• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Both Montana schools get in Top 5 FCS Stadiums

bozely

Well-known member
Philadelphia, PA (Sports Network) - Get your tailgate fare organized and gas up the RV.

Road trip season is fast approaching for college football fans.

Is there any better way to spend a fall weekend? Hardly, considering the many touchdowns and traditions at various schools across the country.

The fun is there on any level, too. The Football Championship Subdivision usually doesn't have the size and spectacle of the Bowl Subdivision (or the prices), but its stadiums tend to bring fans closer to the action and make them feel more like they are supporting a hometown school.

If You Can Pick Five
If you aren't committed to games in a certain conference and want to visit the best of the FCS stadiums, make these your top choices:

1. Montana, Washington-Grizzly Stadium
2. Appalachian State, Kidd Brewer Stadium
3. North Dakota State, Fargodome
4. James Madison, Bridgeforth Stadium
5. Montana State, Bobcat Stadium

Whether it be the food, the music, the school's involvement, the stadium, the football itself - and the list can go on - the experience brings fans back for more every season. Last season, FCS games drew nearly six million fans.

If you can only pick one stadium to visit within your favorite conference, the following is the one to choose:

BIG SKY CONFERENCE

Montana, Washington-Grizzly Stadium

Location: Missoula, Mont.

Capacity: 25,217

2012 FCS Attendance Average: 25,236 (No. 2 in FCS; No. 1 in Big Sky)

What's Great: Feel the fresh air, Montana football at Washington-Grizzly Stadium is the place to be, epitomizing FCS football at its highest level.

Even when the stadium is filled, there's an intimate feel, as the seats are right on top of the action. In fact, the fans in the North end zone seats are among the loudest in college football. Many opponents may think they are ready for the environment, but they often are incorrect.

From the tailgating to the sky divers to the music to the 26-by-36-foot video screen, the experience is top-notch even before the football. And the Grizzlies play a mean brand of it as well, having gone 174-24 (.879) all-time at Washington-Grizzly Stadium.

Another Must-See: Montana State, Bobcat Stadium (a stadium expansion to 17,777 and an occasional switch to night-time football have taken the three- time defending Big Sky co-champions to new heights. The tailgating rocks.).

http://www.sportsnetwork.com/merge/...ork&page=cfoot2/writers/infcshuddle/index.htm
 
Awesome for both schools. Bozeman State really has done a superb job over the past 5 years of being forward-thinking with their program, from the stadium to lights to the new field, etc. Kudos to them. Now, we at UM need to continue to think about how to stay at the top.
 
grizfan95 said:
Awesome for both schools. Bozeman State really has done a superb job over the past 5 years of being forward-thinking with their program, from the stadium to lights to the new field, etc. Kudos to them. Now, we at UM need to continue to think about how to stay at the top.



as bad as I hate to admit it. the above statement is true....the griz need to "kick it up a notch".....and begin NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
krammer said:
grizfan95 said:
Awesome for both schools. Bozeman State really has done a superb job over the past 5 years of being forward-thinking with their program, from the stadium to lights to the new field, etc. Kudos to them. Now, we at UM need to continue to think about how to stay at the top.



as bad as I hate to admit it. the above statement is true....the griz need to "kick it up a notch".....and begin NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed, they may not have the best stadium but you have to admit "The Trail of Tears" is unique to any football program in America.
 
tootsie-pop-owl-290x160.jpg


How many posts does it take before the average thread gets turned to smack?
 
Both Montana schools deserve to be in the top 5 FCS stadiums...but to wander slightly off topic, I thought I'd mention my recent experience with both schools. My son is a high school senior and is going to be playing baseball in college, so he had no interest in attending either UM or MSU. And I'm not sure how universities gather mailing lists (probably from purchased senior lists and SAT or ACT lists) but when it came to marketing, MSU was way ahead. We received several really nice informational brochures and letters from MSU and only 1 from UM. And the MSU products were just plain better. At my son's senior recognition night this week, there were 5 students mentioned who received academic scholarships from MSU and only 1 from UM. I'm not sure if we fell outside of the bell curve or defined parameters for UM, but my armchair opinion is that UM needs to work harder at getting kids to come to Missoula.
 
OldtiredGRiz said:
Both Montana schools deserve to be in the top 5 FCS stadiums...but to wander slightly off topic, I thought I'd mention my recent experience with both schools. My son is a high school senior and is going to be playing baseball in college, so he had no interest in attending either UM or MSU. And I'm not sure how universities gather mailing lists (probably from purchased senior lists and SAT or ACT lists) but when it came to marketing, MSU was way ahead. We received several really nice informational brochures and letters from MSU and only 1 from UM. And the MSU products were just plain better. At my son's senior recognition night this week, there were 5 students mentioned who received academic scholarships from MSU and only 1 from UM. I'm not sure if we fell outside of the bell curve or defined parameters for UM, but my armchair opinion is that UM needs to work harder at getting kids to come to Missoula.


