How do Cats stack up against Griz

[Cataholic]

The truly comparable sample of opponents are conference games.

Cats' BSC opponents have gone a collective 20-29 in league play.

The Griz BSC opponents have gone a collective 18-31 in league play.

Very similar SOS. The slight advantage towards the Cats is balanced by the fact that UM has played one more road game.

Both undefeated in BSC play.

I think this comparison is misleading. Of the top 5 teams in conference, you have MSU, UM, UCD, NAU and maybe Sac State with their controversial win this weekend.

MSU plays UM, NAU AND UCD.
UM plays MSU and Sac State (who is questionable if they belong in this group)

Add in UM played the worst team in the league with PSU. MSU did not play PSU this year.

[MrGoodKat]

The truly comparable sample of opponents are conference games.

Cats' BSC opponents have gone a collective 20-29 in league play.

The Griz BSC opponents have gone a collective 18-31 in league play.

Very similar SOS. The slight advantage towards the Cats is balanced by the fact that UM has played one more road game.

Both undefeated in BSC play.

I think this comparison is misleading. Of the top 5 teams in conference, you have MSU, UM, UCD, NAU and maybe Sac State with their controversial win this weekend.

MSU plays UM, NAU AND UCD.
UM plays MSU and Sac State (who is questionable if they belong in this group)

Add in UM played the worst team in the league with PSU. MSU did not play PSU this year.

I'm taking the judgment calls out of it, removing OOC play, and just looking at the BSC records of BSC teams.

-MSU played UCD (5-2), while UM played Sac State (5-2); I tend to believe that UCD is better, but it's somewhat balanced out because UCD was a home game, while SAC was a road game. But the records are basically identical.

-MSU played three teams with 4-3 conference records (NAU, EW, and ISU), while UM played two (EW and ISU). For UM, the NAU game was replaced by ID (2-5), which is where the two game discrepancy comes in. Again, you can sort of balance out that difference by pointing out that UM has played one more road game to this point.

-Both teams filled out their schedules with games against the dregs, each playing three 1-6 teams: WEB, CP, and UNC for the Cats and WEB, PSU, and CP for the Griz.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that MSU had a tougher road in-conference because I do believe that UCD is one of the top 3 teams in the BSC and that there is a tier drop after them; I also think playing @NAU is a tough game under any circumstances.

But even with those arguments considered, I don't think any unbiased observer can deny that the in-conference SOS is at least pretty close, if not exactly the same. So I don't see the value in arguing about strength of schedule. I'm more interested in looking at how both teams have actually performed in this very comparable sample of games. It turns out, MSU has been the better team basically across the board.

[Prodigal Cat]

The truly comparable sample of opponents are conference games.

Cats' BSC opponents have gone a collective 20-29 in league play.

The Griz BSC opponents have gone a collective 18-31 in league play.

Very similar SOS. The slight advantage towards the Cats is balanced by the fact that UM has played one more road game.

Both undefeated in BSC play.

I think this comparison is misleading. Of the top 5 teams in conference, you have MSU, UM, UCD, NAU and maybe Sac State with their controversial win this weekend.

MSU plays UM, NAU AND UCD.
UM plays MSU and Sac State (who is questionable if they belong in this group)

Add in UM played the worst team in the league with PSU. MSU did not play PSU this year.

I'm taking the judgment calls out of it, removing OOC play, and just looking at the BSC records of BSC teams.

-MSU played UCD (5-2), while UM played Sac State (5-2); I tend to believe that UCD is better, but it's somewhat balanced out because UCD was a home game, while SAC was a road game. But the records are basically identical.

-MSU played three teams with 4-3 conference records (NAU, EW, and ISU), while UM played two (EW and ISU). For UM, the NAU game was replaced by ID (2-5), which is where the two game discrepancy comes in. Again, you can sort of balance out that difference by pointing out that UM has played one more road game to this point.

-Both teams filled out their schedules with games against the dregs, each playing three 1-6 teams: WEB, CP, and UNC for the Cats and WEB, PSU, and CP for the Griz.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that MSU had a tougher road in-conference because I do believe that UCD is one of the top 3 teams in the BSC and that there is a tier drop after them; I also think playing @NAU is a tough game under any circumstances.

But even with those arguments considered, I don't think any unbiased observer can deny that the in-conference SOS is at least pretty close, if not exactly the same. So I don't see the value in arguing about strength of schedule. I'm more interested in looking at how both teams have actually performed in this very comparable sample of games. It turns out, MSU has been the better team basically across the board.

