rant!!!

[EverettGriz]

Who else would they take? Let's assume the Big 5 need a couple of teams to fill current conferences with 12 members (not unlikely; there's already such rumors). Boise would be a natural choice. New Mexico would be another team considered (more for BB than FB, although their FB program is no slouch). The MWC then needs to add a team, perhaps 2. Who would it be? Who is in their current footprint not already associated with an FBS conference? Who has the facilities, fanbase and academics to compete with their members?

Idaho? No way. That pretty much leaves....MONTANA.

Frankly, I've never understood why so many people consider this a long shot. To me, the offer is inevitable. It's whether or not UM can convince the "Ahhhh shucks. We're just little ol' Montana, we're waaaay too small to compete at that level" people.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Agreeing with everything EG wrote. It's actually strange how the quality of the home OOC schedule has dropped off so much, even in the last 10-15 years. I remember home games versus Stanford, St. Mary's, GU, Wazzu, Nevada, etc. Now, it seems like it's more the Carroll and Minot State crowd.

 

[citygriz]

we can talk all we want about the realignment going on in college athletics (read: football), but it all comes down to this: the haves versus the have-nots. the haves have stolen the money, and you're either in the money or you're out of the money. the wac is out of the money. the big sky is out of the money. the mountain west is in the money. the conference simply covers too much territory and has too many major media markets to be ignored, not to mention their political clout. if we're to be where we need to be, we're in the mountain west, where by geography, by historical rivalries, by facilities and by the mere fact of being a state university we belong anyway. not quite as strong a case for the cats, but they belong too, and i hope they come with us.

 

[Kabooom]

Agreeing with everything EG wrote. It's actually strange how the quality of the home OOC schedule has dropped off so much, even in the last 10-15 years. I remember home games versus Stanford, St. Mary's, GU, Wazzu, Nevada, etc. Now, it seems like it's more the Carroll and Minot State crowd.

CDA....I can't help thinking after reading your post about a quote from Michael Ray Richardson when playing for the New Jersey Nets in the middle of a loosing season....A Reporter asks him whats going on with the Nets as a team....and he replies something like..." The ship be sinkin"......Which spurs the next question from the Reporter..."How far do you think the Nets ship will sink?"....Michael Ray replies..."The Skys the limit......"
Same can be said for todays ...."Big Sky"....a mere shadow of it's former self. Yes We belong in the former....Now the Mtn West.

Remember when we used to do one for one home games with the Huskies? Remember Detleif Schremp playing in the Field House?...Marv Harshman's boys taking a beating on the old Tartan floor?...Heathcote yelling at MR...so much that 8 thousand fans in the same building felt the embarrassment as well? Potatos on the floor for Idaho St...Boxing gloves on the floor for Nevada...6,7,8 thousand at home all season long...

Help me now I'm falling....This is Captain Montana calling.....

 

[MissoulaMarinerFan]

...
#2 -- Perhaps the most damaging blow of all, however, was the transition, sometime in the mid-to-late nineties, from a quarter to a semester school system by UM. The result? No students in school between December 10 and Jan 20... almost a THIRD of the NCAA Div 1 basketball season. Not only were there no students in the seats, but students lost interest in basketball simply because the weren't here to "get addicted" to Griz basketball. This happened nationwide, of course. But most schools on semester systems have since adjusted school schedules to reconvene classes by the first week in January. Why Montana has not done so I cannot answer......

There are ways to get the "old" fans back that would help. But I believe the only solid way to improve basketball attendance is to get students back into classes the first week in January. That may well take major school infrastructure change... which may well be very difficult and expensive to do.

The reason why - at least I think, but I could be wrong (as per usual :mrgreen: ) is that UM offers a "Winter Session" where you can take a couple classes that runs from pretty much Jan 2, - Jan 26/27. As a student, you can knock a few credits out of the way that could be part of your degree or core requirements in a short, intense period. With credits during that time being $900/$1000 apiece, that is more $$ into the university coffers in a very short amount of time. I think that is the main reason that the University hasn't adjusted that. MSU has, but they don't offer winter classes. I think it'd take a pretty big philosophy change by President Engstrom to change up how the university parses out the semesters when it gets a nice little cash influx during the month of January.

