Griz Rumor: to 1-A

[MrTitleist]

Arkansas State won it this year. But yeah, normally UNT wins it. Fluke year. And yeah.. WITHOUT LOOKING I KNEW THAT TRIVIAL PIECE OF KNOWLEDGE!

 

[Grizbacker1]

My God..
You guys can be so negative " we can't compete" I am glad you do not lead the way. If I was a kid on this team I would think man I can't belive how some of these fans think we could not compete. I bet everyone of them would love a shot at playing Fresno State and Boise and they DO belive they could run with them.. You are basically saying we want to recruit all the Montana kids we can but yah they can not compete on a higher level. I say BS to that.
Maybe for the sake of the "we have to win every game" crowd we should stay in our little box and never look to step out side of it to better this program. OR MAYBE we should go to D-II so we can win every game 55 to 7. Would that make the keep it safe crowd feeling good?
Ahh I feel better and that my :twocents:

We are going to compete at D1 with a predominately MT lineup some of you boast. I wonder how it is Boise State can't do it and we can. Look at their Roster, they have a whopping 22 ID kids out of the 105 listed on their roster. That is 21%! And you are going to tell me this opens up more opportunities for MT kids?? Maybe if you don't expect to contend for Championships any longer. Idaho has nearly 500,000 more in population as well.

If you extraploate that 22% Idaho currently has at a program we supposedly aspire to, then we need to cut some MT kids. We had 52 Montana kids on the Roster this season out of 81 players listed. If we had the same percentage of In State kids as Boise State we have to cut 34 MT kids to get down to 18. That is the reality of the situation for those of you who really think we are going to win at the D1 level with the same percentage of MT kids. It just flat is NOT going to happen. Rip on me all you want, but the people on this board who say we should be D1 all mention Boise State as one of the programs we can be just like.

Lets look at Nevada, another former Big Sky team who proponents of the Griz moving up use as an example of why it can be done. Nevada has roughly 1,400,000 more residents than MT, quite a bit more to recruit from. Nevada has 19 kids from In State out of 101 players listed on their roster, or 19%.

Now are you going to try and tell me that MT kids are so much better at FB than Idaho and Nevada kids that we can win at the D1 level with even more MT kids?

I am sorry, that dog can't hunt. I cannot wait for someone to tell me where that reasoning is flawed.

 

[Grizbacker1]

While I don't believe UM would be as bad and disadvanted as Idaho in I-A, the reality is that Missoula and Montana don't have the corporate and big-donor opportunities that Boise St. has, and are probably much closer to Idaho than Boise St. in that regard. Wayne Hogan was always concerned about how UM could raise enough funds to go I-A, and he felt it would be necessary (or certainly much better) to raise significant funds, like Boise St. apparently did and does (and Ida. does not), to be I-A. He felt that Missoula and Montana didn't have the large corporations and donors, like Boise did and does. He also attributed the differences in the level of success between Boise St. and Idaho to be primarily because of the differences in the amount of money raised by the two athletic programs. O'Day was involved in those considerations and discussions that Hogan had.

GF10,

Thanks for addressing the $$ part. That was going to be my next sermon on the mount. :thumb: :laugh:

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Though money is a factor, recruiting is important too. Doesn't anybody think that beautiful Missoula/WGS/UM is a bigger recruiting draw than playing in a shitty little dome in shitty little Moscow, Idaho? Take for example Griz BBall recruit Cameron Rundles, who had offers from Xavier, Creighton, Dayton, and more. When asked about why he chose UM, the first thing he mentioned was "I thought UM was a beautiful campus..."

Besides, who really wants to be a Vandal? Perhaps the worst mascot in college football. :dance:

Just trying to sprinkle some optimism on this thread of Idaho, 1-10 seasons, and budget deficiencies.

 

[Grizbacker1]

Turd Ferguson wrote:

Besides, who really wants to be a Vandal? Perhaps the worst mascot in college football.

Don't you dare sell Chump, errrr champ short, now that is the ugliest freaking mascot on earth, you couldn't make that thing any uglier if you tried. I am suprised there hasn't been a parent suing msu because their kid is traumatized.

 

[GOKATS]

My God..
You guys can be so negative " we can't compete" I am glad you do not lead the way. If I was a kid on this team I would think man I can't belive how some of these fans think we could not compete. I bet everyone of them would love a shot at playing Fresno State and Boise and they DO belive they could run with them.. You are basically saying we want to recruit all the Montana kids we can but yah they can not compete on a higher level. I say BS to that.
Maybe for the sake of the "we have to win every game" crowd we should stay in our little box and never look to step out side of it to better this program. OR MAYBE we should go to D-II so we can win every game 55 to 7. Would that make the keep it safe crowd feeling good?
Ahh I feel better and that my :twocents:

We are going to compete at D1 with a predominately MT lineup some of you boast. I wonder how it is Boise State can't do it and we can. Look at their Roster, they have a whopping 22 ID kids out of the 105 listed on their roster. That is 21%! And you are going to tell me this opens up more opportunities for MT kids?? Maybe if you don't expect to contend for Championships any longer. Idaho has nearly 500,000 more in population as well.

If you extraploate that 22% Idaho currently has at a program we supposedly aspire to, then we need to cut some MT kids. We had 52 Montana kids on the Roster this season out of 81 players listed. If we had the same percentage of In State kids as Boise State we have to cut 34 MT kids to get down to 18. That is the reality of the situation for those of you who really think we are going to win at the D1 level with the same percentage of MT kids. It just flat is NOT going to happen. Rip on me all you want, but the people on this board who say we should be D1 all mention Boise State as one of the programs we can be just like.

Lets look at Nevada, another former Big Sky team who proponents of the Griz moving up use as an example of why it can be done. Nevada has roughly 1,400,000 more residents than MT, quite a bit more to recruit from. Nevada has 19 kids from In State out of 101 players listed on their roster, or 19%.

Now are you going to try and tell me that MT kids are so much better at FB than Idaho and Nevada kids that we can win at the D1 level with even more MT kids?

I am sorry, that dog can't hunt. I cannot wait for someone to tell me where that reasoning is flawed.

I know you keep telling the Griz faithful what the situation is, and I agree with you , but this post might be better than others. I don't think that it ever sunk in to most of them that UM isn't going anywhere without MSU. No smack, just a fact.

 

[Grizbacker1]

GOKATS Wrote:

I know you keep telling the Griz faithful what the situation is, and I agree with you , but this post might be better than others. I don't think that it ever sunk in to most of them that UM isn't going anywhere without MSU. No smack, just a fact.

Thanks. I keep harping on the cats connection to the Griz ever making that move having to include msu because it is fact. I don't care for the cats, which I think is pretty clearl, but I think I understand the politics of this state pretty well. I have spoken to Regents about it and they have NO DESIRE to touch that football. Bobcat fans must be laughing their ass off when they read some of the posts on the topic.

 

[GOKATS]

GOKATS Wrote:

I know you keep telling the Griz faithful what the situation is, and I agree with you , but this post might be better than others. I don't think that it ever sunk in to most of them that UM isn't going anywhere without MSU. No smack, just a fact.

Thanks. I keep harping on the cats connection to the Griz ever making that move having to include msu because it is fact. I don't care for the cats, which I think is pretty clearl, but I think I understand the politics of this state pretty well. I have spoken to Regents about it and they have NO DESIRE to touch that football. Bobcat fans must be laughing their ass off when they read some of the posts on the topic.

I'm certainly no fan of the griz either, being a past pres. of MSU/ASA, but I also know the politics involved and it flat ass won't happen unless both go. And yes, I'm sure I'm not the only Bobcat that gets a good chuckle out reading this topic. arty:

 

[MrG]

GF10, GB1, and TF,

Thanks for raising the level of discourse.

On this issue, I am stuck directly in the middle of the fence. All too many posters seem to enjoy pulling the pin and dropping a grenade in someone’s shorts, if they do not have the same opinion.
So your factually based posts are welcome indeed.

Compete at D1 with a predominately MT lineup –
I do not know that this is a major point with most people, but I guess it would be with some. I think most everyone expected some slippage. I am not sure the ratio needs to be as low as your numbers suggest.

But since I think it is a relatively minor component of the GRAND DEBATE lets run the IA UM team with your numbers. I see the larger point to be that Boise with their minuscule % of local talent has obviously done very well and if I remember correctly attendance numbers nearly 50% greater than the Griz.

I expect the people of SW Idaho and Western Montana to care equally about the representation of local talent on their team. What seems most important is the quality of the program and quality of competition. With their successful program and tougher competition, attendance in Boise has flourished.

