Is It Worth It for Small Football Schools to Move Up to FBS?

[MrTitleist]

Here's the Mountain West TV deal in a nutshell:
http://www.wyosports.net/university_of_wyoming/football/mountain-west-signs-national-tv-deal-with-espn/article_07439862-919a-11e2-956f-001a4bcf887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://blogs.idahostatesman.com/boise-state-football-guaranteed-three-games-national-tv-bonus-games/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9028744/mountain-west-conference-closing-7-year-rights-deal-espn-according-sources" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[BozAngelesGriz]

can't wait to play the Akron Zips in the Beef O'Brady Bowl...

 

[billings_poke]

UM couldn't fill its existing stadium with those opposing teams, unless UM was consistently winning those games. Several of those teams are of no interest to me, as a fan. I'd rather play Big Sky conference teams and rivals, as the team marches toward a conference championship and the playoffs.

The money isn't there for UM to support being in the MWC. Total nonesense. Your earlier MWC conference payments were grossly inflated, when I did some Googling. Your figure was 3 times what I found Googling.

Please. Stay in the FCS for playoffs if you want I get that but as to the rest well you are looking at old data. You might need a different excuse besides money should the MWC ever extend an invite,

MWC just signed a new TV deal with ESPN and CBS for about 20 million a year divided by 11 teams or $1.8 mil per team once the new CCG and some tier 3 rights get negotiated into the deal (it is 18 million without the CCG and some tier 3 games)

http://www.themwc.com/genrel/032013aac.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

New AQ playoff scheme is estimated to bring about $1.5 million per team in FBS although that is still up for discussions. $95 Million between the BE, MWC, MAC, SB and CUSA. How it is split is to be determined

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bowls/2012/12/11/college-football-bcs-playoff-revenue-money-distribution-payouts/1762709/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MWC also pays about $1.3 million per team in NCAA BB credits, bowl payouts, licensing deals, and other conference revenue

It is not hard to show $4.5 to $5 million per school for the MWC with the new TV deal and FBS playoff payouts.

 

[AZGrizFan]

People do realize that moving to FBS is not really about wins and loses directly...it is about finances. We are not talking about having a large profit either, it is about the probability of breaking even. I am no longer pushing the Griz should move up agenda, but I am not sure the Sun Belt is any worse than the Big Sky. And I also see FCS changing very soon, whether that is reductions in scholarships or the entire classification just going away and the teams either joining the bottom tier of FBS, the upper tier of D2 or just dropping football altogether.

Personally I think if the Griz had Boise, Air Force, Utah State, Wyoming, CSU, etc coming to Missoula you could easily support a 30K stadium. Regional teams that would bring one to two thousand fans into missoula would greatly improve your revenue stream. Hell Boise would bring 5k to 10K alone if you had the seats and Wyo a couple of thousand from the northern part of the state. The money is there for UM to support a MWC



Looking forward to the griz game in Laramie in 2014. Might have to drive down for that one given both teams will have senior veteran QBs and solid WR corps. Might be a show. I have tickets to cat/griz this year as well so should be fun.

UM couldn't fill its existing stadium with those opposing teams, unless UM was consistently winning those games. Several of those teams are of no interest to me, as a fan. I'd rather play Big Sky conference teams and rivals, as the team marches toward a conference championship and the playoffs.

The money isn't there for UM to support being in the MWC. Total nonesense. Your earlier MWC conference payments were grossly inflated, when I did some Googling. Your figure was 3 times what I found Googling.

So, let me get this straight: You'd rather see Idaho State, Northern Colorado and Southern Utah than Boise State, Colorado State & Utah State? You need to have your fucking head examined. Poste Haste.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I can imagine the excitement of playing WSU, WYO, maybe even UW at home. .

Your argument is based on the assumption that Wyoming games are exciting. Unless it's Nebraska or Boise State, Laramie is lucky to draw 18K to a game in a half-full stadium. You'll deal with the same problem moving up: a few schools will draw decent crowds but the rest will be small.

We draw 25000 playing ISU & UNC... those are exciting games? I don't see your point here. Playing against MWC ir Pac12 teams are an upgrade in competition & would draw crowds comparable to the UNC & ISU games.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I believe he is suggesting that when you start losing, a lot of people stop showing up. I agree. There used to be a lot of empty seats for Griz games.

