared PSU's don't look as bad as MSU's. It might not make them a playoff team.....but I could see the selection committing using this rationale if they had to pick PSU or MSU. It would certainly suck for MSU as they beat them but PSU would probably have a better record than MSU if it didn't play Cal and Oregon.

Agreed that they may use that as reason to pick PSU over MSU, like I said I am not trying to argue specifically for MSU over PSU. However, your last statement I do have to disagree with. How exactly do we know that they "probably would have a better record than MSU if it didn't play Cal and Oregon"? What other quality wins do they have that MSU also doesn't have that bear this out? This is my point, yes they played a tough schedule with Cal and Oregon, but it isn't like they just barely got beat and showed in those games to be a top team...they got spanked and it showed absolutely nothing. To take from that they would have won had they played lesser teams is a leap of faith over a mile wide chasm.

In my last statement I was operating from the mindset that PSU would have a better chance at a better record if they played say SDSU or UC Davis. I didn't word it right. And I have no idea if PSU could beat SDSU or UC Davis (they'd probably lose to UC Davis)......but they'd be easier games than Cal or Oregon.

[kmax]

Go ahead and compare losses - it just makes a stronger case for PSU.
MSU's losses are ugly while PSU's are to legitimate programs.

MSU losses:
Chadron State (DII)
UC Davis (4-5 record -> 45-0 loss)
E Washington (3-8 record)


PSU losses:
Cal (8-2, #15 in BCS)
Montana (9-1, #2 in 1AA)
Montana State (7-3, #15 in 1AA)
Oregon (7-3, #24 in BCS)

Welcome to the discussion, but try to catch up. Nobody is arguing that PSU has worse losses than MSU. What we are, or least I am, trying to say is that PSU's losses say absolutely nothing about them as a team, nothing to improve their standing. MSU's losses say a hell of lot, unfortunately it is all bad. PSU's losses just say they can lose, and lose resoundingly in most cases, to good teams. When none of their other victories really shout anything about beating good teams, why should the fact that they know how to lose to good teams make them a playoff team? In case you missed my previous comments, I'm not trying to argue MSU over PSU, I firmly believe the Cats chances for the playoffs live or die this weekend in Missoula, I'm just trying to say that I am not buying into this theory that PSU is so good because their only losses are to good teams. Playoff caliber teams beat good teams (or at least look good and put up a fight in losing), they don't look bad losing to them--just my opinion.

[kmax]

I just don't get this argument. Look, I'm not really going to say the Cats deserve it more than any other 4 loss team as we took some bad losses, but I don't get this whole strength of schedule boosts PSU thing. Their strength of schedule is high because of essentially 5 games. UM, MSU, New Mexico, Cal and Oregon. Let's see, they are 1-4 in those games and the only one of those 4 losses they were even close on was UM, and that really wasn't that close. So they played a tough schedule, so what, they got spanked by the very part of the schedule that everyone says should make them good. They have 1 quality win, that's it. Just because they played and lost to good teams doesn't make them a playoff team! Like I said, I'm not trying to argue MSU over PSU as right now MSU only has a couple quality wins and some very bad losses, I'm just saying that I really think the logic that everyone is using to say PSU is such a good team is really, really flawed.

You and I agree that just because a team schedules tough opponents and loses to them doesn't make them a great team. But as Grizlaw noted, when the two teams' losses are compared PSU's don't look as bad as MSU's. It might not make them a playoff team.....but I could see the selection committing using this rationale if they had to pick PSU or MSU. It would certainly suck for MSU as they beat them but PSU would probably have a better record than MSU if it didn't play Cal and Oregon.

Agreed that they may use that as reason to pick PSU over MSU, like I said I am not trying to argue specifically for MSU over PSU. However, your last statement I do have to disagree with. How exactly do we know that they "probably would have a better record than MSU if it didn't play Cal and Oregon"? What other quality wins do they have that MSU also doesn't have that bear this out? This is my point, yes they played a tough schedule with Cal and Oregon, but it isn't like they just barely got beat and showed in those games to be a top team...they got spanked and it showed absolutely nothing. To take from that they would have won had they played lesser teams is a leap of faith over a mile wide chasm.

In my last statement I was operating from the mindset that PSU would have a better chance at a better record if they played say SDSU or UC Davis. I didn't word it right. And I have no idea if PSU could beat SDSU or UC Davis (they'd probably lose to UC Davis)......but they'd be easier games than Cal or Oregon.

