Kent seemingly disagrees.
-
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!
It happenin
- Thread starter HelenaHandBasket
- Start date
While the MWC has certainly breathed a sigh of relief now that they're at 8, they don't want to remain there and will still look to add teams. Kent said just that on Saturday.
The reason IS money. There's just more of at the fbs level despite what the naysayers will have you believe.
Of course, a side benefit which Kent also mentioned during the interview was increased opportunities for the student-athletes in ALL sports. This decision cannot (and will not) be complete football centric.
So, what did Kent say on the Pre-game?
See above.
I've said it 1,000 times: It simply can't be done. Our budget is smaller than other schools' budgets because we don't spend enough. These conferences only care about what you spend on athletics, not the revenue you can bring in via athletics. Everybody knows it's not how much you make; it's how much you spend.
Because you'll never get more money, especially in little ol' Montana with no population center.
Shit, one of the things Kent specifically mentioned during the interview is that Montana and the bubs are extremely attractive BECAUSE of their viewing numbers. People: no one gives a shit about how many people are in an area; they care about how many eyes are watching a game running 3.7 million political commercials.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
Wrong. There are way more expenses at FBS, and a bit more money. Net loss for schools like UM. The reason to look is because of realignment and where FCS is going to be, which is not known or knowable now.
Why don’t you list all new FBS money, with links?
Makes perfect sense. Honestly, people who point out the budget discrepancies kind of miss me with that line of thinking. It's like if a bunch of cars are going 45mph, but you're only going 40mph and say the fact that they are going 45 means that you can never go 45, when, in fact, if you sped up, you'd also be going 45.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
It’s like going 40 in car that only goes 50, and expecting to catch the cars going 60.
Because I don't feel I need to.
In either event, Kent certainly seems to think it's not only doable, but desirable. You probably know more than him though....
Now, I understand that logic. BUT if you only need to catch the cars going 45, you would still be going 45. Meaning, we would make and spend more on sports at the next level to make the "budget" look more comparable to lower-level FBS programs.
This is one of the arguments I've been trying to make with Sac State fans and others. Yes, media markets are important, and leagues will certainly look to add those, but you also have to have teams that people care to watch. Notice which Big Sky games ALWAYS draw the best numbers on ESPN2? Ones that feature the Griz. We always outdraw cat games and any others in the Big Sky. You don't need a media market when you have a national brand and still can draw as good or better numbers than teams that are in bigger media markets. I feel like that's something people have seriously been sleeping on.
I'll be curious what the Griz-Davis number ends up being in a couple weeks.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
And then the team would not win half of its games, and attendance would go down and increase the losses. It takes money and nice big budget to have success in FBS. Compare Boise St to Idaho as a case in point. You have to pay coaches well to get good ones. In this day of NIL, a low budget would kill the quality of the team.
Could be. I just don't agree. I think we'll never know.
406football
Well-known member
Will the SEC and Big Ten shutout the rest of the NCAA? seems like they are trying to schedule against each other in the near future to set that up. Will the group of 5 have their own playoff and championship? I am all for moving up, but we have to know where we will fit when things start to shake again.
Except this theory doesn't hold up to history. When both those programs made the move, it was widely considered that Idaho was in far better position to have success than Boise, and that Boise only moved up because Idaho did. Guess what? Boise won, Idaho didn't.
Would Montana? I believe they absolutely would.
And even if we consider the absolute worst case scenario (Idaho), what are the odds of failure at the fbs level? 95%? 90%? Idaho is the only team not to "make it" financially, and Montana is so much more fbs ready now than Idaho was even after 15 years at that level.
Last edited:
