Question for the Board: Revenue from Being in the BSC?

[NorthwestFresh]

And by the way I don't go to USU's rival schools (BYU and Utah) message boards, ever.

tl; dr

 

[NorthwestFresh]

I'll again point out to the Utah State fan that Montana would have to increase the coaching payroll by almost $1m/year for the staff to still be at the bottom of the MWC. That, however, is about 5th on the list of reasons of why the MWC conference would never invite Montana to the conference, as presently structured.

Also, "spanky" can make fun of me for graduating from "second-tier Montana State College," and also the student-athletes who attend "second-tier Montana State College," but I can't give him a hard time for not going to college?

Nice double standard there, Utah State fan.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think it is inevitable that both MSU and UM will have to “move up”. I think we are going to see the same type of thing that happened back in 1978 when the I-AA division was created. Schools that cannot compete monetarily with the schools in the Big 5 will have to form a new division and the upper 1/3 of the current FCS programs will probably move into this “new” division so they can still be considered division 1 and compete in the NCAA Basketball Tournament. The more successful schools in the lower 5 will move into the Big 5 creating room for the more successful FCS programs to go into this new football division. In my opinion I think it is obvious that both MSU and UM are positioning themselves for this eventual change so they can go into this new division. Yes we are a little behind you on somethings, but not as far as some would think. When this change happens is anyone’s guess, but I think it will have to happen. Most of the Big Sky Schools should be able to move into this new division minus Northern Colorado, Southern Utah and Portland State (who will probably just drop football after this year). I am not even sure if EWU could move if they don’t get the Gateway project built. MSU needs to keep building on the success we have enjoyed the last 10 years or so (yes, need to make some deeper runs in the playoffs and beat the griz on a more consistent basis). What will have to be worked out is scholarship levels, TV Revenue and if there will be some sort of playoff system or regional bowl system plus 100 more things that I am not aware of or thinking about. It will happen, it has to happen.

Why would the Big 5 want to dilute their brand and the share their fairly significant conference revenues (which some but not all of the Big 5 have) with the top 1/3 of FCS? Makes zero sense to me. I can see some FBS conferences inviting an FCS school from time to time, when there is an opening or need, but I just don't see any reason for the Big 5 to be interested at all in a bunch of FCS schools, and certainly not the MWC.

UM's mini-feasibility study about 4 years ago showed huge costs to move at that time to a lesser conference like the WAC. I assume the cost to move now to the MWC would be double or triple what the cost of moving to the WAC would have been 4 years ago. There is a huge arms-race going on in FBS. Even some pretty good FBS schools and decent FBS conferences are not able to keep up.

I don't think you quite understood what he was saying.

Oh yes I did understand. This is what he said and this is what my post addressed. "the Big 5 will have to form a new division and the upper 1/3 of the current FCS programs".

 

[get'em_griz]

I think it is inevitable that both MSU and UM will have to “move up”. I think we are going to see the same type of thing that happened back in 1978 when the I-AA division was created. Schools that cannot compete monetarily with the schools in the Big 5 will have to form a new division and the upper 1/3 of the current FCS programs will probably move into this “new” division so they can still be considered division 1 and compete in the NCAA Basketball Tournament. The more successful schools in the lower 5 will move into the Big 5 creating room for the more successful FCS programs to go into this new football division. In my opinion I think it is obvious that both MSU and UM are positioning themselves for this eventual change so they can go into this new division. Yes we are a little behind you on somethings, but not as far as some would think. When this change happens is anyone’s guess, but I think it will have to happen. Most of the Big Sky Schools should be able to move into this new division minus Northern Colorado, Southern Utah and Portland State (who will probably just drop football after this year). I am not even sure if EWU could move if they don’t get the Gateway project built. MSU needs to keep building on the success we have enjoyed the last 10 years or so (yes, need to make some deeper runs in the playoffs and beat the griz on a more consistent basis). What will have to be worked out is scholarship levels, TV Revenue and if there will be some sort of playoff system or regional bowl system plus 100 more things that I am not aware of or thinking about. It will happen, it has to happen.

Why would the Big 5 want to dilute their brand and the share their fairly significant conference revenues (which some but not all of the Big 5 have) with the top 1/3 of FCS? Makes zero sense to me. I can see some FBS conferences inviting an FCS school from time to time, when there is an opening or need, but I just don't see any reason for the Big 5 to be interested at all in a bunch of FCS schools, and certainly not the MWC.

