UM Champions Center

[91catAlum]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

?
Number of Championships vs head to head record aren't analogous at all.

Both teams have had about the same number of years to win championships at whatever level they played at. Has nothing to do with a D1 school beating an NAIA school many times.

If you compare the head to head record where both schools are at the same level, the griz are still winning, BTW. So it's really nothing to get too riled up about.

[Grizlaw]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

?
Number of Championships vs head to head record aren't analogous at all.

Both teams have had about the same number of years to win championships at whatever level they played at. Has nothing to do with a D1 school beating an NAIA school many times.

If you compare the head to head record where both schools are at the same level, the griz are still winning, BTW. So it's really nothing to get too riled up about.

I'm not riled up; I'm just pointing out bad logic.

If the Griz had played at the NAIA level for all those years instead of getting beaten up in what would eventually become the Pac 10, do you not agree that they would have had more opportunities to potentially win national championships? For starters, the NCAA didn't even have a real national championship until 1992. They had polls, which usually resulted in three or four "national champions," but somehow it doesn't surprise me that UM never won any of those.

Don't get me wrong; I don't take anything away from the Cats for winning those titles, but you can't have it both ways. If wins when the teams were at different levels are meaningless, then comparing the number of national titles won when the teams were at different levels is equally meaningless.

[Weltercat]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

?
Number of Championships vs head to head record aren't analogous at all.

Both teams have had about the same number of years to win championships at whatever level they played at. Has nothing to do with a D1 school beating an NAIA school many times.

If you compare the head to head record where both schools are at the same level, the griz are still winning, BTW. So it's really nothing to get too riled up about.

I'm not riled up; I'm just pointing out bad logic.

If the Griz had played at the NAIA level for all those years instead of getting beaten up in what would eventually become the Pac 10, do you not agree that they would have had more opportunities to potentially win national championships? For starters, the NCAA didn't even have a real national championship until 1992. They had polls, which usually resulted in three or four "national champions," but somehow it doesn't surprise me that UM never won any of those.

Don't get me wrong; I don't take anything away from the Cats for winning those titles, but you can't have it both ways. If wins when the teams were at different levels are meaningless, then comparing the number of national titles won when the teams were at different levels is equally meaningless.

OK, fair enough, so it's two national championships for each school. Why does the UM seem to have a chip on it's shoulder about our DII NC? At the time there was no such thing as FCS and lots of today's lower level FBS teams were Div II including the team we beat for the championship. So virtually all the FCS teams and a good share of the FBS teams were at the same level. Why to fizz fans continually act like that championship was somehow less than one of their watered down Div IAA? You have to admit that the 84 IAA championship had tons more competitive teams than either of the griz wins in 95 or 2001 after so many teams had left for div IA.

[PapaG]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

No, because MSU was playing teams that were under the same rules as MSU at the time. That's like saying FCS teams shouldn't claim titles because the FBS champion is better.

What a silly post.

[PapaG]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

?
Number of Championships vs head to head record aren't analogous at all.

Both teams have had about the same number of years to win championships at whatever level they played at. Has nothing to do with a D1 school beating an NAIA school many times.

If you compare the head to head record where both schools are at the same level, the griz are still winning, BTW. So it's really nothing to get too riled up about.

I'm not riled up; I'm just pointing out bad logic.

If the Griz had played at the NAIA level for all those years instead of getting beaten up in what would eventually become the Pac 10, do you not agree that they would have had more opportunities to potentially win national championships? For starters, the NCAA didn't even have a real national championship until 1992. They had polls, which usually resulted in three or four "national champions," but somehow it doesn't surprise me that UM never won any of those.

Don't get me wrong; I don't take anything away from the Cats for winning those titles, but you can't have it both ways. If wins when the teams were at different levels are meaningless, then comparing the number of national titles won when the teams were at different levels is equally meaningless.

Oh Jesus. The Griz were playing in an upper division. Had they been playing NAIA and under NAIA restrictions, of course they should claim those titles. In terms of the wins being "meaningless," that depends on how much meaning you put into beating Central Washington, Carroll, or Fort Lewis these days.

You're not diminishing MSU's titles, though.

