No way the Griz should be in the playoffs

[BleedingBLue]

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Everywhere I look in FCS media, people are crapping on the job the committee did. I've heard that UND has submitted an official request into why they aren't hosting. Stig from SDSU said in an interview that UND not hosting is wrong. There has to be half a dozen AD's pissed that Montana got in and they didn't. This was Truax first year as the chair. I'm sure every year there is always a fanbase or 2 and AD or 2 that feels they were wronged but this is the first time i've heard AD's talk about it. I would bet there is some fire internally for what happened.

Personally, I'm glad to hear this. There needs to be more objectivity in the selection process. I know its impossible not to have some subjectivity, as the teams all dont play each other or have common opponents. But when you have the committee picking teams, and also seeding teams, based on "who do I think would probably win if team A and team B met on a neutral field" is complete horse crap. That is a MUCH too subjective method.

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sorry, beating a dead horse here but I'm still a bit hot about it...

Not to keep beating the horse...but BN seems to be wanting 1) more objectivity from the committee.

And also 2) for the committee to make a subjective decision to throw out UMs OBJECTIVELY superior resume over UC Davis (7-4 record vs 6-5 record) because SUBJECTIVELY we think Davis is a better team.

Also: "If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time."

Which is what the committee did by putting a 7-4 BSC team in the tournament over a 7-4 SoCon team and a 7-4 CAA team.

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

3 times now I've told you who had better resumes, and you've ignored it. Having 4 losses to top 20 teams, 2 of them close, 1 close in score only and 1 where they had their doors blown off does not make a good resume! They had a a high SOS. Who gives a crap when they didn't win any of the games that made it that high.

As for NDSU, they beat 1 ranked team and had a lower SOS than the Cats. The Cats beat 3 ranked teams and had no FCS losses. If the commitee had looked at resumes and the results the same for both UM getting in and the Cats being seeded 3 the exact same way, UM would have been out and the Cats would have been 3. And quite honestly Samford would have been 4. That's not having it both ways, that's having the same process for determining seeds, and who's in and who's out.

You listed Rhody & Chattanooga.

Chattanooga plays in a really weak conference. A 7-4 SoCon team should never get in over a 7-4 BSC or MVFC team.

Rhode Island has ONE top 25 win, against Elon. They have the bad loss at home to non-playoff Delaware by 3 scores.

Rhody is the only bubble team that can even remotely make a case to have been shafted. Every other bubble team had a clearly worse (OBJECTIVELY) resume.

If you want to go the the mat over a single team with a really similar resume...have at it, but anyone that's not emotionally invested is going to call taht a coin flip. But 7 pages on URI should have been in over the gris based on their equally mediocre resume is hitting a new level of absurdity.

Last I checked Delaware is in the playoffs yes? So URI lost to only playoff teams and an FBS team. Yes URI has ONE top 25 win, UM has? ZERO. The playoff team URI beat is also ranked in the top 15 AND has 3 ranked wins. What's more objective than looking at those numbers and putting URI in over UM?

[tdub]

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Everywhere I look in FCS media, people are crapping on the job the committee did. I've heard that UND has submitted an official request into why they aren't hosting. Stig from SDSU said in an interview that UND not hosting is wrong. There has to be half a dozen AD's pissed that Montana got in and they didn't. This was Truax first year as the chair. I'm sure every year there is always a fanbase or 2 and AD or 2 that feels they were wronged but this is the first time i've heard AD's talk about it. I would bet there is some fire internally for what happened.

Personally, I'm glad to hear this. There needs to be more objectivity in the selection process. I know its impossible not to have some subjectivity, as the teams all dont play each other or have common opponents. But when you have the committee picking teams, and also seeding teams, based on "who do I think would probably win if team A and team B met on a neutral field" is complete horse crap. That is a MUCH too subjective method.

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sorry, beating a dead horse here but I'm still a bit hot about it...

Not to keep beating the horse...but BN seems to be wanting 1) more objectivity from the committee.

