Bobcat\Grizzly Analogy

catatac · Post by **catatac** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:58 pm

theblackgecko wrote:
Cat-towm wrote:Actually, I think Kramer and Hauck are pretty similar. Both have enormous egos, say stupid things to the press, and are possibly blinded on some field desicions as a result of those egos.
I chalk up Kramer's bulletin board material as part of who he is. He consistenly says it regardelss of situation. I contrast that to coach Potera, the old women's bb coach, who consistently would talk smack against the Griz after winning in Bozeman, then get embarassed in Dahlberg arena. Kramer says things that entertain the press, but don't rile anyone who understands how we talks.
The one quote from Kramer that really bothers me is the "No harm, no foul" quote after the EWU loss last year. An 8-4 (as opposed to 7-5) record would have certainly changed the playoff structure. The Bobs might have been able to get a home playoff game, and might have kept NAU out of the playoffs with that win. While I realize that teams need to reload after every game and not dwell upon the past, it made it seem like Kramer didn't care about the football game.

Regarding the “No Harm, No Foul” comment, Kramer HAD to quickly adopt that mentality and pour it all over the players to make absolute sure there would be no down time leading up to the brawl. Getting into the playoffs was only going to be accomplished by beating you at that point. We had pi$$ed away enough close games by that point that I don’t think anyone really expected to get seeded any higher than 16, IF we even made it. In fact, I was surprised we weren’t 16, even after beating you. If course Kramer realized, as did the players, that the loss did hurt, they all do. Kramer said what he had to in an attempt to completely erase the loss from players' minds...

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:28 pm

theblackgecko wrote:
Cat-towm wrote:Actually, I think Kramer and Hauck are pretty similar. Both have enormous egos, say stupid things to the press, and are possibly blinded on some field desicions as a result of those egos.
I chalk up Kramer's bulletin board material as part of who he is. He consistenly says it regardelss of situation. I contrast that to coach Potera, the old women's bb coach, who consistently would talk smack against the Griz after winning in Bozeman, then get embarassed in Dahlberg arena. Kramer says things that entertain the press, but don't rile anyone who understands how we talks.
The one quote from Kramer that really bothers me is the "No harm, no foul" quote after the EWU loss last year. An 8-4 (as opposed to 7-5) record would have certainly changed the playoff structure. The Bobs might have been able to get a home playoff game, and might have kept NAU out of the playoffs with that win. While I realize that teams need to reload after every game and not dwell upon the past, it made it seem like Kramer didn't care about the football game.

Believe me he cared. He just knew in his mind that he would beat the Griz and be in. He doesn't dwell on the past and maybe that is why the Bobcats finally got out of the 0-16 slump. He is one of the most postive guys I have ever met and I agree with CatPride that if you ever meet him and talk to him your view on him will change to POSITIVE in a heartbeat. I would have LOVED to play for him. If you watched THE LINE video (if you haven't you should), that gives you a glimpse on how well of a motivator/speaker he is. Some of my Griz friends and I have talked with him and they went in not liking him and then GOING OUT of the conversation thinking he was a cool A$$ dude! That is no joke

62GRIZ · Post by **62GRIZ** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:36 am

We had pi$$ed away enough close games by that point that I don’t think anyone really expected to get seeded any higher than 16, IF we even made it. In fact, I was surprised we weren’t 16, even after beating you.

What are you talking about?

Only the top four teams are seeded. Your playoff position would not have changed with one more win. No harm - no foul. Had the sixteen teams been seeded the Cats would have been seeded 16 with five losses. If they only had four losses they still would be seeded 16. Most teams with three losses don't make the playoffs. Who you play in the playoffs is determined by geography, not seedings.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:53 am

62GRIZ wrote:
We had pi$$ed away enough close games by that point that I don’t think anyone really expected to get seeded any higher than 16, IF we even made it. In fact, I was surprised we weren’t 16, even after beating you.
What are you talking about? Only the top four teams are seeded. Your playoff position would not have changed with one more win. No harm - no foul. Had the sixteen teams been seeded the Cats would have been seeded 16 with five losses. If they only had four losses they still would be seeded 16. Most teams with three losses don't make the playoffs. Who you play in the playoffs is determined by geography, not seedings.

What are you talking about?

Who you play in the playoffs is determined by how much money Hogan put into tourney comittee's pockets is how I thought it went last year?

62GRIZ · Post by **62GRIZ** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:26 am

[/quote]Who you play in the playoffs is determined by how much money Hogan put into tourned comittee's pockets is how I thought it went last year.[quote]

What a stupid accusation! Why would Hogan want to play one of the stronger teams in the first game of the playoffs?! If he had wanted an easy game he would have chosen Northern Iowa!

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:49 am

62GRIZ wrote:

Who you play in the playoffs is determined by how much money Hogan put into tourned comittee's pockets is how I thought it went last year.

What a stupid accusation! Why would Hogan want to play one of the stronger teams in the first game of the playoffs?! If he had wanted an easy game he would have chosen Northern Iowa!

I was being sarcastic about money changing hands, but it pretty much was about money/attendance as to why Griz got a home game. There were quite a few coaches/teams pretty mad about that back East if you remember. I almost think there should be some more types of seeding rules than there currently are. What do you all think?

theblackgecko · Post by **theblackgecko** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:46 pm

Sorry Cat-towm. I just grabbed a quote, which you didn't say.
Seeding is a strange issue. Think about 2002. They gave MSU a de facto 16, and Montana got the 8 seed, based on the teams playing the number one in the first round.
However, it would have been strange last year if the BSC sent three to the playoffs, and none of them got a home game. The Griz did get a home game based mainly on attendence (which generated revenue for the NCAA).
I really hate this top four regional seeding junk. I know it saves travel money, but it also eliminates the cross country games which defined pre-regional seeding. Some awfully neat rivalries (GSU, YSU, McNesse) came out of repeated meetings in the playoffs between those teams and the Griz.
How about this. Pick the top four conference champions in the country. Define the number 1-4 seeds for them. Then, make in similar to the BB tourney, and have it be that conference opponents cannot meet until the the semi-finals (to give each conference a fair chance.) Pick the four weakest teams in the field, and send them on the road to the top four. For the middle eight, I would rank seed them, but allow attendence to play into who gets home field, then seed the higher of the pair with the appropriate top four seed. Top four seeds retain homefield, otherwise, go to the bidding.
This is different, in that it prevents one conference from getting more than one top four seed (as in 2001 with Furman/GSU). It also takes away sticking the same conference in the same bracket, which gave the BSC 8 and 16 seeds, and may have lead to a second round matchup within the conference. If teams aren't in the top four (or bottom four), attendence is allowed to play a factor, which seems reasonable for teams with similar rankings.