UM's mini-feasibility study about 4 years ago showed huge costs to move at that time to a lesser conference like the WAC. I assume the cost to move now to the MWC would be double or triple what the cost of moving to the WAC would have been 4 years ago. There is a huge arms-race going on in FBS. Even some pretty good FBS schools and decent FBS conferences are not able to keep up.

I don't think you quite understood what he was saying.

Oh yes I did understand. This is what he said and this is what my post addressed. "the Big 5 will have to form a new division and the upper 1/3 of the current FCS programs".

What he actually said...

"Schools that cannot compete monetarily with the schools in the Big 5 will have to form a new division and the upper 1/3 of the current FCS programs will probably move into this “new” division so they can still be considered division 1 and compete in the NCAA Basketball Tournament."

 

[NavyBlue]

I'll again point out to the Utah State fan that Montana would have to increase the coaching payroll by almost $1m/year for the staff to still be at the bottom of the MWC. That, however, is about 5th on the list of reasons of why the MWC conference would never invite Montana to the conference, as presently structured.

Also, "spanky" can make fun of me for graduating from "second-tier Montana State College," and also the student-athletes who attend "second-tier Montana State College," but I can't give him a hard time for not going to college?

Nice double standard there, Utah State fan.

I agree with that and I have said so, but it was probably too long and you didn't read.

For the second thing, I think he said the MSU gets the "second tier" recruits, not that MSU is a second tier school. That is the way I took it.

 

[KoolMoeDee]

I don't think the Big 5 threat to separate is as great today as it was before autonomy. All the reasons for leaving are now being legislated into new rules.

 

[get'em_griz]

I'll again point out to the Utah State fan that Montana would have to increase the coaching payroll by almost $1m/year for the staff to still be at the bottom of the MWC. That, however, is about 5th on the list of reasons of why the MWC conference would never invite Montana to the conference, as presently structured.

Also, "spanky" can make fun of me for graduating from "second-tier Montana State College," and also the student-athletes who attend "second-tier Montana State College," but I can't give him a hard time for not going to college?

Nice double standard there, Utah State fan.

Mountain West 2014 Salaries:
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1. Colorado State - $1,500,000
2. Fresno State - $1,400,000
3. Boise State - $1,000,004
4. Air Force - $866,250
5. UNLV - $850,000
6. Wyoming - $832,000
7. San Diego State - $800,000
8. New Mexico - $772,690
9. Hawaii - $550,000
10. Utah State - $575,000
11. Nevada - $575,000
12. San Jose State - $525,000

I think these numbers are just base pay, and I think the total pay adding up to $1,000,000s are bonuses for meeting certain goals. Montana could definitely raise it's head coach salary to be in the balpark of Hawaii, Utah State, Nevada, and San Jose State, but then bonuses might be a different story.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I'll again point out to the Utah State fan that Montana would have to increase the coaching payroll by almost $1m/year for the staff to still be at the bottom of the MWC. That, however, is about 5th on the list of reasons of why the MWC conference would never invite Montana to the conference, as presently structured.

Also, "spanky" can make fun of me for graduating from "second-tier Montana State College," and also the student-athletes who attend "second-tier Montana State College," but I can't give him a hard time for not going to college?

Nice double standard there, Utah State fan.

Mountain West 2014 Salaries:
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1. Colorado State - $1,500,000
2. Fresno State - $1,400,000
3. Boise State - $1,000,004
4. Air Force - $866,250
5. UNLV - $850,000
6. Wyoming - $832,000
7. San Diego State - $800,000
8. New Mexico - $772,690
9. Hawaii - $550,000
10. Utah State - $575,000
11. Nevada - $575,000
12. San Jose State - $525,000

I think these numbers are just base pay, and I think the total pay adding up to $1,000,000s are bonuses for meeting certain goals. Montana could definitely raise it's head coach salary to be in the balpark of Hawaii, Utah State, Nevada, and San Jose State, but then bonuses might be a different story.

What a surprise. NorthwestFresh was wrong again. It's like the sun rising in the East...you can just count on it...

 

[KoolMoeDee]

He listed just the head coach salaries. On the right of that chart is total staff pay, so SJSU would be about $1,600,000. Plus add in increased pay for all athletics. Not just football.

 

[AZGrizFan]

He listed just the head coach salaries. On the right of that chart is total staff pay, so SJSU would be about $1,600,000. Plus add in increased pay for all athletics. Not just football.

