-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Is It Worth It for Small Football Schools to Move Up to FBS?
- Thread starter UofMGrizFan
- Start date
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
GrizPony said:kemajic said:Since BSU and SDS have returned to the MWC, I don't think there are a lot of restless members in spite of the expensive travel to Hawaii. So again you are left with WAC leftovers (now in the Sun Belt) and upper tier BSC programs (without ambition) that don't make an FBS conference.Gaeilge1 said:The suggestion of some schools out west that don't really fit with their present affiliations either athletically or academically breaking off to form a completely new conference seems to have some merit. Schools like UM, Utah State, Colorado State, MSU, Mew Mexico State Idaho and maybe San Diego State and Hawaii could form an interesting conference.
They could call it the BIG WAC.
Though I often agree with your posts, your push for a "move up" seems to be based on anything but logic. The paper today talks about a $16 million dollar shortfall, O'Day told me that there were reserves in the athletic department that have now been depleted, no major booster is stepping up to foster our program and Engstrom's dismantling of the program has all but stopped donations to football. Where is this money supposed to come from? The robust Missoula economy? A big TV deal to broadcast the new "FBS" football conference? I think it is pie in the sky at this point regardless. Tell me what I am missing, because ambition alone isn't going to make it happen from what I see.
I sure wish I could mark posts. Who were some of the posters saying I did not know what I was talking about when I posted there are supporters bailing on the GRIZ because of the way O'day and Pflu were dismissed to begin with? Then even further upset with the way Engstrom and the powers to be handled the aftermath? I forgot all about that, until reading your post GP. There is a way to get some of the financial backers back, that would be a new direction in leadership, and a damn explanation behind all this crap. Too late for that. The puzzle pieces are going to come together nicely for all us in the dark soon.
indian-outlaw
Well-known member
Are you really claiming you haven't been advocating a "push for a move up"? Damn you're a funny guy! :lol:kemajic said:
The lawyer-child must resort to name-calling again; a measure of the strength of his arguments. It was now years ago I advocated a move-up for Montana when there were actual opportunities to join long time peers and rivals, and the program was on an upward vector. Since we sat on our hands through those, the opportunities no longer exist. UM has cast its fate to small college and has run itself out of options, trapped. Instead, there is a steady trickle of moving down as FCS becomes less and less relevant and support for UM's do-nothing dwindles.PlayerRep said:
When your UM admin buddies, status quo group, the BSC, FCS or Fullerton are critically brought to reality for what they are, you spew that as "advocating moving up." You are the supreme researcher; see if you can find posts by me in the last two years that "advocated moving up" explicitly, without your typical lame interpretations. Posters dreaming about what big time the BSC or FCS is today, need a dose of reality. We all know you don't want your fairy tale agenda challenged; it's just so hard to resist.
If there is a "tougher question" in the GrizPony post, I missed it. Financials can be manipulated in any direction to support an agenda and if there's one thing we know about Jack, its agenda. The downward turn in UM athletics support, if real, is recent and post dates any support I had for moving up. However, there is a clear fact-based question that you and the status quo group dodge on a regular basis. These so-called crazy moves by FCS programs to FBS are criticized and projections of financial failure just keep coming. This is done defensively to try to satisfy Griz fans that status quo is the winner. Yet programs that move up seem to make it work in spite of the doom and gloom your group spews (not unlike Obama on the sequestor). They never determine they made a mistake and move back down, do they? Why? The answer is that they find the new revenue that the status quo group says is not there and their fan base appreciates seeing real football teams come in as opposed to the Pan Handle Sts. They left because FCS had little to offer and that only changes for the worse with time.
Enjoy the Pan Handle St game Jack, I won't see you for that one, but you will have a chance to see the wimp face to face at the others.
How could anyone be for a "move-up" today; there is no move-up opportunity; UM painted itself into a corner and is out of options. Do you consider UM admin or the BOR ambitious regarding football? Exploiting a football program as a cash cow is not my definition of ambitious.GrizPony said:
The time for Montana to leave was when the BSC declined admission to NDSU and SDSU; that should have been a signal. Hard to maintain respect when you prefer to admit UNC over NDSU and SDSU; a snapshot of the ambition level of the BSC. If you've ever been to road games in front of 3000 you know what I mean. Was there risk, of course. We are now seeing the risk of staying.GrizPony said:
NewPapaBear
Well-known member
If you cant figure out how good we have it at the FCS level, maybe this will help to further assist you!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130318/big-ten-jim-delany-ncaa-obannon/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's a few extractions from this article:
Ohio State versus Mount Union in a regular-season football game? Wisconsin against Wisconsin-Whitewater in a regular-season basketball game?
