The official/UNofficial Bobcat-Redbirds National Championship Gameday Thread

[lutecat]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

Well according to Brooks the Bobcats just have "a thing" so we better accept our place in the rivalry even if we have more national titles and are very close to having more Big Sky conference titles than UM in football. Fritz Neighbor's first question of the post-game of the Natty to Brent Vigen was verbatim "The way the offense struggled I think a lot of us on press row were wondering how it was going to happen...whether that special teams play was something you had in your pocket...talk about what Jhase did." Now...to any random fan who hears that question, its pretty legit. We all saw the offense struggle in the 4th when they had the ball. We weren't awful in the 3rd and DID score a TD just fyi. But Fritz could've easily said, "the way the offense struggled IN THE 4TH QUARTER" because we certainly didn't struggle for the first 3 quarters of that game compared to the defense we were facing. If anything, our offense was the reason we won this game. It's just little stuff like that and we all know where Fritz' allegiance lies. Then the whole bit about us "almost losing it" has been brought up by almost every media member who has a UM education or bias as if we don't know how the game swung back and forth. Brooks was very complimentary of MSU don't get me wrong. But he took it to another level by saying even though we won...we still have a "choke" gene in our program as (per his words) "its a Cat thing" and until we don't have anymore procedural penalties, we still have "a thing"...even next year.

Meanwhile, Bobby Hauck gets to parade around and do whatever he wants and the same media members rarely if ever push him on any of his "things" because they want to make sure they still have access to his pressers in the long-term. Its an utter and complete joke as the #1 choke artist in Big Sky football could arguably be Bobby Hauck. News flash but beating JMU on the road and App State at home did not win you a national title AND one of your best teams ever lost a first round game at home to Wofford.

And I'll say it one more time: I absolutely love what Colter and Brooks have done for MSU's coverage. From Colter's analysis to Brooks' photography output, they have cemented audio/visual memories for decades of Bobcat fans these last 15 years. But I have zero problem pushing Brooks on narratives that are born out of UM talking points for decades as they are a weird groupthink that gets passed down. I believe both Colter and Brooks when they say they have no real bias towards any of the schools, but people affiliated with UM from boosters, players, coaches, media, to fans are going to do "their thing" forever...so we best keep pushing back if we ever want the media narratives to change.

Siri...play "Mony Mony".

100%

It irritates me that the narrative of every member of the press is how Illinois state lost. Not that we won.

The other thing is it seems to be 50% of the narrative is us being national champions. The other 50% is why the griz aren't and what they need to get there. After both brawls too. And how many of them are so confident the griz beat Illinois state.

[VimSince03]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

Well according to Brooks the Bobcats just have "a thing" so we better accept our place in the rivalry even if we have more national titles and are very close to having more Big Sky conference titles than UM in football. Fritz Neighbor's first question of the post-game of the Natty to Brent Vigen was verbatim "The way the offense struggled I think a lot of us on press row were wondering how it was going to happen...whether that special teams play was something you had in your pocket...talk about what Jhase did." Now...to any random fan who hears that question, its pretty legit. We all saw the offense struggle in the 4th when they had the ball. We weren't awful in the 3rd and DID score a TD just fyi. But Fritz could've easily said, "the way the offense struggled IN THE 4TH QUARTER" because we certainly didn't struggle for the first 3 quarters of that game compared to the defense we were facing. If anything, our offense was the reason we won this game. It's just little stuff like that and we all know where Fritz' allegiance lies. Then the whole bit about us "almost losing it" has been brought up by almost every media member who has a UM education or bias as if we don't know how the game swung back and forth. Brooks was very complimentary of MSU don't get me wrong. But he took it to another level by saying even though we won...we still have a "choke" gene in our program as (per his words) "its a Cat thing" and until we don't have anymore procedural penalties, we still have "a thing"...even next year.

