The Bobcat Nation

Griznationalist wrote:All I asked was whether it was true.

I happen to agree that the Griz did not win any Big Sky Championships in any years they tied in conference records with teams they lost to in the regular season.

That cuts both ways, by the way. I've seen the Cats claim conference titles the same way (1982, and so on).

But the question I asked was, is it really true that the score of the Bobcats' first national championship game was 0-0.

Eastcoastgriz wrote:

Griznationalist wrote:All I asked was whether it was true.

I happen to agree that the Griz did not win any Big Sky Championships in any years they tied in conference records with teams they lost to in the regular season.

That cuts both ways, by the way. I've seen the Cats claim conference titles the same way (1982, and so on).

But the question I asked was, is it really true that the score of the Bobcats' first national championship game was 0-0.

Yes it was 0-0. So the post is correct, they did not win the national championship, it was awarded to them.

TomCat88 wrote:

Eastcoastgriz wrote:

Griznationalist wrote:All I asked was whether it was true.

I happen to agree that the Griz did not win any Big Sky Championships in any years they tied in conference records with teams they lost to in the regular season.

That cuts both ways, by the way. I've seen the Cats claim conference titles the same way (1982, and so on).

But the question I asked was, is it really true that the score of the Bobcats' first national championship game was 0-0.

Yes it was 0-0. So the post is correct, they did not win the national championship, it was awarded to them.

Of course they did. They didn't win the championship game they played, but they won all year long to earn the right to play in that game. Since the game ended in a tie, they and St. Francis were declared national champions. Kind of like UM has won 11 straight Big Sky championships. They didn't even beat the team they were tied with a bunch of times, but still won enough games to be called champion.

MSU, by tying with the team they shared the national championship with, did more to earn that title than UM did in the years it lost to the team it tied with.

MSU can also make a claim for the 1964 Division II championship. That year the Division was split into four regions and each region played a championship game. MSU won its game and thus tied three other schools for the national championship. Since they never lost to any of those other three teams during the season, they should have a share of that championship as well if using the BSC logic on giving a share of a title to a team even though it got beat by the team it is tied with.

MSU actually had the 1964 year listed on its reader board outside the stadium. I think Sonny Holland had it taken down because he thought the case for calling that team a national champ was too flimsy.

Griznationalist wrote:Since I live in mother's basement I have no other pasttime then to go on a rivals messageboard and talk smack on a athletics board....

Hell's Bells wrote:

Griznationalist wrote:Since I live in mother's basement I have no other pasttime then to go on a rivals messageboard and talk smack on a athletics board....

WeedKillinCat wrote:You can tell that since the Griz are on the cusp of a possible 3rd championship, the fans are trying to minimize our first one. Yes it was awarded to MSU, get over it. Not much different than the writers picking football champions prior to the BS BSC.

tampa_griz wrote:You've gotta be shi**ing me. One of the Cats' vaunted championships came from a fuc*ing 0-0 decsion? I don't believe it. There's no way in hell anyone would brag about that. Impossible.