• 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!

Joining the Mountain West would run an $8MM - $9MM annual deficit - can we overcome that?

I remember when the feasibility audit was done when we were looking if it would be a good idea to join the WAC back in the late 2000's. The things I remember that were a concern for money to be competitive was*
1 We needed to upgrade the locker rooms. Check
2 Upgrade the weight rooms.
Check
3 Upgrade the student athletes learning center
Check
4 Build a indoor practice facility.
Kinda Check lol
5. Money to keep with our peers in athletic budgets.
We are not so far off. Yes we are not able to spend like Washington, Oregon or Texas. But I do believe we are able to keep up the MWC teams, Sunbelt, MAC, and Conf. USA. The Pac and American are higher budgets but that is why the ACC, and Big 12 have their eyes on those teams for the next realignment go around.
We will never be in a perfect position to move up and have everything paid for before we decide to make the move. We might be just left behind and FCS will be for the foreseeable future a 4 team race for the Natty. Till the money goes away because no body really cares about the FCS except for maybe 5% of the country. There is no money with those numbers.
While you say we should stay. Teams move on and we replace them with teams that just started a football program " the team we just announced a home and home with" or more division 2 programs which makes the FCS the premier division 2 league and most the premier FCS schools are now FBS. FCS has become the spring board for the FBS. In what I have been reading and hearing is that Big 10 and SEC are pushing for their own league. That is why the ACC, and Big 12 are looking at the Pac and American. Which means the pac and American are looking at the other group 6 conferences to replace the teams that get poached from them. AKA NDSU, James Madison, Sam Houston, Missouri St, Southern Georgia, App st, Delaware, Sacramento St and any other teams that has good brand. Aka Montana if we're in the FBS. If we are in the still in FCS we are going to passed by and then we will be stuck playing Ferris st, Central Wa, Southern Utah, Northern Co, and Utah Tech.

Do we want? Play for a championship that is pretty much already in the cards if we beat State and 1 or 2 more teams in the playoffs that no one shows up to except the semis or play for a meaningful regular season and if we win the conference we have a shot playing for the real natty that 90% of America watches. Or even have a FBS championship game while the big 2 have their own.

I dont know what will happen with the realignment but I do believe sitting and waiting and doing nothing is a recipe for failure.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Ask UM. The feasibility study is old but in the public domain. You want this stuff. I don’t. You find it. Why don’t you contact Kent Haslam. He knows what they have and what could be given to you. Are do you hat want to complain on the internet?
Click to expand...
So a fesabilty study that is almost 20 years old, got it, maybe that’s why no can find it. Either way season kicks off soon good luck to the new coaching staff hope they do well.
 
MontanaGrizSoccer said:
So a fesabilty study that is almost 20 years old, got it, maybe that’s why no can find it. Either way season kicks off soon good luck to the new coaching staff hope they do well.
Click to expand...
You asked if UM had feasibility studies. I answered. Much of what was in the study is still relevant. It's not hard to figure out whether moving up is feasible. It doesn't take a feasibility study. Those studies are often used to justify the decision to others, and to cover one's behind.

It is unbelievable how little you know about college athletics and financing college sports. You ask question like a first grader.
 
mthoopsfan said:
What were the others?
Click to expand...
The part about not having to add sports with a FBS football move. I have been told more than once by a.person within the department that any move to fully fund football at the FBS level would require adding at minimum one fully funded women's sport. He also laughed when I mentioned people thought there was a feasible path to move only football to a FBS conference.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
The part about not having to add sports with a FBS football move. I have been told more than once by a.person within the department that any move to fully fund football at the FBS level would require adding at minimum one fully funded women's sport. He also laughed when I mentioned people thought there was a feasible path to move only football to a FBS conference.
Click to expand...
Thx.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
The part about not having to add sports with a FBS football move. I have been told more than once by a.person within the department that any move to fully fund football at the FBS level would require adding at minimum one fully funded women's sport. He also laughed when I mentioned people thought there was a feasible path to move only football to a FBS conference.
Click to expand...

My understanding was we'd have to increase the amount of female scholarships not necessarily add a sport (according to a quick Google AI search) and I do think moving as a Football only option with MSU would be an easier option for a Conference to accept since we're a package deal, why I'd support it.
 
Ut-Grizfan said:
My understanding was we'd have to increase the amount of female scholarships not necessarily add a sport (according to a quick Google AI search) and I do think moving as a Football only option with MSU would be an easier option for a Conference to accept since we're a package deal, why I'd support it.
Click to expand...
It's both. 16 sports (UM has 15) and about equal scholarships for men and women.

"To maintain membership in the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), an institution must sponsor a minimum of 16 varsity intercollegiate sports.