And also 2) for the committee to make a subjective decision to throw out UMs OBJECTIVELY superior resume over UC Davis (7-4 record vs 6-5 record) because SUBJECTIVELY we think Davis is a better team.

Also: "If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time."

Which is what the committee did by putting a 7-4 BSC team in the tournament over a 7-4 SoCon team and a 7-4 CAA team.

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

Not entirely accurate. Objectively, UCDavis had a better resume apart from overall record. The only real difference between the two records was Davis playing a power 5 FBS and the gris playing a FCS cupcake. UM had 4 FCS losses. So did Davis. Davis beat Idaho, the gris didn’t. So when factoring in all of the objective items, not just overall record, Davis deserved to be in every bit as much as the gris. Even their losses were better quality losses.

So we should ignore the objective record & use subjective judgement?

Oh my, this is just like having a conversation with my wife. I load my post with objective facts, and you bold the only borderline subjective part of my whole post and now I’m totally ignoring objective and using subjective judgement. Ok, whatever you say dear…..oh sorry, old habit.

Davis had better conference record: Objective
Davis beat Idaho: Objective
Idaho beat gris: Objective
No other common opponents with opposite results apart
from Idaho: Objective (either both won or both lost)
Davis played Power 5 FBS: Objective
gris did not play Power 5 FBS: Objective

The only subjective metric, but still able to substantiate and support, is that Davis’ OOC schedule was tougher than the gris. And especially since the NCAA committee opened up the “good losses” can of worms. Losses to #1, #2, #3, #9 FCS teams in the nation (Stats poll) and a Power 5 FBS. (Objective). Gris lost to #2, #3, #9, and #18 FCS (Objective). Each team has 4 FCS losses (objective). Davis’ were collectively ranked higher (objective).

Yes, objectively the gris had a better record. But it is not the only objective metric. Ignore? No. Include other objective facts? Yes. Support it further with subjective? Yes.

[Lord Vigo]

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Everywhere I look in FCS media, people are crapping on the job the committee did. I've heard that UND has submitted an official request into why they aren't hosting. Stig from SDSU said in an interview that UND not hosting is wrong. There has to be half a dozen AD's pissed that Montana got in and they didn't. This was Truax first year as the chair. I'm sure every year there is always a fanbase or 2 and AD or 2 that feels they were wronged but this is the first time i've heard AD's talk about it. I would bet there is some fire internally for what happened.

Personally, I'm glad to hear this. There needs to be more objectivity in the selection process. I know its impossible not to have some subjectivity, as the teams all dont play each other or have common opponents. But when you have the committee picking teams, and also seeding teams, based on "who do I think would probably win if team A and team B met on a neutral field" is complete horse crap. That is a MUCH too subjective method.

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sorry, beating a dead horse here but I'm still a bit hot about it...

Not to keep beating the horse...but BN seems to be wanting 1) more objectivity from the committee.

And also 2) for the committee to make a subjective decision to throw out UMs OBJECTIVELY superior resume over UC Davis (7-4 record vs 6-5 record) because SUBJECTIVELY we think Davis is a better team.

Also: "If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time."

Which is what the committee did by putting a 7-4 BSC team in the tournament over a 7-4 SoCon team and a 7-4 CAA team.

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

Not entirely accurate. Objectively, UCDavis had a better resume apart from overall record. The only real difference between the two records was Davis playing a power 5 FBS and the gris playing a FCS cupcake. UM had 4 FCS losses. So did Davis. Davis beat Idaho, the gris didn’t. So when factoring in all of the objective items, not just overall record, Davis deserved to be in every bit as much as the gris. Even their losses were better quality losses.

So we should ignore the objective record & use subjective judgement?

Oh my, this is just like having a conversation with my wife. I load my post with objective facts, and you bold the only borderline subjective part of my whole post and now I’m totally ignoring objective and using subjective judgement. Ok, whatever you say dear…..oh sorry, old habit.