This isn't an outreach program between Big Ten schools and their Division III neighbors. It's one possible future Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany envisions if the plaintiffs prevail in Ed O'Bannon vs. the NCAA. In a declaration filed last week in federal court in support of the NCAA's motion against class certification, Delany threatened that any outcome that results in athletes getting a piece of the schools' television revenue could force the schools of the Big Ten to de-emphasize athletics as the Ivy League's schools did decades ago.
"...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."
Five months ago, the presidents of the Big Ten schools voted to poach Maryland from the ACC and Rutgers from the Big East. They did not do this because the football or men's basketball teams at Maryland and Rutgers offer a terrible amount of value to a wealthy league already chock full of brand names. The value to the Big Ten lies in the location of those schools, which sit in heavily populated metropolitan areas. That means those areas boast more cable subscribers who, Big Ten leaders hope, will soon have to pay more than $1 a month to their cable or satellite provider for the Big Ten Network -- whether they actually want that programming or not. Assuming the millions of subscribers who now find themselves in the Big Ten footprint are charged that fee, it will result in a massive financial windfall for the conference.
Delany said the additions of Maryland and Rutgers came in response to a changing landscape. "We're all in competition with each other -- as the SEC comes into Missouri and Texas and as the ACC comes into New York and Pennsylvania," Delany said. But if it's not about money, why does that matter? Delany also disagreed with my oft-repeated assertion that the Big Ten changed the revenue model for major college sports when it launched the Big Ten Network. Delany counters that the league took control and assumed half the financial risk -- Fox has the other half -- because ESPN's stranglehold on college content allowed that network to lowball leagues. "We simply wouldn't deal with a company that simply wouldn't pay us what we thought we were worth," Delany said. Football stars whose jerseys get sold in the school bookstore might say the same thing about the organizations that insist they are no more valuable than the setter on the volleyball team. The difference is they don't have the financial clout to start their own league. They can, however, put the squeeze on the people controlling the money now.
Remember, Delany said his opinion hasn't changed since he wrote that op-ed in 1996. What has changed? The money. According to a 1995 court filing, the Big Ten distributed $43.5 million to 11 member schools in 1994. In 2012, the Big Ten distributed $284 million to 12 schools. That's a 600-percent increase in revenue per school. In November, SI's Pete Thamel reported that Big Ten officials presented Maryland with a projection stating each of the league's schools would receive $43 million from the league in 2017 after the Big Ten signs its next media rights deal. That would be a 1,088-percent increase over the per-school take in 1994. Delany counters that tuition costs have risen in the neighborhood of 300 percent and Big Ten schools are giving scholarships to 50 percent more athletes. Still, the math favors the league and not the athletes in the two sports that make all that money.
The money has gone somewhere. It has gone into fancier stadiums and into the pockets of football coaches, basketball coaches, athletic directors and conference officials. It also has gone into scholarships for more athletes -- specifically more female athletes. I can't blame anyone for a second for wanting to protect their personal revenue stream -- and it's certainly a worthy goal to protect scholarship opportunities -- but they can't be surprised someone finally ran the numbers and realized there is a substantial payday awaiting the attorneys who motivate the labor force to ask for a larger share of the pie. When a sport becomes a multibillion-dollar business, someone has to be Curt Flood, and someone will want to represent that guy.
So now they'll dance in briefs and motions. So far, Delany has made the most dramatic statement with a hint that some of the nation's most iconic programs may de-emphasize athletics if the plaintiffs prevail. This may simply be gamesmanship. Write a doomsday scenario, hope someone like me finds it and distributes it and sit back and watch as panicked fans of Big Ten schools turn their vitriol on plaintiffs, who currently enjoy a favorable public opinion. But Monday, Delany sounded as if he really means it. "It's not a bluff," Delany said. "It's a statement of belief. I think that's what would happen. I do not believe that the hypothetical case being put forth -- if it actually became the case -- that Big Ten institutions would engage in that."
Bear in mind that Delany also said in December 2011 that he doubted Big Ten schools would agree to take part in any kind of football playoff. In June 2012, the Big Ten agreed to participate in a football playoff. But just in case Delany is correct, savor watching some excellent Big Ten basketball programs these next few weeks in the NCAA tournament. The Division III tournament might be a bit more difficult to find on your cable box.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130318/big-ten-jim-delany-ncaa-obannon/#ixzz2PYoQusLP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130318/big-ten-jim-delany-ncaa-obannon/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's a few extractions from this article:
Ohio State versus Mount Union in a regular-season football game? Wisconsin against Wisconsin-Whitewater in a regular-season basketball game?
This isn't an outreach program between Big Ten schools and their Division III neighbors. It's one possible future Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany envisions if the plaintiffs prevail in Ed O'Bannon vs. the NCAA. In a declaration filed last week in federal court in support of the NCAA's motion against class certification, Delany threatened that any outcome that results in athletes getting a piece of the schools' television revenue could force the schools of the Big Ten to de-emphasize athletics as the Ivy League's schools did decades ago.
