2010 Griz...

[crazycat]

No worries. But in your UCLA example, would you consider that a road game?

If a team plays UCLA in the Rose Bowl for the Rose Bowl game on Jan. 1 (or whatever day they play The Rose Bowl on), then it's technically a neutral site for both teams. Each school is allotted the same number of tickets. But, there is a definite advantage to playing on the field you play all your home games on and having your fans make a drive across town instead of across country. But it's not quite as big as it would be for a regular season. Not quite, but pretty close.

I admire the Griz for beating Marshall at their place in '95. Despite about 150 yards in penalties against Marshall, that was by far UM's best playoff game away from W/G Stadium.

[crazycat]

Oh you didn't need to ask to be corrected. The sites of those two games are considered neutral.

Even though the win(?) over Marshall (they actually beat themselves that day) was in Marshall's stadium it's still technically a neutral site.

If I were to make an argument this moronic, everyone on the board would roll their eyes and mutter "f-ing lawyers..."

Just sayin'...

I'm just pointing out how the NCAA defines these things. Team records are broken down by home/away/neutral. If, as a lawyer, you weren't able to support your arguement in this way everyone wouldn't say 'f-ing lawyers' they'd say 'this lawyer is a moron.'

Ya know, just sayin'...

[Grizlaw]

I'm just pointing out how the NCAA defines these things. Team records are broken down by home/away/neutral. If, as a lawyer, you weren't able to support your arguement in this way everyone wouldn't say 'f-ing lawyers' they'd say 'this lawyer is a moron.'

Ya know, just sayin'...

Yep, I know. There is a time and place for the type of argument you are making, and if we were in court, and my client was on trial, I'd make this argument if it would help him. But we're not; we're talking about sports here, and in this particular context, I think most of us would rather put away the technicalities in favor of common sense, don't you agree?

Your point is that the Griz can't win on the road in the playoffs. My point is that they did win a national title against Marshall, in Marshall's house. No matter how you spin it, you can't seriously argue that Marshall Stadium is an equally "neutral" site for that game as, say, Los Angeles would have been (or Chatty). If the "neutral" site that year had been Wa-Griz, Cat fans would argue that Wa-Griz isn't really a neutral site (and they would be correct), but you can't have it both ways.

[crazycat]

I'm just pointing out how the NCAA defines these things. Team records are broken down by home/away/neutral. If, as a lawyer, you weren't able to support your arguement in this way everyone wouldn't say 'f-ing lawyers' they'd say 'this lawyer is a moron.'

Ya know, just sayin'...

Yep, I know. There is a time and place for the type of argument you are making, and if we were in court, and my client was on trial, I'd make this argument if it would help him. But we're not; we're talking about sports here, and in this particular context, I think most of us would rather put away the technicalities in favor of common sense, don't you agree?

Your point is that the Griz can't win on the road in the playoffs. My point is that they did win a national title against Marshall, in Marshall's house. No matter how you spin it, you can't seriously argue that Marshall Stadium is an equally "neutral" site for that game as, say, Los Angeles would have been (or Chatty). If the "neutral" site that year had been Wa-Griz, Cat fans would argue that Wa-Griz isn't really a neutral site (and they would be correct), but you can't have it both ways.

Well c'mon, you're the one who brought up the legalise business. Or were you just trying to tell everyone you're a lawyer? Just kidding, and I know what you're saying. I think you know what I'm saying, too.

I'm not saying it's neutral in my own definition of neutral, but the NCAA is and I'm just repeating their categorization of these types of games being neutral. I'm not making a point for myself, just pointing it out. Technically it's a neutral field. I've been saying this all along. No it isn't really neutral in terms of it being a fair 50/50 split.

Even if the field isn't anyone's home field it's hard to make it truly neutral. LSU plays in Baton Rouge, but if they make it to the BCS championship game in the Sugar Bowl (New Orleans) it won't be neutral, because LSU will likely have way more fans on hand than the other team and will be able to sleep in their own beds leading up to the game. However when Texas played USC in the Rose Bowl the stadium was evenly split between Horn and Trojan fans.

So, technically, it's neutral. And in that sense UM has never won a road playoff game. Some of the advantages Marshall would've had were it not the championship game were taken away by the NCAA to make the game neutral. Such as the number of tickets made available to Marshall and other amenities normally given to the "home" team. UM had the opportunity to make the attendance at that game even, but not enough fans bought tickets and made the trip, which is understandable.

