EWU Nevada game

[MT Jack]

Regarding the hulabaloo over last night's EWU game. Yes, EWU got beat pretty badly by a WAC...err...MWC team with one of the worst defenses in FBS. But Nevada is still a FBS team with more depth and scholarships than FCS level teams. But EWU has been a consistent competitor to the point that I still think they'll be in the Big Sky mix towards the end of the season.

StingersUp - I've never met Kem. Don't know what makes him tick but from the jist of his posts his head will explode before he gives much credit to an opposing Big Sky football program.

MSU, EWU, Sacramento State, WSU and NAU can all shake things up this year. I can't believe that ISU can have a worse year than last. Northern Colorado gotta have some hope for improvement. The only team I really don't know what to think of is Portland State but I'm hoping to watch part of their game @ Arizona State this weekend.

U of M will be good, as is usual, but their conference sched is never quite the cakewalk that a few posters here seem to imply (see last year's Griz games vs. NAU, EWU and ISU).

I think the best salve for the general snarkiness here will be Saturday's home football game.

 

[dub-foncy]

I love the Griz, but think perspective is a good thing. As for your assertion that we don't have the largest budget in the Big Sky, a simple google search shows otherwise.

University of Montana $15,214,997
Sacramento State $15,030,881
Montana State $13,300,791
Northern Arizona $10,903,027*
Idaho State $9,910,121
Portland State $9,842,541
Weber State $8,852,330
Northern Colorado $8,584,425
Eastern Washington $7,571,312

Sac State is high, but that is completely due to location. We should dominate, particularly the likes of EWU that have HALF our budget. It is a joke. Ticket guy aside, EWU folks are good people that support the Griz and vice versa. The red turf may not be for everyone, but you have to respect the media impact it is having for them. It is pure marketing with recognition in USA Today this week, the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and ESPN. I think an even better color field would be Maroon. I wish no one ill will, just feel we should respect all, particularly those less fortunate.

Those aren't our numbers you liar.

No actual Griz fan would ever confuse revenue with budget.

And while I'm on this, why wouldn't UM have the most revenue? We have the most revenue of any FBS program.

We have twice the REVENUE of EWU. So don't be suprised when the state of Washiton pulls the plug on your little program over there because it can't generate any money.

 

[Griz Voice of Reason]

My point exactly Dub. We have twice as much as EWU in everything so should dominate. No one program in the FCS compares to our program. We are by far the best which makes our crowing and denigrating of EWU not the right thing to so. Not very Christian of some of us.

The budget stats were taken directly from a 2010 consultant report found on line for NAU so not a liar. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[wittk60]

My point exactly Dub. We have twice as much as EWU in everything so should dominate. No one program in the FCS compares to our program. We are by far the best which makes our crowing and denigrating of EWU not the right thing to so. Not very Christian of some of us.

The budget stats were taken directly from a 2010 consultant report found on line for NAU so not a liar. Sorry to disappoint.

I agree you aren't a liar, but the budget quotes you gave are from FY08 and not the most current. For 2009 we were not the largest budget in athletics. I don't understand why you say because we have a higher budget that we should dominate either. This isn't professional sports were we pay our athletes and like the Yankees (who you say we are) pay more than anybody else and just pay a luxury tax. We dominate because of recruiting which is based on many things specific to individual athletes and coaching.

As far as making fun of EWU, it is trash talk and don't let it get to you.

 

[dub-foncy]

My point exactly Dub. We have twice as much as EWU in everything so should dominate. No one program in the FCS compares to our program. We are by far the best which makes our crowing and denigrating of EWU not the right thing to so. Not very Christian of some of us.

The budget stats were taken directly from a 2010 consultant report found on line for NAU so not a liar. Sorry to disappoint.

For the second time, those aren't the budget numbers. Those are revenue figures.

PM me if you need me to explain the difference.

 

[wittk60]

My point exactly Dub. We have twice as much as EWU in everything so should dominate. No one program in the FCS compares to our program. We are by far the best which makes our crowing and denigrating of EWU not the right thing to so. Not very Christian of some of us.

The budget stats were taken directly from a 2010 consultant report found on line for NAU so not a liar. Sorry to disappoint.

For the second time, those aren't the budget numbers. Those are revenue figures.

PM me if you need me to explain the difference.

If those aren't budget numbers then maybe you should talk to NAU and not this guy. He got the numbers from here http://www4.nau.edu/president/NAUFinalEvaluationReport021710.pdf on page 36 of the pdf. Pay attention to the header.