The main argument is the results of the games. MSU's closest game is a 17 point game versus Cal Poly. A game they were leading 24-3 before letting Poly score a few cheap tds late. Griz needed goal line stand versus ISU and EWU for wins. They also trailed Poly at the half. Cats have only trailed NAU and Davis because they scored first.

[OldGriz]

The truly comparable sample of opponents are conference games.

Cats' BSC opponents have gone a collective 20-29 in league play.

The Griz BSC opponents have gone a collective 18-31 in league play.

Very similar SOS. The slight advantage towards the Cats is balanced by the fact that UM has played one more road game.

Both undefeated in BSC play.

I think this comparison is misleading. Of the top 5 teams in conference, you have MSU, UM, UCD, NAU and maybe Sac State with their controversial win this weekend.

MSU plays UM, NAU AND UCD.
UM plays MSU and Sac State (who is questionable if they belong in this group)

Add in UM played the worst team in the league with PSU. MSU did not play PSU this year.

I'm taking the judgment calls out of it, removing OOC play, and just looking at the BSC records of BSC teams.

-MSU played UCD (5-2), while UM played Sac State (5-2); I tend to believe that UCD is better, but it's somewhat balanced out because UCD was a home game, while SAC was a road game. But the records are basically identical.

-MSU played three teams with 4-3 conference records (NAU, EW, and ISU), while UM played two (EW and ISU). For UM, the NAU game was replaced by ID (2-5), which is where the two game discrepancy comes in. Again, you can sort of balance out that difference by pointing out that UM has played one more road game to this point.

-Both teams filled out their schedules with games against the dregs, each playing three 1-6 teams: WEB, CP, and UNC for the Cats and WEB, PSU, and CP for the Griz.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that MSU had a tougher road in-conference because I do believe that UCD is one of the top 3 teams in the BSC and that there is a tier drop after them; I also think playing @NAU is a tough game under any circumstances.

But even with those arguments considered, I don't think any unbiased observer can deny that the in-conference SOS is at least pretty close, if not exactly the same. So I don't see the value in arguing about strength of schedule. I'm more interested in looking at how both teams have actually performed in this very comparable sample of games. It turns out, MSU has been the better team basically across the board.

The main argument is the results of the games. MSU's closest game is a 17 point game versus Cal Poly. A game they were leading 24-3 before letting Poly score a few cheap tds late. Griz needed goal line stand versus ISU and EWU for wins. They also trailed Poly at the half. Cats have only trailed NAU and Davis because they scored first.

Careful. People have been called derogatory names in here for saying stuff like this.

[TomCat88]

The truly comparable sample of opponents are conference games.

Cats' BSC opponents have gone a collective 20-29 in league play.

The Griz BSC opponents have gone a collective 18-31 in league play.

Very similar SOS. The slight advantage towards the Cats is balanced by the fact that UM has played one more road game.

Both undefeated in BSC play.

I think this comparison is misleading. Of the top 5 teams in conference, you have MSU, UM, UCD, NAU and maybe Sac State with their controversial win this weekend.

MSU plays UM, NAU AND UCD.
UM plays MSU and Sac State (who is questionable if they belong in this group)

Add in UM played the worst team in the league with PSU. MSU did not play PSU this year.

I'm taking the judgment calls out of it, removing OOC play, and just looking at the BSC records of BSC teams.

-MSU played UCD (5-2), while UM played Sac State (5-2); I tend to believe that UCD is better, but it's somewhat balanced out because UCD was a home game, while SAC was a road game. But the records are basically identical.

-MSU played three teams with 4-3 conference records (NAU, EW, and ISU), while UM played two (EW and ISU). For UM, the NAU game was replaced by ID (2-5), which is where the two game discrepancy comes in. Again, you can sort of balance out that difference by pointing out that UM has played one more road game to this point.

-Both teams filled out their schedules with games against the dregs, each playing three 1-6 teams: WEB, CP, and UNC for the Cats and WEB, PSU, and CP for the Griz.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that MSU had a tougher road in-conference because I do believe that UCD is one of the top 3 teams in the BSC and that there is a tier drop after them; I also think playing @NAU is a tough game under any circumstances.