Meanwhile, Bobby Hauck gets to parade around and do whatever he wants and the same media members rarely if ever push him on any of his "things" because they want to make sure they still have access to his pressers in the long-term. Its an utter and complete joke as the #1 choke artist in Big Sky football could arguably be Bobby Hauck. News flash but beating JMU on the road and App State at home did not win you a national title AND one of your best teams ever lost a first round game at home to Wofford.

And I'll say it one more time: I absolutely love what Colter and Brooks have done for MSU's coverage. From Colter's analysis to Brooks' photography output, they have cemented audio/visual memories for decades of Bobcat fans these last 15 years. But I have zero problem pushing Brooks on narratives that are born out of UM talking points for decades as they are a weird groupthink that gets passed down. I believe both Colter and Brooks when they say they have no real bias towards any of the schools, but people affiliated with UM from boosters, players, coaches, media, to fans are going to do "their thing" forever...so we best keep pushing back if we ever want the media narratives to change.

Siri...play "Mony Mony".

I can understand Brook's take about MSU having "...a thing." I think part of what causes MSU to be in an apparent tense situation when big games come along is the overbearing pressure put on it to end the long national title drought. We'll see if I'm right about that next year when MSU doesn't have that monkey on its back.

If MSU loses that game, I agree with the choking narrative. But when you actually win the game, sorry but its gone. So you're telling me if we win three more national championships in the same fashion (yes ridiculous hypothetical but bear with me), do we still have a thing?

[TomCat88]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

Well according to Brooks the Bobcats just have "a thing" so we better accept our place in the rivalry even if we have more national titles and are very close to having more Big Sky conference titles than UM in football. Fritz Neighbor's first question of the post-game of the Natty to Brent Vigen was verbatim "The way the offense struggled I think a lot of us on press row were wondering how it was going to happen...whether that special teams play was something you had in your pocket...talk about what Jhase did." Now...to any random fan who hears that question, its pretty legit. We all saw the offense struggle in the 4th when they had the ball. We weren't awful in the 3rd and DID score a TD just fyi. But Fritz could've easily said, "the way the offense struggled IN THE 4TH QUARTER" because we certainly didn't struggle for the first 3 quarters of that game compared to the defense we were facing. If anything, our offense was the reason we won this game. It's just little stuff like that and we all know where Fritz' allegiance lies. Then the whole bit about us "almost losing it" has been brought up by almost every media member who has a UM education or bias as if we don't know how the game swung back and forth. Brooks was very complimentary of MSU don't get me wrong. But he took it to another level by saying even though we won...we still have a "choke" gene in our program as (per his words) "its a Cat thing" and until we don't have anymore procedural penalties, we still have "a thing"...even next year.

Meanwhile, Bobby Hauck gets to parade around and do whatever he wants and the same media members rarely if ever push him on any of his "things" because they want to make sure they still have access to his pressers in the long-term. Its an utter and complete joke as the #1 choke artist in Big Sky football could arguably be Bobby Hauck. News flash but beating JMU on the road and App State at home did not win you a national title AND one of your best teams ever lost a first round game at home to Wofford.

And I'll say it one more time: I absolutely love what Colter and Brooks have done for MSU's coverage. From Colter's analysis to Brooks' photography output, they have cemented audio/visual memories for decades of Bobcat fans these last 15 years. But I have zero problem pushing Brooks on narratives that are born out of UM talking points for decades as they are a weird groupthink that gets passed down. I believe both Colter and Brooks when they say they have no real bias towards any of the schools, but people affiliated with UM from boosters, players, coaches, media, to fans are going to do "their thing" forever...so we best keep pushing back if we ever want the media narratives to change.

Siri...play "Mony Mony".

I can understand Brook's take about MSU having "...a thing." I think part of what causes MSU to be in an apparent tense situation when big games come along is the overbearing pressure put on it to end the long national title drought. We'll see if I'm right about that next year when MSU doesn't have that monkey on its back.

If MSU loses that game, I agree with the choking narrative. But when you actually win the game, sorry but its gone. So you're telling me if we win three more national championships in the same fashion (yes ridiculous hypothetical but bear with me), do we still have a thing?

