• 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?

CDAGRIZ said:
I’ve been trying for months to broker a package jersey/helmet sponsorship deal with major industry players, but people keep questioning whether I’m “really with the university” or “authorized to do this.” Bunch of bureaucratic bullshit if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Probably gonna have to take matters into your own hands and go ahead and just start sowing the patches on the jerseys yourself. Sometimes these businesses don't know whats best for em and they need some "encouragement".
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
Honest opinion...chill the fuck out. People know that a patch deal is important, but you don't have to post every single patch deal as it is announced.
Click to expand...
HelenaHandBasket said:
Honest opinion...chill the fuck out. People know that a patch deal is important, but you don't have to post every single patch deal as it is announced.
Click to expand...

HelenaHandBasket said:
Honest opinion...chill the fuck out. People know that a patch deal is important, but you don't have to post every single patch deal as it is announced.
Click to expand...
Better than your non sports rants/ramblings.
 
UncleRico said:
Thanks for all the work. It is a really good breakdown. Like you I can't see this legislature allocating the funds. We have supporters of 4 year public colleges in Billings, Dillon, Havre and Butte that fight for funding in every session and they wouldn't support this. And raising student fees significantly is probably a non starter too.
Click to expand...
Many things in life seem impossible until you start working on the objective and doors begin to open. I would love to work on this but can’t because of my personal health. By the way, I respect the views of those expressing reasons it can’t be done. Player for one.
 
MontanaGrizSoccer said:
It’s going to happen eventually, when more people start to openly talk about it and post it especially from media days something is going on behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
FWIW I asked someone extremely connected within both programs (but leans more MSU) a few weeks back if they were ever moving up and the answer I got was it's already in the works. It will be both schools, in 2-3 seasons tops, but MSU is ready now and will go no matter what but they're essentially waiting for UM to get their money situated for it (MSU has it already from donations). And pointed to the MSU master plan and stadium expansion and what appears to be the worst kept secret with the unannounced Washington Grizzly stadium renovation. He said neither is putting hundred+ million into their stadiums to stay in the Big Sky.
 
RP24 said:
FWIW I asked someone extremely connected within both programs (but leans more MSU) a few weeks back if they were ever moving up and the answer I got was it's already in the works. It will be both schools, in 2-3 seasons tops, but MSU is ready now and will go no matter what but they're essentially waiting for UM to get their money situated for it (MSU has it already from donations). And pointed to the MSU master plan and stadium expansion and what appears to be the worst kept secret with the unannounced Washington Grizzly stadium renovation. He said neither is putting hundred+ million into their stadiums to stay in the Big Sky.
Click to expand...
The MT board of regents have said for decades that it would have to be both schools. You need better sources. Neither school is putting $100 million into their stadiums.
 
mthoopsfan said:
The MT board of regents have said for decades that it would have to be both schools. You need better sources. Neither school is putting $100 million into their stadiums.
Click to expand...
You wanna bet? They’re both actively working on stadium projects as we speak. They may not have shovels in the dirt tomorrow but in the coming years both stadiums will look dramatically different.
 
This is what Gemini thinks. Not saying Gemini would know or be correct.

“
While there is no explicit statute or written rule prohibiting Montana State University (MSU) from moving to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) on its own, it is highly unlikely the Montana Board of Regents would approve a unilateral move by MSU without the University of Montana (UM).

The relationship between the two flagship universities, state political dynamics, and systemic governance create major hurdles for either school moving alone.

Key Reasons the Board of Regents Would Hesitate​

1. The "Package Deal" Philosophy​

Historically, the Board of Regents and university leadership have treated MSU and UM as a linked pair regarding athletic division status and conference alignment.

  • When conference realignment opportunities arose in the past (such as WAC expansion discussions in the early 2010s), state higher-education leadership made it clear that the two schools operate as a package deal.
  • The Board oversees the entire Montana University System (MUS) as a single entity. Allowing one flagship to elevate its national athletic profile while leaving the other behind creates institutional imbalance and political friction within the state legislature.

2. Protecting the Brawl of the Wild​

The annual Montana–Montana State rivalry is a massive economic, cultural, and financial driver for both athletic departments and the state.

  • If MSU moved to an FBS conference (such as the Mountain West) while UM remained in the FCS Big Sky, scheduling the non-conference game would become significantly more complicated over time.
  • Differences in scholarship limits (85 for FBS vs. 63 for FCS) and budget scales would alter the competitive balance of the rivalry, something the Board of Regents and state stakeholders are reluctant to destabilize.

