Fullerton wants to split the BSC into two football leagues

[PlayerRep]

Actually, AZ, UND's description is pretty accurate. I don't think UM's ultimatum was as severe as UND makes it. Rather, what UM told the conference is that they intend to always do what's in the best interest of the University of Montana, and if that means leaving the conference, going FBS, whatever, they would take that action whenever the time was right. So if the conference was intent on keeping Montana, the conference and the teams in it had to be prepared for a number of scenarios, including going FBS.

Montana knows it drives the bus in the BSC, and when and if it's appropriate, they won't be afraid to use that leverage.

Actually, what the UND poster is saying is total BS, and what Everett said is not what UND is saying and is also not accurate. When the conference was doing the expansion several years ago, the new schools and the conference required UM to provide assurances that it was not planning to and would not go to FBS. I don't know the exact assurances nor their duration. It is certainly possible that, following that assurance, UM has also said some of the other things that Everett said. There is no way that Engstrom is orchestrating anything like what UND has said. And, of course, UM has been looking ahead, watching the changes, trying to approve its program and upgrade its facilities, and trying to be in position to adapt as the landscape changes and opportunities arise.

With the declining enrollment, declining revenues from tuition and the state (caused by per capita allocation), and the study showing UM would need over $5 million of additional annual revenues to move up, can you imagine the reaction of the Board of Regents if Engstrom suggested that UM move up to a new or mediocre FBS conference? This combined with some people saying the Big Sky conference is now the strongest it has ever been, and UM no longer dominating football in the conference.

 

[EverettGriz]

Sounds as though we're all saying the same thing: UM has made it clear to the conference that if it is the right decision for UM at the time, they'll make the FBS move.

 

[AZGrizFan]

From a Montana perspective, if you wanted to go FBS, wouldn't you make your intentions known to the MWC, and wait for that opening in the next few years?

And what is going to create that opening? I mean, in all seriousness, where is ANY current member of the MWC going to go?

 

[maroonandsilver]

Actually, AZ, UND's description is pretty accurate. I don't think UM's ultimatum was as severe as UND makes it. Rather, what UM told the conference is that they intend to always do what's in the best interest of the University of Montana, and if that means leaving the conference, going FBS, whatever, they would take that action whenever the time was right. So if the conference was intent on keeping Montana, the conference and the teams in it had to be prepared for a number of scenarios, including going FBS.

Montana knows it drives the bus in the BSC, and when and if it's appropriate, they won't be afraid to use that leverage.

Actually, what the UND poster is saying is total BS, and what Everett said is not what UND is saying and is also not accurate. When the conference was doing the expansion several years ago, the new schools and the conference required UM to provide assurances that it was not planning to and would not go to FBS. I don't know the exact assurances nor their duration. It is certainly possible that, following that assurance, UM has also said some of the other things that Everett said. There is no way that Engstrom is orchestrating anything like what UND has said. And, of course, UM has been looking ahead, watching the changes, trying to approve its program and upgrade its facilities, and trying to be in position to adapt as the landscape changes and opportunities arise.

With the declining enrollment, declining revenues from tuition and the state (caused by per capita allocation), and the study showing UM would need over $5 million of additional annual revenues to move up, can you imagine the reaction of the Board of Regents if Engstrom suggested that UM move up to a new or mediocre FBS conference? This combined with some people saying the Big Sky conference is now the strongest it has ever been, and UM no longer dominating football in the conference.

You nailed it, PlayerRep.

This is the dumbest idea to cross Fullerton's mind since he decided to become a Bobcat.

 

[Herd]

From a Montana perspective, if you wanted to go FBS, wouldn't you make your intentions known to the MWC, and wait for that opening in the next few years?

And what is going to create that opening? I mean, in all seriousness, where is ANY current member of the MWC going to go?

IMO, it would not take a departure for the MWC to consider Montana's application. If Montana made move intentions known to the MWC, they would get there eventually.

