Big Sky Conference Coaches & Media Poll

[GOKATS]

The coaches and media have picked Eastern Washington to win the BSC.

http://www.bigskyconf.com/article.asp?articleid=71066

We diehard Bobcat fans hope to make it a battle.

[Josh]

The Swami has Montana and EWU as top 5-7 teams. This should be a fun race to watch in the Big Sky!

[NorthDakotaBison]

Guess there's not much reason for us Bison to get excited about Weeber State coming to Fargo in September, that's too bad.


Also, kindof surprised to see the Vikings to be higher than the Bobcats????

Anybody have any thoughts as to why?

[DaGriz]

Guess there's not much reason for us Bison to get excited about Weeber State coming to Fargo in September, that's too bad.

You could get excited about a win.


Also, kindof surprised to see the Vikings to be higher than the Bobcats????

The Vikings always have a good team. They finished strong last year. I think MSU should be ranked higher but I guess it's not out of the question.

[DaGriz]

The Swami has Montana and EWU as top 5-7 teams. This should be a fun race to watch in the Big Sky!

Another year of MSU, EWU, and UM knocking each other out of the playoffs. :bang:

[superbrett2000]

Another year of MSU, EWU, and UM knocking each other out of the playoffs. :bang:

Would be awesome to see all three of them make it. Whos to say it couldnt happen?

[DemiGS]

I pick NAU, or EWU.
Who knows....UM might have to fight someone to the BSC title.

[GannonFan]

Another year of MSU, EWU, and UM knocking each other out of the playoffs. :bang:

When has UM been knocked out of the playoffs by fellow BSC members??? The knock on the BSC is that it's Montana and then everybody else - it'd be nice to have another team make a decent, long run through the playoffs other than Montana.

[ChickenMan]

Like Idaho State and Montana State, former I-AA champs? Don't forget the other Big Sky team (now-former) that also won the I-AA title...

since I'm old... I can remember 1980...'81 and '84... but to many on this board... that was a looong time ago... ;)

[WMTribe90]

What have you done for me lately? The BCS conference can't really say they knock each other out of the playoffs. Typically its Montana on top and one other team (MSU or EWU this year) with a shot. At any rate, the BSC like the SoCon is too top-heavy to claim they inhibit their own play-off chances. If any thing, two or three strong teams at the top followed by a big drop off is helpful in getting teams into the playoffs regularly (see GSU and Montana).

[GannonFan]

Like Idaho State and Montana State, former I-AA champs? Don't forget the other Big Sky team (now-former) that also won the I-AA title...

Come on Ralph, I'm a Phillies fan, sad to admit, and do you think I'm still just so estatic over the championship in 1980 that I don't care about the absolute drudge that they've thrown out on the field in the past 20-some years? Many I'm just not long-range thinking enough, but I like my team to be more competitive than just one title every 20 years (well, for the Phils, it's really one title every 120 years and closing in on 10,000 losses but that's a different thread).

So you think Idaho St, Montana St, and Boise St, because of their past successes, makes the Big Sky more than just Montana and everyone else? Let's see, Idaho St won the title in 1981, Montana St won it in 1984, and Boise St won it in 1980 (same year as the Phils). Anything more recent?

Fact is, while Montana has been on a great run in terms of not only making the playoffs but also doing well in them, the rest of the Big Sky has been non-existent. In the past 10 years, a whole decade, only one other Big Sky team made it as far as the semis, and that was E. Washington in the 1997 season (losing in the semis to eventual champ Youngstown). I like Eastern Washington this year, and I think the direction they're going is great, but it doesn't change the fact that while Montana's been racking up sucesses for a decade in the playoffs that the rest of the Big Sky has been noticeably absent. It'd be nice to see that conference branch out with some more teams not named Montana.

[GannonFan]

Maybe not so absent...

2003
First Round (11/29):
Northern Arizona 35, #1 MCNEESE STATE 3

2004
First Round (11/27)
Eastern Washington 35, #1 SOUTHERN ILLINOIS 31

Maybe I forget, what happened in the second round those years, Ralph?

