Boise State tops MWC in $ Distributions

[Spanky]

I call it Montanaitis. It is a malady of many Montana people. We can,t compete with the big boys because they will beat up on us. Better to stay in our comfort zone

 

[AZGrizFan]

BSU is the UM of the MWC. They are a conference outlyer both in terms of support and $$ relative to the rest of the conference.

Missoula metro area has roughly 113,000 people. That includes (per MSA designation, the towns of Missoula, Bonner, East Missoula, Orchard Homes, Seeley Lake, Clinton, Frenchtown, Wye, Condon and Lolo Hot Springs).

So, what it conspicuously does NOT include is the following (ALL well within 2 hours drive): Butte (34,200), Helena (28,190), Anaconda (9,300), all of Ravalli County (population 40,000+ including Hamilton (4,400), Darby, Victor, Corvallis, Stevensville, Florence), St. Regis, Polson, Arlee, Charlo, Alberton, Superior, Drummond, Philipsburg, Kalispell (with a 93,068 Metro population, likely including Whitefish, Bigfork, and Lakeside), Ovando, Thompson Falls, Plains, etc., etc., etc.

There's LOTS more than 200,000 people within 2 hours. More like 300,000. It's no "Boise", but it's no Moscow, Idaho either. And yes, that does not include the multitudes of people who drive much more than 2 hours to Griz games every weekend from all points inside and outside Montana.

uhhh no. boise is about 3rd - 4th in thew mwc in attendance and do not even have the largest athletic budget in the mwc, they are not an outlier

Correct. Fresno, Boise & SDSU finished 3, 4, and 5 in all G5 teams as far as average home attendance. The rest of the conference? Mmmmm....not so much.

Correction: Fresno, Boise & SDSU finished 3, 5 and 6 of all G5 teams in 2014. Montana would have finished 17th out of 62 teams, just 2500 fans from 8th place.

 

[ISUguy]

I call it Montanaitis. It is a malady of many Montana people. We can,t compete with the big boys because they will beat up on us. Better to stay in our comfort zone

Do you folks really think it's Montana's lack of desire, or just a lack of an invitation? Honestly, I can't imagine Montana -- or any Big Sky school -- turning down an MWC invitation. It's just a no-brainer -- more revenue, more exposure, better competition, etc. Has a Montana president or athletic director ever been quoted to the affect, "If we are invited, we will not go?"

At the MWC meeting a week or so ago, the presidents said one of the things they enjoyed was having a second straight year when conference membership wasn't on the table. So no, there are no "openings at the inn" for the forseeable future. But that could always change down the road, and I'd have to think Montana would be a natural fit. And I can't imagine the Montana administration saying, "Eh, no, we're not interested."

And you know everybody else in the Big Sky who is paying attention understands that. That's why the last expansion took place -- to have enough depth in league membership to remain viable after Montana (and/or Montana State) leave.

 

[Spanky]

Bengal, our previous president said he wasn't interested. Our new president, I am not aware of his view.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think UM would listen to a MWC inquiry/offer. However, UM would still have to look at how they would cover the additional expenses of moving up and competing. Even the current large MWC money, coming from an unusually high year, isn't enough to cover the cost of moving up. Can't imagine the State would cover the shortfall. Don't know how the Bobcat rivalry would impact the discussion. Can't imagine the MWC would be interested in UM, but I suppose it's not impossible.

The BSC admitted Cal Poly and UC-Davis to make sure they didn't go to the WAC. It had little or nothing to do with Montana.

 

[get'em_griz]

I think UM would listen to a MWC inquiry/offer. However, UM would still have to look at how they would cover the additional expenses of moving up and competing. Even the current large MWC money, coming from an unusually high year, isn't enough to cover the cost of moving up. Can't imagine the State would cover the shortfall. Don't know how the Bobcat rivalry would impact the discussion. Can't imagine the MWC would be interested in UM, but I suppose it's not impossible.

