iramurphy

Last time we played them in Fargo we got our ass kicked. That gave us 4 losses and we didn't get into the playoffs. We are much better now but with all due respect if Bubba wants to play them in Fargo I disagree. Given a choice, I would rather play anyone at home, or a neutral site no matter who the opponent is. We all need to maintain a respect for them and their success but beyond that we need to move on and build our program. I sure as hell don't agree with playing them only in Fargo. Bubba and I disagree on that point also. Bubba is doing a great job and I stated when Faison asked alumni about agreeing to playing them twice in Fargo with no return games in GF, only if Bubba felt it was best for the program. Bubba, the staff and our players have brought the program to the level that we do things to increase our chance at Conference and National Championship regardless of what the Bison do. I'd like to play them every year but only with home and home series. If they aren't going to agree to that then let's play them in Frisco.

I don't understand why anyone wants to play NDSU in Fargo. Why give them the home field edge? If we are good enough, and they are good enough we play them in Frisco and the next time to think about them would be after the final whistle of the semi-final game if we can get there. Otherwise we are irrelevant to each other until that time.

Only if they win their first round game. Anything can happen in the playoffs. Doesn't matter who we play from here on in. You have to beat the best to be the best.

In 1972 Cal Poly wasn't #1. Delaware was. During the regular season, We played poorly and got beat by the AC at home. Our All American RB got hurt and didn't play in the second half. We were ranked #3 when we lost that game, our only loss of the year. Delaware refused to come west to play us in the Camelia Bowl. They won a different bowl game and retained their #1 ranking. (we didn't get screwed by the pollsters, we "screwed the pooch" against the AC). Other games worth mentioning was the 33-6 loss to Army. Army finished 9-1-1 and UND finished 9-1 that year. Red Jarrett was an All-American. (I did not see that game). Jack West tried to schedule best competition he could. 1971 AC game in Fargo. They were undefeated in 30 some straight games, ranked #1. The fatal tragic fire at SAE house was night before game which was played in the rain. We held them to something like minus 76 yds rushing and minus 11 total yds. Their only score was a pick 6. We knocked 2 QB's out of game. Their QB May was sacked 15 times. 1975 game against AC in Fargo. They were up 17-6 and Sioux ran off 28 straight points to win 34-6. Kasowski's 62!yd TD run resulted in Bison DB Krebsbach laid out with ruptured liver after devastating block by WR John Kuklenski and bloodied Bison DB Chuck Rodgers who was bulldozed by Kasowski at about the 5 yd lline.

Sorry, you are correct

Montana and Montana State would decline the offer because it is a FB only conference and travel would not be advantageous. I also believe they both would consider that a backwards step.

I didn't say NH or WI should have gotten in ahead of us. I said we weren't good enough to whine when we didn't get it. Those schools shouldn't have whined had we been selected either. We were a bubble team. NDSU has nothing to do with my opinion. I don't have an inherent hate of them. I just don't believe we need to do whatever they do. I prefer the Big Sky and I believe we have the resources to maintain our membership. I'm as likely to attend games in Arizona, Montana, Colorado and California as I am to go to Illinios, Ohio, Indiana etc. I also prefer one conference rather than two.

I haven't seen evidence that the conference or either of the Montana schools have belittled UND. What their fans say on blogs is irrelevant. NDSU has treated us disrespectfully more than the Montana schools. I haven't seen evidence of anti-UND bias. We have been a good addition and competitive in FB, MBB,WBB and VB. We are one of the new FB teams and lower budget schools aren't excited about the travel. The issue of last years play-off snub is sour grapes. Don't lose 4 games and don't lose to crappy teams. If we need the league to get us a playoff spot we aren't that good and last year we weren't good enough to whine when we didn't get in, I like the Big Sky and the schools in it. The travel costs reviewed in Sunday Forum didn't look to be such an advantage after all.

I prefer the Big Sky because as an athlete I would rather play in Arizona, California, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Portland and Montana. Recruiting is the key to success and as soon as we were accepted into the Big Sky our coaches commented on how that was helping recruiting. Has that changed? I also don't like the idea of joining the Big Sky and just as we start to establish our identity, we crap on them and move to the MVC. If the Bison weren't in the MVC I doubt we would be discussing a move there. I would not count on them staying FCS. Money talks and Fargo is growing fast. We need to develop our own business plan and strategy. We dicked around with the Fighting Sioux name for so long we still are losing thousands and maybe over $1million due to not launching our new brand.

No, playing them would have had negative playoff implications back then. We would have been penalized for playing regardless of the outcome. There were no good excuses not to play them in other sports.

Obviously coaches make the decision and you may be right! They could very well start Heidelbaugh. The questioned was posed for bloggers to opine. Doesn't mean we don't trust coaches. They are the ones at practice everyday and they are doing a good job. If they never made mistakes we would not have lost to a crappy Bowling Green team and maybe not to SB. Right now I don't trust our special teams play. We can't cover a kick off, or return a punt. We finally returned a kickoff. Our punting and place kicking has been inconsistent. We need to improve or we will get beat in a close game like we did at Stony. No excuse for continued poor special teams play.

I will take these receivers everytime. Give me same talent with 4.3 or 4.4 speed, I agree that's better, but these guys who have caught passes all year even when they weren't great throws are money. They also block well. I don't care if we can't run the reverse or sweep with them, they are usually open on the break which is when the ball should be there. We have three very good RB's we shouldn't have to rely on our receivers very often to run the ball.

You go with the senior Bartles. He has played when we didn't protect QB's or have a running game. He hasn't played with a line that protects him and a running game. They need to move Mollberg back to QB until Studsrud is healthy. He is a good enough athlete and smart enough he will be ready to play if needed. Hanson also could move back to QB. We need to be able to throw the ball and Bartles can do that. We need to win next game no matter who is at quarterback. Need to have 3 QB's ready. I would play Mollberg cuz he can make all of the throws but he hasn't practiced at QB and Bartles has so I would go,with Bartles. I wouldn't watch either Bartles or Heidelbaugh struggle for very long. They would both be on a short leash.

Cheap shot. I have never respected people who hide behind blogs and cheap shot people who are in the mix. Hakstol was and is a great coach. I tend to give more credence to the players who played for him than fans on a blog. The ones I talked to thought fans who didn't think he was a great coach were clueless. He earned the job here and he earned the job in Philly. He put his team in a position to win it all year after year. Time will tell in Philly. You don't make crap remarks about someone's family especially when you don't know what you are talking about. Gutless, no class post.

I'll take that bet. Jack and Joel are media guys. The toughest game on the schedule is the one we are playing each week. I bet the media wouldn't have picked SDak. As your toughest game last year. Style points? Wins in the MVC and Big Sky are still wins against teams in good conferences .

Good point but I guess I'm still more focused on winning the game we are playing. That is the best way to influence the polls.

Winning is more important. If we win the polls will catch up. Big Sky team at 8-3 won't be left out.

No I don't. I don't think they were very good but I didn't think we were that good either. We were decent. I thought we were going to get in. If we are on the bubble, then we have to depend on someone else to get us in. We didn't get in, cuz we lost a couple of games we could have won. This year we are playing through adversity with the injuries and are playing well right now. We lost a game at Stony Brook with a poor start offensively and a punt block. We lost at Bowling Green with a poor start offensively and a missed 2 pt conversion. Similar play for TD against CP with better thrown ball and better technique and catch by receiver would have been helpful at BG for the win. If we don't get in this year it will be those 2 games that will haunt us. Guys are playing hard. Studsrud played his best game of career against CP and followed with very good game against Sac St. O line dominated Sac St and we are loaded at RB if we can stay healthy. We have very good possession receivers and they are good athletes. Defense remains of ur strength. If we continue to improve each week, minimize penalties and get healthy we will be in and we I think we can take a run at a title. I don't care what happened last year cuz it doesn't matter anymore. Go Hawks!

I do. The polls are important at the end of the season. Not so much right now. If we keep winning we will keep moving up. I worry more about beating SUU than where we are in the polls right now. We have a tough game each weekend but they are all games we are capable of winning. We do that we will find ourselves top 10 probably top 5.

We weren't good enough last year. Too inconsistent. Let's take care of the things we can control and then we won't need to blame some committee that didn't pick us when we were a "bubble" team. Would have been great if we were in and we were as deserving as the last couple teams in but the fact is we didn't get it done. This year we will. We are better.

Of course I have learned from the experts on our blog that my judgement of players is biased cuz of where they are from, but the receiver from Detroit Lakes that we couldn't get UND to recruit, had 7 catches for 127 yds and a TD today in Vikes win over Houston. Also made key blocks in running game.

He also has UND ahead of Stony Brook. Who cares? Doesn't matter yet. We just need to win the game we are playing and the polls will take care of themselves.

Studsrud is the only option cuz Heidlebaugh isn't ready and they aren't going to play Bartles.

Nothing backhanded about my statement. I said I wasn't defending Mussman. I think we need to quit kicking a dead horse and move on. I doubt Bubba is blaming Mussman for any problems we have this year. I didn't say Studsrud was bad, he has been inconsistent. Our QB play has hurt us this year. I think he is better when we utilize his strengths. He wasn't bad, he wasn't good. He was OK. He will need to be better if we are going to be a good team. "Didn't play badly" doesn't cut it. He needs to be a difference maker. He was very good in the last drive against USD last week but before that he missed some open guys and most of his passes were off a bit. He also was very slow getting the ball to open receivers. He has shown he is capable but if he is a captain and our QB that needs to be good every game. That is why people on this blog have been critical. People expect him to be a leader. Time to step it up and play like he is capable of.

I thought everything was Mussman's fault. Not defending Mussman but someone complained the oline was his fault cuz he couldn't recruit linemen. (The all conf guys you mentioned from last year must have all transferred in when the new staff got here). I would disagree we don't have time to throw. Most of the time we have. That wasn't the case a couple of years ago. We have made some progress there. We have a better and deeper corps at running back. Our receivers are fine. They aren't 4.3 guys but get them the ball, they are athletic enough to be effective receivers. Last week they made a number of great catches on balls thrown that were a little off. The offensive schemes are game planned by the staff. The personnel sometimes limits what we do and sometimes the opponents personnel allow us opportunities. Look what Belicheck did with an inexperienced third team rookie QB. We could be 0-4 and should 4-0. I agree we need to utilize all personnel including the tight ends and at least utilize Studsrud's athletic abilities to roll out and to have some run pass option opportunities. He has done better if we can create some plays to allow him success early and get on a roll. Otherwise he has been too inconsistent. Doubt he feels any pressure cuz they aren't going to use Bartles and the freshman isn't ready. Biggest disappointment thus far has been the lack of discipline, inconsistency at QB, and our inability to dominate the line of scrimmage offensively. I don't think we have a leader on the offensive side of the ball right now. We have opportunities with 2 very good RB's and a QB that is athletic enough to run and run pass option. It will be interesting to see if that might be the answer.