• 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!

Email from O'Day about the WAC, BSC & More.

GtFllsFan said:
Good job Mr. O'Day, you may have gotten in some hot water with the powers that be, but at least you brought the discussion to a whole new level that will make it more difficult for agendas to trump prudent decisions.....on either side of the issue.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I do not know whether he intended that the email become public (or whether it was prudent to write it or not), but I do think reading the email helped me (and many others) to gain an appreciation of how comlicated this issue really is.

As I've said before, I've been in the "let's move up, if it can be done in a financially responsible way" camp for quite some time now, so that's the bias that I have in looking at this issue. To be honest, this is probably one of those decisions where no matter what we do, we'll probably never really know if we made the "right" choice (because whichever way we go, we'll never know what would've happened if we had gone the other way). I think our program can compete at the next level though, and I think making the move could benefit the school (again, if it can be done in a responsible way). Regardless of whatever flak O'Day has received for writing this email, though, the fact that it had the effect of highlighting the complexities surrounding this issue are a positive, IMO.
 
I think Mr. O'Day absolutely intended for the e-mail to go public, otherwise he never would have written it. It seems inevitable to me that it would find it's way to the internet. Does anyone know to whom it was sent in the first place?

I drew two things from it. First, Jim is really pissed off about the expanded playoffs. Rightfully so, in my opinion as one of the teams most likely to bear the negative impact is the Griz. I think he is so pissed off that he is ready to leave the FCS as a result.

Second, I think the decision he has to make is this: is it easier to raise an extra $2 million in the context of BSC/FCS football or to raise an extra $5 million in the context of WAC football? I think Mr. O'Day is thinking about this question a lot.
 
Does anybody know how the president stands on the finances of the AD? Does O'day know that the new pres. will divert appropriate funds back into the AD instead of always taking?

Not saying this is so, but it seems to me that this would have to happen to even consider the move up.
 
mcg said:
I think Mr. O'Day absolutely intended for the e-mail to go public, otherwise he never would have written it. It seems inevitable to me that it would find it's way to the internet. Does anyone know to whom it was sent in the first place?
Click to expand...
Maybe O'Day truly did not intend for it to go public, but any e-mail author must realize that whatever you put in an e-mail is not anymore confidential that writing something on a postcard. In reality, it is much more likely to be read by others and/or pass on, and on, and on, and on...

Could it be that the booster that received the e-mail wants the Griz to move up and thought to push it along by sharing the e-mail???

So, maybe O'Day didn't intend it to, but the recipient did??? Think about it...
 
Listen, this has already been decided, wait and watch. People who know ACTUAL indv'ls that are in the top echelon of this issue already know, (but have been sworn to absolute secrecy upon pain of death, and unemployment). The only issue(s) being finalized are the monetary situation and a timeline of moving, either 2012 or 2013. The future schedule, which has already been done for a couple years is being looked at. Also, you'd be damn surprised to know there's more money out there than you'd think. Right now the issue(s) is monetary and a figuring out an appropriate timeline. End of story. O'Day was crazy like a fox concerning the email. Look at the results; Massive dissemination and at the sametime generating pre-emptive support, very good move from a business perspective. Kudos to him. The reasons for the standard media line of we won't know for a year or so, blah blah blah, which unless you've never been around public affairs people before you'd recognize as a stall and classic diversion tactic. The money thing will be VERY carefully thought out by some very smart folks.
 
i don't think anyone realizes how state budgets work. the state/bor sets and approves our budget.

this is just one step in the process, but it's a big one. lets say our budget for athletics is $15 million and includes $10 million from the state. that means we generate $5 million. if we now generate another $3 million the state will just lower its contribution to $7 million and we still have a $15 million budget.

to increase our budget we need the state to agree to establishing a new precedent. i don't think the state is going to allow one of its agencies to add outside money to its budget and maintain the state's contribution and not let all others. the state is looking for ways to save money, so this only works if the state gets a cut.

then there's the issue of montana state staying fcs. if the fcs is so bad and the wac is such a money maker then the state is going to want msu in the wac, too. they aren't going to agree to having one institution hold an upper hand over the other. that would cure the aforementioned budget problem, but that has to happen first.
 
State support in higher education has been whittled down to almost nothing over the years. It now represents a relatively small percentage of UM's overall budget. I don't think state support will be much of a factor in these discussions.
 
getgrizzy said:
i don't think anyone realizes how state budgets work. the state/bor sets and approves our budget.

this is just one step in the process, but it's a big one. lets say our budget for athletics is $15 million and includes $10 million from the state. that means we generate $5 million. if we now generate another $3 million the state will just lower its contribution to $7 million and we still have a $15 million budget.

to increase our budget we need the state to agree to establishing a new precedent. i don't think the state is going to allow one of its agencies to add outside money to its budget and maintain the state's contribution and not let all others. the state is looking for ways to save money, so this only works if the state gets a cut.

then there's the issue of montana state staying fcs. if the fcs is so bad and the wac is such a money maker then the state is going to want msu in the wac, too. they aren't going to agree to having one institution hold an upper hand over the other. that would cure the aforementioned budget problem, but that has to happen first.
Click to expand...

