EverettGriz said:
No, I completely understand that from Idaho's standpoint.
My point is that many on here (some rather vociferously) have claimed that revenue wouldn't increase at Montana if they moved to the FBS level. But Idaho's AD makes it clear that a move to the FCS would mean a drop in revenue. If Idaho, who plays in arguably the worst FBS conference in the nation and can't draw flies gets more revenue at the FBS level, any argument that Montana would not is simply unfounded.
I'm not aware anyone who argues that top-line revenue wouldn't increase at the modern-day FBS level. However, many have pointed that that expenses increase significantly at the FBS level, both in terms of the one-time cost to move up (new or upgraded facilities, new sports, possible conference buy-outs, etc.) and on ongoing annual basis (probably over $5 million per year). I don't know why people like you cannot understand or admit the difference between revenue, costs and net revenue (i.e. profit or, if no net revenue, losses).
The Idaho article also mentions the decrease in costs. Of course, you won't mention that. Can you really not understand that fewer scholarships and, eventually, lower coaches salaries will drop costs? So would a lower travel budget.
Also, people like you can't understand the costs and considerations for moving up are different than the costs and considerations of moving down. For one, moving up has the additional cost of upgrading facilities and doing other things necessary to compete at a higher level. Moving down doesn't have that cost.