 

[Griz Voice of Reason]

Thanks for the support. I agree they've probably been reduced since then due to budget cuts, but most likely by similar ratios for all schools. My guess is that we are still #1 in budget and revenue (to dub's point). Bottom line is we are the big fish in a very small pond so should win most everything. We are the mighty Griz are we not? Hence our expectations are high and regard for others in the league below our regard for our "Yankee-esque" program.

Again, much appreciated.

 

[kemajic]

My point exactly Dub. We have twice as much as EWU in everything so should dominate. No one program in the FCS compares to our program. We are by far the best which makes our crowing and denigrating of EWU not the right thing to so. Not very Christian of some of us.

The budget stats were taken directly from a 2010 consultant report found on line for NAU so not a liar. Sorry to disappoint.

14-3 is pretty dominant.

 

[kemajic]

U of M will be good, as is usual, but their conference sched is never quite the cakewalk that a few posters here seem to imply (see last year's Griz games vs. NAU, EWU and ISU).

OK, 31-1 is not a cakewalk. What is it?

 

[grizatheart]

Since I was at the game last night, I will give you a little of what I saw:

TJ was the best player on the field last night. He is the real deal and is a dual threat both to running and receiving. EWU used the flats last night. Not much running between the tackles and when they did, the other back Darriell Beaumonte that did it. They couldn't get anyone open down the field to speak of. They couldn't, at all handle any of the Nevada blitz packages. Nevada had someone in Bo Levi's face all game long. On D, the couldn't stop Nevada's Tight End Virgil Green. He had two long touchdown catches. One that he made a great catch in traffic and the other were he just out ran everyone on the Easten side of the ball. Nevada was up 14-0 after 7 minutes in the game but give EWU credit, they didn't roll over. I think they earned a little credit from the Nevada fans and they did represent the Big Sky well.

 

[dub-foncy]

Thanks for the support. I agree they've probably been reduced since then due to budget cuts, but most likely by similar ratios for all schools. My guess is that we are still #1 in budget and revenue (to dub's point). Bottom line is we are the big fish in a very small pond so should win most everything. We are the mighty Griz are we not? Hence our expectations are high and regard for others in the league below our regard for our "Yankee-esque" program.

Again, much appreciated.

Actually, we shouldn't win most everything. That means our level of competition sucks and we probably play at the wrong level. "If you can't beat em, blame the budget." What a laugher. What do you think UM's budget is actually used on that is giving us such a giant advantage? I'd love to hear your theory.

And here's some more real talk for you:

"College athletics revolve around - brace yourself - money. Montana has by far the best television package in the FCS and this year it made around $72,000. O’Day has had roughly the same $13 million budget the past three years while costs have increased. His budget is stretched thin."

http://helenair.com/sports/article_2bb673a0-67d0-11df-b143-001cc4c002e0.html

Ooooop, your made up numbers were wrong. Your argument is dead. Start over.

If EWU's athletic budget actually is only half of UM's, then it's no wonder they can't win anything. It's no wonder they give up in the third quarter of all their games.

That 5 star transfer from UW came to us despite the fact he is from Washington. He didn't even give EWU a second thought. That didn't cost us anything.

If EWU's budget really is only 6.5 mil, they won't be around much longer. No big loss.

 

[wittk60]

Thanks for the support. I agree they've probably been reduced since then due to budget cuts, but most likely by similar ratios for all schools. My guess is that we are still #1 in budget and revenue (to dub's point). Bottom line is we are the big fish in a very small pond so should win most everything. We are the mighty Griz are we not? Hence our expectations are high and regard for others in the league below our regard for our "Yankee-esque" program.

Again, much appreciated.

Actually, we shouldn't win most everything. That means our level of competition sucks and we probably play at the wrong level. "If you can't beat em, blame the budget." What a laugher. What do you think UM's budget is actually used on that is giving us such a giant advantage? I'd love to hear your theory.

And here's some more real talk for you:

"College athletics revolve around - brace yourself - money. Montana has by far the best television package in the FCS and this year it made around $72,000. O’Day has had roughly the same $13 million budget the past three years while costs have increased. His budget is stretched thin."

http://helenair.com/sports/article_2bb673a0-67d0-11df-b143-001cc4c002e0.html

Ooooop, your made up number were wrong. Your argument is dead. Start over.

