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

[get'em_griz]

Here's a question: Could the Big Sky be considered the "WAC" of the FCS? I mean, Boise State was really the only program holding the WAC together and once they bolted, the WAC started to fold. The same thing pretty much applies to the Big Sky. Montana is really the only program, other than MSU to some degree, that is holding the Big Sky together. So if Montana were to leave the Big Sky, would the Big Sky then be in the process of folding much like the WAC did? Well, maybe the Big Sky wouldn't fold like the WAC, but the conference would be losing it's S#%T if Montana were to leave. And you can bet that the conference was sweating bullets when Montana was doing its feasibility study a few years ago.

Only difference being there are no other options in the Western US for these teams....they'd most likely stay together as a conference, just an irrelevant one.

Exactly what I was thinking. :thumb:

 

[AZGrizFan]

Here's a question: Could the Big Sky be considered the "WAC" of the FCS? I mean, Boise State was really the only program holding the WAC together and once they bolted, the WAC started to fold. The same thing pretty much applies to the Big Sky. Montana is really the only program, other than MSU to some degree, that is holding the Big Sky together. So if Montana were to leave the Big Sky, would the Big Sky then be in the process of folding much like the WAC did? Well, maybe the Big Sky wouldn't fold like the WAC, but the conference would be losing it's S#%T if Montana were to leave. And you can bet that the conference was sweating bullets when Montana was doing its feasibility study a few years ago.

Only difference being there are no other options in the Western US for these teams....they'd most likely stay together as a conference, just an even more irrelevant one.

Small edit.

Funny, because I almost went back and made that exact change myself...only would have been serious about it. :lol:

 

[Spanky]

If Montana left the Big Sky, the conference would fold in 2 or 3 years. There isn't any other viable school in the conference.

 

[PlayerRep]

If Montana left the Big Sky, the conference would fold in 2 or 3 years. There isn't any other viable school in the conference.

Why do you think that? I don't agree, but would be curious to see your reasons.

 

[PlayerRep]

Yeah, should have taken the advice of the move-up crowd and joined the WAC a few years ago, as it folded.

People could also say that the WAC folded because they didn't land UM.

People could say that, but the WAC was going to fold even it Montana had committed. The WAC was going down.

So now you're clairvoyant?

Regardless, in 2011 the WAC consisted of:

Louisiana Tech
Nevada
Utah State
San Jose State
Hawaii
Fresno State
New Mexico State
Idaho

What do the vast majority of those schools have in common still? They're now in the MWC. Where UM SHOULD be....and COULD be, if they'd had the balls 5 years ago to make the move that was staring them in the face. But because they were unprepared the missed the boat, and it may never come back around again.

And many of those teams, especially the good ones, had already decided to leave the WAC by that time.

From Wiki: "Boise State left the WAC for the Mountain West at the end of the 2010–2011 season. On August 18, 2010, Nevada (Reno) and Fresno State were both extended invitations to join the Mountain West Conference, and subsequently accepted. Four months later, Hawaiʻi also left for the Mountain West, but as a football-only member."

 

[RABIDAWG]

If Montana left the Big Sky, the conference would fold in 2 or 3 years. There isn't any other viable school in the conference.

Why do you think that? I don't agree, but would be curious to see your reasons.

Really, Spanky? Who's been winning conference & National Chippers lately?

 

[Spanky]

Player, I believe Montana is the school that has been the strength of the Big Sky Conference, at least, since we lost Boise State, Nevada Reno and Idaho. UM has developed an excellent brand name over the years and the Griz, much more than any other name in the Big Sky is known on a national basis by many people in athletics that aren't aware of any other in the conference.
In my view, there isn't another school that could pick up a very large void that would be left by the departure of Montana, thus, the conference would lose it's appeal on many fronts, much like we witnessed with the WAC.

 

[kemajic]

And you can bet that the conference was sweating bullets when Montana was doing it's feasibility study a few years ago.

Oh hell yes. Remember all those ridiculous statements that Foolerton was making?

And scrambling to add whoever would join, irrespective of fit.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

And you can bet that the conference was sweating bullets when Montana was doing it's feasibility study a few years ago.

Oh hell yes. Remember all those ridiculous statements that Foolerton was making?

And scrambling to add whoever would join, irrespective of fit.

Absolutely.

 

[PlayerRep]

Player, I believe Montana is the school that has been the strength of the Big Sky Conference, at least, since we lost Boise State, Nevada Reno and Idaho. UM has developed an excellent brand name over the years and the Griz, much more than any other name in the Big Sky is known on a national basis by many people in athletics that aren't aware of any other in the conference.
In my view, there isn't another school that could pick up a very large void that would be left by the departure of Montana, thus, the conference would lose it's appeal on many fronts, much like we witnessed with the WAC.

Thx. Agreed, but I don't think the conference would fold without UM.

 

[Umista]

What you dogs are missing is new thinking!

Twist your brain and think. Start a NEW league using Montana and others. Make it a tweener. Above our current size but below the big dogs. NCAA or not, off we go. Perhaps two or three leagues in the US. Play-off systems. Slight increase in schollies, Needed are stadiums that hold 15,000. Other criteria will be needed.

