the trouble with the CAA & the playoffs

[grizzpaw]

IMHO the CAA is too large thus the top teams never have to play each other every FEW years and this is one of the years! Umass does not play Delware thus the best don't play giving one of them a loss in conferences play! if they had to play each other like the other conferences they could not stack the playoffs with CAA teams! xpeacex

[th0m]

You know what we should do, is split the conference, attract a new member for each newly formed conference, and get two bids per conference. This way, the teams still don't play each other, and we still get 4 teams in! Yay!

[Tribe4SF]

IMHO the CAA is too large thus the top teams never have to play each other every FEW years and this is one of the years! Umass does not play Delware thus the best don't play giving one of them a loss in conferences play! if they had to play each other like the other conferences they could not stack the playoffs with CAA teams! xpeacex

With the CAA you can never be sure who the top teams are going to be, and while Delaware doesn't play UMass this year, they do have UNH, JMU and Richmond, and already have lost to UNH. When selection time comes you can be sure that all CAA teams will pass the strength of schedule test. The committee may have trouble this year limiting the conference to four playoff selections. The Griz better be sharp, because they may have a CAA team visiting early in the playoffs again.xpeacex

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

IMHO the CAA is too large thus the top teams never have to play each other every FEW years and this is one of the years! Umass does not play Delware thus the best don't play giving one of them a loss in conferences play! if they had to play each other like the other conferences they could not stack the playoffs with CAA teams! xpeacex

Don't tell that to UNH

[ChickenMan]

IMHO the CAA is too large thus the top teams never have to play each other every FEW years and this is one of the years! Umass does not play Delware thus the best don't play giving one of them a loss in conferences play! if they had to play each other like the other conferences they could not stack the playoffs with CAA teams! xpeacex


Every team in the CAA.. regardless of the schedule.. plays a much tougher league schedule very year than any school in the Big Sky.. after all you guys in the Big Sky only have to play Montana.... ONCE... :p

[BlueHen86]

IMHO the CAA is too large thus the top teams never have to play each other every FEW years and this is one of the years! Umass does not play Delware thus the best don't play giving one of them a loss in conferences play! if they had to play each other like the other conferences they could not stack the playoffs with CAA teams! xpeacex
Unless you guys figure out a way to schedule yourselves you have no issue. You NEVER have to play the best team in your conference.:p ;)

[ATrain]

Every team in the CAA.. regardless of the schedule.. plays a much tougher league schedule very year than any school in the Big Sky.. after all you guys in the Big Sky only have to play Montana.... ONCE... :p

Unless you are Montana...then you only have to play...??????

[Tribe4SF]

Don't tell that to UNH

Amen to that! UNH this year has UMass, Hofstra, Delaware, Richmond and JMU. Even with a win over Marshall, that schedule has them in playoff limbo.

[grizzpaw]

yea, but EVERY team in the sky plays MONTANA! not so with the CAA and next year, when NDSU and SDSU join the gateway the CAA will be second in powerhouse teams and they (gateway)will still have to play each other! Not until the CAA is split will a TRUE champion come from the CAA!

[th0m]

yea, but EVERY team in the sky plays MONTANA! not so with the CAA and next year, when NDSU and SDSU join the gateway the CAA will be second in powerhouse teams and they (gateway)will still have to play each other! Not until the CAA is split will a TRUE champion come from the CAA!

So who does Montana play?

[grizzpaw]

come out and play portland or better yet play eastern washington home or away they WILL be heard the next few years with their coach, qb and receivers they could beat most east coast teams now let-a-lone in the next two years! they could be the preseason #1 team next year in the big sky

[grizzpaw]

ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO PAY US!

[KAUMASS]

IMHO the CAA is too large thus the top teams never have to play each other every FEW years and this is one of the years! Umass does not play Delware thus the best don't play giving one of them a loss in conferences play! if they had to play each other like the other conferences they could not stack the playoffs with CAA teams! xpeacex


How to fire up some CAA fans with that statement!!! First off, Montana is a very good football team. However, if they were in the CAA or Southern they would be anywhere from 5-3 to 6-2 this year. The CAA and Southern Conf. teams that get into the playoffs are battle tested already and each playoff game is like another CAA or Southern game. The big sky is a good conference, but there never seems to be another powerhouse team like Montana every single year. Montana St seems to put a excellent team out every other year or so. William and Mary or Villanova this year would be in second place in the big sky if they played there. They both would give Montana a great game.

I hope Montana draws a CAA or Southern Conference team in the first round of the playoffs this year.

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

I'm not a fan of the split schedule, but only as far as crowning a champion goes.
U Mass this year is an example. But the point that the CAA top teams are not playoff worthy because they don't play each other doesn't make sense. (If that was your point). I would challenge you to show ANY CAA team's schedule that does not stand up to Montana's as far as SOS goes.

[Uncle Buck]

I refuse to listen to Montana complain, especially after they backed out on the return game of a home and home with us. They're in no position to cry about our conference schedules.

[grizzpaw]

every year we play the best in the country and do well xnonox . the playoff IS a NATIONAL PLAYOFF not just a CAA playoff xpeacex

[Uncle Buck]

CAA has faired pretty well against national competition as well. I think our playoff teams have proven themselves to be worthy competitors at that level.

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

I'm not a fan of the split schedule, but only as far as crowning a champion goes.
U Mass this year is an example. But the point that the CAA top teams are not playoff worthy because they don't play each other doesn't make sense. (If that was your point). I would challenge you to show ANY CAA team's schedule that does not stand up to Montana's as far as SOS goes.


I'm not saying that UMass isn't deserving of the Championship. I'd just like to see it on the field. No offense to my friends to the south.xpeacex xpeacex

[grizzpaw]

UNCLE BUCK - you should that respect YOUR opinion! and hate the way we PAIDOFF the teams we were to play at their house as is MOST griz fans. I want real bad to go to some of your houses and watch our team play yours (as is 3000-4000 traveling griz fans)! SOMEDAY -BTW i still have your ticket ANYTIME you can make it out here!

[grizzpaw]

my point was that I feel that the CAA is to big THAT was my point NOT that your teams are not good enough!xpeacex off to work so i will be back later and TRY to defend my points:D

[HensRock]

grizzpaw,
I think if you looked at the CAA as 2 conferences instead of 1, you could come to terms with the schedule. The league is divided into north and south divisions. Every team in the south plays each other every year. Every team in the north plays each other every year. Think of it as 2 confereces that only get one automatic bid between them.

Now as far as strength of schedule, no Delaware does not have to play UMass every year, but then again neither does Montana. We do play Richmond and JMU every year however. How many ranked teams does Montana have on it's regular season schedule every year? This year Delaware has 3 (maybe 4 by the time we play Villanova) plus a I-A game. This is not unusual. That is a normal CAA schedule.

Look at Northeastern. This year they face (using current rankings):
#4 UMass
#6 James Madison
#8 New Hampshire
#9 Delaware
#14 Richmond
#15 Hofstra
PLUS I-A Northwestern (Big 10)

How do you think any team in the Big Sky (including Montana) would do against that schedule. NU is currently 1-7 and they are NOT a bad football team!

Yeah, the CAA sure has easy schedules! xrolleyesx

[Umass74]

grizzpaw,
I think if you looked at the CAA as 2 conferences instead of 1, you could come to terms with the schedule. The league is divided into north and south divisions. Every team in the south plays each other every year. Every team in the north plays each other every year. Think of it as 2 confereces that only get one automatic bid between them.

Now as far as strength of schedule, no Delaware does not have to play UMass every year, but then again neither does Montana. We do play Richmond and JMU every year however. How many ranked teams does Montana have on it's regular season schedule every year? This year Delaware has 3 (maybe 4 by the time we play Villanova) plus a I-A game. This is not unusual. That is a normal CAA schedule.

Look at Northeastern. This year they face (using current rankings):
#4 UMass
#6 James Madison
#8 New Hampshire
#9 Delaware
#14 Richmond
#15 Hofstra
PLUS I-A Northwestern (Big 10)

How do you think any team in the Big Sky (including Montana) would do against that schedule. NU is currently 1-7 and they are NOT a bad football team!

Yeah, the CAA sure has easy schedules!


And many CAA team use their three OOC games to schedule some pretty decent teams.

UMass this year played Holy Cross (6-1) against its non-UMass schedule, Boston College (they're not having a bad year) and Colgate away.

That's not an easy OOC schedule.

[GrizzlyEdd]

Give it up grizzpaw.... you are scratching up the wrong tree here on AGS. You will NEVER... I say NEVER convince anyone one east of the Mississippi that the BSC can play with any conference... hell, most don't even admit that the team who has played in the most NC games over the last 13yrs (5) has two wins and three seconds even is all that good. Don't waste your breath, the almighty reside in the CAA, haven't you learned your lesson???xbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxoopsx

[henfan]

Griz fans, don't worry so much about the size the CAA. Running the CAA League Gauntlet prepares our teams for the post-season. Most of the teams could care less about conference championships. They want the big prize.

[Maroon&White]

You will NEVER... I say NEVER convince anyone one east of the Mississippi that the BSC can play with any conference...

It's really funny how Montana fans always try to make up some east-coast bias that exists. It's quite hilarious. For one thing their definition of east-coast is really vague. While trying to convince themselves there is some east-coast bias that exists, they also are showing they have a "west-coast" bias. Can't ya'll think of some new things to complain about?

[BlueHen86]

It's really funny how Montana fans always try to make up some east-coast bias that exists. It's quite hilarious. For one thing their definition of east-coast is really vague. While trying to convince themselves there is some east-coast bias that exists, they also are showing they have a "west-coast" bias. Can't ya'll think of some new things to complain about?
What is funny is that Montana usually goes through it's schedule like a hot knife through butter, earns a seed and plays at home in the playoffs; yet at least one of their fans is worried about CAA scheduling.xconfusedx

Montana's record speaks for itselfxthumbsupx , and so does the CAA'sxthumbsupx.

[SeattleGriz]

How to fire up some CAA fans with that statement!!! First off, Montana is a very good football team. However, if they were in the CAA or Southern they would be anywhere from 5-3 to 6-2 this year. The CAA and Southern Conf. teams that get into the playoffs are battle tested already and each playoff game is like another CAA or Southern game. The big sky is a good conference, but there never seems to be another powerhouse team like Montana every single year. Montana St seems to put a excellent team out every other year or so. William and Mary or Villanova this year would be in second place in the big sky if they played there. They both would give Montana a great game.

I hope Montana draws a CAA or Southern Conference team in the first round of the playoffs this year.

Sorry dude. App State is not the whole SoCon. Other than App, and Furman of a couple years ago, the Southern has not showed itself to be "battle tested" and ready for the playoffs the last couple of years.

I will agree with the CAA, but not the SoCon.

[KAUMASS]

Sorry dude. App State is not the whole SoCon. Other than App, and Furman of a couple years ago, the Southern has not showed itself to be "battle tested" and ready for the playoffs the last couple of years.

I will agree with the CAA, but not the SoCon.


Let me rephrase..the Southern Conferrence this year..xthumbsupx

[GrizzlyEdd]

It's really funny how Montana fans always try to make up some east-coast bias that exists. It's quite hilarious. For one thing their definition of east-coast is really vague. While trying to convince themselves there is some east-coast bias that exists, they also are showing they have a "west-coast" bias. Can't ya'll think of some new things to complain about?


Ya, as soon as the CAA can think of something else to BRAG about... Ya gotta agree that a lot of the folks on here from "east" of the Mississippi continually put down the BSC and the west in general... I keep hearing that all there is to the BSC is Montana... Well, all there is to the CAA is Delaware.... how about that???

Respect for the CAA from me comes from a "mutual" understanding that ON ANY GIVEN SATURDAY, "most any" BSC team could beat a CAA team...as the reverse is also true, that is why those great/brave young men play the games on the field and what is said here doesn't mean isht!!!!xbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxOh great one from the far east....xoopsx

[andy7171]

Ya, as soon as the CAA can think of something else to BRAG about... Ya gotta agree that a lot of the folks on here from "east" of the Mississippi continually put down the BSC and the west in general... I keep hearing that all there is to the BSC is Montana... Well, all there is to the CAA is Delaware.... how about that???

Respect for the CAA from me comes from a "mutual" understanding that ON ANY GIVEN SATURDAY, "most any" BSC team could beat a CAA team...as the reverse is also true, that is why those great/brave young men play the games on the field and what is said here doesn't mean isht!!!!xbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxOh great one from the far east....xoopsx
Was it East Coast Bias that beat ya'll in Wa-Griz Stadium last December? xpeacex

[GannonFan]

Ya, as soon as the CAA can think of something else to BRAG about... Ya gotta agree that a lot of the folks on here from "east" of the Mississippi continually put down the BSC and the west in general... I keep hearing that all there is to the BSC is Montana... Well, all there is to the CAA is Delaware.... how about that???

Respect for the CAA from me comes from a "mutual" understanding that ON ANY GIVEN SATURDAY, "most any" BSC team could beat a CAA team...as the reverse is also true, that is why those great/brave young men play the games on the field and what is said here doesn't mean isht!!!!xbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxxbowxOh great one from the far east....xoopsx

Axe to grind? Let's see a team other than Montana from the BSC get to the semis and then we'll talk - since that hasn't happened since 1997, we may be waiting awhile for that pow-wow. There's a lot of stats you can throw out there to smack the Big Sky for just being Montana and nobody else - even though the homer in me would like the CAA to be all Delaware, actual evidence doesn't back that up. It's just how it is.

[Pageoner]

we aren't saying Montana and the BSC is a total joke
BUT, the fact Montana is not FBS and worse enough
they schedule the bottom tier of FCS(Albany is OK at best, yeah yeah delaware)
makes your university seem like a bunch of jims.

[GrizzlyEdd]

Was it East Coast Bias that beat ya'll in Wa-Griz Stadium last December? xpeacex

No, it was UMass.... and was it west coast bias that won the NC in 1995 & 2001 and second in 1996, 2000, & 2004... Ya gotta do better than that my friend.. every team loses at home at some time or another...and the Griz are no different. Try to come up with something original would ya...xoopsx

[griz_fan_in_SanDiego]

No, it was UMass.... and was it west coast bias that won the NC in 1995 & 2001 and second in 1996, 2000, & 2004... Ya gotta do better than that my friend.. every team loses at home at some time or another...and the Griz are no different. Try to come up with something original would ya...xoopsx

EXACTLY...I think Montana could win 3 NC's in a row and we'd still take this grief. I'm sure everyone in the east was saying this same stuff every one of those years.

[bandl]

No, it was UMass.... and was it west coast bias that won the NC in 1995 & 2001 and second in 1996, 2000, & 2004... Ya gotta do better than that my friend.. every team loses at home at some time or another...and the Griz are no different. Try to come up with something original would ya...xoopsx

HAHAHAHAHA!!! xlolx And it was the east coast bias that beat y'all into second place in 1996, 2000 & 2004. Thanks for proving the point. xnodx

[SeattleGriz]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! xlolx And it was the east coast bias that beat y'all into second place in 1996, 2000 & 2004. Thanks for proving the point. xnodx


Marshall '96
Georgia Southern '00
are east coast?

[andy7171]

Marshall '96
Georgia Southern '00
are east coast?

xeyebrowx Yes xeyebrowx

[WMTribe90]

I have great respect for the Montana football program. It's perennially one of the best in the country. However, the CAA is a MUCH more competitive CONFERENCE (topic at hand) from top to bottom than the BSC. That's no direspect, just the fact of the matter as born out in the polls and past playoff results.

In an average year UM will typically face one or two ranked opponents. In an average year the typical CAA team will face at least three an as many as five ranked opponents (often in addition to a IA game), all in a league where there is no such thing as an easy win. No bragging, just the reality of CAA play vs the BSC.

[bandl]

Marshall '96
Georgia Southern '00
are east coast?

Yes?? xconfusedx

Georgia Southern is in __________(fill in the blank) which boarders the Atlantic Ocean. That would mean East Coast to me....xconfusedx

Marshall is in __________ (fill in the blank), which is in a state that is one state removed from the Atlantic Ocean. It also lies further east than any school in the Gateway, which is also lumped into the "East Coast Bias" schools. xthumbsupx

[89Hen]

IMHO the CAA is too large thus the top teams never have to play each other every FEW years and this is one of the years! Umass does not play Delware thus the best don't play giving one of them a loss in conferences play! if they had to play each other like the other conferences they could not stack the playoffs with CAA teams! xpeacex
You have a good point, but since 2000...

Massachusetts 35 - Lafayette 14
New Hampshire 41 - Hampton 38
Massachusetts 19 - Montana 17
New Hampshire 55 - Colgate 21
Richmond 38 - Hampton 10
New Hampshire 27 - Ga. Southern 23
William & Mary 42 - Hampton 35
Delaware 28 - Lafayette 14
James Madison 14 - Lehigh 13
James Madison 14 - Furman 13
James Madison 31 - Montana 21
Delaware 48 - Southern Ill. 7
Delaware 37 - UNI 7
Delaware 24 - Wofford 9
Delaware 40 - Colgate 0
Villanova 45 - Furman 38
Maine 14 - Appalachian St. 13
Villanova 24 - Fordham 10
Maine 14 - McNeese St. 10
Richmond 10 - Youngstown St. 3
Hofstra 31 - Furman 24
Delaware 49 - Portland St. 14
Delaware 47 - Lehigh 22

There are some pretty good wins in there. And it's not because of stacking.

[BlueHen86]

EXACTLY...I think Montana could win 3 NC's in a row and we'd still take this grief. I'm sure everyone in the east was saying this same stuff every one of those years.

It was a Montana guy that started this. If you don't want grief don't start silly threads about the CAA.

As I said earlier both Montana and the CAA have good records, no sense starting an argument over a problem that doesn't exist.

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

Yes?? xconfusedx

Georgia Southern is in __________(fill in the blank) which boarders the Atlantic Ocean. That would mean East Coast to me....xconfusedx

Marshall is in __________ (fill in the blank), which is in a state that is one state removed from the Atlantic Ocean. It also lies further east than any school in the Gateway, which is also lumped into the "East Coast Bias" schools. xthumbsupx

Could you go multipule choice for me....I find these fill in the blank exams very difficult.

[andy7171]

Wow, I just looked at a map. Statesboro could be closer to the Ocean than Delaware! I had no idea it was that close!

[bandl]

Wow, I just looked at a map. Statesboro could be closer to the Ocean than Delaware! I had no idea it was that close!

Therefore, Delaware is now, and always will be, considered a 'West Coast Bias' school. xnodx

[89Hen]

BTW, it is interesting to note that one of the Griz posters has the complete list of teams who have won in Wa-Griz... it includes three CAA teams and four Big Sky teams. That's kind of amazing considering how little they host CAA teams compared to Big Sky. xeyebrowx

[henfan]

Therefore, Delaware is now, and always will be, considered a 'West Coast Bias' school. xnodx

Delaware's actually EAST of the Mason-Dixon line.xsmiley_wix

[griz_fan_in_SanDiego]

It was a Montana guy that started this. If you don't want grief don't start silly threads about the CAA.

As I said earlier both Montana and the CAA have good records, no sense starting an argument over a problem that doesn't exist.

I'd agree if it only happend in threads started by Montana fans lol...but in almost every thread I read I see two teams that are ridiculed

Montana and San Diego...I'm not talking about the Smack section I'm talking about the discussion boards. Show me any threads that ridicule someone else in the discussion board cuz i would love to see it lol.

Maybe those just stand out to me more i dunno but you have to admit those two teams get a lot of grief in here

[andy7171]

Maybe it's because there are so many of you here at AGS. I usuually only see Towson get back handed smacked when I open my big mouth. There is only one of my kind, barring TigerFan17 who shows face when we win. If you brag on your team, opposing views are incurred. Many Montana fans, many opposing points to the many Montana posts. Same with San Diego.
I would venture that there is a lot more Montana praise than denegration.
Getting home field advantage in the post season is not as easy as Montana makes it look. Enjoy it. Being ranked in the top 5 all year long is not a slap in the face.

[griz_fan_in_SanDiego]

Maybe it's because there are so many of you here at AGS. I usuually only see Towson get back handed smacked when I open my big mouth. There is only one of my kind, barring TigerFan17 who shows face when we win. If you brag on your team, opposing views are incurred. Many Montana fans, many opposing points to the many Montana posts. Same with San Diego.
I would venture that there is a lot more Montana praise than denegration.
Getting home field advantage in the post season is not as easy as Montana makes it look. Enjoy it. Being ranked in the top 5 all year long is not a slap in the face.

Well I will agree that a portion of the time that has something to do with it...another portion is people just like to give us grief lol. :D

[Grizzaholic]

I am just surprised that it actually made it to post 5 before the bashing started.

[bandl]

I am just surprised that it actually made it to post 5 before the bashing started.

Why? xconfusedx A BSC supporter called out the entire CAA...do you expect the CAA supporters to sit back and take it? especially when said BSC supporter brought, at most, laughable opinions and absurd assumptions to the table? xsmhx

[89Hen]

but in almost every thread I read I see two teams that are ridiculed

Montana and San Diego...

Maybe those just stand out to me more
GRIZ fan in SAN DIEGO... can't imagine why. xeyebrowx xsmiley_wix :p

[appfan2008]

statesboro is less than an hour from the beach!

[griz_fan_in_SanDiego]

GRIZ fan in SAN DIEGO... can't imagine why. xeyebrowx xsmiley_wix :p

Haha...i also attend USD for law school i'm sure that has nothing to do with it either xsmiley_wix

[putter]

IMO, I believe that the CAA is better than the BSC - as a whole- but there are good teams in the BSC. A couple of posters mentioned being "battle tested" because of the strength of conference. If the BSC is such a cakewalk than how does Montana continue to go deep into the playoffs? Don't say home field because Montana has lost at home -as has Delaware, UNH, YSU, UNI etc. Montana is tested every year by good teams in conference which prepares the team for the playoffs.

[GannonFan]

IMO, I believe that the CAA is better than the BSC - as a whole- but there are good teams in the BSC. A couple of posters mentioned being "battle tested" because of the strength of conference. If the BSC is such a cakewalk than how does Montana continue to go deep into the playoffs? Don't say home field because Montana has lost at home -as has Delaware, UNH, YSU, UNI etc. Montana is tested every year by good teams in conference which prepares the team for the playoffs.

Montana, when they go far in the playoffs (and there are quite a few one and dones sprinkled in with Montana's streak of playoff appearances - 5 first round exits, 3 at home, since 1997 - let's not pretend they go far every year) goes far because they are a good team. The lack of non-Montana teams making any playoff runs of note since 1997 goes against the whole idea that the BSC makes Montana battle-tested.

[89Hen]

A couple of posters mentioned being "battle tested" because of the strength of conference. If the BSC is such a cakewalk than how does Montana continue to go deep into the playoffs? Don't say home field because Montana has lost at home -as has Delaware, UNH, YSU, UNI etc. Montana is tested every year by good teams in conference which prepares the team for the playoffs.
Tough to make that arguement when three different CAA teams have made the finals in the last four years. Battle testing is more prevalent in the CAA IMO. I know when the Hens won in 2003 they had a MUCH tougher time with the conference games than the playoff games. Also interesting to note that three of the CAA losses in the playoffs since 2003 were to other CAA teams. xeyebrowx xnodx

[Benne]

Montana, when they go far in the playoffs (and there are quite a few one and dones sprinkled in with Montana's streak of playoff appearances - 5 first round exits, 3 at home, since 1997 - let's not pretend they go far every year) goes far because they are a good team. The lack of non-Montana teams making any playoff runs of note since 1997 goes against the whole idea that the BSC makes Montana battle-tested.
Thats one in three. I'll take those odds anyday. Let's not make it sound like a coin flip.

[GannonFan]

Thats one in three. I'll take those odds anyday. Let's not make it sound like a coin flip.

What's one in 3?

[mcveyrl]

What's one in 3?

A ratio designed to reflect 33% odds.:p :p

[AZGrizFan]

Tough to make that arguement when three different CAA teams have made the finals in the last four years. Battle testing is more prevalent in the CAA IMO. I know when the Hens won in 2003 they had a MUCH tougher time with the conference games than the playoff games. Also interesting to note that three of the CAA losses in the playoffs since 2003 were to other CAA teams. xeyebrowx xnodx

And, typically, the Griz have a much easier time with playoff opponents (right up to the time they lose xmadx ) than they do against most conference opponents....

[GrizzlyEdd]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! xlolx And it was the east coast bias that beat y'all into second place in 1996, 2000 & 2004. Thanks for proving the point. xnodx

At least the GRIZ were the each of those years.... where the hell was your team bandl... you haven't proven a damn thing other than the Griz have been there more than any other team in the last 13 years... so thanks for helping my cause...xoopsx

[Benne]

What's one in 3? What you are telling all the Griz fans on the board is that they're w/l record in 15 years of playoff football is they have lost 5 first round games. If I'm a Griz fan, I probably won't have much of a problem buying a second round ticket while before the first game is played out.

[GannonFan]

What you are telling all the Griz fans on the board is that they're w/l record in 15 years of playoff football is they have lost 5 first round games. If I'm a Griz fan, I probably won't have much of a problem buying a second round ticket while before the first game is played out.

It's actually 5 first round losses in the past 10 years - 1 in 2 then. 1997 is more of a fair point to start from since that's well after Boise and Idaho left the big gaping hole in the Big Sky that's still there.

[89Hen]

And, typically, the Griz have a much easier time with playoff opponents (right up to the time they lose xmadx ) than they do against most conference opponents....
Funny you should bring that up. In last five times when the Griz get to at least the semis they were 8-0 vs. the Big Sky four of those five years. During that same time frame the CAA sent five different teams to at least the semis seven times and only ONCE did that team go undefeated in the CAA.

Griz = 4 of 5
CAA = 1 of 7

That's too significant to overlook. xnodx


*footnote, in one of those years the CAA team actually lost THREE times in the CAA. xnodx

[AZGrizFan]

Montana, when they go far in the playoffs (and there are quite a few one and dones sprinkled in with Montana's streak of playoff appearances - 5 first round exits, 3 at home, since 1997 - let's not pretend they go far every year) goes far because they are a good team. The lack of non-Montana teams making any playoff runs of note since 1997 goes against the whole idea that the BSC makes Montana battle-tested.

And it's also 5 first round exits since 1994. Any particular reason you chose to cut it at 1997, right AFTER a great 3-year run for the Griz where they went semis/finals/finals? Oh, and by the way, three NC appearances since 2000.... Can any other school say that?

We can parse this any way you want. Fact is, no other team can match what Montana has done since 1993.

xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex

Denial of that just comes across as plain ol' jealousy. xeyebrowx ;)

[Benne]

It's actually 5 first round losses in the past 10 years - 1 in 2 then. 1997 is more of a fair point to start from since that's well after Boise and Idaho left the big gaping hole in the Big Sky that's still there. So we aren't counting 95 and 96 then. How does that work?

[AZGrizFan]

It's actually 5 first round losses in the past 10 years - 1 in 2 then. 1997 is more of a fair point to start from since that's well after Boise and Idaho left the big gaping hole in the Big Sky that's still there.

And just happens to be riiiiiiight after a nice three year run of semis/finals/finals, huh GF? xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx

[AZGrizFan]

Funny you should bring that up. In last five times when the Griz get to at least the semis they were 8-0 vs. the Big Sky four of those five years. During that same time frame the CAA sent five different teams to at least the semis seven times and only ONCE did that team go undefeated in the CAA.

Griz = 4 of 5
CAA = 1 of 7

That's too significant to overlook. xnodx


*footnote, in one of those years the CAA team actually lost THREE times in the CAA. xnodx

8-0 <> easy time with opponents.

[89Hen]

8-0 <> easy time with opponents.
No, not every year, but when you do it time and time again... it adds up. Like I said... 4 of 5 vs 1 of 7 is too big to overlook IMO.

[GannonFan]

And it's also 5 first round exits since 1994. Any particular reason you chose to cut it at 1997, right AFTER a great 3-year run for the Griz where they went semis/finals/finals? Oh, and by the way, three NC appearances since 2000.... Can any other school say that?

We can parse this any way you want. Fact is, no other team can match what Montana has done since 1993.

xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex xwhistlex

Denial of that just comes across as plain ol' jealousy. xeyebrowx ;)


Uh, read my post again - I used 1997 since that was the first year the Big Sky did not include Boise and Idaho (Boise left in 1995, Idaho in 1996). You might remember those two teams, they were the ones who were actually good, along with Montana. You need to find some more teams like that and then that big gaping hole of competitiveness in the Big Sky can be plugged. I know you guys like to ignore that those two teams left (and your ignorance to the importance of 1997 further shows that) but it was a pretty seismic event in the Big Sky that still hasn't been fixed. xthumbsupx

[AZGrizFan]

No, not every year, but when you do it time and time again... it adds up. Like I said... 4 of 5 vs 1 of 7 is too big to overlook IMO.

But, if you go back and look, the Griz RARELY blow out a BSC opponent, with the exception of UNC and an occasional Sac State. xcoolx

But some of the playoff scores during that time look like a one-sided Arena league game...

[GannonFan]

So we aren't counting 95 and 96 then. How does that work?


And just happens to be riiiiiiight after a nice three year run of semis/finals/finals, huh GF? xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx

Boise left in '95 and Idaho in '96 - after that the Big Sky became the Big Fluff and these points about Montana being "battle-tested" from the conference schedule start to look pretty suspicious. How come I seem to know more about your conference than you do? Come on guys, do a little research!!! xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[AZGrizFan]

Uh, read my post again - I used 1997 since that was the first year the Big Sky did not include Boise and Idaho (Boise left in 1995, Idaho in 1996). You might remember those two teams, they were the ones who were actually good, along with Montana. You need to find some more teams like that and then that big gaping hole of competitiveness in the Big Sky can be plugged. I know you guys like to ignore that those two teams left (and your ignorance to the importance of 1997 further shows that) but it was a pretty seismic event in the Big Sky that still hasn't been fixed. xthumbsupx

So, how does that explain 3 NC appearances in the last 7 years?

Luck? xrolleyesx

[GannonFan]

And just happens to be riiiiiiight after a nice three year run of semis/finals/finals, huh GF? xrolleyesx xrolleyesx xrolleyesx

Did you want to go back to the first round home loss in 1993 as well??? :p :p :p :p

[GannonFan]

So, how does that explain 3 NC appearances in the last 7 years?

Luck? xrolleyesx

Nope, but since you didn't appear to read my post, when they Griz are good, they are good. They were very good in those 3 years. But when they aren't all that good they can still win the Big Sky and make the playoffs, hence the 5 first round exits in the last 10 years, 3 of which with home field advantage. Play in a tougher, deeper conference, and in those years the Griz aren't so good they wouldn't make the playoffs in the first place. The streak exists mainly because of the Big Fluff nature of the current configuration of the Big Sky.

[AZGrizFan]

Did you want to go back to the first round home loss in 1993 as well??? :p :p :p :p

Like I said, we could parse this any way you want... ;)

[Col Hogan]

EXACTLY...I think Montana could win 3 NC's in a row and we'd still take this grief. I'm sure everyone in the east was saying this same stuff every one of those years.

The point you seem to be missing is that over the period Montana won their NCs and placed second or third...how many other BSC teams were high in the hunt?

Delaware, JMU, UMass, William & Mary...just to name a few...have played in and/or won semi-finals and NCs...

If a couple of teams not named Montana had done the same, you would not hear this grief...but since Montana has an "auto-auto".........

[putter]

Nope, but since you didn't appear to read my post, when they Griz are good, they are good. They were very good in those 3 years. But when they aren't all that good they can still win the Big Sky and make the playoffs, hence the 5 first round exits in the last 10 years, 3 of which with home field advantage. Play in a tougher, deeper conference, and in those years the Griz aren't so good they wouldn't make the playoffs in the first place. The streak exists mainly because of the Big Fluff nature of the current configuration of the Big Sky.

Thank you Gannon for making the point, I think, most posters were trying to make without bringing up stupid statistics. I do have to agree that in the down years the Griz were still able to get atop the conference but there are still quality teams, just not the depth that the CAA has.

Look at our 1st round losses since 1997 and we lost to:

#1 ranked McNeese @ McNeese 19-14
ranked Western Illinois @ WIU 52-9 (they were stocked)
ranked YSU team @ home 30-27
ranked W Ill @ home 43-40 (Russ Michna single handedly won that game! He was awesome)
ranked Cal Poly @ home 35-21. Tough to beat any team 2 times in one year.

[Maroons]

I'd agree if it only happend in threads started by Montana fans lol...but in almost every thread I read I see two teams that are ridiculed

Montana and San Diego...I'm not talking about the Smack section I'm talking about the discussion boards. Show me any threads that ridicule someone else in the discussion board cuz i would love to see it lol.

Maybe those just stand out to me more i dunno but you have to admit those two teams get a lot of grief in here

How about the entire OVC? At least posters consider Montana and SanDiego significant enough to give grief. xnonono2x

I'm just glad all this crap gets settled in the playoffs.

[89Hen]

when they Griz are good, they are good. They were very good in those 3 years. But when they aren't all that good they can still win the Big Sky and make the playoffs, hence the 5 first round exits in the last 10 years, 3 of which with home field advantage. Play in a tougher, deeper conference, and in those years the Griz aren't so good they wouldn't make the playoffs in the first place. The streak exists mainly because of the Big Fluff nature of the current configuration of the Big Sky.
xnodx xnodx xnodx

[HensRock]

Look at our 1st round losses since 1997 and we lost to:

#1 ranked McNeese @ McNeese 19-14
ranked Western Illinois @ WIU 52-9 (they were stocked)
ranked YSU team @ home 30-27
ranked W Ill @ home 43-40 (Russ Michna single handedly won that game! He was awesome)
ranked Cal Poly @ home 35-21. Tough to beat any team 2 times in one year.

"ranked" xconfusedx

Of course they are ranked. This is the PLAYOFFS! Everyone's ranked. These are supposedly the top 16 teams in the nation.
Are you trying to say that the Griz have had to face more than their fair share of ranked teams in the playoffs? xconfusedx

[GannonFan]

Thank you Gannon for making the point, I think, most posters were trying to make without bringing up stupid statistics. I do have to agree that in the down years the Griz were still able to get atop the conference but there are still quality teams, just not the depth that the CAA has.

Look at our 1st round losses since 1997 and we lost to:

#1 ranked McNeese @ McNeese 19-14
ranked Western Illinois @ WIU 52-9 (they were stocked)
ranked YSU team @ home 30-27
ranked W Ill @ home 43-40 (Russ Michna single handedly won that game! He was awesome)
ranked Cal Poly @ home 35-21. Tough to beat any team 2 times in one year.


