The official/UNofficial Bobcat-Redbirds National Championship Gameday Thread

[allcat]

I finally got around to watching the full game replay because my brother in law said I wouldn't believe some of the stuff that he saw on TV that I missed watching it in person. I have to agree.
1. The ISU guy was CLEARLY down before he fumbled the ball in the end zone recovered by a Rebbird for a TD. It was CLEAR to anyone with eyes.
2. To me the most amazing play was about 1 minute left in the first quarter. Number 67 for ISU ASSAULTED Zac Crews. He wrestled him down to the ground like he was in the rodeo trying to twist his head off. Then with Crews helpless on the ground, number 67 dove down onto him helmet first. Granted, a 15 yard penalty was called but this behavior was so extreme, that 67 SHOULD have been thrown out of the game. Even the announcers really made note of this terrible play.
3. THe last "false start" on our critical drive in OT was, as the announcers put it, a "GHOST call." THere was abolutely NOT MOVEMENT by our guy. How could the official make such a terrible call at such a critical time in the game?? If he had not made this ghost call we would have had about 3rd and 2. Thank goodness Lamson made the miracle throw to overcome this TERRIBLE call!
4. Even from where I was sitting at the opposite end of the field I vividly saw the ISU WR push our DB to the ground. In this case thank goodness the officials made the right call. But then on TV I saw the ISU coach go off about what a horrible call it was. Frankly this comment along with the way the ISU coach barely shook Vigen's hand at the end of the game made me lose a lot of respect for the guy.

I'm just thankful we found a way to come out on top despite the adversity!

1. I can see and I saw he was clearly NOT down. The ball was moving before anything touched. There was an angle or two where it looked like he was down, but there was one definitive shot where he was not.
2. Agreed. IMO one of those situations where 15 yards was not enough, but ejection was too much.
3. Agreed
4. Disagree. The reporter at the quarter break completely led him into that answer. He obviously didn’t agree with the call, but was baited into complaining in an emotional moment of the game. I don’t judge the post game handshake unless something totally egregious happens. The dude just had his heart ripped from his chest.

1. Upon watching it on replay, my initial take was that it was a fumble. It looked like the ball was moving before he touched the ground. But then I watched it again and again and again, and I’m pretty damn sure his shoulder was on the ground before the ball came out. Could that in effect be ruled that the ground does not cause a fumble and therefore was down?

If you had to watch it over and over and you were pretty sure, I would say the call on the field stands.

[TomCat88]

I finally got around to watching the full game replay because my brother in law said I wouldn't believe some of the stuff that he saw on TV that I missed watching it in person. I have to agree.
1. The ISU guy was CLEARLY down before he fumbled the ball in the end zone recovered by a Rebbird for a TD. It was CLEAR to anyone with eyes.
2. To me the most amazing play was about 1 minute left in the first quarter. Number 67 for ISU ASSAULTED Zac Crews. He wrestled him down to the ground like he was in the rodeo trying to twist his head off. Then with Crews helpless on the ground, number 67 dove down onto him helmet first. Granted, a 15 yard penalty was called but this behavior was so extreme, that 67 SHOULD have been thrown out of the game. Even the announcers really made note of this terrible play.
3. THe last "false start" on our critical drive in OT was, as the announcers put it, a "GHOST call." THere was abolutely NOT MOVEMENT by our guy. How could the official make such a terrible call at such a critical time in the game?? If he had not made this ghost call we would have had about 3rd and 2. Thank goodness Lamson made the miracle throw to overcome this TERRIBLE call!
4. Even from where I was sitting at the opposite end of the field I vividly saw the ISU WR push our DB to the ground. In this case thank goodness the officials made the right call. But then on TV I saw the ISU coach go off about what a horrible call it was. Frankly this comment along with the way the ISU coach barely shook Vigen's hand at the end of the game made me lose a lot of respect for the guy.

I'm just thankful we found a way to come out on top despite the adversity!

1. I can see and I saw he was clearly NOT down. The ball was moving before anything touched. There was an angle or two where it looked like he was down, but there was one definitive shot where he was not.
2. Agreed. IMO one of those situations where 15 yards was not enough, but ejection was too much.
3. Agreed
4. Disagree. The reporter at the quarter break completely led him into that answer. He obviously didn’t agree with the call, but was baited into complaining in an emotional moment of the game. I don’t judge the post game handshake unless something totally egregious happens. The dude just had his heart ripped from his chest.

1. Upon watching it on replay, my initial take was that it was a fumble. It looked like the ball was moving before he touched the ground. But then I watched it again and again and again, and I’m pretty damn sure his shoulder was on the ground before the ball came out. Could that in effect be ruled that the ground does not cause a fumble and therefore was down?

Anyone see the third and 4 play on ISU’s first drive of the second half? Was that a catch? Doesn’t look like wr (Lord?) had control to the ground.

[tdub]

I finally got around to watching the full game replay because my brother in law said I wouldn't believe some of the stuff that he saw on TV that I missed watching it in person. I have to agree.
1. The ISU guy was CLEARLY down before he fumbled the ball in the end zone recovered by a Rebbird for a TD. It was CLEAR to anyone with eyes.
2. To me the most amazing play was about 1 minute left in the first quarter. Number 67 for ISU ASSAULTED Zac Crews. He wrestled him down to the ground like he was in the rodeo trying to twist his head off. Then with Crews helpless on the ground, number 67 dove down onto him helmet first. Granted, a 15 yard penalty was called but this behavior was so extreme, that 67 SHOULD have been thrown out of the game. Even the announcers really made note of this terrible play.
3. THe last "false start" on our critical drive in OT was, as the announcers put it, a "GHOST call." THere was abolutely NOT MOVEMENT by our guy. How could the official make such a terrible call at such a critical time in the game?? If he had not made this ghost call we would have had about 3rd and 2. Thank goodness Lamson made the miracle throw to overcome this TERRIBLE call!
4. Even from where I was sitting at the opposite end of the field I vividly saw the ISU WR push our DB to the ground. In this case thank goodness the officials made the right call. But then on TV I saw the ISU coach go off about what a horrible call it was. Frankly this comment along with the way the ISU coach barely shook Vigen's hand at the end of the game made me lose a lot of respect for the guy.

I'm just thankful we found a way to come out on top despite the adversity!

1. I can see and I saw he was clearly NOT down. The ball was moving before anything touched. There was an angle or two where it looked like he was down, but there was one definitive shot where he was not.
2. Agreed. IMO one of those situations where 15 yards was not enough, but ejection was too much.
3. Agreed
4. Disagree. The reporter at the quarter break completely led him into that answer. He obviously didn’t agree with the call, but was baited into complaining in an emotional moment of the game. I don’t judge the post game handshake unless something totally egregious happens. The dude just had his heart ripped from his chest.

1. Upon watching it on replay, my initial take was that it was a fumble. It looked like the ball was moving before he touched the ground. But then I watched it again and again and again, and I’m pretty damn sure his shoulder was on the ground before the ball came out. Could that in effect be ruled that the ground does not cause a fumble and therefore was down?

Anyone see the third and 4 play on ISU’s first drive of the second half? Was that a catch? Doesn’t look like wr (Lord?) had control to the ground.

I thought it was not a catch. Ball was definitely moving around when he hit the ground.

[grizzh8r]

Over six hours of ‘high stress’ during the Natty. This screenshot from my watch is hilarious. For reference, I had 12 minutes the next day and seven minutes on Wednesday of high stress.

"6-7, Ben!" - Ty Gregorak

[TomCat88]

I finally got around to watching the full game replay because my brother in law said I wouldn't believe some of the stuff that he saw on TV that I missed watching it in person. I have to agree.
1. The ISU guy was CLEARLY down before he fumbled the ball in the end zone recovered by a Rebbird for a TD. It was CLEAR to anyone with eyes.
2. To me the most amazing play was about 1 minute left in the first quarter. Number 67 for ISU ASSAULTED Zac Crews. He wrestled him down to the ground like he was in the rodeo trying to twist his head off. Then with Crews helpless on the ground, number 67 dove down onto him helmet first. Granted, a 15 yard penalty was called but this behavior was so extreme, that 67 SHOULD have been thrown out of the game. Even the announcers really made note of this terrible play.
3. THe last "false start" on our critical drive in OT was, as the announcers put it, a "GHOST call." THere was abolutely NOT MOVEMENT by our guy. How could the official make such a terrible call at such a critical time in the game?? If he had not made this ghost call we would have had about 3rd and 2. Thank goodness Lamson made the miracle throw to overcome this TERRIBLE call!
4. Even from where I was sitting at the opposite end of the field I vividly saw the ISU WR push our DB to the ground. In this case thank goodness the officials made the right call. But then on TV I saw the ISU coach go off about what a horrible call it was. Frankly this comment along with the way the ISU coach barely shook Vigen's hand at the end of the game made me lose a lot of respect for the guy.

I'm just thankful we found a way to come out on top despite the adversity!

1. I can see and I saw he was clearly NOT down. The ball was moving before anything touched. There was an angle or two where it looked like he was down, but there was one definitive shot where he was not.
2. Agreed. IMO one of those situations where 15 yards was not enough, but ejection was too much.
3. Agreed
4. Disagree. The reporter at the quarter break completely led him into that answer. He obviously didn’t agree with the call, but was baited into complaining in an emotional moment of the game. I don’t judge the post game handshake unless something totally egregious happens. The dude just had his heart ripped from his chest.

1. Upon watching it on replay, my initial take was that it was a fumble. It looked like the ball was moving before he touched the ground. But then I watched it again and again and again, and I’m pretty damn sure his shoulder was on the ground before the ball came out. Could that in effect be ruled that the ground does not cause a fumble and therefore was down?

Anyone see the third and 4 play on ISU’s first drive of the second half? Was that a catch? Doesn’t look like wr (Lord?) had control to the ground.

I thought it was not a catch. Ball was definitely moving around when he hit the ground.

I know I don’t know how the catch rule works entirely but it seems like damn near anything can be “didn’t have control”.

[kwcat]

https://www.youtube.com/live/RYw_eRC7Np ... -y819Re2wQ

FCs fans National live

[RobertSebastianCat-81]

Yesterday I was on a flight sitting next to a guy who played for Illinois State when they made it to the national championship game in 2014. What an unlikely thing to happen.

[liqud360]

If posted earlier, I did not see it. I was wondering why MSU's endzone said Montana State and theirs said Redbirds? Why not Illinois State in the endzone? Does the NCAA choose what is put on either end?

[CatBlitz]

If posted earlier, I did not see it. I was wondering why MSU's endzone said Montana State and theirs said Redbirds? Why not Illinois State in the endzone? Does the NCAA choose what is put on either end?

I think it's the schools. ISU has 'Redbirds' in both of their endzones.

[coloradocat]

If posted earlier, I did not see it. I was wondering why MSU's endzone said Montana State and theirs said Redbirds? Why not Illinois State in the endzone? Does the NCAA choose what is put on either end?

The intent was to mirror each team's home stadium. The endzones in Bobcat Stadium say Montana State and the endzone in ISU's stadium say Redbirds. I assume if they used Illinois State in their endzone the NCAA would have as well.

[ClowderUp]

If posted earlier, I did not see it. I was wondering why MSU's endzone said Montana State and theirs said Redbirds? Why not Illinois State in the endzone? Does the NCAA choose what is put on either end?

The intent was to mirror each team's home stadium. The endzones in Bobcat Stadium say Montana State and the endzone in ISU's stadium say Redbirds. I assume if they used Illinois State in their endzone the NCAA would have as well.

Correct. There was a segment on this in the pregame coverage. It was dealer's choice.

[MSU01]

If posted earlier, I did not see it. I was wondering why MSU's endzone said Montana State and theirs said Redbirds? Why not Illinois State in the endzone? Does the NCAA choose what is put on either end?

The intent was to mirror each team's home stadium. The endzones in Bobcat Stadium say Montana State and the endzone in ISU's stadium say Redbirds. I assume if they used Illinois State in their endzone the NCAA would have as well.

One thing I did notice, not that it matters, is that they used the correct font to match the home stadium design in MSU's end zone but not in ISU's.

[TomCat88]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

[AFCAT]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

Yeah, I’ve noticed the “First time since..” “Haven’t won there since…” thing going on for awhile and I just put it down to lazy writers. The overall lead in the series is also a joke, but that’s all they have and what they cling to.

[VimSince03]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

Well according to Brooks the Bobcats just have "a thing" so we better accept our place in the rivalry even if we have more national titles and are very close to having more Big Sky conference titles than UM in football. Fritz Neighbor's first question of the post-game of the Natty to Brent Vigen was verbatim "The way the offense struggled I think a lot of us on press row were wondering how it was going to happen...whether that special teams play was something you had in your pocket...talk about what Jhase did." Now...to any random fan who hears that question, its pretty legit. We all saw the offense struggle in the 4th when they had the ball. We weren't awful in the 3rd and DID score a TD just fyi. But Fritz could've easily said, "the way the offense struggled IN THE 4TH QUARTER" because we certainly didn't struggle for the first 3 quarters of that game compared to the defense we were facing. If anything, our offense was the reason we won this game. It's just little stuff like that and we all know where Fritz' allegiance lies. Then the whole bit about us "almost losing it" has been brought up by almost every media member who has a UM education or bias as if we don't know how the game swung back and forth. Brooks was very complimentary of MSU don't get me wrong. But he took it to another level by saying even though we won...we still have a "choke" gene in our program as (per his words) "its a Cat thing" and until we don't have anymore procedural penalties, we still have "a thing"...even next year.

Meanwhile, Bobby Hauck gets to parade around and do whatever he wants and the same media members rarely if ever push him on any of his "things" because they want to make sure they still have access to his pressers in the long-term. Its an utter and complete joke as the #1 choke artist in Big Sky football could arguably be Bobby Hauck. News flash but beating JMU on the road and App State at home did not win you a national title AND one of your best teams ever lost a first round game at home to Wofford.

And I'll say it one more time: I absolutely love what Colter and Brooks have done for MSU's coverage. From Colter's analysis to Brooks' photography output, they have cemented audio/visual memories for decades of Bobcat fans these last 15 years. But I have zero problem pushing Brooks on narratives that are born out of UM talking points for decades as they are a weird groupthink that gets passed down. I believe both Colter and Brooks when they say they have no real bias towards any of the schools, but people affiliated with UM from boosters, players, coaches, media, to fans are going to do "their thing" forever...so we best keep pushing back if we ever want the media narratives to change.

Siri...play "Mony Mony".

[Prodigal Cat]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

The Griz did nothing of consequence up until Dennis Washington built their stadium. After they had a pretty good 2 decades but really nothing that great. They like to think of themselves a dynasty but you can't go years without winning a playoff game between titles and only have 2 titles to be considered a dynasty. NDSU is a dynasty. Georgia Southern was a dynasty. App St was a dynasty. Youngstown St was a dynasty. UM has never been a dynasty. Really they just won a lot of games because their ascension coincided with Nevada, Boise, and Idaho's departure from the Big Sky along with MSU entering its dark years. The Big Sky was bad so they would win a lot of games that would give them home field in the playoffs and led to those wins, but not many titles.

[TomCat88]

Another thing that I forgot to mention is the media often said after the Illinois State win that 'MSU now has two national titles.' Or if they do say MSU has four national titles they say one was from Division II and the other was in NAIA (and it was a tie, while ignoring the fact that there have been numerous ties for national titles in D1-A/FBS and both teams are recognized by the NCAA as champions). If anyone wants to ignore MSU's NAIA title and RMAC titles, then they also need to ignore a big chunk of Cat-Griz wins. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The near entirety of Division II pre-IAA/FCS was IAA/FCS. There was a large (University) and small (College) division of Division I from 1962 to 1972 and when D2 was formed most of the small division teams (all of the BSC teams) went to D2, then IAA/FCS, so there's not much, if any, differentiation between D2 and FCS/IAA. All the BSC teams were D2 and had an opportunity to win a D2 title when MSU won the D2 title in 1976.

Of the eight BSC national titles, MSU has won three of them, which is more than any other team.