What I was stating . . . would it be wiser for Montana to be FBS in the MWC, or to be FBS in an FBS Big Sky (fantasy I know)? It's not even close, they would be better off if they were FBS in the MWC.

 

[statler & waldorf]

Kemajic, where are you?

 

[CatzWillRise]

How is an FBS conference full of current FCS schools any different than just being FCS?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

How is an FBS conference full of current FCS schools any different than just being FCS?

For the Griz: Wouldn't be able to make the NCAA championship game anymore.
For the Cats: No difference.

 

[grizrgood]

How is an FBS conference full of current FCS schools any different than just being FCS?

For the Griz: Wouldn't be able to make the NCAA championship game anymore.
For the Cats: No difference.

Wait for it..............BOOM! :lol:

 

[UNDfan]

Actually, AZ, UND's description is pretty accurate. I don't think UM's ultimatum was as severe as UND makes it. Rather, what UM told the conference is that they intend to always do what's in the best interest of the University of Montana, and if that means leaving the conference, going FBS, whatever, they would take that action whenever the time was right. So if the conference was intent on keeping Montana, the conference and the teams in it had to be prepared for a number of scenarios, including going FBS.

Montana knows it drives the bus in the BSC, and when and if it's appropriate, they won't be afraid to use that leverage.

Actually, what the UND poster is saying is total BS, and what Everett said is not what UND is saying and is also not accurate. When the conference was doing the expansion several years ago, the new schools and the conference required UM to provide assurances that it was not planning to and would not go to FBS. I don't know the exact assurances nor their duration. It is certainly possible that, following that assurance, UM has also said some of the other things that Everett said. There is no way that Engstrom is orchestrating anything like what UND has said. And, of course, UM has been looking ahead, watching the changes, trying to approve its program and upgrade its facilities, and trying to be in position to adapt as the landscape changes and opportunities arise.

With the declining enrollment, declining revenues from tuition and the state (caused by per capita allocation), and the study showing UM would need over $5 million of additional annual revenues to move up, can you imagine the reaction of the Board of Regents if Engstrom suggested that UM move up to a new or mediocre FBS conference? This combined with some people saying the Big Sky conference is now the strongest it has ever been, and UM no longer dominating football in the conference.

Montana and Mont St agreed to stay out the WAC if a majority of Big Sky schools agreed to work towards FBS by 2020. Montana and Montana St backed out of a WAC agreement on the day the WAC announced UTSA, Tex St, and Denver were announced. The WAC schools were stunned. A week later, the Big Sky announced UND, USD, and SUU would be added. The Montana's have wanted the Dakotas for decades in the Big Sky, but the other Big Sky schools did not. The Montana's finally got their wish because they threw that WAC invite at them, and the other panicked schools begged to do whatever they wished if they stayed.

Here's a blog with details from someone close to the Denver athletic department. Montana and Montana State backed out at the last minute from joining the WAC. Its amazing how little the Griz actually know about what transpired. Montana's admin does not want their fans to know those "little" facts. Montana is the king in the Sky and they were throwing around their weight in order to reach a long term goal of FBS in a regional conference. Texas was not regional. The only part of the WAC that Montana and Mt St like was Idaho. Idaho agreed to come back because it knew the Big Sky's plans were FBS, otherwise it wouldn't come back.
http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/36615559776/denver-to-join-summit-league-in-2013

Indeed, the first warning sign occurred on the very day of the announcement, when then-commissioner Karl Benson revealed during a press teleconference, conducted from an office at DU’s Ritchie Center mere minutes before the big party/press conference, that he had hoped to announce Montana and Montana State joining the league on the same day that Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio did, but the Montana schools had backed out at the last minute. (Texas State and UTSA, incidentally, would bolt in early 2012, staying in the WAC for only one year — just like Denver is doing, as it turns out.)

 

[UNDfan]

Actually, AZ, UND's description is pretty accurate. I don't think UM's ultimatum was as severe as UND makes it. Rather, what UM told the conference is that they intend to always do what's in the best interest of the University of Montana, and if that means leaving the conference, going FBS, whatever, they would take that action whenever the time was right. So if the conference was intent on keeping Montana, the conference and the teams in it had to be prepared for a number of scenarios, including going FBS.

