2022 Football Season

[Goose15]

11 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

Gotta think the offense will be better at every spot with the exception of RB. Need to hit a transfer there again to compliment what we currently have.

D can’t possibly be worse right? It’s gonna be transfer city on d. Better simplify things so the transfers can actually play game 1 and be comfortable.

This year our toughest games were kind of spread out. Next year we have a five game stretch of Boise, SDSU, WIU, NDSU, UNI. That’s tough. Add in USD on the road and our schedule is tougher next year in my eyes. I’m comfortable predicting 6 wins. Those 5 other games will be a test and a half.  Gotta see some splashes in the portal to feel confident about next year at all.

Don't completely disagree with RB next year, but do have confidence in Ziebarth from the small sample size we have seen.  A transfer is still needed for some depth as well as hopefully a couple of RB's in this years recruiting class.  For the high school guys would like to see a guy who is in an Isaiah Smith mold and another scat back like Mitchell and Skokna. 

[petey23]

2 hours ago, Dustin said:

How much of our defensive problems can be attributed to missing the first tackle?

Quite a few. I quit counting missed tackles at about 15 and Weber had only run 9-10 plays

[UND08]

8 minutes ago, Goose15 said:

Don't completely disagree with RB next year, but do have confidence in Ziebarth from the small sample size we have seen.  A transfer is still needed for some depth as well as hopefully a couple of RB's in this years recruiting class.  For the high school guys would like to see a guy who is in an Isaiah Smith mold and another scat back like Mitchell and Skokna. 

If we aren't going to give Ziebarth a chance to be the guy, then I expect to see his name in the portal.  I get where Hoos came in and stole the job, but I've always been impressed when Ziebarth has gotten his shot.  I hope to see him be RB1 next year, with a portal addition for depth and Smith/Wilson in 3rd down/scat back roles.

[Dustin]

30 minutes ago, Goose15 said:

Mitchell and Skokna

Did Mitchell ever end up playing this season?  I know Skokna was out there a few times, but not I don't remember him touching the ball much.  Would be awesome to have these guys at full health for next year.  

[Goose15]

Just now, Dustin said:

Did Mitchell ever end up playing this season?  I know Skokna was out there a few times, but not I don't remember him touching the ball much.  Would be awesome to have these guys at full health for next year.  

I believe he had one carry late in the Indiana State game. 

[Dustin]

7 minutes ago, Goose15 said:

I believe he had one carry late in the Indiana State game. 

Mitchell or Skokna?  I think I saw Skokna fair catch a couple of either kick-offs or punts, too.

[AJS]

12 minutes ago, Dustin said:

Mitchell or Skokna?  I think I saw Skokna fair catch a couple of either kick-offs or punts, too.

Both played in the ISU-Blue game.

[UND-FB-FAN]

2 hours ago, MNHawk said:

Let’s set some expectations for next year so no one can say we are moving goalposts throughout 2023. What would Bubba have to do in 2023 in order for you to be happy to keep him for 2024?

Make the playoffs? Top 8 seed? Quarterfinal appearance? 

I would need to see a quarterfinal appearance or a second round appearance+a win over NDSU in order to feel like we are moving the program forward and be happy keeping Bubba for 24. 

Well, improvement would be 8 regular season wins and/or a playoff victory.
 

7-4 and/or a first round playoff exit would be the status quo. 
 

The thing is, if Bubba does his job, the improvement expectation is not unrealistic. Bubba and his staff (and his players) need to do their job. Like Bubba said in his press conference yesterday, it is his responsibility.

[Hammersmith]

4 hours ago, jdub27 said:

 

Wouldn't be shocked if Montana's was quite a bit higher than UND's, possibly even double.

Attendance was 13,390. Tickets were $35 each (student tickets were only $5). Assume they sold 12,500 at $35, that's $437,500. Take out $150,000 for expenses (guessing at this point) and they could bid just under $300,000 with no sweat. They have the ability to put out a big number and make sure they are hosting. Obviously that continues to carry weight with the committee....

We have to remember that there are effectively two halves to a playoff bid. The first half is projected revenue, the second half is the guarantee. They are not the same number. And the NCAA takes the greater of the two when all is said and done after the game. So here's a scenario...

