Sonny Holland Game

Discuss anything and everything relating to Bobcat Football here.

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

Post Reply
User avatar
coloradocat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 4825
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:24 pm

Re: Sonny Holland Game

Post by coloradocat » Tue May 04, 2021 1:31 pm

BleedingBLue wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 1:01 pm
Catsrgrood wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 12:18 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 8:07 am
TomCat88 wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 6:37 pm

I think the big part of the optimism for UM fans is their schedule. They almost automatically have eight wins. They'll almost certainly lose to UW, which isn't going to be a good PAC 12 team IMO. Then at EWU and vs MSU are the only two tough games. Win either one of those and they'll almost certainly have a co-BSC title. Weber State has a similar BSC schedule, but a tough non-conf game vs. JMU and they start with Utah. EWU has a schedule similar to MSU's, but all their tough BSC games are at home, whereas all of MSU's are on the road. This why a lot of people will be picking MSU fourth. WSU and UM will be 1-2 and EWU will be 3-4. The California coaches might bet on each other and throw that off a bit, but it'll be something like that.
And this is exactly why the BSC has got to make a change to its scheduling format. This is wildly unbalanced, especially the EWU and MSU scenarios. The schedule should take into account where you finished the previous year and returning starters. It shouldn't be computer generated or whatever it is they're doing currently. I like that Weber has a tough FCS team scheduled, good on them, but it doesn't have any effect on the league title. I think teams should have their non-conference schedule considered when teams tie in the standings. You should be awarded for that and teams that play creme puff schedules should, then tie for first, should not be considered a league champion and should not get the nod for a playoff spot over a team that has the same league mark.
I hate the unbalanced schedule, it’s s*** and everybody knows it.
But I don’t know how they could possibly take into account returning starters when making a schedule, that’s not reasonable or possible in any scenario.

The conference needs less teams in it, period. Then it can be like most conferences and everybody plays everybody each year and determine a true champion.
Until then, there will be far too many co-champions and champions that are good but simply benefited from an easier schedule that year.
I think right now, as SUU exits, they need to think about playing a 9 game conference schedule. With 12 teams in the conference that would only exclude 2 teams from every team's schedule. That would help a lot and it would avoid teams missing most or all of the top 3 or 4 in the conference each year. Maybe that's not feasible but it sure would help.
I assume the argument against that is most teams in the conference have to play at least 2 money games every year so in normal years they wouldn't have any home non-conference games (which would ideally be D2/bottom FCS guaranteed wins) or if they had one they'd be leaving a lot of FBS money on the table.

As you said, it still doesn't completely solve the problem. If we could get the conference down to 10 teams then I think it would be possible to get everyone on board. Maybe we'll get lucky and PSU will drop football and UNC or one of the CA schools will move to the WAC.


Eastwood, did not make it. Ball out! Recovered, by Montana State!! The Bobcats hold!!! The Bobcats hold!!!

User avatar
grizzh8r
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 6897
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 11:23 pm
Location: Billings via Livingston

Re: Sonny Holland Game

Post by grizzh8r » Tue May 04, 2021 7:58 pm

coloradocat wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 1:31 pm
BleedingBLue wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 1:01 pm
Catsrgrood wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 12:18 pm
iaafan wrote:
Tue May 04, 2021 8:07 am
TomCat88 wrote:
Mon May 03, 2021 6:37 pm

I think the big part of the optimism for UM fans is their schedule. They almost automatically have eight wins. They'll almost certainly lose to UW, which isn't going to be a good PAC 12 team IMO. Then at EWU and vs MSU are the only two tough games. Win either one of those and they'll almost certainly have a co-BSC title. Weber State has a similar BSC schedule, but a tough non-conf game vs. JMU and they start with Utah. EWU has a schedule similar to MSU's, but all their tough BSC games are at home, whereas all of MSU's are on the road. This why a lot of people will be picking MSU fourth. WSU and UM will be 1-2 and EWU will be 3-4. The California coaches might bet on each other and throw that off a bit, but it'll be something like that.
And this is exactly why the BSC has got to make a change to its scheduling format. This is wildly unbalanced, especially the EWU and MSU scenarios. The schedule should take into account where you finished the previous year and returning starters. It shouldn't be computer generated or whatever it is they're doing currently. I like that Weber has a tough FCS team scheduled, good on them, but it doesn't have any effect on the league title. I think teams should have their non-conference schedule considered when teams tie in the standings. You should be awarded for that and teams that play creme puff schedules should, then tie for first, should not be considered a league champion and should not get the nod for a playoff spot over a team that has the same league mark.
I hate the unbalanced schedule, it’s s*** and everybody knows it.
But I don’t know how they could possibly take into account returning starters when making a schedule, that’s not reasonable or possible in any scenario.

The conference needs less teams in it, period. Then it can be like most conferences and everybody plays everybody each year and determine a true champion.
Until then, there will be far too many co-champions and champions that are good but simply benefited from an easier schedule that year.
I think right now, as SUU exits, they need to think about playing a 9 game conference schedule. With 12 teams in the conference that would only exclude 2 teams from every team's schedule. That would help a lot and it would avoid teams missing most or all of the top 3 or 4 in the conference each year. Maybe that's not feasible but it sure would help.
I assume the argument against that is most teams in the conference have to play at least 2 money games every year so in normal years they wouldn't have any home non-conference games (which would ideally be D2/bottom FCS guaranteed wins) or if they had one they'd be leaving a lot of FBS money on the table.

As you said, it still doesn't completely solve the problem. If we could get the conference down to 10 teams then I think it would be possible to get everyone on board. Maybe we'll get lucky and PSU will drop football and UNC or one of the CA schools will move to the WAC.
Yep, really hope some teams follow SUU to the WAC. Benefit is twofold... a full round robin schedule and more teams out west for OOC games.


Eric Curry STILL makes me sad.
94VegasCat wrote:Are you for real? That is just a plain ol dumb paragraph! You just nailed every note in the Full Reetard sing-a-long choir!!!
:rofl:

Post Reply