The Committee was pretty clear how they decided between the 4 bubble teams. If I’m not mistaken, the Chair even named the 4. It came down to who they thought was most deserving for whatever reasons. They were highly competitive in every game except Montana State. One score games vs three of the top 7 teams in the country.

Rhody beat one good team all season and UD hammered them. One score loss to us and UNH. If it came down to Montana or URI, that’s an easy decision

(11-27-2022 06:17 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 06:06 PM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 05:41 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 05:27 PM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 01:32 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Many questioned Montana earning a playoff berth and then they played their way to round 2

They got to play a mediocre at best team at home that completely choked that game away. I still don't think Montana belongs, as they didn't beat one team with a winning record this year. As bad as Delaware's resume looked, at least they beat Navy and Rhode Island.

NDSU will mop the floor with Montana, possibly as bad as Montana State beat them.

Good points but reality is Montana is an FCS blue blood. They Drew near 14,000 for the opening round game. That’s why they get the nod. I don’t have a problem with that. They’re a program you would love to play, love to beat.

It's not a problem, unless we start deciding that we are going to let teams into the playoffs because they will sell a lot of tickets... Imagine us being on the bubble but having a much better resume than Montana and not making the playoffs because they can sell an extra 5,000 tickets...

Not only that, the selection committee decided to let Montana host because they bid more, but then did the complete opposite with North Dakota because they thought Weber State was more deserving of hosting despite North Dakota having a higher bid...

Letting money dictate how the FCS playoffs goes is a recipe for disaster

I’m surprised that the bids are public knowledge. Can you provide the link? Thanks.

I don't have a link, but both Montana St. and UND forums have stated that is the case. I'm going to assume they are telling the truth.

I'm not sure if they gave the exact bids offered by each school, but from what I've read, UND offered a sizeable amount more than Weber St.

I think the anger arises because Montana was allowed to host because of bid size, but Weber St. was allowed to host based on performance.

(11-27-2022 08:16 PM)Tribal Wrote:  The Committee was pretty clear how they decided between the 4 bubble teams. If I’m not mistaken, the Chair even named the 4. It came down to who they thought was most deserving for whatever reasons. They were highly competitive in every game except Montana State. One score games vs three of the top 7 teams in the country.

Rhody beat one good team all season and UD hammered them. One score loss to us and UNH. If it came down to Montana or URI, that’s an easy decision

The exact reasons given were:

Quality losses to the only good teams they played
Most of their losses were with their QB out
Success against the MVFC teams (mind you, they finished 9th and 10th in the conference)
Success against the Southland Conference (a 4-7 team)
Student athlete experience

https://406mtsports.com/college/big-sky-...cc4e0.html

Just listening to the explanation is about as shady as it gets. Personally, I thought Chattanooga belonged over Montana, even with their bad loss to Western Carolina to end the season.

(11-27-2022 07:06 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 06:50 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 06:06 PM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 05:41 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 05:27 PM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  They got to play a mediocre at best team at home that completely choked that game away. I still don't think Montana belongs, as they didn't beat one team with a winning record this year. As bad as Delaware's resume looked, at least they beat Navy and Rhode Island.

NDSU will mop the floor with Montana, possibly as bad as Montana State beat them.

Good points but reality is Montana is an FCS blue blood. They Drew near 14,000 for the opening round game. That’s why they get the nod. I don’t have a problem with that. They’re a program you would love to play, love to beat.

It's not a problem, unless we start deciding that we are going to let teams into the playoffs because they will sell a lot of tickets... Imagine us being on the bubble but having a much better resume than Montana and not making the playoffs because they can sell an extra 5,000 tickets...

Not only that, the selection committee decided to let Montana host because they bid more, but then did the complete opposite with North Dakota because they thought Weber State was more deserving of hosting despite North Dakota having a higher bid...

Letting money dictate how the FCS playoffs goes is a recipe for disaster

That’s a bit on the deep end. My point was when you are differentiating between teams on the bubble, it’s a factor with some merit. Or again, a close call on hosting.No one is saying a Montana team with a losing record should be included.