Davis had better conference record: Objective
Davis beat Idaho: Objective
Idaho beat gris: Objective
No other common opponents with opposite results apart
from Idaho: Objective (either both won or both lost)
Davis played Power 5 FBS: Objective
gris did not play Power 5 FBS: Objective

The only subjective metric, but still able to substantiate and support, is that Davis’ OOC schedule was tougher than the gris. And especially since the NCAA committee opened up the “good losses” can of worms. Losses to #1, #2, #3, #9 FCS teams in the nation (Stats poll) and a Power 5 FBS. (Objective). Gris lost to #2, #3, #9, and #18 FCS (Objective). Each team has 4 FCS losses (objective). Davis’ were collectively ranked higher (objective).

Yes, objectively the gris had a better record. But it is not the only objective metric. Ignore? No. Include other objective facts? Yes. Support it further with subjective? Yes.

This makes total sense to me.

[thisnamesucks]

UC Davis biggest mistake was playing Cal or SDSU and not some mediocre FCS school. Then with the same record as the gris but an actual good win in Idaho they would’ve gotten in ahead UM

Is that the message for future scheduling the FCS wants to send?

[onceacat]

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Everywhere I look in FCS media, people are crapping on the job the committee did. I've heard that UND has submitted an official request into why they aren't hosting. Stig from SDSU said in an interview that UND not hosting is wrong. There has to be half a dozen AD's pissed that Montana got in and they didn't. This was Truax first year as the chair. I'm sure every year there is always a fanbase or 2 and AD or 2 that feels they were wronged but this is the first time i've heard AD's talk about it. I would bet there is some fire internally for what happened.

Personally, I'm glad to hear this. There needs to be more objectivity in the selection process. I know its impossible not to have some subjectivity, as the teams all dont play each other or have common opponents. But when you have the committee picking teams, and also seeding teams, based on "who do I think would probably win if team A and team B met on a neutral field" is complete horse crap. That is a MUCH too subjective method.

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sorry, beating a dead horse here but I'm still a bit hot about it...

Not to keep beating the horse...but BN seems to be wanting 1) more objectivity from the committee.

And also 2) for the committee to make a subjective decision to throw out UMs OBJECTIVELY superior resume over UC Davis (7-4 record vs 6-5 record) because SUBJECTIVELY we think Davis is a better team.

Also: "If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time."

Which is what the committee did by putting a 7-4 BSC team in the tournament over a 7-4 SoCon team and a 7-4 CAA team.

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

Not entirely accurate. Objectively, UCDavis had a better resume apart from overall record. The only real difference between the two records was Davis playing a power 5 FBS and the gris playing a FCS cupcake. UM had 4 FCS losses. So did Davis. Davis beat Idaho, the gris didn’t. So when factoring in all of the objective items, not just overall record, Davis deserved to be in every bit as much as the gris. Even their losses were better quality losses.

So we should ignore the objective record & use subjective judgement?

Oh my, this is just like having a conversation with my wife. I load my post with objective facts, and you bold the only borderline subjective part of my whole post and now I’m totally ignoring objective and using subjective judgement. Ok, whatever you say dear…..oh sorry, old habit.

Davis had better conference record: Objective
Davis beat Idaho: Objective
Idaho beat gris: Objective
No other common opponents with opposite results apart
from Idaho: Objective (either both won or both lost)
Davis played Power 5 FBS: Objective
gris did not play Power 5 FBS: Objective

The only subjective metric, but still able to substantiate and support, is that Davis’ OOC schedule was tougher than the gris. And especially since the NCAA committee opened up the “good losses” can of worms. Losses to #1, #2, #3, #9 FCS teams in the nation (Stats poll) and a Power 5 FBS. (Objective). Gris lost to #2, #3, #9, and #18 FCS (Objective). Each team has 4 FCS losses (objective). Davis’ were collectively ranked higher (objective).

Yes, objectively the gris had a better record. But it is not the only objective metric. Ignore? No. Include other objective facts? Yes. Support it further with subjective? Yes.

This makes total sense to me.

Has a 6-5 team ever in the history of FCS playoffs jumped a 7-4 team from the same conference?