"...it has been my longstanding belief that The Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope, breadth and activity of their athletic programs," Delany wrote. "Several alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid, and, among others, a need-based financial model. These alternatives would, in my view, be more consistent with The Big Ten's philosophy that the educational and lifetime economic benefits associated with a university education are the appropriate quid pro quo for its student athletes."
Five months ago, the presidents of the Big Ten schools voted to poach Maryland from the ACC and Rutgers from the Big East. They did not do this because the football or men's basketball teams at Maryland and Rutgers offer a terrible amount of value to a wealthy league already chock full of brand names. The value to the Big Ten lies in the location of those schools, which sit in heavily populated metropolitan areas. That means those areas boast more cable subscribers who, Big Ten leaders hope, will soon have to pay more than $1 a month to their cable or satellite provider for the Big Ten Network -- whether they actually want that programming or not. Assuming the millions of subscribers who now find themselves in the Big Ten footprint are charged that fee, it will result in a massive financial windfall for the conference.
Delany said the additions of Maryland and Rutgers came in response to a changing landscape. "We're all in competition with each other -- as the SEC comes into Missouri and Texas and as the ACC comes into New York and Pennsylvania," Delany said. But if it's not about money, why does that matter? Delany also disagreed with my oft-repeated assertion that the Big Ten changed the revenue model for major college sports when it launched the Big Ten Network. Delany counters that the league took control and assumed half the financial risk -- Fox has the other half -- because ESPN's stranglehold on college content allowed that network to lowball leagues. "We simply wouldn't deal with a company that simply wouldn't pay us what we thought we were worth," Delany said. Football stars whose jerseys get sold in the school bookstore might say the same thing about the organizations that insist they are no more valuable than the setter on the volleyball team. The difference is they don't have the financial clout to start their own league. They can, however, put the squeeze on the people controlling the money now.
Remember, Delany said his opinion hasn't changed since he wrote that op-ed in 1996. What has changed? The money. According to a 1995 court filing, the Big Ten distributed $43.5 million to 11 member schools in 1994. In 2012, the Big Ten distributed $284 million to 12 schools. That's a 600-percent increase in revenue per school. In November, SI's Pete Thamel reported that Big Ten officials presented Maryland with a projection stating each of the league's schools would receive $43 million from the league in 2017 after the Big Ten signs its next media rights deal. That would be a 1,088-percent increase over the per-school take in 1994. Delany counters that tuition costs have risen in the neighborhood of 300 percent and Big Ten schools are giving scholarships to 50 percent more athletes. Still, the math favors the league and not the athletes in the two sports that make all that money.
The money has gone somewhere. It has gone into fancier stadiums and into the pockets of football coaches, basketball coaches, athletic directors and conference officials. It also has gone into scholarships for more athletes -- specifically more female athletes. I can't blame anyone for a second for wanting to protect their personal revenue stream -- and it's certainly a worthy goal to protect scholarship opportunities -- but they can't be surprised someone finally ran the numbers and realized there is a substantial payday awaiting the attorneys who motivate the labor force to ask for a larger share of the pie. When a sport becomes a multibillion-dollar business, someone has to be Curt Flood, and someone will want to represent that guy.
So now they'll dance in briefs and motions. So far, Delany has made the most dramatic statement with a hint that some of the nation's most iconic programs may de-emphasize athletics if the plaintiffs prevail. This may simply be gamesmanship. Write a doomsday scenario, hope someone like me finds it and distributes it and sit back and watch as panicked fans of Big Ten schools turn their vitriol on plaintiffs, who currently enjoy a favorable public opinion. But Monday, Delany sounded as if he really means it. "It's not a bluff," Delany said. "It's a statement of belief. I think that's what would happen. I do not believe that the hypothetical case being put forth -- if it actually became the case -- that Big Ten institutions would engage in that."
Bear in mind that Delany also said in December 2011 that he doubted Big Ten schools would agree to take part in any kind of football playoff. In June 2012, the Big Ten agreed to participate in a football playoff. But just in case Delany is correct, savor watching some excellent Big Ten basketball programs these next few weeks in the NCAA tournament. The Division III tournament might be a bit more difficult to find on your cable box.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130318/big-ten-jim-delany-ncaa-obannon/#ixzz2PYoQusLP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Latest posts
-
-
Griz big 3 (Ah Yat / Gillman / Wing) land on Payton and Buchanan lists- Latest: SinCityGriz2005
-
-
2027 Montana Recruiting (20) Verbals & (20) Offers (2) 2028 Offers- Latest: Paytonlives
