2 Loss Teams in BSC History

[weberwildcat]

There have been 18 teams finish a Big Sky season with just 2 losses. The previous 17 were all conference champions. 2012 is the first 2 loss team to ever not win the title out right or at least have a share. 2 losses was the magic number.

It is also the first season in conference history for 1st place to have 1 loss and 2nd place have 2 losses. There has never been a year like this in 49 years of Big Sky hoops.

 

[ClarkWGrizwald]

Pretty remarkable.

Now if the bottom 3 or 4 teams in the BSC would step up to at least get their RPIs out of the 300s, we might actually have something here....

 

[Skippy]

Pretty remarkable.

Now if the bottom 3 or 4 teams in the BSC would step up to at least get their RPIs out of the 300s, we might actually have something here....

You realize, of course, the only reason there are 1- and 2-loss teams at the top is because the rest of the conference is so bad, right?

 

[ClarkWGrizwald]

Pretty remarkable.

Now if the bottom 3 or 4 teams in the BSC would step up to at least get their RPIs out of the 300s, we might actually have something here....

You realize, of course, the only reason there are 1- and 2-loss teams at the top is because the rest of the conference is so bad, right?

B.S.

The rest of the conference is about where it always is. The RPIs are about where they always are. Montana and Weber are just great teams. Now, I won't argue that the rest of the conference sucks. But that doesn't take anything away from the GREAT UM and Weber teams, nor is it any different from any other year. If you don't think UM and Weber are better than an average-year top BSC team, you're out of your mind.

 

[Skippy]

Pretty remarkable.

Now if the bottom 3 or 4 teams in the BSC would step up to at least get their RPIs out of the 300s, we might actually have something here....

You realize, of course, the only reason there are 1- and 2-loss teams at the top is because the rest of the conference is so bad, right?

B.S.

The rest of the conference is about where it always is. The RPIs are about where they always are. Montana and Weber are just great teams. Now, I won't argue that the rest of the conference sucks. But that doesn't take anything away from the GREAT UM and Weber teams, nor is it any different from any other year. If you don't think UM and Weber are better than an average-year top BSC team, you're out of your mind.

Of course they are (better than an average top BSC team). But my point is this -- if the rest of the conference was better -- as per your stated desire -- then you wouldn't have the top two teams with a combined 3 losses. Logic -- and math -- tell you that.

I fully respect what Weber and Montana have done this year -- it's been fun watching them. But let's not get carried away with their "greatness." I watched the Idaho team back in the early 1980s routinely beat PAC 10 teams. Idaho State beat UCLA in the NCAA tournament back when that was big stuff. The Weber team that beat North Carolina back in the 1990s, that was huge. Even the Montana team that beat Stanford a few years ago gets my respect. These two teams haven't beaten anyone outside of conference that would get your attention. Might they in the upcoming NCAA tournament? Sure, but until they do, let's hold off on the coronations, shall we?

 

[WILDCAT]

Pretty remarkable.

Now if the bottom 3 or 4 teams in the BSC would step up to at least get their RPIs out of the 300s, we might actually have something here....

You realize, of course, the only reason there are 1- and 2-loss teams at the top is because the rest of the conference is so bad, right?

B.S.

The rest of the conference is about where it always is. The RPIs are about where they always are. Montana and Weber are just great teams. Now, I won't argue that the rest of the conference sucks. But that doesn't take anything away from the GREAT UM and Weber teams, nor is it any different from any other year. If you don't think UM and Weber are better than an average-year top BSC team, you're out of your mind.

Of course they are (better than an average top BSC team). But my point is this -- if the rest of the conference was better -- as per your stated desire -- then you wouldn't have the top two teams with a combined 3 losses. Logic -- and math -- tell you that.

I fully respect what Weber and Montana have done this year -- it's been fun watching them. But let's not get carried away with their "greatness." I watched the Idaho team back in the early 1980s routinely beat PAC 10 teams. Idaho State beat UCLA in the NCAA tournament back when that was big stuff. The Weber team that beat North Carolina back in the 1990s, that was huge. Even the Montana team that beat Stanford a few years ago gets my respect. These two teams haven't beaten anyone outside of conference that would get your attention. Might they in the upcoming NCAA tournament? Sure, but until they do, let's hold off on the coronations, shall we?

Unfortunately, I agree with Bengal Visitor's last sentence, Weber was supposed to have one of thier best teams ever, but still got beat soundly by OOC foes Cal, BYU and St. Mary's. :-(

 

[weberwildcat]

Pretty remarkable.

Now if the bottom 3 or 4 teams in the BSC would step up to at least get their RPIs out of the 300s, we might actually have something here....

You realize, of course, the only reason there are 1- and 2-loss teams at the top is because the rest of the conference is so bad, right?

B.S.

The rest of the conference is about where it always is. The RPIs are about where they always are. Montana and Weber are just great teams. Now, I won't argue that the rest of the conference sucks. But that doesn't take anything away from the GREAT UM and Weber teams, nor is it any different from any other year. If you don't think UM and Weber are better than an average-year top BSC team, you're out of your mind.

