The Bobcat Nation

Just found this on the MSU Athletics web site. I bet more than a few griz fans are going to be pissed, they thought they were going to get Colorado in 2006... Should be a fun game, and a fun trip over to Boulder.

http://www.msubobcats.com/news.php?sid=fb&nid=626

Dang it! We play Cal Poly again next year! I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm really sick of those guys.

CU should be fun. I visited that campus and stadium last year (on a quiet Sunday afternoon, not on a game day). It's an impressive place. We'll be breaking in a new quarterback (assuming Lulay plays out the string through 2005), not smart, but I guess it helps pay the bills.

Sweet! Another road trip! I can't wait.

Don't worry about the Griz. We'll probably be lucky enough to schedule a dang Div II team at home. I mean, no sense playing teams that are better than you to get better. We'll just try our best to fade into mediocrity while doing some of the stupidest things imaginable to get out of debt.
Well, maybe its not so bad as that, but I'm frustrated, and as you can tell I like having a mid level I-A team on the schedule. It is a game you can just go and have fun with and possibly elevate your level of play. It is a great experience for the fans who get to go watch their team play in a big time atmosphere. It is also a chance to be an underdog if you normally aren't.
crikey.

I think it is great for the players, who get an opportunity to prove that they belong at schools that shunned them. This is a great recruiting tool, and I think signing these games so far in advance will help our coaches this off-season, so they can point ahead to these games. I know Kramer isn't exactly thrilled that we play these games, but I think just about everyone else enjoys them, from the players to the fans.

Great job, Peter Fields! Keep up the good work.

BozoneCat: You are right. In addition to some big paydays it is a great recruiting tool. I know there are those who may feel we are throwing our players to the wolves, but just ask any of the guys who played against Florida, WSU, Kansas, Colorado State, Wyoming, Utah, etc. how they feel about it now. For many it's one of the highlights of their careers.
I remember when I was being recruited I was told the Cats tentatively had scheduled Army and Hawaii. Turns out the closest I came to that scenerio was a grade problem in year two which could have resulted in my going into the Army and through Hawaii on my way to Viet Nam.

I'm all for playing up once a year. If we're going to continue playing down also, I say let's get a real patsy so we can play the whole bench. Let's play MSU-Northern or Eastern Oregon or Southeastcentralboisetech.

I agree with BelgradeBobcat. Enough of Cal Poly. Their schemes are hard to prepare for and set you back a week of preparation for more traditional teams. Besides, it has become a guaranteed L which doesn't help come playoff time. 9-3 looks a lot better than 7-5 - just ask the friz.

I dont particularly care for these games against bigtime D-IA programs. But on the other hand, I am always intrigued by the matchups and how we will compare. How about we start scheduling UTEP and New Mexico or Utah St. Those are games that are winable. Like last year against WYO. Its regional and winable. Then again, a team like Wyoming probably wants that game with us as much as we want one against tough D-II teams who can beat us.

If we were able to put 20,000+ in our seats, I'd much rather be playing teams like Maine or McNeese, Ga. Southern. But MSU cant get the money from these games like they can from Colo. or Okie St. Not that UM gets $250,000 a home game either.

I am most thrilled about the fact that we are having teams like SF Austin coming to Bozeman. These are the fun games to me, and the real measuring stick for our team nationally. I only wish we had the luxury of scheduling these type of games more often.

One thing for sure, the less Adams St. games we play, the happier I am. These are no win situations. If we win by 50, that's how it was supposed to be. If we win 19-0, then it was a disappointment and considered a loss to many. If we lose....Instead, bring in the NDSU, SDSU, UNC, UC-Davis, etc. instead.

I say keep playing Cal Poly until we win one. It's a good match up and quality game. Dump Adams State/Central Washington/Humboldt type games. With the new conference, there are enough 1AA teams in the west to never play down (unless it's way down).

I agree CP is a quality matchup just difficult to prepare for. I also think there are a number of winnable D-1A western teams I would like to play more. It makes for easier travel too if we stay out west which allows more of our fans to attend. Big West and MWC schools come to mind.