[onceacat]

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Everywhere I look in FCS media, people are crapping on the job the committee did. I've heard that UND has submitted an official request into why they aren't hosting. Stig from SDSU said in an interview that UND not hosting is wrong. There has to be half a dozen AD's pissed that Montana got in and they didn't. This was Truax first year as the chair. I'm sure every year there is always a fanbase or 2 and AD or 2 that feels they were wronged but this is the first time i've heard AD's talk about it. I would bet there is some fire internally for what happened.

Personally, I'm glad to hear this. There needs to be more objectivity in the selection process. I know its impossible not to have some subjectivity, as the teams all dont play each other or have common opponents. But when you have the committee picking teams, and also seeding teams, based on "who do I think would probably win if team A and team B met on a neutral field" is complete horse crap. That is a MUCH too subjective method.

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sorry, beating a dead horse here but I'm still a bit hot about it...

Not to keep beating the horse...but BN seems to be wanting 1) more objectivity from the committee.

And also 2) for the committee to make a subjective decision to throw out UMs OBJECTIVELY superior resume over UC Davis (7-4 record vs 6-5 record) because SUBJECTIVELY we think Davis is a better team.

Also: "If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time."

Which is what the committee did by putting a 7-4 BSC team in the tournament over a 7-4 SoCon team and a 7-4 CAA team.

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

Not entirely accurate. Objectively, UCDavis had a better resume apart from overall record. The only real difference between the two records was Davis playing a power 5 FBS and the gris playing a FCS cupcake. UM had 4 FCS losses. So did Davis. Davis beat Idaho, the gris didn’t. So when factoring in all of the objective items, not just overall record, Davis deserved to be in every bit as much as the gris. Even their losses were better quality losses.

So we should ignore the objective record & use subjective judgement?

Oh my, this is just like having a conversation with my wife. I load my post with objective facts, and you bold the only borderline subjective part of my whole post and now I’m totally ignoring objective and using subjective judgement. Ok, whatever you say dear…..oh sorry, old habit.

Davis had better conference record: Objective
Davis beat Idaho: Objective
Idaho beat gris: Objective
No other common opponents with opposite results apart
from Idaho: Objective (either both won or both lost)
Davis played Power 5 FBS: Objective
gris did not play Power 5 FBS: Objective

The only subjective metric, but still able to substantiate and support, is that Davis’ OOC schedule was tougher than the gris. And especially since the NCAA committee opened up the “good losses” can of worms. Losses to #1, #2, #3, #9 FCS teams in the nation (Stats poll) and a Power 5 FBS. (Objective). Gris lost to #2, #3, #9, and #18 FCS (Objective). Each team has 4 FCS losses (objective). Davis’ were collectively ranked higher (objective).

Yes, objectively the gris had a better record. But it is not the only objective metric. Ignore? No. Include other objective facts? Yes. Support it further with subjective? Yes.

Yes, I bolded the part of your post that said we should throw out the single most objective standard thats used in every sport around the world in favor of more subjective criteria like Davis' superior strength of schedule should outweigh UMs additional win.

Honestly, I think Davis is better. And if Davis got in over the gris, I'd be having the exact same conversation with my gris buddies who would (wrongly) believe they got the shaft. This is like instant replay: theres no compelling reason that Davis or URI or UM should get in over each other.

Wanna get into the playoffs? Don't get yourself on the bubble by losing games.

[Lord Vigo]

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Everywhere I look in FCS media, people are crapping on the job the committee did. I've heard that UND has submitted an official request into why they aren't hosting. Stig from SDSU said in an interview that UND not hosting is wrong. There has to be half a dozen AD's pissed that Montana got in and they didn't. This was Truax first year as the chair. I'm sure every year there is always a fanbase or 2 and AD or 2 that feels they were wronged but this is the first time i've heard AD's talk about it. I would bet there is some fire internally for what happened.

Personally, I'm glad to hear this. There needs to be more objectivity in the selection process. I know its impossible not to have some subjectivity, as the teams all dont play each other or have common opponents. But when you have the committee picking teams, and also seeding teams, based on "who do I think would probably win if team A and team B met on a neutral field" is complete horse crap. That is a MUCH too subjective method.