3. Financial Oversight & Capital Expenditures​

Moving to the FBS is not just a decision on the field; it requires massive financial commitments that must be authorized by the Board of Regents, including:

  • Paying the NCAA’s $5 million FBS transition fee.
  • Approving multi-million-dollar bonding and debt service for facility expansions (e.g., stadium seating, press boxes, training facilities).
  • Funding new varsity sports (such as women's soccer or softball) to meet NCAA/Title IX requirements and conference sponsorship minimums.
Because the Regents must vote on every major capital project and athletic budget expansion, they hold total veto power. If they determine that an unilateral FBS move creates fiscal risk for MSU or disadvantages UM, they can simply deny the budget and capital approvals required to complete the move.

What Would It Take for Approval?​

For the Board of Regents to sanction a move to the FBS, one of two scenarios would likely need to occur:

  1. A Joint Move: Both MSU and UM receive invitations and present a unified, co-funded transition plan to move to an FBS conference together.
  2. An Overwhelming Economic & Conference Mandate: MSU demonstrates that an FBS conference invitation offers a transformative financial windfalls that fully covers facility costs, Title IX compliance, and athletic department self-sufficiency without draining general university funds or state subsidies.
 
Griz til I die said:
You wanna bet? They’re both actively working on stadium projects as we speak. They may not have shovels in the dirt tomorrow but in the coming years both stadiums will look dramatically different.
Click to expand...
Not for $100 million. How much do you want to bet? Put up or shut up. My point was the dollar amount.

And looking into it is not the same was working on it, in my view.
 
“When conference realignment opportunities arose in the past (such as WAC expansion discussions in the early 2010s), state higher-education leadership made it clear that the two schools operate as a package deal.” Gemini.
 
MontanaGrizSoccer said:
It’s going to happen eventually, when more people start to openly talk about it and post it especially from media days something is going on behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
Is this like the Trump "everyone says so"?

So far we have some Twitter guy I've never heard of who obviously meant both Montana schools along with the sodas, and 2011 bizon.
 
More Gemini:

“
During the major conference realignment wave in 2010, when the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) courted the Montana schools to make the jump to the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), higher education leaders, university presidents, and state regents voiced very specific positions on why a move didn't make sense—especially if tried independently.

Key Perspectives & Quotes from 2010​

1. University of Montana Leadership (Pres. Royce Engstrom)​

The University of Montana was the primary target of WAC Commissioner Karl Benson in the fall of 2010. After conducting a rapid feasibility assessment, newly appointed UM President Royce Engstrom formally declined the WAC's invitation in November 2010, stating:

"It was a complex issue with many pros and cons... After weighing all factors, including the financial implications, geographic alignment, and overall impact on our athletics program and university, staying in the Big Sky Conference is the right decision for the University of Montana."
Click to expand...
Engstrom emphasized that the financial escalation—specifically the travel costs in a spread-out FBS conference and the required facility/scholarship investments—did not align with the university's academic mission or fiscal reality.

2. Montana State University Leadership (Pres. Waded Cruzado)​

MSU President Waded Cruzado (who took office in early 2010) and then-MSU Athletic Director Peter Fields took a cautious, unified approach alongside UM. Cruzado consistently reinforced two principles during the 2010 alignment chatter:

  • Fiscal Responsibility: Higher education budgets were under tight scrutiny following the 2008–2009 recession. Expanding operational budgets to meet FBS requirements without clear television windfalls was viewed as irresponsible.
  • Preserving Regional Identity: Leaders noted that fan passion, regional travel for fans, and long-standing rivalries in the Big Sky provided far more institutional stability than a patchwork, volatile FBS conference like the WAC.

3. Commissioner of Higher Education & Board of Regents​

Then-Commissioner of Higher Education Sheila Stearns and members of the Board of Regents made it clear during system discussions that:

  • No Subsidy for Athletics: The state legislature and Board of Regents were adamant that state tax dollars and general tuition funds could not be used to subsidize an FBS transition or pay inflated travel bills.
  • Unified State Impact: Higher education leadership viewed the athletic identity of the state's two flagship campuses holistically. The consensus among regents was that breaking up the Big Sky framework or forcing one campus into a costly solo venture would create severe budget risks and legislative friction.

Summary of the 2010 Stance​

The overwhelming consensus among Montana higher education officials in 2010 boiled down to three takeaways:

  1. The FCS Big Sky made financial and geographic sense; the FBS WAC did not.
  2. Competitive success in FCS (competing for national titles and selling out stadiums) was vastly preferred over being a bottom-tier, travel-burdened FBS program.
  3. Institutional alignment matters: Neither campus nor the Board of Regents wanted to destabilize the Montana University System's athletic equilibrium.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top