The BSC admitted Cal Poly and UC-Davis to make sure they didn't go to the WAC. It had little or nothing to do with Montana.

Cal Poly and UC-Davis where no where near ready for the WAC at the time, and they still aren't ready for a jump today. Adding Cal Poly, UC Davis, and Southern Utah was all proactive in case Montana left.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think UM would listen to a MWC inquiry/offer. However, UM would still have to look at how they would cover the additional expenses of moving up and competing. Even the current large MWC money, coming from an unusually high year, isn't enough to cover the cost of moving up. Can't imagine the State would cover the shortfall. Don't know how the Bobcat rivalry would impact the discussion. Can't imagine the MWC would be interested in UM, but I suppose it's not impossible.

The BSC admitted Cal Poly and UC-Davis to make sure they didn't go to the WAC. It had little or nothing to do with Montana.

Cal Poly and UC-Davis where no where near ready for the WAC at the time, and they still aren't ready for a jump today. Adding Cal Poly, UC Davis, and Southern Utah was all proactive in case Montana left.

No, that was not the reason. I got my information directly from the brass at the Big Sky conference.

 

[KoolMoeDee]

I wonder what it would look like today if MSU and UM had actually joined the WAC instead of backing out at the last minute? Would the WAC have survived if a couple other BSC schools and maybe NDSU joined also? I wonder how big the distribution would have been?

 

[get'em_griz]

I wonder what it would look like today if MSU and UM had actually joined the WAC instead of backing out at the last minute? Would the WAC have survived if a couple other BSC schools and maybe NDSU joined also? I wonder how big the distribution would have been?

Don't know what it would look like today, but the WAC was needing Montana as its last hope to stay alive as a conference. If Montana, Montana State and NDSU were members, I'd bet the conference would still be alive.

 

[billings_poke]

Correct. Fresno, Boise & SDSU finished 3, 4, and 5 in all G5 teams as far as average home attendance. The rest of the conference? Mmmmm....not so much.

Air Force and Hawaii are usually up there as well but you picked just one year. Fact is 4-5 MWC teams can average as much or more fans then Boise does and 4-5 programs have equal or higher Athletic budgets.

Boise is not an outlier in support which implies they have no peers when in fact they do have MWC peers for support and $$

 

[PlayerRep]

I wonder what it would look like today if MSU and UM had actually joined the WAC instead of backing out at the last minute? Would the WAC have survived if a couple other BSC schools and maybe NDSU joined also? I wonder how big the distribution would have been?

I don't know what MSU was doing, but UM didn't back out at the last moment. UM had done nothing more than talk to the WAC a few times.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I wonder what it would look like today if MSU and UM had actually joined the WAC instead of backing out at the last minute? Would the WAC have survived if a couple other BSC schools and maybe NDSU joined also? I wonder how big the distribution would have been?

I don't know what MSU was doing, but UM didn't back out at the last moment. UM had done nothing more than talk to the WAC a few times.

Backed out, turned down, said no, or whatever one would like to call it. The U of M had an offer to the WAC and ended up deciding against it. Define that as you like. Getting to the stage of making a decision is more than just talking about it, from many point of views. :thumb:

 

[EverettGriz]

Jesus, PR. You are wrong with everything you've posted here. Montana most certainly had an offer from the WAC. In truth, it was more a beg from the WAC.

And BSC leadership has admittedly publicly that the expansion was done in large part to cushion the blow of the league's cash cow leaving.

 

[Spanky]

UM hasn't fit in the Big Sky since the departure of Idaho, Boise State and Nevada Reno. Those schools had the courage to make a change, we didn't. Now, we seem to be destined to continue to be associated with misfits like Northern Colorado.

