grizzlyjournal said:
I'm curious! What scenarios do you envision?
-
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!
U of M Leads All of FCS in Overall Ticket Revenue
- Thread starter HookedonGriz
- Start date
I'm curious! What scenarios do you envision?
mthoopsfan said:
They can.
Doesn't mean they will every year. At least they'd be competing for something someone cares about.
SoldierGriz said:
Maybe Missoula has really desensitized me, but I was in San Fran last year, and it really wasn't as bad walking around downtown or down at the water as people make it out to be.
ElrodGrizzly said:
People see a few clips on fox news while some mouthpiece yells about the decline in America's cities and think the entire place is like that. Do big cities have homeless? Yep. Do they have drug use? Yep. Do they have crime? Yep?
Does *Livingston (or insert any Montana town) have homeless? Yep. Does *Livingston have drug use? Yep. Does *Livingston have crime? Yep.
EverettGriz said:
That's a very good point. News channels thrive off of keeping people upset. I can say that I hear about Chicago that it is a hotbed of drugs, death, and destruction. I do a plurality of my work with people in Chicago, and nobody I talk to there seems to think that it is actually anything like they see in the media.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
EverettGriz said:
Does Livingston have these problems? Nope.
"At least 17 retailers have left San Francisco's Union Square area since 2020.
The latest departures include Nordstrom, Office Depot, and Old Navy, reports say.
Retailers cite concerns over employee and customer safety related to shoplifting and other crimes."
This week; they are giving the mall to the lender. "Shopping mall operator Westfield said it plans to give up control of the San Francisco Centre mall after more than 20 years of operation in another sign of San Francisco’s economic struggles.
The company attributed its decision to the “challenging operating conditions in downtown San Francisco, which have led to declines in sales, occupancy and foot traffic.”
The mall operator’s decision to surrender its San Francisco space comes after several of the mall’s major stores announced closures, including Nordstrom and Banana Republic."
"Whole Foods closes San Francisco flagship store after one year, citing worker safety concerns. A Whole Foods in San Francisco that opened just last year is temporarily closing. The company said concerns about worker safety forced it to shut down.Apr 12, 2023"
"Violent crime in San Francisco continues to climb in 2023, led by steadily increasing robberies and after homicides jumped during each of the first three months of the year, city police statistics show.
Homicides were up by 83%, with 11 in 2023 compared to six last year through March 31, the most recent full-month data available."
"San Francisco residents and business owners told Fox News Digital that the city has changed in recent years, with many giving personal stories of drug addicts laid out on the streets and violent assaults.
One resident, Seema Gokhale, who lives near the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco and has been the city for almost a decade, described life there as “post-apocalyptic.”
“It honestly feels like I’m in a place that’s been in a zombie apocalypse. It’s like a dystopia. It really feels like a dystopian reality right now where I see boarded up storefronts. I see people defecating on the streets,” Gokhale said.
A newly released report out of the San Francisco Controller’s office found nearly half of the city’s commercial sidewalks had feces on them in 2021 and into 2022.
“I walk by people regularly and it feels horrible,” Gokhale said, because drug addicts have “needle tracks all over their arms and legs and toes. I see people with rotting limbs because they’re living on the streets.” Source: NY Post.
Of course, people from the Seattle area as used to this.
EverettGriz said:
That’s just it. People are pretty much the same everywhere in my experience. I’ve never been to a “downtown” of any major metro area that didn’t have issues. I’m sure Livingston has town drunks-druggies, but it’s a tiny town so there are probably five of them. The larger cities have more of them, but they also have more people who believe what you, I, we, anyone do. I grew up in a tiny town, and I guarantee you people there watch entertainment “news” and think “everyone in X city all do this or that” while never having lived outside of a 10-mile radius of the town. It’s kind of hilarious when you zoom out and think critically.
EverettGriz said:
I think this is obviously all subjective, so I'm not trying to say you are wrong, but personally I'd rather be competing for a national championship with a playoff and championship game at the end. That sounds FAR more fun, to me, than just cheering for the regular season and hoping we win more than the other teams in the conference. It just seems so anti-climactic to me.
Bear Spray
Well-known member
mthoopsfan said:
I fixed it for you. :thumb:
EverettGriz said:
Oh, for goodness sakes...the scale and scope of those issues is NOT. EVEN. CLOSE. between what happens in any Montana city and most on the West Coast. You know this is true.