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sorry, beating a dead horse here but I'm still a bit hot about it...

Not to keep beating the horse...but BN seems to be wanting 1) more objectivity from the committee.

And also 2) for the committee to make a subjective decision to throw out UMs OBJECTIVELY superior resume over UC Davis (7-4 record vs 6-5 record) because SUBJECTIVELY we think Davis is a better team.

Also: "If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time."

Which is what the committee did by putting a 7-4 BSC team in the tournament over a 7-4 SoCon team and a 7-4 CAA team.

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

Not entirely accurate. Objectively, UCDavis had a better resume apart from overall record. The only real difference between the two records was Davis playing a power 5 FBS and the gris playing a FCS cupcake. UM had 4 FCS losses. So did Davis. Davis beat Idaho, the gris didn’t. So when factoring in all of the objective items, not just overall record, Davis deserved to be in every bit as much as the gris. Even their losses were better quality losses.

So we should ignore the objective record & use subjective judgement?

Oh my, this is just like having a conversation with my wife. I load my post with objective facts, and you bold the only borderline subjective part of my whole post and now I’m totally ignoring objective and using subjective judgement. Ok, whatever you say dear…..oh sorry, old habit.

Davis had better conference record: Objective
Davis beat Idaho: Objective
Idaho beat gris: Objective
No other common opponents with opposite results apart
from Idaho: Objective (either both won or both lost)
Davis played Power 5 FBS: Objective
gris did not play Power 5 FBS: Objective

The only subjective metric, but still able to substantiate and support, is that Davis’ OOC schedule was tougher than the gris. And especially since the NCAA committee opened up the “good losses” can of worms. Losses to #1, #2, #3, #9 FCS teams in the nation (Stats poll) and a Power 5 FBS. (Objective). Gris lost to #2, #3, #9, and #18 FCS (Objective). Each team has 4 FCS losses (objective). Davis’ were collectively ranked higher (objective).

Yes, objectively the gris had a better record. But it is not the only objective metric. Ignore? No. Include other objective facts? Yes. Support it further with subjective? Yes.

This makes total sense to me.

Has a 6-5 team ever in the history of FCS playoffs jumped a 7-4 team from the same conference?

Bro-- I have no idea. I'm just saying that his rationale makes sense to me.

[catscat]

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Everywhere I look in FCS media, people are crapping on the job the committee did. I've heard that UND has submitted an official request into why they aren't hosting. Stig from SDSU said in an interview that UND not hosting is wrong. There has to be half a dozen AD's pissed that Montana got in and they didn't. This was Truax first year as the chair. I'm sure every year there is always a fanbase or 2 and AD or 2 that feels they were wronged but this is the first time i've heard AD's talk about it. I would bet there is some fire internally for what happened.

Personally, I'm glad to hear this. There needs to be more objectivity in the selection process. I know its impossible not to have some subjectivity, as the teams all dont play each other or have common opponents. But when you have the committee picking teams, and also seeding teams, based on "who do I think would probably win if team A and team B met on a neutral field" is complete horse crap. That is a MUCH too subjective method.

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sorry, beating a dead horse here but I'm still a bit hot about it...

Not to keep beating the horse...but BN seems to be wanting 1) more objectivity from the committee.

And also 2) for the committee to make a subjective decision to throw out UMs OBJECTIVELY superior resume over UC Davis (7-4 record vs 6-5 record) because SUBJECTIVELY we think Davis is a better team.

Also: "If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time."

Which is what the committee did by putting a 7-4 BSC team in the tournament over a 7-4 SoCon team and a 7-4 CAA team.

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

Not entirely accurate. Objectively, UCDavis had a better resume apart from overall record. The only real difference between the two records was Davis playing a power 5 FBS and the gris playing a FCS cupcake. UM had 4 FCS losses. So did Davis. Davis beat Idaho, the gris didn’t. So when factoring in all of the objective items, not just overall record, Davis deserved to be in every bit as much as the gris. Even their losses were better quality losses.

So we should ignore the objective record & use subjective judgement?

