Big Sky v. CAA

[number1debater]

Assuming that the Big Sky does pick up Cal Poly and UC Davis, how do you think the Big Sky will compare to the CAA? I feel that the Big sky still isn't quite the CAA, but you gotta give them its a significant increase in competitiveness. Cal Poly is always a contender for playoffs and UC is a pretty average to above average team. Certainly wouldn't hurt for getting "battle tested."

[NHwildEcat]

It's not that close. Until someone besides Montana can show that they can be a contender year in and year out its not close. CAA is deep with talented teams...i admit to not knowing a lot about the Big Sky, but I haven't read anything to prove to me that the Big Sky is deep.

[Jackman]

In the short term, Cal Poly and UC Davis are certainly stronger additions than Old Dominion and Georgia State, so the Big Sky can claim to have made up some ground there. As ODU and GSU get up to speed, who knows. But I think what's going to remain the biggest measure between conferences is who your playoff teams are and how far they advance.

[BearIt]

Sadly I have to agree with the CAA posters. We barely justify having 2 teams in the playoffs. I think Cal Poly has only been in twice and UC Davis has yet to sniff the play offs. Adding these 2 teams does not make us any closer to the CAA. When we can have more than 1 legit team make a run in the play offs, then we can say we're catching up to the CAA.

[FCS Go!]

Over the last five years I would say that the Big Sky has 3 or 4 "good" teams every year and that the CAA has 5 or 6 "good" teams every year. Now the Big Sky may be able to add one team to that tally each season.

[jmufan999]

Sadly I have to agree with the CAA posters. We barely justify having 2 teams in the playoffs. I think Cal Poly has only been in twice and UC Davis has yet to sniff the play offs. Adding these 2 teams does not make us any closer to the CAA. When we can have more than 1 legit team make a run in the play offs, then we can say we're catching up to the CAA.

wow, i'm really impressed with your objectivity. i'd give you positive rep points if i could figure out how to do it.

[89Hen]

UC Davis has been a dissapointment IMO. Average is a good description. They are a .500 team since joining the GWFC 6 years ago. They had one great game vs Stanford a couple years ago, but have also lost two games to D2's and went 1-1 vs Northeastern (5-18 those years).

That said, they can definitely improve and benefit from moving to the BSC.

[Tod]

It's not even close. The CAA has five (FIVE!!) different teams that have won the NC since 1998, and have taken runner-up several times. And that doesn't even include the perennially strong UNH. Yet. Or William and Mary!

Sorry, but NOT. EVEN. CLOSE!

I'd like to see that change.

[SLOSTYLE]

the depth of the CAA is really what separates it from every other conference out there right now. agreeing with the posters above, until the big sky begins to consistently see 3 or 4 teams make the quarterfinals every year, like the CAA , this shouldnt be a discussion. i will argue that because of the recent shakeups with playoff implications (this conference re-alignment, and the addition of 4 more playoff teams) the west as a whole now has a chance to start proving its worth. Poly has consistenly had its playoff chances stunted beacuse of its week conference and its brutal OOC games, and i am thrilled that we now have the chance to show what we are made of. no more EXCUSES mustangs. its go time...... in 2012

[rufus]

Over the last five years I would say that the Big Sky has 3 or 4 "good" teams every year and that the CAA has 5 or 6 "good" teams every year. Now the Big Sky may be able to add one team to that tally each season.

The 3-4 good teams vs. 5-6 good teams stat seems a little off. Outside of Montana, which has clearly been a dominant program, the Big Sky is a little thin.

Playoff Records in the past 10 years:
CAA: 39-23
BSC: 24-21

Playoff Records excluding winningist teams (Delaware & Montana):
CAA: 29-20
BSC: 5-12

Adding Cal Poly and UC Davis wouldn't change those records significantly. Not meant to be smack, but the two conferences aren't equal quite yet.