Of course they are (better than an average top BSC team). But my point is this -- if the rest of the conference was better -- as per your stated desire -- then you wouldn't have the top two teams with a combined 3 losses. Logic -- and math -- tell you that.

I fully respect what Weber and Montana have done this year -- it's been fun watching them. But let's not get carried away with their "greatness." I watched the Idaho team back in the early 1980s routinely beat PAC 10 teams. Idaho State beat UCLA in the NCAA tournament back when that was big stuff. The Weber team that beat North Carolina back in the 1990s, that was huge. Even the Montana team that beat Stanford a few years ago gets my respect. These two teams haven't beaten anyone outside of conference that would get your attention. Might they in the upcoming NCAA tournament? Sure, but until they do, let's hold off on the coronations, shall we?

Unfortunately, I agree with Bengal Visitor's last sentence, Weber was supposed to have one of thier best teams ever, but still got beat soundly by OOC foes Cal, BYU-UT and St. Mary's. :-(

and who in ogden or at wsu said this would be one of hte best teams in weber or big sky history? who would say that before the season started? no one. who says that? it was all the salt lake media who dont follow weber or big sky.

people with half a brain or more would not be making those bold predictions. but in the end they werent far off. 2012 is one of our best teams. i will rank them when the season is over and we can debate the order! :thumb:

 

[ClarkWGrizwald]

These two teams haven't beaten anyone outside of conference that would get your attention

Montana has a win over Long Beach State. They have an RPI of 34. I'd say that's beating someone that would get your attention. It got mine! LBSU has a better RPI than near certain Tourny teams (among many others): Notre Dame, Washington, Oregon, Purdue, KState, Uconn, Xavier, Nevada, Texas, etc.

In addition, both teams have RPIs themselves under 86, and of course whomever wins will have a much lower number than that. That's virtually unheard of in the BSC.

 

[WeberSki]

Pretty remarkable.

Now if the bottom 3 or 4 teams in the BSC would step up to at least get their RPIs out of the 300s, we might actually have something here....

You realize, of course, the only reason there are 1- and 2-loss teams at the top is because the rest of the conference is so bad, right?

EWU & PSU have talent. I don't suspect Tinkle or Rahe are excited to play either one before the possible re-match. 1-4 are about where the league usually is. The bottom 3 are particularly awful this season. NoCo lost to NAIA Westminster out of Salt Lake in Greeley by double digits earlier this season for cryinout loud.

Pretty remarkable.

Now if the bottom 3 or 4 teams in the BSC would step up to at least get their RPIs out of the 300s, we might actually have something here....

You realize, of course, the only reason there are 1- and 2-loss teams at the top is because the rest of the conference is so bad, right?

B.S.

The rest of the conference is about where it always is. The RPIs are about where they always are. Montana and Weber are just great teams. Now, I won't argue that the rest of the conference sucks. But that doesn't take anything away from the GREAT UM and Weber teams, nor is it any different from any other year. If you don't think UM and Weber are better than an average-year top BSC team, you're out of your mind.

Of course they are (better than an average top BSC team). But my point is this -- if the rest of the conference was better -- as per your stated desire -- then you wouldn't have the top two teams with a combined 3 losses. Logic -- and math -- tell you that.

I fully respect what Weber and Montana have done this year -- it's been fun watching them. But let's not get carried away with their "greatness." I watched the Idaho team back in the early 1980s routinely beat PAC 10 teams. Idaho State beat UCLA in the NCAA tournament back when that was big stuff. The Weber team that beat North Carolina back in the 1990s, that was huge. Even the Montana team that beat Stanford a few years ago gets my respect. These two teams haven't beaten anyone outside of conference that would get your attention. Might they in the upcoming NCAA tournament? Sure, but until they do, let's hold off on the coronations, shall we?

Unfortunately, I agree with Bengal Visitor's last sentence, Weber was supposed to have one of thier best teams ever, but still got beat soundly by OOC foes Cal, BYU-UT and St. Mary's. :-(

you realize our 2 starting forwards were out with injury for the Cal & B.yu games right? Neither are at 100% now. Bullinger may only be 50-60% on offense after 7 weeks back. Hajek was a crucial injury blow to this team as well. As soon as Tresnak got into foul trouble last night we lost momentum. The way Hajek was playing before his injury we wouldn't miss a beat when Hajek checked in for Tresnak. I'm still waiting to see those two on the floor together.

 

[Skippy]

These two teams haven't beaten anyone outside of conference that would get your attention

Montana has a win over Long Beach State. They have an RPI of 34. I'd say that's beating someone that would get your attention. It got mine! LBSU has a better RPI than near certain Tourny teams (among many others): Notre Dame, Washington, Oregon, Purdue, KState, Uconn, Xavier, Nevada, Texas, etc.

In addition, both teams have RPIs themselves under 86, and of course whomever wins will have a much lower number than that. That's virtually unheard of in the BSC.

I'll give you the Long Beach State win, that was a very impressive win for the Griz.

 

[weberwildcat]

ski,

i believe the grand total so far is 40 player games missed so far this season due to injuries.