This is not a political statement...urban decay is a problem in many places - it is amplified on the West Coast.
CDAGRIZ said:
Any businesses leaving any Montana City because they cannot survive the shoplifting pandemic?
The answer is no. That is a urban decay problem...
grizzlyjournal
Well-known member
ElrodGrizzly said:
ElrodGrizzly: I've examined Montana's "standing" in the Big Sky countless times over the past 10 years and now believe that -- in ALL sports -- the Griz fan base (per-game paid admissions) dramatically distance UM from every other team in the Big Sky. That includes MSU. I posted detailed comparative Big Sky football attendance numbers here at eGriz last fall, but here's a brief summary. Today's Missoulian article on season tix increases was correct: Montana's all-sports paid attendance numbers totals are more than the combined attendance numbers of all the schools in the Big Sky combined... excepting MSU. Not so remarkably, Montana's total football paid attendance numbers of 165,178 were more than MSU's 158,416 despite the Cats playing 8 home games to Montana's 7. My observations lead me to believe that attendance at EWU, ISU, Idaho, NAU, SAC, UNC and PSU indicate serious yearly declines. Only UM, MSU and WSU are posting somewhat stable numbers. There are other indicators: the Big Sky is struggling with how to support its 6-team softball league and has even reduced its volleyball conference games to an unbalanced 16 games per team, compared to most D1 10-team conferences that post full 18-game schedules. More: at least 3 Big Sky schools are struggling with live game-stream broadcasts, despite the Big Sky's addition of the league to ESPN+ coverage. Two schools simply have not provided livestreams of several volleyball, softball and soccer games.
Do I believe there's an easy alternative? No. But if attendance numbers and gate revenue continue to decline at the above-mentioned 7 schools, the picture in the Big Sky might be grim. I hear folks regularly state that Montana simply could NOT afford a move to a conference like the Mountain West. I can't argue one way or the other, but I DID gather attendance figures from Mountain West "Mountain Division" football games and discovered that Montana would fare pretty well when average per-game attendance figures from last fall are posted:
1 -- Boise State: 210,727 (35,121)
2 -- Air Force: 188,481 (26,926)
3. -- Colorado State: 161,345 (26,890)
4. -- Montana: 165,178 (25,298) Not counting playoff game vs. SEMO
5. -- Wyoming: 118,244 (19,709)
6. -- Utah State: 101,724 (16,954)
7. -- New Mexico: 89,794 (14,965)
8, -- Nevada: 89,431 (14,905)
Do these figures hint that Montana could compete in the Mountain West? Not initially, perhaps... I DO believe Montana's basketball, soccer and volleyball teams could certainly compete in the Mountain West. But... as some keep harping, "What about making the FCS playoffs every year?). My belief is that home and home games against these Mountain West opponents would likely draw increased numbers of fans, AND draw student athletes who would prefer playing in the MW than the Big Sky. Hope this partially explains my first post in this thread. P.S. I posted this absent some numbers. Let me know if anything does not add up.
mthoopsfan said:
I only read the first sentence. I don't think Livingston HAS 17 retailers.
ElrodGrizzly said:
I get that. So, would you support UM basketball and all olympic sports moving to DII? Because they have no realistic shot at a national championship. Or is it better to play with the best?
SoldierGriz said:
Yes. Scale. San Fransisco and the Bay area has 7-10 times the TOTAL population of Montana. Are there more issues there? Of course. THEY HAVE TEN TIMES MORE PEOPLE. But that also means they have ten times more great people, and far more options available to them.
Is urban decay a problem? Probably. But are you going to suggest rural decay isn't? I drive a LOT of rural areas where I have ZEEEEERO desire to live.
