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

[PlayerRep]

Griz LA your just flat our ignoring the issues our AD has repeatedly pointed out in regards to finances. If you would stop to actually consider the issues at hand you would realize your entire premise that the "Move UP" stuff is just the ditherings of fans and alumns living vicariously through the UM football team is not true. Well maybe some of us it might be lol but... there are real issues to be dealt with.

Wether your side against moving up wins the day in the end or not we have to address those financial problems RIGHT NOW. UM cant put them off much longer and real hard choices about dropping out of state scholarships 90% or something, dropping down to division II would be our other main choices according to MR Oday. Take your pick.

Dropping almost all out of state scholarships will almost gaurantee we dont make it to the playoffs every year. Then the main crux of many "Anti move up" folks goes out the window. The we will miss the playoffs argument. We simply dont have the talent pool in state to be competitive on any regular basis.

Want to drop to Div 2 instead? Well..... hmmm..... not many people like admiting defeat and getting demoted. Fan participation would suffer to say the least as enthusasim would wain. But it would be cheaper.

O'Day has recently said revenues are flat, and the budget issues are up to $500,000. That is hardly a big financial problem. There are a number of things UM could do to close that gap, including raise ticket prices by an average of $4. UM has never considered dropping to D-II. O'Day shouldn't have even said that, as it keeps getting repeated by the likes of you. As for out-of-state schollies, UM brought in fewer Montana kids, I believe 3 on schollie, for next fall than ever before. That was merely a consideration of one place to look for savings. UM must not have implemented that one. An athletic dept. doesn't look to solve a $500,000 a year problem by jumping into a situation that will require and additional $5 million of revenues per year, plus additional facilities, by going to a failing conference that is not even going to be a shadow of itself. That would be financial suicide.

 

[Grizfan-24]

Here is the question, if someone has all the info in the world then please tell me. Where is all this money going to come from when we move up? Cause really I don't believe there is a pot of gold left for us when we enter the WAC.

Reason's to move to the WAC cited by in arguments by many:

1. Increased exposure nationally.
2. Increased revenue streams.


Maybe logic has failed me, and it does occasionally, but it seems to me that this move would require some serious capital infusion from private donors. And frankly the above two intially don't seem to outweigh that. Especially the the second at least intially.

Costs intitially would outrun revenues in a move up. In order to do it right, we would have to:
1. Redo the football facilities. (New lockerrooms, weightrooms, and study rooms)
2. Add lights to take advantage of scheduling dates other than Saturday. I don't know how many mid day tuesday games ESPN shows.
3. Upgrade of the TV/Media Boxes
4. Increase coaches pay accross the board for head coaches and assistants
5. Increase in Schollies from the mid sixties to 85.

There are probably five or ten more things that would have to occur inside and outside the football program to properly facilitate a move up.

Hey I am all in favor of moving up if it is done right. If we have millions of dollars in private donations coming our way if we move up then great. I don't see the logic if the costs outrun the revenues. We don't have to cut corners at the FCS level. We are in the black, and we can do things right with little institutional support. Does one really believe we are going to get increased institutional support in this climate? But if we are going to do it the same way that we managed the Adams Center rebuild, then that terrifies the crap out of me.

Do it right, then great lets do it. I am all for playing in a conference that is so watered down and mediocre in football that we could make the transition quicker to the FBS level.

 

[PlayerRep]

Agreed.

Plus add at least 2 new sports, which would have to be women's sports to balance out new men's schollies. Schollies for at least football would be mainly for out of state schollies, so more expensive.

Plus increased travel costs, recuiting and athletic dept salaries (over time).

Plus an indoor practice facility is needed. Virtually all northern tier/cold weather I-A schools have them.

The Geo. Southern feasibility study in 2009 said they'd have to increase their annual operating budget by $5.2 million, not including new facilities. GS had one more sport than UM at that time, so needed only 1 more for I-A.

In 2008, both O'Day and the App St AD's said they would need a budget increase to $16 million to move up. At the time, ASU had a $11 million budget and UM had a $11.5 million budget.