The breakdown and specific structural requirements for those sports include:

Gender Distribution Requirements​

  • Men's / Mixed Teams: A minimum of 6 sports involving all-male or mixed-gender teams (the sport of football counts toward this total).
  • Women's Teams: A minimum of 8 sports involving all-female teams.
    • Note: Institutions are permitted to use up to two NCAA "emerging sports" for women to meet this requirement.

Additional Key FBS Criteria​

Meeting the 16-sport minimum is just one piece of FBS classification. Programs must also adhere to strict scheduling, attendance, and scholarship rules:

  • Football Scholarships: Teams must provide an average of at least 90% of the permissible maximum number of football financial aid awards per year over a rolling two-year period.
  • Multi-Sport Scholarship Minimums: Across the required 16 sports, institutions must meet strict overall athletic financial aid minimums (including funding a minimum number of total scholarships across the department).
  • Scheduling: An FBS team must play at least 60% of its football games against other FBS opponents, including at least 5 regular-season home games against FBS teams." Gemini.
 
Ut-Grizfan said:
My understanding was we'd have to increase the amount of female scholarships not necessarily add a sport (according to a quick Google AI search) and I do think moving as a Football only option with MSU would be an easier option for a Conference to accept since we're a package deal, why I'd support it.
Click to expand...
Sounds like UM is in the situation that to increase female scholarships it would have to add a sport(s) to do so. As for a football move to another conference, the impression I get from a couple conversations is FBS conferences aren't in the market for additional football only schools when it comes to transitioning FCS schools.
 
mthoopsfan said:
You asked if UM had feasibility studies. I answered. Much of what was in the study is still relevant. It's not hard to figure out whether moving up is feasible. It doesn't take a feasibility study. Those studies are often used to justify the decision to others, and to cover one's behind.

It is unbelievable how little you know about college athletics and financing college sports. You ask question like a first grader.
Click to expand...

HelenaHandBasket said:
The part about not having to add sports with a FBS football move. I have been told more than once by a.person within the department that any move to fully fund football at the FBS level would require adding at minimum one fully funded women's sport. He also laughed when I mentioned people thought there was a feasible path to move only football to a FBS conference.
Click to expand...

mthoopsfan said:
Look them up yourself. Ask UM for them. Are you lazy or stupid?
Click to expand...
I did, the report was completed back in 2010 for the WAC, was told the report holds no value due to being 16 years old.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
Sounds like UM is in the situation that to increase female scholarships it would have to add a sport(s) to do so. As for a football move to another conference, the impression I get from a couple conversations is FBS conferences aren't in the market for additional football only schools when it comes to transitioning FCS schools.
Click to expand...
I'll say it again: Women's. Rifle.
done-and-done-finished.gif
 
MontanaGrizSoccer said:
I did, the report was completed back in 2010 for the WAC, was told the report holds no value due to being 16 years old.
Click to expand...
Who said it had no value? I assume it still has considerable value, even though it, of course, could not be used or submitted to anyone to justify move up.

These studies are done by the same companies. Looking at other recent studies, like NDSU, gives you most of what would be in a new study. For example, discussion of the MW and related revenues would be essentially the same, or the same, as what is in the NDSU study. UM knows what facilities it has. It knows what it needs. It has general costs estimates for additional facilities. UM is presumably evaluating attendance and trends every year, and keeping its eye on small or not small expansions. UM knows what could be done with the stadium and where, and what problems exist. UJ can calculate additional salaries for coaches, etc. and additional scholarships, after looking at the NDSU study for guidance. I assume there are other publicly available studies out there.
 
Last edited:
HelenaHandBasket said:
If you can bridge the equivalency gap of increasing football scholarships from 63-105, bang-bang.
Click to expand...
42 needed female scholarships, would mean could probably give each existing sport between 5-10 (which would cover 40 if each existing sport got 5 each for example). Swimming and Women's Rifle would be 2 of the cheaper ways to add another sport if needed.
 
Ut-Grizfan said:
42 needed female scholarships, would mean could probably give each existing sport between 5-10 (which would cover 40 if each existing sport got 5 each for example). Swimming and Women's Rifle would be 2 of the cheaper ways to add another sport if needed.
Click to expand...
You seem to have all the answers. But I get it, adding 84 more scholarships and a sport or 2 isn't a big deal.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
You seem to have all the answers. But I get it, adding 84 more scholarships and a sport or 2 isn't a big deal.
Click to expand...
I don't I think I have all the answers but I have looked into it and have discussed moving up on a few different Forums for awhile now. I just find it better to think of solutions and discuss things more then just accept "we're gonna be FCS forever"
 
Ut-Grizfan said:
I don't I think I have all the answers but I have looked into it and have discussed moving up on a few different Forums for awhile now. I just find it better to think of solutions and discuss things more then just accept "we're gonna be FCS forever"
Click to expand...
Because no one has considered these ground breaking solutions? Gotcha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top