Big Sky Confrence Title Game

bcats · Post by **bcats** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:01 pm

You haven't beat Northern Colorado and I hope they whip your butts. Maybe you are looking too far ahead.

Eastcoastgriz · Post by **Eastcoastgriz** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:18 pm

bcats wrote:You haven't beat Northern Colorado and I hope they whip your butts. Maybe you are looking too far ahead.

We never look ahead. One game at a time.

Eastcoastgriz · Post by **Eastcoastgriz** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:21 pm

BobCatFan wrote:
That game will be decided on turnovers and the refs.

To bad for the cats than, as we all know the refs are in the GRIZ back pocket.

Cledus · Post by **Cledus** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:21 pm

Correction!

I would bet Kramers ben wa balls that the kitties will be playing for a SHARE of the Big Sky Championship, while the Griz will be playing for THE OUTRIGHT Championship.

The only reason the conference championship was considered "shared" the last few seasons is because there were more than two teams that had the same record with a round-robin of who beat each other.

This year that isn't the case. If the Cats win and you think it's a "shared" title you're completely retarded. When USC won the AP National Championship a few years back there wasn't one person who said they shared a Pac 10 conference title even though they lost to Cal in triple overtime and there was at least one other team (maybe Oregon?) that had just one loss.

One thing Cats fans have from enduring the 16-year streak is a lot more humility, which is something you're in dire need of, in addition to a healthy dose of common sense.

bobcatgrad2005 · Post by **bobcatgrad2005** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:25 pm

One thing Cats fans have from enduring the 16-year streak is a lot more humility, which is something you're in dire need of, in addition to a healthy dose of common sense.

Oh Snap! The truth hurts for Griz fans, doesn't it?!

The_Bobcats_Suck · Post by **The_Bobcats_Suck** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:59 pm

Cledus wrote:
Correction!

I would bet Kramers ben wa balls that the kitties will be playing for a SHARE of the Big Sky Championship, while the Griz will be playing for THE OUTRIGHT Championship.
The only reason the conference championship was considered "shared" the last few seasons is because there were more than two teams that had the same record with a round-robin of who beat each other.

This year that isn't the case. If the Cats win and you think it's a "shared" title you're completely retarded. When USC won the AP National Championship a few years back there wasn't one person who said they shared a Pac 10 conference title even though they lost to Cal in triple overtime and there was at least one other team (maybe Oregon?) that had just one loss.

One thing Cats fans have from enduring the 16-year streak is a lot more humility, which is something you're in dire need of, in addition to a healthy dose of common sense.

Wait a stinkin' minute here! I thought Engineers only saw black and white? This is not open for interpretation,nor technicalities.

Same W/L Big Sky record = SHARED CHAMPIONSHIP

Greater W/L record = OUTRIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP.

Sorry Cledus, but rules are rules...how's that for common sense?

bobcatgrad2005 · Post by **bobcatgrad2005** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:18 pm

SHARED CHAMPIONSHIP is broken when one team has beaten the other. Its called a head to head tie breaker.

Apparently even Biology grads understand that.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:21 pm

The_Bobcats_Suck wrote:
Cledus wrote:
Correction!

I would bet Kramers ben wa balls that the kitties will be playing for a SHARE of the Big Sky Championship, while the Griz will be playing for THE OUTRIGHT Championship.
The only reason the conference championship was considered "shared" the last few seasons is because there were more than two teams that had the same record with a round-robin of who beat each other.

This year that isn't the case. If the Cats win and you think it's a "shared" title you're completely retarded. When USC won the AP National Championship a few years back there wasn't one person who said they shared a Pac 10 conference title even though they lost to Cal in triple overtime and there was at least one other team (maybe Oregon?) that had just one loss.

One thing Cats fans have from enduring the 16-year streak is a lot more humility, which is something you're in dire need of, in addition to a healthy dose of common sense.
Wait a stinkin' minute here! I thought Engineers only saw black and white? This is not open for interpretation,nor technicalities.

Same W/L Big Sky record = SHARED CHAMPIONSHIP

Greater W/L record = OUTRIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP.

Sorry Cledus, but rules are rules...how's that for common sense?

Sorry dude, no matter how you slice it, we win you lose! Nothing is shared. BTW: where is the Trophy?