It EWU's athletic budget actually is only half of UM's, then it's no wonder they can't win anything. It's no wonder they give up in the third quarter of all their games.

That 5 star transfer from UW came to us despite the fact he is from Washington. He didn't even give EWU a second thought. That didn't cost us anything.

If EWU's budget really is only 6.5 mil, they won't be around much longer. No big loss.

Ooooop, you didn't look at the link above showing the budgets from fiscal year 08 according to NAU. His numbers weren't made up, just two years old.

 

[dub-foncy]

Ooooop, you didn't look at the link above showing the budgets from fiscal year 08 according to NAU. His numbers weren't made up, just two years old.

Why would I look at that study? It's irrelevant. The people who did the study obviously pulled the numbers out of their ass.

Our athletic budget did not decrease by $2.2 million dollars over the last three years. Do you think that it would be possible to trim that much money out of an already small budget without massive noticeable changes?

The quote above proves those numbers were wrong. So quit bringing that study up. The numbers are bogus. The more you talk about them, the stupider you look.

 

[Griz Voice of Reason]

Dub, you have some issues my friend. I feel sorry for you that your life is that bad that you feel the need to strike out. Glad that most Griz aren't like you. Whatever is troubling you I hope it improves. My Eagle wife and I will pray for you. God bless.

 

[dub-foncy]

Dub, you have some issues my friend. I feel sorry for you that your life is that bad that you feel the need to strike out. Glad that most Griz aren't like you. Whatever is troubling you I hope it improves. My Eagle wife and I will pray for you. God bless.

And I'm sorry that your team sucks so bad that you need to pose as a Griz fan and blame your lack of success on something as irrelevant as a normal sized FCS athletic budget. All the while using bad data.

You're going to be doing a lot of praying buddy. Don't wear the knees in your jeans out bro.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Griz Voice of Reason]

Whatever dub. Wish I knew what you looked like and I woulld buy you a beer at tomorrows game. I do wish you well. We are all Griz.

 

[dub-foncy]

Whatever dub. Wish I knew what you looked like and I woulld buy you a beer at tomorrows game. I do wish you well. We are all Griz.

Look for a demonic Henry Winkler. I tailgate by the Loch Ness Monster.

 

[wittk60]

Ooooop, you didn't look at the link above showing the budgets from fiscal year 08 according to NAU. His numbers weren't made up, just two years old.

Why would I look at that study? It's irrelevant. The people who did the study obviously pulled the numbers out of their ass.

Our athletic budget did not decrease by $2.2 million dollars over the last three years. Do you think that it would be possible to trim that much money out of an already small budget without massive noticeable changes?

The quote above proves those numbers were wrong. So quit bringing that study up. The numbers are bogus. The more you talk about them, the stupider you look.

Wow, you can't even admit you were wrong. I mean you can't be wrong. I guess I will remember from now on that Dub is right and no matter what you can prove it doesn't matter because Dub is right. I will now always use you as my source. Do you want to write encyclopedias because you are obviously qualified.

 

[dub-foncy]

Why would I look at that study? It's irrelevant. The people who did the study obviously pulled the numbers out of their ass.

Our athletic budget did not decrease by $2.2 million dollars over the last three years. Do you think that it would be possible to trim that much money out of an already small budget without massive noticeable changes?

The quote above proves those numbers were wrong. So quit bringing that study up. The numbers are bogus. The more you talk about them, the stupider you look.

Wow, you can't even admit you were wrong. I mean you can't be wrong. I guess I will remember from now on that Dub is right and no matter what you can prove it doesn't matter because Dub is right. I will now always use you as my source. Do you want to write encyclopedias because you are obviously qualified.

The study numbers are wrong according to our AD. I provided a source in the link.

You aren't providing anything beyond a sour attitude.

Yet you continue to post that I'm wrong and you were right...

You might want to bow out here until you can provide some evidence to back up your claims.

 

[wittk60]

The study numbers are wrong according to our AD. I provided a source in the link.

You aren't providing anything beyond a sour attitude.

Yet you continue to post that I'm wrong and you were right...

You might want to bow out here until you can provide some evidence to back up your claims.

I provided evidence of two years ago. You are being a stubborn ass. That was a published report with actual numbers. Yours is an newspaper article with "roughly". I listened to Greg Sundberg two days ago on this very topic and yes the budget is currently around $13 million (and yes I consider $15.2 million to be around $13). So you should quit calling people liars and saying numbers are made up when they are not. I am now done with this topic as nothing I will say will ever convince you.