Yep. The last 2 years, MSU has outspent UM 3 to 1 on Admissions/Recruiting of students. That happened when MSU lost state funding due to lower FTE head count and had to pay UM money back. They appropriated a bunch of money to Admissions, and blew UM out of the water. UM is changing that, though. It's too bad, because like so many other things, it becomes an arms race.

Now, back to stadiums: The rankings look pretty solid. No doubt UM and ASU are #1 and #2.
 
EverettGriz said:
OldtiredGRiz said:
Both Montana schools deserve to be in the top 5 FCS stadiums...but to wander slightly off topic, I thought I'd mention my recent experience with both schools. My son is a high school senior and is going to be playing baseball in college, so he had no interest in attending either UM or MSU. And I'm not sure how universities gather mailing lists (probably from purchased senior lists and SAT or ACT lists) but when it came to marketing, MSU was way ahead. We received several really nice informational brochures and letters from MSU and only 1 from UM. And the MSU products were just plain better. At my son's senior recognition night this week, there were 5 students mentioned who received academic scholarships from MSU and only 1 from UM. I'm not sure if we fell outside of the bell curve or defined parameters for UM, but my armchair opinion is that UM needs to work harder at getting kids to come to Missoula.


Yep. The last 2 years, MSU has outspent UM 3 to 1 on Admissions/Recruiting of students. That happened when MSU lost state funding due to lower FTE head count and had to pay UM money back. They appropriated a bunch of money to Admissions, and blew UM out of the water. UM is changing that, though. It's too bad, because like so many other things, it becomes an arms race.

Now, back to stadiums: The rankings look pretty solid. No doubt UM and ASU are #1 and #2.

At our fairly typical suburban Denver high school Bozeman State has substantial mind-share among students and staff, UM has zero. It wasn't that way 10 years ago.

State's marketing is pretty good, my favorite was a mailer with a large picture of Big Sky resort with a student quote "I've got plenty of time to pursue all of my favorite recreational activities!"
 
Even 15 years ago, when our daughter graduated from high school here in Missoula, MSU was out-recruiting UM. We live in Missoula, our daughter was a top student, a varsity athlete and involved in many activities, yet UM essentially ignored her ... while MSU sent her numerous brochures, letters, etc. We just sort of laughed about it, as she wasn't considering either school, but I've come discover that what we experienced is close to the norm. It's too bad....
 
Leadership or lack thereof is the difference between the two universities in the great state of Montana. Seems to be the case nationwide quite frankly. A huge gaping chasm of unskilled and unqualified leaders. Be it the government or private sector. Somehow, someway we were collectively neutered as a nation. My suggestion is that Rolls Royce find his inner man and grow a set in a hurry. Likely not going to happen and the U of M will unfortunately have a slow death spiral downward. Someone throw him a lifeline for the love of God.
 
2 ivy league schools blow the ass off scat back stadium. Princeton and Yale for sure...maybe 3 (Harvard holds 30k) actually. Plus their not draped in "Dickies"(looking like clowns) on an ESPN playoff T.V. game getting their ass blown off in utter humiliation :cry: :cry: :cry: :egriz:
 
'68griz said:
Even 15 years ago, when our daughter graduated from high school here in Missoula, MSU was out-recruiting UM. We live in Missoula, our daughter was a top student, a varsity athlete and involved in many activities, yet UM essentially ignored her ... while MSU sent her numerous brochures, letters, etc. We just sort of laughed about it, as she wasn't considering either school, but I've come discover that what we experienced is close to the norm. It's too bad....

Though some MSU alum disagreed with Mike Malone (for obvious reasons on the football field), that has been MSU's strategy since he took the lead in 1991 - seek the best students. Marketing budgets aside, that has been consistent for the last 20+ years in that MSU makes a very good push to get top students. Just the facts.

Back to the stadium forum and bashing of the Cats...
 
rimrockgriz said:
2 ivy league schools blow the ass off scat back stadium. Princeton and Yale for sure...maybe 3 (Harvard holds 30k) actually. Plus their not draped in "Dickies"(looking like clowns) on an ESPN playoff T.V. game getting their ass blown off in utter humiliation :cry: :cry: :cry: :egriz:
Is there always something up your ass or are you constantly putting something up it?
 
