HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
What about the last, say 40 years, makes you think they would?
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Boise State joining PAC
- Thread starter ISUguy
- Start date
Very true point, but the times are changing now and if there's an opportunity for UM and msu to make even more money, don't you think they would be inclined to give them the funding they need to take it to the next level?
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
I don't.
Boise State - Ave ticket price $101/game
Colorado St - Ave ticket price $95/game
SDSU - Ave ticket price $97.80/game
...to name a few.
Montana - Ave ticket price $61/game.
I have no doubt that raising ticket prices to $95/game would definitely reduce season ticket volume and potentially butts in the seats.
(I'm almost positive these prices don't include "donations" that are required to purchase certain seats.
I've heard Montana's politicians talk more about transgender athletes in the past year than I've heard any of them talk about funding an increaase in scholarsips for univeristy athletics at any point in the last 30 years. There was no discussion about doing this when Nevada, Boise and Idaho left. There's no real discussion now. This isn't a priority for the people empowered to tax and spend.
If it was on the table, I'm sure part of the discussion would involve a Wyoming-style commitment to one, maybe two teams and the elimination of sports at the satellite schools.
I don't see the BOR, OCHE, or the legislative branch being open to that last part. Can you even imagine how quickly they would be thrown out of office for suggesting the elimination of Football at either Montana or MSU? That is a political third rail that I don't see them ever being willing to touch.
Satellite schools: Northern, Tech, Western Montana. Still, I don't think that would happen, although the Legislature has heard arguments in the past for closing Northern entirely.
I have no doubt that a lack of leadership in both Helena and Missoula will relegate the Griz to another decade in D1-AA or whatever it’s reclassified as once the G5 splits away and we’re once again on the outside looking in at all of our old rivals and regional peers competing at a higher level. The state of Montana needs forward leaning progressive leadership to get big things done (in the literal sense, not political) but what we have is entrenched conservative minded geezers who won’t lean into a future that might require spending a bit of cash. I look forward to competing for championships against CSU Pueblo and Ferris state in the near future!
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
I think the FCS and any equivalent will be terminated. The only purpose of FCS is to allow schools a lower threshold for football to maintain full D1 status for basketball and a share of tourney revenue. I think the G5 becomes that avenue, but without the lower overhead in scholarships that the FCS now allows. Any school that doesn't go G5 will be limited to D2. This will allow the P4 control the money from March Madness while pushing out the smaller conferences.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
It doesn't.
Thank you kindly.
EDIT: Oh, follow-up question: If FBS schools spend X number of dollars on athletics, and UM spends fewer dollars on athletics (but still has all required sports minus one), does it mean that we would have to double the money that we spend at present to sponsor one more women's sport?
Last edited:
No. I'd be more curious how many scholarships Mountain West and CUSA type teams actually DO give out, though. If they aren't required to but they mostly all still give out the maximum, then the comparison is valid in terms of our ability to be competitive.
I've always been against moving up. I'm starting to come around on it, mostly thanks to a lot of thoughtful points here, and I'm not dead set against it, but I'd want to make sure we are competitive in terms of product on the field in a similar way to where we are now (not needing a championship every year, but always in the discussion and with a shot at getting one). If they give out their 105 scholarships and we kept doing 65, that would be a tough sell in terms of competitiveness.
I also don't think the money is as crazy as some think it is in terms of scholarships. Adding 40 more would cost roughly $1,000,000 more, if my math is right? I'm not fully educated on the full cost of moving up, and I won't pretend to be, but that comes out to an $8 increase per ticket based on even just five home games per year. I know there are a lot of other costs to consider, but funding the 40 additional scholarships shouldn't be a big ask.
MikeyGriz
Well-known member
It would be more than that because we are allowed to split those scholarships into pieces now. In FBS, that's not allowed. Plus you have additional scholarships for the additional sports you must add.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
40 more football scholarships also means 40 more scholarships for female sports. This would of course be accomplished by adding more women sports to meet FBS minimums. I am curious the impact of moving from head count to equivalency for scholarships.
Last edited:
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
FBS is moving to equivalency, so they can split. This will be true for all sports now.
Agreed. As for the ability to fund those scholarships to be competitive, I think it would be in our best interest to play the long game. Get in an FBS conference, trot out what we can in terms of scholarships, get our share of the conference revenue, and grow. I think the folks who would stop attending/watching games if we had a few down years is minimal. My evidence for this is the fact that we just had a few down years and season tickets are at an all-time high.
Honestly, I just must not understand how we are splitting them, in that case. I had always assumed that when we split one, the full one is still given out among more kids. I.e., if we split it we give half to Player A and half to Player B. I guess I just assumed that we were using all of them available to us to the maximum possible, but I may have just made that up in my head, to be quite honest.
I agree with every word you said, with the caveat of "as long as there is a G5 Playoff." I know a huge number of Griz fans that say if we go from playing for playoffs to playing for Bowl Games, they would stop supporting the team. That may be a lot of big talk, but I think that this argument has been going on for so long that some Griz fans are really set in their ways about wanting to be in the playoffs regularly rather than finishing out a pretty good season with a bowl game. Right or wrong, I hear that a LOT in real life when I talk to people about the subject.
I'm not trying to debate you of the merits on either side, just saying that I hear a lot of vehement opinion around that point. I think if there is a G5 playoff, a huge percentage of the opposition goes away. And you're right, the conference revenue would more than make up for a small drop in attendance.