[Grizlaw]

So, technically, it's neutral. And in that sense UM has never won a road playoff game. Some of the advantages Marshall would've had were it not the championship game were taken away by the NCAA to make the game neutral. Such as the number of tickets made available to Marshall and other amenities normally given to the "home" team. UM had the opportunity to make the attendance at that game even, but not enough fans bought tickets and made the trip, which is understandable.

Obviously, the phrase "pick your battles" means nothing to you.

Look...UM's road playoff record does suck. Why are you stretching logic so far in order to make a point about this one game? Does it really hurt you so badly to admit that the Griz did play one good road playoff game (regardless of whether it was "technically" a road game) twelve years ago?

No matter how much twisting you do, you can't get past the facts that (1) the game was played on Marshall's field (which is not analogous to LSU playing in New Orleans, btw), and (2) of the 32,000 fans who were at the 1995 title game, approximately 30,000 of them were Marshall boosters.

Those are the facts.

If you really want to continue making this illogical argument, let's just make it as silly as possible, shall we? In the 1996 title game (which was also Montana vs. Marshall, played at Marshall), the Griz won the coin toss the week before the game, and thus, Montana was technically designated as the "home" team for that game (even though the game was played in Marshall Stadium). So technically, you could count Montana's loss in 1996 in Huntington as a "home" playoff loss (since, according to the NCAA, the Griz were officially the "home" team for that game).

Would that seem totally ridiculous? Yes, it would. Is it all that different from the argument you're making? No, it isn't.

[MashTun]

Well, we'd point to 1989, 1993, and 1994 before 1995. But your point is well-taken, Mash.

But to that end, cat fans ripping on Griz scheduling never point to a year other than this one. The comments about the Griz "always" scheduling soft, or the cats "always" having tougher schedules are just laughable they are so incorrect. The whole argument is ridiculous.

I'd counter that making appearances in the playoffs and a title game isn't the same as taking the title. Most of the fiz fans I know point to 1995 as the "beginning of time" for griz football, before they'd point to years of playoff/champ. game appearances.

Griz fans will just have to take their lumps about the early schedule this year, since it is pretty pathetic. If it works for the griz at the end of the season, then great, more power to 'em. Even if it works for them, it's still pathetic.

[Nick]

Griz are pansies. They won't play anybody outside of Fizzoula unless its a conference game. Pathetic.

Please tell me what OOC the Cats have played that was not a money FBS game.

If you choose the FBS money game, the Griz can match you step-for-step.

Idaho doesn't count pal.

Oregon State. Wyoming. Hawaii. Oregon. Iowa.

You were saying?

[Nick]

Well, we'd point to 1989, 1993, and 1994 before 1995. But your point is well-taken, Mash.

But to that end, cat fans ripping on Griz scheduling never point to a year other than this one. The comments about the Griz "always" scheduling soft, or the cats "always" having tougher schedules are just laughable they are so incorrect. The whole argument is ridiculous.

I'd counter that making appearances in the playoffs and a title game isn't the same as taking the title. Most of the fiz fans I know point to 1995 as the "beginning of time" for griz football, before they'd point to years of playoff/champ. game appearances.

Griz fans will just have to take their lumps about the early schedule this year, since it is pretty pathetic. If it works for the griz at the end of the season, then great, more power to 'em. Even if it works for them, it's still pathetic.

As opposed to Cat fans who hang their hat on the impending "Griz demise" that never comes. Do you honestly think we take you people seriously?

[Grizlaw]

Idaho doesn't count pal.

Oregon State. Wyoming. Hawaii. Oregon. Iowa.

You were saying?

Also, Washington State (1995, I believe), and we've played U. Oregon at least twice in fairly recent years (once in the 90s, in addition to the game two years ago).

Also, re: Idaho -- I agree with the Cat fan who said Idaho is not a "big money" game, but I'd have to take issue with anyone who mocks the Griz for scheduling them. The fact is, while Idaho is not a good I-A team, they are a I-A team nonetheless. They have 22 more schollies than we have, and however weak they may be in the WAC, they are still a tough opponent for the Griz in any given year, and they would be for the Cats as well. For each of the five years that we scheduled Idaho after their move up, we thus had at least one tough nonconference opponent, and in several of those years, we scheduled a "real" I-A team and/or a quality I-AA team as well, so if you want to say that we "never" schedule tough OOC games, you might want to keep that in mind.

[GrizinWashington]

And Idaho is as good as New Mexico, San Diego State, San Jose State and a number of other FBS teams that everyone else in the BSC seems so proud to have played.

Here's a remedial Economics exam question for some of you: The University of Montana loses oodles of money by playing at New Mexico. Portland State University earns oodles of money playing at New Mexico. Which University is more likely to schedule New Mexico:

(a) Montana
(b) Portland State
(c) Both a and b
(d) Neither a nor b

Get an "A" on this little quiz and you've explained this entire thread (as well as the seemingly endless number of other threads on this board about the Griz schedule).

[STREETCAT]

And Idaho is as good as New Mexico, San Diego State, San Jose State and a number of other FBS teams that everyone else in the BSC seems so proud to have played.

Here's a remedial Economics exam question for some of you: The University of Montana loses oodles of money by playing at New Mexico. Portland State University earns oodles of money playing at New Mexico. Which University is more likely to schedule New Mexico:

(a) Montana
(b) Portland State
(c) Both a and b
(d) Neither a nor b

Get an "A" on this little quiz and you've explained this entire thread (as well as the seemingly endless number of other threads on this board about the Griz schedule).

answer c, From the understanding of your griz logic that I have learned from these retarted threads over the past month! It is all about the record and not money therefore the griz would play a crap BCS team to get a win. Its all about being 3-0 remember not about money

unless your to us all

[GrizinWashington]

And Idaho is as good as New Mexico, San Diego State, San Jose State and a number of other FBS teams that everyone else in the BSC seems so proud to have played.

Here's a remedial Economics exam question for some of you: The University of Montana loses oodles of money by playing at New Mexico. Portland State University earns oodles of money playing at New Mexico. Which University is more likely to schedule New Mexico:

(a) Montana
(b) Portland State
(c) Both a and b
(d) Neither a nor b

Get an "A" on this little quiz and you've explained this entire thread (as well as the seemingly endless number of other threads on this board about the Griz schedule).

answer c, From the understanding of your griz logic that I have learned from these retarted threads over the past month! It is all about the record and not money therefore the griz would play a crap BCS team to get a win. Its all about being 3-0 remember not about money

unless your to us all

Ah. It's clear to me now why there are 119 threads about the Griz schedule on this board.

Streetcat, your grade is a solid "F". The correct answer is (b). Montana does not need to play New Mexico. They can play an FSC team at home, make 5 times more than UNM would pay them, and pump over a million dollars into the local economy.

[MashTun]

Well, we'd point to 1989, 1993, and 1994 before 1995. But your point is well-taken, Mash.

But to that end, cat fans ripping on Griz scheduling never point to a year other than this one. The comments about the Griz "always" scheduling soft, or the cats "always" having tougher schedules are just laughable they are so incorrect. The whole argument is ridiculous.

I'd counter that making appearances in the playoffs and a title game isn't the same as taking the title. Most of the fiz fans I know point to 1995 as the "beginning of time" for griz football, before they'd point to years of playoff/champ. game appearances.

Griz fans will just have to take their lumps about the early schedule this year, since it is pretty pathetic. If it works for the griz at the end of the season, then great, more power to 'em. Even if it works for them, it's still pathetic.

As opposed to Cat fans who hang their hat on the impending "Griz demise" that never comes. Do you honestly think we take you people seriously?

What your post has to do with what was quoted I don't know. But my two cents follow.

Not that I have ever personally preached the "griz demise" thing you're talking about, but if you think that UM will NEVER have a significant downturn at some point, you are fool. Keep hammering back the coolaid.

Not saying I want it to happen, but all programs have downturns at some point. Even the Notre Dames, Michigan's and Miami's of the world, and the griz aren't them.

[crazycat]

So, technically, it's neutral. And in that sense UM has never won a road playoff game. Some of the advantages Marshall would've had were it not the championship game were taken away by the NCAA to make the game neutral. Such as the number of tickets made available to Marshall and other amenities normally given to the "home" team. UM had the opportunity to make the attendance at that game even, but not enough fans bought tickets and made the trip, which is understandable.

Obviously, the phrase "pick your battles" means nothing to you.

Look...UM's road playoff record does suck. Why are you stretching logic so far in order to make a point about this one game? Does it really hurt you so badly to admit that the Griz did play one good road playoff game (regardless of whether it was "technically" a road game) twelve years ago?

No matter how much twisting you do, you can't get past the facts that (1) the game was played on Marshall's field (which is not analogous to LSU playing in New Orleans, btw), and (2) of the 32,000 fans who were at the 1995 title game, approximately 30,000 of them were Marshall boosters.

Those are the facts.

If you really want to continue making this illogical argument, let's just make it as silly as possible, shall we? In the 1996 title game (which was also Montana vs. Marshall, played at Marshall), the Griz won the coin toss the week before the game, and thus, Montana was technically designated as the "home" team for that game (even though the game was played in Marshall Stadium). So technically, you could count Montana's loss in 1996 in Huntington as a "home" playoff loss (since, according to the NCAA, the Griz were officially the "home" team for that game).

Would that seem totally ridiculous? Yes, it would. Is it all that different from the argument you're making? No, it isn't.

Once again a Griz fan that can't read. What is it with you UM people today? I'm NOT saying it, the NCAA is. Sorry, that's the fact. Good grief does the truth hurt this bad. Yes, the Griz suck on the road in the playoffs, even if you count the Marshall win as a road game. I'm not say YOU can't, I'm saying the NCAA doesn't. If you want to argue this point call the NCAA and tell them the Marshall-UM '95 title game wasn't at a neutral site, by your definition, and see if they will change the record book.

GL as I read your post you didn't get a think of what I was saying. This must really have you twisted in knots. But you'll get over it.

Marshall bid on and won the right to host the NCAA Div. I-AA championship games in 95 and 96. It had nothing to do with have the best record. The game, with Marshall in it or not, was going to be played there and as such was designated as a neutral field by the NCAA not me, no matter who played in the game.

[Grizlaw]

GL as I read your post you didn't get a think of what I was saying. This must really have you twisted in knots. But you'll get over it.

Sorry...I love hearing other peoples' delusions of grandeur, but I think you've got quite a ways to go before anything you say gets me "twisted in knots."

Yes, I do understand everything you've said in this thread, and at the end of the day, I am left right where I started: thinking that it's a moronic point (or an "overly-technical" point, as I'd say if we weren't on the smack board). But, this thread has provided me with a good bit of entertainment and laughs during what would have otherwise been a long day of work, and when it's all said and done, that's what this board is for, right?

Until next time,

--GL

[Eastcoastgriz]

1) I believe the Griz have lost in the playoffs 12 of the past 14 years, GinWa; I think that would classify as more than "once in a while".

News Flash! If you dont win the national championship, you lose in the playoffs.

[crazycat]

GL as I read your post you didn't get a think of what I was saying. This must really have you twisted in knots. But you'll get over it.

Sorry...I love hearing other peoples' delusions of grandeur, but I think you've got quite a ways to go before anything you say gets me "twisted in knots."

Yes, I do understand everything you've said in this thread, and at the end of the day, I am left right where I started: thinking that it's a moronic point (or an "overly-technical" point, as I'd say if we weren't on the smack board). But, this thread has provided me with a good bit of entertainment and laughs during what would have otherwise been a long day of work, and when it's all said and done, that's what this board is for, right?

Until next time,

--GL

Well I shouldn't have tried to say how you were feeling about this. But I hope you understand the difference between what I came up with on my own and what I'm repeating from other sources.

[Grizlaw]

Well I shouldn't have tried to say how you were feeling about this. But I hope you understand the difference between what I came up with on my own and what I'm repeating from other sources.

Of course I do...and I would hope that you understand my point, as well (i.e., that where the game was actually played is more relevant to the point of whether the Griz can or can't play on the road than what the NCAA chooses to call the game). As I said before, suppose UM were to host the title game, and the Griz were to win it in Missoula -- would that "prove" that the Griz can win at neutral sites, or would it just prove that they can win at home?

[Sportin' Life]

Cats are smacking about the Griz losing on the road in the playoffs? So, when were all of these Bobcat road playoff victories? Surely I must just be forgetting.

[ThunderCat]

Forget the money for a minute, the griz have played a few D-I teams in the past and they have beat or put a scare into some of them.

But now they also schedule some easy wins so they can get to a big win total and get into the playoffs with a good ranking.

The fact that they have won or shared the BSC for most of the past 14 years means they are better than most of the BSC. The fact they have won only two NCs in that time means they are not real players on the national stage. They beat the same conference foes evey year, maybe win a home playoff game then lose to a real football power.

That may be nice for the Cats to aspire to, but if I were a griz fan I would be sick of going through the motions after all these years. Either go big and become a real power program or deal with the fact that you are conference champs and not a real NC level program