The Bobcat Nation

I get a kick out of the boast that only one football program has won the NAIA championship, the Div. II championship, and the Div. I-AA championship.

Of course, it would be impossible for any other program to make that claim, because you will not find another program that has been in all three associations/divisions.

The Cats were playing little schools with student enrollments of under 1,000 while the Griz were playing USC, UCLA, etc.

Below is the link to the info on the Cats’ first “championship” in 1956, when you shared the title with little Saint Joseph’s College (of some small town in Indiana).

This disproves the posts in here that asserted the national championship title was somehow bestowed upon the 1956 Montana State College Bobcats in the same manner that the writers’ and coaches’ polls used to do in a national vote.

There wasn’t any proclamation. The Cats played the little Catholic school to a zero-zero tie, so the NAIA shrugged its shoulders and named both schools champions.

“The Montana State College Bobcats tied (0-0) Saint Joseph's College (Ind.) in the inaugural Aluminum Bowl on December 19, 1956, thus sharing the first-ever NAIA football title.”
http://www.rmacsports.org/information/h ... _football

What's your point, exactly?

Bay Area Cat wrote:What's your point, exactly?

Two points (covered in the post):

(1.) Cats weren't awarded the sole championship in '56 via some selection process like the writer' or coaches' polls, which clears up some erroneous assertions that have been posted.

(2.) How many football programs were in all three of the NAIA, Div. II, and Div. I-AA (therefore, how competitive is the field that could even identify the trifecta as a potential bragging point?)? This adds context or perspective to some posts about that particular feat.

Griznationalist wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:What's your point, exactly?

Two points (covered in the post):

(1.) Cats weren't awarded the sole championship in '56 via some selection process like the writer' or coaches' polls, which clears up some erroneous assertions that have been posted.

(2.) How many football programs were in all three of the NAIA, Div. II, and Div. I-AA (therefore, how competitive is the field that could even identify the trifecta as a potential bragging point?)? This adds context or perspective to some posts about that particular feat.

Appalachian State is a good one to give you a little perspective.

I love the new griz poster who apparently just found out about BN, and decides to post what has been written ad nauseum. (btw grisnationalist, that was latin.) Glad your mom finally let you get a computer, now it is time for beddy-bye

Hawks86 wrote:

Griznationalist wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:What's your point, exactly?

Two points (covered in the post):

(1.) Cats weren't awarded the sole championship in '56 via some selection process like the writer' or coaches' polls, which clears up some erroneous assertions that have been posted.

(2.) How many football programs were in all three of the NAIA, Div. II, and Div. I-AA (therefore, how competitive is the field that could even identify the trifecta as a potential bragging point?)? This adds context or perspective to some posts about that particular feat.

Appalachian State is a good one to give you a little perspective.

Just one? By the way, when was Appy State in Div. II? I'm familiar with their NAIA years and Div. I-AA years. But Div. II?

this coming from the team that some how finds a way to call themselves conference champs every year.

griz fan: We are the champs again!
Cat fan: oh, huh, I thought you had the same record as Weber.
griz fan: we did.
Cat fan: oh, so who won head to head?
griz fan: they did.
Cat fan: I see, so who got the automatic birth into the playoffs?
griz fan: they did.
Cat fan: ahh, so how are you the champs again?
griz fan: umm, because we rule, wooooo!!!
Cat fan: ahh, of course. How could I not follow that logic.

Griznationalist wrote:

Hawks86 wrote:

Griznationalist wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:What's your point, exactly?

Two points (covered in the post):

(1.) Cats weren't awarded the sole championship in '56 via some selection process like the writer' or coaches' polls, which clears up some erroneous assertions that have been posted.

(2.) How many football programs were in all three of the NAIA, Div. II, and Div. I-AA (therefore, how competitive is the field that could even identify the trifecta as a potential bragging point?)? This adds context or perspective to some posts about that particular feat.

Appalachian State is a good one to give you a little perspective.

Just one? By the way, when was Appy State in Div. II? I'm familiar with their NAIA years and Div. I-AA years. But Div. II?

That's just one example, there are alot more including Idaho State and North Dakota State. How many would be proof enough? If the classification "small college" can be used then your whole argument is further shot to hell.

Appalachian State

1952-1970 NAIA
1971-1972 NCAA College Division (Small College)
1973-1973 NCAA Division II
1974-1977 NCAA Division I
1978-1981 NCAA Division I-A
1982-20XX NCAA Division I-AA

Griznationalist wrote: when was Appy State in Div. II? I'm familiar with their NAIA years and Div. I-AA years. But Div. II?

App St
1952-1970 NAIA
1971-1972 NCAA College Division (Small College)
1973-1973 NCAA Division II
1974-1977 NCAA Division I
1978-1981 NCAA Division I-A
1982-20XX NCAA Division I-AA


How many championships did um win in the lower divisions when they played?


EDIT I see H86 beat me to it

Wow, they're coming at me from all angles. I don't know where to begin, so here goes. I'm on record in various other posts saying the Griz claim to "11 straight Big Sky Conference Championships" is bogus, phoney, B.S., pathetic, chickensquat. Weber won the conference, period, because UM and Weber finished with identical conference records, and Weber flat-out stomped Grizzly a$$ during the reular season. How many times should I say it? Hauck, O'Day, anyone else who claims the Griz won the conference this year, pull your heads out because Weber won it and the Griz don't have any kind of streak. Similarly, I've seen the Cats try to claim the same lame chickensquat stuff, like in '82 when the Griz stomped the Cats and then tied in conference records with MSU, the Cats went so far as to print up "'82 Conference Champs" tee-shirts (LOL). So that takes care of that issue, I hope. Next, Appy State and maybe Idaho State are the only two other FCS schools that spent time in the NAIA? Not a very large sample. 'Nuff said there. Lastly, in regard to the guy who said UM didn't do as well before moving up, does he not know that UM was in the same PAC conference as UCLA, USC, Washington, etc., back when the Cats were "winning" the championship game (by putting zero points on the board) against tiny Saint Joseph's of bumfuc! Indiana? This is too easy.

I Just listed GN as a foe to ignore him,

This douch has a problem

Griznationalist wrote:Wow, they're coming at me from all angles. I don't know where to begin, so here goes. I'm on record in various other posts saying the Griz claim to "11 straight Big Sky Conference Championships" is bogus, phoney, B.S., pathetic, chickensquat. Weber won the conference, period, because UM and Weber finished with identical conference records, and Weber flat-out stomped Grizzly a$$ during the reular season. How many times should I say it? Hauck, O'Day, anyone else who claims the Griz won the conference this year, pull your heads out because Weber won it and the Griz don't have any kind of streak. Similarly, I've seen the Cats try to claim the same lame chickensquat stuff, like in '82 when the Griz stomped the Cats and then tied in conference records with MSU, the Cats went so far as to print up "'82 Conference Champs" tee-shirts (LOL). So that takes care of that issue, I hope. Next, Appy State and maybe Idaho State are the only two other FCS schools that spent time in the NAIA? Not a very large sample. 'Nuff said there. Lastly, in regard to the guy who said UM didn't do as well before moving up, does he not know that UM was in the same PAC conference as UCLA, USC, Washington, etc., back when the Cats were "winning" the championship game (by putting zero points on the board) against tiny Saint Joseph's of bumfuc! Indiana? This is too easy.

What's funny is that while you were playing the big boys and we were NAIA from '52 - '56 we had a 4-1 record against the griz. I already you told that there are a butt load of teams that moved up from NAIA and then to Div.II then to FCS. Look it up.

cats2506 wrote:I Just listed GN as a foe to ignore him,

This douch has a problem

Good Idea

cats2506 wrote:I Just listed GN as a foe to ignore him,

This douch has a problem

I think he was the first on my list when I found that function a few days ago, but it was probably a tie with a couple other POS newbies.

Hawks86 wrote:

Griznationalist wrote:Wow, they're coming at me from all angles. I don't know where to begin, so here goes. I'm on record in various other posts saying the Griz claim to "11 straight Big Sky Conference Championships" is bogus, phoney, B.S., pathetic, chickensquat. Weber won the conference, period, because UM and Weber finished with identical conference records, and Weber flat-out stomped Grizzly a$$ during the reular season. How many times should I say it? Hauck, O'Day, anyone else who claims the Griz won the conference this year, pull your heads out because Weber won it and the Griz don't have any kind of streak. Similarly, I've seen the Cats try to claim the same lame chickensquat stuff, like in '82 when the Griz stomped the Cats and then tied in conference records with MSU, the Cats went so far as to print up "'82 Conference Champs" tee-shirts (LOL). So that takes care of that issue, I hope. Next, Appy State and maybe Idaho State are the only two other FCS schools that spent time in the NAIA? Not a very large sample. 'Nuff said there. Lastly, in regard to the guy who said UM didn't do as well before moving up, does he not know that UM was in the same PAC conference as UCLA, USC, Washington, etc., back when the Cats were "winning" the championship game (by putting zero points on the board) against tiny Saint Joseph's of bumfuc! Indiana? This is too easy.

What's funny is that while you were playing the big boys and we were NAIA from '52 - '56 we had a 4-1 record against the griz. I already you told that there are a butt load of teams that moved up from NAIA and then to Div.II then to FCS. Look it up.

Well, if UM-MSU head-to-head records are your point, the decade of the 1950's was six wins for the Griz and four wins for the Cats. The last time the series record was tied was 1910, when the Grizzlies took the series lead and never looked back (overall it's Griz 68 wins, Cats 35 wins).

After further review, my above fact is in fact not a fact

Hawks86 wrote:After further review, my above fact is in fact not a fact

I know, Hawks86. You got it backward. The Griz were 4-1 against the Cats from '52-'56. No big deal.

As fas as I can tell UM and MSU have only been in the same conference since the Big Sky was created.

From 1924 to 1949 UM was in the PCC, which later became the PAC-8, then PAC-10. When UM joined the PCC it consisted of USC, Cal, OSU, UO, WSU, UW, Stanford, and Idaho. UM left in 1949 and was an Independent for one year (1950).

In 1951 UM joined the Mtn States Conference. When UM joined it consisted of BYU, Utah, Utah St, CSU, Denver, New Mexico and Wyoming. They were in that conference through 1962 when they left and joined the newly created Big Sky.


MSU was in the Rocky Mtn. Athletic Conf. from 1917-59. Through 1938 Colorado, Utah, BYU,Utah State and Colorado State were in this conference.

In '39 a major shakeup occurred and only Utah State, MSU, Western St. and No. Colorado remained, while several others were brought in causing the conference to re-invent itself as, I believe, a NAIA league at least until 1956. At some point the league became a NCAA Division II conference (I'm pretty sure this happened in 1958). MSU earned a share of the NAIA championship in 1956 when it tied St. Joseph's 0-0.

Can't find a reference to what conference, if any, that UM was in prior to 1924 or MSU was in prior to 1917. From the above you can deduce that they weren't in the same conference from 1917 until 1962 (46 seasons). WWI and WWII caused the cancellation of five games and another game was cancelled in 1924. UM was 30-8-2 in those games.

From 1897 to 1916 (the 20 unknown conference years) UM holds a 12-7-3 (some years had two games) edge.

Since 1963 the series is 26-20-0 in UM's favor. This comprises the 46 games while each team was in the BSC. Since 1963 MSU has won one Division II Regional Championship (Camelia Bowl '64, which was as far as the season went/no National titel game), one Division II National Championship (76) and one I-AA National Championship (84). UM has won two I-AA National Championships (95 and 01). MSU has won 11 BSC titles, UM has won 17.

I don't know what you can take from all the seasons prior to 1963 other than they played the games and UM won most of them. Just like a national championship was awarded in 1956 and MSU got a share of it. Did UM have more prestige or was it given more scholarships (did football scholarships exist?), which caused such a big disparity in wins or were UM and MSU comparable in those areas? If you look at the season records for both schools neither one was very impressive and winning seasons were rare prior to 1962.

Oh give me a break, you try to say "Well we were in the same conference as USC and UCLA....." So, what is the comparison to the enrollment of the schools at the time. Were the schools on such different levels as they are now? I doubt they were... So then you can use that argument that the grizzlies also were in the same conference as the most storied basketball program ever......But you probably never actually played against John Wooden's Bruins...(Hey, but we still played them every season at one point) And if you guys are so great why didn't you stay in that PCC???????(PAC-10) Because all those other schools surpassed us Montana schools in enrollment and became much larger universities....

Man, if we really want to look at the history of College Football (or any sport for that matter) we are going to see some changes in the last century and a quarter... Should we not count Wilt Chamberlin's 100 points? Or Pisol Pete's 44+ ppg just because they weren't playing at the same level that the game is now? We also should not give credit to the women's basketball team from Fort Shaw Indian school (MT) that won the tournament at the 1904 world's fair in St. Louis.....(ya know they weren't playin WNBA teams) Should we not count Princeton or Yale's amazing dominance in the 19th Century college football ranks? The Griz sure have been playing well for the last 20 years but they only have 1/9 the championships that Yale does... Man they suck compared to Yale....

And If NDSU were to win a National Championship they wouldn't be allowed to count their Nat'l champs from the 80's would they....... And Northern Colorado is quite a weak team in the conf..( But wait, not too long ago I thought they were the National Champs..... OH, D-II...those don't count) Neither do any of Carroll's NAIA championships apparently...

We played in different conferences for most of our history, and as Tom pointed out, in our years in the BSC we have been quite close in records. Under the same sanctions and regulations CAT/griz football has been a very close battle.

So, basically, quit bitching about losing your most recent NC appearance... If you would have won, it would be "We're tied in NC's...finally" BUT, since you lost all we have to hear about is you effing complain about the fact that the CATS shouldn't have won the NC in 1956.... Get a freaking life.

Very circular logic, A-frame, with several arguments attributed to me that I've never submitted. Understandable, given how far the posts have strayed from the facts atop this thread. I would never compare UM national championships to MSU national championships because it's pointless (not apples-to-apples).