For such a Republican state and all the anti-welfare statements on here, it is very contradicing to bring up MSU and the "rivalry". One school should not be tied to the other. UM has created a superior product and therefore should not be held back because MSU has failed to keep up. When MSU turns the corner, then they too can decide what is best for them.
 
getgrizzy said:
i don't think anyone realizes how state budgets work. the state/bor sets and approves our budget.

this is just one step in the process, but it's a big one. lets say our budget for athletics is $15 million and includes $10 million from the state. that means we generate $5 million. if we now generate another $3 million the state will just lower its contribution to $7 million and we still have a $15 million budget.

to increase our budget we need the state to agree to establishing a new precedent. i don't think the state is going to allow one of its agencies to add outside money to its budget and maintain the state's contribution and not let all others. the state is looking for ways to save money, so this only works if the state gets a cut.

then there's the issue of montana state staying fcs. if the fcs is so bad and the wac is such a money maker then the state is going to want msu in the wac, too. they aren't going to agree to having one institution hold an upper hand over the other. that would cure the aforementioned budget problem, but that has to happen first.
Click to expand...

You're on the right track but don't present the funding flow quite right.

1. The Legislature appropriates $XXX for all Higher Ed. in Montana.
2. The Board of Regents allocates that $XXX between the various units.
3. However, the Board does not actually allocate any amount for UM athletics. Instead they allocate say $100 million in total to UM (or whatever the total is today).
4. The school's administration decides how and where that lump sum is going to be spent.
5. The school sends a proposed budget back to the Regents for approval. Yet the Regents will approval almost any division the U. proposes... ASSUMING they don't feel it harms the University's core education mission.
6. So UM could direct $2 million or $20 million for athletics and it will be approved (if it meets item five). In other words, if an increase to the A.D. means closing the Forestry Dept. the Board will vote NO. On the other hand, if an increase for the Athletics Dept. is found through efficiency, or elsewhere, the Board will rubber stamp almost any amount the UM President decides to direct towards sports.

Bottom line is, UM can spend more on sports. Yet the Board of Regents won't provide an extra dime for it. The new Univ. President must decide where any additional money will come from. He only has about three options to choose from; A) Cut spending elsewhere within the University. B) Raise more revenue (ticket pxing, student fees, etc). C) Raise outside funds by having donors give more.

In the end the decision to move up (or not), and how to pay for it, is all in the hands of the Univ. President. :ugeek:
 
1982 has it correct. The problem is that, for the past 15-20 years, UM has been incredibly successful in raising money from external sources for athletics (primarily football). Rather than being the beneficiaries of this additional money, the athletic department has actually lost ground. Dennison was very aware of the athletic department's ability to raise outside money, and so he would actually cut back the administration's allotment to athletics. He could then divert that money to one of his other departments or projects.

That is how UM came to get significantly less from the institution than MSU gets from its administration.
 
getgrizzy said:
i don't think anyone realizes how state budgets work. the state/bor sets and approves our budget.

this is just one step in the process, but it's a big one. lets say our budget for athletics is $15 million and includes $10 million from the state. that means we generate $5 million. if we now generate another $3 million the state will just lower its contribution to $7 million and we still have a $15 million budget.

to increase our budget we need the state to agree to establishing a new precedent. i don't think the state is going to allow one of its agencies to add outside money to its budget and maintain the state's contribution and not let all others. the state is looking for ways to save money, so this only works if the state gets a cut.

then there's the issue of montana state staying fcs. if the fcs is so bad and the wac is such a money maker then the state is going to want msu in the wac, too. they aren't going to agree to having one institution hold an upper hand over the other. that would cure the aforementioned budget problem, but that has to happen first.
Click to expand...


The Legislature appropriates a lump sum for the Montana University System. Before it does, over a period of several days, the commissioner of higher ed and the presidents from each campus make their cases for increasing that amount. They point out the need for matching state funds for outside sources of revenue. They point out potential sources of funding if the state commits to do X or y. They point out needs they have that might have been overlooked in the amoung of money requested for MUS by the governor--it's the governor who makes the initial request on MUS's behalf and gets the conversation rolling.
If you were in the room while the schools made their pitch, you would think the Legislature actually has some say over the way the Us spend their money. The legislators tee off about thinks they don't like about higher ed funding and tuition etc. The U presidents make subtle assurances that they will or won't spend the money on certain things if their requests are met.

Mostly though, athletics rarely ever gets brought up. It is a very very small part of the equation. You could increase the funding at each school by $5million and it would still be a blip on the radar.
What gets discussed is the cost of tuition for in-state students and what kind of state commitment it will take to get grants to lower those costs. What gets discussed is how well the Us are taking care of the buildings they already have. No one wants to spend money on bricks and mortar projects that are then allowed to fall apart because the schools gutted their maintenance budgets to fund something else. No one wants to squander money on software that doesn't work, or federal grants that offer little, but demand much in return. Not many people want to fund one of the smaller colleges if it is losing, students, relevance, etc.
Griz athletics is the be all of end all for folks on egriz, but in the grand scheme of things, it is small spuds.