McNeese was the 6th seed the year you lost 19-14 to them. nova was the #1 seed that year.

Granted, some of those teams the Griz lost to went far (although strangely none of them won the national title in those years), but there were some tough losses there - both WIU and Cal Poly lost in the very next round so those weren't the same as losing to a pretty game McNeese team in '97 or an indeed stocked WIU team in '98.

[joecooll6]

IMHO the CAA is too large thus the top teams never have to play each other every FEW years and this is one of the years! Umass does not play Delware thus the best don't play giving one of them a loss in conferences play! if they had to play each other like the other conferences they could not stack the playoffs with CAA teams! xpeacex

IF there were only a few good teams in the CAA that would matter, but they have enough good teams that strength of schedule isnt a problem.

[putter]

"ranked" xconfusedx

Of course they are ranked. This is the PLAYOFFS! Everyone's ranked. These are supposedly the top 16 teams in the nation.
Are you trying to say that the Griz have had to face more than their fair share of ranked teams in the playoffs? xconfusedx

NO, my point putting that in there was to remind those with their head somewhere, that all the teams in the playoffs are quality teams. While it is not fun to lose at home, you are losing to a quality team that had to play well to beat you, no disgrace.

[URMite]

I thought the discussion was about how good the BSC is not how good Montana is? Here is one more statistical barrage...over the last 7 years:

Gateway - 5 different teams have won a 1st round game, 3 won more than once, 9 won total
SoCon - 4 different teams have won a 1st round game, 3 won more than once, 12 won total
CAA - 9 different teams have won a 1st round game, 4 won more than once, 15 won total
BSC - 4 different teams have won a 1st round game, only 1 won more than once (Montana), 8 won total

I'm using current members. To me this indicates that other than Montana no won else in the BSC has had consistent recent playoff success. That is not true of the other major conferences. Doesn't mean the BSC teams aren't good but it definitely makes it harder to see it, without seeing every FCS game.

[putter]

I thought the discussion was about how good the BSC is not how good Montana is? Here is one more statistical barrage...over the last 7 years:

Gateway - 5 different teams have won a 1st round game, 3 won more than once, 9 won total
SoCon - 4 different teams have won a 1st round game, 3 won more than once, 12 won total
CAA - 9 different teams have won a 1st round game, 4 won more than once, 15 won total
BSC - 4 different teams have won a 1st round game, only 1 won more than once (Montana), 8 won total

I'm using current members. To me this indicates that other than Montana no won else in the BSC has had consistent recent playoff success. That is not true of the other major conferences. Doesn't mean the BSC teams aren't good but it definitely makes it harder to see it, without seeing every FCS game.

Consistency is the biggest thing. EWU with Meyer/Kimball were good and came within 2 point of the semis and should be there next year. PSU has had good teams in the past but played too many FBS schools to keep them out. Big Sky teams need to consistently get to the post season and it has yet to happen. Look at MSU. Good win last year against Furman and played App well. Same players for the most part, new coach, and may miss the playoffs all together because of conference slip ups.

[OleGriz]

IF there were only a few good teams in the CAA that would matter, but they have enough good teams that strength of schedule isnt a problem.


That's true, but to be selected for the playoffs as an at large, a team generally has to get at least an 8-3 record. It is easier to do that if you don't have to play the best team(s) in your conference. Richmond will have an impressive playoff resume even if they lose to Delaware (and win out otherwise) and should get in. But UR doesn't have to play UMass (apparently the best team in the CAA). If they had to meet up like teams in the Big Sky, SoCon, Gateway, etc. would, either Richmond would be in serious playoff jeopardy with a loss, or UMass would probably lose out on a seed were UR to pull the upset. But of course, since the CAA has a huge conference, UMass and UR don't (and can't) play, and both wind up with playoff-caliber records.

[blukeys]

That's true, but to be selected for the playoffs as an at large, a team generally has to get at least an 8-3 record. It is easier to do that if you don't have to play the best team(s) in your conference. Richmond will have an impressive playoff resume even if they lose to Delaware (and win out otherwise) and should get in. But UR doesn't have to play UMass (apparently the best team in the CAA). If they had to meet up like teams in the Big Sky, SoCon, Gateway, etc. would, either Richmond would be in serious playoff jeopardy with a loss, or UMass would probably lose out on a seed were UR to pull the upset. But of course, since the CAA has a huge conference, UMass and UR don't (and can't) play, and both wind up with playoff-caliber records.

OleGriz, I currently have Umass as the best CAA team but that means zilch in the CAA. If a CAA team is the best in the conference that means they are about a field goal better than 5 other teams and a touchdown better than 11 other teams.

You have obvioously missed the most apparent point. Richmond does not need to meet Umass to get tons of exposure to top 25 teams. All they have to do is play in the CAA South and they will face top 25 competition week in and week out. Meanwhile Montana gets Weber State and Northern Colorado.xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx

It is amazing that Montana folks are ragging on the CAA teams for not facing tough enough competition. CAA teams have faced and at times beaten FBS teams such as Marshall, Navy, Boston College, North Carolina, Vanderbilt. Now there is a lineup that would definitely pad the Montana schedule!!!!!!!xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

[putter]

OleGriz, I currently have Umass as the best CAA team but that means zilch in the CAA. If a CAA team is the best in the conference that means they are about a field goal better than 5 other teams and a touchdown better than 11 other teams.

You have obvioously missed the most apparent point. Richmond does not need to meet Umass to get tons of exposure to top 25 teams. All they have to do is play in the CAA South and they will face top 25 competition week in and week out. Meanwhile Montana gets Weber State and Northern Colorado.xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx xconfusedx

It is amazing that Montana folks are ragging on the CAA teams for not facing tough enough competition. CAA teams have faced and at times beaten FBS teams such as Marshall, Navy, Boston College, North Carolina, Vanderbilt. Now there is a lineup that would definitely pad the Montana schedule!!!!!!!xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx

I think it was the other way around. This argument was only that the CAA was too big, nothing about quality.

PS --> Big Sky teams have faced and at times beaten FBS teams such as Idaho, Washington St, Oregon St, New Mexico St, and Colorado to name a few. xsmiley_wix

[KAUMASS]

If Montana joined the CAA, this thread could vanish!! Seriously, the playoffs will settle everything come the end of November. I don't care about Montana's schedule or conference, they have and can go deep into the playoffs. They are a tough team and I bet no one will want to have to go to WA-Griz for a game there if they don't have to. The CAA's revolving schedule is fair and brutal year in and year out. So much in fact, it may hurt some of our teams in the playoffs because we are so banged up going into the playoffs.
So, let's not sweat the small stuff about rankings or SOS just yet. Lot's of football to be played out.
Let's further this discussion when the brackets are out.

[UMass922]

That's true, but to be selected for the playoffs as an at large, a team generally has to get at least an 8-3 record. It is easier to do that if you don't have to play the best team(s) in your conference. Richmond will have an impressive playoff resume even if they lose to Delaware (and win out otherwise) and should get in. But UR doesn't have to play UMass (apparently the best team in the CAA). If they had to meet up like teams in the Big Sky, SoCon, Gateway, etc. would, either Richmond would be in serious playoff jeopardy with a loss, or UMass would probably lose out on a seed were UR to pull the upset. But of course, since the CAA has a huge conference, UMass and UR don't (and can't) play, and both wind up with playoff-caliber records.

It seems you want to penalize Richmond for the size of the conference it plays in. A team should be considered for an at-large bid based on the strength of its schedule and its record against that schedule. Conference affiliation should not matter. If four teams from the CAA receive at-large bids (which I doubt will happen), it will be because each of those teams had a playoff-worthy resume.

Let's say Richmond finishes 8-3 against the following schedule:

@Vanderbilt, @Northeastern, @ Bucknell, New Hampshire, @Towson, Stony Brook, Rhode Island, @James Madison, Villanova, @Delaware, William & Mary

Which is the Big Sky team that could have gone 8-3 against that schedule but instead will have a worse record by virtue of having played a tougher schedule? Browsing the schedules of the Big Sky teams, I'm not seeing any that are tougher than what Richmond has this year. Sacramento State and Portland State have pretty tough schedules--they're they only BSC teams without a D-II this year--but judging by SSU's and PSU's records this year, it seems highly doubtful to me that either would have gone 8-3 against Richmond's schedule.

[grizzpaw]

ok its 4:30 p.m. mountain time and I'm back. As i knew THIS would happen the topic got LOST.
1. I NEVER SAID THAT THE CAA WASN'T ANY GOOD, I SAID, IT WAS TOO LARGE-HENSROCK GAVE ME THE BEST ANSWER-THANKS
2. TAKE A COMPASS DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND YOUR SCHOOL ON A REAL MAP OF THE U.S. LETS MAKE IT BIG SAY 500 MILES, THEN COUNT THE SCHOOLS THAT YOU CAN PLAY-HOW MANY TEAMS DUE YOU GET? THEN DRAW A CIRCLE (500 MILES) AROUND WHERE MONTANA IS COUNT THE TEAMS THAT WE CAN PLAY-THATS RIGHT,NOT VERY MANY TEAMS IN THAT CIRCLE FOR MONTANA-GO WEST THEIR IS EWU THATS IT,GO SOUTHWEST -2 IDAHO TEAMS (IDAHO, THEY QUIT PLAYING US AFTER WE HELP THEM GET THEIR 15,000 FANS PER HOME GAME(LIKE 4 YEARS NOW AND WE PLAYED THEM FOR OVER 100 YEARS) AND THE BLUE CARPET TEAM-WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT TEAM BECAUSE UP UNTIL THIS YEAR THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PLAY US AFTER THEY LEFT THE SKY, GO NORTH 0 TEAMS,GO SOUTH IDAHO STATE IS MORE THAN 500 MILES AND WE PLAY THEM EVERY YEAR, THEN GO EAST, THAT RIGHT ONLY 1 "STATE".NOT SURE HOW FAR NDSU AND SDSU ARE BUT AT LEAST 1000 MILES ONE WAYxeekx
3. IT COST 3 TIMES AS MUCH TO FLY OUT OF MISSOULA,MT THAN SPOKANE,WA- WHY YOU ASK- I DON'T KNOW!
SO YOU CAN SEE WE CAN'T FIND THAT MANY TEAMS TO PLAY AS YOU CAN WITHIN A BUS RIDE-YOU CANxconfusedx
4. WE TRIED TO PLAY SOME EAST COAST TEAMS LOST OUR ASSES ON THE MONEY END($1,000,000 IN THE HOLE AFTER FLYING BACK EAST IN WHAT, I THINK 2 YEARSxoopsx ).
SO YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE NOT THAT MANY TEAMS TO PLAY OUT WEST FOR US.
MONTANA FANS WANT BADLY TO PLAY BETTER TEAMS BUT NOT AT THE COST FOR US TO GET THERE OR THEM TO GET HERE. YOUR SCHOOLS LIKE MONEY TOO!

[blukeys]

I think it was the other way around. This argument was only that the CAA was too big, nothing about quality.

PS --> Big Sky teams have faced and at times beaten FBS teams such as Idaho, Washington St, Oregon St, New Mexico St, and Colorado to name a few. xsmiley_wix

Sorry Putter, Grizzpaw's post says that the CAA is stacking the playoffs because their best teams don't face one another. It is not just about size it is about certain teams getting a schedule break. Here is his post from the first page.


IMHO the CAA is too large thus the top teams never have to play each other every FEW years and this is one of the years! Umass does not play Delware thus the best don't play giving one of them a loss in conferences play! if they had to play each other like the other conferences they could not stack the playoffs with CAA teams! xpeacex


The clear implication is that the CAA teams get a break by playing in the largest most competitive conference in the nation. I would accept your interpretation had Grizzppaw not used the term "stack the playoffs with CAA teams". This is a clear insinuation that CAA teams are not of the quality to be in the playoffs and that they get into the playoffs due to scheduling advantages. This is not true of course. There is no equivalent of Northern Colorado in the CAA.

Anytime a Griz fan wants to debate the SOS of the GRIZ vs. ANY CAA team I am sure there will be enough takers.

A debate of the CAA being too big should not include playoff references such as grizzpaw's.

It the CAA is too big (and this is a point worth referencing) one need not
imply that the conference representatives got in there because they had it easy. Either the North or South divisions of the CAA is tough enough to warrant their own individual AQ's. The rest of FCS should thank their lucky stars that the CAA does not split and demand the extra AQ the quality of their teams warrant.

[BlueHen86]

Sorry Putter, Grizzpaw's post says that the CAA is stacking the playoffs because their best teams don't face one another. It is not just about size it is about certain teams getting a schedule break. Here is his post from the first page.




The clear implication is that the CAA teams get a break by playing in the largest most competitive conference in the nation. I would accept your interpretation had Grizzppaw not used the term "stack the playoffs with CAA teams". This is a clear insinuation that CAA teams are not of the quality to be in the playoffs and that they get into the playoffs due to scheduling advantages. This is not true of course. There is no equivalent of Northern Colorado in the CAA.

Anytime a Griz fan wants to debate the SOS of the GRIZ vs. ANY CAA team I am sure there will be enough takers.

A debate of the CAA being too big should not include playoff references such as grizzpaw's.

It the CAA is too big (and this is a point worth referencing) one need not
imply that the conference representatives got in there because they had it easy. Either the North or South divisions of the CAA is tough enough to warrant their own individual AQ's. The rest of FCS should thank their lucky stars that the CAA does not split and demand the extra AQ the quality of their teams warrant.
Great post.

[uofmman1122]

ok its 4:30 p.m. mountain time and I'm back. As i knew THIS would happen the topic got LOST.
1. I NEVER SAID THAT THE CAA WASN'T ANY GOOD, I SAID, IT WAS TOO LARGE-HENSROCK GAVE ME THE BEST ANSWER-THANKS
2. TAKE A COMPASS DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND YOUR SCHOOL ON A REAL MAP OF THE U.S. LETS MAKE IT BIG SAY 500 MILES, THEN COUNT THE SCHOOLS THAT YOU CAN PLAY-HOW MANY TEAMS DUE YOU GET? THEN DRAW A CIRCLE (500 MILES) AROUND WHERE MONTANA IS COUNT THE TEAMS THAT WE CAN PLAY-THATS RIGHT,NOT VERY MANY TEAMS IN THAT CIRCLE FOR MONTANA-GO WEST THEIR IS EWU THATS IT,GO SOUTHWEST -2 IDAHO TEAMS (IDAHO, THEY QUIT PLAYING US AFTER WE HELP THEM GET THEIR 15,000 FANS PER HOME GAME(LIKE 4 YEARS NOW AND WE PLAYED THEM FOR OVER 100 YEARS) AND THE BLUE CARPET TEAM-WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THAT TEAM BECAUSE UP UNTIL THIS YEAR THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PLAY US AFTER THEY LEFT THE SKY, GO NORTH 0 TEAMS,GO SOUTH IDAHO STATE IS MORE THAN 500 MILES AND WE PLAY THEM EVERY YEAR, THEN GO EAST, THAT RIGHT ONLY 1 "STATE".NOT SURE HOW FAR NDSU AND SDSU ARE BUT AT LEAST 1000 MILES ONE WAYxeekx
3. IT COST 3 TIMES AS MUCH TO FLY OUT OF MISSOULA,MT THAN SPOKANE,WA- WHY YOU ASK- I DON'T KNOW!
SO YOU CAN SEE WE CAN'T FIND THAT MANY TEAMS TO PLAY AS YOU CAN WITHIN A BUS RIDE-YOU CANxconfusedx
4. WE TRIED TO PLAY SOME EAST COAST TEAMS LOST OUR ASSES ON THE MONEY END($1,000,000 IN THE HOLE AFTER FLYING BACK EAST IN WHAT, I THINK 2 YEARSxoopsx ).
SO YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE NOT THAT MANY TEAMS TO PLAY OUT WEST FOR US.
MONTANA FANS WANT BADLY TO PLAY BETTER TEAMS BUT NOT AT THE COST FOR US TO GET THERE OR THEM TO GET HERE. YOUR SCHOOLS LIKE MONEY TOO!CAPSLOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!!! RAWR!!!

I might have found your point in there, but I had to stop halfway due to bleeding out of my eyes.

[grizzpaw]

FINGERS ARE SLOWER THAN THE BRAIN THE ONLY THING WAS THAT IT WAS TOO BIG THUS NO TRUE CHAMP THUS THE CAA WANTS MORE TEAMS INTHE PLAYOFFS, BUT AFTER READING MY POST AGAIN I SAID IT WRONG( NOT THE FIRST TIME I HAVE DONE THAT)

[grizzpaw]

sorry about the caps locks

[UMass922]

FINGERS ARE SLOWER THAN THE BRAIN THE ONLY THING WAS THAT IT WAS TOO BIG THUS NO TRUE CHAMP THUS THE CAA WANTS MORE TEAMS INTHE PLAYOFFS, BUT AFTER READING MY POST AGAIN I SAID IT WRONG( NOT THE FIRST TIME I HAVE DONE THAT)

I agree that the unbalanced schedule makes it difficult for the CAA to produce a "true champ." But beyond that, what difference does it make? Teams (from whatever conference) should be and will be selected for at-large bids based on the strength of their schedules and their records against those schedules. I haven't seen any CAA fan in this thread suggest otherwise.

[grizzpaw]

i could be wrong but isn't the CAA the only conference without a champion

[uofmman1122]

i could be wrong but isn't the CAA the only conference without a championYou'd be wrong....Don't know all of them off the top of my head, though...I know JMU and Delaware.

