Preseason Rankings

[clawman1]

1st of all I don't like starting off the season with two FBS teams(don't care who they are). And I really don't like it when we will be breaking in a new QB(don't care who it is). I'd rather play a home game(don't care who it is) to start the season off when breaking in a new QB(don't care who it is). And for those who think Idaho is weak and will be a win best think again...1) How much are they paying us? 2) How much could we make with a home game?

If every AD felt that way there would be no games.

I don't get it... why no games? Eastern has never had a hard time bringing in a cupcake to Cheney early in the year until recently. Every other AD in history managed to do it, now it seems like we can't for whatever reason. Yet we make more in gate revenue now than ever before... the fact is it should be EASIER now than ever before. Montana has never struggled to find an opponent, nor has Montana State. Portland State strangely scheduled two home patsies last year. Yet Eastern hasn't found a way to do it in the recent past?

Not really a tricky stmt. If every AD wanted their first game to be at home, there would be no games on opening weekend, get it??
You brought up the subject of cupcakes, not me.

 

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Kalm- it scares me that we might start 0-2. If we lose two out of the gate, IMO the odds of us beating Weber State in Ogden goes WAY down. Weber has had some issues, but they don't beat us much and will be foaming at the mouth to beat a winless Eagles squad to start the conference slate if we come out with nothing to show from our first two.

The very fact that we will be a road team in two underdog games (one a HUGE underdog) is enough to tell me our schedule was poorly planned. Add in that we go into the fifth weekend without a home game (the very time of year we've always drawn well) and that shows me the schedule was VERY poorly planned.

Kind of like how we were 0-4 and Weber came into Cheney last year and we had our way with them? They were sure ready. :roll:

 

[Screamin_Eagle174]

1st of all I don't like starting off the season with two FBS teams(don't care who they are). And I really don't like it when we will be breaking in a new QB(don't care who it is). I'd rather play a home game(don't care who it is) to start the season off when breaking in a new QB(don't care who it is). And for those who think Idaho is weak and will be a win best think again...1) How much are they paying us? 2) How much could we make with a home game?

If every AD felt that way there would be no games.

I don't get it... why no games? Eastern has never had a hard time bringing in a cupcake to Cheney early in the year until recently. Every other AD in history managed to do it, now it seems like we can't for whatever reason. Yet we make more in gate revenue now than ever before... the fact is it should be EASIER now than ever before. Montana has never struggled to find an opponent, nor has Montana State. Portland State strangely scheduled two home patsies last year. Yet Eastern hasn't found a way to do it in the recent past?

When you have to schedule a money game (FBS) to balance the account, you're already taking away a game from your chances at getting to 7 wins (unless you schedule weak FBS, which we finally did this year). WHY ON EARTH, would you want to schedule a cupcake D-II then that will not count towards the 7 D-I win threshold!? It's not that Chaves couldn't, he doesn't want to, and that's the right way of thinking. Montana usually schedules a cupcake because they actually make money on their home games, and rarely play FBS. Doesn't make sense to schedule both FBS and D-II in the same year... lowers your chances from 11 to 9, halving your room for error.

 

[LDopaPDX]

Well, if you look at Eastern's most successful seasons, nearly all of them have had both an FBS and D-II opponent on the sked. In '92, there was no FBS team, but there was a D-II. In '97 and '85, Eastern played a D-II and an NAIA team in the same season, as well as one FBS. The rest of our playoff seasons featured both an FBS and lower division opponent.

Interesting, know what every season in which we've scheduled two FBS opponents has in common? NO PLAYOFFS !!! In fact, I don't think Eastern has ever made the playoffs in a year which didn't feature at least one lower division opponent. I know both '04 and '05 featured D-II opponents.

So let's see... evidence that D-II opponents not only don't hurt your playoff chances, but seem to irrefutably HELP your playoff chances is abundant. So explain again why it doesn't help?

 

[marceagfan5]

When you have to schedule a money game (FBS) to balance the account, you're already taking away a game from your chances at getting to 7 wins (unless you schedule weak FBS, which we finally did this year). WHY ON EARTH, would you want to schedule a cupcake D-II then that will not count towards the 7 D-I win threshold!? It's not that Chaves couldn't, he doesn't want to, and that's the right way of thinking. Montana usually schedules a cupcake because they actually make money on their home games, and rarely play FBS. Doesn't make sense to schedule both FBS and D-II in the same year... lowers your chances from 11 to 9, halving your room for error.