Okay, I'll buy that and agree, yes they would be easier games than Cal or Oregon. However I still stand by my statement that other than the New Mexico game they didn't show anything to say they would have won "easier" out of conference games. Whether we want to admit it or not, the Big Sky was way down in competition level this year and PSU got handled by the only other two teams that have shown to be anything above mediocre in this league.

[GreenDay17]

Welcome to the discussion, but try to catch up. Nobody is arguing that PSU has worse losses than MSU. What we are, or least I am, trying to say is that PSU's losses say absolutely nothing about them as a team, nothing to improve their standing. MSU's losses say a hell of lot, unfortunately it is all bad. PSU's losses just say they can lose, and lose resoundingly in most cases, to good teams. When none of their other victories really shout anything about beating good teams, why should the fact that they know how to lose to good teams make them a playoff team? In case you missed my previous comments, I'm not trying to argue MSU over PSU, I firmly believe the Cats chances for the playoffs live or die this weekend in Missoula, I'm just trying to say that I am not buying into this theory that PSU is so good because their only losses are to good teams. Playoff caliber teams beat good teams (or at least look good and put up a fight in losing), they don't look bad losing to them--just my opinion.

From my point of view, the only losses that PSU looked "bad" in were at Montana State and at Oregon.

The loss to Montana was by 6 using the 3rd QB and a QB who had only been on campus for 5 days. The loss to Cal was "only" by 26 (not that a 26 point loss is good) and was played for more than half with the 3rd QB. BTW, the 3rd QB at PSU could not be effective starting at Bozeman High.

I don't think that losses to good teams makes you a better team, but I do think that losses to bad teams should be more detrimental to playoff aspirations.

[Helcat72]

So for the sake of argument...what would happen if both PSU and MSU played their "losses" over. What would their records be?

[Robcat]

So for the sake of argument...what would happen if both PSU and MSU played their "losses" over. What would their records be?

My guesstimate would be a loss to Chadron and UC, but a win over EWU.

[GreenDay17]

So for the sake of argument...what would happen if both PSU and MSU played their "losses" over. What would their records be?

PSU could very well be 9-2 with a legitimate chance to beat both UM and MSU.

MSU could very well be 9-1 with their only loss being to PSU.

[kmax]

I don't think that losses to good teams makes you a better team,

Exactly my point, glad you agree. So now that you agree, tell me why is it that everyone is taking those losses to good teams and saying PSU should be in the playoffs. Where did they show they were a playoff team? They did the first part by scheduling difficult teams so as not to fall into the weak schedule trap, but they didn't follow through by showing anything against those difficult teams.

but I do think that losses to bad teams should be more detrimental to playoff aspirations.

Again, exactly my point and glad you agree. Which is why I said the Cats needed to win this weekend to make it to the playoffs.

[tampa_griz]

So for the sake of argument...what would happen if both PSU and MSU played their "losses" over. What would their records be?

The world will never know (at least with this year's teams). But if I had to bet I'd bet that MSU would beat Chadron and EWU yet lose to UC Davis. Portland State would probably remain unchanged as far as I can tell.

For the sake of the argument I'll also predict a narrow Montana win over MSU. If my predictions are correct MSU would be 9-2. Portland State would still be 7-4. But as I said we'll never know.

[GreenDay17]

I don't think that losses to good teams makes you a better team,

Exactly my point, glad you agree. So now that you agree, tell me why is it that everyone is taking those losses to good teams and saying PSU should be in the playoffs. Where did they show they were a playoff team? They did the first part by scheduling difficult teams so as not to fall into the weak schedule trap, but they didn't follow through by showing anything against those difficult teams.

but I do think that losses to bad teams should be more detrimental to playoff aspirations.

Again, exactly my point and glad you agree. Which is why I said the Cats needed to win this weekend to make it to the playoffs.

For arguments sake, they did beat New Mexico (5-5) who only has to beat San Diego St to become bowl eligible. Other than that, they have beaten all of the teams that they should beat and lost 2 relatively close games to teams they could have beaten while playing at significantly less than full strength.

In a different year of 1AA football there would not be talk of PSU or MSU getting a playoff spot. But since it appears that there may not be enough quality teams with 3 or fewer losses the discussion has become "which 4 loss teams would be most deserving".

Due to a lack of "bad losses" and a quality 1A win against a possible bowl team, PSU makes a stronger case than most. Just my opinion.

[CARDIAC_CATS]

If PSU makes it in here is what they should schedule for next year.

(SARCASM ON)

Texas A&M (1-A) - sure loss but we'll get credit for it ($$$ game too)

Southern Utah (1-AA) - should win this game at home

Stephen F. Austin (1-AA) - Should win this game at home

Washington State (1-A) - will lose it but get credit for it. ($$$ game too)

BSC schedule (could lose 1-2 games in conference) - 5-6 wins.