I agree. I should’ve said “caused” not causes.

[4KornerKat]

How much of the media bias do you think ends up just being turnover related? We have seen Alex Eschelman, Ashley Washburn, Grace Lawrence, Austin Parr, Colton Pool, and I'm sure I'm missing a few more move on to what appear to be bigger and better things, while Speltz, Rainey, Hanson, etc. appear to be missoula lifers? I'm sure having the journalism school in missoula contributes to this, but it seems like the folks that cover the Bobcats for the major outlets get opportunities fairly quickly.

[TomCat88]

How much of the media bias do you think ends up just being turnover related? We have seen Alex Eschelman, Ashley Washburn, Grace Lawrence, Austin Parr, Colton Pool, and I'm sure I'm missing a few more move on to what appear to be bigger and better things, while Speltz, Rainey, Hanson, etc. appear to be missoula lifers? I'm sure having the journalism school in missoula contributes to this, but it seems like the folks that cover the Bobcats for the major outlets get opportunities fairly quickly.

Could be a lot. I haven’t looked at it that way. I just know my ears perk up when I hear this stuff. MSU has been putting a good product on the field since 1938, yet it seems like the media thinks the last 5-8 years has been it.

[Prodigal Cat]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but one of my pet peeves is the Cat-Griz media, which I'm a part of but also critical of at times. And, yes, I F up a lot. Probably more than anyone.

This isn't a slam on UM, but more of my feeling of an unconscious bias by the media collectively. Perhaps I have rabbit ears?

This time it's the "it's been xx years since the Bobcats did this or that or the other thing." I don't really have a problem with the media mentioning that, but it starts to sound like a rip on MSU after a while. I don't recall very many saying that it's been 24 years since UM has won a national title.

I didn't hear anyone mentioning in 1994 that UM has never won a national title in 97(?) years or in 1969 that UM had never won a conference title in 72(?) years. I get that it's not apples-to-apples since UM was in a much stronger conference in the early years, but they talk about the all-time series, which includes a run of 36-3-4 from 1909 to 1955 with no mention of MSU being in a weaker level for many of those years. UM has a 29-win lead in the series and 33 of it comes during that stretch when UM was in the PAC-X from 1902 to 1951.

When MSU's win vs Furman in 2006 is brought up they still mention that it was MSU's first playoff win since 1984 (22 years). When MSU beat UM 3 straight, it was the first time they'd done that in since 1983-85 (33 years).

Until just recently, you haven't heard those kinds of numbers thrown out about UM. Colter has been doing that (only one league title in the last 16 years/only one semi-final appearance in 16 years), especially after UM's second loss to MSU this season.

Aside from its run from 1993 to 2009 (17 years), UM has only won four conference titles in the other 113(?) years of its program. MSU began winning conference titles in 1938, and the longest gap has been 18 years (1984-2002). Aside from that the longest have been 11 years and eight years. Since winning its first title in 1969, UM has gone 14, 12, and 11 years without winning a league title.

Aside from its titles in 1995 and 2001, UM hasn't won any titles in the other 123(?) years of its program. UM was a poor football program for the better part of 90 years. They were very good for 17 years and have been above average for the last 16 years. I wouldn't call it a long history of being a great program, yet their program is spoken about like it has a better history than MSU despite MSU having more national titles and more conference titles. Even if you don't count the NAIA titles (if so, let's not count the series win vs NAIA MSU), MSU has more national titles and just one less conference title.

The Griz did nothing of consequence up until Dennis Washington built their stadium. After they had a pretty good 2 decades but really nothing that great. They like to think of themselves a dynasty but you can't go years without winning a playoff game between titles and only have 2 titles to be considered a dynasty. NDSU is a dynasty. Georgia Southern was a dynasty. App St was a dynasty. Youngstown St was a dynasty. UM has never been a dynasty. Really they just won a lot of games because their ascension coincided with Nevada, Boise, and Idaho's departure from the Big Sky along with MSU entering its dark years. The Big Sky was bad so they would win a lot of games that would give them home field in the playoffs and led to those wins, but not many titles.