Montana knows it drives the bus in the BSC, and when and if it's appropriate, they won't be afraid to use that leverage.

Actually, what the UND poster is saying is total BS, and what Everett said is not what UND is saying and is also not accurate. When the conference was doing the expansion several years ago, the new schools and the conference required UM to provide assurances that it was not planning to and would not go to FBS. I don't know the exact assurances nor their duration. It is certainly possible that, following that assurance, UM has also said some of the other things that Everett said. There is no way that Engstrom is orchestrating anything like what UND has said. And, of course, UM has been looking ahead, watching the changes, trying to approve its program and upgrade its facilities, and trying to be in position to adapt as the landscape changes and opportunities arise.

With the declining enrollment, declining revenues from tuition and the state (caused by per capita allocation), and the study showing UM would need over $5 million of additional annual revenues to move up, can you imagine the reaction of the Board of Regents if Engstrom suggested that UM move up to a new or mediocre FBS conference? This combined with some people saying the Big Sky conference is now the strongest it has ever been, and UM no longer dominating football in the conference.

You nailed it, PlayerRep.

This is the dumbest idea to cross Fullerton's mind since he decided to become a Bobcat.

If Fullerton is off on this, he should be fired. But Fullerton has Engstrom's full backing.

The nerve of Fullerton to speak to a Missoula newpaper with aspirations for the Big Sky. :shock:

 

[PlayerRep]

Actually, AZ, UND's description is pretty accurate. I don't think UM's ultimatum was as severe as UND makes it. Rather, what UM told the conference is that they intend to always do what's in the best interest of the University of Montana, and if that means leaving the conference, going FBS, whatever, they would take that action whenever the time was right. So if the conference was intent on keeping Montana, the conference and the teams in it had to be prepared for a number of scenarios, including going FBS.

Montana knows it drives the bus in the BSC, and when and if it's appropriate, they won't be afraid to use that leverage.

Actually, what the UND poster is saying is total BS, and what Everett said is not what UND is saying and is also not accurate. When the conference was doing the expansion several years ago, the new schools and the conference required UM to provide assurances that it was not planning to and would not go to FBS. I don't know the exact assurances nor their duration. It is certainly possible that, following that assurance, UM has also said some of the other things that Everett said. There is no way that Engstrom is orchestrating anything like what UND has said. And, of course, UM has been looking ahead, watching the changes, trying to approve its program and upgrade its facilities, and trying to be in position to adapt as the landscape changes and opportunities arise.

With the declining enrollment, declining revenues from tuition and the state (caused by per capita allocation), and the study showing UM would need over $5 million of additional annual revenues to move up, can you imagine the reaction of the Board of Regents if Engstrom suggested that UM move up to a new or mediocre FBS conference? This combined with some people saying the Big Sky conference is now the strongest it has ever been, and UM no longer dominating football in the conference.

Montana and Mont St agreed to stay out the WAC if a majority of Big Sky schools agreed to work towards FBS by 2020. Montana and Montana St backed out of a WAC agreement on the day the WAC announced UTSA, Tex St, and Denver were announced. The WAC schools were stunned. A week later, the Big Sky announced UND, USD, and SUU would be added. The Montana's have wanted the Dakotas for decades in the Big Sky, but the other Big Sky schools did not. The Montana's finally got their wish because they threw that WAC invite at them, and the other panicked schools begged to do whatever they wished if they stayed.

Here's a blog with details from someone close to the Denver athletic department. Montana and Montana State backed out at the last minute from joining the WAC. Its amazing how little the Griz actually know about what transpired. Montana's admin does not want their fans to know those "little" facts. Montana is the king in the Sky and they were throwing around their weight in order to reach a long term goal of FBS in a regional conference. Texas was not regional. The only part of the WAC that Montana and Mt St like was Idaho. Idaho agreed to come back because it knew the Big Sky's plans were FBS, otherwise it wouldn't come back.
http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/36615559776/denver-to-join-summit-league-in-2013

Indeed, the first warning sign occurred on the very day of the announcement, when then-commissioner Karl Benson revealed during a press teleconference, conducted from an office at DU’s Ritchie Center mere minutes before the big party/press conference, that he had hoped to announce Montana and Montana State joining the league on the same day that Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio did, but the Montana schools had backed out at the last minute. (Texas State and UTSA, incidentally, would bolt in early 2012, staying in the WAC for only one year — just like Denver is doing, as it turns out.)

This is total BS. Not even remotely accurate. That's not what occurred at all.

 

[UNDfan]

Actually, AZ, UND's description is pretty accurate. I don't think UM's ultimatum was as severe as UND makes it. Rather, what UM told the conference is that they intend to always do what's in the best interest of the University of Montana, and if that means leaving the conference, going FBS, whatever, they would take that action whenever the time was right. So if the conference was intent on keeping Montana, the conference and the teams in it had to be prepared for a number of scenarios, including going FBS.

Montana knows it drives the bus in the BSC, and when and if it's appropriate, they won't be afraid to use that leverage.

Actually, what the UND poster is saying is total BS, and what Everett said is not what UND is saying and is also not accurate. When the conference was doing the expansion several years ago, the new schools and the conference required UM to provide assurances that it was not planning to and would not go to FBS. I don't know the exact assurances nor their duration. It is certainly possible that, following that assurance, UM has also said some of the other things that Everett said. There is no way that Engstrom is orchestrating anything like what UND has said. And, of course, UM has been looking ahead, watching the changes, trying to approve its program and upgrade its facilities, and trying to be in position to adapt as the landscape changes and opportunities arise.

With the declining enrollment, declining revenues from tuition and the state (caused by per capita allocation), and the study showing UM would need over $5 million of additional annual revenues to move up, can you imagine the reaction of the Board of Regents if Engstrom suggested that UM move up to a new or mediocre FBS conference? This combined with some people saying the Big Sky conference is now the strongest it has ever been, and UM no longer dominating football in the conference.

Montana and Mont St agreed to stay out the WAC if a majority of Big Sky schools agreed to work towards FBS by 2020. Montana and Montana St backed out of a WAC agreement on the day the WAC announced UTSA, Tex St, and Denver were announced. The WAC schools were stunned. A week later, the Big Sky announced UND, USD, and SUU would be added. The Montana's have wanted the Dakotas for decades in the Big Sky, but the other Big Sky schools did not. The Montana's finally got their wish because they threw that WAC invite at them, and the other panicked schools begged to do whatever they wished if they stayed.

Here's a blog with details from someone close to the Denver athletic department. Montana and Montana State backed out at the last minute from joining the WAC. Its amazing how little the Griz actually know about what transpired. Montana's admin does not want their fans to know those "little" facts. Montana is the king in the Sky and they were throwing around their weight in order to reach a long term goal of FBS in a regional conference. Texas was not regional. The only part of the WAC that Montana and Mt St like was Idaho. Idaho agreed to come back because it knew the Big Sky's plans were FBS, otherwise it wouldn't come back.
http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/36615559776/denver-to-join-summit-league-in-2013

Indeed, the first warning sign occurred on the very day of the announcement, when then-commissioner Karl Benson revealed during a press teleconference, conducted from an office at DU’s Ritchie Center mere minutes before the big party/press conference, that he had hoped to announce Montana and Montana State joining the league on the same day that Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio did, but the Montana schools had backed out at the last minute. (Texas State and UTSA, incidentally, would bolt in early 2012, staying in the WAC for only one year — just like Denver is doing, as it turns out.)

This is total BS. Not even remotely accurate. That's not what occurred at all.

Yeah, like you were in Denver at the WAC announcement. It is what it is, but yet you are in denial. The true BS is that Montana wanted to be buddy-buddy with Idaho St in FCS forever. Your admin wasn't the lambs that you portray. A true admin person can spin a really good story about how they want to stay FCS. You're the sheep, and they're the wolves.

 

[Ursa Major]

Actually, what the UND poster is saying is total BS, and what Everett said is not what UND is saying and is also not accurate. When the conference was doing the expansion several years ago, the new schools and the conference required UM to provide assurances that it was not planning to and would not go to FBS. I don't know the exact assurances nor their duration. It is certainly possible that, following that assurance, UM has also said some of the other things that Everett said. There is no way that Engstrom is orchestrating anything like what UND has said. And, of course, UM has been looking ahead, watching the changes, trying to approve its program and upgrade its facilities, and trying to be in position to adapt as the landscape changes and opportunities arise.

With the declining enrollment, declining revenues from tuition and the state (caused by per capita allocation), and the study showing UM would need over $5 million of additional annual revenues to move up, can you imagine the reaction of the Board of Regents if Engstrom suggested that UM move up to a new or mediocre FBS conference? This combined with some people saying the Big Sky conference is now the strongest it has ever been, and UM no longer dominating football in the conference.

Montana and Mont St agreed to stay out the WAC if a majority of Big Sky schools agreed to work towards FBS by 2020. Montana and Montana St backed out of a WAC agreement on the day the WAC announced UTSA, Tex St, and Denver were announced. The WAC schools were stunned. A week later, the Big Sky announced UND, USD, and SUU would be added. The Montana's have wanted the Dakotas for decades in the Big Sky, but the other Big Sky schools did not. The Montana's finally got their wish because they threw that WAC invite at them, and the other panicked schools begged to do whatever they wished if they stayed.

Here's a blog with details from someone close to the Denver athletic department. Montana and Montana State backed out at the last minute from joining the WAC. Its amazing how little the Griz actually know about what transpired. Montana's admin does not want their fans to know those "little" facts. Montana is the king in the Sky and they were throwing around their weight in order to reach a long term goal of FBS in a regional conference. Texas was not regional. The only part of the WAC that Montana and Mt St like was Idaho. Idaho agreed to come back because it knew the Big Sky's plans were FBS, otherwise it wouldn't come back.
http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/36615559776/denver-to-join-summit-league-in-2013

Indeed, the first warning sign occurred on the very day of the announcement, when then-commissioner Karl Benson revealed during a press teleconference, conducted from an office at DU’s Ritchie Center mere minutes before the big party/press conference, that he had hoped to announce Montana and Montana State joining the league on the same day that Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio did, but the Montana schools had backed out at the last minute. (Texas State and UTSA, incidentally, would bolt in early 2012, staying in the WAC for only one year — just like Denver is doing, as it turns out.)

This is total BS. Not even remotely accurate. That's not what occurred at all.

Yeah, like you were in Denver at the WAC announcement. It is what it is, but yet you are in denial. The true BS is that Montana wanted to be buddy-buddy with Idaho St in FCS forever. Your admin wasn't the lambs that you portray. A true admin person can spin a really good story about how they want to stay FCS. You're the sheep, and they're the wolves.

Were you recently bitten by a wild animal with white foam around it's mouth? Serious question.

 

[PlayerRep]

Actually, what the UND poster is saying is total BS, and what Everett said is not what UND is saying and is also not accurate. When the conference was doing the expansion several years ago, the new schools and the conference required UM to provide assurances that it was not planning to and would not go to FBS. I don't know the exact assurances nor their duration. It is certainly possible that, following that assurance, UM has also said some of the other things that Everett said. There is no way that Engstrom is orchestrating anything like what UND has said. And, of course, UM has been looking ahead, watching the changes, trying to approve its program and upgrade its facilities, and trying to be in position to adapt as the landscape changes and opportunities arise.

With the declining enrollment, declining revenues from tuition and the state (caused by per capita allocation), and the study showing UM would need over $5 million of additional annual revenues to move up, can you imagine the reaction of the Board of Regents if Engstrom suggested that UM move up to a new or mediocre FBS conference? This combined with some people saying the Big Sky conference is now the strongest it has ever been, and UM no longer dominating football in the conference.

