• 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!

Musberger Says UM Moving Up Would Be Mistake

P

PlayerRep

Well-known member
Brent Musberger recently said moving up would be "economic suicide" and a "horrendous mistake".

http://billingsgazette.com/sports/college/article_4413b478-6783-11df-ace1-001cc4c002e0.html

http://missoulian.com/sports/college/montana/article_4863c1a0-67a4-11df-a06b-001cc4c03286.html
 
We get it. Lots of people want things to stay the same for ever and ever. Some of them are famous. Most of them are old as dirt.

The "State" can't support a FBS team? Last I checked, Wyoming with half the population of Montana has a FBS team. Idaho, with only 500,000 more people than Montana has TWO FBS teams. All three teams were in Bowl games last year. One of them won a BCS bowl game.

Musberger also isn't as close to the financial state of UM athletics as his misinformed opinion makes him out to be. He claims that moving to FBS would be "economic suicide". Perhaps if he read a SINGLE interview with Jim O'Day in the last 5 months he would have known that our athletic director has been shouting from the rooftops that staying FCS is economic suicide. We are on the verge of having to cut scholarships, we also can not afford basic facilities maintenance. We have been threatened by our own AD with a move to Divsion Two! We are as successful in FCS as we are possibly going to be. There is no additional revenue. FBS football offers access to multiple additional revenue streams.

The "things stay this way forever" crowd is constantly asking where the money to move to FBS is going to come from. I want to know where the money to stay FCS is going to come from. Maybe Musberger should get to the bottom of that.
 
djollieballs said:
We get it. Lots of people want things to stay the same for ever and ever. Some of them are famous. Most of them are old as dirt.

The "State" can't support a FBS team? Last I checked, Wyoming with half the population of Montana has a FBS team. Idaho, with only 500,000 more people than Montana has TWO FBS teams. All three teams were in Bowl games last year. One of them won a BCS bowl game.

Musberger also isn't as close to the financial state of UM athletics as his misinformed opinion makes him out to be. He claims that moving to FBS would be "economic suicide". Perhaps if he read a SINGLE interview with Jim O'Day in the last 5 months he would have known that our athletic director has been shouting from the rooftops that staying FCS is economic suicide. We are on the verge of having to cut scholarships, we also can not afford basic facilities maintenance. We have been threatened by our own AD with a move to Divsion Two! We are as successful in FCS as we are possibly going to be. There is no additional revenue. FBS football offers access to multiple additional revenue streams.

The "things stay this way forever" crowd is constantly asking where the money to move to FBS is going to come from. I want to know where the money to stay FCS is going to come from. Maybe Musberger should get to the bottom of that.
Click to expand...

O'Day has never said, or even hinted, that staying in I-AA would be economic suicide. He has never threatened to move to D-II. He has said that due to the budgets cuts requested by Main Hall, the athletic department has taken a brief look at various alternatives.

While moving up offers accesss to additional revenues, the additional costs are greater than the additional revenues. Moving up also creates a significant risk that attendance could drop in the future is UM was not successful enough in I-A. This is why Musberger said moving up would be economic suicide.

The "economic suicide" crowd wants to move up so badly that they won't recognize reality and they are willing to risk ruining Griz football as we know it.
 
PlayerRep said:
djollieballs said:
We get it. Lots of people want things to stay the same for ever and ever. Some of them are famous. Most of them are old as dirt.

The "State" can't support a FBS team? Last I checked, Wyoming with half the population of Montana has a FBS team. Idaho, with only 500,000 more people than Montana has TWO FBS teams. All three teams were in Bowl games last year. One of them won a BCS bowl game.

Musberger also isn't as close to the financial state of UM athletics as his misinformed opinion makes him out to be. He claims that moving to FBS would be "economic suicide". Perhaps if he read a SINGLE interview with Jim O'Day in the last 5 months he would have known that our athletic director has been shouting from the rooftops that staying FCS is economic suicide. We are on the verge of having to cut scholarships, we also can not afford basic facilities maintenance. We have been threatened by our own AD with a move to Divsion Two! We are as successful in FCS as we are possibly going to be. There is no additional revenue. FBS football offers access to multiple additional revenue streams.