EverettGriz said:
OldtiredGRiz said:
Both Montana schools deserve to be in the top 5 FCS stadiums...but to wander slightly off topic, I thought I'd mention my recent experience with both schools. My son is a high school senior and is going to be playing baseball in college, so he had no interest in attending either UM or MSU. And I'm not sure how universities gather mailing lists (probably from purchased senior lists and SAT or ACT lists) but when it came to marketing, MSU was way ahead. We received several really nice informational brochures and letters from MSU and only 1 from UM. And the MSU products were just plain better. At my son's senior recognition night this week, there were 5 students mentioned who received academic scholarships from MSU and only 1 from UM. I'm not sure if we fell outside of the bell curve or defined parameters for UM, but my armchair opinion is that UM needs to work harder at getting kids to come to Missoula.

Yep. The last 2 years, MSU has outspent UM 3 to 1 on Admissions/Recruiting of students. That happened when MSU lost state funding due to lower FTE head count and had to pay UM money back. They appropriated a bunch of money to Admissions, and blew UM out of the water. UM is changing that, though. It's too bad, because like so many other things, it becomes an arms race.

Now, back to stadiums: The rankings look pretty solid. No doubt UM and ASU are #1 and #2.
Sad but true. George Dennison put a lot of resources into improving the campus feeling that a first class campus would be its own recruiting tool.

He was correct. For several years, MSU outstripped UM in enrollment, but under Dennison in fact UM outstripped MSU and was growing faster, notwithstanding its dearth of direct recruitment.

I would say this: "it" was a specific strategy, and although controversial on campus it was implemented well, and in fact, it worked.

There's simply no question about that. Students that visited both campuses chose UM, I would guess, 10:1. The Campus itself was the primary recruitment tool.

But, like all strategies, once you achieve a goal, there needs to be another one: and recruiting was the next logical step in "the Dennison Plan." Get more people TO the Campus. Well, the building phase is mostly over, and George is retired. It fell to his successor to move on.

The problem is, I can't tell if there is an "Engstrom Plan." I'm not sure anyone can.

Unfortunately, the man strikes me so much as a "back on his heels all the time" type, wanting to just "be president and not much more," that it is extremely difficult to offer confidence in his leadership.

Now that everyone else has focused on recruiting, I am sure he will roll out a program for recruiting.

If DOJ wants him to punish male students for sexual speech, I am sure he will do so.

If the Government of Saudi Arabia wants him to escort one of their citizens out of the country and not prosecute for a violent rape, I am sure he will do so.

But, one thing effective "Leadership" doesn't do, and that's taking you back to where you were before; which is what Engstrom has already done by the enrollment drops caused directly by his mishandling of his self-created "crisis" that didn't even exist relative to other campuses and in particular to MSU.

He already has failed this institution; and everyone is paying a direct price for it on campus. The victims include not just the students and the financial resources available for their education, but he has failed them in their pride in their University, he has failed them in protecting their free speech rights, and he has failed the faculty and alumni as well.

"Leadership" out the gate doesn't just start digging a hole, but that is what Engstrom essentially did by trying to fabricate an artificial notional leadership based on PC ideology.

That began with the bizarre appointment of an "outside investigation" into things that mostly didn't happen, conducted by a hired "investigator" at $150/hr who had never, in her entire life, ever done anything like that: just to demonstrate how "serious" Engstrom really was.

And that was really the obvious farce. He wasn't interested in a "serious" investigation, he was looking for affirmation of his leadership by appointing someone with appropriate PC political credentials to author a PC report "exposing" the dark side that he, Royce Engstrom, would then deal strongly with and "show everyone" who he really was.

When the "investigation" did no such thing, mainly repeated hearsay, and the investigator offered that as near as she could tell the staff did everything appropriately, and she complained only that students didn't seem willing to tell her what she wanted to hear, the whole effort backfired tragically on poor ol' Royce. It didn't do anything for him. His "bold" step went "plop."

Instead of coming out of it as he intended, a Superhero PC University President, he came out wearing superhero pajamas instead.

It was transparently for show. Unfortunately for Engstrom, as parents and students recoiled in horror he became the show, desperately trying to contain the effects of what he had created in his failed effort to portray himself as a dynamic, progressive President, a complete failure, which only offered yet another failure as the University itself was profoundly damaged by the backfire.