Montana and Mont St agreed to stay out the WAC if a majority of Big Sky schools agreed to work towards FBS by 2020. Montana and Montana St backed out of a WAC agreement on the day the WAC announced UTSA, Tex St, and Denver were announced. The WAC schools were stunned. A week later, the Big Sky announced UND, USD, and SUU would be added. The Montana's have wanted the Dakotas for decades in the Big Sky, but the other Big Sky schools did not. The Montana's finally got their wish because they threw that WAC invite at them, and the other panicked schools begged to do whatever they wished if they stayed.

Here's a blog with details from someone close to the Denver athletic department. Montana and Montana State backed out at the last minute from joining the WAC. Its amazing how little the Griz actually know about what transpired. Montana's admin does not want their fans to know those "little" facts. Montana is the king in the Sky and they were throwing around their weight in order to reach a long term goal of FBS in a regional conference. Texas was not regional. The only part of the WAC that Montana and Mt St like was Idaho. Idaho agreed to come back because it knew the Big Sky's plans were FBS, otherwise it wouldn't come back.
http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/36615559776/denver-to-join-summit-league-in-2013

Indeed, the first warning sign occurred on the very day of the announcement, when then-commissioner Karl Benson revealed during a press teleconference, conducted from an office at DU’s Ritchie Center mere minutes before the big party/press conference, that he had hoped to announce Montana and Montana State joining the league on the same day that Denver, Texas State, and Texas-San Antonio did, but the Montana schools had backed out at the last minute. (Texas State and UTSA, incidentally, would bolt in early 2012, staying in the WAC for only one year — just like Denver is doing, as it turns out.)

This is total BS. Not even remotely accurate. That's not what occurred at all.

Yeah, like you were in Denver at the WAC announcement. It is what it is, but yet you are in denial. The true BS is that Montana wanted to be buddy-buddy with Idaho St in FCS forever. Your admin wasn't the lambs that you portray. A true admin person can spin a really good story about how they want to stay FCS. You're the sheep, and they're the wolves.

I emailed your posts to the UM athletic director at the time, and the first two words of his response were "Not true." BWahlberg can confirm, as I forwarded the email to him.

You are an idiot and a liar. I was in fairly close touch with the AD, who is my good friend, during the time in question, and I also have talked to the Big Sky conference administrators about this subject on various occassions.

 

[UNDfan]

Montana and Mont St agreed to stay out the WAC if a majority of Big Sky schools agreed to work towards FBS by 2020. Montana and Montana St backed out of a WAC agreement on the day the WAC announced UTSA, Tex St, and Denver were announced. The WAC schools were stunned. A week later, the Big Sky announced UND, USD, and SUU would be added. The Montana's have wanted the Dakotas for decades in the Big Sky, but the other Big Sky schools did not. The Montana's finally got their wish because they threw that WAC invite at them, and the other panicked schools begged to do whatever they wished if they stayed.

Here's a blog with details from someone close to the Denver athletic department. Montana and Montana State backed out at the last minute from joining the WAC. Its amazing how little the Griz actually know about what transpired. Montana's admin does not want their fans to know those "little" facts. Montana is the king in the Sky and they were throwing around their weight in order to reach a long term goal of FBS in a regional conference. Texas was not regional. The only part of the WAC that Montana and Mt St like was Idaho. Idaho agreed to come back because it knew the Big Sky's plans were FBS, otherwise it wouldn't come back.
http://milehighmids.tumblr.com/post/36615559776/denver-to-join-summit-league-in-2013

This is total BS. Not even remotely accurate. That's not what occurred at all.

Yeah, like you were in Denver at the WAC announcement. It is what it is, but yet you are in denial. The true BS is that Montana wanted to be buddy-buddy with Idaho St in FCS forever. Your admin wasn't the lambs that you portray. A true admin person can spin a really good story about how they want to stay FCS. You're the sheep, and they're the wolves.

I emailed your posts to the UM athletic director at the time, and the first two words of his response were "Not true." BWahlberg can confirm, as I forwarded the email to him.