 

School A projects that they will generate approximately $200k for the NCAA based on stadium capacity, ticket prices, and historic playoff attendance figures. But they are only willing to guarantee $50k.

School B only projects $50k in revenue, but they really want the game so they guarantee $100k.

 

Which school does the NCAA pick? If they pick School A, they are guaranteed an extra $50k. But if they pick School A, they very likely will actually bring in $100k more than School B once all is said and done. This is why one of the selection guidelines says something like 'revenue potential' or something like that.

 

I guess I'm saying that if NDSU(or Montana) bid a $100k guarantee and UND bid a $125k guarantee, that doesn't necessarily mean that UND would win the bid. I believe each NDSU playoff game typically brings in $300k or more for the NCAA. That would be reflected in the top part of the bid. The guarantee wouldn't really matter unless the opposing school had something silly like a $500k guarantee.

 

Note that I don't believe this applied to the Weber game. I think you guys got screwed on that one. I really don't like that precedent got stomped on that way, and your game was the only one it was done to. If the bids(including the top halves) had been close, I could see it. But there's no way Weber could accurately show $100k revenue potential considering their average attendance, that it was a Thanksgiving game(typically 40-60% average attendance), and that it was winter in northern Utah.

[tnt]

8 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

We have to remember that there are effectively two halves to a playoff bid. The first half is projected revenue, the second half is the guarantee. They are not the same number. And the NCAA takes the greater of the two when all is said and done after the game. So here's a scenario...

 

School A projects that they will generate approximately $200k for the NCAA based on stadium capacity, ticket prices, and historic playoff attendance figures. But they are only willing to guarantee $50k.

School B only projects $50k in revenue, but they really want the game so they guarantee $100k.

 

Which school does the NCAA pick? If they pick School A, they are guaranteed an extra $50k. But if they pick School A, they very likely will actually bring in $100k more than School B once all is said and done. This is why one of the selection guidelines says something like 'revenue potential' or something like that.

 

I guess I'm saying that if NDSU(or Montana) bid a $100k guarantee and UND bid a $125k guarantee, that doesn't necessarily mean that UND would win the bid. I believe each NDSU playoff game typically brings in $300k or more for the NCAA. That would be reflected in the top part of the bid. The guarantee wouldn't really matter unless the opposing school had something silly like a $500k guarantee.

 

Note that I don't believe this applied to the Weber game. I think you guys got screwed on that one. I really don't like that precedent got stomped on that way, and your game was the only one it was done to. If the bids(including the top halves) had been close, I could see it. But there's no way Weber could accurately show $100k revenue potential considering their average attendance, that it was a Thanksgiving game(typically 40-60% average attendance), and that it was winter in northern Utah.

Now you just gave the next reasoning UND won't get a bid, once UND get's the "performance" thing in their direction.  Bottom line is that they need to make it a bit more transparent so everyone isn't wondering why they seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouth. 

[jdub27]

  

11 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

We have to remember that there are effectively two halves to a playoff bid. The first half is projected revenue, the second half is the guarantee. They are not the same number. And the NCAA takes the greater of the two when all is said and done after the game. So here's a scenario...

School A projects that they will generate approximately $200k for the NCAA based on stadium capacity, ticket prices, and historic playoff attendance figures. But they are only willing to guarantee $50k.

School B only projects $50k in revenue, but they really want the game so they guarantee $100k.

Which school does the NCAA pick? If they pick School A, they are guaranteed an extra $50k. But if they pick School A, they very likely will actually bring in $100k more than School B once all is said and done. This is why one of the selection guidelines says something like 'revenue potential' or something like that.

Fully aware. However, that's why teams typically leave no doubt when they put their bid in.
And again, there is no historical examples of them actually doing the math themselves. They have always taken the highest guaranteed bid.

  

11 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

I guess I'm saying that if NDSU(or Montana) bid a $100k guarantee and UND bid a $125k guarantee, that doesn't necessarily mean that UND would win the bid. I believe each NDSU playoff game typically brings in $300k or more for the NCAA. That would be reflected in the top part of the bid. The guarantee wouldn't really matter unless the opposing school had something silly like a $500k guarantee.