I don't see us getting a pac-12 school to WA-Griz, even if we had a decent decade under our belts in FBS. The California teams of the Pacific Coast Conference would never play in Missoula, and we were in the same conference.

Lame, and already proven-wrong argument. A sample of WAC & MWC BCS-level home games since 2005:

Oregon State, Oregon, Oregon State, BYU, BYU, Cal, Oregon, Kansas State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Mississippi, Colorado, Southern Cal, Wisconsin, Purdue, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St., Wisconsin, Southern Cal, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa State, Oregon St, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington State, Washington State, Northwestern, Texas Tech, Missouri, Cal, Missouri, Texas A&M, Arizona, Texas Tech, Texas Tech, Cal, UCLA, Washington St, Stanford, BYU, Texas Tech, Utah (after move), Arizona, UCLA, Oregon State, Louisville, Virginia, Texas, Nebraska.

Stop living in the past.

 

[Ursa Major]

Your argument is based on the assumption that Wyoming games are exciting. Unless it's Nebraska or Boise State, Laramie is lucky to draw 18K to a game in a half-full stadium. You'll deal with the same problem moving up: a few schools will draw decent crowds but the rest will be small.

We draw 25000 playing ISU & UNC... those are exciting games? I don't see your point here. Playing against MWC ir Pac12 teams are an upgrade in competition & would draw crowds comparable to the UNC & ISU games.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I believe he is suggesting that when you start losing, a lot of people stop showing up. I agree. There used to be a lot of empty seats for Griz games.

I don't see us getting a pac-12 school to WA-Griz, even if we had a decent decade under our belts in FBS. The California teams of the Pacific Coast Conference would never play in Missoula, and we were in the same conference.

Lame, and already proven-wrong argument. A sample of WAC & MWC BCS-level home games since 2005:

Oregon State, Oregon, Oregon State, BYU, BYU, Cal, Oregon, Kansas State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Mississippi, Colorado, Southern Cal, Wisconsin, Purdue, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St., Wisconsin, Southern Cal, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa State, Oregon St, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington State, Washington State, Northwestern, Texas Tech, Missouri, Cal, Missouri, Texas A&M, Arizona, Texas Tech, Texas Tech, Cal, UCLA, Washington St, Stanford, BYU, Texas Tech, Utah (after move), Arizona, UCLA, Oregon State, Louisville, Virginia, Texas, Nebraska.

Stop living in the past.

Are you taking courtesy lessons from PR?

You are assuming MWC, I'm thinking if it does happen it will be in an expanded Sun Belt or other 1/2 ass conference. That changes the equation. How many Pac-10/12 teams played at Sun Belt schools? If we did end up in an upgraded Big Sky or a Sun Belt conference, the only way a Pac-12 team comes to Missoula is because of an emergncy aircraft landing.

BTW, if we move up I would love to be in the MWC, I just don't see that as a likely option.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

I hate to break it to folks that love seeing our "rivalries" with BigSigh conference teams, but it only counts as a "rivalry" when the other teams beat you more than once every 4/5 years.

 

[ordigger]

We draw 25000 playing ISU & UNC... those are exciting games? I don't see your point here. Playing against MWC ir Pac12 teams are an upgrade in competition & would draw crowds comparable to the UNC & ISU games.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I believe he is suggesting that when you start losing, a lot of people stop showing up. I agree. There used to be a lot of empty seats for Griz games.

I don't see us getting a pac-12 school to WA-Griz, even if we had a decent decade under our belts in FBS. The California teams of the Pacific Coast Conference would never play in Missoula, and we were in the same conference.

Lame, and already proven-wrong argument. A sample of WAC & MWC BCS-level home games since 2005:

Oregon State, Oregon, Oregon State, BYU, BYU, Cal, Oregon, Kansas State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Mississippi, Colorado, Southern Cal, Wisconsin, Purdue, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St., Wisconsin, Southern Cal, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa State, Oregon St, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington State, Washington State, Northwestern, Texas Tech, Missouri, Cal, Missouri, Texas A&M, Arizona, Texas Tech, Texas Tech, Cal, UCLA, Washington St, Stanford, BYU, Texas Tech, Utah (after move), Arizona, UCLA, Oregon State, Louisville, Virginia, Texas, Nebraska.