Screamin - I know you are against a D2 and FBS in the same season, but this is the typical FCS scenario for successful programs. Look at Eastern's results since 2003. Besides last year (which had a joke of a schedule) every year we played only one FBS and one D2, we made the playoffs. The years we didn't make the playoffs, we played 2 FBS programs. Look at the teams that win every year, its the same scenario. We need the FBS game for $$$, we need the D2 game to heal up, work out the kinks, and win a game (even if it doesn't count). If we played someone like Central Wash instead of WSU this year in week 2, I think the chances of finishing 10-1 or 9-2 this year would be greatly increased. If we lose to WSU or beat CWU, it would count the same for our record, but going into the following weeks (at Weber, and hosting the Griz) it would be a world of difference.

As for the preseason rankings, I think it is fair where Eastern is. I think we finish a lot higher, but from the voting perspective, we are a team that didn't make the playoffs and lost a peyton award winning QB. If our QB has a great season, we are a top 10 team. As for the other teams in the Big Sky, MSU should be good and we have struggled to be McGhee and we play them in Bozeman. Never count out the Griz, troubles or not, they are always good. Last year everyone thought the Griz were dead to start the season, they ended up winning the conference. There are some other solid Big Sky programs that deserve more respect in the rankings but I think our spot is fair. I do think we end up in the top 10.

Looking forward to a great season!

 

[93bird]

Everybody's clear that the FCS selection committee says you need 7 D1 wins to be playoff eligible, right? They kept a 7-4 Montana team out just two years ago because they only had 6 D1 wins. Why exactly would we make the same mistake? And why are two FBS teams off limit? Scheduling Idaho this year is a bad idea, but they magically become a smart matchup next year if they drop down? Heck, the top half of the Big Sky is better than many of the teams in the Sun Belt, MAC, and Conference USA, but we can't play them because they're a second FBS on the schedule?

 

[LDopaPDX]

7 D-I wins gets you playoff eligible. No team with less than 9 regular season wins has ever won the national championship. Our goal should be to win as many as possible, not hit the lowest possible bar to make ourself committee eligible. (and BTW, Eastern made the tourney once with 6 D-I wins)

If our AD went out and scheduled some piss-poor MEAC or SWAC or Pioneer team as a home-home, than fine, let's play an all D-I schedule. North Dakota State brought in Lafayette and St. Francis as home games and traveled to play Minnesota. I'd be 100% perfectly fine with scheduling like that. Anyone think we'll ever show a commitment to getting one of these bullshit FCS teams on our schedule? I'm not holding my breath.

Instead, I'll settle for what works. Time and time again, it is proven that getting an up-game and a down-game works. Even if we don't do that, let's at least make certain we get an FCS cupcake... maybe see what Illinois State is doing? We've scheduled them before. But ignoring playing at home and playing two FBS schools is just plain bad. It's never worked before; why continue to try and stick the big round peg in the little square hole?

We know what works... let's stick with what works.

 

[LDopaPDX]

Everybody's clear that the FCS selection committee says you need 7 D1 wins to be playoff eligible, right? They kept a 7-4 Montana team out just two years ago because they only had 6 D1 wins. Why exactly would we make the same mistake? And why are two FBS teams off limit? Scheduling Idaho this year is a bad idea, but they magically become a smart matchup next year if they drop down? Heck, the top half of the Big Sky is better than many of the teams in the Sun Belt, MAC, and Conference USA, but we can't play them because they're a second FBS on the schedule?

And the top half of the Big Sky might better than "some" of the Sun Belt, MAC, and C-USA teams, but not many. That add'l 22 schollies and minimum 2x the athletic funding makes a pretty big difference. There is no benefit to pushing yourself up a hill when you can reach the same destination by rolling downhill.

Montana played it smart last year. They took the money with a game at Tennessee and played Western Oregon at home. They understand their schedule is plenty tough enough will the conference slate every year... and more importantly they don't need to get some mythical "BCS" ranking... they can settle it all on the field in the tourney. Getting the right record means giving yourself a legit chance in the playoffs by getting home games.

