Da Bears

[RavenousUte]

3 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Agree on the first sentence but your second one is technically wrong. Most FCS teams have very close to the same amount of scholarship players as FBS teams, however the amount of the scholarship varies. The difference is a lot of FCS kids aren't on full rides, whereas every FBS kid is. 

I only mention it because I don't think people know the difference (though I'm positive you do). If an FCS program gave it's scholarships out evenly (in reality they don't), every scholarship player would have right around a 75% ride. This is obviously a difference when compared to FBS, and those players who are getting FBS looks likely get well over the 75%, but magically adding 22 new scholarship players when comparing the two is definitely a huge overstatement on the differences.

I thought it was a rule FCS can only have 63 football scholarships where FBS gets 85.  I didn't know about the partial scholarships.  Pac-12 instituted a conference rule where all their sports get full rides but not sure it's FBS wide.

[Midwestern Hawk]

11 minutes ago, RavenousUte said:

I thought it was a rule FCS can only have 63 football scholarships where FBS gets 85.  I didn't know about the partial scholarships.  Pac-12 instituted a conference rule where all their sports get full rides but not sure it's FBS wide.

All FBS football scholarships are full.

[UNDBIZ]

11 minutes ago, RavenousUte said:

I thought it was a rule FCS can only have 63 football scholarships where FBS gets 85.  I didn't know about the partial scholarships.  Pac-12 instituted a conference rule where all their sports get full rides but not sure it's FBS wide.

In FCS, because we have partial scholarships, we can spread those 63 "scholarships" across more than 63 players.

[Bison06]

3 hours ago, jdub27 said:

Agree on the first sentence but your second one is technically wrong. Most FCS teams have very close to the same amount of scholarship players as FBS teams, however the amount of the scholarship varies. The difference is a lot of FCS kids aren't on full rides, whereas every FBS kid is. 

I only mention it because I don't think people know the difference (though I'm positive you do). If an FCS program gave it's scholarships out evenly (in reality they don't), every scholarship player would have right around a 75% ride. This is obviously a difference when compared to FBS, and those players who are getting FBS looks likely get well over the 75%, but magically adding 22 new scholarship players when comparing the two is definitely a huge overstatement on the differences.

Thanks for the clarification. So can each subdivision still only have a total of 85 student athletes on scholarship? 

[UND08]

5 hours ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

FYP, I really don't feel Bizon will be better this year than they were last year or few years prior.

No offense but I couldn't care less what NDSU does or doesn't do this year...unless we meet in the playoffs it has very little bearing on our season.  Not sure why we feel the need to feed the trolls on here all the time.

As far as Missouri State...they've got a coach that has been around the block and had a decent amount of success at Mizzou.  NDSU fans like to proclaim MSU as the "joke of the MVFC"...but it's much too early to tell if that'll continue this year.  They went from 1 win to 4 wins and are probably looking to continue that trend in Steckel's 3rd season.  I think we've got a great opportunity to win this game...but their offense makes me nervous.  Hopefully we can put up 275+ yards on the ground and keep them off the field...time of possession is going to be critical for us in this game!

[77iceman]

Anywho...back to Da Bears.

i'm pretty confident in this weekend's matchup.  UND should have a great showing by offense and defense at this game.  

[jdub27]

1 hour ago, Bison06 said:

Thanks for the clarification. So can each subdivision still only have a total of 85 student athletes on scholarship? 

Correct. In the FCS you can spread 63 scholarships across 85 players (equivalency, the scholarships added up can't exceed 63). In FBS, you can have 85 players on scholarship and they all count for a full whether they are or not (head count, anyone who gets any sort of scholarship counts toward the 85). Outside of disciplinary reasons, I'm not sure I've ever seen less than a full ride being given out.

[Bison06]

2 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Correct. In the FCS you can spread 63 scholarships across 85 players (equivalency, the scholarships added up can't exceed 63). In FBS, you can have 85 players on scholarship and they all count for a full whether they are or not (head count, anyone who gets any sort of scholarship counts toward the 85). Outside of disciplinary reasons, I'm not sure I've ever seen less than a full ride being given out.

What about grey shirts, how does that fit into he equation? Is there a limit on how many of them you can have on your roster? I feel like Alabama really takes advantage of that situation more than other schools. Maybe that's just the perception.

[jdub27]

17 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

What about grey shirts, how does that fit into he equation? Is there a limit on how many of them you can have on your roster? I feel like Alabama really takes advantage of that situation more than other schools. Maybe that's just the perception.

Not as familiar with that as it is rarely done at the FCS level. From what I understand, a kid either takes his first semester of freshman year off or only goes part time on their own dime. They aren't allowed to have anything to do with the team at that time. They then enroll full time once the 2nd semester begins and you still get your 5 to play 4 from initial full-time enrollment.

However from what I do know about it, I wouldn't be surprised if your feeling is correct and I know there have been some controversies regarding it recently as there have been some cases where a kid has grey-shirted and then the scholarship they were promised wasn't available when the time came for them to enroll.

[JohnboyND7]

34 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

What about grey shirts, how does that fit into he equation? Is there a limit on how many of them you can have on your roster? I feel like Alabama really takes advantage of that situation more than other schools. Maybe that's just the perception.

Bama, tOSU, UM, and a few others are big on those I believe.

[Bison06]

1 hour ago, jdub27 said:

Not as familiar with that as it is rarely done at the FCS level. From what I understand, a kid either takes his first semester of freshman year off or only goes part time on their own dime. They aren't allowed to have anything to do with the team at that time. They then enroll full time once the 2nd semester begins and you still get your 5 to play 4 from initial full-time enrollment.

However from what I do know about it, I wouldn't be surprised if your feeling is correct and I know there have been some controversies regarding it recently as there have been some cases where a kid has grey-shirted and then the scholarship they were promised wasn't available when the time came for them to enroll.

 

42 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:

Bama, tOSU, UM, and a few others are big on those I believe.

They almost use it as a way to get more scholarship players on campus to hedge their bet on certain recruits to may not pan out. 

[geaux_sioux]

As far as the "Misery State is the worst team ever" rhetoric that most Missouri Fluff fans like to use, last year they were all saying they couldn't imagine them winning more than one game because of how bad they were in their new coaches first season. They improved to 4 wins last year. They will probably improve again this year. Just keep in mind how Bubba turned things around here when people try and tell you how bad da Bears will be this year. 

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

3 hours ago, Bison06 said:

I have been extremely complimentary of UND and their staff when appropriate. I've stated, as have many others, that given how last season ended for the Hawks it's fair to wonder if they were as good as their record showed. Outside of that I've been impressed with the UND football team and how quickly they've turned things around. As far as Bison negatives, since 2010 what is there to complain about or criticize? Truthfully, what would I say that would be negative about NDSU's football team? The off the field stuff that is years ago at this point, I was very critical of NDSU's players and thought the punishments handed out were appropriate in nearly every case. The only thing I can think of is a lack of breakaway talent at the reciever position. Other than that, they are one of the best coached, most disciplined football teams I have ever watched.

I think your hatred for all things NDSU is really clouding your judgement on what I am posting and for sure on how good NDSU's football team really is. In the past two day I've seen you post that NDSU was overrated last year, when it's a provable fact that they were at least one of the best four teams last year(I would argue top 2 and make a strong case). I've also seen you say NDSU is overrated this year with no real reason other than you want them to be rated lower to back up your statement. 

I'm not trolling, I'm giving my honest assessment of the situations,. Just because you disagree doesn't make me a troll. 

Whats the fun of a board like this if everyone agrees with everything, there would be no discussion. Boring if you ask me.

 

You are trolling again, I do not hate NDSU, Iowa was over ranked when you played them and then you were over ranked in the FBS poll after that game.

[Bison06]

4 minutes ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

You are trolling again, I do not hate NDSU, Iowa was over ranked when you played them and then you were over ranked in the FBS poll after that game.

I think you and I have different definitions of trolling.

[iramurphy]

I don't think our concern is how bad Mizzou played defense. The Bears pose a challenge for our defense.  We need to play a great game to contain them.   My concern is that we weren't able to effectively and consistently move the ball.  We faced a very tough FBS run defense but we also didn't pass very well. I disagree with those of you that think Keaton  had a great game. ( completion rate of 46%, one 3 yd TD, with an interception).  That doesn't mean I don't think he is capable.  In fact,  I think he is capable of much more.  He is a 4th year starter, senior, team leader and a good athlete.  I am not a fan of Rudolph and I think his failure to develop our QB's to their full potential is as big of a problem as his play calling.  Having said that, Studsrud is a senior and smart kid.  If the sideline sends in a dumbass play, he needs to  change it in the huddle or call an audible at the line of scrimmage.  It isn't like they can bench him. Years ago, our QB would always veto a stupid call from the bench.  Studsrud needs to do the same.  I doubt he made excuses for his performance last week and I doubt he felt good about it.  Keaton needs to step up his performance and his leadership.  As that improves our Oline, backs and receivers also need to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.  If our offense doesn't improve, we will struggle against most every team we play.  I would expect improvement this weekend but I felt before the season, and still feel, Keaton is the key to our success.  Rudolph seems to be a challenge but doesn't need to be a barrier.  Keaton should be running the offense.  The calls from the bench are a suggestion not a mandate.  If Keaton doesn't have the authority to change plays we have a problem.  Otherwise, audible out of running plays that have near zero chance of success like last weekend. I think if we are going to get back in the playoffs we are going to need to open things up a bit and become a bit less predictable. Go Hawks!

[AJS]

21 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

As far as the "Misery State is the worst team ever" rhetoric that most Missouri Fluff fans like to use, last year they were all saying they couldn't imagine them winning more than one game because of how bad they were in their new coaches first season. They improved to 4 wins last year. They will probably improve again this year. Just keep in mind how Bubba turned things around here when people try and tell you how bad da Bears will be this year. 

I think scoring 43 points on Missouri kind of put that to rest. I'm much more nervous about this game, then I would have been a week ago.

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

6 minutes ago, iramurphy said:

I don't think our concern is how bad Mizzou played defense. The Bears pose a challenge for our defense.  We need to play a great game to contain them.   My concern is that we weren't able to effectively and consistently move the ball.  We faced a very tough FBS run defense but we also didn't pass very well. I disagree with those of you that think Keaton  had a great game. ( completion rate of 46%, one 3 yd TD, with an interception).  That doesn't mean I don't think he is capable.  In fact,  I think he is capable of much more.  He is a 4th year starter, senior, team leader and a good athlete.  I am not a fan of Rudolph and I think his failure to develop our QB's to their full potential is as big of a problem as his play calling.  Having said that, Studsrud is a senior and smart kid.  If the sideline sends in a dumbass play, he needs to  change it in the huddle or call an audible at the line of scrimmage.  It isn't like they can bench him. Years ago, our QB would always veto a stupid call from the bench.  Studsrud needs to do the same.  I doubt he made excuses for his performance last week and I doubt he felt good about it.  Keaton needs to step up his performance and his leadership.  As that improves our Oline, backs and receivers also need to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.  If our offense doesn't improve, we will struggle against most every team we play.  I would expect improvement this weekend but I felt before the season, and still feel, Keaton is the key to our success.  Rudolph seems to be a challenge but doesn't need to be a barrier.  Keaton should be running the offense.  The calls from the bench are a suggestion not a mandate.  If Keaton doesn't have the authority to change plays we have a problem.  Otherwise, audible out of running plays that have near zero chance of success like last weekend. I think if we are going to get back in the playoffs we are going to need to open things up a bit and become a bit less predictable. Go Hawks!

Our 3 headed horse at running back is great, but we need to pass more and Keaton should be able to do it. If we ran say 55% of the time and passed 45% of the time and mixed that up real well on downs, our offense might be very good. Then our defense says rested and becomes excellent.

[geaux_sioux]

39 minutes ago, AJS said:

I think scoring 43 points on Missouri kind of put that to rest. I'm much more nervous about this game, then I would have been a week ago.

They will hold them down as terrible until they win MVFC games. That way no matter the result they can !@#$ on us.

[AJS]

15 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

They will hold them down as terrible until they win MVFC games. That way no matter the result they can !@#$ on us.

I got ya, that was a given in my book. Same old same old from other schools fans. 

[forksandspoons]

1 hour ago, iramurphy said:

I don't think our concern is how bad Mizzou played defense. The Bears pose a challenge for our defense.  We need to play a great game to contain them.   My concern is that we weren't able to effectively and consistently move the ball.  We faced a very tough FBS run defense but we also didn't pass very well. I disagree with those of you that think Keaton  had a great game. ( completion rate of 46%, one 3 yd TD, with an interception).  That doesn't mean I don't think he is capable.  In fact,  I think he is capable of much more.  He is a 4th year starter, senior, team leader and a good athlete.  I am not a fan of Rudolph and I think his failure to develop our QB's to their full potential is as big of a problem as his play calling.  Having said that, Studsrud is a senior and smart kid.  If the sideline sends in a dumbass play, he needs to  change it in the huddle or call an audible at the line of scrimmage.  It isn't like they can bench him. Years ago, our QB would always veto a stupid call from the bench.  Studsrud needs to do the same.  I doubt he made excuses for his performance last week and I doubt he felt good about it.  Keaton needs to step up his performance and his leadership.  As that improves our Oline, backs and receivers also need to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.  If our offense doesn't improve, we will struggle against most every team we play.  I would expect improvement this weekend but I felt before the season, and still feel, Keaton is the key to our success.  Rudolph seems to be a challenge but doesn't need to be a barrier.  Keaton should be running the offense.  The calls from the bench are a suggestion not a mandate.  If Keaton doesn't have the authority to change plays we have a problem.  Otherwise, audible out of running plays that have near zero chance of success like last weekend. I think if we are going to get back in the playoffs we are going to need to open things up a bit and become a bit less predictable. Go Hawks!

