FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=23427
Sweet. It's gonna cause a lot of bitching in regards to the legitimacy of a conference championship, but it's the only real way you can do it.Although teams will play just eight conference games, Big Sky schools will also have the option to schedule league members in non-conference games. For example, Montana and North Dakota were already scheduled to play a non-conference game in 2013 in Grand Forks. That will remain a non-conference game.
“Scheduling non-conference games, especially against other Championship Subdivision programs has become increasingly difficult in the West,’’ Fullerton said. “Since nearly all of the FCS schools in the region now reside in the Big Sky Conference, our institutions need to have the option to play each other as non-conference opponents in years they aren’t playing conference games.’’
Could you rewrite your scenario in English?clenz wrote:Not that it will/could happen BUT
Let's say both Montana goes undefeted in Big Sky play that year and UND has on less in conference but wins that non-conference game. They would win the tie-breaker but wouldn't have a chance to win the tie break.
Damn, I can't wait for the first time that happens.
MontanaScreamin_Eagle174 wrote:Could you rewrite your scenario in English?clenz wrote:Not that it will/could happen BUT
Let's say both Montana goes undefeted in Big Sky play that year and UND has on less in conference but wins that non-conference game. They would win the tie-breaker but wouldn't have a chance to win the tie break.
Damn, I can't wait for the first time that happens.
Gotcha. Yeah, I can imagine that'd piss that 7-1 (conference) team off. It'll be interesting to see if they address that at all when the decide the tiebreaker rules.clenz wrote:MontanaScreamin_Eagle174 wrote: Could you rewrite your scenario in English?
8-0 in conference play but loses to UND "non conference
UND 7-1 in conference play but beats Montana in "non conference"
Montana "wins" the conference, but in terms of games against conference teams both teams are 8-1 and UND owns the tiebreak, but doesn't get the auto.
North Dakota wouldn't be part of a tie breaker process in your scenario because UM would have a better conference record so they'd get the auto...............right?clenz wrote:MontanaScreamin_Eagle174 wrote: Could you rewrite your scenario in English?
8-0 in conference play but loses to UND "non conference
UND 7-1 in conference play but beats Montana in "non conference"
Montana "wins" the conference, but in terms of games against conference teams both teams are 8-1 and UND owns the tiebreak, but doesn't get the auto.
Right, and that would be the way it would work, and I have no problem with that.bincitysioux wrote:North Dakota wouldn't be part of a tie breaker process in your scenario because UM would have a better conference record so they'd get the auto...............right?clenz wrote: Montana
8-0 in conference play but loses to UND "non conference
UND 7-1 in conference play but beats Montana in "non conference"
Montana "wins" the conference, but in terms of games against conference teams both teams are 8-1 and UND owns the tiebreak, but doesn't get the auto.
I see what you're sayin', but I don't know how to avoid it.clenz wrote:Right, and that would be the way it would work, and I have no problem with that.bincitysioux wrote:
North Dakota wouldn't be part of a tie breaker process in your scenario because UM would have a better conference record so they'd get the auto...............right?
However, if I were a Sioux fan - or a similar thing happened to UNI - I'd be absolely pissed that my team didn't win the conference even though we had the best record against conference teams.
Agreed, but that seems like it would be almost impossible to schedule it like that for all 13 teams. I think, I could be wrong, you would need an even number of teams and rivals for each for that to work....maybe not thoughbincitysioux wrote:The one thing I really don't like is that North Dakota, Weber, Northern Colorado, and Portland St. all either host or travel to BOTH of their "rivals" each season.............
Seems there should have been a way to avoid that shouldn't there?
Each team should host at least one of their "rivals" each season......
Well there is a way to avoid it, and sadly the MVFC is entering it's last season with how to avoid it...9 team conference.bincitysioux wrote:I see what you're sayin', but I don't know how to avoid it.clenz wrote: Right, and that would be the way it would work, and I have no problem with that.
However, if I were a Sioux fan - or a similar thing happened to UNI - I'd be absolely pissed that my team didn't win the conference even though we had the best record against conference teams.
Perhaps a scenario like this is where the chances increase for getting more at-large berths?
Gotta love hypotheticals.bincitysioux wrote:The release says they have yet to set the tiebreakers, that will be interesting to see what they do there. Would they look at non-conference games against Big Sky opponents?
Let's say in 2013, North Dakota goes 8-0 and UM goes 8-0 in conference play. North Dakota beats UM in the non-conference game. Do they use that head-to-head matchup to award the autobid to North Dakota?
This is gonna be fun someday!