One could argue that's kind of what's going on with us right now. That's why it's important to go stack another championship next year, to approach that dynasty tier. Right now, MSU's success pretty closely mirrors that 2000 era montana crew. Lots of domination in the BSC, lots of deep playoff runs, thus far 1 title. Go win 1 or 2 more, though, and you get yourself in that fcs dynasty mount Rushmore conversation, up there with App, Georgia southern, gronowski SDSU, etc.

Yup, I would say winning back to back while going to 3 straight puts you at least in the conversation.

[Bobcatsinmso]

How much of the media bias do you think ends up just being turnover related? We have seen Alex Eschelman, Ashley Washburn, Grace Lawrence, Austin Parr, Colton Pool, and I'm sure I'm missing a few more move on to what appear to be bigger and better things, while Speltz, Rainey, Hanson, etc. appear to be missoula lifers? I'm sure having the journalism school in missoula contributes to this, but it seems like the folks that cover the Bobcats for the major outlets get opportunities fairly quickly.

Could be a lot. I haven’t looked at it that way. I just know my ears perk up when I hear this stuff. MSU has been putting a good product on the field since 1938, yet it seems like the media thinks the last 5-8 years has been it.

Just want to say thank you Tom Stuber, for sticking around all these years. You put out a great product for MSU.

[Joe Bobcat]

How much of the media bias do you think ends up just being turnover related? We have seen Alex Eschelman, Ashley Washburn, Grace Lawrence, Austin Parr, Colton Pool, and I'm sure I'm missing a few more move on to what appear to be bigger and better things, while Speltz, Rainey, Hanson, etc. appear to be missoula lifers? I'm sure having the journalism school in missoula contributes to this, but it seems like the folks that cover the Bobcats for the major outlets get opportunities fairly quickly.

Could be a lot. I haven’t looked at it that way. I just know my ears perk up when I hear this stuff. MSU has been putting a good product on the field since 1938, yet it seems like the media thinks the last 5-8 years has been it.

Just want to say thank you Tom Stuber, for sticking around all these years. You put out a great product for MSU.

Whoa, wait, are you saying Tom has been around since 1938? If so he's doing pretty good for his age.

[Bobcatsinmso]

How much of the media bias do you think ends up just being turnover related? We have seen Alex Eschelman, Ashley Washburn, Grace Lawrence, Austin Parr, Colton Pool, and I'm sure I'm missing a few more move on to what appear to be bigger and better things, while Speltz, Rainey, Hanson, etc. appear to be missoula lifers? I'm sure having the journalism school in missoula contributes to this, but it seems like the folks that cover the Bobcats for the major outlets get opportunities fairly quickly.

Could be a lot. I haven’t looked at it that way. I just know my ears perk up when I hear this stuff. MSU has been putting a good product on the field since 1938, yet it seems like the media thinks the last 5-8 years has been it.

Just want to say thank you Tom Stuber, for sticking around all these years. You put out a great product for MSU.

Whoa, wait, are you saying Tom has been around since 1938? If so he's doing pretty good for his age.

Well he is no spring chicken

[TomCat88]

How much of the media bias do you think ends up just being turnover related? We have seen Alex Eschelman, Ashley Washburn, Grace Lawrence, Austin Parr, Colton Pool, and I'm sure I'm missing a few more move on to what appear to be bigger and better things, while Speltz, Rainey, Hanson, etc. appear to be missoula lifers? I'm sure having the journalism school in missoula contributes to this, but it seems like the folks that cover the Bobcats for the major outlets get opportunities fairly quickly.

Could be a lot. I haven’t looked at it that way. I just know my ears perk up when I hear this stuff. MSU has been putting a good product on the field since 1938, yet it seems like the media thinks the last 5-8 years has been it.

Just want to say thank you Tom Stuber, for sticking around all these years. You put out a great product for MSU.

Whoa, wait, are you saying Tom has been around since 1938? If so he's doing pretty good for his age.

