No way the Griz should be in the playoffs

[Lord Vigo]

If UM beats up on SEMO and then loses in the Fargo Dome, Bobby can sell "our QB got hurt-- it was a fluke; my system works" and they can just keep running it back. That is what we want. Embrace it.

Bobby Hauck is the Rob Ash of Grizzly football.

Discuss.

You’re not a poster. You’re an artist.

[grizzh8r]

If UM beats up on SEMO and then loses in the Fargo Dome, Bobby can sell "our QB got hurt-- it was a fluke; my system works" and they can just keep running it back. That is what we want. Embrace it.

Bobby Hauck is the Rob Ash of Grizzly football.

Discuss.

Wow. POTY nominee!

[1890Griz]

Their whole premise was that they didn't have Lucas so those losses don't count. Well, you had him today and got curb-stomped.

Well, he was only at around 60% healthy. You could tell because, on his first run, he got injured. Now even if he was healthy I doubt the outcome of the game would change. Our defense got dominated, and our offense would likely not put up 34 more points.

[tetoncat]

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

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

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

Or did they watch the game and see Johnson got hurt again. If reason for losses is him being out, chances are he will be again this week or less than 100%, which didn't work well last week.

[91catAlum]

Their whole premise was that they didn't have Lucas so those losses don't count. Well, you had him today and got curb-stomped.

Well, he was only at around 60% healthy. You could tell because, on his first run, he got injured. Now even if he was healthy I doubt the outcome of the game would change. Our defense got dominated, and our offense would likely not put up 34 more points.

Where'd you get that number? are you a doctor, or did you just stay at a holiday inn express last night?

[wbtfg]

Their whole premise was that they didn't have Lucas so those losses don't count. Well, you had him today and got curb-stomped.

Well, he was only at around 60% healthy. You could tell because, on his first run, he got injured. Now even if he was healthy I doubt the outcome of the game would change. Our defense got dominated, and our offense would likely not put up 34 more points.

Where'd you get that number? are you a doctor, or did you just stay at a holiday inn express last night?

92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[tetoncat]

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

[ilovethecats]

Their whole premise was that they didn't have Lucas so those losses don't count. Well, you had him today and got curb-stomped.

Well, he was only at around 60% healthy. You could tell because, on his first run, he got injured. Now even if he was healthy I doubt the outcome of the game would change. Our defense got dominated, and our offense would likely not put up 34 more points.

Where'd you get that number? are you a doctor, or did you just stay at a holiday inn express last night?

92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[tdub]

Their whole premise was that they didn't have Lucas so those losses don't count. Well, you had him today and got curb-stomped.

Well, he was only at around 60% healthy. You could tell because, on his first run, he got injured. Now even if he was healthy I doubt the outcome of the game would change. Our defense got dominated, and our offense would likely not put up 34 more points.

Where'd you get that number? are you a doctor, or did you just stay at a holiday inn express last night?

92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[tagleason]

You guys seem to have missed something. THE GRIZ ARE BACK!! WE’VE WON 73 OF THESE SO I LIKE OUR CHANCES! We WHOOPED UP ON EASTERN AND CAL POLY!! Ask that guy who always sits next to you Bob. He will tell you. Eastern has two wins and Cal Poly has no wins ALL YEAR LONG. Nice coaching job Bob. Playoffs my a$$. Doesn’t matter. You’re going to Fargo next. Take a first aid kit.

[thisnamesucks]

Well CP had ONE win now haha. They beat Portland State aka UMs best win of the season

[RickRund]

You guys seem to have missed something. THE GRIZ ARE BACK!! WE’VE WON 73 OF THESE SO I LIKE OUR CHANCES! We WHOOPED UP ON EASTERN AND CAL POLY!! Ask that guy who always sits next to you Bob. He will tell you. Eastern has two wins and Cal Poly has no wins ALL YEAR LONG. Nice coaching job Bob. Playoffs my a$$. Doesn’t matter. You’re going to Fargo next. Take a first aid kit.

I think you may be spot on tagleason

[Prodigal Cat]

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

[91catAlum]

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

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

Teams need to be selected based on their body of work that season. If a conference champ from the Big Sky has 0 FCS losses and a 2nd place team from the MVC has 1 FCS loss, then that Big Sky team should always be seeded above that MVC team 100% of the time.
Stuff like that wouldn't be hard to do.

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

[onceacat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

[BleedingBLue]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

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

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

[tdub]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

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

[onceacat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

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

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

You listed Rhody & Chattanooga.

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

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

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

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

[onceacat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

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

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

[91catAlum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BN seems to be wanting to have it both ways.

My post has nothing to do with the griz. It's about ndsu getting seeded over MSU despite a lesser resume THIS season; and MSU having to play Weber in our first game when Weber should've been seeded 7 or 8.
I don't really care that the griz got in.