 

[ISUguy]

I think UM would listen to a MWC inquiry/offer. However, UM would still have to look at how they would cover the additional expenses of moving up and competing. Even the current large MWC money, coming from an unusually high year, isn't enough to cover the cost of moving up. Can't imagine the State would cover the shortfall. Don't know how the Bobcat rivalry would impact the discussion. Can't imagine the MWC would be interested in UM, but I suppose it's not impossible.

The BSC admitted Cal Poly and UC-Davis to make sure they didn't go to the WAC. It had little or nothing to do with Montana.

Cal Poly and UC-Davis where no where near ready for the WAC at the time, and they still aren't ready for a jump today. Adding Cal Poly, UC Davis, and Southern Utah was all proactive in case Montana left.

No, that was not the reason. I got my information directly from the brass at the Big Sky conference.

I don't know who you talked to in the Big Sky, but every Idaho State athletics official I've talked to has said the last expansion was nothing more than a hedge against Montana and Montana State leaving the conference. Southern Utah begged to get into the league for years, but it wasn't until the WAC was on the brink of dissolution and Montana was doing its study about whether to move up that the Big Sky finally opened the door to the T-birds.

 

[PlayerRep]

Jesus, PR. You are wrong with everything you've posted here. Montana most certainly had an offer from the WAC. In truth, it was more a beg from the WAC.

And BSC leadership has admittedly publicly that the expansion was done in large part to cushion the blow of the league's cash cow leaving.

Everett, do you really not understand the difference between "backing out" of an offer (which indicates that one has accepted an offer and then said no or said no after indicating it would accept the offer) and "declining" an offer. Everything I said was accurate.

I agree with your first para, but that doesn't support "backing out" of an offer.

I stand by the statement that the conference offered Cal Poly and Davis to preempt the WAC from enticing them to the WAC. As I said, the top brass at the conference told me that. That was the real reason those two schools were offered. Note that they were allowed to be football-only schools.

See Missoulian quotes at the time.

"In the release Fullerton said the expansions weren't a case of the league preparing for the potential loss of teams to the Football Bowl Subdivision, but of strengthening the case for the Football Championship Subdivision.

"One line, not attributed to Fullerton, reads: The Big Sky does not anticipate losing any of its current nine core members. He backed off from that later Monday.

"Maybe I should say that the league does not want to lose anyone," said Fullerton, mindful that the Western Athletic Conference is courting UM. "Let me say this: If you look at what the Big Sky is now embarking on, and you look at what I think we can become at the FCS level. ... if I were to make that decision, I know where that would fall.

"Probably that statement was a little bit of hopeful thinking. I can also say that we have no knowledge that anybody is leaving at this particular time."

"Jim O'Day, Montana's athletic director, said as much Monday when he spoke of the league's moves.

"It's something I think the Big Sky has to do," O'Day said. "It's similar to what the WAC is going to do in the next few days, when they announce an expansion. It will not include Montana - we're not to that point yet - but they have to do their due diligence."

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/montana/big-sky-conference-adds-north-dakota-southern-utah/article_61c5e7a6-e5c9-11df-91e6-001cc4c002e0.html

 

[PlayerRep]

I wonder what it would look like today if MSU and UM had actually joined the WAC instead of backing out at the last minute? Would the WAC have survived if a couple other BSC schools and maybe NDSU joined also? I wonder how big the distribution would have been?

I don't know what MSU was doing, but UM didn't back out at the last moment. UM had done nothing more than talk to the WAC a few times.

Backed out, turned down, said no, or whatever one would like to call it. The U of M had an offer to the WAC and ended up deciding against it. Define that as you like. Getting to the stage of making a decision is more than just talking about it, from many point of views. :thumb:

There is a significant difference between "backing out", "turned down" and "said no". The second two are not "backing out". It's surprising to me that some people don't seem to be able to see or appreciate the difference. Maybe it would help if you thought of it as a basketball scholarship situation. Backing out at the last minute before signing day is alot difference than declining an offer when the coaches are recruiting the recruit and offering or indicating they will offer.