Again, I don't disagree, but that's also why teams don't (or shouldn't) shortchange their bid. I don't remember the exact formula, but I don't think the upside of low-balling your own bid is all that great, particularly since, you know, they had only gone by bids in the past.

 

26 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

Note that I don't believe this applied to the Weber game. I think you guys got screwed on that one. I really don't like that precedent got stomped on that way, and your game was the only one it was done to. If the bids(including the top halves) had been close, I could see it. But there's no way Weber could accurately show $100k revenue potential considering their average attendance, that it was a Thanksgiving game(typically 40-60% average attendance), and that it was winter in northern Utah.

This we agree on.
It's very obvious what happened. A deal was made to have a 4th east coast team seeded, so that it was even 4/4 instead of 5/3 in favor of the western conferences. The trade-off was that they would ignore the sacrosanct precedent of "high bid wins" if needed for the team who got the short of that stick (Weber). Between the chair of the committee basically admitting that and that they do take possible revenue into account when deciding the field, they managed to make an absolutely mockery of the process. 

And again, I don't think you'll find many people who say Weber didn't host to bid if the criteria was who had a better resume, but the fact of the matter is that it never has been and was ignored for the Montana game (who conveniently likely had to host as I'm not even sure SEMO put in a bid due to some facilities renovations).

You can't change the rules mid-game. And now you've opened up the can of worms where no one actually knows what criteria the committee will use to select home teams. How much of a difference is too much to overlook between differing bids and resumes? Why bother putting in a strong bid if you feel like you're going to be one of the last teams in and just have it ignored anyway?

[Hammersmith]

4 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

  

Fully aware. However, that's why teams typically leave no doubt when they put their bid in.
And again, there is no historical examples of them actually doing the math themselves. They have always taken the highest guaranteed bid.

  

Again, I don't disagree, but that's also why teams don't (or shouldn't) shortchange their bid. I don't remember the exact formula, but I don't think the upside of low-balling your own bid is all that great, particularly since, you know, they had only gone by bids in the past.

They don't have to do any math because the school already does it on the first page of the bid. Line 1 is budgeted receipts, line 2 is budgeted disbursements. The guarantee is line 9 on the fourth page of the bid. Projected revenue is an integral part of the bid. So when someone says "they've always gone by the bid", projected revenue is part of that bid.

[Dustin]

1 minute ago, jdub27 said:

ignored for the Montana game

I believe someone said both UND and Montana were the last 2 at-large selections.  If true, here's how this could have played out:  Both UND and Montana (presumably, anyway) had larger bids than their opponents, but both also had inferior records.  What would it look like if the committee gave both UND AND Montana home games against teams that had better records?  There could have been an uproar with some schools saying, "Big schools can just buy a home game, so long as they are selected for the tournament, even if their opponent has a better resume."  Then look at it the other way - both UND AND Montana go on the road.  That scenario has a lot of missed revenue, since UND and Montana are both big bidders, so they probably don't want to go that route either.  I suspect that the UND and Montana bids were pitted against EACH OTHER, and not their opponents.  They gave Montana the home game because they (presumably) bid higher than UND (If this isn't the case, I would be even more upset, because then it was just a screwjob).  If UND had outbid Montana (and I'm not saying that's what the goal should have been), UND probably would have been at home and Montana would have gone on the road.

I know there's precedent that big schools can and have bought home games, and I know that UND was trying to do that.  I'm guessing Montana was also.  Did either team deserve one?  In my opinion, no.  That's why seeding more teams is important for the integrity of the bracket.

[Dustin]

I am also not happy (and a little surprised) that NDSU got #3.  No one from any other conference should have allowed this to happen.  Rooting hard for Sac. State this weekend.

[jdub27]

23 minutes ago, Hammersmith said:

They don't have to do any math because the school already does it on the first page of the bid. Line 1 is budgeted receipts, line 2 is budgeted disbursements. The guarantee is line 9 on the fourth page of the bid. Projected revenue is an integral part of the bid. So when someone says "they've always gone by the bid", projected revenue is part of that bid.