[UMass922]

You'd be wrong....Don't know all of them off the top of my head, though...I know JMU and Delaware.

UMass ('98), Delaware ('03) and JMU ('04) have all won national championships out of the A-10/CAA.

[Col Hogan]

It is amazing that Montana folks are ragging on the CAA teams for not facing tough enough competition. CAA teams have faced and at times beaten FBS teams such as Marshall, Navy, Boston College, North Carolina, Vanderbilt. Now there is a lineup that would definitely pad the Montana schedule!!!!!!!xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx xlolx


PS --> Big Sky teams have faced and at times beaten FBS teams such as Idaho, Washington St, Oregon St, New Mexico St, and Colorado to name a few. xsmiley_wix

Question...The FBS teams that blukeys mentions are ONE seasons worth...this season...and there are more (URI played Army)

What is the Big Sky FBS scheule look like for a year...this year for example...

[AZGrizFan]

Question...The FBS teams that blukeys mentions are ONE seasons worth...this season...and there are more (URI played Army)

What is the Big Sky FBS scheule look like for a year...this year for example...


Arizona, Texas A & M, BYU, Boise State, Oregon State, San Diego State, Hawaii, Fresno State, New Mexico

I'll stand that list up against your list this year any day of the week.... xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx

[art vandelay]

i acctually tend to agree in 2005 UNH whent 10-1 and had to share the A-10 title with an 8-3 Richmond. no doubt Richmond was a great team but come on these teams never played eachother. it would be nice to see a better situation. i think it will be fixed in the up in coming years. i do 100% believe that the CAA is the strongest conference and i will be sad when it breaks up believe me i love having these FCS giants clash. but i definately see grizzpaw's point. i think stonybrook wants to add in as well as Albany which will change the conference totaly i believe. xreadx

[BlueHen86]

Arizona, Texas A & M, BYU, Boise State, Oregon State, San Diego State, Hawaii, Fresno State, New Mexico

I'll stand that list up against your list this year any day of the week.... xnodx xnodx xnodx xnodx
It is an impressive list.xthumbsupx xnodx
For the record: All resulted in losses for the Big Sky, by at least 21 points. Unless I missed something.

[BlueHen86]

i acctually tend to agree in 2005 UNH whent 10-1 and had to share the A-10 title with an 8-3 Richmond. no doubt Richmond was a great team but come on these teams never played eachother. it would be nice to see a better situation. i think it will be fixed in the up in coming years. i do 100% believe that the CAA is the strongest conference and i will be sad when it breaks up believe me i love having these FCS giants clash. but i definately see grizzpaw's point. i think stonybrook wants to add in as well as Albany which will change the conference totaly i believe. xreadx
I don't see his point. Right now the CAA gets three or four bids to the playoffs, and sometimes the top north and south division teams do play each other.

Splitting the conference will probably still result in 3 or 4 bids for the former CAA teams. Both newly created conferences will probably each get auto bids - which means a conference that currently has one will lose it.
Also, the former CAA teams will have 6 OCC games which means their OOC schedule might get easier. You will be less, not more, likely to see the top team in the north play the top team in the south.

[yorkcountyUNHfan]

I'm not a fan of the split schedule, but only as far as crowning a champion goes.
U Mass this year is an example. But the point that the CAA top teams are not playoff worthy because they don't play each other doesn't make sense. (If that was your point). I would challenge you to show ANY CAA team's schedule that does not stand up to Montana's as far as SOS goes.

Posted first thing this morning (I know I need to get a life). Still no takers?

[I-AA Fan]

The committee may have trouble this year limiting the conference to four playoff selections. xpeacex


hack hack, cough cough (I must need the Robitussin)...The only trouble with the CAA is just what is said in the quote above. Huge egos and a lack of knowledge. Stop confusing parity with superiority ...the CAA has the former & and never proven the latter thus far in 2007.

Where is your showcase wins for this flood of play-off teams? That big Hofstra win over Furman (3-5)? How about that brilliant JMU thriller over Coastal (3-5)? Does Navy or Marshall have a winning record? Ball State beat Navy (and you would laugh at any GFC or OVC team that played a MAC school) & Marshall just picked up their first win of the season, over Rice, a team which was already defeated by Nicholls State. I am not trying to toot App State's horn either, as the UM team they played was the worst Big-10 team I have ever seen (and I am in my 40's). I am trying to say that defeating each other means nothing & the non-conference I-AA/FCS schedule is not there to justify such a statement. Not too mention what a huge mistake it was the first time the NCAA gave out 4-bids to a single conference.

[BlueHen86]

hack hack, cough cough (I must need the Robitussin)...The only trouble with the CAA is just what is said in the quote above. Huge egos and a lack of knowledge. Stop confusing parity with superiority ...the CAA has the former & and never proven the latter thus far in 2007.

Where is your showcase wins for this flood of play-off teams? That big Hofstra win over Furman (3-5)? How about that brilliant JMU thriller over Coastal (3-5)? Does Navy or Marshall have a winning record? Ball State beat Navy (and you would laugh at any GFC or OVC team that played a MAC school) & Marshall just picked up their first win of the season, over Rice, a team which was already defeated by Nicholls State. I am not trying to toot App State's horn either, as the UM team they played was the worst Big-10 team I have ever seen (and I am in my 40's). I am trying to say that defeating each other means nothing & the non-conference I-AA/FCS schedule is not there to justify such a statement. Not too mention what a huge mistake it was the first time the NCAA gave out 4-bids to a single conference.

Worked out pretty well for the A-10 in 2004. All 4 teams won first round games. Overall playoff record of 8 - 3 with two of the loses to other A-10 teams.

[Kymermosst]

Unfortunately, the CAA isn't an ideal setup. 12 teams is tough to accommodate. 6 and 6 is too small for two separate conferences. Even adding 2 more teams, you've got 7 and 7. Unless 3 or 4 teams decide to switch OUT of the CAA (can't see why someone would want to) then it's a necessary evil for now.

UMass only has 5 opponents that we will definitely see every year: UNH, URI, Maine, Hofstra, and Northeastern. Then, once every four years, we get to host and visit Delaware, W&M, Nova, Towson, Richmond, and JMU.

Really, you could add any 2 teams to the CAA North or CAA South and still have a conference on par with many other in the country. Each has two teams that are in the thick of the playoff hunt, as well as one more right on the bubble (as of today). Ignoring AQs for a moment, how many other conferences out there could say they have 2 teams that will definitely get in, and would not be a stretch at all for a third?

Each half of the CAA is fully capable of standing on its own. The size of the CAA really helps, because all of those great teams only take one AQ, then because of the idea of giving so many at-large bids to one conference, a CAA team is more likely to miss out while someone from another conference is more likely to get it.

[HensRock]

That's true, but to be selected for the playoffs as an at large, a team generally has to get at least an 8-3 record. It is easier to do that if you don't have to play the best team(s) in your conference.

The same could be said for the Griz. They NEVER have to play the best team in their conference, do they?

Since it's easier (as you claim) to go 8-3 if you don't have to face the best team in your conference, I'm sure there must be several CAA teams with weaker schedules than Montana's - you know - since they don't have to play the best team.

If you consider UMass to be the best team in the CAA, there are 3 CAA teams which do not have to face UMass this season - Delaware, JMU, and Richmond. Let's look at their easy schedules...

Delaware Schedule
@William & Mary
West Chester (Div-II)
Monmouth
@Towson
Rhode Island
@New Hampshire (currently ranked #8)
Northeastern
@Navy (FBS)
James Madison (currently ranked #12)
Richmond (currently ranked #11)
@Villanova (currently ranked #23)

That's 4 ranked FCS, 1 Div-II, 1 FBS

James Madison Schedule
@North Carolina (FBS)
New Hampshire (currently ranked #8)
VMI
Coastal Carolina
Villanova (#23)
@Northeastern
@Rhode Island
Richmond (#11)
@Delaware (#7)
@William & Mary
Towson

That's 4 ranked FCS plus 1 FBS

Richmond Schedule
@Vanderbilt (FBS)
@Northeastern
@Bucknell
New Hampshire (#8)
@Towson
Stony Brook
Rhode Island
@James Madison (#12)
Villanova (#23)
@Delaware (#7)
William & Mary

Again 4 ranked FCS plus 1 FBS

All other CAA schools play UMass. But these schedules are nothing unusual. And I think you'll find the other 9 are similar. These are AVERAGE CAA schedules.

[OleGriz]

Another thing to consider in the argument about whether the large conference gives CAA teams an advantage is the fact that by NCAA rules, teams in the same conference can't be matched up in the first round, regardless of whether they have played in the regular season or not. Not only do Richmond, JMU and Delaware not have to play UMass in the regular season and take a probable loss, they know that they won't have to play the Minutemen until at least the second round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, teams that actually did play one another in the regular, like Montana and Cal Poly in 2005, have to play a rematch in the first round, ensuring that one of them will be eliminated, while the CAA teams which did not play one another are protected from having to face a "conference" foe.