[Grizlaw]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

No, because MSU was playing teams that were under the same rules as MSU at the time. That's like saying FCS teams shouldn't claim titles because the FBS champion is better.

What a silly post.

I'm not saying you shouldn't claim them; I'm saying you shouldn't compare the number won to the number UM has won (nor should you compare the number MSU has won to the number Carroll has won, or the number of Super Bowls the Ravens have won...all of those are equally meaningless comparisons).

Do you get it now, or should I give you some more examples?

[PapaG]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

?
Number of Championships vs head to head record aren't analogous at all.

Both teams have had about the same number of years to win championships at whatever level they played at. Has nothing to do with a D1 school beating an NAIA school many times.

If you compare the head to head record where both schools are at the same level, the griz are still winning, BTW. So it's really nothing to get too riled up about.

I'm not riled up; I'm just pointing out bad logic.

If the Griz had played at the NAIA level for all those years instead of getting beaten up in what would eventually become the Pac 10, do you not agree that they would have had more opportunities to potentially win national championships? For starters, the NCAA didn't even have a real national championship until 1992. They had polls, which usually resulted in three or four "national champions," but somehow it doesn't surprise me that UM never won any of those.

Don't get me wrong; I don't take anything away from the Cats for winning those titles, but you can't have it both ways. If wins when the teams were at different levels are meaningless, then comparing the number of national titles won when the teams were at different levels is equally meaningless.

OK, fair enough, so it's two national championships for each school. Why does the UM seem to have a chip on it's shoulder about our DII NC? At the time there was no such thing as FCS and lots of today's lower level FBS teams were Div II including the team we beat for the championship. So virtually all the FCS teams and a good share of the FBS teams were at the same level. Why to fizz fans continually act like that championship was somehow less than one of their watered down Div IAA? You have to admit that the 84 IAA championship had tons more competitive teams than either of the griz wins in 95 or 2001 after so many teams had left for div IA.

Why are you accepting the ridiculous premise that the 'Cats winning a title in 1956 in their assigned division shouldn't count? It sure as hell counts to the players who earned it on the field. They even beat the Mighty Griz 33-14 that year which led to MSU joining the NCAA in 1957.

[Grizlaw]

Why are you accepting the ridiculous premise that the 'Cats winning a title in 1956 in their assigned division shouldn't count? It sure as hell counts to the players who earned it on the field. They even beat the Mighty Griz 33-14 that year which led to MSU joining the NCAA in 1957.

You're twisting my argument, and you're trying to insert an emotional component by acting like I'm taking something away from the players. I'm not.

It was argued by some (in fact, by you, as I recall) that UM's wins over MSU during this time period should be discounted for purposes of looking at the overall series record. And my response to that is that the same logic would support discounting MSU's national championships from the same period, for purposes of comparing UM and MSU. That's all. I'm not saying the championships didn't happen, or that Cat fans and players and everyone else shouldn't be proud of them. They did happen, and you should be proud. But you know what? All those wins over the Cats by the Griz during those years happened too. You can't have it both ways.

[PapaG]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

No, because MSU was playing teams that were under the same rules as MSU at the time. That's like saying FCS teams shouldn't claim titles because the FBS champion is better.

What a silly post.

I'm not saying you shouldn't claim them; I'm saying you shouldn't compare the number won to the number UM has won (nor should you compare the number MSU has won to the number Carroll has won, or the number of Super Bowls the Ravens have won...all of those are equally meaningless comparisons).

Do you get it now, or should I give you some more examples?

I don't care how many the Griz have won, although in 1956 MSU beat the Griz handily, and the Griz were an NCAA school.

MSU has three national titles no matter how you want to spin it to feel better about the Griz.

[Weltercat]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

?
Number of Championships vs head to head record aren't analogous at all.

Both teams have had about the same number of years to win championships at whatever level they played at. Has nothing to do with a D1 school beating an NAIA school many times.

If you compare the head to head record where both schools are at the same level, the griz are still winning, BTW. So it's really nothing to get too riled up about.

I'm not riled up; I'm just pointing out bad logic.