7-4 ... but have 2 QUALITY losses (or blowouts) against 1-A teams. 7 Div 1 wins. So I think the Key is to put that extra 1-A team in to justify the losses

(SARCASM OFF)

1-A games should ONLY COUNT if you beat the 1-A team. There is no proof or anything the committee can say about a team if they lose big time to a 1-A team. All they can say is they got paid a lot of money for it as it should most likely happen anyway. So to say PSU's big 1-A games count is hogwash to me. Yeah, they could have chosen to play a 1-AA or DIV II team but they didn't! They chose the money games and should be MARKED DOWN for those losses as they are valid losses.

All I am going to say about this. The CATS JUST NEED TO TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS IN 4 DAYS.

[SonomaCat]

As a slight tangent from the main topic ... is the lack of gaudy W-L record teams this year a result of more parity in 1-AA, or is it simply a matter of more 1-AA teams playing more 1-A teams? Is virtually everyone taking one or more extra losses for $$$ games?

[Weltercat]

I could be wrong but I thought there was a rule about teams from the same conference not playing against each other in the first round.

I don't think that is true. I can remember Montana playing Idaho in the first round before. This was most likely before most of the people over in missoula were on the bandwagon so they cannot remember that.

[GreenDay17]

I could be wrong but I thought there was a rule about teams from the same conference not playing against each other in the first round.

I don't think that is true. I can remember Montana playing Idaho in the first round before. This was most likely before most of the people over in missoula were on the bandwagon so they cannot remember that.

It is true. Check out page 4 of the BSC press release for this week. On the bottom left hand side of page 4 under "Pairings" it states:

"3. Teams from the same conference will not be
paired for first-round games;"

http://www.bigskyconf.com/articles/artf ... elease.pdf

[Cat Grad]

As a slight tangent from the main topic ... is the lack of gaudy W-L record teams this year a result of more parity in 1-AA, or is it simply a matter of more 1-AA teams playing more 1-A teams? Is virtually everyone taking one or more extra losses for $$$ games?

That and the BCS teams are able to schedule 12 games across the board and they can count a 1-AA game toward bowl eligibility. Heck, any AD is going to schedule a 1-AA game instead of a nonBCS team if he's got a coach that thinks he's in a rebuilding phase simply because it makes the donors happy to go bowling.

And remember, we're in the classification that decided to remain with a 16 team playoff AND not play twelve games. This may come back to haunt all of us within the next three years as the top tier team's conferences in 1-AA (those who think they'll be well represented in the playoffs year after year) because those top teams do in fact get a few bucks from the playoffs, i.e., we're passing up some pretty big paychecks for not playing that 12th game across the board. We'll just have to hope there is a more equitable way of spreading the money the NCAA loses with the 1-AA playoffs around

[old wise one]

Green Day,

Have I just read where you are saying that PSU played poorly against the Cats, and that is why they lost. And then in another thread, you are saying they played good and lost a hard fought game to the Griz?

Do you think the Cat defense had anything to do with the outcome? If I remember right, from watching the Griz/PSU game, White came in during the 2nd half and led PSU back to almost winning that game. The same White that came in(for their starter mind you who didn't play against the Griz) and couldn't complete a pass.

This PSU stuff is getting ridiculous. We beat them already, and the national media and computers that continuing to rank them ahead of the Cats, just because two of their losses were huge against 1-A teams, does not make them a good team. It only makes their schedule harder than MSU's. And if MSU would have scheduled Michigan and Ohio St instead of Chadron and UC Davis, our record would still be the same, yet our scoring margin would be worse, and yet the PSU backers think that would make the Cats better? And you cannot argue the reverse as the gospel, because we don't know had PSU scheduled Chadron and UC Davis that they would have won those games. The only thing for sure in that case would be their strength of schedule would be worse.

Go figure?

[Grizlaw]

I could be wrong but I thought there was a rule about teams from the same conference not playing against each other in the first round.

I don't think that is true. I can remember Montana playing Idaho in the first round before. This was most likely before most of the people over in missoula were on the bandwagon so they cannot remember that.

It is true. Check out page 4 of the BSC press release for this week. On the bottom left hand side of page 4 under "Pairings" it states:

"3. Teams from the same conference will not be
paired for first-round games;"

http://www.bigskyconf.com/articles/artf ... elease.pdf

Welter is correct too, though; we have played Idaho in the first round before (back in the early 90s). I don't remember when that rule came into effect, but it wasn't always the case.