Is the FCS the new division 2?

[406football]

That tracks. Glad to hear there was confirmation on the story I have been telling for years, haha.

Apologies on getting the QB wrong. I was 9 when I watched it, if that makes it more acceptable.

I was 10. Always thought Pennington was the QB for some reason. Weird. Thanks for clarification

 

[griz4life]

Nope. Montana beat the crap out of Boise State in 1995. Wasn't even close. The Griz didn't ascend because Boise departed.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Montana should have been proactive instead of being reactive. I think by using this approach, they may have missed the boat and it will be a difficult swim they may not finish.

 

[406football]

There are so many assumptions baked into his argument that it makes it hard to even really parse. Would it have been good? Would it have just put an even bigger negative spotlight on Missoula during the era of upheaval and that stupid book? He uses a very specific example in App State, who has regional rivals and a regional conference ready made for them with a deeper recruiting ground.

How did it go for Idaho? Marshall currently has less student enrollment than they did in 1997, when they moved up. It just isn't the magic fix for enrollment that is being suggested.

His TV rights argument is strong.

I would like to see the feasibility study that was done. I agree, that the comparison isn't apples to apples and APP state is in better geography for recruits. However, I find it interesting to think about the benefits we could've added with that extra money moving up. I think Montana could possibly steal recruits from Washington State and Oregon State and some of those lower Pac teams from the coast if we had the resources and were FBS back then. Hell, we may have landed Mike Leach! We had national exposure and were competing in more than just football. In my opinion we are a better destination than Washington State, and Oregon State.

 

[mthoopsfan]

Montana should have gone to FBS 15 years ago when it had the chance. Listened to the Schmidt and Nuanez discussion on it this week and it only reaffirmed what I already knew: Montana whiffed BIGTIME when it elected to stay FCS rather than joining the WAC. Could have and likely would have been in the MWC had we moved up then. Instead we’re stuck making a measly $75k per season from our joke of a TV deal in the big sky, and our enrollment has dropped from 16k to 11k. Meanwhile APP state made the move, has a lucrative $2 million per season tv deal, has increased its student body by 7k and doesn’t have to play northern fucking Colorado every season and play in the same conference as southern utah and Utah tech (formerly Dixie state). FCS is more a joke now than it ever has been, and the self respecting programs are seeking a way up and out of it.

Some people don’t like lawyers, or some lawyers. I don’t react well to journalists or some journalists. I didn’t listen to all of this yet, but I haven’t heard them say that Frank had previously asked Bobby the center question multiple times. To me, that’s the key fact, not whether the question was a fair question. Colter even said that this was not the right time to ask the question. I know these guys are mainly just entertaining, it’s their show, and this show is not supposed to be great and fair journalism.

The term the Colonel used, “entitled”, comes to mind when I listen to some “journalists”. I like these 2 guys and Kyle Sample, but …. I suppose they think the same thing about me and some of my stuff to some extent. My view is that Bobby is older, has accomplished a lot, and has earned the right to coach and be mostly the way he wants. These guys have way to go to earn their stripes.

Journalists seem to stick up for their kind a bit too much, in my view. I don’t stick up for lawyers like that.

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

There are so many assumptions baked into his argument that it makes it hard to even really parse. Would it have been good? Would it have just put an even bigger negative spotlight on Missoula during the era of upheaval and that stupid book? He uses a very specific example in App State, who has regional rivals and a regional conference ready made for them with a deeper recruiting ground.

How did it go for Idaho? Marshall currently has less student enrollment than they did in 1997, when they moved up. It just isn't the magic fix for enrollment that is being suggested.

His TV rights argument is strong.

You use Idaho as a cautionary example to highlight the potential pitfalls of a move up, but there are FAR more examples of schools seeing a large enrollment boost/athletic success after a move up. That is highlighted in this study from Michael L. Anderson (2017, “The Economic Impact of College Athletics”) https://jvlone.com/sportsdocs/Socie...essNBER2012-w18196.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

In this study it shows that schools moving from FCS to FBS saw, on average, a 6–12% increase in applications within 2–3 years post-transition. Enrollment rose 3–5% during the same period. The bump in enrollment did taper off after about five years, however, unless athletic success sustained the increased visibility garnered from the move up and subsequent exposure.