[BearIt]

One benefit is that there will be more opportunity for more than 1 team from the west to go deeper in the playoffs. A good example was in 2008 when Montana, Weber and Cal Poly were all in the same bracket. All 3 were good teams that could have made good playoff runs, but due to regionalization only 1 team could go past the quarterfinal. That scenario shouldn't happen again. At least one of those teams would be in a different bracket.

[bpcats]

Right now the CAA is ahead of the Big Sky in their depth of quality teams. I think the Big Sky is about two years away from teams like UNC and Sac State making a big jump in conference standings but they have gotten better each year. Adding Cal Poly and UC Davis definitely help. I just don't think that there is that much of a gap between the two conferences overall or at least it is closing..

[Ud1Hens]

I just don't think that there is that much of a gap between the two conferences overall or at least it is closing..

I honestly don't know how you could find one fact to justify that statement. And how is it closing?

Montana is just as good (or better) than any of the top 5 CAA teams...the 2nd place Big Sky team is about the 6th best CAA team. No Big Sky team besides Montana has been a threat whereas every year you can seem to pencil at least 2 different CAA teams into the semis. You need to read the response by "Tod" a few posts ago.

[jmufan999]

the depth of the CAA is really what separates it from every other conference out there right now. agreeing with the posters above, until the big sky begins to consistently see 3 or 4 teams make the quarterfinals every year, like the CAA , this shouldnt be a discussion. i will argue that because of the recent shakeups with playoff implications (this conference re-alignment, and the addition of 4 more playoff teams) the west as a whole now has a chance to start proving its worth. Poly has consistenly had its playoff chances stunted beacuse of its week conference and its brutal OOC games, and i am thrilled that we now have the chance to show what we are made of. no more EXCUSES mustangs. its go time...... in 2012

you've got to be STOKED going to an auto-bid conference. i literally would be popping open the champagne tonight if i'm a cal poly fan. and you're right... no excuses.

[Nebuta]

This shouldnt even be a debate. CAA is stacked. Every year there are at least 2-4 CAA teams have a legit shot to make some noise in the playoffs and a chance to get to the NC title game. You cant say that for Big Sky.

[FCS Go!]

The 3-4 good teams vs. 5-6 good teams stat seems a little off...

... Adding Cal Poly and UC Davis wouldn't change those records significantly. Not meant to be smack, but the two conferences aren't equal quite yet.

I didn't mean to imply that the two are equal. By "good" I guess I mean a team that has a legit case to be a playoff-caliber squad. To put it another way the CAA often has twice as many good teams as the Big Sky.

This is how I would have ranked the "good" CAA vs BSC last year before the playoffs started:
1. Villanova
2. W & M
3. Montana
4. Richmond
5. New Hampshire
6. E Wash
7. JMU
8. MT State
9. Weber St

I think the above is fairly typical over the last five years. In 2008 there would be a Cal Poly in there but also at least 6 CAA teams ahead of the # 3 Big Sky team.

[slostang]

The 3-4 good teams vs. 5-6 good teams stat seems a little off. Outside of Montana, which has clearly been a dominant program, the Big Sky is a little thin.

Playoff Records in the past 10 years:
CAA: 39-23
BSC: 24-21

Playoff Records excluding winningist teams (Delaware & Montana):
CAA: 29-20
BSC: 5-12

Adding Cal Poly and UC Davis wouldn't change those records significantly. Not meant to be smack, but the two conferences aren't equal quite yet.

Cal Poly going to the Big Sky just made an already strong FCS program even stronger. This will help in recruiting and also in fan/donar interest. I am sure the same can be said for UC Davis.

