Big Sky Conference

[redbirdfan04]

The Big Sky received four byes from the committee this year. I watched all the of the playoff games and I'm scratching my head to how this happened? I do not think either Montana school or Weber state would be able handle a MVFC or a CAA schedule. The two best teams are in the finals so I'm not sure if the committee cares but hopefully they noticed how poorly the tournament was seeded.

 

[fourthandshort]

I disagree, Big Sky is mostly legit. One could argue in hindsight, MVFC should have had 3 seeds, with UNI or ISUr getting one over UCA. But 3 Big Sky teams made quarters, and the one who didnt, Sac St, had a very nice season, though faded a bit towards the end .. and they were the only one who didn't make the quarters, losing to a hot Austin Peay team. But Sac St finished 9-3 against the 6th ranked SOS .. so they deserved a top 8 seed too.

I think the only team we should have had another seed over was UCA .. and argubaly UNI deserved one over us. BUt Big Sky deserved seeds 4 IMO.

 

[redbirdfan04]

Fourth, I do not think any confernce should ever have four byes. It should be capped at three. I was not impressed with the big sky in the playoffs. I wasn't thrilled by the placement of teams overall this year but like I said the top two teams ended up playing at the end.

 

[fourthandshort]

But then you're resorting to picking less deserving teams to get that important bye and home field advantage. I think you have to reward the top 8 seeds entirely based on merits of their season. I dont see penalizing a really good team simply because their conference had a very strong year. Got to reward the best teams.

 

[salsa]

They were very good teams. 2 of the 4 lost to the 2 elite teams on the road in the semifinals and a 3rd lost to another BSC team in the quarterfinals. There weren't any other teams that stepped up and earned it this year.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[fourthandshort]

They were very good teams. 2 of the 4 lost to the 2 elite teams on the road in the semifinals and a 3rd lost to another BSC team in the quarterfinals. There weren't any other teams that stepped up and earned it this year.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Agreed ... there was definitely a drop off after the top 6 or 7 in terms of regular season resumes. We did well in playoffs, but this was not a top 8 year for ISUr by historical standards. That said, we should be top 8 after playoffs are said and done. But lets not forget how unimpressive our regular season was. But yes, based on playoff performance, we definitely stepped it up 2 notches to earn what we got.

Case in point, UCA was a weak top 8 seed by historical standards, but no one else clearly deserved it as of regular season end. The next 5 or so teams all had warts.

 

[redbirdfan04]

But then you're resorting to picking less deserving teams to get that important bye and home field advantage. I think you have to reward the top 8 seeds entirely based on merits of their season. I dont see penalizing a really good team simply because their conference had a very strong year. Got to reward the best teams.

Fourth, this year the top two were above every team I agree with that. I disagree that four of the top eight teams in the country are all in the same conference. I agree isu did not deserve a bye due to losing to ysu. I would almost say the MVFC,CAA, AND BIG SKY could put there top three teams into the byes and it would be hard to argue against those teams and conferences. Looking at the four big sky teams that did get byes you are right they had solid resumes, watching them live in the playoffs they didn't look great.

 

[Loyl2u]

The problem is that no one except those in the Particular Coference from year to year want to admit that playing day in and day out in the best overall FCS conference has a toll, which costs teams losses, and then those L’s cost teams seeding. In any other conference, including the Big Sky this year, Ultimately, they probably would have run into the same ultimate fate, but I think the Birds, UNI, SDSU and NDSU would all have preferred to play BS teams this year vs facing MVC teams in the playoffs.

 

[StLRedbird]

The problem is that no one except those in the Particular Coference from year to year want to admit that playing day in and day out in the best overall FCS conference has a toll, which costs teams losses, and then those L’s cost teams seeding. In any other conference, including the Big Sky this year, Ultimately, they probably would have run into the same ultimate fate, but I think the Birds, UNI, SDSU and NDSU would all have preferred to play BS teams this year vs facing MVC teams in the playoffs.

The only gripe I have with the selection committee this year was leaving SIU out. They belonged in. If you're gonna penalize ISU and UNI for late season struggles, then give the ugly dogs the benefit of being better in the second half of the season. They should've been given more credit for the MVFC gauntlet than they got.

 

[Birdswin]

I agree, the committee got it wrong. However, probably a bigger problem is the committee format itself. Different ADs are on the committee every year and probably most do not take the time, nor do they care, about past/history. They have their own agendas going in. There should be a certain amount of consistency, but that would take the NCAA making a change, which they will not, due to a total sense of apathy toward FCS. Thus, same old crap, different year.

 

[Virginia Redbird]

The problem is that no one except those in the Particular Coference from year to year want to admit that playing day in and day out in the best overall FCS conference has a toll, which costs teams losses, and then those L’s cost teams seeding. In any other conference, including the Big Sky this year, Ultimately, they probably would have run into the same ultimate fate, but I think the Birds, UNI, SDSU and NDSU would all have preferred to play BS teams this year vs facing MVC teams in the playoffs.

The only gripe I have with the selection committee this year was leaving SIU out. They belonged in. If you're gonna penalize ISU and UNI for late season struggles, then give the ugly dogs the benefit of being better in the second half of the season. They should've been given more credit for the MVFC gauntlet than they got.

I agree with you on this one. SIU got screwed I thought and would have put up a better fight than some teams that were selected. It happens but it is tough to take when it is your team getting the short end of the stick. Then again I always default to the outlook that if you win...you are in. Win the games and don't leave it up to the selectors. Easier said than done in the MVFC but that is the bottom line.