Moving up

[CDAGRIZ]

Anybody else feel that if we don’t have solid plans to move up in the near future, we will be effectively moving down?

No.

I feel like I’m experiencing delirium from COVID with this talk of “if we declare it, then it is so”. Moving up for Montana means joining the new WAC or CUSA. IE… a conference of misfits stretched from the eastern time zone to the pacific. Loved to join the Mt West or PAC 12 but no proposal we submit is gaining us membership in conferences which don’t want new members. Like I said, this talk is like mass delirium.

Sooner later than later (5 years?) the Power 5 is leaving everyone behind. There will be plenty of opportunities then to ‘move up’ into the remnants of what they leave behind.

Pretty much sums up my point.

 

[IdaGriz01]

Anybody else feel that if we don’t have solid plans to move up in the near future, we will be effectively moving down?

No.

I feel like I’m experiencing delirium from COVID with this talk of “if we declare it, then it is so”. Moving up for Montana means joining the new WAC or CUSA. IE… a conference of misfits stretched from the eastern time zone to the pacific. Loved to join the Mt West or PAC 12 but no proposal we submit is gaining us membership in conferences which don’t want new members. Like I said, this talk is like mass delirium.

Sooner later than later (5 years?) the Power 5 is leaving everyone behind. There will be plenty of opportunities then to ‘move up’ into the remnants of what they leave behind.

I used to buy into the notion that the P-5 will have their own playpen separate from everyone else. However, watching the bickering among them, and the weird stuff from ESPN (the driving $$ force), I'm no longer sure that will be the case. To go that route would essentially write off the MAC and other Group of 5 fan bases ... and I rather doubt that ESPN will be willing to go that route.

Also, for all their academic snobbery, the P-5 would be abandoning many universities that are their academic (scholarly) equals ... and that still matters to the university presidents that have to agree.

 

[Buttegrizzle]

It’s not even a move up really. It’s just staying afloat. We can’t join a P5 because we don’t meet the academic and athletic program standards and the state of Montana has zero chance of spending new money on its public education facilities anytime soon. I should think the best option would be to move the whole BSC “up” to FBS (less the conference deadwood). An 8-10 team BSC would compete within a couple years with any of the lesser conferences being discussed.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

No.

I feel like I’m experiencing delirium from COVID with this talk of “if we declare it, then it is so”. Moving up for Montana means joining the new WAC or CUSA. IE… a conference of misfits stretched from the eastern time zone to the pacific. Loved to join the Mt West or PAC 12 but no proposal we submit is gaining us membership in conferences which don’t want new members. Like I said, this talk is like mass delirium.

Sooner later than later (5 years?) the Power 5 is leaving everyone behind. There will be plenty of opportunities then to ‘move up’ into the remnants of what they leave behind.

I used to buy into the notion that the P-5 will have their own playpen separate from everyone else. However, watching the bickering among them, and the weird stuff from ESPN (the driving $$ force), I'm no longer sure that will be the case. To go that route would essentially write off the MAC and other Group of 5 fan bases ... and I rather doubt that ESPN will be willing to go that route.

Also, for all their academic snobbery, the P-5 would be abandoning many universities that are their academic (scholarly) equals ... and that still matters to the university presidents that have to agree.

Hmm, interesting thoughts, Ida. How many G5 schools are academic equals to P5 schools? I can think of Rice and maybe Temple(?) off the top of my head. You’re a lot more well-versed than I am, so I’m always interested to read your thoughts.

Edit to add: There are definitely some P5s that aren’t like the other P5s academically, I get that side of it, too. But a decent number of those have the FB benefit of playing in the NFL farm system conference, where perhaps U presidents are just as focused on FB as they are on other things.

 

[EverettGriz]

Anybody else feel that if we don’t have solid plans to move up in the near future, we will be effectively moving down?

No.

I feel like I’m experiencing delirium from COVID with this talk of “if we declare it, then it is so”. Moving up for Montana means joining the new WAC or CUSA. IE… a conference of misfits stretched from the eastern time zone to the pacific. Loved to join the Mt West or PAC 12 but no proposal we submit is gaining us membership in conferences which don’t want new members. Like I said, this talk is like mass delirium.

Sooner later than later (5 years?) the Power 5 is leaving everyone behind. There will be plenty of opportunities then to ‘move up’ into the remnants of what they leave behind.

The WAC is an fcs conference. Montana is not moving there.

Assuming your second para is correct (I’m not convinced it is), how are you certain there will be opportunities? It could easily be a case of too late too little by then, as other programs have already moved and twine any available openings.

 

[NavyBlue]

It looks to me like the P5 is continuing to pull away and basically becoming a semi pro league. The G5 FBS is becoming new de facto FCS and FCS the new de facto DII, and so on down the line.