You are right, no one is saying that. I think the points are valid, however, that these teams that you call "blue bloods" seem to get all the breaks when it comes to getting in the playoffs and also whether they have to go on the road. In FCS, especially in the first round, being at home is priceless. Gardner-Webb was the only road team that won a first round game.

Plus, now, going forward, Montana will be able to say "see, back in 2022, we were thought to be unworthy but we won our first game...therefore, we deserve to get in again at 7-4 and, hey, we deserve to host a home game".

I would love to see those bids. Montana shouldn't be allowed to host a game when they were the 23rd or 24th team in.

Well said and completely agree.

Now what's going to happen is we are going to have a 6-5 NDSU team get in because of past performance. And then they will host because they sell tickets.

(11-27-2022 09:22 PM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 07:06 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 06:50 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 06:06 PM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 05:41 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Good points but reality is Montana is an FCS blue blood. They Drew near 14,000 for the opening round game. That’s why they get the nod. I don’t have a problem with that. They’re a program you would love to play, love to beat.

It's not a problem, unless we start deciding that we are going to let teams into the playoffs because they will sell a lot of tickets... Imagine us being on the bubble but having a much better resume than Montana and not making the playoffs because they can sell an extra 5,000 tickets...

Not only that, the selection committee decided to let Montana host because they bid more, but then did the complete opposite with North Dakota because they thought Weber State was more deserving of hosting despite North Dakota having a higher bid...

Letting money dictate how the FCS playoffs goes is a recipe for disaster

That’s a bit on the deep end. My point was when you are differentiating between teams on the bubble, it’s a factor with some merit. Or again, a close call on hosting.No one is saying a Montana team with a losing record should be included.

You are right, no one is saying that. I think the points are valid, however, that these teams that you call "blue bloods" seem to get all the breaks when it comes to getting in the playoffs and also whether they have to go on the road. In FCS, especially in the first round, being at home is priceless. Gardner-Webb was the only road team that won a first round game.

Plus, now, going forward, Montana will be able to say "see, back in 2022, we were thought to be unworthy but we won our first game...therefore, we deserve to get in again at 7-4 and, hey, we deserve to host a home game".

I would love to see those bids. Montana shouldn't be allowed to host a game when they were the 23rd or 24th team in.

Well said and completely agree.

Now what's going to happen is we are going to have a 6-5 NDSU team get in because of past performance. And then they will host because they sell tickets.

Again, I think this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. A 6-5 team would not be seeded so there would be no home avenue. Might they get a home game 1st round over some 7-4 team, say URI? Possibly - but again when the decisions get down to minute details, selling 10,000 more tickets in Montana vs Kingston RI is fair game to consider.

FBS does the same thing whether it’s bowl bids or playoff opportunities. Wake Forest isn’t going to get the edge over Michigan on bubble decisions. It’s just the economics of college football.

Different sport, but go back in time to our NIT game against UNC. Did UNCs resume dictate a home game? Nope, they barely got in but were seeded higher and got the home game. This happens every year in all NCAA revenue sports. There is outrage, but the NCAA (and NIT for that matter) is ultimately a money making venture and will continue to make bubble decisions with $$ in mind.

(11-28-2022 07:42 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 09:22 PM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 07:06 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 06:50 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(11-27-2022 06:06 PM)WMtribe17 Wrote:  It's not a problem, unless we start deciding that we are going to let teams into the playoffs because they will sell a lot of tickets... Imagine us being on the bubble but having a much better resume than Montana and not making the playoffs because they can sell an extra 5,000 tickets...

Not only that, the selection committee decided to let Montana host because they bid more, but then did the complete opposite with North Dakota because they thought Weber State was more deserving of hosting despite North Dakota having a higher bid...

Letting money dictate how the FCS playoffs goes is a recipe for disaster

That’s a bit on the deep end. My point was when you are differentiating between teams on the bubble, it’s a factor with some merit. Or again, a close call on hosting.No one is saying a Montana team with a losing record should be included.

You are right, no one is saying that. I think the points are valid, however, that these teams that you call "blue bloods" seem to get all the breaks when it comes to getting in the playoffs and also whether they have to go on the road. In FCS, especially in the first round, being at home is priceless. Gardner-Webb was the only road team that won a first round game.

Plus, now, going forward, Montana will be able to say "see, back in 2022, we were thought to be unworthy but we won our first game...therefore, we deserve to get in again at 7-4 and, hey, we deserve to host a home game".

I would love to see those bids. Montana shouldn't be allowed to host a game when they were the 23rd or 24th team in.

Well said and completely agree.

Now what's going to happen is we are going to have a 6-5 NDSU team get in because of past performance. And then they will host because they sell tickets.

Again, I think this is making a mountain out of a mole hill. A 6-5 team would not be seeded so there would be no home avenue. Might they get a home game 1st round over some 7-4 team, say URI? Possibly - but again when the decisions get down to minute details, selling 10,000 more tickets in Montana vs Kingston RI is fair game to consider.

FBS does the same thing whether it’s bowl bids or playoff opportunities. Wake Forest isn’t going to get the edge over Michigan on bubble decisions. It’s just the economics of college football.

Well, of course the economics cannot be discounted because, as must be remembered, the NCAA is ALWAYS all about the money! But they bend over backwards when protecting their bluebloods as well. To prove that point, switch sports over to basketball for a moment. Consider the Tribe-UNC NIT game. The main venue at UNC was scheduled for repairs so the game was moved to their older, smaller fieldhouse and the attendance was middling. They could have had the game at Kaplan and sold the place out! But then, of course, UNC might have lost. Egads, can’t have that! Another year Kentucky played a first round game at St. Francis, PA and the gym was packed...and Kentucky lost. The NCAA will never make that mistake again.
Point is, people are tired and disgusted by the preferential treatment accorded to the same old schools....give some other schools a chance when the resumes are equal. Assuming that Montana doesn’t win it all...whose fans are likely to even remember the year— Montana and their 22nd (or whatever) appearance (ho hum) or Rhode Island getting their first bid in a generation?

(11-28-2022 08:08 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  Different sport, but go back in time to our NIT game against UNC. Did UNCs resume dictate a home game? Nope, they barely got in but were seeded higher and got the home game. This happens every year in all NCAA revenue sports. There is outrage, but the NCAA (and NIT for that matter) is ultimately a money making venture and will continue to make bubble decisions with $$ in mind.

I remember that and the same economics were employed then, though UNC only had that single opening home game. The game was at Carmichael which seats about same as Kaplan. It did sellout but only after UNC provided W&M an increased allocation of tickets. As I remember, the Tar Heels made the NIT championship game at MSG which was a big money win for the NIT and ESPN.

You mentioned ESPN which brings another aspect of sleaziness to the proceedings. The only FCS playoff game not on ESPN+ was the Montana game which was on ESPN2. The powers that be wanting a large, loud crowd, in the mountain/pacific time zone, for the TV watchers in the late 10:00 P.M. slot?

When conferences allied with ESPN (think basketball NIT but it also applies to college football) get more teams in or get better seeds or simply get more over-the-air time then all is not optimal.

I don't understand what is sleazy about ESPN. They are a for profit business that is trying to find the most viewers to sell advertisement slots for the most money. If they thought that a televised stream was better than a web based one, good for them. Not sure there was a lot of competition during that time slot.

(11-28-2022 10:26 AM)Zorch Wrote:  You mentioned ESPN which brings another aspect of sleaziness to the proceedings. The only FCS playoff game not on ESPN+ was the Montana game which was on ESPN2. The powers that be wanting a large, loud crowd, in the mountain/pacific time zone, for the TV watchers in the late 10:00 P.M. slot?

When conferences allied with ESPN (think basketball NIT but it also applies to college football) get more teams in or get better seeds or simply get more over-the-air time then all is not optimal.

I'm not a fan of the influence ESPN wields on college football though overall, in this case, I think they did FCS football a favor. Showing that specific game was the best product out there to promote FCS football and enthusiasm. It was a good game and Montana brings people and enthusiasam to the game.

Not to dismiss the talent of any of the other 1st round games, the atmosphere at all of them though was more likely on par with any of your G5 bowl games. A band, a few fans and loud mouth announcers trying to make it all sound exciting.

(11-28-2022 10:51 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  I don't understand what is sleazy about ESPN. They are a for profit business that is trying to find the most viewers to sell advertisement slots for the most money. If they thought that a televised stream was better than a web based one, good for them. Not sure there was a lot of competition during that time slot.

When ESPN decides that they want more P5 teams in the NIT, for example, because they think those teams will bring more eyeballs (and thus sell more expensive advertising, etc, as you pointed out) and they do it at the expense of more deserving mid-major teams (and this happens every single year)....then that is sleazy.

When ESPN hypes the P5 football conferences that they show (SEC, for example) for the college football playoff and not the ones that FOX shows (Big 10, for example)....then that is sleazy. (Of course, FOX does it too, in reverse).

When ESPN creates new bowl games (that nobody will watch) just to get more programming in December.... then that is too much influence.

When ESPN forces football leagues (MAC, for example) to play on Tues, Wed, Thurs, or Friday just to be able to be on TV....then that is too much influence...and in this case is certainly to the detriment of the student athletes.

When even the top ESPN announcers denigrate the influence that the network has over college sports (See Dan Patrick, Keith Olbermann, Michael Wilbon, "ESPN - 'the mother ship'", etc) then there is a recognized problem. I call that sleazy....even if all they are trying to do is make a buck. They make too many bucks already.

Zorch, the schools under the NCAA umbrella share in the wealth too. Playing on a Wednesday is 100% because of the money. And.......nobody, and I mean nobody really cares about the student athletes other than (hopefully) the coaching staffs.

So I think the takeaway is that we need to make sure Zable is packed this Saturday. That way if we're ever on the bubble, we can point to this game and show the NCAA that we can sell tickets.

(11-28-2022 01:34 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  So I think the takeaway is that we need to make sure Zable is packed this Saturday. That way if we're ever on the bubble, we can point to this game and show the NCAA that we can sell tickets.

The selection committee will say it is minimal, but attendance and bid amount absolutely factor into what side of the bubble you fall. Just like the better TV matchups will factor into the seeding. Montana St got screwed in the seeding IMO because they didn't want NDSU to face SDSU in the semis.

Montana State's DC will be suspended for this week's game against Weber

https://twitter.com/RobbieNBCMT/status/1...0877022210

Wasn’t Montana’s game also really late EST? A very late game, pacific and mountain teams probably played earlier. ESPN2 it is. I have no issue with that.

(11-28-2022 01:19 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Zorch, the schools under the NCAA umbrella share in the wealth too. Playing on a Wednesday is 100% because of the money. And.......nobody, and I mean nobody really cares about the student athletes other than (hopefully) the coaching staffs.

NCAA sharing the wealth? Get serious! They “share the wealth” mostly by allocating shares based on games played in the Men’s basketball tournament. They then give the lion’s share of slots to P5 and compound it with their seeding and venue schemes to ensure that mid-majors don’t win. Do you think W&M “shares” as much as Wake Forest or Northwestern? Should W&M join the MAC so we could partake of that lucrative Wednesday football cash cow? Then we wouldn’t need to beg so much. Lastly, I think you’re wrong that nobody cares about the student athletes. Hopefully W&M still does.

(11-28-2022 03:17 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(11-28-2022 01:19 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Zorch, the schools under the NCAA umbrella share in the wealth too. Playing on a Wednesday is 100% because of the money. And.......nobody, and I mean nobody really cares about the student athletes other than (hopefully) the coaching staffs.

NCAA sharing the wealth? Get serious! They “share the wealth” mostly by allocating shares based on games played in the Men’s basketball tournament. They then give the lion’s share of slots to P5 and compound it with their seeding and venue schemes to ensure that mid-majors don’t win. Do you think W&M “shares” as much as Wake Forest or Northwestern? Should W&M join the MAC so we could partake of that lucrative Wednesday football cash cow? Then we wouldn’t need to beg so much. Lastly, I think you’re wrong that nobody cares about the student athletes. Hopefully W&M still does.

I'm not talking about the NCAA. I'm talking about teams playing on weekdays not the Tribe or other programs not involved. They know what they are getting themselves into, and it's all about the money.

The horse is dead.

https://twitter.com/SamHerderFCS/status/...oXGRFL44xw

UND bid 127k, Weber bid 41k