Our annual D1 deal is all about $. I guarantee you if we had a chance to play at Michigan and come home with $500K and <0 chance of winning or Utah State, $100K and 40% chance of winning, we're heading for Ann Arbor! I too say no more D2's. However, I feel we should be prepared to play any 1AA, including (especially) Cal Poly anytime.
Incidentally, I was talking with some friends the other night and we were talking about Cal Poly, and the improvement we have seen there over the past few years. Someone pointed out the number of better quality athletes available to the remaining California teams now that North Ridge, Fullerton, UOP, St. Marys, Long Beach State have dropped football. Plus, in the past 15 years or so the number of full rides 1A's can offer has been reduced by 13. Granted, some teams have "moved up" (Idaho, Boise St., etc.) absorbing some, but California has at least 6 D1's that have reduced scholarships by approx. 80 and at least 5 D1-1AA's that have dropped football altogether. That's maybe 300 to 400 full rides no longer available. That's a lot of football players out of work. Many of them are now at Cal Poly who may not have been there before.

& Bozeman

Cat Pride wrote:One thing for sure, the less Adams St. games we play, the happier I am. These are no win situations. If we win by 50, that's how it was supposed to be. If we win 19-0, then it was a disappointment and considered a loss to many. If we lose....Instead, bring in the NDSU, SDSU, UNC, UC-Davis, etc. instead.

I really don't like the bodybag/DII scheduling most of the I-AA teams are doing. There's nothing wrong with a road game that a team really doesn't have a chance to win as a way to make money. They players enjoy it well enough, the playoff committee overlooks the loss, and everything is fine. If a team wants to make money, go see a big stadium, that's their business.
But, to follow it up by paying a DII ( or God forbid, NAIA school) to come play is just being silly. The playoff commitee overlooks the win, the fans are bored, and all one can do is lose face. The Bobcats are going into week 5 with only only game on the schedule against competition on the same level, a home loss to a good Cal-Poly team. I'm not liking that schedule at all.

I enjoy the D-1A games but I agree stepping down doesn't do much for us. As far as D-1AA mathups I think we get a lot from the SFA and Gardner Webb games. The home and home agreements like the friz did with Maine work well. I think it does a lot down the line for conference power rankings to have a lot of these early season matchups to compare. Look at this year, Sam Houston was picked I believe 4th in their conference and Montana 1st and look what happened.

But I have to agree with BelgradeBobcat - enough of Cal Poly. There are a number of other teams in their new conference alone I would rather see. UNC and the Dakota schools primarily.

If we schedule a 1-A, then it makes sense to schedule a down game as well. I really like what we did last year-bringing in Gardner-Webb. They are 1-AA, but not super strong. It turned out to be a big win for the Bobcats and a lot of guys got to play-and it looked a lot better playing them than Adams State.

I'd rather bring in a non-scholarship 1-AA. North Dakota State blasted Valporaiso in their opener-a team that is probably not as good as Adams State, but thanks to their basketball team, is known a bit nationally.

Bring in Dayton, Drake, San Diego, even Georgetown. How cool would that be?

I'm sure we'd have to pay the above schools a lot more than an Adams State or Fort Lewis however-thus it's hello Rocky Mountain Conference-come get yer whoopin.

WYCAT wrote: But I have to agree with BelgradeBobcat - enough of Cal Poly. There are a number of other teams in their new conference alone I would rather see. UNC and the Dakota schools primarily.

Enough of Cal Poly? Man, I love it when we play MSU! In all seriousness, I think we have a nice rivalry going and I'm glad that MSU is going to be on our schedule in 2005.

-- Go Mustangs!

I am sure you are CP. I know we have had some good games but it really isn't a rivalry until we put some W's on the board. Good luck the rest of the year.

Keep playing Cal Poly. They are a solid football program, and consistently one of the better defenses we play all year. Its a solid team to schedule, and the powers that be would give us a lot of credit in the polls IF we ever beat them.

As would be the case with wins over the Northern Iowa's, SFA's, Maine's, etc.'s out there. CP is a top teir I-AA program no argument there but so are many others and I don't know why we have to play them every year. I know travel comes into play with them being a West Coast team maybe that is a lot of it.