[GoldstoneCat]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

The Griz did nothing of consequence up until Dennis Washington built their stadium. After they had a pretty good 2 decades but really nothing that great. They like to think of themselves a dynasty but you can't go years without winning a playoff game between titles and only have 2 titles to be considered a dynasty. NDSU is a dynasty. Georgia Southern was a dynasty. App St was a dynasty. Youngstown St was a dynasty. UM has never been a dynasty. Really they just won a lot of games because their ascension coincided with Nevada, Boise, and Idaho's departure from the Big Sky along with MSU entering its dark years. The Big Sky was bad so they would win a lot of games that would give them home field in the playoffs and led to those wins, but not many titles.

One could argue that's kind of what's going on with us right now. That's why it's important to go stack another championship next year, to approach that dynasty tier. Right now, MSU's success pretty closely mirrors that 2000 era montana crew. Lots of domination in the BSC, lots of deep playoff runs, thus far 1 title. Go win 1 or 2 more, though, and you get yourself in that fcs dynasty mount Rushmore conversation, up there with App, Georgia southern, gronowski SDSU, etc.

[TomCat88]

There's also an infatuation with UM's win over App. State in 2009. ASU was coming off three straight national titles from 2005-07, which included a win over Michigan early in one of those seasons. However, when they rolled into Missoula in 2009, they had lost two games (at E. Carolina and McNeese St. at home), and they weren't seeded for the playoffs with only four teams seeded you can assume ASU was No. 5 seed based on being bracketed with No. 4 Richmond. They only had three wins of over 15 points and had wins of 3 in OT at The Citadel, and 5 over W. Carolina at home. In the playoffs they barely got by S. Carolina St. 20-13 with a 50-yard fumble return in the 4th quarter, then narrowly beat Richmond with 21 4th quarter points, including the winner with :10 to play. Frankly, it was a game UM should've won and did 24-17 scoring with 1:30 to play. ASU was hit with 11 penalties for 131 yards.

[TomCat88]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

Well according to Brooks the Bobcats just have "a thing" so we better accept our place in the rivalry even if we have more national titles and are very close to having more Big Sky conference titles than UM in football. Fritz Neighbor's first question of the post-game of the Natty to Brent Vigen was verbatim "The way the offense struggled I think a lot of us on press row were wondering how it was going to happen...whether that special teams play was something you had in your pocket...talk about what Jhase did." Now...to any random fan who hears that question, its pretty legit. We all saw the offense struggle in the 4th when they had the ball. We weren't awful in the 3rd and DID score a TD just fyi. But Fritz could've easily said, "the way the offense struggled IN THE 4TH QUARTER" because we certainly didn't struggle for the first 3 quarters of that game compared to the defense we were facing. If anything, our offense was the reason we won this game. It's just little stuff like that and we all know where Fritz' allegiance lies. Then the whole bit about us "almost losing it" has been brought up by almost every media member who has a UM education or bias as if we don't know how the game swung back and forth. Brooks was very complimentary of MSU don't get me wrong. But he took it to another level by saying even though we won...we still have a "choke" gene in our program as (per his words) "its a Cat thing" and until we don't have anymore procedural penalties, we still have "a thing"...even next year.

Meanwhile, Bobby Hauck gets to parade around and do whatever he wants and the same media members rarely if ever push him on any of his "things" because they want to make sure they still have access to his pressers in the long-term. Its an utter and complete joke as the #1 choke artist in Big Sky football could arguably be Bobby Hauck. News flash but beating JMU on the road and App State at home did not win you a national title AND one of your best teams ever lost a first round game at home to Wofford.

And I'll say it one more time: I absolutely love what Colter and Brooks have done for MSU's coverage. From Colter's analysis to Brooks' photography output, they have cemented audio/visual memories for decades of Bobcat fans these last 15 years. But I have zero problem pushing Brooks on narratives that are born out of UM talking points for decades as they are a weird groupthink that gets passed down. I believe both Colter and Brooks when they say they have no real bias towards any of the schools, but people affiliated with UM from boosters, players, coaches, media, to fans are going to do "their thing" forever...so we best keep pushing back if we ever want the media narratives to change.

Siri...play "Mony Mony".

I can understand Brook's take about MSU having "...a thing." I think part of what causes MSU to be in an apparent tense situation when big games come along is the overbearing pressure put on it to end the long national title drought. We'll see if I'm right about that next year when MSU doesn't have that monkey on its back.