Well, yes, but with far, far more prestige. Again, there won't be any Drakes or Austin Peays or Campbells or Mercers at the G5 level. Again, it will be filled with teams people have heard of.
-
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!
It happenin
- Thread starter HelenaHandBasket
- Start date
More likely TX additions.
UTEP for one. But does Texas State move? UNT? Tarelton State? Rice?
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
I believe it is less and less likely that any FCS schools move up in this realignment of the PAC/MWC.
grizpsych
Well-known member
The road from Denver to Cheyenne is basically all city. That area is probably close enough to increase their viewership.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
I also think the future of FCS is murky.
I don't know if anyone pointed this out, but Wyoming can play with the big boys because the state funds only one four-year college. Montana funds 6. That means Montana taxpayers have to fund 6 intercollegiate athletic programs compared to Wyoming's 1.
griz fanatic
Well-known member
Sorry didn’t see you at the meeting.
alabamagrizzly
Well-known member
That is Wyoming’s home schedule this year. Last year they hosted Texas Tech.
OrgonGriz
Well-known member
I would think the MWC would want to put an infill plan in motion sooner rather than later. If they can name solid infill institutions with strong football programs and fan bases it might keep current teams from moving to other G5 schools. If the PAC calls on any other MWC schools they surely would go.
I believe the Montana and State schools in the Dakotas offer that..
you know you bring in a large swath of each state with these 4 schools.
To me getting UTEP or NMSU doesn’t make a lot of sense really. It sort of a lateral move into kind of an unknown with media contract negotiations. Yes maybe those markets have more viewers than the Montana or the Dakotas, but if they have no viewers that care about them and don’t watch what does it matter? At least with the Montana and Dakotas you know the viewers are gonna watch.
Plus how often is UTEP,NMSU,Tex state selling out there stadiums?
You know that will happen with Montana and Dakota schools.
The same could be said about Sac State! Yes they are in a large market, but really if no one follows them or watches what’s the point. No offense Sac fans.
To me… the most logical path is infill with UM, MSU, NDSU, SDSU. With the $ the MWC will get from the PAC they can help offset the $20 million entry fees for the schools. They could even aid in offsetting other costs such as additional scholarships or funding of sports to meet title IX.
Granted the 4 new schools would take a little less revenue shares to pay back the conference but I bet they would still make more in media payments than what they get currently.
All I know is this fan would love to see Wyo, Airforce, UNLV, Nevada, Utah State, NDSU, SDSU etc coming to Wa Griz every couple years. Much more so than Northern Colorado, Davis, Poly etc. Not to be a knock to them. But we all know those fans bases would welcome the same thing if they had opportunity.
At least UM can do is express interest. Feel out the options. But if they sit on their hands to see what happens it could be too late.
I believe the Montana and State schools in the Dakotas offer that..
you know you bring in a large swath of each state with these 4 schools.
To me getting UTEP or NMSU doesn’t make a lot of sense really. It sort of a lateral move into kind of an unknown with media contract negotiations. Yes maybe those markets have more viewers than the Montana or the Dakotas, but if they have no viewers that care about them and don’t watch what does it matter? At least with the Montana and Dakotas you know the viewers are gonna watch.
Plus how often is UTEP,NMSU,Tex state selling out there stadiums?
You know that will happen with Montana and Dakota schools.
The same could be said about Sac State! Yes they are in a large market, but really if no one follows them or watches what’s the point. No offense Sac fans.
To me… the most logical path is infill with UM, MSU, NDSU, SDSU. With the $ the MWC will get from the PAC they can help offset the $20 million entry fees for the schools. They could even aid in offsetting other costs such as additional scholarships or funding of sports to meet title IX.
Granted the 4 new schools would take a little less revenue shares to pay back the conference but I bet they would still make more in media payments than what they get currently.
All I know is this fan would love to see Wyo, Airforce, UNLV, Nevada, Utah State, NDSU, SDSU etc coming to Wa Griz every couple years. Much more so than Northern Colorado, Davis, Poly etc. Not to be a knock to them. But we all know those fans bases would welcome the same thing if they had opportunity.
At least UM can do is express interest. Feel out the options. But if they sit on their hands to see what happens it could be too late.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
LOL. Talking while taking a big dump doesn't make it a "meeting".
Tech game was fantastic. I'm just saying those are very much not the norm, especially for the recent move-ups.
Given the dearth of FBS schools west of the Mississippi, if we were to move up I think those games happen more often that you might think...especially as "full counters".
markson161
Well-known member
Definitely more night games with a couple Thursday night and Friday night games thrown in. People bitched about a Friday night playoff game, I don't see sellouts on Thursday or Friday nights, especially with late starts to accommodate ESPN.
BrownBear9501
Well-known member
Sac State has the right mindset. Publicly make your interest known….able to think progressively enough about the situation and upside a move like this would have. Hopefully our admin and BOR are able to do this as well. I think that the “how do we come up with the money” excuse is old at this point. You have to spend money to make money. Hopefully decision makers account for the benefit of being in the FBS and additional money opportunity that provides as well as the potential benefit it could have for UM enrollment wise. Don’t think that playing in a higher football conference doesn’t have a direct relation to students choosing the school they attend. I agree that part of the deal would have to and should include the MWC helping offset some of the initial costs. Additionally, would like to think that big donors, such as the Washington Group for example, would be excited about donating more $ for a move like this.
DoubleNicks
Well-known member
Does Sac actually need to expand their football stadium? According to their athletic website, they have the 2nd largest permanent seating capacity in the BSC at 21,195 (after a renovation dropped it from 26,000 in the early 90's). Problem is they just don't fill it. (The FBS requirement used to be 15K but I'm not sure if that's still the case).
Bobcat stadium is about 18K - 20K capacity (depending on source) but they have added temporary bleachers and standing room to reach their record of 22,037 when Montana came to town.
Bobcat stadium is about 18K - 20K capacity (depending on source) but they have added temporary bleachers and standing room to reach their record of 22,037 when Montana came to town.
If I recall correctly, Sac State's current stadium has been in need of upgrades for a while now. I can see them wanting to just build a new stadium on campus to start fresh with an intended move to the FBS.
It would be hilarious if Sac State moved up before Montana. Who bought that in the pool 20 years ago?