So again, there is far more evidence of schools succeeding and improving at the next level, e.g. Georgia southern, app state, Kennesaw state, texas state etc….. than those who have failed.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I am not even sure Idaho still is a valid cautionary example. The landscape of college sports is so different.

 

[ElrodGrizzly]

You use Idaho as a cautionary example to highlight the potential pitfalls a move up, but there are FAR more examples of schools seeing a large enrollment boost/anthletic success after a move up. That is hoghleted in this study from Michael L. Anderson (2017, “The Economic Impact of College Athletics”) https://jvlone.com/sportsdocs/Socie...essNBER2012-w18196.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com

In this study it shows that schools moving from FCS to FBS saw, on average, a 6–12% increase in applications within 2–3 years post-transition. Enrollment rose 3–5% during the same period. The bump in enrollment did taper off after about five years, however, unless athletic success sustained the increased visibility garner from the move up and subsequent exposure.

So again, there is far more evidence of schools succeeding and improving at the next level, e.g. Georgia southern, app state, Kennesaw state, texas state etc….. than those who have failed.

I'd kind of argue that shows the opposite, no offense.

"In this study it shows that schools moving from FCS to FBS saw, on average, a 6–12% increase in applications within 2–3 years post-transition. Enrollment rose 3–5% during the same period. The bump in enrollment did taper off after about five years, however, unless athletic success sustained the increased visibility garner from the move up and subsequent exposure."

And there is the catch. "Unless athletic success sustained the increased visibility garnered from moving up." Would there truly be sustained athletic success? That is the debate.

I also used Marshall, which did see a slight bump in the couple of years after moving up, but now have less students. You're right that there are widely varied examples. My point was that Schmidt's hyper focus on App State to make his argument isn't a very fair example, and excludes examples that support the opposite position.

 

[SinCityGriz2005]

Yes. End of story.

 

[hm.grwn.grizfan]

I'd kind of argue that shows the opposite, no offense.

"In this study it shows that schools moving from FCS to FBS saw, on average, a 6–12% increase in applications within 2–3 years post-transition. Enrollment rose 3–5% during the same period. The bump in enrollment did taper off after about five years, however, unless athletic success sustained the increased visibility garner from the move up and subsequent exposure."

And there is the catch. "Unless athletic success sustained the increased visibility garnered from moving up." Would there truly be sustained athletic success? That is the debate.

I also used Marshall, which did see a slight bump in the couple of years after moving up, but now have less students. You're right that there are widely varied examples. My point was that Schmidt's hyper focus on App State to make his argument isn't a very fair example, and excludes examples that support the opposite position.

I just think in regard to other sports than football as well as metrics outside of football success (e.g. enrollment), there is more data that suggests more often than not the results are positive. If they weren’t, most schools wouldn’t be itching to move up. There’s a reason UC Davis joined the MWC in all sports but football. There’s a reason Tarleton is looking to make FCS a mere speed bump in its ascension. FCS should have been in UMs rear view, as we’ve been the big fish for far too long. Now we get to see teams like kennessaw, Tarleton, coastal Carolina, liberty, Delaware, Missouri state and likely the dakotas, all come and go, moving on to greener pastures and new heights. They elevate the posture of their entire university. Meanwhile the UM sits exactly where it has for the last 4 decades, albeit less dominant and more poor with less students and less advantages over our competition. At least that’s how I perceive our current circumstances.

 

[ElrodGrizzly]

I just think in regard to other sports than football as well as metrics outside of football success (e.g. enrollment), there is more data that suggests more often than not the results are positive. If they weren’t, most schools wouldn’t be itching to move up. There’s a reason UC Davis joined the MWC in all sports but football. There’s a reason Tarleton is looking to make FCS a mere speed bump in its ascension. FCS should have been in UMs rear view, as we’ve been the big fish for far too long. Now we get to see teams like kennessaw, Tarleton, coastal Carolina, liberty, Delaware, Missouri state and likely the dakotas, all come and go, moving on to greener pastures and new heights. They elevate the posture of their entire university. Meanwhile the UM sits exactly where it has for the last 4 decades, albeit less dominant and more poor with less students and less advantages over our competition. At least that’s how I perceive our current circumstances.

Sure, and that is a fair perception shared by many. I don't fault that perspective in any way, I just don't share it.

I get that we all have this conversation a million times, but personally I would rather be Montana playing at a level I believe they can sustain success. If we were to follow the Marshall example, we would be hurting even more in enrollment in a few years. Personally, for me, I think that we are better off in terms of national perception now rather than becoming the next New Mexico State or Marshall.

 

[kemajic]

Not so much Marshall, but Randy Moss!

The '96 Marshall team was 15-0, won every game by at least two TDs and produced numerous NFL players. They were not a one-man team.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

I was 10. Always thought Pennington was the QB for some reason. Weird. Thanks for clarification

Pennington was their QB in the 1995 Championship game.

It wasn't just a one man team in 1996, yet Moss was a one man wrecking crew versus our defense. I also remember Marshall had some impressive dudes on their defensive line both years.

 

[Colter_Nuanez56]

Some people don’t like lawyers, or some lawyers. I don’t react well to journalists or some journalists. I didn’t listen to all of this yet, but I haven’t heard them say that Frank had previously asked Bobby the center question multiple times. To me, that’s the key fact, not whether the question was a fair question. Colter even said that this was not the right time to ask the question. I know these guys are mainly just entertaining, it’s their show, and this show is not supposed to be great and fair journalism.

The term the Colonel used, “entitled”, comes to mind when I listen to some “journalists”. I like these 2 guys and Kyle Sample, but …. I suppose they think the same thing about me and some of my stuff to some extent. My view is that Bobby is older, has accomplished a lot, and has earned the right to coach and be mostly the way he wants. These guys have way to go to earn their stripes.

Journalists seem to stick up for their kind a bit too much, in my view. I don’t stick up for lawyers like that.

If you listen to my ESPN show and the majority of our shows, I have great respect for Bobby Hauck and the way he uses steady discipline to guide Montana football. As I said in that show as well as others, I do not expect Coach Hauck to change.

My only suggestion was that if you are in a confrontation with a reporter, just say "I'm not answering that question" while you're on camera, then rip him off camera.

Also, you seem to understand, but for others that might not - Schmidt's show is a total bit. It's satire. It's a joke. It's supposed to be funny. Schmidt also has massive respect for Coach Hauck, still talks to him frequently as a former player, and gives financially to support Bobby's program.

 

[flowtowngriz]

I believe that montana and the dakotas belong in the group of 6. If you listen to fcs podcast nation wide. They mostly say that and it is mostly true that fcs is 4 team playoff for the national championship. The rest if the fcs is just playing to be in the playoffs and hope they catch lightning in a bottle that year. It is kinda like Boise St or a group of 6 team making it to the CFP. They really dont have a chance to make it the title game but are just happy to be in it and yes they want to win the title but the odds are very very very long.
I don't mind being in the fcs and yes we have a better program then 99% in that division. But I wish we could schedule home and home games with the group of 6. At least have a chance to have a chance for Colorado st, Wyoming, app. St, Boise st, Nevada, UNLV, or Marshall at home. That would be fun for the players and the fans and still play in fcs playoffs. But that will never happen.
I love the playoffs but the first 2 rounds the Montana fans dont even show up. It has to be a quarter rounds till the stadium get mostly filled and semi-finals for a sell out normally. The fans dont get up for a playoff game against patriot league game.
The group of 6 really needs there own playoff. Call it the fbs playoff series and the big boys can play for the CFP.
We are not at the level of the power 4 by no means. Yes we can play them and 1 out 10 get a win. But the group of 6. We can beat most of them on any given Saturday. Specially if we get them in the mecca of college football.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

As to the old move up argument, winning programs bring in students. Losing athletic programs often cost schools enrollment, and darn sure costs them fans.

Montana's enrollment grew to record levels in conjunction with the Grizzlies success in the 1990's and 2000's. That wasn't a coincidence. Then weak leadership at UM, and the administration's anti-athletics push, resulted in teams with the worst results in ages. Again, no coincidence Montana student enrollment directly dropped during that period. At the same time Wadeed over at msu was promoting the hell out of their athletics programs (along with everything else). They saw their enrollment grow as they enjoyed some of their best athletic results ever. In both cases it was not simply athletic results driving numbers up or down yet there is a direct correlation. Kids want to go where it's fun, exciting and teams are winning.