 

[ISUguy]

Jesus, PR. You are wrong with everything you've posted here. Montana most certainly had an offer from the WAC. In truth, it was more a beg from the WAC.

And BSC leadership has admittedly publicly that the expansion was done in large part to cushion the blow of the league's cash cow leaving.

Everett, do you really not understand the difference between "backing out" of an offer (which indicates that one has accepted an offer and then said no or said no after indicating it would accept the offer) and "declining" an offer. Everything I said was accurate.

I agree with your first para, but that doesn't support "backing out" of an offer.

I stand by the statement that the conference offered Cal Poly and Davis to preempt the WAC from enticing them to the WAC. As I said, the top brass at the conference told me that. That was the real reason those two schools were offered. Note that they were allowed to be football-only schools.

See Missoulian quotes at the time.

"In the release Fullerton said the expansions weren't a case of the league preparing for the potential loss of teams to the Football Bowl Subdivision, but of strengthening the case for the Football Championship Subdivision.

"One line, not attributed to Fullerton, reads: The Big Sky does not anticipate losing any of its current nine core members. He backed off from that later Monday.

"Maybe I should say that the league does not want to lose anyone," said Fullerton, mindful that the Western Athletic Conference is courting UM. "Let me say this: If you look at what the Big Sky is now embarking on, and you look at what I think we can become at the FCS level. ... if I were to make that decision, I know where that would fall.

"Probably that statement was a little bit of hopeful thinking. I can also say that we have no knowledge that anybody is leaving at this particular time."

"Jim O'Day, Montana's athletic director, said as much Monday when he spoke of the league's moves.

"It's something I think the Big Sky has to do," O'Day said. "It's similar to what the WAC is going to do in the next few days, when they announce an expansion. It will not include Montana - we're not to that point yet - but they have to do their due diligence."

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/montana/big-sky-conference-adds-north-dakota-southern-utah/article_61c5e7a6-e5c9-11df-91e6-001cc4c002e0.html

Keeping the two Cali schools from going to the WAC certainly makes sense, but does not explain why the league took North Dakota and Southern Utah at the same time. And of course, as Fullerton acknowledged in the article you quoted, the league was certainly aware it could lose both Montana schools and was hedging its bets by expanding.

 

[KoolMoeDee]

Indeed, the first warning sign occurred on the very day of the announcement, when then-commissioner Karl Benson revealed during a press teleconference, conducted from an office at DU’s Ritchie Center mere minutes before the big party/press conference, that he had hoped to announce Montana and Montana State joining the league on the same day that Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio did, but the Montana schools had backed out at the last minute.

http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/36615559776/denver-to-join-summit-league-in-2013

 

[PlayerRep]

Indeed, the first warning sign occurred on the very day of the announcement, when then-commissioner Karl Benson revealed during a press teleconference, conducted from an office at DU’s Ritchie Center mere minutes before the big party/press conference, that he had hoped to announce Montana and Montana State joining the league on the same day that Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio did, but the Montana schools had backed out at the last minute.

http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/36615559776/denver-to-join-summit-league-in-2013

Neither UM nor MSU backed out of anything with the WAC. O'Day had met briefly with the WAC. Short meeting and dinner. Due diligence only. The WAC was very interested in UM, and would have offered if UM had been interested enough to merit an offer. MSU wasn't even pursuing a WAC offer. The WAC might have been interested in finding room for MSU, had it taken that to entice UM. Engstrom wasn't interested in making a big move early in his presidency, nor was he going to propose going anywhere without MSU. The regents probably wouldn't have approved UM, or UM and MSU, going to the WAC anyway. The regents hadn't even been approached, to my knowledge. UM had committed to staying in the Big Sky at the time UND and SU were offered. Engstrom made the call to the UND president. Those schools wanted to know UM was staying before they committed to come. To say UM and MSU backed out at the last minute is total nonsense. UM didn't get close to accepting an offer, and MSU wasn't even sniffing around, to my knowledge.