The WAC is falling part. It's ncaa basketball, bowl and tv revenues decline significantly. Using the past 10 years as the period, 91% of the WAC's bowl appearances have come from the 3 departing teams and Hawaii. One of the 2 Texas schools being looked at, doesn't even have a football program at this time. It will start in 2011. And people complain about Western St. At least, it has a football team.

Not only would going to the WAC be economic suicide, but it might be competitive suicide. Potentially, the end of Griz football as we know it.

 

[DickTater]

One of the issues not addressed in O' Day's letter, and one I don't have the answer to, is what are the WAC's requirements for participation in it's other sports? All of the WAC programs compete in baseball, softball, and swimming and diving. Would UM have to start new programs for these sports? It's pretty obvious that these sports will all lose money and that UM has no baseball or softball facilities. Does anyone know if the WAC will invite UM to the conference and just participate in the sports it already has? Or, will UM be required to add even more nonrevenue sports? If so, what will that cost and where will the money come from?

 

[NavyBlue]

Off the top of my head I know that Utah State and Idaho don't have baseball. Boise State didn't either. I think there were others as well.

 

[CFallsGriz]

Is there a point in having a larger enrollment that the university can hardly handle now.?..UM has one of the smallest land areas for a major state univerisity I have seen...How 15,650 students are not crashing into each other is a mystery to me....I think all this talk is just some bored fans who live vicariously through the success of the football team...I can not think of one overpowering reason to "move up" from a position that has been such a success on its level....Bigger is not better....and, if it is academic excellence that is promoted, what happens to the Montana high school kids who won't meet the demanding academic requirements that might be raised to meet those new demands?

WTF are you talking about?

Seriously? Do you read your posts before you click on that submit button?

There is not one Mt kid at the U now that wouldn't be accepted if "academic excellence" was promoted.

It's Missoula, not Cambridge.

Seriously>>>>>>>>WTF?

 

[dub-foncy]

Where's the money going to come from?

Look folks, there is money out there. Most of the people with real money don't consider FCS "real football" and don't donate to the program as such. When we move up we can expect our giving rates to increase at the same rate that that other move up schools expirienced.

Boise expirenced something like a 5000% increase in giving when they moved up.

Additional sources of revenue are generated from investments from athletic foundations such as what Florida and Ohio State have set up. A capital campaign will be conducted to properly fund such a foundation.

Just because you don't understand how large athletic programs are funded doesn't mean the money isn't out there.

 

[GrizLA]

Is there a point in having a larger enrollment that the university can hardly handle now.?..UM has one of the smallest land areas for a major state univerisity I have seen...How 15,650 students are not crashing into each other is a mystery to me....I think all this talk is just some bored fans who live vicariously through the success of the football team...I can not think of one overpowering reason to "move up" from a position that has been such a success on its level....Bigger is not better....and, if it is academic excellence that is promoted, what happens to the Montana high school kids who won't meet the demanding academic requirements that might be raised to meet those new demands?

WTF are you talking about?

Seriously? Do you read your posts before you click on that submit button?

There is not one Mt kid at the U now that wouldn't be accepted if "academic excellence" was promoted.

It's Missoula, not Cambridge.

Seriously>>>>>>>>WTF?

OK, I'll buy that...so, increased enrollment because of more exposure by "moving up" is a desired goal. Well now, on a small semi urban campus like UM, already debating a 4 day week, just where are these students going to live, study, attend classes without the added space and where are the faculty and infrastructure going to be when every inch is being used to the max..knot to mention the funding.I know...build on the Oval! Now, since Montana requirements for entering UM are already very basic, UM is drawing Mont grads more than MSU..so, if even more apply, and room is scarce, and costs rising, you want us to believe that this small in area campus will not raise entry requirements to the most gifted like every other school in the world? And, looking at the testing scores of many Montana High Schools, grads from some of those schools might not qualify for admittance...meaning, more out of state tuition required from students whose own state and privates schools turned them away.....I guess, if mediocrity is your game, no problem...YOu are right about one thing, UM is not Cambridge and was never meant to be...but it is not Mississippi State either...I suspect you would rather be the latter....

 

[dub-foncy]

WTF are you talking about?

Seriously? Do you read your posts before you click on that submit button?

There is not one Mt kid at the U now that wouldn't be accepted if "academic excellence" was promoted.