 

[Grizbacker1]

Blgs Fan,

My point about the number of MT kids was in response to many D1 proponents claims that a move up offers even more opportunities for a MT kid, simply because you have more scholarships to give. My point in showing the number of Boise and Nevada players who are in state, was to show that the result is quite the opposite, that is, if you truly want to be competerive. If the Griz do not field very good teams that compete at the level fans have been accustomed to they will simply quit going. It has been proven over and over all across the country.

It is really a moot point anyway, because the hurdle none of the proponens can cross is the msu hurdle. They can't click their heels together 3 times and make them go away.

 

[theblackgecko]

Blgs Fan,

My point about the number of MT kids was in response to many D1 proponents claims that a move up offers even more opportunities for a MT kid, simply because you have more scholarships to give. My point in showing the number of Boise and Nevada players who are in state, was to show that the result is quite the opposite, that is, if you truly want to be competerive. If the Griz do not field very good teams that compete at the level fans have been accustomed to they will simply quit going. It has been proven over and over all across the country.

It is really a moot point anyway, because the hurdle none of the proponens can cross is the msu hurdle. They can't click their heels together 3 times and make them go away.

Would that have been true in the Spring of 2002, when the streak stood at 16?

 

[MrG]

Blgs Fan,

It is really a moot point anyway, because the hurdle none of the proponens can cross is the msu hurdle. They can't click their heels together 3 times and make them go away.

That sounds like a very powerful trump card.
However there is a fifth suit.... called no trump.

I think the U might be able to make the break by taking away MSU trump card.
How! The old fashioned American way with money!

We have something unique going on in our athletic program. We are receiving less State support than most any other program at our level. The income streams are growing and future revenue stream expansion looks probable. Football is the LARGE money generator with the two BB teams being unique and making a little. After paying off the NEZ and completing another expansion phase or two, the money pump so primed that……….

And If the U gives the Athletic dept credit for logo apparel etc.

IF facility expansions go through and the expand revenue streams go to the athletic dept and foster more success……..our expanding Athletic program will continue to widen the gap with the program in Bozeman. When the distinction between the two programs is great enough there should be no more trump.

In my perfect world the powers that be have a fiduciary responsibility, and would be compelled to allow the successful bigger program to continue to better itself.

There are plenty ways to stumble along this path. But to me, it appears feasible and to already have significant momentum.

 

[NavyBlue]

Being a Utah State fan I know that at one time both Montana and Utah State were members of a conference known as the "Mountain States Conference", which was commonly called the Skyline Conference. The last year that league exhisted the members were:
Montana, Utah State, BYU, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado State, Denver U., and New Mexico.

The point is Montana State was not in the same league as Montana until the formation of the Big Sky Conference in 1963. So there is a precedent to UM and MSU not being in the same conference. I do not mean this as a slight to the Bobcats, I like both Montana schools. Also Montana was a member of the Pacific Coast Conference and MSU never was. So if Montana left for the WAC alone until MSU was able to join them 10 or 12 years later, when MSU was ready. What would be the big deal. UM and MSU could still play every year, just like they do now.

 

[ronbo]

Being a Utah State fan I know that at one time both Montana and Utah State were members of a conference known as the "Mountain States Conference", which was commonly called the Skyline Conference. The last year that league exhisted the members were:
Montana, Utah State, BYU, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado State, Denver U., and New Mexico.

The point is Montana State was not in the same league as Montana until the formation of the Big Sky Conference in 1963. So there is a precedent to UM and MSU not being in the same conference. I do not mean this as a slight to the Bobcats, I like both Montana schools. Also Montana was a member of the Pacific Coast Conference and MSU never was. So if Montana left for the WAC alone until MSU was able to join them 10 or 12 years later, when MSU was ready. What would be the big deal. UM and MSU could still play every year, just like they do now.

Exactly, I've always thought what's the problem, the series can continue. And it could still be home and home.

 

[ronbo]

What deficit? Shouldn't that be paid off. Our football program made a FAT $1.7 million profit in 2005 and we keep hearing about this deficit. And our AD Department made a profit of $2.6 million in 2005, why is there a deficit? Tell me that?