Some of you deep thinkers can toy with this and it will stop us from the continued dead horse beating. We keep needing new horses....

 

[mtgrizrule]

What you dogs are missing is new thinking!

Twist your brain and think. Start a NEW league using Montana and others. Make it a tweener. Above our current size but below the big dogs. NCAA or not, off we go. Perhaps two or three leagues in the US. Play-off systems. Slight increase in schollies, Needed are stadiums that hold 15,000. Other criteria will be needed.

Some of you deep thinkers can toy with this and it will stop us from the continued dead horse beating. We keep needing new horses....

:thumb:

 

[UNDfan]

Player, I believe Montana is the school that has been the strength of the Big Sky Conference, at least, since we lost Boise State, Nevada Reno and Idaho. UM has developed an excellent brand name over the years and the Griz, much more than any other name in the Big Sky is known on a national basis by many people in athletics that aren't aware of any other in the conference.
In my view, there isn't another school that could pick up a very large void that would be left by the departure of Montana, thus, the conference would lose it's appeal on many fronts, much like we witnessed with the WAC.

If the WAC still existed as an FBS conference, this is what it would have looked like:
West

Montana
Mt St
Idaho
Grand Canyon (no fb)
Bakersfield (no fb)
Seattle (no fb)
Denver (no fb)
NMSU

East

Sam Houston St
S F Austin
Lamar
Liberty
E Kentucky
Jacksonville St
UMKC (no fb)
Oral Roberts (no fb)

Griz fans would be bitching up a storm for Dakota and California schools to rescue them.

You need the UNDs, the Davis's, the Poly's, and the EWUs, otherwise you'd have to travel to b*chf*ck Egypt to fill your conference slate.

The teams in the east were the only FCS teams that wanted FBS at the time, and they still do. You need eight teams for an FBS conference. That's why ODay and your Presidents waited to prevent a WAC with Montana from becoming a clusterf*ck situation.

The west coast Big Sky schools always had FBS as a goal, but the timing was atrocious. The Dakota schools needed more time to build facilities as did the West Coast schools. When Idaho is evicted from Sun Belt football, the Big Sky will spring to action with FBS plans.

 

[NavyBlue]

I believe, just my opinion, that if the Griz HAD moved to the WAC, they would have been invited to the MWC instead of San Jose State.

 

[UNDfan]

I believe, just my opinion, that if the Griz HAD moved to the WAC, they would have been invited to the MWC instead of San Jose State.

You still ignore the political realities of Montana State. The two are tied at the hip. MWC won't take two Montana schools. If Montana had one FBS and research institution like Wyoming, then it would be practical and politically possible, but that's not the case. As of now, NMSU is much closer to MWC membership than either Montana.

 

[EverettGriz]

I believe, just my opinion, that if the Griz HAD moved to the WAC, they would have been invited to the MWC instead of San Jose State.

You still ignore the political realities of Montana State. The two are tied at the hip. MWC won't take two Montana schools. If Montana had one FBS and research institution like Wyoming, then it would be practical and politically possible, but that's not the case. As of now, NMSU is much closer to MWC membership than either Montana.

The Regents are on public record as stating that it is not a requirement that the two programs move FBS together. It would be preferable, but not a mandate.

 

[PlayerRep]

I believe, just my opinion, that if the Griz HAD moved to the WAC, they would have been invited to the MWC instead of San Jose State.

You still ignore the political realities of Montana State. The two are tied at the hip. MWC won't take two Montana schools. If Montana had one FBS and research institution like Wyoming, then it would be practical and politically possible, but that's not the case. As of now, NMSU is much closer to MWC membership than either Montana.

The Regents are on public record as stating that it is not a requirement that the two programs move FBS together. It would be preferable, but not a mandate.

Where/when did the Regents go on record in that regard? I'm not doubting you; just curious as to what your source is.

 

[mtgrizrule]

I believe, just my opinion, that if the Griz HAD moved to the WAC, they would have been invited to the MWC instead of San Jose State.

You still ignore the political realities of Montana State. The two are tied at the hip. MWC won't take two Montana schools. If Montana had one FBS and research institution like Wyoming, then it would be practical and politically possible, but that's not the case. As of now, NMSU is much closer to MWC membership than either Montana.

The Regents are on public record as stating that it is not a requirement that the two programs move FBS together. It would be preferable, but not a mandate.

Where/when did the Regents go on record in that regard? I'm not doubting you; just curious as to what your source is.

I recall seeing something about this too. For the life of me, I cannot remember when or where. I believe a link to it was also posted on egriz. Not sure who wants to sift through the crap to find it though. :thumb:

I do recall it was very a general statement without any specifics. Maybe someone tied to the BOR can post an update again. :thumb:

 

[Spanky]

To my knowledge, Montana and Montana State were in different conferences until the Big Sky. It would make sense for Montana to move and Montana State in a couple of years if all goes well.

 

[AZGrizFan]

To my knowledge, Montana and Montana State were in different conferences until the Big Sky. It would make sense for Montana to move and Montana State in a couple of years if all goes well.

That makes way TOO much sense to EVER happen. :? :?