Montana, Montana State- PAC 12 Conference

[HelenaHandBasket]

This is why nobody takes spanky seriously.

 

[oldrunner]

Ding ding ding. There is the issue. You can be the best damn salesperson in the world. Doesn’t matter if you don’t have the customer base. Montana has 1 million people. It is isn’t like all of them are Griz or Cat fans. Take alumnus out of state and you still have really small viewership for a geography. That simple.

The answer then is don’t do anything? Well, I guess UM is doing a good job according to your philosophy.

From an outside perspective, yes, UM and MSU are doing an outstanding job of making the best out of the cards that were dealt them. It's natural to want more and it's great when it happens, but to always expect to over achieve, is setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment.

 

[citygriz]

The answer then is don’t do anything? Well, I guess UM is doing a good job according to your philosophy.

From an outside perspective, yes, UM and MSU are doing an outstanding job of making the best out of the cards that were dealt them. It's natural to want more and it's great when it happens, but to always expect to over achieve, is setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment.

Oldrunner: You're spot on about TV and TV "markets." Whether through the TV set or via streaming on your digital devices, the appetite for entertainment in this country is voracious, to the point they've had to make up entertainment in the form of fake "reality" shows. Little wonder then that college sports has found such a huge market on TV because there's nothing fake about two teams facing off against each other against the backdrop of a "gameday" crowd. College sports is fun, exciting, AUTHENTIC reality.

But I would argue that the national appetite for TV sports has transcended local markets. Here are three examples of schools that were once at our level but whose brands now are totally out of proportion with their local markets--Boise State, Appalachian State and North Dakota State. These teams have become national brands--Boise State by producing one of the most exciting games in the history of college football against Oklahoma in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl; Appalachian State by upsetting Michigan and making the cover of the athletic version of the " The Cover of Rolling Stone," Sports Illustrated; and North Dakota State by absolutely dominating FCS football for so long. Put any of those teams up against a worthy opponent and they're going to garner national ratings, well beyond Boise, Boone or Fargo.

Point is, those teams put themselves in a position to establish their brands while Montana--a school that at one time had a football program that was at least the equal and probably better than those three teams--has not. They've progressed; we've regressed. We're now a middle-of-the-pack program in both football and men's basketball in a second-rate conference, and playing Ferris State, Utah Tech and Butler ain't gonna put us in a position to improve our brand.

Once Oregon, Washington and the Arizona schools leave--and they will because they are national TV brands--the PAC-12 is dead. That leaves the Bay Area schools, Cal and Stanford, together with Oregon State and Washington State, plus the Mountain West and Big Sky schools, to assemble a new conference. I hope both Montana schools and Weber State are in the mix to move up when the re-alignment takes place.

 

[mthoopsfan]

From an outside perspective, yes, UM and MSU are doing an outstanding job of making the best out of the cards that were dealt them. It's natural to want more and it's great when it happens, but to always expect to over achieve, is setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment.

Oldrunner: You're spot on about TV and TV "markets." Whether through the TV set or via streaming on your digital devices, the appetite for entertainment in this country is voracious, to the point they've had to make up entertainment in the form of fake "reality" shows. Little wonder then that college sports has found such a huge market on TV because there's nothing fake about two teams facing off against each other against the backdrop of a "gameday" crowd. College sports is fun, exciting, AUTHENTIC reality.

But I would argue that the national appetite for TV sports has transcended local markets. Here are three examples of schools that were once at our level but whose brands now are totally out of proportion with their local markets--Boise State, Appalachian State and North Dakota State. These teams have become national brands--Boise State by producing one of the most exciting games in the history of college football against Oklahoma in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl; Appalachian State by upsetting Michigan and making the cover of the athletic version of the " The Cover of Rolling Stone," Sports Illustrated; and North Dakota State by absolutely dominating FCS football for so long. Put any of those teams up against a worthy opponent and they're going to garner national ratings, well beyond Boise, Boone or Fargo.

Point is, those teams put themselves in a position to establish their brands while Montana--a school that at one time had a football program that was at least the equal and probably better than those three teams--has not. They've progressed; we've regressed. We're now a middle-of-the-pack program in both football and men's basketball in a second-rate conference, and playing Ferris State, Utah Tech and Butler ain't gonna put us in a position to improve our brand.

Once Oregon, Washington and the Arizona schools leave--and they will because they are national TV brands--the PAC-12 is dead. That leaves the Bay Area schools, Cal and Stanford, together with Oregon State and Washington State, plus the Mountain West and Big Sky schools, to assemble a new conference. I hope both Montana schools and Weber State are in the mix to move up when the re-alignment takes place.

Very interesting post. I understand how Boise St. has become a brand. However, is it true that App St and NDSU are? I don't know; I'm just asking. Of course, we all know who they are, but I don't follow App St at all and don't even stop surfing if I see they are playing on tv. I follow the Bison mainly because they became the dominant team in FCS. I don't know what tv ratings either of those schools get.

I wonder what will happen to the Pac-12 too. Historically, the Pac-12 has cared about the academic quality of the schools in the conference too, at least to some extent. The remaining schools, or what will remain if a few more depart, don't seem to have great options. And what is Stanford and Cal, especially Stanford, going to do. I can't imagine they want to join with just anyone.

Your last para is interesting. I hadn't thought about that. The Griz have been improving facilities for almost 20 years, in part to be prepared if something developed. The stadium is on the very small side. And, as stated, the lack of a big tv audience seems like a huge problem in this day and age. Maybe tv revenue wouldn't be shared anywhere close to equally? I see that Boise averages about 35,000 in a 36,000 stadium.

Another issue that UM has, in terms of rounding up a lot more money to move up, is that UM already has great attendance and fairly high ticket prices. Thus, there is less potential to increase ticket revenue by a large amount. This point was made by consultants when UM considered moving up in the distant past.

 

[EverettGriz]

WOW, He could magically create 10 million TV sets across Montana in that little time. Just wow. He is amazing.

Ding ding ding. There is the issue. You can be the best damn salesperson in the world. Doesn’t matter if you don’t have the customer base. Montana has 1 million people. It is isn’t like all of them are Griz or Cat fans. Take alumnus out of state and you still have really small viewership for a geography. That simple.

What's Wyoming's population? How many Coloradans watch CSU football? What's Hawaii's population? What's the population of Colorado Springs who turn in every week to watch Air Force? San Jose State wracking up all manner of California viewers?? How 'bout Fresno?

The "not enough population" argument has been debunked so many times it's staggering to me it continues to be made. It's simply not a factor. Period. Conferences care about total viewership, not viewership in a particular area. Let me ask you a serious question: Montana is playing Hawaii on ESPN. Will there be greater than, less than or equal number of viewers than if Hawaii was playing San Jose?

 

[brewskis]

WOW, He could magically create 10 million TV sets across Montana in that little time. Just wow. He is amazing.

Ding ding ding. There is the issue. You can be the best damn salesperson in the world. Doesn’t matter if you don’t have the customer base. Montana has 1 million people. It is isn’t like all of them are Griz or Cat fans. Take alumnus out of state and you still have really small viewership for a geography. That simple.

So how do you explain JMU moving up when Virginia’s viewership is dominated by VT and UVA? App State?
How about Sam Houston when the state of Texas has about 8 other schools that put forth a better product. Have either of those schools had College Gameday come to one of their games? Do those schools have 10 million viewers? Is their attendance and following as strong as ours?

There has to be an appetite to move up to the MWC or similar…..otherwise I hope we can get excited about playing Utah Tech and Central Washington while our former peers such as App State go on to duel with the best at the national stage.

 

[get'em_griz]

Anytime someone says "We can't compete in the FBS" or "We're too small of a population", I chuckle a bit. The teams we all knew at the FCS level that we competed against, and had a bit of a rivalry with, most are seeing success at the FBS level. App State wasn't much better than us in their FCS days. JMU wasn't much better either. Same with Coastal Carolina. And we have a fan base just as large, if not larger than these schools so tv viewers isn't that big of a problem like many claim it would be.

We absolutely can compete in the MWC, and we do draw viewers to the TV. Hell, probably the only reason the Big Sky has the ESPN deal with two conference games getting played on ESPN/ESPN2 is all because of Montana and Montana State's large fan base. Without the Montana schools, there's no chance the Big Sky gets a sniff from ESPN.

 

[3-7-77]

Patience. A lot of cards have to fall before anything that even SMELLS like an invite comes our way. I'd like to get of of the BSC as much as anyone, but so far its only three bailouts from the PAC 12, and one cork plug going IN(SDSU). Oregon and Washington haven't made their move, YET. Those two aren"t going to be slowed down by being joined at the hip with their State University in state riivals. Its about money, and whatshisname PAC 12 Commish has been an abject failure at a TV contract(no money). Assuming the PAC 12 folds, then its the MWC turn to have its bone picked clean. Then, maybe, the conjoined twins will get an invite to some undefined FBS conference. Remember, all FBS conferences are subect to the same hostile takeover, not just those in the West. And, it comes to mind, be careful what you wish for...these gutted out conferences will just be looking for fillers, to put flesh on their skeleton, and some semblance of normalcy to a bad situation. IMO, the FCS is dying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5oEzVbu8HQ

 

[mthoopsfan]

Ding ding ding. There is the issue. You can be the best damn salesperson in the world. Doesn’t matter if you don’t have the customer base. Montana has 1 million people. It is isn’t like all of them are Griz or Cat fans. Take alumnus out of state and you still have really small viewership for a geography. That simple.

What's Wyoming's population? How many Coloradans watch CSU football? What's Hawaii's population? What's the population of Colorado Springs who turn in every week to watch Air Force? San Jose State wracking up all manner of California viewers?? How 'bout Fresno?

The "not enough population" argument has been debunked so many times it's staggering to me it continues to be made. It's simply not a factor. Period. Conferences care about total viewership, not viewership in a particular area. Let me ask you a serious question: Montana is playing Hawaii on ESPN. Will there be greater than, less than or equal number of viewers than if Hawaii was playing San Jose?

How many schools that you mentioned are in the Pac-12?

I have never seen the population thing debunked. I agree on total viewership. Do you expect UM to have a big viewership?

 

[mthoopsfan]

Anytime someone says "We can't compete in the FBS" or "We're too small of a population", I chuckle a bit. The teams we all knew at the FCS level that we competed against, and had a bit of a rivalry with, most are seeing success at the FBS level. App State wasn't much better than us in their FCS days. JMU wasn't much better either. Same with Coastal Carolina. And we have a fan base just as large, if not larger than these schools so tv viewers isn't that big of a problem like many claim it would be.

We absolutely can compete in the MWC, and we do draw viewers to the TV. Hell, probably the only reason the Big Sky has the ESPN deal with two conference games getting played on ESPN/ESPN2 is all because of Montana and Montana State's large fan base. Without the Montana schools, there's no chance the Big Sky gets a sniff from ESPN.

Haven't you heard that UM is 6th in the Big Sky? That's all that counts.

If UM would be so great for the MW, why hasn't the MW invited UM to join?

 

[EverettGriz]

What's Wyoming's population? How many Coloradans watch CSU football? What's Hawaii's population? What's the population of Colorado Springs who turn in every week to watch Air Force? San Jose State wracking up all manner of California viewers?? How 'bout Fresno?

The "not enough population" argument has been debunked so many times it's staggering to me it continues to be made. It's simply not a factor. Period. Conferences care about total viewership, not viewership in a particular area. Let me ask you a serious question: Montana is playing Hawaii on ESPN. Will there be greater than, less than or equal number of viewers than if Hawaii was playing San Jose?

How many schools that you mentioned are in the Pac-12?

I have never seen the population thing debunked. I agree on total viewership. Do you expect UM to have a big viewership?

We're not going to the P12.

Yes. See my question above.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I am not so sure there will be a PAC-anything and MWC after the smoke clears, it will be one or the other.

 

[citygriz]

Anytime someone says "We can't compete in the FBS" or "We're too small of a population", I chuckle a bit. The teams we all knew at the FCS level that we competed against, and had a bit of a rivalry with, most are seeing success at the FBS level. App State wasn't much better than us in their FCS days. JMU wasn't much better either. Same with Coastal Carolina. And we have a fan base just as large, if not larger than these schools so tv viewers isn't that big of a problem like many claim it would be.

We absolutely can compete in the MWC, and we do draw viewers to the TV. Hell, probably the only reason the Big Sky has the ESPN deal with two conference games getting played on ESPN/ESPN2 is all because of Montana and Montana State's large fan base. Without the Montana schools, there's no chance the Big Sky gets a sniff from ESPN.

Haven't you heard that UM is 6th in the Big Sky? That's all that counts.

If UM would be so great for the MW, why hasn't the MW invited UM to join?

No conference wants to be humiliated by a public rejection to join their conference. And Montana has long made it clear through back-channels, whether because they could not be separated from Montana State or the financial obligations were too onerous, that they they were happy in the Big Sky. This was back in the musical chairs days of the Western Athletic Conference and the formation of the Mountain West Conference when I'm sure we would have been invited had we lobbied for it. But the sentiment was unanimous on this board that we wanted to remain a big fish in a small pond, the while the pond has remained the same and the other fish have gotten bigger. If we keep it within two touchdowns at Idaho this year I will be surprised--and delighted to eat crow--while the Cats have won five of the last six games against us.

 

[Spanky2]

I am not so sure there will be a PAC-anything and MWC after the smoke clears, it will be one or the other.

But you don’t know that.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

I am not so sure there will be a PAC-anything and MWC after the smoke clears, it will be one or the other.

But you don’t know that.

Much better odds than Montana, Montana State - PAC 12 Conference.

 

[Spanky2]

But you don’t know that.

Much better odds than Montana, Montana State - PAC 12 Conference.

We know you like the Frontier Conference.

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

Haven't you heard that UM is 6th in the Big Sky? That's all that counts.

If UM would be so great for the MW, why hasn't the MW invited UM to join?

No conference wants to be humiliated by a public rejection to join their conference. And Montana has long made it clear through back-channels, whether because they could not be separated from Montana State or the financial obligations were too onerous, that they they were happy in the Big Sky. This was back in the musical chairs days of the Western Athletic Conference and the formation of the Mountain West Conference when I'm sure we would have been invited had we lobbied for it. But the sentiment was unanimous on this board that we wanted to remain a big fish in a small pond, the while the pond has remained the same and the other fish have gotten bigger. If we keep it within two touchdowns at Idaho this year I will be surprised--and delighted to eat crow--while the Cats have won five of the last six games against us.

I believe a few weeks or so ago, Jim O'Day was on Nuanez Now and mentioned that the MWC (or WAC, maybe I'm not remembering correctly - back during the push of moving up towards the end of BH's first go-round coaching and when the WAC and MWC was doing a lot of shifting) via back channels quietly reached out to see if the MT schools were interested in joining.

 

[HelenaHandBasket]

Much better odds than Montana, Montana State - PAC 12 Conference.

We know you like the Frontier Conference.

spanky, are any of your posts factual?

 

[3-7-77]

Without the Montana schools, there's no chance the Big Sky gets a sniff from ESPN.

I'll bet you've got dogs. :thumb:

 

[oldrunner]

From an outside perspective, yes, UM and MSU are doing an outstanding job of making the best out of the cards that were dealt them. It's natural to want more and it's great when it happens, but to always expect to over achieve, is setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment.

Oldrunner: You're spot on about TV and TV "markets." Whether through the TV set or via streaming on your digital devices, the appetite for entertainment in this country is voracious, to the point they've had to make up entertainment in the form of fake "reality" shows. Little wonder then that college sports has found such a huge market on TV because there's nothing fake about two teams facing off against each other against the backdrop of a "gameday" crowd. College sports is fun, exciting, AUTHENTIC reality.

But I would argue that the national appetite for TV sports has transcended local markets. Here are three examples of schools that were once at our level but whose brands now are totally out of proportion with their local markets--Boise State, Appalachian State and North Dakota State. These teams have become national brands--Boise State by producing one of the most exciting games in the history of college football against Oklahoma in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl; Appalachian State by upsetting Michigan and making the cover of the athletic version of the " The Cover of Rolling Stone," Sports Illustrated; and North Dakota State by absolutely dominating FCS football for so long. Put any of those teams up against a worthy opponent and they're going to garner national ratings, well beyond Boise, Boone or Fargo.

Point is, those teams put themselves in a position to establish their brands while Montana--a school that at one time had a football program that was at least the equal and probably better than those three teams--has not. They've progressed; we've regressed. We're now a middle-of-the-pack program in both football and men's basketball in a second-rate conference, and playing Ferris State, Utah Tech and Butler ain't gonna put us in a position to improve our brand.

Once Oregon, Washington and the Arizona schools leave--and they will because they are national TV brands--the PAC-12 is dead. That leaves the Bay Area schools, Cal and Stanford, together with Oregon State and Washington State, plus the Mountain West and Big Sky schools, to assemble a new conference. I hope both Montana schools and Weber State are in the mix to move up when the re-alignment takes place.

Point taken

However, you don't have to go far to find examples of how a move up can work out poorly for a small market program. Just look at what has happened to UI and NMSU after the implosion of the WAC. They both got in when the getting was good, but the WAC was so marginal that when they lost a couple of strong members, everything fell appart. Those two programs were left with no good options to maintain that status. Turns out that nobody, including media, wanted anything to do with Moscow or Las Cruses. It's not all about market, but a combination of travel, market and prestige. UM and MSU are the biggest deals in Montana. Outside of Montana, not so much. Trying to compare what was going on 60+ years ago to todays environment is foolish at best.