Joining the Mountain West would run an $8MM - $9MM annual deficit - can we overcome that?

[HelenaHandBasket]

I'm sure others have, last time I checked doesn't mean I'm not allowed to bring it up in a thread that is literally discussing it.

So you suggest over and over that they should and then admit later that they probably have...make sense.

 

[Ut-Grizfan]

So you suggest over and over that they should and then admit later that they probably have...make sense.

No idea if they have or haven't since the only official study seems to have been in regards to moving to the WAC over a Decade ago. Again doesn't mean I can't bring it up as a discussion topic on a thread it's literally intended for for other Griz fans to weigh in on it.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

No idea if they have or haven't since the only official study seems to have been in regards to moving to the WAC over a Decade ago. Again doesn't mean I can't bring it up as a discussion topic on a thread it's literally intended for for other Griz fans to weigh in on it.

No, I get it. There is no way they could figure out some of these basic items without a full fledged study. I have no idea how the couple people that I had conversations with were able discuss it, ya know, without that study.

 

[Ut-Grizfan]

No, I get it. There is no way they could figure out some of these basic items without a full fledged study. I have no idea how the couple people that I had conversations with were able discuss it, ya know, without that study.

So because you were able to discuss it with others means other people who were not apart of those talks are somehow are wrong for discussing it, makes sense

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

So because you were able to discuss it with others means other people somehow are wrong for discussing it, makes sense

No, because I had a couple conversations with people that would know and your assumption that many of these things aren't known or haven't been considered, yet you continually bring them up like easy solutions to the problem is why I have issue with you banging the same drum over and over. Make sense?

 

[Ut-Grizfan]

No, because I had a couple conversations with people that would know and your assumption that many of these things aren't known or haven't been considered, yet you continually bring them up like easy solutions to the problem is why I have issue with you banging the same drum over and over. Make sense?

Not really, considering I was not privy to those discussions in the first place and only have "I've talked to peope in the know" as the basis of the specific individuals involved. Makes 0 sense to get upset.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I don't I think I have all the answers but I have looked into it and have discussed moving up on a few different Forums for awhile now. I just find it better to think of solutions and discuss things more then just accept "we're gonna be FCS forever"

The athletic department and Haslam have never said UM will be FCS forever. They have consistently said that FCS is the right place for UM "at this time".

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Not really, considering I was not privy to those discussions in the first place and only have "I've talked to peope in the know" as the basis of the specific individuals involved. Makes 0 sense to get upset.

No, I get it...looking into it and discussing it on forums makes you the intelligent message board voice on the subject.

 

[Ut-Grizfan]

No, I get it...looking into it and discussing it on forums makes you the intelligent message board voice on the subject.

I mean we're not all lucky enough to have discussions with claimed in the know individuals, how dare us peasents talk amongst ourselves or have an opinion! If only we were psychic or could have been apart of these groundbreaking discussions to end all discussions!

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I mean we're not all lucky enough to have discussions with claimed in the know individuals, how dare us peasents talk amongst ourselves or have an opinion! If only we were psychic or could have been apart of these groundbreaking discussions to end all discussions!

Think you are missing the main point here.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

If you can bridge the equivalency gap of increasing football scholarships from 63-105, bang-bang.

Hell yeah. That’s the can-do attitude I like to see. Just because they can offer 105 rides, doesn’t mean they have to. In fact, I’m pretty sure there’s no minimum for opt-in teams, right? Don’t a lot of FBS lower conference teams offer less than 105 (or equivalent)? Honestly don’t know.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Hell yeah. That’s the can-do attitude I like to see. Just because they can offer 105 rides, doesn’t mean they have to. In fact, I’m pretty sure there’s no minimum for opt-in teams, right? Don’t a lot of FBS lower conference teams offer less than 105 (or equivalent)? Honestly don’t know.

Before opt-in, I believe there was in fact a minimum scholarship requirement, and conferences probably had requirements too. I don't know the requirement now.

 

[MontanaGrizSoccer]

No, because I had a couple conversations with people that would know and your assumption that many of these things aren't known or haven't been considered, yet you continually bring them up like easy solutions to the problem is why I have issue with you banging the same drum over and over. Make sense?

Before opt-in, I believe there was in fact a minimum scholarship requirement, and conferences probably had requirements too. I don't know the requirement now.

For the 2025 season, the Big Sky will be at 63 football scholarships, which can be spread out over as many as 105 student-athletes.

 

[mthoopsfan]

For the 2025 season, the Big Sky will be at 63 football scholarships, which can be spread out over as many as 105 student-athletes.

The 2025 season is over.

The topic was FBS scholarships, not FCS.

 

[mthoopsfan]

"
Under the new 105-player roster limit established by the House v. NCAA settlement, there is no specific rule forcing a school to offer all 105 players a scholarship. Instead, the new model replaces the old "headcount" rule with a maximum cap and an equivalency system, creating a clear distinction between what is permitted and what is required:

• The Maximum Allowed: A school can choose to provide scholarships to all 105 players on the roster. Furthermore, because football is now an "equivalency sport" (like baseball or track traditionally were), schools can split those scholarships into partial awards (e.g., giving 105 players a 50% or 80% scholarship) rather than being forced to only hand out full rides.
• The Minimum Required: To maintain FBS status, a school must still hit the baseline minimum floor of 77 full-scholarship equivalents (90% of the traditional 85 cap).