Stop living in the past.

Are you taking courtesy lessons from PR?

You are assuming MWC, I'm thinking if it does happen it will be in an expanded Sun Belt or other 1/2 ass conference. That changes the equation. How many Pac-10/12 teams played at Sun Belt schools? If we did end up in an upgraded Big Sky or a Sun Belt conference, the only way a Pac-12 team comes to Missoula is because of an emergncy aircraft landing.

BTW, if we move up I would love to be in the MWC, I just don't see that as a likely option.

MWC would not be a starting point for Montana. Benson would take Montana in a heart beat if the call was made.

1) It would help keep Idaho in the Sun Belt a bit longer
2) It would give the Sun Belt an option to add other Western FCS schools. He has said his model is to go after strong FCS programs. You get Montana, Montana State.....you're looking at maybe North Dakota State, etc.
3) Sun Belt is more competitive than many seem to realize. Lous-Monroe beat #8 Arkansas and loss to Auburn in OT - SEC schools. On the road sure, but still competitive.
4) Sun Belt is going to lose more schools, so they recognize that, and will be proactive.
5) Benson said in his presser in Statesboro that the Sun Belt is still looking at more schools. Some media are taking that as he is going to 16 schools right away.

If the Sun Belt expands that quickly the MWC needs to expand by at least 2, maybe 4 schools. They will look at schools like UTEP, Texas State, New Mexico State, etc long before they would take a serious look at Montana.....unless of course Montana is in the Sun Belt.

Anyone here that believes that Montana is not a viable option for the Sun Belt simply because they are not being actively recruited is simply naive and fooling themselves.

Having said all that why would we not want to be in the Sun Belt for rivalrys? We'll have our two oldes Idaho & Montana State. Some newer FCS ones like App State, Georgia Southern and probably James Madison. Man, I'd love to see James Madision in WaGriz! And of course some very good Sun Belt members like Louisiana-Monroe and Arkansas State. Schedule them late in the year at Montana!

Potentially we'd have better rivalrys there then we ever will in FCS. For example, some believe NAU is a rivalry because of Jerome. Good one there.

Those that want to move on are the businessmen and dreamers. Those that understand where we need to be 10 years from now. Those that want to stay are selfish, and only see football as king.

 

[RobGriz]

can't wait to play the Akron Zips in the Beef O'Brady Bowl...

That is the goal of many on this forum. And if we moved up today we would be YEARS away from getting there with the current regime. But hey it's "big time" so... :roll:

 

[billings_poke]

MWC would not be a starting point for Montana. Benson would take Montana in a heart beat if the call was made.

1) It would help keep Idaho in the Sun Belt a bit longer
2) It would give the Sun Belt an option to add other Western FCS schools. He has said his model is to go after strong FCS programs. You get Montana, Montana State.....you're looking at maybe North Dakota State, etc.
3) Sun Belt is more competitive than many seem to realize. Lous-Monroe beat #8 Arkansas and loss to Auburn in OT - SEC schools. On the road sure, but still competitive.
4) Sun Belt is going to lose more schools, so they recognize that, and will be proactive.
5) Benson said in his presser in Statesboro that the Sun Belt is still looking at more schools. Some media are taking that as he is going to 16 schools right away.

If the Sun Belt expands that quickly the MWC needs to expand by at least 2, maybe 4 schools. They will look at schools like UTEP, Texas State, New Mexico State, etc long before they would take a serious look at Montana.....unless of course Montana is in the Sun Belt.

Anyone here that believes that Montana is not a viable option for the Sun Belt simply because they are not being actively recruited is simply naive and fooling themselves.

Having said all that why would we not want to be in the Sun Belt for rivalrys? We'll have our two oldes Idaho & Montana State. Some newer FCS ones like App State, Georgia Southern and probably James Madison. Man, I'd love to see James Madision in WaGriz! And of course some very good Sun Belt members like Louisiana-Monroe and Arkansas State. Schedule them late in the year at Montana!

Potentially we'd have better rivalrys there then we ever will in FCS. For example, some believe NAU is a rivalry because of Jerome. Good one there.

