Fact: Nobody knows what it would take to move up!

[Grizzoola]

The only thing I can say in all this is that once the state acquires its lawfully raised revenue, it is the state's property, whether in facilities, programs or what. Yes, the state is accountable to taxpayers as to HOW it handles its money, but this idea that taxpayers have a RIGHT to demand a return of "their" money is ludicrous, and I don't know how this idea ever came about. If state money is taxpayer money, then we'd have numerous lawsuits by corporations & individuals demanding money back, as is now the case with so-called state surpluses.

The state has the right and obligation to collect taxes from its citizens, but once those taxes are collected, they are state property and no one else's. This affirms an earlier post that said it doesn't matter where a university gets its funding, whether from the state or from tuition. Once the university has those funds, it's the university's. I like the post's analogy to a business.

The thing I wonder about is what, exactly, is the status of the football program within the university, if it has to rent its facilities? Does any other university program have to do the same? Is this the arrangement at other schools? Then, on top of it, funds get creamed off for other university programs.

What I'm suggesting, here, is that if the football program is deemed so alien to the university to the extent that it has to rent its facilities, that perhaps the program should sever ties with the university completely and end the sham. Maybe become in name what it actually is: a semi-professional football team sponsored by the university. Maybe there should be some kind of separate board & staff that not only rents WaGriz, but also coaches' offices, training facilities, etc. Then, this organization could keep all its revenues and field teams with the Griz logo, simply and only sponsored by the university. :twocents:

 

[Tokyogriz]

Even if owned by the state, they are not owned by taxpayers

If they can explain this sentence, then they're definitely lawyers!!! :lol: :lol:

What's so hard about that. Your very last sentence in the post I quoted said: "There are a number of state owned assets dedicated by law to a specific purpose; that doesn't suggest that they aren't still owned by the state."

I then responded by saying, "Even if owned by the state, they [the assets} are not owned by taxpayers."

If this is confusing to you, then I can understand how you and I are not communicating on this.

Are we really arguing over the definition/difference between "taxpayer" and "citizen"?? I use the two interchangably, but I suppose at the absolute extreme, they're not technically the same. If that's the only difference, then I acquiesce (although it doesn't change the validity of my argument at all).

I think the point they are trying to make is only the people with the most money matter. Any other citizen does not, even if he or she pays 25% taxes on $30,000 versus Mitt Rommneys 10% on 50 Million dollars.

Technically we are not a democracy in America but a Republic which was traditionally in Greece and Rome based on the RULE of the Wealthy landowners (and the men who owned land.). Thats the real definition of Republican. The commoners,slaves,serfs etc are what the rest of us are. Thats why the whole argument you dont have money so f you is their mainstay.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit note - I have to admit the verocity and sheer poison of the politcal climate IMO in the USA since I got back is disurbing. I apologize if any feels I add to it with this post.

One thing being over seas during the 9/11 attacks made me realize when the shit hits the fan we are all going to die/fight/win/lose together as a people/country no matter what economic policy you follow as americans. There really are alot of countries/people rooting for us to fail.

 

[PlayerRep]

Even if owned by the state, they are not owned by taxpayers

If they can explain this sentence, then they're definitely lawyers!!! :lol: :lol:

What's so hard about that. Your very last sentence in the post I quoted said: "There are a number of state owned assets dedicated by law to a specific purpose; that doesn't suggest that they aren't still owned by the state."

I then responded by saying, "Even if owned by the state, they [the assets} are not owned by taxpayers."

If this is confusing to you, then I can understand how you and I are not communicating on this.

Are we really arguing over the definition/difference between "taxpayer" and "citizen"?? I use the two interchangably, but I suppose at the absolute extreme, they're not technically the same. If that's the only difference, then I acquiesce (although it doesn't change the validity of my argument at all).

No, there has been no argument over the definition/difference between taxpayer and citizen. The argument has been over whether "taxpayers own the assets of the state", and more specifically whether taxpayers own the tuition paid to a university.

 

[mcg]

The tuition/taxpayer thing is really pretty simple: Tuition money isn't "taxpayer" money because it isn't collected as a tax; it is state money as it is paid to the state. Payers of tuition have a reasonable expectation of receiving a university education in return for payment and the use of tuition dollars is ultimately controlled by the Board of Regents and their employees (primarily the university presidents).

To me the move up question boils down to this: who has more fun, Griz fans or the fans of the typical WAC or MWC team? The answer is easy, it's Griz fans (ever been to a CSU game? Yikes, it's bad). Would you trade this season's playoff games for (let's say) the New Mexico bowl? I wouldn't.

Just my opinion though, feel free to disagree.