How Schools Are Handling It​

Because schools are not legally or regulatory-bound to fully fund all 105 spots, a massive financial dividing line has emerged in the FBS:

• The Power 4 (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): Most of these programs are aiming to maximize their competitive advantage by fully funding scholarships for all 105 roster spots, using a mix of full and partial rides alongside their new direct revenue-sharing pools.
• The Group of 5: Many of these programs simply do not have the athletic department budget to add 20 extra scholarships. They are staying right around their required baseline minimum (77 to 85 scholarships) and filling the remaining spots on the 105-man roster with walk-ons or players funded primarily through localized NIL collectives rather than direct institutional scholarships."

"Overarching FBS Financial Requirements
In addition to the football-specific minimum, an athletic department must meet broader institutional scholarship baselines across all sports:

• Total Scholarships: The school must offer a minimum of 200 athletic scholarships per year across all varsity sports (or spend at least $4 million on athletic scholarships annually).
• Sports Sponsorship: The institution must sponsor at least 16 varsity sports (including football).

Upcoming Changes (Effective 2027–28)​

The NCAA has already codified stricter financial hurdles for FBS membership that will take effect in a couple of years. Starting in the 2027–28 academic year:

• The minimum total scholarship count rises to 210.
• The minimum annual scholarship spending floor increases to $6 million.
• Schools will be required to fund at least 90% of the maximum allowed roster/scholarship limits across 16 different sports, forcing a much broader institutional investment in non-revenue sports." Gemini.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

For the 2025 season, the Big Sky will be at 63 football scholarships, which can be spread out over as many as 105 student-athletes.

No shit, thanks for playing.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

"
Under the new 105-player roster limit established by the House v. NCAA settlement, there is no specific rule forcing a school to offer all 105 players a scholarship. Instead, the new model replaces the old "headcount" rule with a maximum cap and an equivalency system, creating a clear distinction between what is permitted and what is required:

• The Maximum Allowed: A school can choose to provide scholarships to all 105 players on the roster. Furthermore, because football is now an "equivalency sport" (like baseball or track traditionally were), schools can split those scholarships into partial awards (e.g., giving 105 players a 50% or 80% scholarship) rather than being forced to only hand out full rides.
• The Minimum Required: To maintain FBS status, a school must still hit the baseline minimum floor of 77 full-scholarship equivalents (90% of the traditional 85 cap).

How Schools Are Handling It​

Because schools are not legally or regulatory-bound to fully fund all 105 spots, a massive financial dividing line has emerged in the FBS:

• The Power 4 (SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, ACC): Most of these programs are aiming to maximize their competitive advantage by fully funding scholarships for all 105 roster spots, using a mix of full and partial rides alongside their new direct revenue-sharing pools.
• The Group of 5: Many of these programs simply do not have the athletic department budget to add 20 extra scholarships. They are staying right around their required baseline minimum (77 to 85 scholarships) and filling the remaining spots on the 105-man roster with walk-ons or players funded primarily through localized NIL collectives rather than direct institutional scholarships."

"Overarching FBS Financial Requirements
In addition to the football-specific minimum, an athletic department must meet broader institutional scholarship baselines across all sports:

• Total Scholarships: The school must offer a minimum of 200 athletic scholarships per year across all varsity sports (or spend at least $4 million on athletic scholarships annually).
• Sports Sponsorship: The institution must sponsor at least 16 varsity sports (including football).

Upcoming Changes (Effective 2027–28)​

The NCAA has already codified stricter financial hurdles for FBS membership that will take effect in a couple of years. Starting in the 2027–28 academic year:

• The minimum total scholarship count rises to 210.
• The minimum annual scholarship spending floor increases to $6 million.
• Schools will be required to fund at least 90% of the maximum allowed roster/scholarship limits across 16 different sports, forcing a much broader institutional investment in non-revenue sports." Gemini.

I think the model might be tying that 77 number to the old 85 headcount number because 76.5/85 is .90. After the settlement did away with headcount, the absolute minimum (90% of 85) went away, so it’s just institutional now.

So, while an FBS school doesn’t have to hit a minimum amount for FB, the total for the school has to. Therefore, teams obviously use FB to cut into a huge chunk of the institutional minimum, even if there isn’t a formal minimum.

Further, this is all with considerations re: competitiveness aside, of course.

 

[mthoopsfan]

I think the model might be tying that 77 number to the old 85 headcount number because 76.5/85 is .90. After the settlement did away with headcount, the absolute minimum (90% of 85) went away, so it’s just institutional now.

So, while an FBS school doesn’t have to hit a minimum amount for FB, the total for the school has to. Therefore, teams obviously use FB to cut into a huge chunk of the institutional minimum, even if there isn’t a formal minimum.

Further, this is all with considerations re: competitiveness aside, of course.

I don’t think that’s right.