mthoopsfan
Well-known member
grizzlyjournal said:ElrodGrizzly said:
ElrodGrizzly: I've examined Montana's "standing" in the Big Sky countless times over the past 10 years and now believe that -- in ALL sports -- the Griz fan base (per-game paid admissions) dramatically distance UM from every other team in the Big Sky. That includes MSU. I posted detailed comparative Big Sky football attendance numbers here at eGriz last fall, but here's a brief summary. Today's Missoulian article on season tix increases was correct: Montana's all-sports paid attendance numbers totals are more than the combined attendance numbers of all the schools in the Big Sky combined... excepting MSU. Not so remarkably, Montana's total football paid attendance numbers of 165,178 were more than MSU's 158,416 despite the Cats playing 8 home games to Montana's 7. My observations lead me to believe that attendance at EWU, ISU, Idaho, NAU, SAC, UNC and PSU indicate serious yearly declines. Only UM, MSU and WSU are posting somewhat stable numbers. There are other indicators: the Big Sky is struggling with how to support its 6-team softball league and has even reduced its volleyball conference games to an unbalanced 16 games per team, compared to most D1 10-team conferences that post full 18-game schedules. More: at least 3 Big Sky schools are struggling with live game-stream broadcasts, despite the Big Sky's addition of the league to ESPN+ coverage. Two schools simply have not provided livestreams of several volleyball, softball and soccer games.
Do I believe there's an easy alternative? No. But if attendance numbers and gate revenue continue to decline at the above-mentioned 7 schools, the picture in the Big Sky might be grim. I hear folks regularly state that Montana simply could NOT afford a move to a conference like the Mountain West. I can't argue one way or the other, but I DID gather attendance figures from Mountain West "Mountain Division" football games and discovered that Montana would fare pretty well when average per-game attendance figures from last fall are posted:
1 -- Boise State: 210,727 (35,121)
2 -- Air Force: 188,481 (26,926)
3. -- Colorado State: 161,345 (26,890)
4. -- Montana: 165,178 (25,298) Not counting playoff game vs. SEMO
5. -- Wyoming: 118,244 (19,709)
6. -- Utah State: 101,724 (16,954)
7. -- New Mexico: 89,794 (14,965)
8, -- Nevada: 89,431 (14,905)
Do these figures hint that Montana could compete in the Mountain West? Not initially, perhaps... I DO believe Montana's basketball, soccer and volleyball teams could certainly compete in the Mountain West. But... as some keep harping, "What about making the FCS playoffs every year?). My belief is that home and home games against these Mountain West opponents would likely draw increased numbers of fans, AND draw student athletes who would prefer playing in the MW than the Big Sky. Hope this partially explains my first post in this thread. P.S. I posted this absent some numbers. Let me know if anything does not add up.
No one disagrees that UM's football attendance would rank well in the MW. But how about tv viewers, state support, student fee revenue, local advertising, etc. If UM wasn't winning in football, I don't think MW home and home would draw more fans. Also, where, without big bucks for expansion, would home fans sit? If you don't understand the excitement and benefits of the football playoffs, then you should go back to the basketball board. My god, you follow basketball closely and claimed not to know how bad SS was sucking wind. You need to open your eyes. I'm sure you are a great guy and good Griz fan, but you are truly out to lunch on some stuff.
I haven't seen your numbers you say you posted, but I will look and provide feedback.
EverettGriz said:
I will be totally honest, I don't follow most sports beyond foot all and basketball. I never did when I attended, and I don't really follow many pro sports outside of football and basketball. So I don't have a lot of personal investment in the others. And I realize that is not fair to them, but I can only base my opinion on things I follow.
As for basketball, we have a perfectly good shot to make the tournament and show out. The year we won a tournament game was absolutely huge and so much fun. In basketball, smaller schools have a MUCH better shot of upsetting teams and making a run, and then growing that. Like Gonzaga did. In basketball, we have realistic chance to make the tournament and compete for victories.
I don't feel that way about football. As it stands now, we would essentially never make the playoffs, let alone have a chance to compete for wins. Football just doesn't allow for competition between teams of such different levels, it seems.
Maybe I am wrong on those opinions, but those are my thoughts between the sports. If you made me choose between the two, then yes, I would rather we move down in basketball than move up in football. I'm in it for the fun and entertainment, and I would rather we make playoffs that I can cheer for rather than compete for a conference championship without hope of playing for a national title.
Just my two cents.
ElrodGrizzly said:
Cannot argue. I don't necessarily agree, but I cannot argue as your points are 100% valid.
I, too, love the fcs playoffs. I just understand we're not really playing for a "national" championship. We're playing for a JV championship. That doesn't mean it isn't terrific and a ton of fun, but we need to be realistic.
Latest posts
-
-
-
2027 Montana Recruiting (14) Verbals & (34) Offers (2) 2028 Offers- Latest: calebwcolwell
-