 

[UMGriz75]

The "Winter Session" was instituted after the first year of the long winter break and students and parents complaining in droves. Kids are sitting around their parents' homes for the month of January, getting on everyone's nerves, bored. Most kids don't like the wintersession classes, yeah, you can get a couple of credits, but crammed into too little time, and UM doesn't have enough students on campus to really open full bore, so Food Zoo, for instance, is closed, and students are sent off to the lesser facilities. Sport clubs aren't running generally, campus rec has limited hours, and so students are bored silly during that long month. I don't know if UM makes money on the credits, perhaps they do, but I think the toll is taken when students don't register for the very early Fall semester that begins the last week in August, far too soon for nearly all summer jobs, and then of course, boom, right away you have the Labor Day weekend to interrupt.

Too, 15 week semesters are a long time for a student with a bad prof or a boring class.

Three quarter systems work very well on timing, the students can stay engaged with their classes, and I am sure balances out the tuition compared to any gain from the short wintersession. I've taught under both systems (and was a student under the quarter system) and I don't know anybody, students or faculty, that prefers the semester system, esp in the goofy way they do it here at UM.

I agree that I don't think the "Basketball Problem" can be fixed with what amounts to a two month break for students right in the middle of the season.

 

[get'em_griz]

O totally disagree....I don't see a lot of college atmosphere on TV coming from Dahlberg...This is a problem nation wide. Many universities (as opposed to "vocational schools" are having to choose between academic infrastructure and athletic facilities. When Cal St. Northridge dropped football ( they were good enough to handle UM in their short BSC career) there was an outrage. Today, the site is a highly successful biological and high tech center that is making money enough to fund itself....I think America has reached a crossroads, sad to say, that such hard choices are going to be more common. Yes, the gym at Sacto sucks, as does PSU, but before any big commitments are made, perhaps, it is best to sit and watch to see how things shake out...

geez, grizla, i thought you'd be the first to agree with me! i don't see this as a matter of choosing between academics and athletics; we already tried that years ago under harry newburn, and "de-emphasizing" athletics proved to be a huge mistake. stanford maintains a fabulous athletic program, and even harvard has upgraded their basketball team over the last few years. both schools see the importance of having a strong athletic program to go with their academics, so i don't see this as being between academics and athletics at all. i see it only as the quality of the stadia, arenas and teams we send our athletes out to compete against. and one last thing: we are not cal state northridge!

as for "shaking out," i think the landscape is becoming quite clear: the mountain west is where we need to be--by quality of programs, by attendance, by facilities. i'd once hoped the big sky would step up, but that just ain't gonna happen. what is, is that some schools within the smaller conferences are going to outgrow their surroundings, and need to advance to a higher grade. like us, the cats and north dakota state. it's just inevitable.

Yeah because I can't wait to play in the "Famous Potato Bowel".

This is a basketball board, not the football board. A move up would benefit the basketball program.

 

[ISUguy]

Perhaps part of the poor attendance could be blamed on our opponents. PSU, Sac, ISU, etc just don't scream, "Come watch us!". Undoubtedly home games with Boise, Nevada, UNLV, Colo State, etc will draw better.

And what's more, being in a better conference would allow the Griz to schedule and get better home nonconference games.

Moving to the Mountain West is no guarantee of great non-conference home games. Look at Boise State's home schedule this year: LaVerne (not to be confused with Shirley), Montana Tech, Montana (you might be able to get them), Idaho, Adams State, Northwest Nazarene, Southern Utah and Abilene Christian. Not exactly Murderer's Row.

Why is this? Because Power 5 schools don't have to travel in the non-conference. One poster mentioned the good, ole days of Washington playing in Missoula. Look at UW's non-conference schedule this year -- Nine home games, tournaments in southern California and Las Vegas, UTEP on a neutral floor in Anaheim. No visits to Mountain West schools to be found.

Again, I have no doubt Montana longs for an invitation to the Mountain West, and they'd take it in a heart beat. But you have to offer the conference more than an extra mouth to feed. More than 3,500 fans a game, more than an RPI of 197, more than 35-point beat downs in the NCAA first round. Until then, you're stuck with the rest of us redhead stepchildren.

 

[GrizLA]

Perhaps part of the poor attendance could be blamed on our opponents. PSU, Sac, ISU, etc just don't scream, "Come watch us!". Undoubtedly home games with Boise, Nevada, UNLV, Colo State, etc will draw better.

And what's more, being in a better conference would allow the Griz to schedule and get better home nonconference games.

Moving to the Mountain West is no guarantee of great non-conference home games. Look at Boise State's home schedule this year: LaVerne (not to be confused with Shirley), Montana Tech, Montana (you might be able to get them), Idaho, Adams State, Northwest Nazarene, Southern Utah and Abilene Christian. Not exactly Murderer's Row.

Why is this? Because Power 5 schools don't have to travel in the non-conference. One poster mentioned the good, ole days of Washington playing in Missoula. Look at UW's non-conference schedule this year -- Nine home games, tournaments in southern California and Las Vegas, UTEP on a neutral floor in Anaheim. No visits to Mountain West schools to be found.

Again, I have no doubt Montana longs for an invitation to the Mountain West, and they'd take it in a heart beat. But you have to offer the conference more than an extra mouth to feed. More than 3,500 fans a game, more than an RPI of 197, more than 35-point beat downs in the NCAA first round. Until then, you're stuck with the rest of us redhead stepchildren.

Sadly, Idaho State might well be the "canary in the coal mine". What was once a better than average program, in football and basketball, has become an after thought. Now and then, the Bengals turn out a good team but more by accident than anything else. I have always considered Idaho State and Idaho natural rivals and BOTH should be solidly in the Big Sky. Unfortunately, the alumni there has let the schools down yet, a dedicated few keep things alive. ISU, in particular, might be on a long road back to where they were. Idaho is a mess. Weber, SUU, Eastern, and Sacto, Portland and MSU are the base of a good conference with the Montana schools. UM's academic year is problematic for attendance so it favors the Griz to go on the road for solid exposure. But, no conference will thrive without its long time rivalries, unless it is all about money. And, in that case, is it any wonder that the general public would turn away from colleges that see money as the only goal? The Big Sky needs leadership. Idaho State needs to enlist more support. UM will be fine, especially with this coach. But, Sac State and its sad gym needs to go or build. Portland and Northern Colorado are the Red headed step children of the Big Sky with North Dakota an aunt hidden in the basement. A move up will not solve anything right now. A few better players in better facilities does not need a 'move up".

 

[mtgrizrule]

Perhaps part of the poor attendance could be blamed on our opponents. PSU, Sac, ISU, etc just don't scream, "Come watch us!". Undoubtedly home games with Boise, Nevada, UNLV, Colo State, etc will draw better.

And what's more, being in a better conference would allow the Griz to schedule and get better home nonconference games.

Moving to the Mountain West is no guarantee of great non-conference home games. Look at Boise State's home schedule this year: LaVerne (not to be confused with Shirley), Montana Tech, Montana (you might be able to get them), Idaho, Adams State, Northwest Nazarene, Southern Utah and Abilene Christian. Not exactly Murderer's Row.

Why is this? Because Power 5 schools don't have to travel in the non-conference. One poster mentioned the good, ole days of Washington playing in Missoula. Look at UW's non-conference schedule this year -- Nine home games, tournaments in southern California and Las Vegas, UTEP on a neutral floor in Anaheim. No visits to Mountain West schools to be found.

Again, I have no doubt Montana longs for an invitation to the Mountain West, and they'd take it in a heart beat. But you have to offer the conference more than an extra mouth to feed. More than 3,500 fans a game, more than an RPI of 197, more than 35-point beat downs in the NCAA first round. Until then, you're stuck with the rest of us redhead stepchildren.

Sadly, Idaho State might well be the "canary in the coal mine". What was once a better than average program, in football and basketball, has become an after thought. Now and then, the Bengals turn out a good team but more by accident than anything else. I have always considered Idaho State and Idaho natural rivals and BOTH should be solidly in the Big Sky. Unfortunately, the alumni there has let the schools down yet, a dedicated few keep things alive. ISU, in particular, might be on a long road back to where they were. Idaho is a mess. Weber, SUU, Eastern, and Sacto, Portland and MSU are the base of a good conference with the Montana schools. UM's academic year is problematic for attendance so it favors the Griz to go on the road for solid exposure. But, no conference will thrive without its long time rivalries, unless it is all about money. And, in that case, is it any wonder that the general public would turn away from colleges that see money as the only goal? The Big Sky needs leadership. Idaho State needs to enlist more support. UM will be fine, especially with this coach. But, Sac State and its sad gym needs to go or build. Portland and Northern Colorado are the Red headed step children of the Big Sky with North Dakota an aunt hidden in the basement. A move up will not solve anything right now. A few better players in better facilities does not need a 'move up".

Bengal hit the nail on the head. The power and elite attitude of the power 5 conferences are exactly why the non power 5's have to work together in both football and basketball. A commitment needs to be made to improve the basketball profiles as well.