I don't think there's anyone disputing the fact salaries would go up. Expenses would go up, revenue would go up (both FB and BB)....

 

[br fan]

The arguments going back and forth remind a lot of the discussions in the early 80s about whether to build Wa-Griz. In hindsight building the stadium was probably one of the best decisions UM has ever made, but at the time there were a lot of people convinced that UM could not afford to build it and that it was a waste of money. One opinion against building that I remember was in the Kaiman, where the author opined that UM could rent Wa-Giz out as a nuclear storage facility to raise money and no one would have to worry about radiation exposure since it so seldom would be used.

 

[AZGrizFan]

The arguments going back and forth remind a lot of the discussions in the early 80s about whether to build Wa-Griz. In hindsight building the stadium was probably one of the best decisions UM has ever made, but at the time there were a lot of people convinced that UM could not afford to build it and that it was a waste of money. One opinion against building that I remember was in the Kaiman, where the author opined that UM could rent Wa-Giz out as a nuclear storage facility to raise money and no one would have to worry about radiation exposure since it so seldom would be used.

And I'm sure, based on the crowds being drawn at Dornblazer there were many, many people who were CERTAIN they'd never be able to fill it....couldn't IMAGINE 14,000 people even counting themselves as Griz fans, let alone making the effort to come to 6 home games a year....of course they're probably the same people who jumped on the bandwagon later, claiming they were original Dornblazer diehards, and tell tales around the campfire of how they foresaw Wa/Griz as a stadium in which opposing teams came to die in front of 26,500 screaming fanatics...

 

[poorgriz]

Well then maybe I misunderstood what he was saying. I'm guessing my putting "Move Up" in parentheses, that refers to the fact that we aren't going to have to move up. The NCAA will be restructuring everything and we'll end up in whatever division, leagues, blah blah, that are directly under the "Big boys". Then there will probably be one other classification that would consist of the better DII teams and mid to lower FCS teams... and then everyone else. Shit is gonna change big time.

 

[PlayerRep]

Why would the Big 5 want to dilute their brand and the share their fairly significant conference revenues (which some but not all of the Big 5 have) with the top 1/3 of FCS? Makes zero sense to me. I can see some FBS conferences inviting an FCS school from time to time, when there is an opening or need, but I just don't see any reason for the Big 5 to be interested at all in a bunch of FCS schools, and certainly not the MWC.

UM's mini-feasibility study about 4 years ago showed huge costs to move at that time to a lesser conference like the WAC. I assume the cost to move now to the MWC would be double or triple what the cost of moving to the WAC would have been 4 years ago. There is a huge arms-race going on in FBS. Even some pretty good FBS schools and decent FBS conferences are not able to keep up.

I don't think you quite understood what he was saying.

Oh yes I did understand. This is what he said and this is what my post addressed. "the Big 5 will have to form a new division and the upper 1/3 of the current FCS programs".

What he actually said...

"Schools that cannot compete monetarily with the schools in the Big 5 will have to form a new division and the upper 1/3 of the current FCS programs will probably move into this “new” division so they can still be considered division 1 and compete in the NCAA Basketball Tournament."

What he said wasn't clear. I was assuming that he meant that the non-Big 5 FBS conferences, including conferences like the MWC, were going to break off, or be broken off, and join with the top 1/3 of FCS. A question was you, do you really think he meant to say that some schools from the Big 5 ("Legislative autonomy for the Big Five -- the Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast Conference, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference") were going to break off and join with the top 1/3 of FCS, and not include the 5 non-Big 5 conferences in FBS?

 

[PlayerRep]

Well then maybe I misunderstood what he was saying. I'm guessing my putting "Move Up" in parentheses, that refers to the fact that we aren't going to have to move up. The NCAA will be restructuring everything and we'll end up in whatever division, leagues, blah blah, that are directly under the "Big boys". Then there will probably be one other classification that would consist of the better DII teams and mid to lower FCS teams... and then everyone else. Shit is gonna change big time.

I don't see the ncaa, or anyone, restructuring to include the top 1/3 of FCS with the bulk of the non-Big 5 FBS conference. Some of those conferences are too big and too good, to want to be with the top 1/3 of FCS. They aren't going to want to share money or prestige.

 

[mtgrizrule]

Well then maybe I misunderstood what he was saying. I'm guessing my putting "Move Up" in parentheses, that refers to the fact that we aren't going to have to move up. The NCAA will be restructuring everything and we'll end up in whatever division, leagues, blah blah, that are directly under the "Big boys". Then there will probably be one other classification that would consist of the better DII teams and mid to lower FCS teams... and then everyone else. Shit is gonna change big time.