In the end, the Legislature issues its general fund spending for higher ed, expressed in the final budget as a single amount. There is no swapping this money for that money. That sum is then divided up by the Regents in consultation with the commissioner and the presidents. The presidents are then given ample wiggle room to decide how money is spent on their campuses.

As for one state agency adding outside money and not allowing others to do the same, why wouldn't it? It does now.
Fish Wildlife and Parks is funded entirely through fees. The universities are allowed to take outside money for everything from stadium improvements, to scholarships, to private donations for myriad campus interests. The list of state agencies that depend on funding directly from the private interests they serve is not short.
 
AllWeatherFan said:
State support in higher education has been whittled down to almost nothing over the years. It now represents a relatively small percentage of UM's overall budget. I don't think state support will be much of a factor in these discussions.
Click to expand...
And the State support that still exists goes directly to the University, not to the AD departments. The University admin. decides what to do with AD budgets, not the State. O'Day gave the data; MSU has to direct more to the AD, because they do not generate nearly the revenue that UM does. Even this institutional support is funny money made to look larger than it is. It includes scholarships booked at full cost including out-of-state tuitions, when they are purely incremental to the University.

Another bit of info that ties into this. One of O'Day's responses to how poor the KPAX telecasts were, was that they would be improved in the short term, but within 2 years it would be a moot point.

Adding two sports to move up is not an issue, because they have to be added anyhow, both women's, to get into Title IX compliance. They will not cost as much as the status quo group would have you believe.

The decision has been made. O'Day is beginning the change management process; that's what this is. He is progarammed by the consultants, who were retained more for the change management than for the decision-making. They will do their best to retain the whining status quo group....
 
....and, the status quo group will enjoy Division 1 football after they join in the celebration of being able to see their team compete in a real college football environment..
 
Spanky said:
....and, the status quo group will enjoy Division 1 football after they join in the celebration of being able to see their team compete in a real college football environment..
Click to expand...
and when will that be Spanks? I thought the idea was to pretend we might join the WAC. But we're going to the Pac-12 instead now? Why didn't anyone tell me!!


Secondly... the state is cutting funding boys and girls. If the state universities are given a reduced allotment of funding, and they cut scholastics to greatly increase narissistic spending in the athletic departments... I'd think the BOR might not shine upon that. The WAC ain't a money tree. They aint the SEC, PAC-12, Big 10, Big 12, or whatever other Big there is. The WAC is about dead... Ida-who? will be the flagship for a crapola conference that ain't going anywhere but BodyBagville. The simplicty of this argument is so easy to understand if you all the dreamers wake up. Write the Checks Fella's and post on them EGriz... I'm waaaaiiiittting.... Hurry. Jimmy O needs your money.
 
Mayor, as I said, the minority for mediocrity group will join in and enjoy real Division 1 football....maybe kicking and screaming, but you will join in and be just as vocal in support.
 
kemajic said:
AllWeatherFan said:
State support in higher education has been whittled down to almost nothing over the years. It now represents a relatively small percentage of UM's overall budget. I don't think state support will be much of a factor in these discussions.
Click to expand...
And the State support that still exists goes directly to the University, not to the AD departments. The University admin. decides what to do with AD budgets, not the State. O'Day gave the data; MSU has to direct more to the AD, because they do not generate nearly the revenue that UM does. Even this institutional support is funny money made to look larger than it is. It includes scholarships booked at full cost including out-of-state tuitions, when they are purely incremental to the University.

Another bit of info that ties into this. One of O'Day's responses to how poor the KPAX telecasts were, was that they would be improved in the short term, but within 2 years it would be a moot point.

Adding two sports to move up is not an issue, because they have to be added anyhow, both women's, to get into Title IX compliance. They will not cost as much as the status quo group would have you believe.

The decision has been made. O'Day is beginning the change management process; that's what this is. He is progarammed by the consultants, who were retained more for the change management than for the decision-making. They will do their best to retain the whining status quo group....
Click to expand...


Good grief! Whittled down to almost nothing? As is if it were $10. Guys. Get a grip. The Fy09 general fund budget for all schools, that's the "almost nothing" to which you're referring, was about $134 million. All funds was roughly $341 million. The $16 million athletics budget at UM isn't couch cushion money, but it isn't a bank breaker either.
 
GtFllsFan said:
The questions is......are Harm & ordiggers sources better then PlayerRebs reliable source? :thumb:
Click to expand...

lol :lol: :lol:

Thats some good stuff there.

Honestly who knows if it is. It couldnt be much worse though thats for sure. Id take anyone who has the inside info without giving the details with a grain of salt no matter how much I would like to believe em.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top