How will Idaho's move to FCS affect the Big Sky?

[marceagfan5]

My view is that UM is closer to the water level of the Big Sky and than the MW, even if generally at or near the top of the Big Sky. And UM's athletic budget, while very good for FCS level, is way lower than all but the lowest level MW schools.

I can't imagine that the MW would invite UM unless there were big changes and shifts in the MW, and the MW needed more teams and was running out of options. Could that happen? Yes. Likely? I doubt it.

From UM and the State's perspective, I don't see UM having the funding and finances to move to the MW, and certainly not to move effectively and successfully to the MW. UM already is close to maxing out on attendance and ticket prices, so not much room for additional revenue there (which is what most teams moving up count on). UM doesn't have much for a pool of large corporate and individual donors. There just aren't many in the pool--and several of them have already stepped up big recently. I don't see the political climate at UM or the Board of Regents allowing UM to spend millions more on a move-up and taking the risk of having to pony even a few million more annually if revenue assumptions turn out to be too optimistic. Can you imagine the outcry from some university professors and some in Missoula, if UM announced it was going to put more money into athletics and risk even more? I don't see Engstrom making that decision, nor being able to lead UM to the MW. Not the Board of Regents too. And I think there's a 2-school issue too.

Now, if the money at the FBS level continued to increase significantly, and outpaced the significantly increasing costs of competing at the FBS level--and thus there was a strong and fairly clear case that the increased revenues would offset increased costs--then the big negative of spending more on athletics would be diminished.

I assume UM is continuing to try to keep their eyes open, improve facilities, and be as prepared as they possibly and realistically can for any good opportunity that might arise in the future, or for any disaster at the FCS level (which I don't see as likely). It is certainly true that the landscape has changed significantly and will likely continue to change in the future.

Idaho's decision to move down would also be a negative for the mover-uppers, as it would give fodder to those who oppose a move up.

I actually think UM should move up but you make some pretty damn good arguments and points here...

I think the highlighted paragraph is the biggest factor. I do think revenues are going to continue to go up, TV money keeps going up and up and schools are going to continue to make more money and the lower tier of the FBS is going to benefit from this. I do think there is probably going to be another major shake up in the FBS and thats probably when UM will make their move, if they do. Curious as to what MSU would do, possibly a package deal if it ever gets that far? Would the Regents allow UM to move up and keep MSU stagnant?

TV money is increasing for the P5 conferences, DECREASING for the G5. C-USA just took a HUGE hit on the new TV contract.

Ya Conf USA is struggling, but I know the Mtn West has seen an increase in revenues, and the money coming to all the conferences from the football playoff has been a big bonus...

 

[PlayerRep]

Here's a post I did in June 2015. Note that it's budgets and subsidies.


UM's athletic budget is way below most MWC schools, with one exception (Utah St). Two schools have budgets just over $27 million. The next lowest are $33 million and $36 million. The other 6 are over $40 million. That's half of the schools over $40 million. How could UM ever double its athletic budget?

UM's "subsidy" is much lower the most MWC schools and lower than all of the MWC schools:4 $8.6 million. Nevada's is 10.7 and Boise's is 11.8. Fresno 13 and Utah St 14. Then 16, 17, 18 (3), 20 (2). I'll omit AFA.

Where in the world is this multi-million gap in funding going to come from? I agree that UM would likely get an additional $4 million, and maybe even $5 million, of new revenues from being in the MWC. That's real money, but that would not result in UM's athletic budget being high enough to complete effectively in the MWC.

And look at the subsidies of the MWC. I just don't see the Board of Regents or legislature giving UM money to increase the State subsidy, or allowing UM to take that risk. Can you imagine the outcry of the faculty, who are already facing cuts while dealing with declining enrollment, if Engstrom announced that UM was putting more money into athletics?

Here are numbers for athletic department spending and subsidies.

UM - $20.3 million - $8.643 million
Air Force - 41.438 - 30.892
Boise St - 45.680 -11.799
Colo St - 39.944 - 20.029
Fresno - 36.038 - 13.101
Hawaii - 43.066 - 18.005
Nevada - 27.324 - 10.685
N. Mex. - 47.082 - 17.293
San Diego St - 45.063 - 18.503
San Jose - 27.816 - 18.277
UNLV - 44.467 - 19.783
Utah St - 23.307 - 14.180
Wyo. - 32.967 - 16.097

"Total Subsidy: The sum of students fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money."

The site says the data was updated for 2014.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co ... y/2150123/