There's recruiting, and there's negative recruiting. The University of Montana has a President that is a negative recruiting tool. How does a University recruit over the top of that?
 
rimrockgriz said:
2 ivy league schools blow the ass off scat back stadium. Princeton and Yale for sure...maybe 3 (Harvard holds 30k) actually. Plus their not draped in "Dickies"(looking like clowns) on an ESPN playoff T.V. game getting their ass blown off in utter humiliation :cry: :cry: :cry: :egriz:

Seriously, you're making yourself look like a clown. MSU has a good stadium now (HUGE improvements from what they had 5 years ago). And how they do in the playoffs has nothing to do with the stadium, which this thread is about. You have better opinions about what your top five stadiums are? List them out and quit derailing a decent thread. We have that happening to too many threads already. :roll:
 
UMGriz75 said:
EverettGriz said:
OldtiredGRiz said:
Both Montana schools deserve to be in the top 5 FCS stadiums...but to wander slightly off topic, I thought I'd mention my recent experience with both schools. My son is a high school senior and is going to be playing baseball in college, so he had no interest in attending either UM or MSU. And I'm not sure how universities gather mailing lists (probably from purchased senior lists and SAT or ACT lists) but when it came to marketing, MSU was way ahead. We received several really nice informational brochures and letters from MSU and only 1 from UM. And the MSU products were just plain better. At my son's senior recognition night this week, there were 5 students mentioned who received academic scholarships from MSU and only 1 from UM. I'm not sure if we fell outside of the bell curve or defined parameters for UM, but my armchair opinion is that UM needs to work harder at getting kids to come to Missoula.

Yep. The last 2 years, MSU has outspent UM 3 to 1 on Admissions/Recruiting of students. That happened when MSU lost state funding due to lower FTE head count and had to pay UM money back. They appropriated a bunch of money to Admissions, and blew UM out of the water. UM is changing that, though. It's too bad, because like so many other things, it becomes an arms race.

Now, back to stadiums: The rankings look pretty solid. No doubt UM and ASU are #1 and #2.
Sad but true. George Dennison put a lot of resources into improving the campus feeling that a first class campus would be its own recruiting tool.

He was correct. For several years, MSU outstripped UM in enrollment, but under Dennison in fact UM outstripped MSU and was growing faster, notwithstanding its dearth of direct recruitment.

I would say this: "it" was a specific strategy, and although controversial on campus it was implemented well, and in fact, it worked.

There's simply no question about that. Students that visited both campuses chose UM, I would guess, 10:1. The Campus itself was the primary recruitment tool.

But, like all strategies, once you achieve a goal, there needs to be another one: and recruiting was the next logical step in "the Dennison Plan." Get more people TO the Campus. Well, the building phase is mostly over, and George is retired. It fell to his successor to move on.

The problem is, I can't tell if there is an "Engstrom Plan." I'm not sure anyone can.

Unfortunately, the man strikes me so much as a "back on his heels all the time" type, wanting to just "be president and not much more," that it is extremely difficult to offer confidence in his leadership.

Now that everyone else has focused on recruiting, I am sure he will roll out a program for recruiting.

If DOJ wants him to punish male students for sexual speech, I am sure he will do so.

If the Government of Saudi Arabia wants him to escort one of their citizens out of the country and not prosecute for a violent rape, I am sure he will do so.

But, one thing effective "Leadership" doesn't do, and that's taking you back to where you were before; which is what Engstrom has already done by the enrollment drops caused directly by his mishandling of his self-created "crisis" that didn't even exist relative to other campuses and in particular to MSU.

He already has failed this institution; and everyone is paying a direct price for it on campus. The victims include not just the students and the financial resources available for their education, but he has failed them in their pride in their University, he has failed them in protecting their free speech rights, and he has failed the faculty and alumni as well.

"Leadership" out the gate doesn't just start digging a hole, but that is what Engstrom essentially did by trying to fabricate an artificial notional leadership based on PC ideology.

That began with the bizarre appointment of an "outside investigation" into things that mostly didn't happen, conducted by a hired "investigator" at $150/hr who had never, in her entire life, ever done anything like that: just to demonstrate how "serious" Engstrom really was.

It was transparently for show. Unfortunately for Engstrom, as parents and students recoiled in horror he became the show, desperately trying to contain the effects of what he had created in his failed effort to portray himself as a dynamic, progressive President, a complete failure, which only offered yet another failure as the University itself was profoundly damaged by the backfire.

Dennison's two decade tenure was marked more by his aspiration to become the greatest empire builder since James J Hill than developing the infrastructure of the university itself. George's legacy is rooted mostly in bricks and mortar, but in truth UM, as US News & World report notes, has long been an underachiever mired and is currently listed at number 199 in the ranking of national universities. Royce Engstrom is simply a pathetic foot note to the university's short-armed pursuit of overall academic excellence. His ineptness is further magnified by Waded Cruzado, his dynamic counterpart in Bozeman.

Without a long overdue reality check as to what it takes to build a great university we can expect the slide to continue...as for the recent plea for additional alumni funding to support student recruitment, it's the age old story that you make things well by throwing money at it. But what's the message :?: Right now, The University of Montana doesn't have a very good one...the cart has been put in front of the horse.
 
Back
Top