[GannonFan]

Maybe I forgot... what was not noticeable about a non-Montana BSC team knocking the #1 seed out of the last two playoffs in the first round? You know my point. Montana has the record for most consecutive playoff appearances so if you want to knock the BSC because of that go right ahead. The BSC has not been only Montana though.

http://www.i-aa.org/upload/ChampsMoreThanOnce.jpg

What was more noticeable was both those teams losing in the next round - both lost those quarterfinal games at home and both lost to teams that lost in the semis the very next round. One win does not an exended playoff run make, especially followed by crushing home losses (NAU was run out of their own building by a suspect Fla Atlantic team and EWU, in the snow mind you, gets nipped at the end of the game by SHS). My point was about the BSC not having teams other than Montana make extended runs in the playoffs, at least since the early 90's (and EWU as the lone exception in '97) or, as you referenced, in the early 80's as IAA came into being. Heck, EWU loses last year at home to a team that the very next round goes into, you guessed it, Montana, and loses by 3 TD's. Maybe this trend changes this year, but for a solid decade now it's been Montana and nobody else from the BSC.

[GrizzlyEdd]

We disagree. I think knocking the #1 team out in the first round is more noticeable and certainly not "absent" as you said.No but three other Big Sky teams winning the playoffs does.You did not specify a time period or I would have not posted what I did.If you want to go that far then Montana has all of I-AA beat for getting to the playoffs, not just the BSC.

Damn, you are good Ralph:D

[putter]

IN 1994 it could have been an all Big Sky NC game. Boise played Youngstown (which beat Montana in the semis). I see your point about going deep into the playoffs or lack of getting deep into the playoffs but I have to side with Ralph. Knocking off the best teams in the country two years in a row shows that there is talent more that Montana in the BSC. Now they just have to keep the momentum going, which, I think they will.

[GannonFan]

We disagree. I think knocking the #1 team out in the first round is more noticeable and certainly not "absent" as you said.No but three other Big Sky teams winning the playoffs does.You did not specify a time period or I would have not posted what I did.If you want to go that far then Montana has all of I-AA beat for getting to the playoffs, not just the BSC.

Come on, Ralph, now you're just being silly. Do you honestly believe that playoff success by other teams in the early 80's (heck, one was during Jimmy Carter's administration for pete's sake) is indicative of current strength of the Big Sky, or even strength over that last 15-20 years? By this thinking the Big Sky will always be a competitive and deep conference no matter how many more years only Montana makes waves deep into the playoffs. In your "ever-so-sunny" world any team that ever won anything can consider themselves winners. Sorry to be cynical, but the only team not to have been successful in your book must be the LA Clippers - you know, the Cubs won the World Series in 1908 and the White Sox in 1917(? thereabouts) so Chicago is obviously a successful baseball town. In the real world, however, there are some non-successful teams/programs/etc.

I certainly think the two wins over #1 seeds were nice by the BSC non-Montana members, but looking back now it's obvious that McNeese St was limping into the playoffs in '03 and the nosedive their program has taken since doesn't help that picture. And again, getting blown away by a suspect Florida Atlantic team the next round, at home, doesn't point to a great showing by BSC NAU. And the win by EWU over S.Illinois will always be good, but no-one will ever know if SIU was just a paper-tiger or not. I know by your rationale SIU is a successful program because they won a title back in 1983, but without sporting a playoff win since then (21 years and counting), and by the Gateway's poor showing last year in the playoffs, more than just that win would be convincing. However, EWU went out, and in friendly home elements lost to a team that would get destroyed by Montana the following week. Where are the other teams other than Montana making the semis?

And now that you made me look it up, non-Montana teams from the BSC have only won 3 first round games, total, in the past decade. That's these two games you mention and the EWU team in '97 (the only one to win the quarterfinal game). You're defending that and saying the BSC is not all Montana and then everyone else? Like I said, Ralph, you're approaching silliness, if not already there. :nod:

[grizbeer]

Both Ralph and Gannon make good points. The reality is that since 1995 Montana has been the only consistent deep threat in the playoffs. Other teams have made a splash, but really only Montana has done enough damage to earn a reputation.

But that makes sense when you consider what happened to the conference in the early - mid 90's - three of the strongest members Nevada (91) Boise State and Idaho (94) left the conference and were replaced by D-II members. Of the I-AA members left in the conference only Montana State had ever been a football power, and they were headed into their 2nd decade of incompetent athletic directors making bad coaching hires.

Hopefully the 2nd decade after the big shakeup will be better for the conference, but I really don't see the BSC being 5 deep every year with teams battling for the chance to go the the playoffs. MSU has got it's stuff together and appears headed back to it's former football glory, but Weber State is a total mess with coaching and AD changes. Sac State has hopes eternal, but can't seem to get over the hump, while Portland State looks promising often, but can they finally deliver?

Eastern is on the upswing again, but if they go deep into the playoffs will they be able to keep Wulf (not likely), and if Wulf leaves will it take another 5 - 6 years to rebuild the program to make another deep playoff run?

ISU already had their once a decade good run. How many years will NAU let Sours appear to be the team to beat in the BSC, then fall flat at seasons end (and how many years will they let him lose to the Griz)? Either of these teams could become a power, but could they stay a power?

Who knows about UNC, but I suspect they will be similar to Portland State - former D-II power that comes close but can't quite turn the corner on success or support.

My prediction is we will see Montana and Montana State has the consistent powers in the BSC (with MSU going to the NC game in the next 5 years) in a 3 way battle for the title every year with one other rotating team (EWU, NAU, ISU, UNC, and PSU).

[dbackjon]

Good analysis, grizbeer. No doubt the BSC took a step back in overall strength when Nevada, Boise and Idaho left, and were replaced by DII programs (EWU had actually been DI for 5 years, but still a weak, independent team). How would the CAA fare if Delaware, JMU and W&M went D-I, and were replaced by West Chester, Indiana U of PA and Savannah State?

[GannonFan]

I agree absolutely with that - losing teams like Nevada, Idaho, and Boise St meant the conference lost not only some of their best teams, but teams that consistently were good year in and year out around the nation - I don't think any conference could easily weather that. Certainly helps to explain the dearth of playoff success by teams other than Montana.

[SeattleGriz]

So. Who outside of the BSC has made deep runs into the playoffs regularly? I am not talking smack, just want to see what other people feel is a deep, consistent run into the playoffs?

[Mr. C]

IN 1994 it could have been an all Big Sky NC game. Boise played Youngstown (which beat Montana in the semis). I see your point about going deep into the playoffs or lack of getting deep into the playoffs but I have to side with Ralph. Knocking off the best teams in the country two years in a row shows that there is talent more that Montana in the BSC. Now they just have to keep the momentum going, which, I think they will.
Putter, in all fairness, Boise State squeeked its way to the championship game. In round one, North Texas was going in for the winning score late in the fourth quarter when a one-armed defensive back (you read that right) intercepted a pass and returned it for the clinching score. The next week, Appalachian State shot itself in the foot in the kicking game (not a normal occurance back then) to lose 17-14. Boise had six fumbles, was lucky to get three back and also lost four interceptions. You don't win very often when you make that many mistakes. The Youngstown State team that beat Montana was probably the greatest Penguin team of the Jim Tressel era and one of the best of all-time in I-AA. YSU destroyed Steve McNair and Alcorn State, had its toughest game in an 18-15 grinder against Eastern Kentucky and then handled Montana (28-9) and Boise State (28-14) fairly easily.

But I agree with your point that the Big Sky is more than just Montana. I think Eastern Washington has a serious chance to challenge for the national title, if the Eagles improve on defense. Montana can do so as well, if the Griz finds a QB and the defense plays as well as it did in the playoffs last year. I wouldn't count out Montana State, Portland State, or Northern Arizona either. Should be a good conference, at least with the top five teams, this year.

[Josh]

Ralph and Mr. C are right. I agree with anyone who says it is not just Montana. Montana State, Idaho State, EWU have all been to the playoffs and had good years. Montana is the best team normally but I would not say the rest of the league is absent.

[GannonFan]

Ok, since some people obviously need a timeframe, I'm picking a decade. Here's the breakdown of wins by conference and teams in the playoffs over the past decade (wins are in parantheses):

Big Sky (22): Montana (18), EWU (3), NAU (1)
Southland (18): McNeese St (8), Troy St (3), SHS (3), NW St (2), SFA (2)
Southern (37): GSU (17), App St (5), Furman (5), Marshall (7), Wofford (2), ETSU (1)
A10 (32): UD (10), UMass (5), JMU (4), nova (3), W&M (3), Maine (2), Hofstra (2), Richmond (1), UConn (1), UNH (1)
Gateway (27): Youngstown St (7), WKU (7), N. Iowa (6), WIU (5), Ill St (2)
Patriot (7): Colgate (3), Lehigh (3), Fordham (1)
MEAC (4): Fla A&M (3), NC A&T (1)
Independent (2): Florida Atlantic (2)
Ohio Valley (1): Murray St (1)

So, almost 91% of the playoff wins have come from teams in the 5 big conferences (Big Sky, Southland, Southern, A10, and Gateway). Of those 5 conferences, the Big Sky clearly has the least amount of representation in terms of number of different teams with wins, let alone the actual amount of wins - only 4 playoff wins by non-Montana teams in the past decade.

Of the 5 big conferences, the number of different teams as a % of total teams in the conference:

Big Sky (3 versus conf of 8): 38%
Southland (5 versus conf of 7): 71%
Southern (6 versus conf of 8): 75%
A10 (10 versus conf of 12): 83%
Gateway (5 versus conf of 8): 62%
(*note, I do realize conference size and members have changed over the past decade, but went with typical conference size when doing this - it doesn't change the numbers too drastically though)

I certainly have nothing personal against Big Sky schools, and I certainly think EWU has a good chance this year to help these numbers, but the facts
are pretty clear that outside of Montana, the rest of the Big Sky has done very little, if anything, come playoff time. It's by far the biggest spread between what the conference's top team has done versus the rest of the conference, it's by far the least amount of wins by the other (i.e. not top team) teams in the conference, and it's by far the least amount of different teams winning games over the decade. I certainly agree with the sentiment that losing two of the conference's better teams (Boise St and Idaho) before this past current decade hurt the conference, but that doesn't change the outcome - the Big Sky, at least within a timeframe of a decade, has clearly been a conference of Montana and not a lot else.

[GtFllsGriz]

Hard to argue with the numbers GannonFan. I think that you are going to see those numbers improve in the near future. Those of us in the conference know that there are some tough teams year in and year out. Many of them play the Griz much tougher than teams in the playoffs. However, we all know that conference foes many times will do that due to familiarity, rivalries etc.

[AZGrizFan]

GannonFan, you've got WAAAYYYYYY too much time on your hands. Most true Griz fans could care LESS whether any other BSC teams EVER make serious runs deep into the playoffs. :deadhorse

[GrizFoo]

Using the 10 year time frame is a bit deceptive, since the BSC had to rebuild from loosing Nevada, Idaho, and Boise in that time frame.
Give it another 5 years and it will be evened out more. Or take the complete history and it will be more even.

[GannonFan]

I figured going back too far wouldn't be representative of where things are now - if you go back far enough, as Ralph did, a lot of programs can be labelled successful that aren't any longer. Eastern Kentucky (not trying to pick on them) hasn't won a playoff game since 1994 (haven't even been to the playoffs since 1997), so putting them high up based on their 2 titles in '79 and '82 would be distorting their current situation. IAA has changed a lot over time and the IAA of the 80's is, IMO, vastly different than it is now. Teams have come and gone in other conferences as well (A10 lost BU and UConn in the same timeframe and one of the new teams, Hofstra, has actually succeeded) so the BSC is not alone in terms of conference flux - they've just been longer in terms of re-righting the ship and getting more teams into the playoffs. Montana's dominance of the Big Sky doesn't help that, but it's also due to the rest of the conference simply not stepping up in the absence of the teams that left.

[IaaScribe]

I covered that NAU-FAU game. Utter disaster for NAU. They were down 41-3 in the third quarter at home and Murrietta was left just shellshocked. Don't think he ever recovered.

Can't say I was ever that impressed with Souers as a head coach ... he's in a contract year this year, and the NAU tradition of going 8-3 one year and 4-7 the next doesn't look good at all. Though, they should win nine games this year, since they sucked last year.

They still will lose by 50 points to Montana. That's par for the course.

[dbackjon]

I covered that NAU-FAU game. Utter disaster for NAU. They were down 41-3 in the third quarter at home and Murrietta was left just shellshocked. Don't think he ever recovered.

Can't say I was ever that impressed with Souers as a head coach ... he's in a contract year this year, and the NAU tradition of going 8-3 one year and 4-7 the next doesn't look good at all. Though, they should win nine games this year, since they sucked last year.

They still will lose by 50 points to Montana. That's par for the course.

let's hope they win 9 games! And the roller coaster that is NAU football under Souers is driving me crazy - no reason why NAU can't win 8-9 games every year with the recruiting base they have.