Cledus · Post by **Cledus** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:27 pm

Wait a stinkin' minute here! I thought Engineers only saw black and white? This is not open for interpretation,nor technicalities.

Same W/L Big Sky record = SHARED CHAMPIONSHIP

Greater W/L record = OUTRIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP.

Sorry Cledus, but rules are rules...how's that for common sense?

No mention of the analogy I made by using USC. Everyone in the nation in 2003 was dead wrong by declaring USC Pac 10 champion, except for your astute insight, I take it.

Could you provide documentation for these rules of which you speak? There must be something on the BSC web site to which you could provide me a link.

If the Cats win on November 18, it's a shared championship as espoused by everyone who's favorite team is the Grizzlies. If the Cats win on November 18, it will be an outright championship as espoused by everybody else. You can put any spin on it you please (which I'm sure you will).

The_Bobcats_Suck · Post by **The_Bobcats_Suck** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:28 pm

bobcatgrad2005 wrote:SHARED CHAMPIONSHIP is broken when one team has beaten the other. Its called a head to head tie breaker.

Apparently even Biology grads understand that.

Again, rules are rules.

Last year, EWU beat both the Griz and the Kitties. The Griz, Kitties, and EWU all had 5-2 records. So, since EWU beat both of us in head to head competition they should have been the OUTRIGHT CHAMPION, right?

WRONG!

They won the auto-bid, but were still considered co-champs with the Griz and the Kitties.

You Kitties just are sour about this aren't you.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:29 pm

The_Bobcats_Suck wrote:
bobcatgrad2005 wrote:SHARED CHAMPIONSHIP is broken when one team has beaten the other. Its called a head to head tie breaker.

Apparently even Biology grads understand that.
Again, rules are rules.

Last year, EWU beat both the Griz and the Kitties. The Griz, Kitties, and EWU all had 5-2 records. So, since EWU beat both of us in head to head competition they should have been the OUTRIGHT CHAMPION, right?

WRONG!

They won the auto-bid, but were still considered co-champs with the Griz and the Kitties.

You Kitties just are sour about this aren't you.

Seems like you are moreso than anyone else.

The_Bobcats_Suck · Post by **The_Bobcats_Suck** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:32 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:
The_Bobcats_Suck wrote:
bobcatgrad2005 wrote:SHARED CHAMPIONSHIP is broken when one team has beaten the other. Its called a head to head tie breaker.

Apparently even Biology grads understand that.
Again, rules are rules.

Last year, EWU beat both the Griz and the Kitties. The Griz, Kitties, and EWU all had 5-2 records. So, since EWU beat both of us in head to head competition they should have been the OUTRIGHT CHAMPION, right?

WRONG!

They won the auto-bid, but were still considered co-champs with the Griz and the Kitties.

You Kitties just are sour about this aren't you.
Seems like you are moreso than anyone else.

No, I think it is great that we could lose to you on Nov 18th, still be Co-Champs, and (don't forget) a 1st round playoff game at WGS.

You all would have to hit the road for the 1st round.

Cledus · Post by **Cledus** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:35 pm

*sigh*

Christ, it's like I'm talking to a child. I probably am.

Last year, there were three teams with the same conference record. It was a round-robin of who beat each other. There's no argument about the shared championship when it involves more than two teams.

There is no shared championship if there's two teams with the same record and one of them beat the other heads up. If the Cats win on 11-18 the only team in the conference to have beaten them will be EWU. EWU, based on their record, is not in contention despite having beat the Cats. Thus, there can be no shared championship.

Why do I get the feeling you're one of these people who riles up everyone on eGriz and is the fuel for all these bar fights I read about?

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:38 pm

The_Bobcats_Suck wrote:
longhorn_22 wrote:
The_Bobcats_Suck wrote:
bobcatgrad2005 wrote:SHARED CHAMPIONSHIP is broken when one team has beaten the other. Its called a head to head tie breaker.

Apparently even Biology grads understand that.
Again, rules are rules.

Last year, EWU beat both the Griz and the Kitties. The Griz, Kitties, and EWU all had 5-2 records. So, since EWU beat both of us in head to head competition they should have been the OUTRIGHT CHAMPION, right?

WRONG!

They won the auto-bid, but were still considered co-champs with the Griz and the Kitties.