Those that want to move on are the businessmen and dreamers. Those that understand where we need to be 10 years from now. Those that want to stay are selfish, and only see football as king.

I don't see NMSU as an option for the MWC at all. Do agree that UM should see the Sunbelt as a stepping stone and not a destination. Guarantee you that is what Appy and GSU are thinking

Also agree on UTEP but would add in Rice, UTSA, and Texas State as options

 

[BigPawzSharpClawz]

UM couldn't fill its existing stadium with those opposing teams, unless UM was consistently winning those games. Several of those teams are of no interest to me, as a fan. I'd rather play Big Sky conference teams and rivals, as the team marches toward a conference championship and the playoffs.

The money isn't there for UM to support being in the MWC. Total nonesense. Your earlier MWC conference payments were grossly inflated, when I did some Googling. Your figure was 3 times what I found Googling.

Please. Stay in the FCS for playoffs if you want I get that but as to the rest well you are looking at old data. You might need a different excuse besides money should the MWC ever extend an invite,

MWC just signed a new TV deal with ESPN and CBS for about 20 million a year divided by 11 teams or $1.8 mil per team once the new CCG and some tier 3 rights get negotiated into the deal (it is 18 million without the CCG and some tier 3 games)


New AQ playoff scheme is estimated to bring about $1.5 million per team in FBS although that is still up for discussions. $95 Million between the BE, MWC, MAC, SB and CUSA. How it is split is to be determined

MWC also pays about $1.3 million per team in NCAA BB credits, bowl payouts, licensing deals, and other conference revenue

It is not hard to show $4.5 to $5 million per school for the MWC with the new TV deal and FBS playoff payouts.

Its great to talk about how much the "cut" would be. But wheres the cost of doing business in your equation? Cost increase dramatically and multiply quickly. The Nebraska-Omaha's, Grand Valley's and Valdosta States of the world are looking to move up!

Any talk about moving down is ignorant talk. Most of us dont come close to understanding the complex world of todays college football. keep in mind that athletes will soon be "paid" a stipend. The NCAA economics are not much different from want we expereince now.

Haves vs Have Nots (there is very little in between)...Griz football is at the better end of that equation. Dont beleive me, someone answer this question please. Tell me how many non-BCS programs at the mid major level down managed to net $3.7 million last year!?!?

 

[flowtowngriz]

We are not getting a invite until the university shows it has interest in moving up and publicly and the community is behind it. No conference wants egg on their face like WAC did. I don't see hs moving up anytime soon because of that. But Sunbelt is the only conference that would be feasible right now if they make a western division with Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota, and possibly another Bg Sky team. The WAC would be awesome but I dont see it unless someone leaves them or they want to split into divisions. But I see us playing in the big sky for a long time, but I do hope I am wrong.

 

[RobGriz]

Sorry but joining the WAC would not be a step forward.

 

[flowtowngriz]

My bad I ment MWC

 

[BigPawzSharpClawz]

The Sun Belt is no better IMO

 

[RobGriz]

The Sun Belt is no better IMO

Agreed.

 

[Ursa Major]

The Sun Belt is no better IMO

Agreed.

And a hell of a lot more expensive.

 

[becker2117]

I am griz fan since the 70's so I have been a fan my whole life. We are below average team nationally in football. Most of the country think of the griz as what we think of Fort Collins or any division 2 progam. I am tired of people posting here saying we have a great program and we are so well known. We are not. We are known in FCS and locally. Our largest viewed game vs App St drew fewer viewership then those crappy bowl games. We get so pumped up for an ESPN game and talk how the playoffs get us out across the counrty to see our program but in reality no one gives a shit about Montana football but us fans of Montana and the FCS. We have to roads to choose from the wide easy road. The one that gives us a good feeling inside and we can 95% of our games and feel like we are a great program because we will win a shitty conference and maybe play in a national championship that the rest of the country dont give shit about. Just look at the viewership of those games. It is sad division 2 get more espn time then FCS. Or we can take the narrow road. Yes we will lose more games and we will feeling of we shouldn't lose will be gone. But the rewards are higher too. More Espn games that people will watch the feeling that we beat a team that we shouldn't beat or we might lose to. As competitor I look for challenges that make me better and stronger. I will always follow my griz. But winning or losing. But much rather lose to Colorado or Utah or Washington in our stadium then to Southern Utah or Northern Colorado.