It's Missoula, not Cambridge.

Seriously>>>>>>>>WTF?

OK, I'll buy that...so, increased enrollment because of more exposure by "moving up" is a desired goal. Well now, on a small semi urban campus like UM, already debating a 4 day week, just where are these students going to live, study, attend classes without the added space and where are the faculty and infrastructure going to be when every inch is being used to the max..knot to mention the funding.I know...build on the Oval! Now, since Montana requirements for entering UM are already very basic, UM is drawing Mont grads more than MSU..so, if even more apply, and room is scarce, and costs rising, you want us to believe that this small in area campus will not raise entry requirements to the most gifted like every other school in the world? And, looking at the testing scores of many Montana High Schools, grads from some of those schools might not qualify for admittance...meaning, more out of state tuition required from students whose own state and privates schools turned them away.....I guess, if mediocrity is your game, no problem...YOu are right about one thing, UM is not Cambridge and was never meant to be...but it is not Mississippi State either...I suspect you would rather be the latter....

Every inch of campus is being used? Guy, I know you pretend to live in LA where seeing the efficient use of land is about as rare as real rose bowl tickets, but UM may as well be located in the middle of nowhere because they have so much room to expand.

Quit trying to make me laugh, it isn't working.

 

[Tokyogriz]

Griz LA your just flat our ignoring the issues our AD has repeatedly pointed out in regards to finances. If you would stop to actually consider the issues at hand you would realize your entire premise that the "Move UP" stuff is just the ditherings of fans and alumns living vicariously through the UM football team is not true. Well maybe some of us it might be lol but... there are real issues to be dealt with.

Wether your side against moving up wins the day in the end or not we have to address those financial problems RIGHT NOW. UM cant put them off much longer and real hard choices about dropping out of state scholarships 90% or something, dropping down to division II would be our other main choices according to MR Oday. Take your pick.

Dropping almost all out of state scholarships will almost gaurantee we dont make it to the playoffs every year. Then the main crux of many "Anti move up" folks goes out the window. The we will miss the playoffs argument. We simply dont have the talent pool in state to be competitive on any regular basis.

Want to drop to Div 2 instead? Well..... hmmm..... not many people like admiting defeat and getting demoted. Fan participation would suffer to say the least as enthusasim would wain. But it would be cheaper.

O'Day has recently said revenues are flat, and the budget issues are up to $500,000. That is hardly a big financial problem. There are a number of things UM could do to close that gap, including raise ticket prices by an average of $4. UM has never considered dropping to D-II. O'Day shouldn't have even said that, as it keeps getting repeated by the likes of you. As for out-of-state schollies, UM brought in fewer Montana kids, I believe 3 on schollie, for next fall than ever before. That was merely a consideration of one place to look for savings. UM must not have implemented that one. An athletic dept. doesn't look to solve a $500,000 a year problem by jumping into a situation that will require and additional $5 million of revenues per year, plus additional facilities, by going to a failing conference that is not even going to be a shadow of itself. That would be financial suicide.

Once again you and the Anti move crowd dont actually engage in constructive dialoge rather you are manipulating the information given to us by people who actually know whats going on. Oday is lying, manipulting the info, etc. Player you never once actually address the issues that have lead UM to this point. You just deny them and pretend they dont exist. This adds nothing to this debate.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Tokyo is right, over the last week to 2 weeks, it was posted asking for solutions to the issues at hand. Correct me if I am wrong Tokyo. To date, the only staying put person to post a possible solution and open feedback was ReMax, and he did it very politely with respect to everyone. Myself and a few others chimed in with possible options/solutions to explore.

It is so amazing how many people on both sides are arguing, bitching, whining, complaining etc. Yet very few from either side, or even those neutral cannot collectively come up with suggestions, which in time could lead to solutions. Solutions are needed regardless of any side. GRIZNATION obviously needs to approach this with open minds and willingness to be constructive, and work together.

The manipulation of both sides in attempt to strengthen to individual outlooks and opinions has gone beyond ridiculous. Even resorting to directly and/or indirectly calling a respected professional and person in O'day a liar. In my opinion, that is crossing lines that should not be crossed, in respect to him, his family, athletic department, and the university.

Seriously, is it asking or expecting too much to come up with possible suggestions to strengthen GRIZNATION on both sides of this debate or something neutral? It is even more amazing some people think they know it all, yet are clueless when it comes to rationalizing. How many egrizzers do we have? Yet collectively we cannot come up with ideas, suggestions, and solutions. Hell with the exception of a few egrizzers we cannot even discuss these things without getting into pissing matches and egos. This is tough on egriz.com. Imagine how tough this is on those with the burden of making the final decision?

Regardless of decision, support it and support our GRIZ full heartedly! Those not willing to rationalize or talk this out to find solutions can just shut their mouths when a decision is made, as far as I am concerned. I know that will not happen when whatever decision is made (maybe around mid january or just thereafter). Whenever that time comes, whoever chooses to continue bitching and whining, well go ahead, but this person is not going to respect it then. Discuss it and be willing now to find solutions, well then I can respect your outlook later.

Come on GRIZNATION, step it up and contribute positively or shut up!!!!

 

[stubbins]

good post mtgrizrule...I don't think anybody can give solutions unless they know the inner workings of the athletic dept. and university. It seems simple to me, keep giving the money budgeted for the ad (4.5 million or so), and let the ad keep all of its revenue earned. I admit that I don't know the butterfly effect that would have on the other departments, so I can't tell if it is a viable solution to the finacial stress.

Others have mentioned raising student fees, I agree with this also. U of M students fees are lower than other institutions (if I remember correctly) Ticket prices are a no no. We already pay quite a bit for schools in the western region.

I think it will be a combo of some of the ideas that everybody has thrown out over the last couple of months. But no one actually knows the effect on university and athletics.

Soooooooooooooooo, we all sit around, waiting for an answer that has been a long time a comin', with nothing to do but speculate and argue.

 

[mtgrizrule]

thanks Stubbins, at least you have an open mind on this. At the very least, is having an open mind that difficult for some?

 

[Ezone10]

Agreed.

Plus add at least 2 new sports, which would have to be women's sports to balance out new men's schollies. Schollies for at least football would be mainly for out of state schollies, so more expensive.

Plus increased travel costs, recuiting and athletic dept salaries (over time).

Plus an indoor practice facility is needed. Virtually all northern tier/cold weather I-A schools have them.

The Geo. Southern feasibility study in 2009 said they'd have to increase their annual operating budget by $5.2 million, not including new facilities. GS had one more sport than UM at that time, so needed only 1 more for I-A.

In 2008, both O'Day and the App St AD's said they would need a budget increase to $16 million to move up. At the time, ASU had a $11 million budget and UM had a $11.5 million budget.

The WAC is falling part. It's ncaa basketball, bowl and tv revenues decline significantly. Using the past 10 years as the period, 91% of the WAC's bowl appearances have come from the 3 departing teams and Hawaii. One of the 2 Texas schools being looked at, doesn't even have a football program at this time. It will start in 2011. And people complain about Western St. At least, it has a football team.

Not only would going to the WAC be economic suicide, but it might be competitive suicide. Potentially, the end of Griz football as we know it.

I have read the eGriz board off and on for years now, but find myself reading it a lot more now that the WAC was raided so bad by the MWC this Fall.
I finally decided to open an account because I tire of reading Player Rep and others of non move up crowd talk about the added costs of moving up. Right off the bat in this post PR talks about the added cost of adding 2 women sports. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I pretty sure O'Day made it clear those sports would have to be added even if Montana does not move up. Thus, why do you even try to spin it as an added cost.
I find it funny you bring up an indoor practice facility... Question, how many of the 6 remaining WAC schools currently have an indoor practice facility?
I love how you always bring up the Georgia Southern feasibility study. Just what the heck does that have to do with the U of Montana? When Montana has the start competing against other in State Schools like Georgia, Georgia Tech, and Clemson. Montana might start having to look at a huge facility upgrade, just to have recruits and fans find them interesting.
I can't believe you would even bring up this:

In 2008, both O'Day and the App St AD's said they would need a budget increase to $16 million to move up. At the time, ASU had a $11 million budget and UM had a $11.5 million budget.

Did you even take the time to adding the athletic costs the O'Day gain in this e-mail. I'll say you some time, the total is $16,420,000. FWIW, that is larger than La Tech's, Utah St's, and Idaho's current budgets.
Were is your proof on any of these statement;

The WAC is falling part. It's ncaa basketball, bowl and tv revenues decline significantly. Using the past 10 years as the period, 91% of the WAC's bowl appearances have come from the 3 departing teams and Hawaii. One of the 2 Texas schools being looked at, doesn't even have a football program at this time. It will start in 2011. And people complain about Western St. At least, it has a football team.

It is true the WAC got hit very hard, but honestly the only remaining WAC school that has any kind of option is Hawaii... Sure, La Tech would love an invite to C-USA but I don't see any offer coming anytime soon. The strongest WAC basketball program is Utah St and they are not going ant where.
Bowl games are tie-ins and will be tied to the WAC for at least the next 3 or 4 years, it's up to the remaining WAC teams to fill them. As far I have heard BYU saved the WAC TV contract by scheduling WAC teams for 2011 (playing all 6) and 2012 (playing all but Idaho), plus has longer contracts with Utah St and Hawaii (all WAC home BYU games will be on 1 of the ESPN stations). ESPN will be broadcasting 12 WAC games a year, I believe at least 4 or more will be on ESPNU.
I really love this spin:

Using the past 10 years as the period, 91% of the WAC's bowl appearances have come from the 3 departing teams and Hawaii.

Least we forget that Idaho, New Mexico St, and Utah St were just added to the WAC in 2005. Since 2005 Hawaii (06', *07' BC$*, 08'),Idaho (09'), La Tech (08'), and San Jose St (06') have all played in a Bowl game.
Does Western St have a coach like Larry Coker as their coach? You know Larry Coker, the coach who won a BC$ National Championship while at Miami and ended up with 60-15 record while coaching at Miami.


:shock:

 

[PlayerRep]

In 2008, both O'Day and the App St AD's said they would need a budget increase to $16 million to move up. At the time, ASU had a $11 million budget and UM had a $11.5 million budget.

Did you even take the time to adding the athletic costs the O'Day gain in this e-mail. I'll say you some time, the total is $16,420,000. FWIW, that is larger than La Tech's, Utah St's, and Idaho's current budgets.
Were is your proof on any of these statement;

The WAC is falling part. It's ncaa basketball, bowl and tv revenues decline significantly. Using the past 10 years as the period, 91% of the WAC's bowl appearances have come from the 3 departing teams and Hawaii. One of the 2 Texas schools being looked at, doesn't even have a football program at this time. It will start in 2011. And people complain about Western St. At least, it has a football team.

It is true the WAC got hit very hard, but honestly the only remaining WAC school that has any kind of option is Hawaii... Sure, La Tech would love an invite to C-USA but I don't see any offer coming anytime soon. The strongest WAC basketball program is Utah St and they are not going ant where.
Bowl games are tie-ins and will be tied to the WAC for at least the next 3 or 4 years, it's up to the remaining WAC teams to fill them. As far I have heard BYU saved the WAC TV contract by scheduling WAC teams for 2011 (playing all 6) and 2012 (playing all but Idaho), plus has longer contracts with Utah St and Hawaii (all WAC home BYU games will be on 1 of the ESPN stations). ESPN will be broadcasting 12 WAC games a year, I believe at least 4 or more will be on ESPNU.
I really love this spin:

Using the past 10 years as the period, 91% of the WAC's bowl appearances have come from the 3 departing teams and Hawaii.

Least we forget that Idaho, New Mexico St, and Utah St were just added to the WAC in 2005. Since 2005 Hawaii (06', *07' BC$*, 08'),Idaho (09'), La Tech (08'), and San Jose St (06') have all played in a Bowl game.
Does Western St have a coach like Larry Coker as their coach? You know Larry Coker, the coach who won a BC$ National Championship while at Miami and ended up with 60-15 record while coaching at Miami.


:shock:[/quote]

1. If UM moves up, it will go from 63 (?) to 85 schollies for football. That will require enough new women's schollies and new sports, to offset the increase. If UM needs 2 more women's sports now, then it will probably need 4 more if UM moves up.