You Kitties just are sour about this aren't you.
Seems like you are moreso than anyone else.
No, I think it is great that we could lose to you on Nov 18th, still be Co-Champs, and (don't forget) a 1st round playoff game at WGS.

You all would have to hit the road for the 1st round.

Not necessarily.

bobcat92 · Post by **bobcat92** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:39 pm

If the Bobcats win the "game" it really makes no difference to the Griz fans right? Last year after the Griz lost to the Cats the Griz fans keep saying it didn't matter "as long was we make the playoffs".

I am sure Cat fans would be more than willing to be co champions of the BSC with the Griz.

The_Bobcats_Suck · Post by **The_Bobcats_Suck** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:53 pm

bobcat92 wrote:If the Bobcats win the "game" it really makes no difference to the Griz fans right? Last year after the Griz lost to the Cats the Griz fans keep saying it didn't matter "as long was we make the playoffs".

I am sure Cat fans would be more than willing to be co champions of the BSC with the Griz.

True 92, True. I for one hope you guys make it. If you beat us come Nov 18th, I will be rooting for MONTANA(S) in the playoffs. That is until we meet up again.

Cledus, you are dead wrong!

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 3:57 pm

The_Bobcats_Suck wrote:
bobcat92 wrote:If the Bobcats win the "game" it really makes no difference to the Griz fans right? Last year after the Griz lost to the Cats the Griz fans keep saying it didn't matter "as long was we make the playoffs".

I am sure Cat fans would be more than willing to be co champions of the BSC with the Griz.

True 92, True. I for one hope you guys make it. If you beat us come Nov 18th, I will be rooting for MONTANA(S) in the playoffs. That is until we meet up again.

Cledus, you are dead wrong!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/confstand ... &year=2005

3 teams with the same conference record. Last year, MSU beat UM, EWU beat UM, EWU beat MSU.

bobcatgrad2005 · Post by **bobcatgrad2005** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:00 pm

D@mn you Mr. Suck for making me defend Cledus. But he is correct in who would be the BSC champion. Without the third team in the scenario, the Cat/ Griz game IS THE GAME FOR THE OUTRIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP.

Does that mean that in the event of a Bobcat win a first round playoff game will likley be in a half full Wash-Griz stadium? Yes. Mooolah speaks, and Wa-Griz pulls it in.

The_Bobcats_Suck · Post by **The_Bobcats_Suck** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:04 pm

Cledus wrote:*sigh*

Christ, it's like I'm talking to a child. I probably am.

Last year, there were three teams with the same conference record. It was a round-robin of who beat each other. There's no argument about the shared championship when it involves more than two teams.

There is no shared championship if there's two teams with the same record and one of them beat the other heads up. If the Cats win on 11-18 the only team in the conference to have beaten them will be EWU. EWU, based on their record, is not in contention despite having beat the Cats. Thus, there can be no shared championship.

Why do I get the feeling you're one of these people who riles up everyone on eGriz and is the fuel for all these bar fights I read about?

*Sigh, Double Sigh!

Cledus,

'splain this.....

Year 2004 Griz and EWU have same Big Sky record at 6-1. Griz beat EWU that year, there only BSC loss.

Do you recall what the end result was that year?

Griz/EWU SHARED BIG SKY CHAMPS!

What say you?

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 4:06 pm

The_Bobcats_Suck wrote:
Cledus wrote:*sigh*

Christ, it's like I'm talking to a child. I probably am.

Last year, there were three teams with the same conference record. It was a round-robin of who beat each other. There's no argument about the shared championship when it involves more than two teams.

There is no shared championship if there's two teams with the same record and one of them beat the other heads up. If the Cats win on 11-18 the only team in the conference to have beaten them will be EWU. EWU, based on their record, is not in contention despite having beat the Cats. Thus, there can be no shared championship.

Why do I get the feeling you're one of these people who riles up everyone on eGriz and is the fuel for all these bar fights I read about?
*Sigh, Double Sigh!

Cledus,

'splain this.....

Year 2004 Griz and EWU have same Big Sky record at 6-1. Griz beat EWU that year, there only BSC loss.

Do you recall what the end result was that year?

Griz/EWU SHARED BIG SKY CHAMPS!

What say you?

We are talking about 2005, AKA, last year.