[charliej]

There are two sides to this.While Nova didn't have UNH this year,they also didn't get URI or N'eastern.;)

[Maroon&White]

West Chester (Div-II)


That's also #13 (8-1) West Chester...not exactly the powerhouse 1-7 Fort Lewis.

[89Hen]

Not too mention what a huge mistake it was the first time the NCAA gave out 4-bids to a single conference.
How so?

[89Hen]

Another thing to consider in the argument about whether the large conference gives CAA teams an advantage is the fact that by NCAA rules, teams in the same conference can't be matched up in the first round, regardless of whether they have played in the regular season or not. Not only do Richmond, JMU and Delaware not have to play UMass in the regular season and take a probable loss, they know that they won't have to play the Minutemen until at least the second round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, teams that actually did play one another in the regular, like Montana and Cal Poly in 2005, have to play a rematch in the first round, ensuring that one of them will be eliminated, while the CAA teams which did not play one another are protected from having to face a "conference" foe.
xconfusedx You're comparing conference match-ups to non-conference match-ups. UMass and Colgate met in the regular season and first round in 2003. Not sure I follow your point. xconfusedx

[89Hen]

i could be wrong but isn't the CAA the only conference without a champion
I think other people read your statement wrong. I think you meant the CAA is the only conference without a true conference champion, not a national champion... but in either case, you would still be incorrect. We do crown a conference champion. They are the champion just like a conference that crowns a champ when there is a three way tie with the teams all beating each other... there are tiebreakers. xpeacex

[Maroon&White]

xconfusedx You're comparing conference match-ups to non-conference match-ups. UMass and Colgate met in the regular season and first round in 2003. Not sure I follow your point. xconfusedx


They only met Colgate in the 1st round in 2003. From 2004-2007 they have played in the regular season.

[89Hen]

xconfusedx You're comparing conference match-ups to non-conference match-ups. UMass and Colgate met in the regular season and first round in 2003. Not sure I follow your point. xconfusedx
I take it back, I was incorrect. UMass and Colgate met in 2004 AFTER meeting in 2003 in the playoffs, but the point is still valid. A CAA team can meet a non-conference foe in the first round... just like any conference could.

[89Hen]

They only met Colgate in the 1st round in 2003. From 2004-2007 they have played in the regular season.

:o Yeah, I was correcting as you posted. xpeacex

[stevdock]

Is there a reason why the CAA can't have a championship game? That would solve some of the problem.

[UMass922]

Is there a reason why the CAA can't have a championship game? That would solve some of the problem.

The teams that played in the championship game wouldn't be eligible for the playoffs, per NCAA rules.

[BlueHen86]

Is there a reason why the CAA can't have a championship game? That would solve some of the problem.
What exactly is the problem you are speaking of? The CAA is usually a multi-bid conference.

[89Hen]

Is there a reason why the CAA can't have a championship game? That would solve some of the problem.


What exactly is the problem you are speaking of?
What 86 said. FWIW, I don't care if the Hens ever lay claim to a CAA "Title"... playoffs are all that matters to me.

[stevdock]

What exactly is the problem you are speaking of? The CAA is usually a multi-bid conference.

The problem of the Top 2 teams not necessarily playing each other during the season. Would it still be ineligible for the playoffs if the schedules would be moved up a week, probably getting rid of a bye and having the championship game the last week of the regular season?

[BlueHen86]

The problem of the Top 2 teams not necessarily playing each other during the season. Would it still be ineligible for the playoffs if the schedules would be moved up a week, probably getting rid of a bye and having the championship game the last week of the regular season?
Again, why is that a problem? The top two teams are most likely going to the playoffs anyway. If UMass wins the CAA over Delaware good for them. Like 89Hen said, the playoffs are all that matters. It is unlikely that the extra game you want would affect to playoff picture.

[89Hen]

The problem of the Top 2 teams not necessarily playing each other during the season.
Not a problem for the CAA. :p

[BlueHen86]

The problem of the Top 2 teams not necessarily playing each other during the season. Would it still be ineligible for the playoffs if the schedules would be moved up a week, probably getting rid of a bye and having the championship game the last week of the regular season?
I also don't think any school would be in favor of getting rid of the bye just so they can play a virtually meaningless 'championship' game.

[stevdock]

I was just asking a question, that is all.

[BlueHen86]

I was just asking a question, that is all.
But you keep asking it. Or was it the friend who also has access to your account that asked it?:p

[mcveyrl]

I also don't think any school would be in favor of getting rid of the bye just so they can play a virtually meaningless 'championship' game.

Yea, the CAA guys know that I like the idea of playing everybody and having a conference champion, but I'm not getting rid of a bye just so we not only don't have an off week, but ALSO have to play an extra game before the playoffs. It also wouldn't be a very exciting game since neither coach would be interested in showing a whole lot before the playoffs (as most have pointed out, the second place team in the CAA is going to the playoffs 9999 out of 10000 times).

[89Hen]

Yea, the CAA guys know that I like the idea of playing everybody and having a conference champion, but I'm not getting rid of a bye just so we not only don't have an off week, but ALSO have to play an extra game before the playoffs. It also wouldn't be a very exciting game since neither coach would be interested in showing a whole lot before the playoffs (as most have pointed out, the second place team in the CAA is going to the playoffs 9999 out of 10000 times).
The ONLY way this happens is if they SHRUNK the playoffs so only the Champ and a couple at-large got it like the BCS.

[mcveyrl]

The ONLY way this happens is if they SHRUNK the playoffs so only the Champ and a couple at-large got it like the BCS.

We know that's less likely to happen as the second place team in the CAA not getting in. At that point, I would just assume they split the conference instead of having a championship game.

[putter]

I also don't think any school would be in favor of getting rid of the bye just so they can play a virtually meaningless 'championship' game.

that is why the FCS does not need conference champions. It is settled on the field so being a conference champion has no value outside of that conference, unlike the FBS.

[HensRock]

that is why the FCS does not need conference champions. It is settled on the field so being a conference champion has no value outside of that conference, unlike the FBS.


Not quite. The value is that you are guaranteed a playoff spot (if you're in one of the auto bid conferences). With some of the whacky decisions the committee might make, that is of real value.
I happen to like the AQ's because it gives more meaning to the conference championships.


The CAA does choose a champion by the way. But there is no tie-breaker. Instead they have co-champions. There IS a tie-breaker rule for AQ selection however.

[URMite]

What 86 said. FWIW, I don't care if the Hens ever lay claim to a CAA "Title"... playoffs are all that matters to me.

I don't know I kinda liked the "title" with 7 wins back in '87 xcoolx

It took some of the sting out of going from 7-0 & #1 to out of the playoffs at 8-3 with a win @VA Tech & loss @Rutgers in '85 but I digress...xcoffeex

[Col Hogan]

The problem of the Top 2 teams not necessarily playing each other during the season. Would it still be ineligible for the playoffs if the schedules would be moved up a week, probably getting rid of a bye and having the championship game the last week of the regular season?

Others have addressed why this isn't necessary or wanted...but here's one more reason why its not a workable idea...

Either all CAA teams give up the bye which will screw up OOC scheduling...or none do...and if all do, then we have a unbalanced schedule with the top Northern and top Southern teams playing one more game than the rest of the CAA...

[URMite]

Yea, the CAA guys know that I like the idea of playing everybody and having a conference champion, but I'm not getting rid of a bye just so we not only don't have an off week, but ALSO have to play an extra game before the playoffs. It also wouldn't be a very exciting game since neither coach would be interested in showing a whole lot before the playoffs (as most have pointed out, the second place team in the CAA is going to the playoffs 9999 out of 10000 times).

Hey not everyone would get rid of the bye, only 2 out of 12, everyone else would get the bye the last week of the season.xwhistlex
Just kidding, ugh!

[stevdock]

Others have addressed why this isn't necessary or wanted...but here's one more reason why its not a workable idea...

Either all CAA teams give up the bye which will screw up OOC scheduling...or none do...and if all do, then we have a unbalanced schedule with the top Northern and top Southern teams playing one more game than the rest of the CAA...

See I didn't realize that. Still trying to get familiar with the new division. I think most from this area have always seen Montana as top dogs. And while most years that has been true for this area, that's all we've ever seen. And coming from D2, the major conferences were in the middle of the country, so it's kind of a shift for us, or at least for me.

[URMite]

The problem of the Top 2 teams not necessarily playing each other during the season. Would it still be ineligible for the playoffs if the schedules would be moved up a week, probably getting rid of a bye and having the championship game the last week of the regular season?

As long as the top teams have played a strong schedule, this is no more of a "problem" than the fact that the #1 teams from the BSC, Gateway, and SoCon haven't played each other in the regular season...