Oh my, this is just like having a conversation with my wife. I load my post with objective facts, and you bold the only borderline subjective part of my whole post and now I’m totally ignoring objective and using subjective judgement. Ok, whatever you say dear…..oh sorry, old habit.

Davis had better conference record: Objective
Davis beat Idaho: Objective
Idaho beat gris: Objective
No other common opponents with opposite results apart
from Idaho: Objective (either both won or both lost)
Davis played Power 5 FBS: Objective
gris did not play Power 5 FBS: Objective

The only subjective metric, but still able to substantiate and support, is that Davis’ OOC schedule was tougher than the gris. And especially since the NCAA committee opened up the “good losses” can of worms. Losses to #1, #2, #3, #9 FCS teams in the nation (Stats poll) and a Power 5 FBS. (Objective). Gris lost to #2, #3, #9, and #18 FCS (Objective). Each team has 4 FCS losses (objective). Davis’ were collectively ranked higher (objective).

Yes, objectively the gris had a better record. But it is not the only objective metric. Ignore? No. Include other objective facts? Yes. Support it further with subjective? Yes.

This makes total sense to me.

Has a 6-5 team ever in the history of FCS playoffs jumped a 7-4 team from the same conference?

I don't know, but why should that make any difference in a year when all kinds of selection firsts are happening. First year a school with a higher bid doesn't get to host. First year (that I know of) that a team can get selected because their QB couldn't play. First year the number 3 ranked team with a better record gets seeded below the number 4 ranked team. Whole selection process is riddled with the questionable this year.

[catscat]

UC Davis biggest mistake was playing Cal or SDSU and not some mediocre FCS school. Then with the same record as the gris but an actual good win in Idaho they would’ve gotten in ahead UM

Is that the message for future scheduling the FCS wants to send?

Looking at the seeding of MSU and NDSU seems to reinforce that message.

[Cataholic]

Article about why the gris got in. He lists all the reasons except the real one, that they make money in the first round games and the griz can provide more than many other schools. Still upset but whatever. Chances are Johnson is hurt and since one of the reasons they're in is because of not having him in those close losses. If he's out, and they lose in the first round the committee looks stupid.

https://406mtsports.com/college/big-sky ... cc4e0.html

You could fertilize a half section with the BS in that explanation. So the gris are in because they were without their QB for a couple games. The committee must be assuming they would have won with him. A very slippery slope. Did they analyze every other team's injury situation? What about Davis playing most of the Sac game without their star running back? The Cats have been without Ifanse all season so maybe we should be number 1. And the part about not knowing what the bids are until after the selection - what a crock. Ya think that was the first um bid ever? Oh, and Haslam gets to make a pitch before he has to leave.

Ya it's very frustrating reading all that justification. Each point could be counter-pointed easily, as you did. They just look dumb. Just admit it was gris bias and money. Because that's the actual truth.

I've asked multiple times & no one has an answer: Which team with a better resume than the Griz is staying home next weekend?

No deserving team lost out. Lots of other mediocre teams with equal or worse resumes (like 6-5 Davis or 7-4 Chattanooga or 7-4 Rhody) but all the pearl clutching over a 7-4 power conference team getting into the playoffs (Just like the Cats did back in 2014...)

Just like how 95% of BSC & MVFC teams with 7-4 records make it into the playoffs.

Theres literally nothing to see here. What would be surprising is if a 7-4 BSC team got left out for a 7-4 OVC or Southern team with a far weaker resume.

Now THAT would be shocking.

I am pretty sure a couple other posters brought this up but you must have missed it.

Youngstown State is 7-4 with better wins and plays in the MVFC.
Austin Peay is 7-4 and they beat Eastern Kentucky who is in the playoffs.
Rhode Island is 7-4 with a win over Elon who made the playoffs and plays in the CAA.

Tenn Martin is 7-4 and did not have a win over a team with a winning record. They did not make the playoffs.

UM most impressive win is over 4-7 Portland State.

Bump for oncecat. I am starting to think you secretly like the Griz.