You are an idiot and a liar. I was in fairly close touch with the AD, who is my good friend, during the time in question, and I also have talked to the Big Sky conference administrators about this subject on various occassions.

So you're an admin groupie. Of course an AD would say "not true" if its 99% true. One word is misspelled or something happened that wasn't reported and its truly "not true". You foolishly never asked him what part isn't true.

BWahlberg wasn't in the meeting and is only told what to say, not what was happened. According to you, everything in the Big Sky meetings is one big, dumb, and happy meeting for ISU to Montana. They never inform you when the meetings have been slugged out with voices raised, because the President's don't want you to know that. Montana will put on a face of wanting FCS, until everybody is ready for FBS, and then they will do a switch in PR.

Your so naive about PR that it isn't even funny, unless your an eight year old.

Fullerton is toting the Montana line, otherwise he would be fired. Simple as that. Montana has wanted FBS for some time. Their driving it in the conference. Deal with it.

 

[NavyBlue]

UND Fan, as someone who wanted UM to go FBS for a long time and followed this situation closely for years I must say I don't think you know what you are talking about. UM (and MSU) has very loyal to the I-AA/FCS brand of football over the years, so has thier fanbases. I think you would be hard pressed to find two schools more loyal to FCS than UM and MSU.

If Montana wanted to go FBS as bad as you claim and have wanted to for a long time, why would they wait until 2020 to do it with a bunch of FCS schools in the Big Sky that may not be willing or able to go FBS even then?

In the mid 1990's, USU's AD at the time Chuck Bell told me that the Big West Conference was working with Idaho, Boise State and Montana trying to convince them to go to FBS (I-A at the time). Montana did not come. Being a Montana native I was disapointed that I would not get to see regular USU/UM match ups. Later when I asked him why he said,"UM enjoyed being a big fish in a small pond", and that was the first time I ever remember hearing that phrase.

UM, I am very certain could have joined the WAC right around the time USU, NMSU, and Idaho did. I don't see why a threatened WAC would have turned away a determined to join UM. I know full well that USU and Idaho would have loved to have UM in the WAC. Then of course, just before the demise of the WAC, the WAC was openly courting UM and were publically turned down.

UM does have a bigger fan base and better facilities than most FCS schools but it does not at all seem to me that they are hell bent on jumping to FBS. Really, quite the opposite and I am someone who would love to see UM as the next school added to the Mountain West Conference. I don't see it happening. I wish I did.

 

[AZGrizFan]

UND Fan, as someone who wanted UM to go FBS for a long time and followed this situation closely for years I must say I don't think you know what you are talking about. UM (and MSU) has very loyal to the I-AA/FCS brand of football over the years, so has thier fanbases. I think you would be hard pressed to find two schools more loyal to FCS than UM and MSU.

If Montana wanted to go FBS as bad as you claim and have wanted to for a long time, why would they wait until 2020 to do it with a bunch of FCS schools in the Big Sky that may not be willing or able to go FBS even then?

In the mid 1990's, USU's AD at the time Chuck Bell told me that the Big West Conference was working with Idaho, Boise State and Montana trying to convince them to go to FBS (I-A at the time). Montana did not come. Being a Montana native I was disapointed that I would not get to see regular USU/UM match ups. Later when I asked him why he said,"UM enjoyed being a big fish in a small pond", and that was the first time I ever remember hearing that phrase.

UM, I am very certain could have joined the WAC right around the time USU, NMSU, and Idaho did. I don't see why a threatened WAC would have turned away a determined to join UM. I know full well that USU and Idaho would have loved to have UM in the WAC. Then of course, just before the demise of the WAC, the WAC was openly courting UM and were publically turned down.

UM does have a bigger fan base and better facilities than most FCS schools but it does not at all seem to me that they are hell bent on jumping to FBS. Really, quite the opposite and I am someone who would love to see UM as the next school added to the Mountain West Conference. I don't see it happening. I wish I did.

1000% spot on. Especially the last paragraph.