The exact second I read line 2 of this post I STOPPED reading, logged in and started this post....Fort Collins is the location of Colorado State University which is a part of the MWC..neither FCS or DII..somebody might have already said this but...oh well...maybe ill read the rest of your post. I just had to let you know CSU isn't thought of as a DII

 

[becker2117]

I am griz fan since the 70's so I have been a fan my whole life. We are below average team nationally in football. Most of the country think of the griz as what we think of Fort Collins or any division 2 progam. I am tired of people posting here saying we have a great program and we are so well known. We are not. We are known in FCS and locally. Our largest viewed game vs App St drew fewer viewership then those crappy bowl games. We get so pumped up for an ESPN game and talk how the playoffs get us out across the counrty to see our program but in reality no one gives a shit about Montana football but us fans of Montana and the FCS. We have to roads to choose from the wide easy road. The one that gives us a good feeling inside and we can 95% of our games and feel like we are a great program because we will win a shitty conference and maybe play in a national championship that the rest of the country dont give shit about. Just look at the viewership of those games. It is sad division 2 get more espn time then FCS. Or we can take the narrow road. Yes we will lose more games and we will feeling of we shouldn't lose will be gone. But the rewards are higher too. More Espn games that people will watch the feeling that we beat a team that we shouldn't beat or we might lose to. As competitor I look for challenges that make me better and stronger. I will always follow my griz. But winning or losing. But much rather lose to Colorado or Utah or Washington in our stadium then to Southern Utah or Northern Colorado.

The exact second I read line 2 of this post I STOPPED reading, logged in and started this post....Fort Collins is the location of Colorado State University which is a part of the MWC..neither FCS or DII..somebody might have already said this but...oh well...maybe ill read the rest of your post. I just had to let you know CSU isn't thought of as a DII

WOW, I made the mistake of reading the rest of your post.....explain how the FCS has less ESPN air time than DII. DII has their championship game on ESPN....FCS has EVERY single round coverd by espn3 at the min...and some of those are on Game Plan...dude....what are you talking about...I hope that "Flowtown" isn't for florence

 

[AZGrizFan]

We draw 25000 playing ISU & UNC... those are exciting games? I don't see your point here. Playing against MWC ir Pac12 teams are an upgrade in competition & would draw crowds comparable to the UNC & ISU games.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I believe he is suggesting that when you start losing, a lot of people stop showing up. I agree. There used to be a lot of empty seats for Griz games.

I don't see us getting a pac-12 school to WA-Griz, even if we had a decent decade under our belts in FBS. The California teams of the Pacific Coast Conference would never play in Missoula, and we were in the same conference.

Lame, and already proven-wrong argument. A sample of WAC & MWC BCS-level home games since 2005:

Oregon State, Oregon, Oregon State, BYU, BYU, Cal, Oregon, Kansas State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Mississippi, Colorado, Southern Cal, Wisconsin, Purdue, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St., Wisconsin, Southern Cal, Colorado, Wisconsin, Iowa State, Oregon St, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington State, Washington State, Northwestern, Texas Tech, Missouri, Cal, Missouri, Texas A&M, Arizona, Texas Tech, Texas Tech, Cal, UCLA, Washington St, Stanford, BYU, Texas Tech, Utah (after move), Arizona, UCLA, Oregon State, Louisville, Virginia, Texas, Nebraska.

Stop living in the past.

Are you taking courtesy lessons from PR?

You are assuming MWC, I'm thinking if it does happen it will be in an expanded Sun Belt or other 1/2 ass conference. That changes the equation. How many Pac-10/12 teams played at Sun Belt schools? If we did end up in an upgraded Big Sky or a Sun Belt conference, the only way a Pac-12 team comes to Missoula is because of an emergncy aircraft landing.

BTW, if we move up I would love to be in the MWC, I just don't see that as a likely option.

:lol:

Several of those games were at WAC schools NOT NAMED Boise State when the WAC was weak (in the few years prior to collapsing). It CAN be done.