I think the time is fast approaching and many FCS schools are now realizing to basically not lose ground they are moving "up" to the new de facto FCS and will be using the C-USA and WAC to do it.

The gap between the Griz and Cats and all but the very top of the MWC isn't as big as some on here think.

UM and MSU would have trouble with BSU and San Diego State maybe like everyone else in the MWC does but they would do just fine. I also think it is only a matter of time before Boise State moves on. If and when the Big XII expands no doubt BYU will push for Boise.

 

[EverettGriz]

What I find curious is that those who are anti-FBS talk about the additional expenses necessary. But no one has talked about falling revenues from staying fcs.

As conferences get larger and larger at the FBS level, they will play fewer non conference games. This will mean a marked decrease in the number of payday games for fcs programs. Montana, MSU, Idaho and perhaps Weber could survive without them (although cuts would need to be made) but the remainder of the directional programs in the bsc could no longer pay their bills. How would they survive? Programs start to drop football, or go DII. Now your conference is in trouble, and you’re paying more in travel and incentives to get games.

Couple that with the fact that UM fans will not pay $85 a seat to watch Southwestern Kentucky Agriculture College and you have the beginning of the fcs death spiral.

 

[bigsky33]

Montana has the facilities. Montana doesn’t have the population. Been opposed to moving up for a long time. No longer opposed because I believe the landscape changed dramatically. Sad times and the NCAA screwed the pooch in so many ways. Not sure the Griz can successfully compete at the next level. Certainly paddling for their lives at this level. MSU no different. When was the last time either won a natty?

I agree with you Copper. Also, I don't think that both schools can afford to move up budget wise. I don't think playing to get into some obscure bowl that nobody cares about is going to help either school athletic department generate more revenue.

 

[EverettGriz]

Montana has the facilities. Montana doesn’t have the population. Been opposed to moving up for a long time. No longer opposed because I believe the landscape changed dramatically. Sad times and the NCAA screwed the pooch in so many ways. Not sure the Griz can successfully compete at the next level. Certainly paddling for their lives at this level. MSU no different. When was the last time either won a natty?

I agree with you Copper. Also, I don't think that both schools can afford to move up budget wise. I don't think playing to get into some obscure bowl that nobody cares about is going to help either school athletic department generate more revenue.

I’ve never understood the “population” argument.

Re afford: see post immediately above.

Re bowl no one cares about: will anyone care about a “national” championship in a subconf with 45 members most of whom were DIi 3 years ago?

 

[IdaGriz01]

...
Hmm, interesting thoughts, Ida. How many G5 schools are academic equals to P5 schools? I can think of Rice and maybe Temple(?) off the top of my head. You’re a lot more well-versed than I am, so I’m always interested to read your thoughts.

Edit to add: There are definitely some P5s that aren’t like the other P5s academically, I get that side of it, too. But a decent number of those have the FB benefit of playing in the NFL farm system conference, where perhaps U presidents are just as focused on FB as they are on other things.

You're absolutely right about Temple and Rice. Rice is considered one of the very top academic and research institutions in this country. And Temple is rated as among the "top tier" of all research universities.

Generally, the Ivies are considered the baseline for academics and research excellence. Of course, they're not G5. However, it happens that the University of Connecticut is included in any list of "Ivy-like" public universities. So there's one. The University of Massachusetts is generally ranked around 25-30 among public universities, but is not generally considered Ivy-like. (Of course, who would want their football programs?)

Oddly enough (and a surprise to me), the University of Houston is included on lists of Ivy-like public universities.

I'm sure there are others, but those are ones that immediately came to mind.

 

[Spanky2]

What I find curious is that those who are anti-FBS talk about the additional expenses necessary. But no one has talked about falling revenues from staying fcs.

As conferences get larger and larger at the FBS level, they will play fewer non conference games. This will mean a marked decrease in the number of payday games for fcs programs. Montana, MSU, Idaho and perhaps Weber could survive without them (although cuts would need to be made) but the remainder of the directional programs in the bsc could no longer pay their bills. How would they survive? Programs start to drop football, or go DII. Now your conference is in trouble, and you’re paying more in travel and incentives to get games.

Couple that with the fact that UM fans will not pay $85 a seat to watch Southwestern Kentucky Agriculture College and you have the beginning of the fcs death spiral.

Many of those that are anti FBS simply don’t want change and they are negative bowl games. They prefer a chance to play in a so called national championship in beautiful Frisco, Texas. It hasn’t occurred to them that in FBS they will see better teams in our stadium than the Dixie States of the world. Finally, when we are in the FBS, we will be able to recruit better athletes.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I agree with you Copper. Also, I don't think that both schools can afford to move up budget wise. I don't think playing to get into some obscure bowl that nobody cares about is going to help either school athletic department generate more revenue.

I’ve never understood the “population” argument.

Re afford: see post immediately above.