Well if you factor in drops he would have passed at 57 percent with no INTs. He extended some plays with his feet, was smart with the ball and was often forced into second- and third-and-long situations due to not having a run game. Yes, he could have played better, but he was the best player on UND's offense vs. Utah imo

[RavenousUte]

11 minutes ago, forksandspoons said:

Well if you factor in drops he would have passed at 57 percent with no INTs. He extended some plays with his feet, was smart with the ball and was often forced into second- and third-and-long situations due to not having a run game. Yes, he could have played better, but he was the best player on UND's offense vs. Utah imo

He extended a lot of plays with his feet... even ones that weren't necessarily successful.  I think you are looking at 5-7 sacks without his footwork.  And 46% when you don't have a real pocket to throw from is awesome.  

[geaux_sioux]

Anyone know the status of Tamas? He didn't look good after he laid that huge hit.

[UNDMOORHEAD]

18 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

Anyone know the status of Tamas? He didn't look good after he laid that huge hit.

I don't know anything about his status, but I loved that hit. I hope he's healthy and available to deliver hits like those all year long.

[iramurphy]

15 hours ago, forksandspoons said:

Well if you factor in drops he would have passed at 57 percent with no INTs. He extended some plays with his feet, was smart with the ball and was often forced into second- and third-and-long situations due to not having a run game. Yes, he could have played better, but he was the best player on UND's offense vs. Utah imo

My point is that if a great game is 46% completion and 1/1 TD/Int,  it isn't a great game.  I also agree without his athletic ability it could have been worse and if balls were caught or we had better protection his numbers would have been better, but if that is a great game,  what the hell would it take to have a bad game?  I didn't say he was bad I said it wasn't great. You  factor in drops, poor routes, poor pass protection poor running game and we still need a better game from him and others.  I didn't say he sucked, I said we need a better game and a lot of it is the confidence to change plays and ability to make his teammates better.  He is capable of all of that.  I think he is best when he is using his athletic ability and he is the guy who calls the plays in the huddle and at the line.  I trust him more than Rudolph to get the job done. Maybe some of you disagree, but I think these are an important part of his progression as a leader and we need that from our QB.  Our line is our line and our receivers are who they are.  That is what leadership is about.  He has the athletic skills and he is smart enough.  Now we need those intangibles to help make everyone around him better.  That is why I think he is the key to our success this year. Hopefully we see that this weekend. 

[UND08]

1 hour ago, iramurphy said:

My point is that if a great game is 46% completion and 1/1 TD/Int,  it isn't a great game.  I also agree without his athletic ability it could have been worse and if balls were caught or we had better protection his numbers would have been better, but if that is a great game,  what the hell would it take to have a bad game?  I didn't say he was bad I said it wasn't great. You  factor in drops, poor routes, poor pass protection poor running game and we still need a better game from him and others.  I didn't say he sucked, I said we need a better game and a lot of it is the confidence to change plays and ability to make his teammates better.  He is capable of all of that.  I think he is best when he is using his athletic ability and he is the guy who calls the plays in the huddle and at the line.  I trust him more than Rudolph to get the job done. Maybe some of you disagree, but I think these are an important part of his progression as a leader and we need that from our QB.  Our line is our line and our receivers are who they are.  That is what leadership is about.  He has the athletic skills and he is smart enough.  Now we need those intangibles to help make everyone around him better.  That is why I think he is the key to our success this year. Hopefully we see that this weekend. 

I was at the game...and I saw a few things from Studsrud that I did not see last year.  I saw at least a couple of occasions where he looked off his first read and hit a wide receiver in the middle.  Keaton caught a lot of flack for staring down receivers last year, but I think a lot of that is on the protection.  It takes time to make reads with the ball in your hand...and if you have no time you aren't going to be able to find your second/third option.  Keaton did a good job of using his legs to buy time...even when it resulted in an incompletion.  His one interception hit the tight end right in the hands...that's a tough break.  I did see a couple of plays where I thought he could have went to a different receiver, but when your first read requires a 10 yard throw and the second requires a 40 yard ball...all while a defensive lineman is bearing down on you...well sometimes those plays are only capable in Madden.  What was also readily apparent was that Utah defense was significantly superior to UND physically.  I may be in the minority here...but to me there's no shame in that!  Their talent level is on another planet from ours...they had 8 players drafted last year.  I'm going to reserve judgment of our offense until Sunday, when we've played a team on our level.

Now all of that is not to say that I don't have criticisms of our play calling...I said it last year and I'll say it again I'd like to see more Oliviera between the tackles and less Santiago...and more of them both on the field at the same time to keep defenses honest.  I'm going to be optimistic and assume we didn't want to put some of that on tape...hopefully it comes out and we are able to physically wear down MSU on Saturday.