Well he is no spring chicken

Hey, I’m only one year older than the BSC.

[catatac]

How much of the media bias do you think ends up just being turnover related? We have seen Alex Eschelman, Ashley Washburn, Grace Lawrence, Austin Parr, Colton Pool, and I'm sure I'm missing a few more move on to what appear to be bigger and better things, while Speltz, Rainey, Hanson, etc. appear to be missoula lifers? I'm sure having the journalism school in missoula contributes to this, but it seems like the folks that cover the Bobcats for the major outlets get opportunities fairly quickly.

Good points. I think this lines up with the overall difference between the two institutions. MSU is just better all around. More progressive, forward thinking, fresh faces and new ideas, etc. Basically just all around better in almost all areas. UM is just stale.

[iaafan]

The media has always been dominated by UM grads. They lean UM anywhere outside of Bozeman.

Put it to you this way: imagine if UM had just won the nashy and the coverage they would have gotten. It would still be all over the news and podcasts would be thick with interviews of players, coaches, former players on a daily basis.

[RootinfortheCats]

And how many of them are so confident the griz beat Illinois state.

LOL.

The Redbirds would have stomped the Griz. The matchups favored the Redbirds across the board.

[TomCat88]

Good:
Lamson pass to Taco
McMillan blocks FG
Parsons blocks XP
Steel TD
Taco TD run
Brott overall play
Taylor overall play

Bad:
No review of Lord catch on first ISU drive of second half.
No review of spot on first drive of the second half.
PI in end zone on first drive of the second half.
Snap on last possession of regulation.
False starts.

[technoCat]

There was a 3rd and 9 from around the 20, right before ISU scored their second touchdown I believe, where the right tackle literally yanked our guy forward and onto the turf. Pretty sure that isn't legal. Seems like they got a lot of help to get those first couple of tds on the board.

[TomCat88]

There was a 3rd and 9 from around the 20, right before ISU scored their second touchdown I believe, where the right tackle literally yanked our guy forward and onto the turf. Pretty sure that isn't legal. Seems like they got a lot of help to get those first couple of tds on the board.

Wow, thanks for pointing that out.
The same official had the bad(?) spot, missed the juggled(?) catch and called the false start in overtime.

On that drive there were two plays that seem like they should’ve been reviewed, one missed hold and a touchdown scored on a fumble after six plays from the 5.

[Joe Bobcat]

You know on Monday 3 weeks ago in Nashville the game time temperature was 50 degrees plus or minus a few degrees.
On this Monday the high in Nashville is expected to be 19 degrees.
50 is a nicer temp to watch a football game than 19 is.
I haven't seen what the ice conditions are, but it wouldn't be too surprising if they are really bad.

[nanacat]

You know on Monday 3 weeks ago in Nashville the game time temperature was 50 degrees plus or minus a few degrees.
On this Monday the high in Nashville is expected to be 19 degrees.
50 is a nicer temp to watch a football game than 19 is.
I haven't seen what the ice conditions are, but it wouldn't be too surprising if they are really bad.

I've heard alot of flights have been canceled, though I'm not sure about Nashville specifically, but they've had power outages too. 3 weeks ago was perfect!

[91catAlum]

More natty talk! Thank you Colter and Sammy!

[TomCat88]

More natty talk! Thank you Colter and Sammy!

Good episode. The only bone I have to pick is the fourth and 1 discussion. I think it’s important to note that the timing wasn’t thrown off by the snap or hold and the kick wasn’t low. It was just a great play by McMillan. He had a great get-off and blocked it with his shoulder. Had he blocked it with his hand, you could maybe say that the snap/hold played a role. The kicker being inexperienced had nothing to do with the block. The xp is a different story. The snap/hold played a big role.

I think someone really needs to scour through the ISU TD drive to make it 21-14. It was a mysterious chain of events.

Also, there is no better way to win a championship game than have it be a complete nail biter. I thought msu should have won comfortably but that just wasn’t in the cards.