You're right, they have some rudimentary estimates on the sheet showing Projected Gross Receipts and Projected Budgeted Expenses. However, that still doesn't change that they have always went with the higher minimum guarantee since they know they will get that. Maybe someday they would deviate from that in the event that some school low-balled their bid and had a higher possible revenue projection? But that would be as egregious as leaving $87,000 on the table for a bid that was 1/3 of the opposing bid. Not you, but I've seen multiple NDSU fans claim "you shouldn't be able to buy home games". That kind of decision-making would be taking it even a step further.

[iramurphy]

8 minutes ago, Dustin said:

I am also not happy (and a little surprised) that NDSU got #3.  No one from any other conference should have allowed this to happen.  Rooting hard for Sac. State this weekend.

They earned it. Defending champs. Tight games  but losses to SDSU and an Arizona team that was Ok by end of year. Can argue for others too but they earned it. 

[The Sicatoka]

23 hours ago, iramurphy said:

Chaves ... His job is to increase coaches salaries, make sure we have max scholarships available and improve facilities. Now is the opportunity for you and I and the rest of us to stop being “complacent “ ... Time to stop talking and start becoming part of the solution. ... 
Too many people have the answers as long as someone else pays for it. 

This is spot on. Matt Larson didn't make Bison Football. Team Makers did. 

Talk is cheap; it takes money to buy whiskey. Put your money where your mouth is. <- that's what ira is saying 

If not, we should move back to DII, because that's how our Roger Thomas mindset boosters are treating it. 

[AJS]

On 11/28/2022 at 11:12 AM, Dustin said:

There actually were a number of big names missing from the defense from '21 to '22:  Holm (grad/retired), Fort (on roster, but injured), Nelson (transfer), Canady (grad/retired), Seguin, Pierre, and Lickfeldt (Can't remember the various scenarios with those last 3 guys).  So maybe I've overreacted on calling for a new DC.  Still need something big to happen on defense.  It'd be nice if it were to happen under Tommy's offense.

To answer the question of what happened defensively from '21 to '22. In hindsight, I think the answer was they lost a lot. It's that simple. Not only key starters, but so many key depth guys. I think it kind of snowballed too. 

5th Year (Out of Eligibility)

• Holm / Canady / Galvin / Turner / Shannon

Seniors 

• Larson / Seguin (Portal)

Juniors

• Pierre / Lickfeldt

Other Transfers

• Nelson / Robertson

 

That would be 8 Starters and another 2 off the 2-Deep. Another important "depth" guy in Lickfeldt. Why I say I think it snowballed too. We know Pierre decided late to move on to Law School and retire. Was Lickfeldt on the Spring roster? I'm wondering if they wanted to bring Seguin back for his extra year, or they thought they were fine moving on. 

What happened this year has taught me not to downplay any loss of a key guy. I remember thinking when Seguin entered the portal that it was no big deal. At the time he was the only guy off the D-Line 2-Deep that was not returning. Then Pierre doesn't return and all of a sudden that's 2 guys off the two deep. Lickfeldt makes 3 of your Top 9. 

 

[Sioux>Bison]

23 hours ago, Siouxperfan7 said:

When predicting the 2022 season, how many of us on here had UND going 9-2 and being a seeded team?  How many had UND going 4-7 and missing the playoffs by a wide margin?  I think many of us had UND in the 6-8 win range and saying that we needed at least 7 wins to make the playoffs.  Well that's exactly what they did.  Now that doesn't mean that our expectations should be higher than that. Winning the MCFC and being a seeded team in the playoffs which sets us up for a run at a National Championship should be the goal every year.  Did this team fall short of that?  Yes.  But this team did finish 7-4 and made it into the playoffs.  That should be the low bar every year, but we still achieved that.  Need to surpass that going forward.  Anything short of winning a National Title can be looked at as a failed season.  Bu, t a 3rd place finish in the Valley with a playoff berth should be considered a success.

4th place in the MVFC according to the conference website….

[The Sicatoka]

1 minute ago, Sioux&gt;Bison said:

4th place in the MVFC according to the conference website….

They probably didn't apply tiebreakers.
When there are three 5-3 teams and one of them has defeated the other two you know.