Bison06

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.

FG gets them nothing. Would still need a touchdown to win. With only 2 minutes left they had no other option.

That's definitely a point that is worth discussing. Teams do change a lot as the season progresses. To be able to measure something as nebulous as that seems like the type of thing that would be impossible to be objective about. When USD beat NDSU last year, did they really beat the best team in the country? Based on how NDSU played that day I would say no, but how much of that was due to USD making them look bad? So hard to say. So, what you're saying absolutely has merit, just have no idea how you would objectively use that information in your assessment of wins and losses.

They definitely haven't been their usual dominating force lately, hope they can turn it around. A strong Montana is good for FCS football.

Not sure a couple of down years is enough to call a program like Montana a has been.

This year you can say that, on most other years you would have to add ISU and UNI to that list.

The standing logic on ranked wins or losses could be fixed entirely IMO by not ranking teams at all until midsession. eg. (hypothetical) UND is unranked in week 3 of the season. They are 2-1 with a loss to Fresno state and wins against drake and Furman. UND has looked good in both wins and lost a tough game to Fresno 35-17, but the game was closer than that. Due to their record the previous season being 3-8, they were unranked in the preseason polls and continue to be unranked heading into a matchup with #13 ranked EWU. Now EWU has sort of the opposite scenario going. They are 1-1, had the bye week in week three. They lost a blowout game to Boise state and beat DII central Washington 87-12. They started the year ranked #8 following a deep playoff run the previous year. They lost 11 starters off that team, but the pollsters know EWU's pedigree and assume they will re-load their talent. UND beats the then ranked #13 eagles handily. UND goes on to an 8-3 season and EWU goes on to a 7-4 season and ends the season unranked, due to a late season loss to the Idaho state, who only had 2 wins all year. Due to preseason rankings, UND has a really nice win on their resume and EWU has a loss to an unranked team. Which dropped them from #13 to #24 and they fought the rest of the season to stay ranked. Due to preseason polls, which let's be honest are absolute BS. Pull names out of a hat, look at how many seniors they lost...made up with no logic IMO. Due to preseason polls, the entire world had a skewed view of what happened that day in September when UND beat EWU. UND didn't get a quality win, but their ranking the rest of the season was positively effected as if they did. EWU didn't have a bad loss, but their ranking the rest of the year showed they did. All these problems would go away if they waited a few weeks to rank the teams. Side note, people seem more willing to see how a team ends up when speaking about a loss then they do when speaking about a win. In my example above, UND fans would be happy to claim they have a win against #13 on their resume, but EWU fans would wait and see where UND ended the season ranked to decide if it was a good or bad loss.

Does it exclude Montana from being considered a powerhouse since a DII NDSU beat them in '03?

Not sure who's posts you're attributing to me, but that certainly doesn't describe my posts. You've yet to fully answer or show that even sort of comprehend why I posted the link. Whether you're feigning ignorance or are truly this dense is a mystery to me, so I'll just let you be. Enjoy the weekend. Good luck against the coyotes.

Brent qvale, Conor McGovern, Ryan smith, James johannesson. I cheer for all North Dakota born athletes.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult or why you are resorting to personal comments on my knowledge that I'm of course not Carson wentz. All I'm asking is that you define what success means for a rookie QB in the NFL so we can all have a discussion about whether or not he is having a good year without personal bias playing a role.

Not defensive. What's wrong with stating ahead of time what sort of season statistically would be impressive?

Afraid to answer the question because you like to be able to wait to see how he performs and then decide that "impressive" is just on the other side of your criteria? Sparky? I remember first grade too, good for you for coming up with such a high brow rebuttal.