 

[AZGrizFan]

What I'm suggesting, here, is that if the football program is deemed so alien to the university to the extent that it has to rent its facilities, that perhaps the program should sever ties with the university completely and end the sham. Maybe become in name what it actually is: a semi-professional football team sponsored by the university. Maybe there should be some kind of separate board & staff that not only rents WaGriz, but also coaches' offices, training facilities, etc. Then, this organization could keep all its revenues and field teams with the Griz logo, simply and only sponsored by the university. :twocents:

Shirley you can't be serious:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA[/youtube]

 

[AZGrizFan]

To me the move up question boils down to this: who has more fun, Griz fans or the fans of the typical WAC or MWC team? The answer is easy, it's Griz fans (ever been to a CSU game? Yikes, it's bad). Would you trade this season's playoff games for (let's say) the New Mexico bowl? I wouldn't.

Just my opinion though, feel free to disagree.

So:

a) you apparently feel that the "fun" is somehow a byproduct of the crappy competition; and
b) you are a firm believer that there will never be playoffs at the FBS level

 

[Silvertip]

i believe a few things have brought the basketball attendance down. 1. Football team. The football team has been the focus of the U and the fans. 2. Fun factor. The games are not as exciting as they use to be, maybe we have been spoiled by the pregame of the football season and that goes into the football games. Skydivers, tailgating, and the introduction of the game. In basketball the students have been moved from the old Zoo to a tiny student section and the end of the court. Teams feared about playing basketball here in Missoula, specially the big boys of the Pac and other conferences. Sounds like the football stadium now days. Now the homecourt isn't what it ise to be. 3. The 90's wasn't good for the team. The stadium was redone and many of the fans were disappointed. The team was bad to say the least. They lost that swag. Plus made to play in HS court made it look bad. Sadly the HS court is better then most of the BSC arenas. 4. The BSC. This is one of the biggest reasons. With Nevada, Idaho, Boise St. leaving we lost 3 major rivals. We replaced them with sad division 2 teams that no one cared about playing and we have lost respect from other major confrences. Why do you think the BSC commish made everyone go out and play harder schedules a few years back. We were a laughing stalk and still a laughing stalk as a confrence in Basketball. 5. Schedule. We need more big time programs to visit hear.
Football is on the downhill right now. We have peaked for the confrence we are in. We will start losing fans and money soon. People are getting tired of playing the same old teams that we beat every year and prey we don't lose because we should walk all over them. Fans want games that we are unsure how it will end. When you beat your opponent 95% of the time where is the thrill of victory. That is what made the App game so much fun. They were a team we knew we had to play our best to beat, not we will beat them 9 out of 10 times like what we play in the BSC now. Right now we only get a sour taste in our mouth when we lose. The fun and ecxitement of the game is loosing it shine. Thus the football team will be what the basketball team is now. Unless the U does something to put the excitement back in to the game and have all of us on the edge of our seats in most of the games.

Contributing to lagging fan interest in basketball was the loss of 2,000 seats with the $16 million rehab of the "UM Fieldhouse." Some fans missed the raucous atmosphere of 9,300 fans while some suggested that the remodeled digs were just too antiseptic. Many fans are not aware that George even considered a new on-campus venue with 13,000 seats, but couldn't justify a $50 million price tag. The fieldhouse project was more palatable.

BTW: Where can I see one of those :lol: stalks?

 

[GrizPony]

mcg "To me the move up question boils down to this: who has more fun, Griz fans or the fans of the typical WAC or MWC team? The answer is easy, it's Griz fans (ever been to a CSU game? Yikes, it's bad). Would you trade this season's playoff games for (let's say) the New Mexico bowl? I wouldn't.

Just my opinion though, feel free to disagree."

This!

 

[Growler1]

i believe a few things have brought the basketball attendance down. 1. Football team. The football team has been the focus of the U and the fans. 2. Fun factor. The games are not as exciting as they use to be, maybe we have been spoiled by the pregame of the football season and that goes into the football games. Skydivers, tailgating, and the introduction of the game. In basketball the students have been moved from the old Zoo to a tiny student section and the end of the court. Teams feared about playing basketball here in Missoula, specially the big boys of the Pac and other conferences. Sounds like the football stadium now days. Now the homecourt isn't what it ise to be. 3. The 90's wasn't good for the team. The stadium was redone and many of the fans were disappointed. The team was bad to say the least. They lost that swag. Plus made to play in HS court made it look bad. Sadly the HS court is better then most of the BSC arenas. 4. The BSC. This is one of the biggest reasons. With Nevada, Idaho, Boise St. leaving we lost 3 major rivals. We replaced them with sad division 2 teams that no one cared about playing and we have lost respect from other major confrences. Why do you think the BSC commish made everyone go out and play harder schedules a few years back. We were a laughing stalk and still a laughing stalk as a confrence in Basketball. 5. Schedule. We need more big time programs to visit hear.
Football is on the downhill right now. We have peaked for the confrence we are in. We will start losing fans and money soon. People are getting tired of playing the same old teams that we beat every year and prey we don't lose because we should walk all over them. Fans want games that we are unsure how it will end. When you beat your opponent 95% of the time where is the thrill of victory. That is what made the App game so much fun. They were a team we knew we had to play our best to beat, not we will beat them 9 out of 10 times like what we play in the BSC now. Right now we only get a sour taste in our mouth when we lose. The fun and ecxitement of the game is loosing it shine. Thus the football team will be what the basketball team is now. Unless the U does something to put the excitement back in to the game and have all of us on the edge of our seats in most of the games.