Re bowl no one cares about: will anyone care about a “national” championship in a subconf with 45 members most of whom were DIi 3 years ago?

Many say they are all for a move up, but only with a perfect situation/location now, with a playoff now, where we are competitive and relevant immediately, or no go. Everything now. Sadly, we lack the bargaining power to dictate many terms at the next level. I fear we will be left behind when things shake out.

 

[SACCAT66]

What I find curious is that those who are anti-FBS talk about the additional expenses necessary. But no one has talked about falling revenues from staying fcs.

As conferences get larger and larger at the FBS level, they will play fewer non conference games. This will mean a marked decrease in the number of payday games for fcs programs. Montana, MSU, Idaho and perhaps Weber could survive without them (although cuts would need to be made) but the remainder of the directional programs in the bsc could no longer pay their bills. How would they survive? Programs start to drop football, or go DII. Now your conference is in trouble, and you’re paying more in travel and incentives to get games.

Couple that with the fact that UM fans will not pay $85 a seat to watch Southwestern Kentucky Agriculture College and you have the beginning of the fcs death spiral.

Many of those that are anti FBS simply don’t want change and they are negative bowl games. They prefer a chance to play in a so called national championship in beautiful Frisco, Texas. It hasn’t occurred to them that in FBS they will see better teams in our stadium than the Dixie States of the world. Finally, when we are in the FBS, we will be able to recruit better athletes.

I think that your last sentence is the reason that the Montana schools are hesitant to move up... Both would lose a LOT of Montana kids. You would have maybe 10 Montana kids on the team at a time, and say goodbye to the partial scolly kids.

 

[Griztrain]

https://twitter.com/DomIzzoWDAY/status/1456014720897540098?s=20

 

[kemajic]

Many of those that are anti FBS simply don’t want change and they are negative bowl games. They prefer a chance to play in a so called national championship in beautiful Frisco, Texas. It hasn’t occurred to them that in FBS they will see better teams in our stadium than the Dixie States of the world. Finally, when we are in the FBS, we will be able to recruit better athletes.

I think that your last sentence is the reason that the Montana schools are hesitant to move up... Both would lose a LOT of Montana kids. You would have maybe 10 Montana kids on the team at a time, and say goodbye to the partial scolly kids.

If that were the goal then both should be in the Frontier conference so we could follow the college careers of our HS kids more thoroughly.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

https://twitter.com/DomIzzoWDAY/status/1456014720897540098?s=20

The DII champ can also declare itself the “best”. Move down and declare it more often.

 

[kemajic]

https://twitter.com/DomIzzoWDAY/status/1456014720897540098?s=20

The DII champ can also declare itself the “best”. Move down and declare it more often.

It hasn't been that long since SDSU was playing at that level, so that may be some carry-over. They were never here with BSU, Nevada, Appie, Marshall, GA So., etc.

 

[Gaeilge1]

One thing is certain. That is that those who argue for staying put are simply not devining the tea leaves correctly! The landscape of College football is changing rapidly. Unless both Montana schools and the BOR get out in front of this issue and begin to realistically aggressively explore some options these decisions are going to be made for them and I don't think anyone will be happy with that outcome.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

...
Hmm, interesting thoughts, Ida. How many G5 schools are academic equals to P5 schools? I can think of Rice and maybe Temple(?) off the top of my head. You’re a lot more well-versed than I am, so I’m always interested to read your thoughts.

Edit to add: There are definitely some P5s that aren’t like the other P5s academically, I get that side of it, too. But a decent number of those have the FB benefit of playing in the NFL farm system conference, where perhaps U presidents are just as focused on FB as they are on other things.

You're absolutely right about Temple and Rice. Rice is considered one of the very top academic and research institutions in this country. And Temple is rated as among the "top tier" of all research universities.

Generally, the Ivies are considered the baseline for academics and research excellence. Of course, they're not G5. However, it happens that the University of Connecticut is included in any list of "Ivy-like" public universities. So there's one. The University of Massachusetts is generally ranked around 25-30 among public universities, but is not generally considered Ivy-like. (Of course, who would want their football programs?)

Oddly enough (and a surprise to me), the University of Houston is included on lists of Ivy-like public universities.

I'm sure there are others, but those are ones that immediately came to mind.

Interesting stuff. Would’ve never thought of Houston. Thanks, man!

 

[Griztrain]

The DII champ can also declare itself the “best”. Move down and declare it more often.

It hasn't been that long since SDSU was playing at that level, so that may be some carry-over. They were never here with BSU, Nevada, Appie, Marshall, GA So., etc.

I’m all for moving up in the right situation. Just thought this was relevant since both S&NDSU have become top tier FCS so quickly and have the same concerns about geography. Sdsu coach noted that JMU, JSU and SHSU are geographically better suited with the conference they’re moving into. I don’t want to see the griz to travel to the east coast every other week in the WacK or Cusa