The "things stay this way forever" crowd is constantly asking where the money to move to FBS is going to come from. I want to know where the money to stay FCS is going to come from. Maybe Musberger should get to the bottom of that.
Click to expand...

O'Day has never said, or even hinted, that staying in I-AA would be economic suicide. He has never threatened to move to D-II. He has said that due to the budgets cuts requested by Main Hall, the athletic department has taken a brief look at various alternatives.

While moving up offers accesss to additional revenues, the additional costs are greater than the additional revenues. Moving up also creates a significant risk that attendance could drop in the future is UM was not successful enough in I-A. This is why Musberger said moving up would be economic suicide.

The "economic suicide" crowd wants to move up so badly that they won't recognize reality and they are willing to risk ruining Griz football as we know it.
Click to expand...

Where's the money going to come from to stay FCS? Where is the money going to come from to fix the locker rooms and the NEZ? Where is the money going to come from to make up for the budget shortfall? Do you propose we cut out of state scholarships? Do we schedule more Division 2 cupcake teams? Do we raise ticket prices?

When faced with those questions O'Day's FIRST RESPONSE was that "moving to Division Two would be easiest".

Personally, PR, I have a hard time seeing Griz fans paying $50 a ticket to see Fort Lewis, Western State, and Southern Utah. Because when Sac State, PSU, Davis, and Poly all move up, that's who we'll be stuck playing every year. That's where the Griz are headed by staying FCS and remaining competitive. Things don't stay the same for ever and ever.

They really won't stay the same for ever and ever if someone (new president) thinks we can squeeze even more money out of the program by cutting scholarships to Division 2 levels. After all, if fans will pay $40 a ticket to see Western State, what are we doing carrying 63 scholarships? We only need 36 scholarships to play the same competition. that's a savings of $810,000 a year! Wonder what kind of new president we bring in? Wonder if she'll see the savings?

What happens if NAU and EWU drop football? Oh, now you're going to tell me that they won't because things stay the same for ever and ever, right?

All I know, is our own AD has said that the Griz are floundering in FCS. He has said it multiple times to multiple sources.

You keep thinking things will stay the same for ever and ever.
 
A. It's a Bozeman writer. I'm sure he didn't frame the question like this; "Assuming the dominos fall in the direction of the Grizzlies and they have an opportunity to accept and invitation to the WAC and their study indicates that the best potential for economic viability is in the FBS and the likely changes in the landscape of the FCS are likely going to be detrimental to their revenue, do you think UM should accept?" . . .

B. The only quote from the whole thing is "economic suicide". Horrendous decision isn't even quoted which means it's paraphrased.

C. Is a fundraiser for a non-revenue sport of our rivals a place to say anything in support of something like this?

With that said, Musberger is highly respected and is entitled to his opinion, even if it's not necessarily worth much more than Joe Shmoe's. If O'Day says it's economic suidicde after the completion of the study, that's a two-word quote I'll take to heart.
 
Lets see....

He is speaking at a MrsU fundraiser and says that UM should stay in the BigSky Conference...

Thats like Obama talking about financial restraint.
 
djollieballs said:
We get it. Lots of people want things to stay the same for ever and ever. Some of them are famous. Most of them are old as dirt.

The "State" can't support a FBS team? Last I checked, Wyoming with half the population of Montana has a FBS team. Idaho, with only 500,000 more people than Montana has TWO FBS teams. All three teams were in Bowl games last year. One of them won a BCS bowl game.

Musberger also isn't as close to the financial state of UM athletics as his misinformed opinion makes him out to be. He claims that moving to FBS would be "economic suicide". Perhaps if he read a SINGLE interview with Jim O'Day in the last 5 months he would have known that our athletic director has been shouting from the rooftops that staying FCS is economic suicide. We are on the verge of having to cut scholarships, we also can not afford basic facilities maintenance. We have been threatened by our own AD with a move to Divsion Two! We are as successful in FCS as we are possibly going to be. There is no additional revenue. FBS football offers access to multiple additional revenue streams.

Djballs,

Once again you mention the budget issues without any understanding that the budget problems is a main hall / Dennison budget problem vs. a revenue issue at the athletic department. There is plenty of money to stay at FCS if U of M properly funded its athletic department. How do you think moving to FBS is going to improve things if all we do with the extra "income" is siphon it off to Main Hall.

See my analysis in connection with the Kaimin budget story in March.


I looked at the numbers between U of M and MSU for 2004-2005 when the Indy Star newspaper had there NCAA financial data base and the differences where staggering. For that year there was almost a $5,800,000 difference between U of M and MSU in ticket sales and athletic contributions. Yet U of M pays it's coaches less than MSU by $150,000, pays less in recruiting costs by almost $100,000, pays less in student aid by $500,000 which are all direct athletic expenses.

But then U of M pays less in "Direct Institutional Support" to the athletic department by almost $1.1 million and charges the athletic department $1.1 more for facilities maint., $1 million higher for "Game Expenses" (U of M football game expenses are $744,000 vs. MSU football game expenses are $40,000) and $300K more for "support salaries".

The combined total of these differences of; more revenue for U of M tickets and contributions, with less direct expenses for coaches salaries, recruiting, combined with less direct support from U of M and higher expense charges for facilities, game expenses and support salaries adds up to betwenn a $9 to $10 million dollar difference between U of M and MSU.

I guess my point in this whole rant is that what O'Day is talking about is a "budget" problem because of all the bullshit charges from main hall and it's underfunding of athletics. Have you heard any of this budget problem talk from the MSU AD, I have not.

After all that U of M athletics showed net revenues over expenses at a positve $2,653,000 vs. MSU $270,000. Where did the $2.6 million go, certainly not into the 2005-2006 athletic budget.

FYI, here is the Indy Star NCAA Database site if you want to look it up: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/
Click to expand...
 
84GRIZ said:
djollieballs said:
We get it. Lots of people want things to stay the same for ever and ever. Some of them are famous. Most of them are old as dirt.

The "State" can't support a FBS team? Last I checked, Wyoming with half the population of Montana has a FBS team. Idaho, with only 500,000 more people than Montana has TWO FBS teams. All three teams were in Bowl games last year. One of them won a BCS bowl game.

Musberger also isn't as close to the financial state of UM athletics as his misinformed opinion makes him out to be. He claims that moving to FBS would be "economic suicide". Perhaps if he read a SINGLE interview with Jim O'Day in the last 5 months he would have known that our athletic director has been shouting from the rooftops that staying FCS is economic suicide. We are on the verge of having to cut scholarships, we also can not afford basic facilities maintenance. We have been threatened by our own AD with a move to Divsion Two! We are as successful in FCS as we are possibly going to be. There is no additional revenue. FBS football offers access to multiple additional revenue streams.

Djballs,

Once again you mention the budget issues without any understanding that the budget problems is a main hall / Dennison budget problem vs. a revenue issue at the athletic department. There is plenty of money to stay at FCS if U of M properly funded its athletic department. How do you think moving to FBS is going to improve things if all we do with the extra "income" is siphon it off to Main Hall.

See my analysis in connection with the Kaimin budget story in March.


I looked at the numbers between U of M and MSU for 2004-2005 when the Indy Star newspaper had there NCAA financial data base and the differences where staggering. For that year there was almost a $5,800,000 difference between U of M and MSU in ticket sales and athletic contributions. Yet U of M pays it's coaches less than MSU by $150,000, pays less in recruiting costs by almost $100,000, pays less in student aid by $500,000 which are all direct athletic expenses.

But then U of M pays less in "Direct Institutional Support" to the athletic department by almost $1.1 million and charges the athletic department $1.1 more for facilities maint., $1 million higher for "Game Expenses" (U of M football game expenses are $744,000 vs. MSU football game expenses are $40,000) and $300K more for "support salaries".

The combined total of these differences of; more revenue for U of M tickets and contributions, with less direct expenses for coaches salaries, recruiting, combined with less direct support from U of M and higher expense charges for facilities, game expenses and support salaries adds up to betwenn a $9 to $10 million dollar difference between U of M and MSU.

I guess my point in this whole rant is that what O'Day is talking about is a "budget" problem because of all the bullshit charges from main hall and it's underfunding of athletics. Have you heard any of this budget problem talk from the MSU AD, I have not.

After all that U of M athletics showed net revenues over expenses at a positve $2,653,000 vs. MSU $270,000. Where did the $2.6 million go, certainly not into the 2005-2006 athletic budget.

FYI, here is the Indy Star NCAA Database site if you want to look it up: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! A good friend of mine played for the Griz and used to work in the business office. He said the same thing when asked about the athletic "budget shortfall". Exact words were - total BS.
 
Musberger's comments offered no more credibility than that of your garden variety e-grizer. Maybe less. For Brent, who lives in the rarified air of broadcasting the premier matchups each Saturday, he may be forgetting that FBS football exists beyond his world of USC-Notre Dame and Tennessee-Florida and that there is place in college athletics between that and the present FCS where Griz athletics can prosper. His "economic suicide" reference bides the fact that UM may not even have much say in whether it moves up or remains in an FCS that could morph into something unrecognizable - or non even existent after August 2011.

Brent provides precious little support for his argument beyond the fact that UM-Appy State was a great game. Agreed, but as someone once said, One rose does not a summer make. Speaking as he was in Bobcat Country, I found it notable that he opined that "he'd be disappointed if Montana or Montana State made a moveup to the FBS" - not if both made the jump. Don't worry, Brent. If UM makes the move alone there's nothing that says the Griz-Cat series can't continue. But you probably already knew that, right?

Musberger's words may have pleased the home folks, but they were woefully short on any relevant insight and can be called simplistic at best. This was a shoot-from-the hip performance by a guy otherwise known for doing his homework before stepping into the broadcast booth. But not on this occasion.
 
djollieballs said:
The "State" can't support a FBS team? Last I checked, Wyoming with half the population of Montana has a FBS team. Idaho, with only 500,000 more people than Montana has TWO FBS teams. All three teams were in Bowl games last year. One of them won a BCS bowl game.
Click to expand...

Musberger is just expressing a personal opinion. He probably knows less than several on this board. Could be he even cares less.

But, DJ, you get at a reality: WY & ID with less population are in the FBS. Well, it really goes back to formation of the higher ed. systems in these states & MT. Yes, about 100 years ago. WY opted for a single 4-year institution, WU, with the rest of local colleges being community colleges as feeder schools. I don't know the history of ID as well, but I assume there was the UI & maybe ISU in the beginning; BSU only recently became a 4-year school.

MT, on the other hand, back then, had a choice re: it's higher ed. system. Paris Gibson of Great Falls argued for a single UM to be located in Great Falls (naturally). When you think about it, with GF's central location, that was a great idea. But no, the legislature decided to create 6 four-year schools at Havre, Dillon, Missoula, Bozeman, Butte, & Billings. If there had been one four-year school at Great Falls, can you imagine where MT would be on the football landscape, like WY is?

This is just another consideration re: UM's position today. I don't believe one can compare UM or MSU to WY or ID because of this.

BTW, I do support a move to the WAC & believe UM will succeed & flourish in that conference.
 
I find this whole article to be comical. These remarks come from an individual who did not even acknowledge he was from Montana for about a decade while he was heading up NFL today on CBS. Unlike Curt Gowdy who was from Wyoming and rarely if ever failed to promote Wyoming when the opportunity arose, Musberger, until recently, rarely if ever spoke of Montana. I don't fault him for this as it is his choice, but I do find it funny that any newspaper in this state would suggest that this guy holds an expert opinion on the subject by publishing his opinion as if it should count for something.
 
yellowstone60 said:
ditto, after all, he is a kitty fan.........
Click to expand...

Where did you get that info? I remember there being an uproar on BN about him geing a griz fan.
 
All those threads about him mentioning the Griz on broadcasts and what great exposure it is and then he gives his opinion on moving up and he is instantly thrown under the bus.
 
Musberger attended Montana as a freshmen and even played freshman football for the Griz, he then transferred to Northwestern where he completed his degree.
 
Brent Musberger is a broke back bobcat fan and just can't fathom the Griz moving up and beyond the FCS. He is old as dirt and so are his ideas. Time to move up to the deluxe apartment in the Big Sky Griz!
 
If Musberger saw the games the Griz are required to play against the pityful Big Sky Conference teams such as Northern Colorado, I'm sure he would agree that it is a good idea to move up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top