Montana has also done a great job scheduling this year. Note, they'll have played 3 home games before we play our first home game.

 

[marceagfan5]

7 wins is the unwritten rule to get into the playoffs, but the problem is 7 wins gets you a road game in the first weekend. Teams that win 7 games rarely do well in the playoffs, and I think Eastern has set the bar higher than "making the playoffs". Everyone would like to play an all FCS schedule, but it just doesn't work that way, there are limited opportunities, especially out west. D2 games are an opportunity for an extra win, as close to a bye week as you can get, and a chance to play a lot of your younger or new players in the program. We seem to have strayed away from that the last 2 years and I don't know why because it worked in the past.

I think a lot of people are looking just at the FBS game or just at the D2 game, you have to look past that. Neither game will count (unless we win the FBS game), so you have to look at what you set yourself up for during the remainder of the season. The conference season and our wins against FCS opponents are the ones that matter. A D2 games gives you a rested home game going into the conference season, an FBS game gives you a road game with a beat up team heading into conference, 2 FBS games are an absolute joke, even if it is Idaho (they are better than a lot of people think). I think the thing a lot of people don't see are the fact that a rested team, coming off a home win, is going to go into the conference season with a lot more swagger and confidence than a team coming off a hard fought loss to an FBS program (see 2010 compared to 2011).

Bottom line is we will have a solid team next year, our schedule does not do us any favors and Idaho is a HUGE game, but I think the EAGS have a great year and make a deep playoff run.

Looking forward to seeing a lot of you in Moscow for a great opening win.

 

[EWURanger]

Agreed on Idaho. I think they are better than some of us Eagle fans are giving them credit for. They won't be a great team, but the fact that they have 20ish more scholarships shouldn't be dimished. Do we have a shot to beat them? Absolutely, buy it's certainly not going to be a gimme game like some have suggested.

WSU is probably a big long-shot given the increased talent they've brought in and what should be a very high-powered offense. I think we will score on them, but I don't see us being able to hang in that department unless we get a few breaks. ISU put up some big numbers on them last year, but the Cougars basically scored at will. And even though we were significantly better than ISU last year that game could get ugly if we just try to throw the ball and don't have any kind of ball control. Key to winning that one is keeping their offense off the field as much as possible - gotta be able to run the ball to do that.

 

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Well, if you look at Eastern's most successful seasons, nearly all of them have had both an FBS and D-II opponent on the sked. In '92, there was no FBS team, but there was a D-II. In '97 and '85, Eastern played a D-II and an NAIA team in the same season, as well as one FBS. The rest of our playoff seasons featured both an FBS and lower division opponent.

Interesting, know what every season in which we've scheduled two FBS opponents has in common? NO PLAYOFFS !!! In fact, I don't think Eastern has ever made the playoffs in a year which didn't feature at least one lower division opponent. I know both '04 and '05 featured D-II opponents.

So let's see... evidence that D-II opponents not only don't hurt your playoff chances, but seem to irrefutably HELP your playoff chances is abundant. So explain again why it doesn't help?

That's because most seasons we've had a D-II on the schedule. There are more seasons we didn't make the playoffs when we had a D-II on the schedule. The D-II doesn't matter either way when we have a really good team that can go 7-2 or better. But if we only have a team that can go 6-3, then scheduling that D-II is a huge mistake. 2008 for example. If we had played an easy FCS instead of WWU, we would've gone 7-4 and been in the playoffs. Might not have gone far but getting there gives you a chance. There were two FBS games that year as well, except that this year we didn't schedule a D-II so we have an extra chance to get that 7th win.

Plus, we have our bye right after the two FBS, so we can rest up then.

 

[Screamin_Eagle174]

7 wins is the unwritten rule to get into the playoffs, but the problem is 7 wins gets you a road game in the first weekend. Teams that win 7 games rarely do well in the playoffs, and I think Eastern has set the bar higher than "making the playoffs". Everyone would like to play an all FCS schedule, but it just doesn't work that way, there are limited opportunities, especially out west. D2 games are an opportunity for an extra win, as close to a bye week as you can get, and a chance to play a lot of your younger or new players in the program. We seem to have strayed away from that the last 2 years and I don't know why because it worked in the past.

I think a lot of people are looking just at the FBS game or just at the D2 game, you have to look past that. Neither game will count (unless we win the FBS game), so you have to look at what you set yourself up for during the remainder of the season. The conference season and our wins against FCS opponents are the ones that matter. A D2 games gives you a rested home game going into the conference season, an FBS game gives you a road game with a beat up team heading into conference, 2 FBS games are an absolute joke, even if it is Idaho (they are better than a lot of people think). I think the thing a lot of people don't see are the fact that a rested team, coming off a home win, is going to go into the conference season with a lot more swagger and confidence than a team coming off a hard fought loss to an FBS program (see 2010 compared to 2011).

Bottom line is we will have a solid team next year, our schedule does not do us any favors and Idaho is a HUGE game, but I think the EAGS have a great year and make a deep playoff run.

Looking forward to seeing a lot of you in Moscow for a great opening win.

Does us more favors than 2008. Better odds against WSU and Idaho than TT and CU. No D-II gives us another shot to get to 7 should we lose to both FBS.

 

[FormerEag]

Does us more favors than 2008. Better odds against WSU and Idaho than TT and CU. No D-II gives us another shot to get to 7 should we lose to both FBS.

I was waiting for someone to bring up CU. That game still haunts my dreams. It was a bitter pill to swallow in the first place, but the giddy italian restaurant owner thanking me and toasting me in front of his patrons after the game -- while i was still in bright red travel sweats -- was one of the most painful experiences of my career... hno:

 

[Screamin_Eagle174]

Does us more favors than 2008. Better odds against WSU and Idaho than TT and CU. No D-II gives us another shot to get to 7 should we lose to both FBS.

I was waiting for someone to bring up CU. That game still haunts my dreams. It was a bitter pill to swallow in the first place, but the giddy italian restaurant owner thanking me and toasting me in front of his patrons after the game -- while i was still in bright red travel sweats -- was one of the most painful experiences of my career... hno:

I can only imagine. That was a tough one to stomach, even just listening to on the radio. hno:

 

[kalm]

Well, if you look at Eastern's most successful seasons, nearly all of them have had both an FBS and D-II opponent on the sked. In '92, there was no FBS team, but there was a D-II. In '97 and '85, Eastern played a D-II and an NAIA team in the same season, as well as one FBS. The rest of our playoff seasons featured both an FBS and lower division opponent.

Interesting, know what every season in which we've scheduled two FBS opponents has in common? NO PLAYOFFS !!! In fact, I don't think Eastern has ever made the playoffs in a year which didn't feature at least one lower division opponent. I know both '04 and '05 featured D-II opponents.

So let's see... evidence that D-II opponents not only don't hurt your playoff chances, but seem to irrefutably HELP your playoff chances is abundant. So explain again why it doesn't help?

That's because most seasons we've had a D-II on the schedule. There are more seasons we didn't make the playoffs when we had a D-II on the schedule. The D-II doesn't matter either way when we have a really good team that can go 7-2 or better. But if we only have a team that can go 6-3, then scheduling that D-II is a huge mistake. 2008 for example. If we had played an easy FCS instead of WWU, we would've gone 7-4 and been in the playoffs. Might not have gone far but getting there gives you a chance. There were two FBS games that year as well, except that this year we didn't schedule a D-II so we have an extra chance to get that 7th win.

Plus, we have our bye right after the two FBS, so we can rest up then.

Not to mention you can't win a championship without making the playoffs.

 

[marceagfan5]

Well, if you look at Eastern's most successful seasons, nearly all of them have had both an FBS and D-II opponent on the sked. In '92, there was no FBS team, but there was a D-II. In '97 and '85, Eastern played a D-II and an NAIA team in the same season, as well as one FBS. The rest of our playoff seasons featured both an FBS and lower division opponent.

Interesting, know what every season in which we've scheduled two FBS opponents has in common? NO PLAYOFFS !!! In fact, I don't think Eastern has ever made the playoffs in a year which didn't feature at least one lower division opponent. I know both '04 and '05 featured D-II opponents.

So let's see... evidence that D-II opponents not only don't hurt your playoff chances, but seem to irrefutably HELP your playoff chances is abundant. So explain again why it doesn't help?