[SLOSTYLE]

you've got to be STOKED going to an auto-bid conference. i literally would be popping open the champagne tonight if i'm a cal poly fan. and you're right... no excuses.


not only that, but this elimanates all possibilities of this upcoming stretch of schedule from ever happening again:

Sep 11th, 2010 Montana 6:05 pm San Luis Obispo, CA

Sep 18th, 2010 AT Texas State 4:00 pm San Marcos, TX

Sep 25th, 2010 AT McNeese State 5:00 pm Lake Charles, LA

Oct 2nd, 2010 AT Fresno State 7:00 pm Fresno, CA

Oct 9th, 2010 AT Old Dominion 3:00 pm Norfolk, VA

Oct 16th, 2010 *AT Southern Utah 2:00 pm Cedar City, UT


I mean, the travel on that stretch is just ridiculous. good to see we found a great new home in the BSC

[UNHFootballAlum]

You have to put UMASS & Delaware in ahead of EWU or at least MT State

[holycrossC]

Ah, the Interstate 95 recruiting corridor.xthumbsupx

[uofmman1122]

You have to put UMASS & Delaware in ahead of EWU or at least MT StateWhy don't you just say the entire CAA is better than every team in the Big Sky except Montana? xrolleyesx

[Ud1Hens]

Why don't you just say the entire CAA is better than every team in the Big Sky except Montana? xrolleyesx

Because we'd need to have Towson and Rhode Island to drop football...

[Col Hogan]

Cal Poly going to the Big Sky just made an already strong FCS program even stronger. This will help in recruiting and also in fan/donar interest. I am sure the same can be said for UC Davis.

Yep....

[Tod]

I agree, slostang. I was on the fence about UM going to the WAC (before Fresno and Nevada left), but now I am firmly back in the Big Sky camp! Stay, Griz, stayyyyyy! Good Griz!

[rufus]

I didn't mean to imply that the two are equal. By "good" I guess I mean a team that has a legit case to be a playoff-caliber squad. To put it another way the CAA often has twice as many good teams as the Big Sky.

This is how I would have ranked the "good" CAA vs BSC last year before the playoffs started:
1. Villanova
2. W & M
3. Montana
4. Richmond
5. New Hampshire
6. E Wash
7. JMU
8. MT State
9. Weber St

I think the above is fairly typical over the last five years. In 2008 there would be a Cal Poly in there but also at least 6 CAA teams ahead of the # 3 Big Sky team.

Based on mean Sagarin ratings from the past 5 seasons, the order would look like this:

Richmond 66.33
Montana 66.19
JMU 65.49
UNH 64.47
UMass 63.59
Villanova 62.89
W&M 58.64
EWU 57.83
Delaware 57.55
Maine 55.21
Montana St. 54.94
Weber 54.59
NAU 52.96

Based on median ratings, you get this:

Richmond 70.13
Montana 68.62
JMU 66.66
UNH 64.39
Villanova 63.55
UMass 62.72
EWU 59.67
Montana St. 57.88
Delaware 55.92
Maine 55.83
NAU 54.14
W&M 53.40
Weber 52.16

The Big Sky teams do considerably better in the median rankings. The CAA is simply stronger and more consistent right now. A team like Maine, which is often overlooked in the CAA would be a legit contender for #2 in the Big Sky. Anyway, this is how things are now. Times change. Good luck the the Big Sky and its new members.

[FCS Go!]

You have to put UMASS & Delaware in ahead of EWU or at least MT State

Sorry but a 5 win, 6 loss UMass doesn't warrant being above an 8 win, 3 loss EWU. You know that this was the week before LAST YEAR'S PLAYOFFS started, right? Not this week or an average of the last five years.

[BearIt]

A team like Maine, which is often overlooked in the CAA would be a legit contender for #2 in the Big Sky. Anyway, this is how things are now. Times change. Good luck the the Big Sky and its new members.

I doubt the #2 contender in the Big Sky gets shut out at home by Albany.

[JMUNJ08]

Those are some cool places to visit! Enjoy! Rack up the frequent flier miles so the guys can take a free trip in the offseason!


not only that, but this elimanates all possibilities of this upcoming stretch of schedule from ever happening again:

Sep 11th, 2010 Montana 6:05 pm San Luis Obispo, CA

Sep 18th, 2010 AT Texas State 4:00 pm San Marcos, TX

Sep 25th, 2010 AT McNeese State 5:00 pm Lake Charles, LA

Oct 2nd, 2010 AT Fresno State 7:00 pm Fresno, CA

Oct 9th, 2010 AT Old Dominion 3:00 pm Norfolk, VA

Oct 16th, 2010 *AT Southern Utah 2:00 pm Cedar City, UT


I mean, the travel on that stretch is just ridiculous. good to see we found a great new home in the BSC

[rufus]

I doubt the #2 contender in the Big Sky gets shut out at home by Albany.