[catatac]

I am not a doctor, but have stayed at a holiday in express. My guess is slight MCL sprain. You can play but will have pain. Probably aggravated on his slide. My guess is he will play this week, not be able to run much, and may not finish if forced to move around much

Knee injury on top of the hamstring injury? That's rough if true.

[tetoncat]

He was wearing a brace.. so had some type knee injury coming in.

[083190]

Deservedly or not, they are in the playoffs. For now! At this point, don't give a fat fig about the grizzlies. We pounded them and they are in the rear-view mirror. We have a 0% chance of seeing UM again before next November. Weber and UND are much more interesting. So, hopefully we can focus on the teams we may face in the next few weeks. Let's get some guys healthy and take care of business on the 3rd.

[D-Wreck]

Deservedly or not, they are in the playoffs. For now! At this point, don't give a fat fig about the grizzlies. We pounded them and they are in the rear-view mirror. We have a 0% chance of seeing UM again before next November. Weber and UND are much more interesting. So, hopefully we can focus on the teams we may face in the next few weeks. Let's get some guys healthy and take care of business on the 3rd.

This, plus go SEMO.

[catatac]

Deservedly or not, they are in the playoffs. For now! At this point, don't give a fat fig about the grizzlies. We pounded them and they are in the rear-view mirror. We have a 0% chance of seeing UM again before next November. Weber and UND are much more interesting. So, hopefully we can focus on the teams we may face in the next few weeks. Let's get some guys healthy and take care of business on the 3rd.

Agree, but it's not zero chance. I'd say..... 1000 to 1 odds that we do Cat\Griz II in Frisco tho.

[onceacat]

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Everywhere I look in FCS media, people are crapping on the job the committee did. I've heard that UND has submitted an official request into why they aren't hosting. Stig from SDSU said in an interview that UND not hosting is wrong. There has to be half a dozen AD's pissed that Montana got in and they didn't. This was Truax first year as the chair. I'm sure every year there is always a fanbase or 2 and AD or 2 that feels they were wronged but this is the first time i've heard AD's talk about it. I would bet there is some fire internally for what happened.

Personally, I'm glad to hear this. There needs to be more objectivity in the selection process. I know its impossible not to have some subjectivity, as the teams all dont play each other or have common opponents. But when you have the committee picking teams, and also seeding teams, based on "who do I think would probably win if team A and team B met on a neutral field" is complete horse crap. That is a MUCH too subjective method.

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sorry, beating a dead horse here but I'm still a bit hot about it...

Not to keep beating the horse...but BN seems to be wanting 1) more objectivity from the committee.

And also 2) for the committee to make a subjective decision to throw out UMs OBJECTIVELY superior resume over UC Davis (7-4 record vs 6-5 record) because SUBJECTIVELY we think Davis is a better team.

Also: "If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time."

Which is what the committee did by putting a 7-4 BSC team in the tournament over a 7-4 SoCon team and a 7-4 CAA team.

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

3 times now I've told you who had better resumes, and you've ignored it. Having 4 losses to top 20 teams, 2 of them close, 1 close in score only and 1 where they had their doors blown off does not make a good resume! They had a a high SOS. Who gives a crap when they didn't win any of the games that made it that high.

As for NDSU, they beat 1 ranked team and had a lower SOS than the Cats. The Cats beat 3 ranked teams and had no FCS losses. If the commitee had looked at resumes and the results the same for both UM getting in and the Cats being seeded 3 the exact same way, UM would have been out and the Cats would have been 3. And quite honestly Samford would have been 4. That's not having it both ways, that's having the same process for determining seeds, and who's in and who's out.

You listed Rhody & Chattanooga.

Chattanooga plays in a really weak conference. A 7-4 SoCon team should never get in over a 7-4 BSC or MVFC team.

Rhode Island has ONE top 25 win, against Elon. They have the bad loss at home to non-playoff Delaware by 3 scores.

Rhody is the only bubble team that can even remotely make a case to have been shafted. Every other bubble team had a clearly worse (OBJECTIVELY) resume.