From an ISU standpoint these rivals leave a lot ot be desired. First, PSU and ISU as rivals? All the other rivals seem legit. Second, no home games for ISU against BSC cofounders UM and MSU until 2015. Finally, Idaho State had played Montana State continuously since 1947, obviously, this will be coming to an end.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:The Rivals
School Rivals
UC Davis Sacramento State, Cal Poly
Cal Poly UC Davis, Sacramento State
Eastern Washington Portland State, Montana
Idaho State Weber State, Portland State
Montana Eastern Washington, Montana State
Montana State Montana, North Dakota
North Dakota Northern Colorado, Montana State
Northern Arizona Southern Utah, Northern Colorado
Northern Colorado North Dakota, Northern Arizona
Portland State Eastern Washington, Idaho State
Sacramento State UC Davis, Cal Poly
Southern Utah Northern Arizona, Weber State
Weber State Idaho State, Southern Utah
A little different than I thought, but not much. Guess they didn't want to break up the 3 CA schools at all.
Did you really want an extra loss every year?biobengal wrote:From an ISU standpoint these rivals leave a lot ot be desired. First, PSU and ISU as rivals? All the other rivals seem legit. Second, no home games for ISU against BSC cofounders UM and MSU until 2015. Finally, Idaho State had played Montana State continuously since 1947, obviously, this will be coming to an end.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:The Rivals
School Rivals
UC Davis Sacramento State, Cal Poly
Cal Poly UC Davis, Sacramento State
Eastern Washington Portland State, Montana
Idaho State Weber State, Portland State
Montana Eastern Washington, Montana State
Montana State Montana, North Dakota
North Dakota Northern Colorado, Montana State
Northern Arizona Southern Utah, Northern Colorado
Northern Colorado North Dakota, Northern Arizona
Portland State Eastern Washington, Idaho State
Sacramento State UC Davis, Cal Poly
Southern Utah Northern Arizona, Weber State
Weber State Idaho State, Southern Utah
A little different than I thought, but not much. Guess they didn't want to break up the 3 CA schools at all.
ISU is getting the shit end of the stick it looks like.biobengal wrote:From an ISU standpoint these rivals leave a lot ot be desired. First, PSU and ISU as rivals? All the other rivals seem legit. Second, no home games for ISU against BSC cofounders UM and MSU until 2015. Finally, Idaho State had played Montana State continuously since 1947, obviously, this will be coming to an end.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:The Rivals
School Rivals
UC Davis Sacramento State, Cal Poly
Cal Poly UC Davis, Sacramento State
Eastern Washington Portland State, Montana
Idaho State Weber State, Portland State
Montana Eastern Washington, Montana State
Montana State Montana, North Dakota
North Dakota Northern Colorado, Montana State
Northern Arizona Southern Utah, Northern Colorado
Northern Colorado North Dakota, Northern Arizona
Portland State Eastern Washington, Idaho State
Sacramento State UC Davis, Cal Poly
Southern Utah Northern Arizona, Weber State
Weber State Idaho State, Southern Utah
A little different than I thought, but not much. Guess they didn't want to break up the 3 CA schools at all.
I know you're just wise crackin' for fun but if EWU were in ISU's shoes right now you know that Eagle fans would be all up in claws over this. I feel kinda bad for them because MSU & UM are good money makers for them as well and they don't need a revenue stream cut off.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:Did you really want an extra loss every year?biobengal wrote:
From an ISU standpoint these rivals leave a lot ot be desired. First, PSU and ISU as rivals? All the other rivals seem legit. Second, no home games for ISU against BSC cofounders UM and MSU until 2015. Finally, Idaho State had played Montana State continuously since 1947, obviously, this will be coming to an end.
I agree with this, but honestly how else would you redo this to keep Montana and Montana State (or at least one of them) on ISU every year and keep Montana, Montana State, EWU together at all?Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I know you're just wise crackin' for fun but if EWU were in ISU's shoes right now you know that Eagle fans would be all up in claws over this. I feel kinda bad for them because MSU & UM are good money makers for them as well and they don't need a revenue stream cut off.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
Did you really want an extra loss every year?
True, but they weren't gonna be able to make everyone happy. Only two teams were going to get the Griz. EWU-UM makes geographical sense as well (closer than Pocatello), and it's become a rivalry in the sense that it's always a competitive game that both schools look forward to every year. UND really threw a wrench into all this.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:I know you're just wise crackin' for fun but if EWU were in ISU's shoes right now you know that Eagle fans would be all up in claws over this. I feel kinda bad for them because MSU & UM are good money makers for them as well and they don't need a revenue stream cut off.Screamin_Eagle174 wrote:
Did you really want an extra loss every year?