This is the NCAA we're talking about... nothing should surprise you! Logic, common sense, fairness, none of that matters

I'd take it a step further and say they have to make a play somewhere to win, like block a punt or crib a return

What davisguy52 said!

Here's how I understand the situation: the NCAA is NOT counting the Mercer game towards the team's record. It went down as a NO CONTEST. However, in the case of eligibility, and specifically the eligibility of the Connors Bros., the NCAA currently IS counting the game against their games played in 2025. That would be the basis of the appeal in my opinion. This is only my semi-educated guess.

While I recognize the playoff implications and prognostications, along with the difference between "good" and "bad" wins and losses, the players and coaches will not be preparing like message board posters. They're in it to find a way to win. Everyone knows how hard that is, so what is it going to take?

1. Run the ball and stop the run. UCD's ability to run the football sets up a big portion of their passing game. It takes some pressure of their QB. Look at any football game and 2nd and manageable > 2nd and long. The Ags have to find a way to do 1.5 to 2x what the Cats allow on the ground. They need to keep MSU at or below 200 yards on the ground to have a realistic chance. That's not to say we can't pass for 450 and surrender 250 on the ground and still win, but that is an outlier scenario.

2. Win on 3rd down. Montana State allows an impressive 30% conversion rate on 3rd down. Going back to what I said in the first point, the Ags need to stay out of the longer 3rd down scenarios. Plough does a nice job on the 3rd and 10+ plays when the protection allows, this will be an interesting aspect of the game.

3. Cover kicks and punts. The Cats are elite in both the kickoff and punt return phases. Hell, their interception returns average nearly 29 yards per return! The special teams coordinator is fully aware of what they can do, he needs to have a solid plan and it needs to be executed. Starting field position could be the difference if everything else is even.

4. Protect your possessions. It is OK to punt at times, and that is always better than turning the ball over or allowing sacks. The Aggies have allowed 23 sacks on the season, and not all of those are the fault of the Offensive Line. There needs to be a solid protection plan against the Bobcat defense and the QB needs to grasp the fact that sacks are essentially turnovers. Again, 7-10 yards of field position can be critical in tight games. Starting field position is going to be a hidden stat that impacts this game.

The Aggies don't need to be perfect. They need to keep the game close going into the 4th quarter and give themselves a chance to win. I read somewhere that they are given a 15% chance of winning. Fine. All that means is that it is going to be tough, which I am sure Plough & Co. already know and don't need some computer or football dorks to tell them.

Plough is a boxing guy. My recommendation for the theme of the week would be that they have a "puncher's chance". That is, the possibility that a fighter who is outmatched can still win the fight by landing a single, powerful knockout punch at the perfect time. Rocky Marciano had a couple of these in his career. George Foreman, Julio Caesar Chavez, etc. Every Rocky Balboa fight (that's a joke). Plenty of examples where guys were well behind on the card but still standing towards the end of the fight. One punch is all it takes. Just get it to the late rounds close and give yourself a shot.

Not saying this is going to happen. I'm saying this is how UC Davis wins this football game in Bozeman on Saturday night.

Fresno State used to do that in the Central Valley but that has gone away. Absolutely simple and brilliant marketing. It only takes effort.

Solid, quality win. This team apparently lacks the ability to knock people out which is concerning, but they know how to win close. Some teams are just comfortable in close games. We had multiple opportunities to put this thing away and didn't execute. Rather, we turned the ball over and committed discipline penalties. That's for the coaches to deal with, but that's the sort of stuff that comes back to beat you in closer games against quality competition. That is my biggest concern for the 2025 Aggies; not our ability to play with people or to run people down to give them a chance to win, but rather our inability to close vs. teams better than Northern Colorado and Idaho. On to the next...

Colorado State has a cool plaza/beer garden. I'm not UC-educated and can't figure out how to paste the picture, but here's the link: https://csurams.com/facilities/the-new-belgium-porch/2058 Would be cool to place above one of the grassy knolls.

Speaking of the grassy knolls, there may be no better entertainment in college football than watching the free for all that takes place every Saturday on either berm. Spectacular carnage with kids rolling, fighting, and playing ball!

Mercer game is screwing with us aside from the "no contest" decision. The NCAA is apparently counting that game against the Connors Bros. but not counting it on the scoreboard. Hoping the NCAA will act with some common sense, but why start now.

Agreed. If Marion gets the chance to elevate his brand and gets what he wants, he will GO-GO in a heartbeat. I can't imagine Oregon State pulling the trigger on that one though, I really can't. Chryst and the staff he can assemble represents stability and NW ties. That's the vibe I get from OSU in all their past hires, including Bray. Riley had ties, Erickson was a NW legend, Smith and Bray played there. Chryst coordinated there, seems a lot more logical than a journeyman coordinator with 3/4 of a season of HC experience under his belt.

Statistically speaking, this game appears to be a matter of stopping the run for the Ags. Idaho has two solid RBs and a QB that is not afraid to pull it down and go. They average 4.7 YPC (which is about what UCD gives up per carry) and they possess the ball longer than their opponents by five minutes on average, I'm guessing that Coombs and Co. would rather play this game than face a Run and Shoot-type outfit like Idaho State given the injuries in the Secondary. The Vandals have allowed 14 sacks on the season and are not an elite passing team.

Offensively, Davis has to eliminate untimely turnovers and sacks. Period. 22 QB sacks against is no bueno in modern, catch-and-throw football. The Ags do throw more than most teams and run a lot of shot plays off of play action protection which causes the QB to have to stand in there. Idaho will sit in a 3-down look quite a bit, maybe not against Davis, but that explains their paltry 10 sacks for the season.

All in all, this game will be very close, likely a field goal difference. Being a non-gambling man, I don't know the line but I'm guessing the Vandals are a home favorite by a couple points. If the Aggies can eliminate the turnovers and win the special teams phase, I like their chances. We are dealing with razor-thin margins down the stretch, and I think our guys are comfortable in close games. GO AGS!

Nickel and Safety positions are decimated. Hang in there fellas!

Chryst would be a good hire but not a splash hire. He's better connected, especially with the alums, and he has deep Riley ties to the program. He is not delusional and would understand what he is getting into.

The other guy is a good football coach, especially as an OC, and has a long way to go as a HC to match Chryst's resume. However, he would make a lot more noise and bring more attention to the program.

Harvard? Unreal. I don't buy it.

Happy to be here talking ball! I struggle keeping the threads straight, but I do remember saying that I supported CP as the starter 100%. I still do, because I believe he gives us the best chance to win. Grant positioned us to win the game at UNC but we played great defensively and on STs that week. That being said, the fact remains that:
a. Teams that get a punt blocked lost 90% of the time
b. Couple that with catastrophic turnovers as far as when they happened in the game and the fact we lost the turnover margin
c. Sacks are essentially considered turnovers by most coaches I've been around
= LOSS to inferior opponent

No excuses, but we can have some grace. CP practiced all week last week, looked great to start the game, and made some mistakes that inexperienced QBs will make. Part of the process, and part of being on the big stage. Growing pains. He's a big boy and there is nothing personal here, and I'm sure he has certainly heard it from his two QB coaches in film. No they've moved on. "You're either winning or learning." Tim Plough

I'm moving on to the Vandal thread, unless that's where I'm at right now. Love you guys, good night! GO AGS!

Great job on this! Thank you. Field Turf is definitely the industry standard.

I didn't see anything on Saturday to make me think the starter wasn't 100%. I saw a lot of what we've seen in previous outings, minus the turnovers/sacks. Bottom line, no matter the level of football: rarely can you go -1 in turnovers/-3 in QB sacks, and allow a punt to be blocked (for a TD no less) and expect to win the game. EVER.

All valid points above. It just seems odd the number of foot issues. Taping only goes so far. Turf toe often happens on bad synthetic surfaces (although not the only contributing factor), and Plough alluded to Vargas dealing with a nagging toe injury all season. Does anyone know the age of our turf? Or if Adidas cleats are actually any good? The things I ponder on a Tuesday afternoon

How many lower leg injuries have we endured this season? Many have come at home. Someone in the program should investigate two things: the playing surface and the shoes. Maybe there is nothing to it, but this seems odd to me. Not all of these "field turf" artificial surfaces are created equal, and not all of the sub work is done at the same high standard. Same with cleats. Some are great, some are real crap, and there are a bunch that fall somewhere in between. Feels to me like too many toe/foot/ankle/knee issues to be "bad luck" or "one of those years".

It is obvious by really reading your takes that you are knowledgeable regarding QB play, I appreciate that. It's good to chat with you. Looking at all the QB scenarios, here's my take:
1. I think CP gives us the best chance to win now. He won the competition and you're going to take some lumps with a young QB. ANY young QB. From where I typically sit, I know that he struggles with vision at times due to his height. He throws some balls blindly, but most of the time he is on time and on target. Other times, he pulls it down because he loses sight or something is covered, and that causes problems for the protection, etc. and he bails. Guys that can run tend to try to create space for themselves and don't like being squeezed.
2. I forget who mentioned the QB run game, and while CP is an outstanding athlete and can really go, any reliance on QB runs is going to equate to more hits which means more reps for the back-up. I would entertain some Q Draws, especially if Vargas is banged-up, but I would be cautious due to our QB depth being so inexperienced and young.
3. Looking further down the depth chart, you have the Cleeland kid who can really spin it and behind that, who knows. I saw Cleeland get reps in a scrimmage and he impressed me. Wrighster was the next in line as far as depth at Northern Colorado when CP didn't play, so not sure where that places Eason, who has some physical attributes it looks like. Now is not the time IMO to start messing around with QB depth, we need to win two of the final three games and hope is not lost. We need to focus on improved Special Teams play and taking care of the football.