I don't see the ncaa, or anyone, restructuring to include the top 1/3 of FCS with the bulk of the non-Big 5 FBS conference. Some of those conferences are too big and too good, to want to be with the top 1/3 of FCS. They aren't going to want to share money or prestige.

He is not implying that anyone from the current POWER 5 BCS conferences would join the top 1/3 of FCS. He is logically thinking the remaining BCS schools who are not part of whatever the highest level NCAA division will be, will be the ones joining forces with the upper level FCS programs. I agree with him, and have posted many times I feel this or something similar to this will happen. I agree with him, in that regard. I also agree with you, I doubt anyone program/school currently in a power 5 BCS conference will leave the highest level (whatever it might turnout to be).

Either way, things are going to change drastically, and Montana will likely be impacted. :thumb:

 

[NorthwestFresh]

I'll again point out to the Utah State fan that Montana would have to increase the coaching payroll by almost $1m/year for the staff to still be at the bottom of the MWC. That, however, is about 5th on the list of reasons of why the MWC conference would never invite Montana to the conference, as presently structured.

Also, "spanky" can make fun of me for graduating from "second-tier Montana State College," and also the student-athletes who attend "second-tier Montana State College," but I can't give him a hard time for not going to college?

Nice double standard there, Utah State fan.

Mountain West 2014 Salaries:
http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1. Colorado State - $1,500,000
2. Fresno State - $1,400,000
3. Boise State - $1,000,004
4. Air Force - $866,250
5. UNLV - $850,000
6. Wyoming - $832,000
7. San Diego State - $800,000
8. New Mexico - $772,690
9. Hawaii - $550,000
10. Utah State - $575,000
11. Nevada - $575,000
12. San Jose State - $525,000

I think these numbers are just base pay, and I think the total pay adding up to $1,000,000s are bonuses for meeting certain goals. Montana could definitely raise it's head coach salary to be in the balpark of Hawaii, Utah State, Nevada, and San Jose State, but then bonuses might be a different story.

That's just head coaching salaries. How is Montana going to go from ~$220k to over $500k just for the head coach alone? If CFB money all goes to paying coaching salaries, what's the benefit to UM?

 

[NorthwestFresh]

He listed just the head coach salaries. On the right of that chart is total staff pay, so SJSU would be about $1,600,000. Plus add in increased pay for all athletics. Not just football.

AZGrizfan has yet to be right about anything in this discussion.

Tell me again how "big time" programs don't offer 4-year guaranteed scholarships, AZGriz. That was a hoot.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

He is not implying that anyone from the current POWER 5 BCS conferences would join the top 1/3 of FCS. He is logically thinking the remaining BCS schools who are not part of whatever the highest level NCAA division will be, will be the ones joining forces with the upper level FCS programs.

Why would Boise State, Fresno State, or San Diego State, for example, want to further dilute their TV and CFB revenue with schools of almost zero national importance in athletics, such as UM or MSU, that bring a fraction of the viewers that those teams bring on a TV contract? Seems like a big win for the MSUs and UMs, and a dumb decision by the BSUs and SDSUs, if I'm sitting in the AD's chair, let alone the university president's.

I'll listen to an argument that has the BSUs and SDSUs separating themselves from the Utah States and the Hawaiis, though, with those schools then needing a UM or an NDSU to fill out a third-tier conference.

 

[AZGrizFan]

He listed just the head coach salaries. On the right of that chart is total staff pay, so SJSU would be about $1,600,000. Plus add in increased pay for all athletics. Not just football.

AZGrizfan has yet to be right about anything in this discussion.

Tell me again how "big time" programs don't offer 4-year guaranteed scholarships, AZGriz. That was a hoot.

Keep hanging your hat on that one, unrelated issue. You're the one coming off like a complete retard in this thread (and many others). Once again, nobody is contesting the fact that salaries would go up, and in many cases go WAY up. But so would revenue.

Tell me again how none of the projects are underway. Tell me again how the Champions Center isn't funded (I'll take the word directly out of the Assistant AD's mouth, not some dipshit on a message board)...tell me again how an IPF isn't in the plan (again, I'll take the word of the Assistant AD over your obviously biased one)....

Why don't you go back to worrying about how much people have donated to the university... :roll: :roll: