The problem with that mindset is that if people continue blindly contributing (to justify their bitching) are we EVER going to get substantive change? Because literally the only power we have as fans/donors is the power of the purse. If games keep selling out, if NIL keeps growing, if QB Club keeps growing, what’s the impetus for any sort of change, coach or scheme-wise?
The difference being that unlike UI and BSU, UM and msu are tied together by the Board if Regents. One cannot move to a new conference without the other.
UM's fan base is declining. MSU's fan base is growing. Success brings in money. UM needs to ditch the ridiculous idea of wanting to be the "Harvard of the West". I heard that very statement made several times as an ASUM senator from members of the faculty senate and bourgei ASUM members. I had to laugh because it was the dumbest thing I had heard from allegedly smart people.I pulled this from AI so I don't know if this is accurate. I will update if someone points out the inaccuracies.
When you lay Brent Vigen’s and Bobby Hauck’s contracts side‑by‑side, you see two athletic departments with very different ideas about what a head coach should be rewarded for.
Montana State’s structure is broad, granular, and business‑oriented. It treats the head coach as a CEO of a growth‑stage enterprise: fundraising, scheduling, ticket sales, and deep playoff advancement are all monetized. Vigen’s incentives read like a blueprint for building a national‑profile FCS program — one that grows revenue, expands donor engagement, and consistently pushes into late December.
Montana’s structure is traditional, stability‑driven, and culture‑centric. Hauck’s incentives emphasize academics, attendance, and regular‑season success. UM’s contract reflects a program that already has a massive fan base, a national brand, and a long history of playoff appearances. The incentives reward maintaining that standard rather than expanding it.
In short:
- MSU pays Vigen to grow the program.
- UM pays Hauck to sustain the program.
What are some examples of where regents have been biased toward MSU?
No way!!!!!
I don't agree with the thought that UM's fan base is dying. If anything, MSU is doing an incredible job of advertising/building its fanbase whereas Montana has been riding the coat tails of its previous successes from the mid 90s to late 2000s. Montana absolutely could be an absolute juggernaut in creating fan excitement if it put more effort into listening to what fans want. MSU has been doing that. Hell, I would be willing to bet that MSU knows that playing "Mony Mony" every game for their fan base to chant "ESGGCG" at the top of their lungs isn't a good look, but the university does it anyway because it builds excitement and the fanbase loves it. Bobcat Stadium now has the thing Washington-Grizzly Stadium used to have: the sense that something bad is about to happen to the visiting team.
I'll disagree. I think both have great game day experiences but I really like how um does alot of things. The DJ next to the student section. The pizzas given out by Bodner. Raising the flag before the game. There's quite a few things I see um do that I wish MSU did. I think um does a better job catering to students. I think MSU does a better job tailoring its experience to families with its cams like flex cam and noodle guy came and all that. I don't know why its like at um but most games in Bozeman half the student section doesn't come back after halftime. They go to house parties.
Okay dying might not be the right word. diminishing would be more suitable.
All of that be very true.
What are some examples of where regents have been biased toward MSU?
Lolol.