Any given Saturday. Anyway, those were the stats over the past five years. For all we know, Maine could be horrendous this year, or Albany could be surprisingly good. Time will tell.

Over the past five seasons, a game between Maine and the #2 in the Big Sky would likely have been decided by home field advantage (add 3 pts to the mean Sagarin ratings for the home team). But again we're still talking about past performance. Anything can happen in the future.

[TokyoGriz]

Not real close. CAA is still stronger conference. Without Montana the Big Sky would be 2nd rate. You can remove any 1 CAA team and still have a strong conference. Thats the difference.

[caribbeanhen]

Because we'd need to have Towson and Rhode Island to drop football...

good one, the Montana fans speak with reason, but I would offer that the CAA probably peaked last year, all thing seem to level out eventually

[4th and What?]

you've got to be STOKED going to an auto-bid conference. i literally would be popping open the champagne tonight if i'm a cal poly fan. and you're right... no excuses.

Not sure why the auto-bid in particular would make a difference. Cal Poly in the 2000's has always had a strong OOC schedule playing tough BSC teams, in Montana, Weber St, NAU, EWU. If they won those games in the past, they would get an at large. The need to win those games in the future to get an at large or the auto-bid. Even so though, being in the BSC should help Cal Poly in plenty of other ways, and should be huge for their program and Davis.

The auto bid is much more significant for conferences whose conference champion is usually considered a bubble team (Big South, NEC, MEAC, Pioneer).

[slostang]

Not sure why the auto-bid in particular would make a difference. Cal Poly in the 2000's has always had a strong OOC schedule playing tough BSC teams, in Montana, Weber St, NAU, EWU. If they won those games in the past, they would get an at large. The need to win those games in the future to get an at large or the auto-bid. Even so though, being in the BSC should help Cal Poly in plenty of other ways, and should be huge for their program and Davis.

The auto bid is much more significant for conferences whose conference champion is usually considered a bubble team (Big South, NEC, MEAC, Pioneer).

Cal Poly is 15-7 against the Big Sky in our last 22 games. I think all but one or two or those losses have been to Montana. I think Cal Poly will compete very well in the Big Sky and the Big Sky gets two teams in each year.

[GtFllsGriz]

I think it is a win-win for the conference and the universitys. CP and UCD will have the stability of good competition without having to travel across the country to play good games and occassionally having to play all their good games on the road. The CAA has proven that the large conference format is a roadmap to success in terms of getting multiple teams into the playoffs. Of course all the teams have to up their game and I see that happening with the addition of CP and UCD.

[UNHFootballAlum]

Why don't you just say the entire CAA is better than every team in the Big Sky except Montana? xrolleyesx

Looking at teh past 5 years record and playoff runs and I think that you'd have to agree

[EmeryZach]

The real question should be, who is better Big Sky vs SOCON?

[catbob]

Outside of UM, Big Sky teams rarely get home playoff games. Montana State is the last one I can remember, when we beat Furman at home in 2006 in the first round. Our previous 2 trips to the playoffs were at McNeese and at Northern Iowa.

Give the Big Sky some home field in the playoffs for once!

[catbob]

I just checked. Since 2000, only one other team in the Sky has gotten a home game in the playoffs: MSU in 2006. Unless I am missing someone, which can happen from time to time. :)

[srgrizizen]

No contest. CAA is the strongest conference. But when and where do they award the trophy for the strongest conference? And which team gets to keep/display it? Sure, most fans tend to root for their conference mates when their team is out of it, but who really cares a tenth as much as they do about their own team? Griz fans would like to have better competition, but as long as UM does well even when they venture outside the "fluff zone," I find this thread to be much ado about not much.