2. The Geo. So. feasibility study is relevant because it shows how much in additional annual operating revenues that will be needed to move up, i.e. about $5 million. The study was done in 2009.

3. Almost all, and maybe all, northern tier/cool weather I-A schools in the west region, including the WAC, have indoor practice facilities. Warm weather teams don't necessarily need indoor practice facilities.

4. O'Day is the one who said his budget was $13 million. Budget figures from third party sources are sometimes not correct. The size of the existing budget is not the relevant figure. It's the question of how much more does UM have to spend to move up; it's additional costs.

5. Many believe Utah St will leave as soon as another conference, like the MW, invites them. If TCU leaves the WAC, which is rumored, a likely MW replacement will be Utah St. There are lots of articles saying La Tech will likely leave. They weren't required to sign the MOU for the WAC exit fee this summer, because they've already indicated to the conference that they may leave.

6. The WAC has not saved it's tv contract. The amount is going to drop substantially due the departure of Boise, as well as Nevada and Fresno. It's in multiple articles.

7. The 91% figure used the bowl games of all of those teams back to 2000, and didn't use conference figures.

8. Yes, Coker is a big name. But he didn't win at Miami with no players, or with frosh and sophomores. I believe they will likely get slaughtered in most every game in their early years.

 

[dbackjon]

Note to Ezone. Montana needs to add at least one, maybe two women's sports to maintain Title IX compliance with it's CURRENT male schollie level. If UM goes to FBS, then they will ALSO have to add around 30 women's schollies, given the current male/female ratio

 

[Ezone10]

Note to Ezone. Montana needs to add at least one, maybe two women's sports to maintain Title IX compliance with it's CURRENT male schollie level. If UM goes to FBS, then they will ALSO have to add around 30 women's schollies, given the current male/female ratio

They need to do that regardless, wither they stay in the Big Sky or move up to be in compliance with title 9.


:thumb:

 

[Tokyogriz]

Tokyo is right, over the last week to 2 weeks, it was posted asking for solutions to the issues at hand. Correct me if I am wrong Tokyo. To date, the only staying put person to post a possible solution and open feedback was ReMax, and he did it very politely with respect to everyone. Myself and a few others chimed in with possible options/solutions to explore.

Really if your against the move its time to present to the rest of us a solution which would address the issues Oday has outline in his letter. Any less is just a Knee jerk emotional reaction to change. This is for you player,grizmayor and company. Lets hear your propasals to fix this situation.


Here is what ReMax had posted as possible solutions. The only solutions anyone on this board against the move has posted to my knowledge. Good or not here they are.

Cool, I like this thread - look at the constructive side of the FCS.

Here's my random 1:30 AM thoughts:

- Montana has a lot of pull with the Big Sky right now, put major pressure on the leauge to kick out the non-preformers. NAU has been on the rocks finanically, give them an ultimatum to get in gear or get packing, do the same for UNC and ISU. Then build upon the momentum of adding CPSLO and UCD and get NDSU and SDSU in the conference too - add SUU if they can adhere as well, but basically plan to round the league at 12. The Big Sky becomes a western power conference and then if teams like NAU/ISU/UNC continue to neglect their programs (by choice or by necessity) then we can kick them to the curb.

- Another thought, change up the whole thing. Create 4 power conferences, East, West, North, South and make each conference a 12 team leauge. Shrink the playoffs but match a bit with what they're doing now. Each conference plays a championship on turkey day weekend, those 4 championship winners get a bye, the next 8 teams in by sports writer vote and host by highes bid play the next weekend while the 4 championship winners get a bye. The next week the 4 winning teams play the 4 championship teams, and then we widdle the pile down until there's just 1 team left. Maybe also create a mid-major FCS that hosts a mini-playoff or maybe 2 or 3 bowl-esque type of games.

- For some schools that we even see in the Big Sky Title IX poses an issue, we see teams like Sac and UNC get about 500 in attendance for their women's basketball gams and their teams ususally are terrible. I'm not a title 9 expert, but I wonder if the FCS scaled back the total amount of teams schools would need if that would allow some teams from having to deal with the burden of a women's basketball team or volleyball team that's a big money-waster for them. Then the Big Sky could do like the WAC and grab schools that do passionately support both mens and women's basketball but don't have football schools - Portland U, Seattle, Grand Valley, Denver and beyond. Then those schools like UM and MSU could continue to put forth quality women's programs that are self-sustaining and play at a high level.

- I wonder what kind of response/reaction the FCS could do if they actively lobbied ESPN to intentionally set-up marquee friday night games for some prime-time exposure with some of the recognizable teams and in good market areas. Not sure if they could pull it off, but say one friday is McNeese @ Youngstown St, the next friday is Georga Southern @ Deleware, after that it's Eastern Wash @ Montana, then JMU @ App St. Tour around some of the better stadiums/crowds and showcase what FCS is. Get some sponsors for it, and see if a small revenue-share program can be worked out with participating teams and ESPN.

Denying that the problems Jim Oday has outlined in his letter and multiple interviews even exist is not an option. Oday has done his homework and knows what he is talking about. The issues he outlined are going to be presented to both UM president and the Board of Regents when this all goes down. In order for the anti move up crowd to win the day you have to come up with SOLUTIONS to these problems that would allow us to stay FCS AND FIX THESE ISSUES at the same time.

 

[Ezone10]

1. If UM moves up, it will go from 63 (?) to 85 schollies for football. That will require enough new women's schollies and new sports, to offset the increase. If UM needs 2 more women's sports now, then it will probably need 4 more if UM moves up.

2. The Geo. So. feasibility study is relevant because it shows how much in additional annual operating revenues that will be needed to move up, i.e. about $5 million. The study was done in 2009.

3. Almost all, and maybe all, northern tier/cool weather I-A schools in the west region, including the WAC, have indoor practice facilities. Warm weather teams don't necessarily need indoor practice facilities.

4. O'Day is the one who said his budget was $13 million. Budget figures from third party sources are sometimes not correct. The size of the existing budget is not the relevant figure. It's the question of how much more does UM have to spend to move up; it's additional costs.

5. Many believe Utah St will leave as soon as another conference, like the MW, invites them. If TCU leaves the WAC, which is rumored, a likely MW replacement will be Utah St. There are lots of articles saying La Tech will likely leave. They weren't required to sign the MOU for the WAC exit fee this summer, because they've already indicated to the conference that they may leave.

6. The WAC has not saved it's tv contract. The amount is going to drop substantially due the departure of Boise, as well as Nevada and Fresno. It's in multiple articles.

7. The 91% figure used the bowl games of all of those teams back to 2000, and didn't use conference figures.

8. Yes, Coker is a big name. But he didn't win at Miami with no players, or with frosh and sophomores. I believe they will likely get slaughtered in most every game in their early years.

1) Sponsored WAC Sports:
Men-
Baseball
Basketball
Cross-country
Football
Golf
Indoor Track & Field
Outdoor Track & Field
Tennis


Women-
Basketball
Cross-country
Golf
Gymnastics
Indoor Track & Field
Outdoor Track & Field
Soccer
Softball
Swimming & Diving
Tennis
Volleyball


Montana Sponsored Sports:
Men-
Basketball
Cross-country
Football
Indoor Track & Field
Outdoor Track & Field
Tennis


Women-
Basketball
Cross-country
Golf
Indoor Track & Field
Outdoor Track & Field
Soccer
Tennis
Volleyball

Chances are that Montana could add these women sports; Gymnastics, Softball, and Swimming & Diving... Or heaven forbid the cut some men sports (aka track & field). But it makes me wonder why other WAC Schools can field baseball teams and football teams and still comply with title 9... Does Montana scale back the women teams scholarships?
Have no problem seeing scholarship will need to be reworked no matter how you look at it. But it already sounds like that will need to be done to some extent anyway.

2) The Georgia Southern feasibility study only mean something to them and next to nothing to the U of Montana. That's like say that Montana St should use Montana's feasibility study to determine wither or not they can move up. Just like Montana St, Georgia Southern is a totally different University than Montana and at different stages of attendance, ticket prices, facilities, booster, donations, and ect... ect... ect... Just because Georgia Southern feasibility study says this what need to happen, it does not mean it will work for Montana, Montana St, Idaho St, Weber St, Eastern Washington, and ect... Each will different needs and demands.