If the Griz had played at the NAIA level for all those years instead of getting beaten up in what would eventually become the Pac 10, do you not agree that they would have had more opportunities to potentially win national championships? For starters, the NCAA didn't even have a real national championship until 1992. They had polls, which usually resulted in three or four "national champions," but somehow it doesn't surprise me that UM never won any of those.

Don't get me wrong; I don't take anything away from the Cats for winning those titles, but you can't have it both ways. If wins when the teams were at different levels are meaningless, then comparing the number of national titles won when the teams were at different levels is equally meaningless.

OK, fair enough, so it's two national championships for each school. Why does the UM seem to have a chip on it's shoulder about our DII NC? At the time there was no such thing as FCS and lots of today's lower level FBS teams were Div II including the team we beat for the championship. So virtually all the FCS teams and a good share of the FBS teams were at the same level. Why to fizz fans continually act like that championship was somehow less than one of their watered down Div IAA? You have to admit that the 84 IAA championship had tons more competitive teams than either of the griz wins in 95 or 2001 after so many teams had left for div IA.

Why are you accepting the ridiculous premise that the 'Cats winning a title in 1956 in their assigned division shouldn't count? It sure as hell counts to the players who earned it on the field. They even beat the Mighty Griz 33-14 that year which led to MSU joining the NCAA in 1957.

Hey you dolt, I'm not saying the cats shouldn't claim their NC in 56. But as far as head to head with the mighty griz when they were on equal terms they have as many titles.

[Grizlaw]

I don't care how many the Griz have won, although in 1956 MSU beat the Griz handily, and the Griz were an NCAA school.

MSU has three national titles no matter how you want to spin it to feel better about the Griz.

And UM has 71 wins over the Cats, no matter how you want to spin it to feel better about the Cats.

[PapaG]

I just find it funny that Griz fans reference those wins. It's like beating a D-2 school, at best, in the present time.

By that logic, do you also find it funny that Cat fans crow about having won more national championships than the Griz, even though two of their three were NAIA and D2?

?
Number of Championships vs head to head record aren't analogous at all.

Both teams have had about the same number of years to win championships at whatever level they played at. Has nothing to do with a D1 school beating an NAIA school many times.

If you compare the head to head record where both schools are at the same level, the griz are still winning, BTW. So it's really nothing to get too riled up about.

I'm not riled up; I'm just pointing out bad logic.

If the Griz had played at the NAIA level for all those years instead of getting beaten up in what would eventually become the Pac 10, do you not agree that they would have had more opportunities to potentially win national championships? For starters, the NCAA didn't even have a real national championship until 1992. They had polls, which usually resulted in three or four "national champions," but somehow it doesn't surprise me that UM never won any of those.

Don't get me wrong; I don't take anything away from the Cats for winning those titles, but you can't have it both ways. If wins when the teams were at different levels are meaningless, then comparing the number of national titles won when the teams were at different levels is equally meaningless.

OK, fair enough, so it's two national championships for each school. Why does the UM seem to have a chip on it's shoulder about our DII NC? At the time there was no such thing as FCS and lots of today's lower level FBS teams were Div II including the team we beat for the championship. So virtually all the FCS teams and a good share of the FBS teams were at the same level. Why to fizz fans continually act like that championship was somehow less than one of their watered down Div IAA? You have to admit that the 84 IAA championship had tons more competitive teams than either of the griz wins in 95 or 2001 after so many teams had left for div IA.

Why are you accepting the ridiculous premise that the 'Cats winning a title in 1956 in their assigned division shouldn't count? It sure as hell counts to the players who earned it on the field. They even beat the Mighty Griz 33-14 that year which led to MSU joining the NCAA in 1957.

Hey you dolt, I'm not saying the cats shouldn't claim their NC in 56. But as far as head to head with the mighty griz when they were on equal terms they have as many titles.

Dolt?

Name-calling is pathetic.

[PapaG]

I agree with Grizlaw then. If we can't compare an NAIA title head-to-head, which I don't, then Griz wins versus MSC in those days don't count either.

It's settled!

[PapaG]

I don't care how many the Griz have won, although in 1956 MSU beat the Griz handily, and the Griz were an NCAA school.

MSU has three national titles no matter how you want to spin it to feel better about the Griz.