But even with those arguments considered, I don't think any unbiased observer can deny that the in-conference SOS is at least pretty close, if not exactly the same. So I don't see the value in arguing about strength of schedule. I'm more interested in looking at how both teams have actually performed in this very comparable sample of games. It turns out, MSU has been the better team basically across the board.

You're right there's really no point in quibbling over who has a stronger SOS, or the stats for that matter. I personally think MSU played two teams that are better than anyone UM has played in UCD and NAU (maybe SAC will beat UCD and change my mind, but that game is after Cat-Griz, so no point in wondering about that) and is statistically outperforming UM by one of the biggest gaps (+2.6*) in a long time. But none of that matters at this point. I don't think the loser's season is over by any stretch. I can see either UM or MSU losing and then coming all the way back to get in a semifinal game and, if so, anything is possible from there.

Yards per play gap. MSU 7.6 offense and 4.4 defense (3.2); UM 6.3 offense and 5.7 defense (0.6). 3.2 - 0.6 = 2.6
2024 - MSU +2.0
2023 - MSU +1.9
2022 - MSU +1.2
2021 - MSU +0.6
2019 - MSU +0.5
2018 - UM +0.4
2017 - MSU + 0.6
2016 - MSU +0.5

The common denominator in those games has been defense YPP. Only once in those 8 games has a team with a higher defense YPP won. But I don't think the game will be decided by that or any other stat or circumstance. Whoever plays better that day will win -- going out on a limb there.

[OldGriz]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

[MrGoodKat]

The truly comparable sample of opponents are conference games.

Cats' BSC opponents have gone a collective 20-29 in league play.

The Griz BSC opponents have gone a collective 18-31 in league play.

Very similar SOS. The slight advantage towards the Cats is balanced by the fact that UM has played one more road game.

Both undefeated in BSC play.

I think this comparison is misleading. Of the top 5 teams in conference, you have MSU, UM, UCD, NAU and maybe Sac State with their controversial win this weekend.

MSU plays UM, NAU AND UCD.
UM plays MSU and Sac State (who is questionable if they belong in this group)

Add in UM played the worst team in the league with PSU. MSU did not play PSU this year.

I'm taking the judgment calls out of it, removing OOC play, and just looking at the BSC records of BSC teams.

-MSU played UCD (5-2), while UM played Sac State (5-2); I tend to believe that UCD is better, but it's somewhat balanced out because UCD was a home game, while SAC was a road game. But the records are basically identical.

-MSU played three teams with 4-3 conference records (NAU, EW, and ISU), while UM played two (EW and ISU). For UM, the NAU game was replaced by ID (2-5), which is where the two game discrepancy comes in. Again, you can sort of balance out that difference by pointing out that UM has played one more road game to this point.

-Both teams filled out their schedules with games against the dregs, each playing three 1-6 teams: WEB, CP, and UNC for the Cats and WEB, PSU, and CP for the Griz.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that MSU had a tougher road in-conference because I do believe that UCD is one of the top 3 teams in the BSC and that there is a tier drop after them; I also think playing @NAU is a tough game under any circumstances.

But even with those arguments considered, I don't think any unbiased observer can deny that the in-conference SOS is at least pretty close, if not exactly the same. So I don't see the value in arguing about strength of schedule. I'm more interested in looking at how both teams have actually performed in this very comparable sample of games. It turns out, MSU has been the better team basically across the board.

You're right there's really no point in quibbling over who has a stronger SOS, or the stats for that matter. I personally think MSU played two teams that are better than anyone UM has played in UCD and NAU (maybe SAC will beat UCD and change my mind, but that game is after Cat-Griz, so no point in wondering about that) and is statistically outperforming UM by one of the biggest gaps (+2.6*) in a long time. But none of that matters at this point. I don't think the loser's season is over by any stretch. I can see either UM or MSU losing and then coming all the way back to get in a semifinal game and, if so, anything is possible from there.

Yards per play gap. MSU 7.6 offense and 4.4 defense (3.2); UM 6.3 offense and 5.7 defense (0.6). 3.2 - 0.6 = 2.6
2024 - MSU +2.0
2023 - MSU +1.9
2022 - MSU +1.2
2021 - MSU +0.6
2019 - MSU +0.5
2018 - UM +0.4
2017 - MSU + 0.6
2016 - MSU +0.5

The common denominator in those games has been defense YPP. Only once in those 8 games has a team with a higher defense YPP won. But I don't think the game will be decided by that or any other stat or circumstance. Whoever plays better that day will win -- going out on a limb there.