3) Last I knew the U of Colorado still does not have one and they were a Big 12 team (soon to be Pac ?)... If you have support and or money to build one, great. But if not you make do like other schools do. Dose Washington St have one? What about Nevada? Idaho? How many MAC schools have one? Even Big 10 +2 for than matter (and they make lots of money)? There is a huge difference between a want and a need...

4) The size of the existing budget IS the relevant figure.
Remaining WAC teams budgets (rounding numbers) and revenue from football:
Hawaii- $30.5 Million and $7.52 Million
New Mexico St- $25.6 Million and $6.48 Million
San Jose St- $17.9 Million and $4.48 Million
Utah St- $16.5 Million and $4.74 Million
Montana- $16.4 Million and $4.20 Million
Idaho- $15.1 Million and $5.90 Million
La Tech- $13.9 Million and $2.84 Million

FWIW, Boise St numbers are $20.5 Million and $8.52 Million... Back in 1996 when Boise St moved up their sports budget was under $7 Million. The year they moved from the Big west to the WAC the Idaho Statesman hard a big write up (couple full pages) talking about how they needed their budget to be at least $10 Million. So in less than 10 years in the WAC (it's been over $20 million the last 3 years), Boise St's sports budget has grown to more than double that of what it was when they came into the WAC.

5) Why would the MWC want Utah St? Media market? Don't think so, BYU and Utah control the Utah media market. Quality football program? Not there yet and they may never get there. Why would they want to move back to 10? Football works better at 9, 4 home and 4 away conference games and leaves 4 OOC games. The MWC has really seemed to like a 9 team conference.

6) I would love to see those articles. Because what I have read that Benson has said BYU has more than filled in for Boise St to keep ESPN happy. In fact ESPN worked with the WAC and BYU to help them go Independent. It's been reported that ESPN is going pay BYU between $1.2 Million to $800,000 for each BYU home game (likely much more for their games against Notre Dame and Texas) they broadcast for their TV Deal. In fact the reports say both BYU and West Virgina will $2.25 Million each for their 2016 match up in Washington DC. So to say the least ESPN seems to view BYU as a better option than Boise St, they made around $1 million for this years match up against Virginia Tech in Washington DC or maybe I'm missing something. It was also reported that BYU made over $2.5 for their match against Oklahoma last year in the grand opening of Jerry World in Texas. So it's not that hard for me to believe Benson when he says that BYU saved the WAC contract.

7) Still a very misleading number do to the fact that Utah St was Independent before joining the Sun Belt to turn around and join the WAC just after joining the Belt. New Mexico St and Idaho were stuck in the Sun Belt only had 1 Bowl tie-in for many years and had a very hard time getting at large bids, until the Sun Belt Rule was made. Like stated earlier it's better to use number when all the teams are in the same conference, but hey that would not benefit your spin job. One other factor, this the first year of the WAC's new Bowl tie-in contract and the WAC now has one more Bowl than they have ever had since the MWC schools left the WAC.
Past Bowl tie-in contracts were with- Hawaii Bowl, New Mexico Bowl, and H-Bowl
New Bowl tie-in contracts are with Hawaii Bowl, New Mexico Bowl, H-Bowl, and Poinsettia Bowl or Emerald Bowl (they rotate every other year).

8) They may not fair to good, do to lack of experience in the first year, But player can only play 4 years (plus, red-shirt) and it's not schools don't play true freshmen. It kind of like hiring a new coach, who comes in and installs his new O and D. Also Texas has tons and tons of talented players in that State. The smartest move will be for Coker to bring in at least half of his team from the JC ranks in order set up his class splits. Since you can only sign 25 recruits a year, not sure how the NCAA does this for newly forming teams... Up to 25 High School, up to 25 JCer's will be Sophomores (red-shirt or early qualifiers) and up to 25 JCer's who will be Jr's... then the next year he could sign the remaining amout to bring their total up to 85 scholarships... It will be interesting to see how they do this...



:roll:

 

[TheBud]

More e-mails like this from Jim O'Day and we will have lots of national exposure.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/25072871


http://www.egriz.com/grizboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45893