BigSky Games Week 6

[ewueagle2010]

The only thing that matters to me, is that EWU wins the conference, gets a seed and makes a run to Frisco. That’s what the conference needs!

Would you rather face an MVFC team, or SHSU, or a team we already beat? I would take the known vs the unknown.

Doesn’t matter to me. Going to have to beat whoever to get there in the end.

 

[Rjones61]

The only thing that matters to me, is that EWU wins the conference, gets a seed and makes a run to Frisco. That’s what the conference needs!

Would you rather face an MVFC team, or SHSU, or a team we already beat? I would take the known vs the unknown.

Doesn’t matter to me. Going to have to beat whoever to get there in the end.

Yeah, I sure felt the same way as you until out National Champ worthy teams were repeatedly knocked out of playoffs before the big stage.

There is a lot of parity in football, and anybody has the opportunity to beat anybody. We may be better than all the teams in playoffs, but that doesn't mean we will beat every other team in playoffs. I'd rather the odds were stacked in our favor.

 

[clawman1]

The only thing that matters to me, is that EWU wins the conference, gets a seed and makes a run to Frisco. That’s what the conference needs!

Would you rather face an MVFC team, or SHSU, or a team we already beat? I would take the known vs the unknown.

Doesn’t matter to me. Going to have to beat whoever to get there in the end.

Yeah, I sure felt the same way as you until out National Champ worthy teams were repeatedly knocked out of playoffs before the big stage.

There is a lot of parity in football, and anybody has the opportunity to beat anybody. We may be better than all the teams in playoffs, but that doesn't mean we will beat every other team in playoffs. I'd rather the odds were stacked in our favor.

If a team gets beat out are they champ "worthy"? Isn't that the point of playoffs?

 

[LDopaPDX]

All points are valid, but in a physical sport like football, having an easy path sure helps. The last thing you want is a bunch of close games where your players get beat in for four quarters. Sometimes the best team doesn't win, sometimes the healthiest team wins.

 

[LDopaPDX]

Bigger upset?

Sac State loses to Cal Poly at home?
Or, Montana loses to Portland State at home?

After seeing Cal Poly live, I didn't think they'd win another game this year. But Montana had to be relishing their easy schedule and 9 wins seemed like a realistic regular season outcome.

 

[Obzerver]

Well PSU hasn't won a D1 game since 2016 and has never ever beat Montana at Montana.

 

[goeagles17]

Well PSU hasn't won a D1 game since 2016 and has never ever beat Montana at Montana.

They did in the 80's or something... But that's about the only other time I'm aware of.

It is nice that beating Montana, in Montana, is an expectation now. It's still a big deal, but isn't a season defining moment anymore.

 

[Rjones61]

The only thing that matters to me, is that EWU wins the conference, gets a seed and makes a run to Frisco. That’s what the conference needs!

Would you rather face an MVFC team, or SHSU, or a team we already beat? I would take the known vs the unknown.

Doesn’t matter to me. Going to have to beat whoever to get there in the end.

Yeah, I sure felt the same way as you until out National Champ worthy teams were repeatedly knocked out of playoffs before the big stage.

There is a lot of parity in football, and anybody has the opportunity to beat anybody. We may be better than all the teams in playoffs, but that doesn't mean we will beat every other team in playoffs. I'd rather the odds were stacked in our favor.

If a team gets beat out are they champ "worthy"? Isn't that the point of playoffs?

Do you really think Towson beats us in every match up? No team walks into a game with 100% odds of winning. Especially in playoffs. That's the great thing about football. Any given Saturday.

So, if I want another National Championship for EWU, I want them to have the path which gives them the best probability. Weber winning Saturday's game and us laying the thumping on them the next week would have given us a fantastic seed.

 

[EWURanger]

FTG indeed, but Montana losing to the worst team in the conference isn’t good for the Big Sky.

I wholeheartedly agree but it's still great in the short term. :rofl:

Not saying you're wrong, but how is that bad for the big sky? Since when is parity bad? I always see this statement from EWU fans that a strong UM team is good for the conference but I don't get how it's blatantly bad if they are down. They will still fill wagrizz and every other fan base will be excited for their game. Coach me up on this.

Just to clarify, Ranger said "not good". He never said "bad".

Montana is ranked #14. With so many Big Sky teams in the top 25, the Big Sky is more likely to land more top seeds in playoffs and send more bubble teams.

That said, luckily ISU, UC Davis, and Weber are all pulling their weight this year and it's not just EWU making noise. So the impact of Montana falling out of grace will be soft this year, but in years past it would have been much worse.

Basically, this. In terms of the strength of the conference come playoff time, I generally think it’s better that the ranked teams stay ranked and don’t lose to bottom feeders. Going into the playoffs we want 3-4 teams from the conference with good (8 wins or more) records. We also need somebody else to win a playoff game or two. We’ve made 4 runs to the semifinals since 2012 and in that same amount of time nobody else has really done jack. The perception that the Big Sky is a one man show isn’t a good look.

If NAU, MSU, and Weber finish strong and we find a way to beat Davis that’ll help us out. SUU, CP, and PSU are really bad so we need some quality wins sprinkled in if we end up at 9-2 or 10-1 and in a position where we’re looking at a seed.

 

[EdubU10]

FTG indeed, but Montana losing to the worst team in the conference isn’t good for the Big Sky.