In which year did the higher defensive YPP win?

[LIBBYCAT]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

[OldGriz]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

[MrGoodKat]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

By excluding OOC games, you make the samples more comparable and therefore more meaningful.

What’s the point in comparing a game against Oregon to a game against Central Washington?

[TomCat88]

The truly comparable sample of opponents are conference games.

Cats' BSC opponents have gone a collective 20-29 in league play.

The Griz BSC opponents have gone a collective 18-31 in league play.

Very similar SOS. The slight advantage towards the Cats is balanced by the fact that UM has played one more road game.

Both undefeated in BSC play.

I think this comparison is misleading. Of the top 5 teams in conference, you have MSU, UM, UCD, NAU and maybe Sac State with their controversial win this weekend.

MSU plays UM, NAU AND UCD.
UM plays MSU and Sac State (who is questionable if they belong in this group)

Add in UM played the worst team in the league with PSU. MSU did not play PSU this year.

I'm taking the judgment calls out of it, removing OOC play, and just looking at the BSC records of BSC teams.

-MSU played UCD (5-2), while UM played Sac State (5-2); I tend to believe that UCD is better, but it's somewhat balanced out because UCD was a home game, while SAC was a road game. But the records are basically identical.

-MSU played three teams with 4-3 conference records (NAU, EW, and ISU), while UM played two (EW and ISU). For UM, the NAU game was replaced by ID (2-5), which is where the two game discrepancy comes in. Again, you can sort of balance out that difference by pointing out that UM has played one more road game to this point.

-Both teams filled out their schedules with games against the dregs, each playing three 1-6 teams: WEB, CP, and UNC for the Cats and WEB, PSU, and CP for the Griz.

I'm sympathetic to arguments that MSU had a tougher road in-conference because I do believe that UCD is one of the top 3 teams in the BSC and that there is a tier drop after them; I also think playing @NAU is a tough game under any circumstances.

But even with those arguments considered, I don't think any unbiased observer can deny that the in-conference SOS is at least pretty close, if not exactly the same. So I don't see the value in arguing about strength of schedule. I'm more interested in looking at how both teams have actually performed in this very comparable sample of games. It turns out, MSU has been the better team basically across the board.

You're right there's really no point in quibbling over who has a stronger SOS, or the stats for that matter. I personally think MSU played two teams that are better than anyone UM has played in UCD and NAU (maybe SAC will beat UCD and change my mind, but that game is after Cat-Griz, so no point in wondering about that) and is statistically outperforming UM by one of the biggest gaps (+2.6*) in a long time. But none of that matters at this point. I don't think the loser's season is over by any stretch. I can see either UM or MSU losing and then coming all the way back to get in a semifinal game and, if so, anything is possible from there.

Yards per play gap. MSU 7.6 offense and 4.4 defense (3.2); UM 6.3 offense and 5.7 defense (0.6). 3.2 - 0.6 = 2.6
2024 - MSU +2.0
2023 - MSU +1.9
2022 - MSU +1.2
2021 - MSU +0.6
2019 - MSU +0.5
2018 - UM +0.4
2017 - MSU + 0.6
2016 - MSU +0.5

The common denominator in those games has been defense YPP. Only once in those 8 games has a team with a higher defense YPP won. But I don't think the game will be decided by that or any other stat or circumstance. Whoever plays better that day will win -- going out on a limb there.

In which year did the higher defensive YPP win?

2022. Pretty small difference. 0.2

[MTnative]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

You are cherry picking your stats. And it shows.

You know why there isn’t a single Cats player in the top 50 for total offense? It’s because there’s more than three players making meaningful contributions on offense.

[ilovethecats]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

By excluding OOC games, you make the samples more comparable and therefore more meaningful.

What’s the point in comparing a game against Oregon to a game against Central Washington?

Oh I think it’s a very obvious point to include those games if you’re a griz fan.

[OldGriz]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

By excluding OOC games, you make the samples more comparable and therefore more meaningful.

What’s the point in comparing a game against Oregon to a game against Central Washington?

They are just cumulative stats kept by the FCS for all games played to date. It’s fair to view them as meaningless if that’s your view. There must be a few people who find them at least interesting, because otherwise they wouldn’t be maintained and published. To each his own.

[MrGoodKat]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

By excluding OOC games, you make the samples more comparable and therefore more meaningful.