There will still be Grizzly fans if we habitually turned out 3-8 or 6-5 seasons. However, those fans would be in a half-filled WA Griz stadium. Winning fills those seats. Doubt me? Count the fans in the stands next time you see San Jose State, New Mexico State, Utah State, Nevada, or any of our "would be peers" on TV. The exposed concrete out numbers the fans by at least 3 to 1.

You might be ashamed UM is only FCS, I don't care. It does not bother me. I prefer watching our guys having a shot at a championship on a level playing field. At FBS it isn't a level field and there is no reason to believe it won't get even more lop sided. You move up folks have a little patience. After they slice FBS into the "haves" and "have nots" we can move up and join the have nots in the new Division 2.

 

[get'em_griz]

As to the old move up argument, winning programs bring in students. Losing athletic programs often cost schools enrollment, and darn sure costs them fans.

Montana's enrollment grew to record levels in conjunction with the Grizzlies success in the 1990's and 2000's. That wasn't a coincidence. Then weak leadership at UM, and the administration's anti-athletics push, resulted in teams with the worst results in ages. Again, no coincidence Montana student enrollment directly dropped during that period. At the same time Wadeed over at msu was promoting the hell out of their athletics programs (along with everything else). They saw their enrollment grow as they enjoyed some of their best athletic results ever. In both cases it was not simply athletic results driving numbers up or down yet there is a direct correlation. Kids want to go where it's fun, exciting and teams are winning.

There will still be Grizzly fans if we habitually turned out 3-8 or 6-5 seasons. However, those fans would be in a half-filled WA Griz stadium. Winning fills those seats. Doubt me? Count the fans in the stands next time you see San Jose State, New Mexico State, Utah State, Nevada, or any of our "would be peers" on TV. The exposed concrete out numbers the fans by at least 3 to 1.

You might be ashamed UM is only FCS, I don't care. It does not bother me. I prefer watching our guys having a shot at a championship on a level playing field. At FBS it isn't a level field and there is no reason to believe it won't get even more lop sided. You move up folks have a little patience. After they slice FBS into the "haves" and "have nots" we can move up and join the have nots in the new Division 2.

You’re bonkers if you think Washington-Grizzly Stadium wouldn’t be packed if we played San Jose State, New Mexico State, Utah State, Nevada, or those “so-called peers” as you put it. It’s just as bonkers to think we couldn’t compete and consistently win against those said programs either.

 

[Grizzlies1982]

You’re bonkers if you think Washington-Grizzly Stadium wouldn’t be packed if we played San Jose State, New Mexico State, Utah State, Nevada, or those “so-called peers” as you put it. It’s just as bonkers to think we couldn’t compete and consistently win against those said programs either.

Would be nice to see those teams play in Missoula. We certainly could compete with many of them. Yet it is questionable if we could consistently win as an FBS program. Though I'll be there next year to watch us take down Oregon State.

I'll always be a fan, you and many others will too. Though attendance in Missoula will drop significantly if we did not produce a winning program. Don't doubt me. That is a fact. Remember I'm bonkers and potentially unpredictable.

 

[kemajic]

Though attendance in Missoula will drop significantly if we did not produce a winning program. Don't doubt me. That is a fact. Remember I'm bonkers and potentially unpredictable.

That is not a fact. It hasn't been proven. It is your speculation, no more.

 

[Griz in Texas]

I was listening Grix fan podcast with Sac. ST president. I started thinking about the move up debate and the throw brack uni's. Then it hit me, like a bag of bricks.
In 1990's Idaho, Nevada, and Boise St left a few years before and was the rise of Montana to the nation campions in 95 and became the powerhouse. The ncaa a few years after 95 changed how division 1 football would be named. It changed from division 1-A and Division 1-AA to FBS and FCS.
2000's most of the power house programs move to FBS and division 2 teams moved to the FCS. The Dakotas, most of the BSC and many eastern US teams use to be division 2.

Today: Many schools that moved from division 2 are now moving or looking to become FBS. While the FBS have become the power 4 and the group of 6.
I believe the fcs is now the division 2 of 95 and fbs is 1-A and 1-AA.

Idaho and Bosie State were in the Big Sky until 1995.

The surge with Montana football has more to do with the fact that we moved from a temporary facility at "NEW" Dornblaser, back to an on campus stadium.

Nevada left the BSC in 1991 and Sac State didn't move up to I-AA until 1993, joining the Big Sky in 1996.
Sac State is not a good source of telling the story of the Big Sky in the early 90's.