If you want to go the the mat over a single team with a really similar resume...have at it, but anyone that's not emotionally invested is going to call taht a coin flip. But 7 pages on URI should have been in over the gris based on their equally mediocre resume is hitting a new level of absurdity.

Last I checked Delaware is in the playoffs yes? So URI lost to only playoff teams and an FBS team. Yes URI has ONE top 25 win, UM has? ZERO. The playoff team URI beat is also ranked in the top 15 AND has 3 ranked wins. What's more objective than looking at those numbers and putting URI in over UM?

Delaware shouldn't have made the field over Rhody, but with the head to head beatdown, I guess the committee went a different direction.

Like I said, Rhody can make an argument. But to me, their beef is with Delaware. And Rhody's crappy resume is a coin flip with UMs crappy resume.

The Big Sky deserved 5 bids as the best conference in FCS football. Letting in 6 CAA teams from a far weaker conference (yes, that is subjective) while capping the Big Sky at 4 would have been the real travesty. Honestly, the BSC should have had 6 & the CAA should have had 3 because the Big Sky is that much better.

Niether Rhody or Delaware are in the top 25 coaches poll. Delaware barely cracks the STATS poll & URI IS #28.

My (subjective) opinion might be out of line on Bobcat Nation, but its right in line with the people who vote in FCS polls. Who, for all their failings, are also far more familiar with the FCS landscape than either BN or the playoff committee. The computer rankings-for all their failings-also say the exact same thing. Its the benefit of playing in the toughest conference in football.

https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/football/ ... aches-poll

[catgrad05]

UC Davis biggest mistake was playing Cal or SDSU and not some mediocre FCS school. Then with the same record as the gris but an actual good win in Idaho they would’ve gotten in ahead UM

Is that the message for future scheduling the FCS wants to send?

Looking at the seeding of MSU and NDSU seems to reinforce that message.

Yes, this year it was better to beat crappy teams instead of loose to a FBS school. It sure looked like teams where penalized for playing a strong schedule and winning against good teams vs playing close games to good teams.

I hope the gris loose tomorrow and they start being viewed as over rated like they are. But they will win tomorrow at Bobcat stadium west, blow the we where relevant 14 years ago horn, and continue to get first round playoff games again and again

[WeedKillinCat]

We could have used "injuries" as an excuse for losing games but we didn't. It was next man up. We kept winning despite key players getting injured. Undefeated in conference-Big Sky Champs. It speaks volumes to the players that the coaches are recruiting. Those chumps on the other side of the hill can cry injuries and playing tough teams and losing, but they don't have the caliber of backup players that we do.

[84CatGrad]

I'm beginning to wonder what's going on behind the scenes. Everywhere I look in FCS media, people are crapping on the job the committee did. I've heard that UND has submitted an official request into why they aren't hosting. Stig from SDSU said in an interview that UND not hosting is wrong. There has to be half a dozen AD's pissed that Montana got in and they didn't. This was Truax first year as the chair. I'm sure every year there is always a fanbase or 2 and AD or 2 that feels they were wronged but this is the first time i've heard AD's talk about it. I would bet there is some fire internally for what happened.

Personally, I'm glad to hear this. There needs to be more objectivity in the selection process. I know its impossible not to have some subjectivity, as the teams all dont play each other or have common opponents. But when you have the committee picking teams, and also seeding teams, based on "who do I think would probably win if team A and team B met on a neutral field" is complete horse crap. That is a MUCH too subjective method.

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

Sorry, beating a dead horse here but I'm still a bit hot about it...

Not to keep beating the horse...but BN seems to be wanting 1) more objectivity from the committee.

And also 2) for the committee to make a subjective decision to throw out UMs OBJECTIVELY superior resume over UC Davis (7-4 record vs 6-5 record) because SUBJECTIVELY we think Davis is a better team.

Also: "If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time."

Which is what the committee did by putting a 7-4 BSC team in the tournament over a 7-4 SoCon team and a 7-4 CAA team.

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

BN is not a bloc. We have many disparate opinions. Therefore, yes, we want it both ways.

[GoCats18]

They really think this is the year they will go to Frisco. I hope SEMO absolutely destroys them.