Contributing to lagging fan interest in basketball was the loss of 2,000 seats with the $16 million rehab of the "UM Fieldhouse." Some fans missed the raucous atmosphere of 9,300 fans while some suggested that the remodeled digs were just too antiseptic. Many fans are not aware that George even considered a new on-campus venue with 13,000 seats, but couldn't justify a $50 million price tag. The fieldhouse project was more palatable.

BTW: Where can I see one of those :lol: stalks?

I had Griz BB season tickets back in the Heathcote/Brandy/Monty days. I think the major reasons that the fan interest has waned since then are:
1) the current foieldhouse design does not lend itself to a feeling of being "involved" in the game. As you said, it is a "sterile" atmosphere.
2) the ZOO is no longer active

 

[AZGrizFan]

mcg "To me the move up question boils down to this: who has more fun, Griz fans or the fans of the typical WAC or MWC team? The answer is easy, it's Griz fans (ever been to a CSU game? Yikes, it's bad). Would you trade this season's playoff games for (let's say) the New Mexico bowl? I wouldn't.

Just my opinion though, feel free to disagree."

This!

Why would the "fun" change just because the opponent did?

And can you not admit that playoffs ARE coming to the FBS? :? :?

 

[PlayerRep]

mcg "To me the move up question boils down to this: who has more fun, Griz fans or the fans of the typical WAC or MWC team? The answer is easy, it's Griz fans (ever been to a CSU game? Yikes, it's bad). Would you trade this season's playoff games for (let's say) the New Mexico bowl? I wouldn't.

Just my opinion though, feel free to disagree."

This!

Why would the "fun" change just because the opponent did?

And can you not admit that playoffs ARE coming to the FBS? :? :?

Can you admit that any FBS playoffs would never be large enough for a school like UM to ever have a chance to particpate?

 

[GrizPony]

The fun would change because its highly unlikely we will play any teams, other than maybe Idaho, with which we have any real tradition in the last thirty years. I will believe the playoffs when I see them proposed and approved. Do you have a link that would dispel my doubts?

 

['68griz]

I agree with PlayerRep. Even if there ever were a true playoff system in FBS (and I have serious doubts that will ever happen), they would never include the likes of Montana. You've seen what happens to Boise State in the current set-up -- well, welcome to the world of FBS 'play-offs.'

 

[GrizMusician]

Well, we can all agree on one thing... move up or not, it isn't our choice, & will happen or not irregardless of what happens here...

So don't get your panties in a twist.

 

[GrizPony]

Irregardless isn't a word, regardless if that is what you believe. You do have control over your own spelling. :lol:

 

[GrizMusician]

Irregardless isn't a word, regardless if that is what you believe. You do have control over your own spelling. :lol:

My mistake, I have been known to use slang terms from time to time. I stand corrected. :thumb:

I read into it because I found it interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (SFW)

 

[Grizlaw]

Irregardless isn't a word, regardless if that is what you believe. You do have control over your own spelling. :lol:

I'm not big on criticizing others for spelling and grammar on message boards, but if you're going to do it, you might want to clean up your own first. :bad:

 

[AZGrizFan]

Irregardless isn't a word, regardless if that is what you believe. You do have control over your own spelling. :lol:

From Merriam-Webster.com:

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

I'll take their word for it. :mrgreen:

See? You were wrong today. :thumb:

 

[Grizzoola]

Well, c'mon, now. Have you ever known a musician who was entirely literate? Or even cared about being literate? Yes, there are literate musicians, but musicians speak with, well, music, not words. We can't lay this all on GrizMusician. Plenty of other people, who should know better, use "irregardless." GM writes pretty well, all things considered. At least he doesn't say, "I could care less," instead of "I couldn't care less." Big difference.

 

[poiuyter]