HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
CDAGRIZ said:HelenaHandBasket said:First, they have no other conference to join, so it is a hollow threat. Second, the financial threat at this level is a big nothing burger, it is nothing like the money associated with the Big 5 FBS conferences. The 2 Montana schools have no leverage without getting a majority of the conference schools on board.
Yeah, you’re probably right. What I’m saying is that the BSC losing the MT schools would be a way bigger hit than the BSC losing NCU and ISU (for example). I think we’d all agree on that. So, people paid to do the jobs should do the jobs and figure out a way to use that to our advantage. There has to be a way with this changing landscape, unless we’re back to the “it just can’t be done” mentality that we’ve witnessed for the last 20+ years. Idk, threaten to break revenue sharing deals, threaten to opt out of playing in Greeley for no good reason, threaten to play only a best of 11 between UM and MSU. They need us, they know it, find a way to use it. That’s all I’m getting at.
I agree that losing the MT schools is different than losing NCU and ISU, but not near enough to the bottom line for any of the other BSC that it is any leverage. I disagree that the other BSC schools feel they need the Montana schools. I am not sure why you think the landscape has changed for the Montana schools in the big picture either. Actually, the changing landscape at UM may be a bigger issue than any change in college football.