I wholeheartedly agree but it's still great in the short term. :rofl:

Not saying you're wrong, but how is that bad for the big sky? Since when is parity bad? I always see this statement from EWU fans that a strong UM team is good for the conference but I don't get how it's blatantly bad if they are down. They will still fill wagrizz and every other fan base will be excited for their game. Coach me up on this.

Just to clarify, Ranger said "not good". He never said "bad".

Montana is ranked #14. With so many Big Sky teams in the top 25, the Big Sky is more likely to land more top seeds in playoffs and send more bubble teams.

That said, luckily ISU, UC Davis, and Weber are all pulling their weight this year and it's not just EWU making noise. So the impact of Montana falling out of grace will be soft this year, but in years past it would have been much worse.

Basically, this. In terms of the strength of the conference come playoff time, I generally think it’s better that the ranked teams stay ranked and don’t lose to bottom feeders. Going into the playoffs we want 3-4 teams from the conference with good (8 wins or more) records. We also need somebody else to win a playoff game or two. We’ve made 4 runs to the semifinals since 2012 and in that same amount of time nobody else has really done jack. The perception that the Big Sky is a one man show isn’t a good look.

If NAU, MSU, and Weber finish strong and we find a way to beat Davis that’ll help us out. SUU, CP, and PSU are really bad so we need some quality wins sprinkled in if we end up at 9-2 or 10-1 and in a position where we’re looking at a seed.

Not to be a stickler, but we've only made 3 trips to the semis since 2012:

2012
2013
2016

2014 was only to the quarters where Illinois State beat us and Jake Rodgers dad had to be taken out in an ambulance.

 

[EWURanger]

FTG indeed, but Montana losing to the worst team in the conference isn’t good for the Big Sky.

I wholeheartedly agree but it's still great in the short term. :rofl:

Not saying you're wrong, but how is that bad for the big sky? Since when is parity bad? I always see this statement from EWU fans that a strong UM team is good for the conference but I don't get how it's blatantly bad if they are down. They will still fill wagrizz and every other fan base will be excited for their game. Coach me up on this.

Just to clarify, Ranger said "not good". He never said "bad".

Montana is ranked #14. With so many Big Sky teams in the top 25, the Big Sky is more likely to land more top seeds in playoffs and send more bubble teams.

That said, luckily ISU, UC Davis, and Weber are all pulling their weight this year and it's not just EWU making noise. So the impact of Montana falling out of grace will be soft this year, but in years past it would have been much worse.

Basically, this. In terms of the strength of the conference come playoff time, I generally think it’s better that the ranked teams stay ranked and don’t lose to bottom feeders. Going into the playoffs we want 3-4 teams from the conference with good (8 wins or more) records. We also need somebody else to win a playoff game or two. We’ve made 4 runs to the semifinals since 2012 and in that same amount of time nobody else has really done jack. The perception that the Big Sky is a one man show isn’t a good look.

If NAU, MSU, and Weber finish strong and we find a way to beat Davis that’ll help us out. SUU, CP, and PSU are really bad so we need some quality wins sprinkled in if we end up at 9-2 or 10-1 and in a position where we’re looking at a seed.

Not to be a stickler, but we've only made 3 trips to the semis since 2012:

2012
2013
2016

2014 was only to the quarters where Illinois State beat us and Jake Rodgers dad had to be taken out in an ambulance.

My bad. You’re right. So four deep playoff runs since 2012. Point still stands, though. Nobody else has won more than one playoff game during that span (that I can remember.)

 

[JPhillips71]

FTG indeed, but Montana losing to the worst team in the conference isn’t good for the Big Sky.

I wholeheartedly agree but it's still great in the short term. :rofl:

Not saying you're wrong, but how is that bad for the big sky? Since when is parity bad? I always see this statement from EWU fans that a strong UM team is good for the conference but I don't get how it's blatantly bad if they are down. They will still fill wagrizz and every other fan base will be excited for their game. Coach me up on this.

Just to clarify, Ranger said "not good". He never said "bad".

Montana is ranked #14. With so many Big Sky teams in the top 25, the Big Sky is more likely to land more top seeds in playoffs and send more bubble teams.

That said, luckily ISU, UC Davis, and Weber are all pulling their weight this year and it's not just EWU making noise. So the impact of Montana falling out of grace will be soft this year, but in years past it would have been much worse.

Basically, this. In terms of the strength of the conference come playoff time, I generally think it’s better that the ranked teams stay ranked and don’t lose to bottom feeders. Going into the playoffs we want 3-4 teams from the conference with good (8 wins or more) records. We also need somebody else to win a playoff game or two. We’ve made 4 runs to the semifinals since 2012 and in that same amount of time nobody else has really done jack. The perception that the Big Sky is a one man show isn’t a good look.

If NAU, MSU, and Weber finish strong and we find a way to beat Davis that’ll help us out. SUU, CP, and PSU are really bad so we need some quality wins sprinkled in if we end up at 9-2 or 10-1 and in a position where we’re looking at a seed.

Not to be a stickler, but we've only made 3 trips to the semis since 2012:

2012
2013
2016

2014 was only to the quarters where Illinois State beat us and Jake Rodgers dad had to be taken out in an ambulance.

My bad. You’re right. So four deep playoff runs since 2012. Point still stands, though. Nobody else has won more than one playoff game during that span (that I can remember.)

Weber State, 2017...