That's because most seasons we've had a D-II on the schedule. There are more seasons we didn't make the playoffs when we had a D-II on the schedule. The D-II doesn't matter either way when we have a really good team that can go 7-2 or better. But if we only have a team that can go 6-3, then scheduling that D-II is a huge mistake. 2008 for example. If we had played an easy FCS instead of WWU, we would've gone 7-4 and been in the playoffs. Might not have gone far but getting there gives you a chance. There were two FBS games that year as well, except that this year we didn't schedule a D-II so we have an extra chance to get that 7th win.

Plus, we have our bye right after the two FBS, so we can rest up then.

Not to mention you can't win a championship without making the playoffs.

I just have a couple things to point out.

1.) Making the playoffs as a 7 win team has shown little success in the playoffs. The playoffs were seeded 3 years ago, and not 1 non-seeded team has ever made the championship game. Before they were seeded, look at who was playing the championship, it was almost always the top teams. Their is a formula that works in the FCS, we have scheduled against that the last 2 years. Regardless of what people think, scheduling a D2 works.

2.) If we decide not to schedule a D2 and schedule all FCS with ONE FBS game every year that is fine, but with the growth of the big sky, there are absolutely no oppurtunities out west. Eventually we won't be allowed to play other big sky opponents in non conference games like we are this year, I just don't see that working out. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't see our admin going out and looking for home and home FCS games outside of our conference. Look at what Weber is doing the next 2-3 years, the Griz and MSU are doing, they are going out and scheduling home and home games with midwest and east coast teams, for some reason, we don't do that, and that is why we are having the debate I mention in reason #1. Next year we have 4 non-conf games (12 game season), does anyone know if we have scheduled any of those games yet? The longer we wait the more difficult a position we are put in. MSU gets Drake and Stephen F Austin to play home and homes, the Griz do the same with App State and Liberty. Weber worked out a deal with Mcneese. What are we doing? I think the fact we haven't done anything with out of conference FCS teams is fueling the D2/FBS debate.

3.) I think the season just needs to start so we can stop arguing with each other and take it out on the other teams and their fans.

 

[LDopaPDX]

Agreed on getting FCS teams home / home. It's almost like the easiest solution is the one we avoid like the plague. More importantly, let's get those FCS teams that we know we can beat 9 out of 10 times. I brought up North Dakota State bringing in St. Francis and Lafayette as an example of good scheduling. NDSU knows those are essentially walkover games.

 

[FrontFive4Life]

http://goeags.com/sports/m-footbl/2011-12/Releases/12fbJune12SHSUSeries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not necessarily a cupcake home-home, but it's nice to see attempts like this to schedule them! Plus, it will be great to get some revenge for 2004... :nod:

 

[marceagfan5]

http://goeags.com/sports/m-footbl/2011-12/Releases/12fbJune12SHSUSeries

Not necessarily a cupcake home-home, but it's nice to see attempts like this to schedule them! Plus, it will be great to get some revenge for 2004... :nod:

This is GREAT to see! Love the home and home with FCS teams. I guess I can back track on my statement earlier that we aren't making efforts on FCS home/home (this was literally posted minutes after Dopa and my posts). Hopefully they will keep them coming, this is a great home and home. Not a cupcake, but should be a great series.

 

[Screamin_Eagle174]

http://goeags.com/sports/m-footbl/2011-12/Releases/12fbJune12SHSUSeries

Not necessarily a cupcake home-home, but it's nice to see attempts like this to schedule them! Plus, it will be great to get some revenge for 2004... :nod:

This is GREAT to see! Love the home and home with FCS teams. I guess I can back track on my statement earlier that we aren't making efforts on FCS home/home (this was literally posted minutes after Dopa and my posts). Hopefully they will keep them coming, this is a great home and home. Not a cupcake, but should be a great series.

I guess I should've checked this thread before I posted a new one about it. VERY great to see! This is (almost) exactly what I've been petitioning for, a H&H with another FCS conference team. Would prefer some weak Pioneer school or a bottom feeder from the SLC or MVFC, but SHSU will do. Like Front5 mentioned, it's been a long time coming to get some revenge for that BS in 2004. :twisted: