Bison06

I have actually done the opposite of defending a 5 loss team being in the playoffs. I've said a couple of times they should not have been included based on their 5 losses. What I did say is the play of ISU yesterday cannot be used as justification for showing they didn't belong. If they had won that game and gone on to win the championship somehow, I still would have argued they didn't deserve to be in. The committee included them, they had a decent showing yesterday. That's it.

It's the internet, you're allowed to be biased and I'm allowed to comment on said bias. As I've said countless times, this is an open Internet forum, meaning the site owner has deemed all opinions welcome, as long as they follow the forum rules. Like it or not this is not a UND only site.

Quick, somebody bring up the nickel trophy or the all time series record, so we can get back to disliking each other already.

You guys are gonna make me blush...stop it now.

So back to regularly scheduled playoff talk. What's the word on UND's injury situation coming into the Richmond game? Everyone who was banged up expected to be at or near 100%?

It's the playoffs man!!! I know this will come off all wrong, but with all of NDSU's recent success and with all of the normal responsibilities of life on my plate, I've unfortunately been semi checked out during the regular season the last few years. Once playoffs roll around, I usually catch up on the national landscape in FCS football. Given the lack of media coverage of FCS football, message boards are the fastest way to learn about the teams in the playoffs. So...started reading AGS again, have been to a few other teams' boards as well. It's all it good fun, don't take it personally, take it as a compliment. I wouldn't be here if UND wasn't still in the tournament.

Are you implying that Central Arkansas isn't a good team? They finished the year 9-2 were being considered for a top 8 seed and their only two losses were to teams that were in the playoffs. You can only beat the teams that are on your schedule, UND fans should be well aware of that fact.

Same time as weber smart a@@

You said a loss is a loss. It's simply not a true statement.

I'm not sure why that line keeps getting parroted here. All losses are not created equal. Do you really think that today's double overtime Michigan loss to Ohio state is viewed the same way as a blowout loss in regulation to a conference bottom feeder like Illinois? Who you lose to and how you play in that game matters, not sure why some in here find this concept so difficult to understand.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but if after watching the game today you think ISU didn't look like they belonged based on their play, we weren't watching the same game. Game could have easily gone the other way. All that being said, I'm not sure why the committee decided to put a 5 loss team in ahead of some of the others.

I'm actually surprised this doesn't happen more often in the right situation. If he is a freshman QB on an 8 QB roster, chances are he probably isn't going to be the guy next year. So he would have wasted a year of eligibility riding the pine anyway. Pull the shirt this year, redshirt him next year during the year he would have wasted as a 3rd or 4th stringer and bring him back the following year with 3 years of eligibility left.

Can't separate something out of their resume like that and say it's the only variable. Without that win they are 7-4. the only way to say what you are trying to say would have them winning a different game and then losing the NDSU game to still end up 8-3 but without the NDSU win.

Ok...

Was JMU ever listed above SHSU? Honestly don't know.

So what are we disagreeing about then. I've said UND and SDSU had similar resumes. Ultimately, I think UND deserves the 7, but that SDSU win over NDSU in Fargo is definitely an x-factor when looking at their resume. It's likely it was cause for discussion for the committee when it came to seeding 7 and 8. That's all I've said.

If you can tell me that coming into this morning, you felt it was absolutely 100% clear cut to the committee that SDSU had a non comparable resume to UND then I'll be quiet.

Try the committee's style. Check the bracket and tell me how many teams that have more losses are seeded below teams with less losses. Heck the only undefeated team in the bracket is seeded 5th. Im not coming here to disrespect UND, UND had a heck of a season and is seeded where they earned. Just discussing the seeds. No need to get chippy.

I'm not giving you my opinion. Look at the bracket and tell me you disagree with me.

If it wasn't close, why was everybody here sweating it out. If you pinned down the committee members, which we'all never know, my guess is they had a difficult time deciding on the 7 and 8 seeds. Ultimately I believe they got it right, but I don't believe it was an easy decision for the committee.

The only thing? Not sure I agree with you there? SDSU had a solid season. Nothing groundbreaking, but a solid year.

Yes, but 9-2 vs 8-3 is a toss up in the committee's mind. They routinely seed teams higher with worse records. It's usually about who the wins and losses were against.

Not saying I disagree about NDSU's run ending, but Easton Stick will not be the reason. A team lead by Easton Stick would have won the championship last year, so your comment is inaccurate.

It certainly isn't clear cut, but a win against NDSU is easily better than any win UND has on their resume. No disrespect, just calling it like I see it. For the record, seeding UND and SDSU is a toss up IMO for the 7 and 8 seeds. Pretty similar resumes. Common opponent Cal Poly likely gave UND the slight edge.

Gotcha, was following on my phone and was difficult to tell for sure. 5 minutes vs 2 definitely makes it more of a choice. Sorry about that.