mthoopsfan
Well-known member
I like and prefer FCS. I don’t know anyone who pretends to like it. Except maybe you.
-
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!
Joining the Mountain West would run an $8MM - $9MM annual deficit - can we overcome that?
- Thread starter BWahlberg
- Start date
No, I actually like it. But I’d prefer FBS. Just personal taste. I like pink starburst, but I prefer red.
It’s NCAA women’s rifle. It’s always been women’s rifle.
SinCityGriz2005
Well-known member
I said most, not all. I am in the same boat as you. As a lifelong fan, I would like to see UM and the of course the Puds would have to move up with them, because "fairness" and crap.
I challenge you to walk down the street of your town, and ask 10 random strangers if they would be willing to pay higher taxes to the tune of $18M a year so UM and Puds can play at the FBS level in college football.
I am willing to bet lunch that at least 6/10 say no.
SinCityGriz2005
Well-known member
Agreed. They will never move up. One one hand, I understand the big fish small pond mentality. On the other hand I detest the big fish small pond mentality. It's essentially saying the Montana teams are good for their level, but Montana would never be able to compete on the big boy level nationally. I disagree with that. Would they play for a national Championship? Well, UM played JMU, JMU made it to the FBS CFB last year. JMU is also in a state that competes with two other FBS schools for talent and funding.
Mostly, I believe the people who are satisfied with UM and the Puds staying at the FCS level are fans of mediocrity and basically the types that are too afraid to actually risk anything tangible for greatness.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
10 of 10 no.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
Your last para is dead wrong. People wanting to move up now are unrealistic and windmill
chasers.
GrizPony
Well-known member
This is correct. 9/10 fans I talk to haven't given one dime, above buying tickets, to the Griz football program. The "free riders" all like the idea.
The only fair tax is the one someone else pays. Right?
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
Already been added as a club sport. One of the first in the Rocky Mountain west to add it. Already really popular and in great position if/when it becomes an NCAA sanctioned sport.
To be fair, you didn't answer the national championship question. If Montana moved to FBS, they would never play in another national title game again (not unless the G6 conferences break away, and then some people would start saying we should move up to the SEC).
5280Griz
Well-known member
If UM cannot feasibly get to atleast the Big 12 then staying in the Big Sky is the best option. The MWC and the G6 in general is dying due to the changing nature of the sport. If you aren’t P5, you are just fighting for scraps. Might as well compete for championships if you are going to be relegated to a lower level regardless.
zootownrox
Well-known member
Stills covers that deficit from the thread title.
Longer term revenue is a different question, and impossible to answer in the rapidly changing CFB landscape with changing TV deals, conference realignment, and potential federal legislation.
zootownrox
Well-known member
Ask them if they are willing to tax the millionaires and billionaires that are buying up our state to increase funding for education, and higher education, in our state and I bet 8/10 say yes.
AnotherGrizFan
Well-known member
Before I could give you an honest answer to the higher taxes to move up to the FBS question you'd have to be able to tell me how much higher.
zootownrox
Well-known member
For you - nothing! For Gianforte and his douche canoe boyfriends - a lot!
Our small MT community has never voted down a school bond. Stick to better thoughts to support your narrative.
5280Griz
Well-known member
Douglas County Colorado which is in the top 10 wealthiest counties in the nation by income has voted down school bonds 3 times in the past 15 years. Take a guess which political party they typically support.
You touched on something I read about recently (can't remember where). It was about how geographic isolation in high achieving youth can sometimes lead to issues where one's identity can get tied so closely to high achievement that one may be more hesitant to test oneself on a broader scale because the risk of failure can inherently risk a greater portion of that person's identity.
The example is like if a kid is used to always being the "smart one" in his corner of the world, he may not grow up with as much exposure not only to those smarter than him, but also the failure/retrial cycles of development in himself or others. So, he may be subconsciously more hesitant to take the risks necessary to test himself by maybe attending a prestigious college (for example) lest he find out he isn't as smart as he thought when the scale is larger. He'd no longer the "smart one". He'd just be "normal" on that scale. Such "failure" could threaten more of his identity than it might for another person who has had more exposure to such "failure" and thus doesn't tie it as closely with his/her identity. Instead, they view it as a normal occurrence.
Whether or not I agree with what you're saying, it's a related theory. Competing for an FCS Championship is a huge part of our program's identity. If that is replaced with being a solid program that can "only" aspire to conference championships and bowl games in a bigger, better pool, it threatens that identity. Accordingly, many would rather be the 50th or 75th best CFB team but have the banner than risk being "normal" in the better pool.