[Silenoz]

good one, the Montana fans speak with reason, but I would offer that the CAA probably peaked last year, all thing seem to level out eventually

I hope so. If/when that happens, the wolves are going to be coming out of the woodwork after the decline xcoolx


Same thing is true for Montana though I suppose xmadx

[WrenFGun]

I think the difference is really in the cream of the crop. Montana is ever reliable, but you pretty much always have two elite CAA teams that are right there with them ('Nova/W&M last year), (JMU/'Nova/Richmond, etc.). Beyond the elite each year, though, I can see EWU, Montana State, Weber State and Cal Poly being pretty interchangeable with them from year-to-year. I think if UNH, for example, played EWU, Montana State, Weber State or Cal Poly 100 times, I'd expect something like a 53-47 record or something along those lines.

[Native]

The CAA is clearly the strongest conference in the FCS, but the Big Sky consistently competes with the SOCON and MVFC for runner up as the second strongest FCS conference. FCSGo! is correct that the Big Sky regularly fields 3-5 strong teams every year, while the CAA regularly fields 5-8 strong teams. Adding Cal Poly and US-Davis will benefit both the conference and its teams.

[GannonFan]

Outside of UM, Big Sky teams rarely get home playoff games. Montana State is the last one I can remember, when we beat Furman at home in 2006 in the first round. Our previous 2 trips to the playoffs were at McNeese and at Northern Iowa.

Give the Big Sky some home field in the playoffs for once!

That point has less importance when you consider that many of the deep runs in the playoffs for the CAA have occured with teams playing a lot on the road. JMU in '04 played every playoff game on the road - UMass played and won at Montana in the semis in '06 - UD in 2007 played the quarters and the semis on the road (even got snowed in after beating UNI) - Richmond did the same in 2008 on their way to winning the title. Outside of UD in '03 and nova in '09, CAA teams have often gone onto the title games by playing multiple road games. Besides, after the first round, the remaining 8 teams are pretty equal and homefield advantage starts to become less important - it's nice, but generally those teams left aren't going to be greatly impacted by where they are playing.

[GannonFan]

I just checked. Since 2000, only one other team in the Sky has gotten a home game in the playoffs: MSU in 2006. Unless I am missing someone, which can happen from time to time. :)

NAU had a home quarterfinal game against Florida Atlantic in '03. Didn't help as Florida Atlantic won by more than 3 TD's, before they went on to lose by double digits at home to Colgate the following week, who then went on to lose by 40 in the title game.

[Dblue]

...... Florida Atlantic won by more than 3 TD's, before they went on to lose by double digits at home to Colgate the following week, who then went on to lose by 40 in the title game.

Darn, 40 points! Who'd they play? xnodx

[jmufan999]

Not sure why the auto-bid in particular would make a difference. Cal Poly in the 2000's has always had a strong OOC schedule playing tough BSC teams, in Montana, Weber St, NAU, EWU. If they won those games in the past, they would get an at large. The need to win those games in the future to get an at large or the auto-bid. Even so though, being in the BSC should help Cal Poly in plenty of other ways, and should be huge for their program and Davis.

The auto bid is much more significant for conferences whose conference champion is usually considered a bubble team (Big South, NEC, MEAC, Pioneer).

how many times has a Great West team made the playoffs in the past 10 years? compare that with the number of total bids the BSC has garnered over that same period. being in an autobid conference is obviously and unquestionably better than not being in one. it's not just because of the autobid but because of the respect the selection committee pays.

[heath]

Big Sky vs CAA is like ACC vs SEC, you'd like to thing you can make a case but one is really head and shoulders above the other.xeyebrowx

[JMUNJ08]

how many times has a Great West team made the playoffs in the past 10 years? compare that with the number of total bids the BSC has garnered over that same period. being in an autobid conference is obviously and unquestionably better than not being in one. it's not just because of the autobid but because of the respect the selection committee pays.