2005 University of Montana Revenues


.......................Men's Teams......... Women's Teams.............. Total
Basketball..........$1,257,864................ $927,749............. $2,185,613
Football........ ....$5,834,632.................................... .........$5,834,632
Total Revenues of all Sports, except football and basketball, combined
............................$315,792.............. ..$1,201,193............$1,516,985
Total Revenues...$7,408,288................$2,128,942... .......$9,537,230
Not allocated by gender/sport...........................................$5 ,239,587
Grand Total Revenues.......................................... ...........$14,776,817

Expenses

............................Men's Teams........... Women's Teams....... Total
Basketball .............$1,098,836..................$949,428. .........$2,048,264
Football.................$4,062,164 ...........................................$4,062, 164
Total Expenses of all Sports, except football and basketball, combined
................................$450,787.......... ......$1,716,939.........$2,167,726
Total Expenses....$5,611,787..................$2,666,367 .........$8,278,154
Not allocated by gender............................................ .......$3,845,289
Grand Total Expenses.......................................... ...........$12,123,443

 

[NavyBlue]

I do agree that there would be some fairly significant costs up-front for UM to go I-A. But UM's revenue opportunities would also go up. If UM went to a I-A conference like the WAC, UM would start to receive conferece revenue sharing money, something the Big Sky does not provide UM.

I beleive it will be money that will eventually get UM to move to I-A if they ever do. Money is the current excuse to keep the status quo, but UM will eventually want its share of reveue sharing that the Big Sky does not, will not and cannot provide.

 

[MrG]

Here is something I saved.

These two articles present different numbers, different enough to think someone has an agenda or a screw loose.


By Charles S. Johnson of Montana Lee Newspapers - 11/10/2005



HELENA— Intercollegiate athletics at Montana’s six public colleges and universities raked in $32.2 million in revenue from all sources in fiscal 2005 and cost $29.3 million to show a profit of $2.9 million, a new report prepared for the state Board of Regents shows.
“System-wide, financial operating results were reported mixed, but an improvement over last year,’’ wrote Pam Joehler, director of budget and accounting for the commissioner of higher education, based on information from the campuses.

Here are some of the highlights of the report: MSU: It reported total athletic revenues of $10.5 million and expenses of $10.3 million for a balance of $278,323 for the year. The MSU football team showed revenues of $3.1 million and expenses $3.3 million for a loss of $156,477. Men’s basketball had revenues of $943,375 and expenses of $956,831 for a loss of $13,457. Women’s basketball had revenues of $568,707 and expenses of $723,899 for a loss of $155,192. Its athletes from all sports had a combined GPA of 3.08 vs. 2.86 for the entire student body spring semester. The women’s basketball team had a combined GPA of 3.62 to top all MSU sports teams, while its men’s basketball team had the lowest GPA of 2.24.

—UM: In Missoula, UM reported $15.3 million in sports revenues for the year, expenses of $12.7 million for a balance of $2.7 million. Football reported $6 million in revenues and expenses of $4.2 million for an excess of $1.8 million. Men’s basketball revenues totaled $1.3 million, while expenses were $1.2 million for a surplus of $159,017. Women’s basketball garnered $1 million in revenues and expenses of $1.03 million for a loss of $21,680. UM athletes from all sports team had a collective 2.94 GPA vs. 2.87 for the entire student body spring semester. The women’s cross country team had the best average GPA at 3.35 while the men’s basketball team had the lowest at 2.58.
_________________

 

[Grizbacker1]

I still am waiting for a valid reason why the Griz would ever be allowed to move up in Football without the cats tagging along. I have read about conferences from days gone by. I have read that all we need is more money than them.

Please PM me with the amount of money you would like to wager on whether UM is allowed to go D1 alone. I can't convince some of you about the political ramnifications, so I may as well turn a tidy profit on it. I will donate the winnings toward the Griz FB program.

 

[NavyBlue]

If the Griz had the DESIRE to move to I-a which it appears they do not at this time, and they could show that depspite the increased INITIAL costs of a move, the increase in revenue would help "grow the program". And help athletics at UM be less dependent on state money, I am sure the Regents would consider such a request.

 

[Grizbacker1]

The following is a small sample of comments from Myles Brand, Head of the NCAA with regard to schools that aspire to move to D1. I think what he says rings true with one of the real reasons many here want the Griz to make such a move.

During his keynote address, NCAA President Myles Brand acknowledged that while reclassifying to Division I may be the right decision for some schools, the decision should be based on the facts and what’s best for the mission of the institution.

"Often, perhaps even generally, the decisions are made because of significant external influence, because of the perceived importance of divisional status to the reputation of the school, or because of the unsupported belief that ‘moving up’ will benefit the school financially,” Brand said.