And UM has 71 wins over the Cats, no matter how you want to spin it to feel better about the Cats.

You contradicted yourself. I said I don't care how many titles the Griz have. If the NAIA title doesn't count in comparison, neither do wins against MSC from that era. You're not going to brag about beating Central Washington, are you? NDSU sure bragged when they beat the Griz when they were D-2 though, as they should.

[Grizlaw]

You contradicted yourself. I said I don't care how many titles the Griz have. If the NAIA title doesn't count in comparison, neither do wins against MSC from that era. You're not going to brag about beating Central Washington, are you? NDSU sure bragged when they beat the Griz when they were D-2 though, as they should.

Uh huh...and you vehemently argued that the 1956 title "counts," and now you're saying it doesn't.

Look, there was a time in my life when I would have been happy to continue batting this thing around for the next three days until this thread is ten pages long and everyone else reading it secretly starts to wish that one or both of us would get hit by a bus so it would end, but I'm kind of past that now. I've made my point, everyone else either gets it or doesn't care, and I know that you either don't get it or will never admit that you get it. So I'm going to leave it here, wish you a nice evening, go have a beer, and probably fall asleep soon. I hope you've gotten...whatever it is that you wanted out of this discussion.

[Cataholic]

Geez. $16 million locker room and weight room... Figured you all would be happy for us?

Now I am really confused.... Why would we be happy for you??? It doesn't benefit our program. Seems mine like smack than trying to get an honest opinion... TROLL!!!

[bobcatmaniac]

Interesting lots of trolls out there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PapaG]

You contradicted yourself. I said I don't care how many titles the Griz have. If the NAIA title doesn't count in comparison, neither do wins against MSC from that era. You're not going to brag about beating Central Washington, are you? NDSU sure bragged when they beat the Griz when they were D-2 though, as they should.

Uh huh...and you vehemently argued that the 1956 title "counts," and now you're saying it doesn't.

Look, there was a time in my life when I would have been happy to continue batting this thing around for the next three days until this thread is ten pages long and everyone else reading it secretly starts to wish that one or both of us would get hit by a bus so it would end, but I'm kind of past that now. I've made my point, everyone else either gets it or doesn't care, and I know that you either don't get it or will never admit that you get it. So I'm going to leave it here, wish you a nice evening, go have a beer, and probably fall asleep soon. I hope you've gotten...whatever it is that you wanted out of this discussion.

I said it counts for MSU. You can read, correct? The fact is they beat NCAA UM that year as well, which is comparable these days to NDSU beating an Idaho. I've never posted that MSU has more
titles than UM comparatively. Please link where I've done so. Nice tap-out, but really,what other choice did you have?

We agree that MSU's 1956 title shouldn't be compared to UM's 1995 and 2001 titles, right? Using that logic, UM wins against NAIA Montana State College in that era shouldn't be used as a comparison either.

[KittieKop]

Looks like a nice addition on paper.

Wish MSU was doing it, not UM - just because I like seeing progress at MSU.

End of the day could care less, I find it hard to cheer for or be happy for anything that happens in Missoula.

I'd say architecturally impressed indifference.

[Griznationalist]

I'll give um credit for coming so far in such a short amount of time. You guys have come so far since the 1990's when your football program started.

Interestingly, BEFORE the 1990s, Montana led the series over State by a 56-32 margin. That was through 1989. I know what comes next. Someone will cherry pick a 20-year period out of the decade where if you start it and stop it in just the right year, the Cats appeared competitive. For a program that "started" in the 1990s, how did it get credit for 56 wins in the Griz-Cat rivalry before 1990?

You personify the term grizidiot! Although I'm not old enough to remember the 56 National Championship MSC won that year, I was alive and it was at the NAIA level. What was the grissy bears record during that time against a team playing at the Frontier Conference level? That the Cats won more than a few games playing up that far ought to give any reasonable individual a clue as to how pathetic your (I assume you actually went to "school" there and didn't just xrive through Missoula once or twice) big, bad "major" college football team was. Did you have any winning seasons before the Swarthout scandal years?

It didn't take long for the cherry picking to begin. The head-to-head record was 56-32 before 1990, and more lop-sided since.