Montana

Behind The Numbers: South Dakota State Wins Overtime Thriller Over Montana State

Published

6 months ago

September 9, 2025

Behind The Numbers: South Dakota State Wins Overtime Thriller Over Montana State

There was no bigger game on the Week 2 schedule than No. 2 South Dakota State traveling to No. 3 Montana State on Saturday night.

As we do each week, we go behind the numbers of the biggest FCS matchups, using success rate to get a deeper look than what the final score may tell you about what happened in the game. We will still analyze games from across the FCS later this week, but we had to take a deeper look at the biggest FCS non-conference matchup of the year.

Success Rate is a statistic that tracks how often a team is ‘successful’ on a down-to-down basis. It looks at how a team consistently performs. The Average Success Rate for a college football program is about 40%, while closer to 50% is considered excellent, and anything under 30% is deemed poor.

Success rate takes out a lot of the underlying factors of a game and strictly tells you how well a team played down-to-down. While outliers can swing an individual game, success rate can be a better indicator of what future performance will be. A play is “successful” if 50% of the yards needed are gained on first down, 70% are gained on second down, and 100% are gained on third or fourth down.

We take a look behind the numbers from South Dakota State’s thrilling overtime victory over Montana State.

Success Rate: SDSU (41.5%), Montana State (40.8%)

South Dakota State won the most exciting game of the weekend, which spanned two overtime periods in a nationally-ranked matchup. Almost every statistic you can find will tell you this game was played about as evenly as a game can be played. SDSU barely edged Montana State in success rate, while the Bobcats edged the Jackrabbits in yards per play (4.9 to 4.6).

Both teams missed a field goal and lost two fumbles, which led to crucial points for the other team. Montana State was 5-for-15 on third down, while South Dakota State struggled, finishing 1-for-13 on those opportunities. More importantly, Montana State failed to convert its only fourth-down attempt, ultimately sealing the win for SDSU. The Jackrabbits converted on a crucial fourth down in Montana State territory on a scoring drive in the fourth quarter, finishing 1-for-2 for the game.

What’s interesting is that each team only produced one drive over 55 yards. Montana State had two promising drives that ended in a fumble, while South Dakota State was able to capitalize on a blocked punt early in the game for a two-play touchdown drive.

Montana State found more success on the ground compared to SDSU. The Bobcat running backs averaged 5.23 yards per carry and generated 94 yards before contact, compared to SDSU’s running backs, who averaged 4.15 yards per touch and 75 yards before contact. Despite this, Julius Loughridge led all rushers with 99 yards on 23 carries.

Both defensive lines were excellent. Montana State generated four sacks and eight tackles for loss, making several big stops down the stretch. Defensive ends Kenneth Eiden IV and Hunter Parsons led the way for the Bobcats. Eiden had a 17.4% stop-rate, while Parsons posted a 12.5% stop-rate.

South Dakota State had six tackles for loss and was excellent at generating pressure on quarterback Justin Lamson. The Jackrabbits generated 17 pressures on 38 dropbacks and made Lamson uncomfortable all day. Logan Green led the way with five pressures, while Kobe Clayborne and Dawson Ripperda combined for six pressures. Ripperda led the defense with a 14.3% stop rate.

The main difference in the game was Chase Mason’s connection with wide receiver Lofton O’Groske. O’Groske finished with 12 catches for 125 yards and two touchdowns. No other SDSU wide receiver had more than two receptions. The statistic that really changed the game was O’Groske’s ability to win 1-on-1 matchups. He had four contested catches on five contested targets, posting an 80% contested catch rate. Taco Dowler and Dane Steel were the only other players in the game to record a contested catch, combining for three.

Chase Mason did a great job avoiding turnovers while making plays in key moments when they needed to be made. The negative to this game is that he continued to struggle when under pressure. Montana State was able to turn 50% of its pressure into sacks, while Justin Lamson faced more pressure, but did a much better job avoiding the negative play with only 21.4% of his pressures ending with a sack.

Both of these teams flashed a lot of potential while showing they have a long way to go before they hit their ceiling. South Dakota State certainly has to feel good, moving to 2-0 with two ranked wins, giving the Jackrabbits an early advantage to earn one of the top seeds in the FCS playoffs.

More FCS Football News

Follow FCS Football Central on social media for ongoing coverage of FCS football, including on X, Facebook, and YouTube.

Source link

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

4 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.
“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.

Source link

Montana

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

Published

16 hours ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

Montana

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

Published

1 day ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

HELENA — You probably have goals and plans for 2026—the Montana Department of Agriculture does too.

“We’re really focusing on innovative agricultural practices,” Montana Department of Agriculture director Jillien Streit said.

It’s no secret that agriculture—farming and ranching—is not easy. There are long days, planning, monitoring crops and livestock, and other challenges beyond farmers’ and ranchers’ control.

(WATCH: Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026)

Montana Department of Agriculture focusing on innovation in 2026

“We have very low commodity prices across the board,” Streit said. “We still have very high input prices across the board, and we have really high prices when it comes to our equipment, and so, it’s a really tough year.”

But innovation, including new practices, partnerships and technology use, can help navigate some of those challenges.

“We can’t make more time and we can’t make more land, so we need to start putting together innovative practices that help us maximize what our time and land can do,” Streit said.

Practices range from using technology like autonomous tractors and virtual fencing—allowing rangers to contain and move cattle right from their phones—to regenerative farming and ranching.

“It is bringing cattle back into farming operations to be able to work with cover cropping practices to invigorate the soil for new soil health benefits,” Streit said.

The Montana Department of Agriculture is working to help producers learn, share, and collaborate on new ideas to work in their operations.

The department will share stories of practices that work from farms and ranches across the state. Also, within the next year or so, Streit said the department is hoping to roll out technology to help producers collaborate.

“(It’s) providing a communication platform where people can get together and really help each other out by utilizing each other’s assets,” she said.

While not easy, agriculture is still one of Montana’s largest industries, and Streit said innovating and sharing ideas across the state can keep it going long into the future.

Source link