What’s the point in comparing a game against Oregon to a game against Central Washington?

They are just cumulative stats kept by the FCS for all games played to date. It’s fair to view them as meaningless if that’s your view. There must be a few people who find them at least interesting, because otherwise they wouldn’t be maintained and published. To each his own.

I’m just asking if you see my point?

[OldGriz]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

You are cherry picking your stats. And it shows.

You know why there isn’t a single Cats player in the top 50 for total offense? It’s because there’s more than three players making meaningful contributions on offense.

I couldn’t find them, but if you can, great! How about if you look up the top three for the Cats and the top three for Montana and present them to us with the totals?

[LIBBYCAT]

Fact of the matter is OOC schedules aren’t comparable! Statistically in conference, offenses are separated by 6 pts/ game in favor of the Cats. Defensively it’s over 11 points a game! Do I think the Cats will win by 17? Maybe!
That being said, the game is played on the field and it’s the Gris field this year. Anything could happen.

[OldGriz]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

By excluding OOC games, you make the samples more comparable and therefore more meaningful.

What’s the point in comparing a game against Oregon to a game against Central Washington?

They are just cumulative stats kept by the FCS for all games played to date. It’s fair to view them as meaningless if that’s your view. There must be a few people who find them at least interesting, because otherwise they wouldn’t be maintained and published. To each his own.

I’m just asking if you see my point?

I don’t dispute that every team plays a different schedule. So if I was saying the stats mean Montana is a better team, I get your point. But I wasn’t. I just laid them out there without comment or intended analysis.

[MrGoodKat]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

By excluding OOC games, you make the samples more comparable and therefore more meaningful.

What’s the point in comparing a game against Oregon to a game against Central Washington?

They are just cumulative stats kept by the FCS for all games played to date. It’s fair to view them as meaningless if that’s your view. There must be a few people who find them at least interesting, because otherwise they wouldn’t be maintained and published. To each his own.

I’m just asking if you see my point?

I don’t dispute that every team plays a different schedule. So if I was saying the stats mean Montana is a better team, I get your point. But I wasn’t. I just laid them out there without comment or intended analysis.

To be clear, I don’t think it’s wild to look at the overall stats. I just prefer the BSC ones for reasons stated.

[catscat]

Montana’s red zone defense ranks 1st in the conference and 16th in the nation (Cats rank 37th).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in turnovers gained (Cats are tied with nine teams for the 16th rank in the nation).

Montana ranks 1st in the conference (and 2nd in the nation) in passes intercepted (Cats are tied with seventeen teams for the 24th rank).

Montana ranks 6th in the nation in total offense (Cats are rank 16th).

Montana ranks 2nd in the nation in scoring offense (Cats rank 10th).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (3rd in the nation) in passing yards (Lamson ranks 31st).

Ah Yat ranks 1st in the conference (6th in the nation) in passing TDs (Lamson is tied with three others for the 21st rank).

Wortham is 3rd in the nation in all-purpose yards and Gillman is 20th (no Cats are in the top 50). Gillman is 6th in the nation in rushing yards (Davis is 38th).

As previously mentioned, the OOC schedule numbers radically skew your statistical analysis. If you can’t accept the apples to apples opponents,(or as close as it can be with an unbalanced conference schedule) at least grasp that your info is taken with a dose of “so what” and discounted as wishful drivel. If you insist on fantasy because it’s shaded the way you like, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.

Totally expecting you to discount the information and take it with a dose of “so what.” I’m not pretending that this information predicts a Montana victory, but I think it’s funny how you and others believe there is some kind of empirical formula that concretizes “SOS” data and deletes “OOC” data and miraculously comes up with anything more meaningful than the above.

By excluding OOC games, you make the samples more comparable and therefore more meaningful.

What’s the point in comparing a game against Oregon to a game against Central Washington?

They are just cumulative stats kept by the FCS for all games played to date. It’s fair to view them as meaningless if that’s your view. There must be a few people who find them at least interesting, because otherwise they wouldn’t be maintained and published. To each his own.

I’m just asking if you see my point?

I don’t dispute that every team plays a different schedule. So if I was saying the stats mean Montana is a better team, I get your point. But I wasn’t. I just laid them out there without comment or intended analysis.

But not without implication.

As enthralling as your "stats" are, I just can't help but wonder where Game Day is going this weekend.