Ask Liberty. I'm sure they have a personal response to the question...

[blukeys]

Outside of UM, Big Sky teams rarely get home playoff games. Montana State is the last one I can remember, when we beat Furman at home in 2006 in the first round. Our previous 2 trips to the playoffs were at McNeese and at Northern Iowa.

Give the Big Sky some home field in the playoffs for once!


Fine put Montana on the road where they rarely play and keep Montana State or NAU at home.

Haven't we had umteen threads where Montana folks defend their right to have playoff games at home until losing to the CAA in Chatty???

Tell the committee you want Montana State at home and Montana on the road. I bet that solves the problem.

[TokyoGriz]

Fine put Montana on the road where they rarely play and keep Montana State or NAU at home.

Haven't we had umteen threads where Montana folks defend their right to have playoff games at home until losing to the CAA in Chatty???

Tell the committee you want Montana State at home and Montana on the road. I bet that solves the problem.

hmm lets see 6,000-8,000 fans at a MSU playoff game versus 18,000-22,000 at a Montana home playoff game.... real hard to see the choice the committee has to make. You might forget but the NCAA sucks 93% of the money OUT of Montanas playoff games revenue. Last year we kept 70,000 dollars while giving the NCAA $1,000,000 from our 3 home games.

NCAA wants money period thats why Montana will get playoff games whenever their seed is questionable. If other FCS teams actually had decent fan bases they could draw more people to games and pay for more playoff games. Right now Montana and App state are literally paying for the rest of the FCS to play in the playoff games. So I wouldnt complain to loudly if I were you. The playoff system loses money hand over fist.

How many many fans did NOVA draw to thier playoff games? couple thousand maybe? This problem is literally the same for 80% of the teams in the FCS playoffs. No one cares about their programs except a handful of alumns from each school.

[89Hen]

hmm lets see 6,000-8,000 fans at a MSU playoff game versus 18,000-22,000 at a Montana home playoff game.... real hard to see the choice the committee has to make. You might forget but the NCAA sucks 93% of the money OUT of Montanas playoff games revenue. Last year we kept 70,000 dollars while giving the NCAA $1,000,000 from our 3 home games.

NCAA wants money period thats why Montana will get playoff games whenever their seed is questionable. If other FCS teams actually had decent fan bases they could draw more people to games and pay for more playoff games. Right now Montana and App state are literally paying for the rest of the FCS to play in the playoff games. So I wouldnt complain to loudly if I were you. The playoff system loses money hand over fist.

How many many fans did NOVA draw to thier playoff games? couple thousand maybe? This problem is literally the same for 80% of the teams in the FCS playoffs. No one cares about their programs except a handful of alumns from each school.

I think you missed the point.

[profisme]

hmm lets see 6,000-8,000 fans at a MSU playoff game versus 18,000-22,000 at a Montana home playoff game....

Tokyo,

I realize the Griz get more people at their home games than the Bobcats do, but really? 6,000-8,000 fans at an MSU playoff game? That is a little ridiculous. The Cats routinely get 12,000 fans per home game. Before you go and say well look at the Griz attendance compared to that, just realize that I am not saying the Griz don't deserve playoff games at home. They do. They are perennial powers which everyone in the FCS knows. The Cats haven't made the playoffs since 2006, but the one home game they had they drubbed Furman and had a very large raucous crowd there to cheer on the team.

[glsjunior]

Honestly, what the hell else is there to do in Montana? That's like the entire state population. IMO flagship institutions should be FBS schools anyway.

[heath]

Honestly, what the hell else is there to do in Montana? That's like the entire state population. IMO flagship institutions should be FBS schools anyway.

Rhode Island tooxlolx

[bshgriz]

Honestly, what the hell else is there to do in Montana? That's like the entire state population. IMO flagship institutions should be FBS schools anyway.
I get that it was a joke but you suck at them.. 30,000 for the population of Montana xsmileyclapx